Jump to content

johno

Members
  • Posts

    822
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by johno

  1. once again why do we not put all paperwork on the table in front of an independant body and agree to accept their findings. no hearsay no individual opinions purely factual paperwork. i can not see what the difficulty is with this.
  2. the rules of the rpra or shu are only applicable to their own membership. at the time there was no common agreement. there still is is not. on the point of technicalities the proposer of the rpra to membership of the confederation had no authority to do so. he was not representing anyone. the shu had two members at the meeting. the council of the shu had previously discussed the confederation meetings and decided they could only afford one. further rpra membership 40000 plus 1 rep. shu around 3000 how many reps. lets put all the paperwork on the table and have an independant review. it is the only way forward.
  3. we are once again looking at a one sided debate. put all the paperwork on the table and let an independant body review all the issues. comments such as TIN POT NAT do nothing to encourage level headed debate. fanciers should be aware that more than fife members joined the rpra. the whole of south lanarkshire, glasgow, forth and clyde, part of midlothian, and a good number of other scottish fanciers left. the debt suspensed debate is the sham as someone else puts it. lets have an open review of the whole situation where all paperwork is on the table.
  4. when the rpra took on the scottish members in question there was no common agreement in place regarding suspendedd members between different unions. also everything was open. all rpra procedures were followed to the letter. there were and still are serious questions being raised as to the way in which the shu allegedly followed their own procedures. the shu have never beeen willing to have an outside review of the whole matter. why i dont know. i do know that many people feel that the refusal to put all the cards on the table points people in one direction only.
  5. which entity if any is liable. the club or the members of the club. if all the members resign from the club at a club agm after the fed agm what is the position then.
  6. the way to resign is through the club before the club agm. the club then submits a record of its members to the fed. critical when the club agm takes place.
  7. when you see how quickly we can all become involved an independant review would seem like a good way forward. we can debate all we like. the only place rules can be tested is in a legal forum. this would lead to excessive costs which would in turn finish pigeons. people who hold or have influence in organisational matters must be more responsible and forget their personal vendettas.
  8. all depends when your club agm is.
  9. fifestay did you not read Ken Buchanans letter in the bhw last week. ets is not the only reason for scottish people joining the rpra . as far as suspensions go let us have an independant body look at the so called suspensions and i am sure everyone whom you allude to as being suspended will abide by their findings. suspensions should be applicable only after the procedures have been folllowed. i believe their are a number of questions concerning the so called suspensions. let someone or body outside pigeons review them.
  10. dandydoo you can lurk or do as you please. the bhw clearly pointed out that the rpra will run its own show. openly fairly and in line with the wishes of the membership. other organisations can make their own arrangements.
  11. why was he suspended for tenyears Henrik. did he assault someone. did he cheat. were the police involved. did he threaten anyone with violence. did he burn someone out. did he steal or kill someone elses pigeons. ten years seems a long time. I would assume that the rpra if made aware of the circumstances would look into this. this guy must have done something terribly wrong. tell us what it was henrick. i am sure when the facts are placed in front of reasonable people thay will support your feelings. this guy must have done one of the worst things ever done in scottish pigeon racing. come on henrick let us know.
  12. is this the SHU or scotland pigeon trust event. you pointed out there was no connection in another post recently. seems as if both are one and the same. who pays for the event and collects the money. who does the accounting. on which accounts are the proceeds and costs shown oris it a secret. is this not part and parcel of the dunoon international set up and the one loft race. you stated on a post concernig shu trust yesterday that the shu and spt are not connected this current post would bring this into question. i am confused.
  13. johno

    John Harwood

    john harwood explained why he was giving up writing bhw over a cup of tea with some friends. i was there. the only reason given was that articles were being put on back burner. felt that effort was not being recognised while others could have anything published. bruno if your theory on illness has any merit do you believe john would still be writng and subsribing to the racing pigeon weekly. does not add up.
  14. if peter bryant was not highlighting the plight of the pigeon fancy who would be. none of the other unions appear to take any role regarding this issue.
  15. johno

    John Harwood

    heard the same as you me. john was forwarding articles after spending a lot time on them. the bhw published everything other scribes could produce. his articles were not being published regularly so john withdrew. i believe he wrote to the editor outlining his position.
  16. it is bewildering how some posters continually lurk around the fringes attempting to have a say in affairs of organisations which have nothing to do with them. it is also bewildering when you see that they have no input or suggestions regarding their own organisations performance. is this just poor sportmanship? or is it a vain attempt to convince themselves that all is well in the homelands. we would do well to tend to our own affairs and let others do the same.
  17. post 61 response. good that you also think that the rpra are doing a good job dandydoo. the outrageous claims that I ahave alluded to are those stated in the confederation report. attempting to persuade the reader that the rules and constitution of one of the participating organisations has been tested or ratified by the scottish legal system. balderdash and piffle. outrageous and outlandish claim. if each of the particpating organisations stayed within the remit of the confederation less contentious and more appropriate issues could be discussed. this would ensure a more productive forum. it is frightenening that some representatives from the organisations involved either do not understand the remit of the confederation or pay no heid to the rules and constitution of other particpating organisations. it is reassuring that the rpra process ensures the rights of its membership. good news for all.
  18. I think you would find that the rpra willl always act in a discreet and circumspect manner. the process will be adhered to at all times and everyone regardless of who they are will receive the same treatment. openess, fairness and equity within the rules and constitution. the rpra will only involve themselves in matters under their jurisdiction, and rightly so. no blustering no balderdash or outlandish or outrageous claims. the nehu or whu or any other organisation will deal with their own isuues and rightly so. one question though. has every member who has not resigned over the years been debt suspended or is it only a current issue?
  19. we are wandering of topic. I think we will find that the rpra will not be pressganged by any other union into getting involved in a non issue. the issues outlined in the BHW have already been placed before the relevant region and have been dealt with in 2004. the organisation with the problem then attempted to undermine the rpra process by going straight to the council. this was put back to the organisation involved the council pointed them to the rpra process through the region. the council fully supported the regions decision and the rpra process. as to the attempt at bluffing the reading public into believing that the complaining organisation had gone through the rigours of the scottish legal system to prove the righteousness of their rules and constitution, laughable. the only way this can be done is through Judicial review at the high court. the case being used as the platform took place in a small debt court in fife. everything about this confederation report clearly shows the desparation and obsessive nature of the complainer. all hot air no facts.
  20. excellent communications from the general manager. well put together and clearly stating the wha the proposed increase in membership was all about. the other content goes a long way to keeping the membership up to date with current issues and invites debate and research into the same issues. well done
  21. the scottish one is extremely short in communications. the pre race publicity concerning prize money is also quite misleading when we see the reality. web site is poor. week to week information poor. length of delay, 3 months before payout of prizemoney is not encouraging. as I stated previously do your homework and believe your ears and eyes. investigate then decide. get the facts
  22. reply to reply 46 this thread. could I once again make it clear the confederation has NO AUTHORITY over the rules and constitution of any of the individual organisations. the way this issue has moved is a clear attempt at bypassing the rules and constitution of the rpra. the confederation is not in a position even to discuss any business of any of the unions. the confedration is a forum for pooling ideas and cannot interfere with constitutional issues. clear and simple.
  23. i do not think having a go at anyones capabilities will encourage free and open debate. some posters do not seem able to see what others see. there is more than one side to every debate. unfortunately it is often the case that only side is allowed into the debating forum. slipping in little sound bites which relate to other touchy situations does not advance debate either.
  24. with the amount of poor reviews that many of the UK one loft races have had over the last couple of years i do not think that many people will support them. the rpra race at least keeps the entrants up to date with information. the website is updated regularly and all the information both financial and and concerning the pigeons is freely available to participants and anyone else who wants to look at it. unfortunately this is not the case with all races. the quality and regularity of reporting back ranges from excellent in the case of the rpra to woefully unacceptable in some of the other one lofr set ups. anyone intending entering should do their homework and then make their choice. some of the claims that the entry of some of these one loft set up are built are way out. e.g final winning prize money. in some cases the actual prize is 40% of the promotional guideline so read the small print.
  25. would it not be possible to delete the part of the posting that is causing the problem to the people who control the site. this way the main content of the posting could be left. one major problem I see is the pressure put on the moderators. how many individuals do we no who have the personal strength to be unbiased. who judges the judges. difficult area. should the criteria used by moderators to censor postings not be posted. should more than one person be involved when posts are to be censored. what qualifications or experience is needed to become a censor.
×
×
  • Create New...