SHU AND RPRA MEETING TODAY IN GRETNA

[Guest TAMMY_1]

FRANKDOOMAN  would you return to the SHU if it had different officials running it. ?

[Guest]

I would certainly want to talk Tammy

[me]

.

 

which scott gibson are you referring to frank is it the one in the shu or is it the one in the rpra or is it the one that is in all the camps, the man i know has far too many hats for my liking and he probably has a face to go with each of them, his good friend andy miller said earlier he played the joker for a fortnight was it the joker of spades by any chance as you say frank a spade is a spade with scott, as for yourself frank you made your choice to leave the shu and i dont see anyone trying to force you to come back so why dont you make the most of what you have and leave us the members to worry about the shu.

perhaps its about time the shu brought out a rule that you can only be a member of one organisation to be a member of the shu, beleive it or not there would be a large portion of the shu council would have to make a serious choice. BELEIVE ME THIS IS A FACT, personally i think this would be an excellent idea espescially since cumbria region of the rpra have made it plain that they do not recognise the shu, therefore there is nothing to be gained by the shu recognising them ( food for thought eh! )

48RTC.

 

They could do that i suppose but it would be unlawful and if anybody affected by such a rule complained to say the "awards for all" organistion that the Shu enforced unlawful discriminatory rules in order to victimise individual members I wonder how many Shu clubs would receive grants in future. Infact if I have understood the rules correctly they might even ask for monies to be returned.

 

Is "me" right in thinking the Shu recently received an award?

 

I agree with the current President of the Shu who is on record as saying there have alwas been many Shu members who are also members of the RPRA and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Its just commomsense really. negative discrimination would leave our organisation open to publc ridicule and would not exactly help to promote reconciliation within the sport in Scotland.

 

 

[Guest]

Personally, Me, I see nothing wrong with anyone being a member of any organisation of their choosing, RPRA or otherwise. I also think that in your reading of the Awards issue your choice of legislation may be wrong. Nothing to do with discrimination, its Human Rights, right to belief, association etc.

 

For example: if a golfer left one club as a debtor and joined another; or a BNP member tried to join a Racial Equality group; or if members of one club went to another leaving the first near bankrupt, then that is another entirley different matter: People and organisations have the right not to be associated with other people and organisations, if association can be shown to hurt the organisation in some way (disharmony) or is contrary to the people's beliefs.

 

 

 

[me]

Personally, Me, I see nothing wrong with anyone being a member of any organisation of their choosing, RPRA or otherwise. I also think that in your reading of the Awards issue your choice of legislation may be wrong. Nothing to do with discrimination, its Human Rights, right to belief, association etc.

 

For example: if a golfer left one club as a debtor and joined another; or a BNP member tried to join a Racial Equality group; or if members of one club went to another leaving the first near bankrupt, then that is another entirley different matter: People and organisations have the right not to be associated with other people and organisations, if association can be shown to hurt the organisation in some way (disharmony) or is contrary to the people's beliefs.

 

 

 

Its the Human Rights Act I was meaning Bruno as I have stated  before on this forum, tart it up any way you want and it still amounts to discrimination and you are completely and utterly wrong in your reading of the act and I have to say your bias is showing itself again, Infact you have attempted to turn the meaning of schedule 12 on its head. The individual has the ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION this post does you no credit Bruno lad.

 

The Act does not allow organisations to CONDEMN by association the many decent honest people who might be members of the RPRA infact the exact opposite is true. In this case it is pigeon fanciers who choose to be members of the SHU or RPRA or NEHU etc etc.

 

Are you seriously trying to suggest that people who are members of the RPRA i.e. the vast majority of the members of this forum, are somehow "contary to the beliefs of Shu "people". What a joke!

 

Your post is an absolute embarassment to you as a moderator ,to you as a human being and to "ME" as a member of of the Shu.

 

I would take this opportunity to apoligise to forum members who are members of the RPRA OR NOT for the comments expressed in Bruno's post

 

 

[Guest]

First, Me, a lesson in the complexities of Law, "a little knowledge etc":-

 

 

“Absolute”, “limited” and “qualified” rights

3.9 Not all the Convention rights are formulated in the same way. The different types of Convention rights are sometimes explained as:

     absolute rights such as the right to protection from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment (Article 3), the prohibition on slavery and enforced labour (Article 4) and protection from retrospective criminal penalties (Article 7)

     limited rights, such as the right to liberty (Article 5) which are limited under explicit and finite circumstances, set out in the ECHR itself, which provides exceptions to the general right

 

 

qualified rights, which include the right to respect for private and family life [Article 8], religion and belief (Article 9), freedom of expression (Article 10), assembly and association (Article 11), the right to peaceful enjoyment of property (Protocol 1, Article 1) and to some extent the right to education (Protocol 1, Article 2). Interference with them is permissible only if what is done:

 

A. has its basis in law, and

B. is done to secure a permissible aim set out in the relevant Article, for example for the prevention of crime, or for the protection of public order or health, and

C. is necessary in a democratic society, which means it must fulfil a pressing social need, pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate to the aims being pursued (see below).

Part 3 of this Guide uses these terms and explains them further.

 

What is freedom of association?

3.97 Your right to freedom of association includes: the right to form a political party (or other association such as a trade union or other voluntary group); the right not to join and not be a member of such an association or other voluntary group. This means that an individual cannot be compelled to join an association or trade union, for example. Any such compulsion may infringe Article 11.

Protecting your rights under Article 11

3.98 The state is under a duty to take certain positive steps in order to ensure that you can properly enjoy and exercise your freedoms under Article 11. For example the state would act in breach of your Article 11 rights if it permitted “closed shop” agreements under which you could be dismissed for refusing to join a trade union at your work place. And the state should protect you from violence if you are engaging in a peaceful demonstration. The European Court of Human Rights has held that a pay system that penalised trade union members was a breach of this right.

Acceptable restrictions on Article 11 rights

3.99 It can be acceptable for the state to restrict your rights under Article 11 in certain situations, which must be narrowly interpreted. To show that a restriction was lawful, the state would have to show that: the interference had a clear legal basis; the aim of the interference was national security or public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others; it was necessary (and not just reasonable) to interfere with your rights; and that the interference went only as far as was required to meet the aim.

 

[me]

QUOTE closed shop; agreements under which you could be dismissed for refusing to join a trade union at your work place. "  - What union would that be then BRUNO THE SCOTTISH HOMING UNION

 

"It can be acceptable for the state to restrict your rights"  - is the SHU a state now BRUNO? Police state or what?

 

"This means that an individual cannot be compelled to join an association" - but the point here is Bruno any rule passed by the Shu would be to compel people to leave an association in other words " negative discrimination".

 

I honestly cannot believe you are trying to defend the guy who posted this nonsense.

 

Here is a suggestion from "me" let people who want to fly their doos in an SHU club fly their doos. Let guys who want to fly their doos in an RPRA club fly their doos. And let guys who want to fly in both clubs fly their doos.

 

For gods sake what century is this. Is their something I am missing or is this just not a reasonable positiion to take.

 

Just because someone is English or a member of the RPRA does not make them a bad person.

[Guest]

 

Its the Human Rights Act I was meaning Bruno as I have stated  before on this forum, tart it up any way you want and it still amounts to discrimination and you are completely and utterly wrong in your reading of the act and I have to say your bias is showing itself again, Infact you have attempted to turn the meaning of schedule 12 on its head. The individual has the ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION this post does you no credit Bruno lad.

 

The Act does not allow organisations to CONDEMN by association the many decent honest people who might be members of the RPRA infact the exact opposite is true. In this case it is pigeon fanciers who choose to be members of the SHU or RPRA or NEHU etc etc.

 

Are you seriously trying to suggest that people who are members of the RPRA i.e. the vast majority of the members of this forum, are somehow "contary to the beliefs of Shu "people". What a joke!

 

Your post is an absolute embarassment to you as a moderator ,to you as a human being and to "ME" as a member of of the Shu.

 

I would take this opportunity to apoligise to forum members who are members of the RPRA OR NOT for the comments expressed in Bruno's post

 

 

I find your post quite revealing, Me : 'Vaguely aware' of a tiny bit of one bit but no clue how all the bits fit together. I've posted seperately on 'absolute' and 'qualified' rights and the qualified right to be part of, or not part of ... no need for you to aplogise for being wrong again, I'm becoming quite used to your pitiful standards.

 

 

In this case it is pigeon fanciers who choose to be members of the SHU or RPRA or NEHU etc etc. - er, wrong - again; it is the other members of the Organisation who have the final decision who are to be members of the Organisation, and who are not to be members. There is a voting system in place.

 

 

Er, wrong yet again; Nothing at all to do with the way you put it 'belief' and everything to do with simple economics. In a time of dwindling membership an organisation must protect its financial base. Those who hold 'Dual membership' could be seen as a threat to long term viability as switching from A to B can bring down a club, fed or organisation, as can the holding of dual membership for the express purpose of fomenting disharmony, causing bovver and then run for cover in another organisation ... bit difficult if you have none to run to; and an arbiter of commitment as well as good conduct..

 

Oh, I am quite capable of apologising myself, Me ... have done so many times, but I don't expect anything like that from you even for the blatant misrepresentation of the themes in my post (quoted).

[Guest]

I honestly cannot believe you are trying to defend the guy who posted this nonsense.

 

 

Er the guy who posted this nonsense is the Home Office Department responsible for issuing guidelines to legislation.

[Guest]

Keep going Bruno/48rtc comments like yours are doing the rpra no end of good we dont need to promote our union yous two are doing it for us and as i said in my post good officals should be trying to resolve not enflame the situation and they might just get a shock which way the members go!! are they willing to take the gamble with 200+ members thats the question????? thats the number of joint members

[me]

 

Er the guy who posted this nonsense is the Home Office Department responsible for issuing guidelines to legislation.

 

Bruno you know I am right, I know am right and everyone reading these posts knows I am right why say otherwise. The guy who posted "this nonsense" as you quote is the joker who is a member of this foum who suggested it would be a great idea to ban members of the SHU from being members of the SHU because they are members of the RPRA. is that a good idea Bruno I would be genuinely interested in your opinion?

 

There was an old guy who I worked beside years ago long since dead, who used to say to people sometimes "bullshit baffles brains but you don't have enough bullshit for my brain"

 

I know what he meant now.

 

Let me just ask again this is the 21st century?

 

 

[johno]

could we not get back to the point. no change as a result of the meeting. is the human rights act not part and parcel of the whole legal set up? are we not a democracy? have we not all the power of choice? some people have excercised their choice and that is their right. if as is implied in a previous post one of the organisations is on the verge of bankruptcy then that organisation should i suggest take serious remedial measures. it may have to down size as they say to survive. it would also be the case that if an organisation was actively pursuing a questionable membership policy based on a political or national connection then the race equality laws may be broken. i personally feel to imply that an organisation with restricted membership policies is likened to an right wing extremist political party somewhat over the top.

[Guest]

 

Bruno you know I am right, I know am right and everyone reading these posts knows I am right why say otherwise. The guy who posted "this nonsense" as you quote is the joker who is a member of this foum who suggested it would be a great idea to ban members of the SHU from being members of the SHU because they are members of the RPRA. is that a good idea Bruno I would be genuinely interested in your opinion?

 

There was an old guy who I worked beside years ago long since dead, who used to say to people sometimes "bullshit baffles brains but you don't have enough bullshit for my brain"

 

I know what he meant now.

 

Let me just ask again this is the 21st century?

 

 

You appear to have problems sticking to the point under discussion, Me; you were the person who used the expression 'The guy who posted "this nonsense"' in a reply to my post, not I. I took the comment to apply to 'the person who had supplied my guideline information' as you had made no previous reference to any 'other guy'.

 

You (and others who posted after you) also appear to have problems with the general examples I used to support what I posted which was after all a simple questioning of the bullshit that you had posted about Rights of Association to support your proposed abuse of the Rights of another group. Suddenly these general examples specifically apply to SHU / RPRA.

 

I used an opening statement in another post here which clearly shows my own position: "personally, I have no problems with anyone being a member of any organisation of their own choosing, RPRA or otherwise". Wondered just what part of that statement you, Frank and Johno have difficulty understanding?

 

And other members posting elsewhere suggest that Fife & Kingdom Feds are both moving toward membership of one of these organisation only. I cannot vouch for the correctness of that info, but cite it as an example that the principle of non-dual membership is nothing new, lawful, but nevertheless regretful.

[andy]

.

 

which scott gibson are you referring to frank is it the one in the shu or is it the one in the rpra or is it the one that is in all the camps, the man i know has far too many hats for my liking and he probably has a face to go with each of them, his good friend andy miller said earlier he played the joker for a fortnight was it the joker of spades by any chance as you say frank a spade is a spade with scott, as for yourself frank you made your choice to leave the shu and i dont see anyone trying to force you to come back so why dont you make the most of what you have and leave us the members to worry about the shu.

perhaps its about time the shu brought out a rule that you can only be a member of one organisation to be a member of the shu, beleive it or not there would be a large portion of the shu council would have to make a serious choice. BELEIVE ME THIS IS A FACT, personally i think this would be an excellent idea espescially since cumbria region of the rpra have made it plain that they do not recognise the shu, therefore there is nothing to be gained by the shu recognising them ( food for thought eh! )

48RTC.

Ah welcome to the forum Ronnie Creelie, your no hiding behind someones shirt tails anymore (looking in anonymously) well be warned dont put my name in print in your posts unless youve got my permission or your quoting a reply to a post ive submitted, Quote means word for word Ronnie OK...

 

[johno]

bruno i cannot speak for frank but what would you expect from inferior poorly educated people. i must be thick you told me i was. the thing i do not understand is that not so long ago you asked me on this forum to provide you with an answwer to a  question frank put to you. you could not understand it. this does not seem to add up. i do understand you are in control of the delete button. now there is an equitable and fair situation. when are you going to pull the plug. the way the thread is going it will not be long as you are doing an excellent job of highlighting your own unquestionable qualities capabilities. the delete button is mightier than the keyboard.  

[Guest]

So are you saying that the fife fed is joining the RPRA  that would bring the fife boys back together cant see the fife officals going there but maybe as i said posts like 48rtc and the like have pushed them over the edge after all there are more fife members joining the RPRA every day i hear

[Guest]

Tammy you asked me a ques. and i replyed ive heard nothing back do you think there is a chance they will be removed soon ? do you think the fanciers in the shu are starting to see through them like the L/Fed did?

[Guest]

Andy does that last post mean we have two members of the Scott Gibson fan club LOL

[Guest]

bruno i cannot speak for frank but what would you expect from inferior poorly educated people. i must be thick you told me i was. the thing i do not understand is that not so long ago you asked me on this forum to provide you with an answwer to a  question frank put to you. you could not understand it. this does not seem to add up. i do understand you are in control of the delete button. now there is an equitable and fair situation. when are you going to pull the plug. the way the thread is going it will not be long as you are doing an excellent job of highlighting your own unquestionable qualities capabilities. the delete button is mightier than the keyboard.  

 

Again, your poor memory or warped perception is showing. Time for a refresher: Frank asked me a question on union business which I well understood but didn't know the answer. You jumped on my 'don't know' reply saying that I should have at least tried to answer it (in other words post up 'waffle' ) ... I then asked you what the answer was ... and I'm still waiting, so I reckon you're a 'don't know' too. In my opinion only a personality disorder explains someone who criticises failings in others when the same failing is present in the critic.

 

And your total lack of understanding of what a moderator is and isn't allowed to do is also showing. I cannot and would not edit or delete anything with which I personally disagreed. I like others have the right of reasonable reply to any such post and I am capable of using that right when I want to. Whenever I do edit or delete anything on the forum it is because it infringes the Code of Conduct, and as a moderator I have that right and I am capable of using it. I've already said I don't think a thread like this serves any great purpose ... my opinion only ... and yet the thread's still here, so where does that fit in your warped perception?

[Guest TAMMY_1]

Tammy you asked me a ques. and i replyed ive heard nothing back do you think there is a chance they will be removed soon ? do you think the fanciers in the shu are starting to see through them like the L/Fed did?

 

;) :X :X ;D ;D

 

 

[Guest]

I supose thats as good an ans. i could have hoped for Tammy but truthful! if you had said yes my next question was who is the explosive expert doing the business and can i come and watch!

[johno]

once again bruno you are right i am thick. you are a genius. a genius in control of the delete button though.

[Ian McKay]

Bruno thinks he is the only genius on here. : : : : : : : : : : : : : ::)When he gets fed up he will press the delete button ??) ??) ??) ??) ??) ??) ??) ??) ??) :o :o :o :o

[Guest]

once again bruno you are right i am thick. you are a genius. a genius in control of the delete button though.

 

No I don't think you are thick, Johno, and I'm certainly no genius. I've told you before what I think you are:

 

Someone who clearly has a 'thing' against the SHU, and has major problems accepting discipline & authority . Why? These are the only subjects you seem willing to post on, and always from an entirely negative viewpoint, as for example, in control of the delete button above.

[THE FIFER]

probably sitting with the wrongs guys yesterday they should be sitting with the members who left trying to get them to come back

the rpra aint going to say no to a lot of new members are they

 

obviously not, no problem getting membership without any refferences, just come and join us we need members  ;D ;D ;D ;D, and we will even vote in new methods etc for u to save u the trouble, we are the boss so in with ets like it or not members   thats rpra democracy :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/