New NFC Section for Scotland

[Guest]

"If there was no argument with the SNFC why was there any need to change the way SNFC was run? Here we have the 'same' thing in reverse: if we want to fly in NFC we must be members of RPRA.   Lets all go down and lobby for that to be changed to 'any recognised Union'.  "

 

posting this sort of crap does not help Bruno lad. No offence but you are a a "novice" so you have not really been involved in doos long enough to know what you are talking about.

 

Even someone as wet behind the ears as I am can spot rubbish when I see it. So it's just 'not-on' even to suggest, jokingly, changing NFC Constitution to suit factional interests, but it's OK to actually try it in SNFC? Then when the vote is taken and the motion falls, to walk away and spout about 'a sad day for democracy'?

 

Yes you are right, Me, on the far right, too long in doos to recognise your own double standards are stopping you from understanding (or accepting) that just for once you may be wrong, and that others may be right.

[gangster]

 

Even someone as wet behind the ears as I am can spot rubbish when I see it. So it's just 'not-on' even to suggest, jokingly, changing NFC Constitution to suit factional interests, but it's OK to actually try it in SNFC? Then when the vote is taken and the motion falls, to walk away and spout about 'a sad day for democracy'?

 

Yes you are right, Me, on the far right, too long in doos to recognise your own double standards are stopping you from understanding (or accepting) that just for once you may be wrong, and that others may be right.

 

WELL SAID BRUNO!!!!!!  

[THE FIFER]

it's the council which elect the officials and it's the members who (SHOULD) instruct them on who they want to vote for, so members put the officials in office, they do not elect themselves,

[Guest]

Bruno the subject about the accountant was brought up and covered uptake the situation about the£5,000 pounds the acc. admited tat he sighned off the bal/sheet without checking the bank statements and that when asked if he could confirm that money was in the account he said NO  that does not fill anyone with confidence and we all felt sorry for the old chap but he still took the £1,800 fees as for the delegates fifer iam surprised that you still feel that way about them did you not say on the fife situation and some of thease people responsible for this are shu delagats/officals yous just experienced a mild similar situation and i dont think yous liked it very much when some think they are more important than the members thats what can/does happen

[JOHNNY WISHBONE]

 

WELL SAID BRUNO!!!!!!  

 

hes not enough man enough to say who he is.

[gangster]

 

hes not enough man enough to say who he is.

 

agree with that  and his postings last night proved he is a wind up merchant!!!!!

[Guest]

I've edited 3 posts to take out unnecessary insults, hopefully ensuring 'Fair doos' for all.  

[Guest]

I dont think me is at the wind up gangster i think he may have had some nasty experience at one time any way nothing wrong with a wee wind now and again LOL

[THE FIFER]

Bruno the subject about the accountant was brought up and covered uptake the situation about the£5,000 pounds the acc. admited tat he sighned off the bal/sheet without checking the bank statements and that when asked if he could confirm that money was in the account he said NO  that does not fill anyone with confidence and we all felt sorry for the old chap but he still took the £1,800 fees as for the delegates fifer iam surprised that you still feel that way about them did you not say on the fife situation and some of thease people responsible for this are shu delagats/officals yous just experienced a mild similar situation and i dont think yous liked it very much when some think they are more important than the members thats what can/does happen

 

yes but with the fife situation the members sorted them out, they were forced by an appeal (BY DANDYDOO) to call another meeting and the members told them what they wanted and got it, MEMBERS RULE not officials.

 

 

[Guest]

Bruno the subject about the accountant was brought up and covered uptake the situation about the£5,000 pounds the acc. admited tat he sighned off the bal/sheet without checking the bank statements and that when asked if he could confirm that money was in the account he said NO  that does not fill anyone with confidence and we all felt sorry for the old chap but he still took the £1,800 fees as for the delegates fifer iam surprised that you still feel that way about them did you not say on the fife situation and some of thease people responsible for this are shu delagats/officals yous just experienced a mild similar situation and i dont think yous liked it very much when some think they are more important than the members thats what can/does happen

 

I was posting on a discussion at the time, Frank. It centred around fraud, with allegations of monies being illegally transferred between different accounts to balance deficits in other accounts, and the sum bandied about was £20,000. I wondered at the time how on earth a Chartered Accountant would miss that.

 

I was also party to the posts on the Fife Fed AGM., and although it still cost around 40 members and a junior vice-president, the correct thing was done at the end of the day. As Fifer says, there'll be another AGM and with it another election of officials; its up to the members to decide what happens after that.

[johno]

bruno i trust you will allow me to respond to your posts 125 and 140. firstly i take it you saw the 2006 accounts of the shu. did you by any chance pay any attention to the auditors notes. the notes basically state that auditor takes no resposibility for the content. have you noticed also that all prices are now quoted with the addition that vat has to be added. you then allude to the fact that the auditor has passed the accounts. are you aware of the enron situation where a good number of top accountants have been taken to court. some have even committed suicide. you are talking of things you know nothing about. anyone who wants to go through the accounts in a methodical way will see the problems. the fact that no bank statements were audited says it all. what about the vat investigation and tax investigation were these undertaken for fun. what was the result of these investigations were the members informed? is it a coincidence that the administration for the so called pigeon trust has been removed from low waters road. what is the reality of the mysterious investment account. over £30000 in it yet the membership has to be risen by £2.  transfers fees up. cash flow problems. none of this stacks up. i trust also bruno that you are aware that you are the one who used the words fraud and illegal transfers in your post 140. i hope all who are reading these posts will pay attention to your reactions here. you opened this subject and felt free to put what you see as your position. this is a direct response to your stated position. i would expect that someone of your standing will not feel the need to press the delete button.

[Guest]

bruno i trust you will allow me to respond to your posts 125 and 140. firstly i take it you saw the 2006 accounts of the shu. did you by any chance pay any attention to the auditors notes. the notes basically state that auditor takes no resposibility for the content. have you noticed also that all prices are now quoted with the addition that vat has to be added. you then allude to the fact that the auditor has passed the accounts. are you aware of the enron situation where a good number of top accountants have been taken to court. some have even committed suicide. you are talking of things you know nothing about. anyone who wants to go through the accounts in a methodical way will see the problems. the fact that no bank statements were audited says it all. what about the vat investigation and tax investigation were these undertaken for fun. what was the result of these investigations were the members informed? is it a coincidence that the administration for the so called pigeon trust has been removed from low waters road. what is the reality of the mysterious investment account. over £30000 in it yet the membership has to be risen by £2.  transfers fees up. cash flow problems. none of this stacks up. i trust also bruno that you are aware that you are the one who used the words fraud and illegal transfers in your post 140. i hope all who are reading these posts will pay attention to your reactions here. you opened this subject and felt free to put what you see as your position. this is a direct response to your stated position. i would expect that someone of your standing will not feel the need to press the delete button.

 

Post 125 :-

 

I suspect that 'splits' were little to do with ETS and more to do with factions & grievences which became pure vendetta. When I am not up to speed on something I tend to leave it with other independant folks that are; one thing that amazed me was  balance sheets & accounts certified every year by an auditor, yet accusations were flying about that £0000's were supposedly missing from SHU funds, and other funds were being illegally transferred between accounts. So was the Accountant incompetent too? Didn't hear any propositions to report the firm to its respective Union and get our missing money 'back'.

 

I think this basically sums up what I said. Post 140 was in response to Frank and clarified the allegations 'as they were repeated to me' were much more serious and basically accused people of deliberate fraud. You are quite correct in what you say about Enron, and Accountants, but you will be aware too that Enron's whole management team were in cahouts with co-operative accountants and that is my understanding of how they managed to get away with it for so long. Good analogy Johno because my understanding of it now would be 'another Enron'.

 

But you give me no credit for 'When I am not up to speed on something I tend to leave it with other independant folks that are': I think most of us need an accountant to take us through audited statements, and proper accounting is what we as members pay and trust these people to do for us. Nor do you give me  credit for: 'So was the Accountant incompetent too? Didn't hear any propositions to report the firm to its respective Union and get our missing money 'back'. Accountants are regulated too, and if there was any suggestion that any monies had not been properly accounted for, or were missing and not identified as such by the Auditor, then the Union could take steps to recover costs, monies from whichever firm, or Regulator that the firm belonged to. Was there a motion to recover these sums?

 

An Auditor only vouches for 'fair & true reflection of the accounts' he may also qualify it in some way. That is what the audit falls or stands on.

 

As far as my position is concerned in all this,  it is quite clear: 'I suspect that 'splits' were little to do with ETS and more to do with factions & grievences which became pure vendetta.' As far as words are concerned, repeating fraud allegations as put to 'a gathering' is exactly that, repeating terms and references used by someone else, who got that from someone else, etc.

 

And lastly I do not see anything in your post that requires or warrants deletion. You (and others) appear confused with the role of moderator and member. Lots of things I disagree with but as a member I have no right to edit, so like others will post an opinion on it. There are other posts which can clearly infringe Code of Conduct and it is these I have every right to edit as Moderator. As before, I repeat that I do not have the final say in this, there is a Webmaster out there who can and will disagree with any or all of my actions, and will for example return a deleted thread or post should he consider that there was nothing wrong with it. To date that has not happened.

[johno]

once again bruno you are attempting to hide behind the cloak of the webmaster. i notice you have little to say regarding the content of my previous post. as to giving you credit you should by now have more sense than attempt to make me look incompeteent with your failed atempt at backcovering. i totally disagree with your post in which your clearly attempt to portray a position of smugness re the situation you are referring to. you clearly have taken your usual approach  in failing to research and then try to fully comprehend the matter in question. you have answered none of the points raised in my post. the idea that you stand back and let others better informed deal with given situations is not confirmed by your efforts on this forum. you have for some time questioned and ridiculed the opinion of extremely well qualified and vastly experienced government officials over the avian flu issue. you have based your sole position on this issue on some thin and not too extensive research undertaken by pigeon orientated vets. once again you are using someone elses efforts in an attempt to elevate your standing in the pigeon fish bowl in the uk. i am srory i have to go to these lengths of debate to oppose what you are doing but in search for fairness and openess i cannot sit back and let you irresponsibly continue down the path you are going. the delete button is mightier than the keyboard so they say.

[Guest]

i notice you have little to say regarding the content of my previous post. as to giving you credit you should by now have more sense than attempt to make me look incompeteent with your failed atempt at backcovering. .

 

My answer to the accounting questions you raised was:  “An Auditor only vouches for 'fair & true reflection of the accounts' he may also qualify it in some way. That is what the audit falls or stands on.”  This remark on credit referred to “I think most of us need an accountant to take us through audited statements, and proper accounting is what we as members pay and trust these people to do for us.”

 

i totally disagree with your post in which your clearly attempt to portray a position of smugness re the situation you are referring to. you clearly have taken your usual approach  in failing to research and then try to fully comprehend the matter in question. you have answered none of the points raised in my post. .

 

I was referring to a group discussion at the time, which centred around fraud, with allegations of monies being illegally transferred between different accounts to balance deficits in other accounts, and the sum bandied about was £20,000. I’m sorry but I find very little there to be smug about. There’s also no role in there for others, including myself. The only people to deal with allegations like that are the Police, and a Chartered Accountant.  As far as I know they both carried out investigations. I’m just glad I wasn’t there when the books were seized.

 

the idea that you stand back and let others better informed deal with given situations is not confirmed by your efforts on this forum. you have for some time questioned and ridiculed the opinion of extremely well qualified and vastly experienced government officials over the avian flu issue. .

 

This remark referred to “I think most of us need an accountant to take us through audited statements” and was based on my limited accounting knowledge & experience. You have taken it out of the context of this thread and attempted to apply it to another on avian flu. Even Peter Bryant now questions and ridicules the opinion of extremely well qualified and vastly experienced government officials over the avian flu issue.

 

you have based your sole position on this issue on some thin and not too extensive research undertaken by pigeon orientated vets. once again you are using someone elses efforts in an attempt to elevate your standing in the pigeon fish bowl in the uk. i am srory i have to go to these lengths of debate to oppose what you are doing but in search for fairness and openess i cannot sit back and let you irresponsibly continue down the path you are going.

 

My ‘sole position’ is not based on any pigeon orientated vets, and they have never carried out any research on avian flu. I have never plagiarised anybody’s work, the reference has always been given for it, either the authors names or the website address, or if it was someone’s idea, for example entering 6 pigeons in the One Loft Race in the name of local schools, I then name the fancier. I think like most members on this forum, I bring information of interest to members and others to the forum, and usually in response to a request for help. Didn’t know that there was glory or brownie points to be had in that, but I’m more than just a few short for entry into the goldfish bowl.

 

once again bruno you are attempting to hide behind the cloak of the webmaster. the delete button is mightier than the keyboard so they say.

 

Funny how folk can get things so mixed up.

[johno]

funny how you always seem to be right. as you clearly outline you have a limited understanding of accounts. so how is it you felt the need to imply that given your perception of what happened the all was fine? once again you desperately clutch at a source of confirmation for your position on avian flu by referring to Mr.Bryants change of view. Mr.Bryant as far as i am aware is an administaration and management professional with no authority whatsover regarding the dangers or otherwise of avian flu. as to you stealing others peoles work at no point did i make that statement. i suggested that you were attempting by association to create a hyped up profile of your own capabilities and expertise. i stand by this position. you state your sole position is not based on pigeon orientated vets i seem to remember somewhere you were alluding to a personal contact with Dr Chalmers. your style of reporting was such that you seemed to think that contact by email was sufficient to elevate you to the standards that Dr Chalmers has achieved over a long and successful veterenary career through dedication and hard work. you have once again through attempted waffle and thinly disguised spin failed to include any merit in your debate. please if you are going to continue to take a position on certain issues have the decency and good sense to research the facts more rigouously. as to the likes and dislikes of the memebers of this forum you again assume that you know best. the most important part of the accounts is the suditors notes. you allude to hearsay in that you infer that the chartered accountant and police held an investigation. may i ask why it has taken this prodding to get to this information. may i also suggest that if your hearsay is true that very few of the members of the shu are aware of this. if it is not true then you once again have failed to investigate adequately an extremely delicate situaion.

[me]

 

yes but with the fife situation the members sorted them out, they were forced by an appeal (BY DANDYDOO) to call another meeting and the members told them what they wanted and got it, MEMBERS RULE not officials.

 

 

So who should the guys have appealed to about the people who are running the SHU fifer, the SHU. Don't see that as a winner do you?

 

 

[THE FIFER]

 

So who should the guys have appealed to about the people who are running the SHU fifer, the SHU. Don't see that as a winner do you?

 

 

ur delegates (SHU COUNCIL) are the ones u appeal to as they run the shu, and are suposed to be instructed by their fed members as to how, if this is not done then its the members fault, officials are only 3 people, members are in their hundreds,

 

 

[Guest]

Bruno sorry for the lale reply regarding the alegation about £20,000you have got your facts wrong that figure was to do with money that was /wasnot missing from the one loft race before the so called trust took it over and the alegation was made from some one who used to run it i belive that led to a situation where the shu sec. paid a £500 advertising bill for the one loft race from the shu account (wrong check book !!!!!!) she admited that at an agm wasnt taken any further why? iam shure if i paid for my RPRA fees from your check book without telling you that might be classed as fraud i dont know so you have to get your facts correct before puting them on here still i like your support of your union and there is one way to check if all is well with the union go to hamilton and ask to see the bank accounts and let us on this tread know if (1) you get to see them (2)if all looks well regarding transfereing of funds at certain dates

[Guest]

re your next post Bruno the so called split was nothing to do with grievncies as you say it was solly to do with the lack of DEMOCRACY and the fact that every time any one asked a perfectly legitemate question the pres. closed the meeting and do you aggree that a 400 signed petition as per the rule book should be turned down by the 4 officals because it wasnt in there favor is that what you call grievancies thas what the union officals wanted people like you to believe it took the light off them if you were at any of they meetings you will know what i am talking about if not you would not belive what i am saying and to be fair i would not belive it if i was not there !!!!

[HOMER49]

re your next post Bruno the so called split was nothing to do with grievncies as you say it was solly to do with the lack of DEMOCRACY and the fact that every time any one asked a perfectly legitemate question the pres. closed the meeting and do you aggree that a 400 signed petition as per the rule book should be turned down by the 4 officals because it wasnt in there favor is that what you call grievancies thas what the union officals wanted people like you to believe it took the light off them if you were at any of they meetings you will know what i am talking about if not you would not belive what i am saying and to be fair i would not belive it if i was not there !!!!

Hi

Emergency meeting RPRA ets passed

How did your delegate vote?

Was he or she even there?

How many make up the emergency committee?

Dont talk about DEMOCRACY FOR IN THE RPRA YOU HAVE F/A

Cheers

Homer 49

 

 

 

[Guest]

Yes Les Blacklock was there i belive and he was mandated to vote no so it lost THATS DEMOCRACY AT ITS BEST RPRA STYLE as i said before iam not geting involved in the smoke screen (ets )any more wont do any harm to me as long as the rules are in pos but then homer its the RPRA WE ARE TALKING ABOUT !!!!!!!! come and join us even you might be surprised

[johno]

all experience of the rpra would indicate to anyone who took the time to research their issues leads one to believe that one has an extremely good chance of getting a straight answer to any questions put before the appropriate forum. unfortunately this is not the case in other organisations.  it would seem that you homer are obsessed with attacking the rpra for some reason. as in other posts you have offered on this forum there is no need for anyone to attempt to show you up in a bad light. you seem to be more than capable of attending to that on your own.

[Guest]

LOL!!!!!! 8)

[HOMER49]

Yes Les Blacklock was there i belive and he was mandated to vote no so it lost THATS DEMOCRACY AT ITS BEST RPRA STYLE as i said before iam not geting involved in the smoke screen (ets )any more wont do any harm to me as long as the rules are in pos but then homer its the RPRA WE ARE TALKING ABOUT !!!!!!!! come and join us even you might be surprised

Hi

Prefer to to go SHU and have my say directly Not some guy 100+ miles away

Voting on and whatever he likes

Cheers

Homer 49

 

 

[Guest]

Thats the problem homer the only time a member is likly to have his say is if he is sooking up to officals not in open debate they cant allow that