RPRA

[me]

"AS SOON AS THERE PROPASAL FELL ,ALL WALKED OUT "

 

as a matter of interest square peg what proposal was that?    

[johno]

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.

[square_peg]

"AS SOON AS THERE PROPASAL FELL ,ALL WALKED OUT "

 

as a matter of interest square peg what proposal was that?    

 

THE PROPOSAL WAS "FIFE FED TO BE SELF GOVERNING"

[me]

"THE PROPOSAL WAS "FIFE FED TO BE SELF GOVERNING""

 

am i reading betwen the lines correctly here square peg,was that against a status quo of being "governed" by the shu which some members were not willing to remain members of?

[Guest]

"Part of the 'sham' was attempting to float club membership of any Union [for the SNFC anyway]. First of all the vote for change was supposedly 'won' using straight majority, when in fact this constitution change required a clear 2/3 majority; when that was pointed out at the meeting, the 'status quo' decision was declared 'undemocratic'" -Bruno

 

if this is supposed to relate the SNFC AGM Bruno you obviously were not there I was and your post amounts to complete fabrication somebody has obviously been feeding you this stuff but none of its true.

 

I wasn't referring to the AGM meeting, I wasn't there and couldn't therefore comment on it. What my post did refer to was the way in which this meeting was portrayed in the pigeon press. The democratic and undemocratic charges came straight from BHW letters and reports, so there is absolutely no fabrication on my part, nor has anyone been feeding me it, as you infer. I can read, and Ken Buchanan confirms what I said about biased letters, and if you read his letter in BHW dated 3rd November - it talks of 'the member of any recognised union' motion, which I said previously was a simple sham. Which particular Union rules would govern the 'new' SNFC? - RPRA, NEHU or SHU? The motion in my opinion was basically a spoiler, and always a non-runner.

 

And again it was the ordinary Club members who were seen at fault for wanting to preserve the Status Quo. The original  letter charged the meeting with being undemocratic, as the will of the majority didn't carry. K Buchanan continues that theme in his letter 'the consequence of this was that hundreds of respected distance fanciers were effectively banned from distance racing'. Wrong. As a consequence of these people refusing to abide by the Club's constitution - just newly ratified - they effectively barred themselves, and have no-one to blame but themselves.

 

K Buchanan continues in the same vein 'how anyone could vote to prevent their fellow fancier from National racing completely defeats me'. Again, everyone and everything to blame, bar the people who engineered the split.

[Poacher]

Re subscriptions

 

We just dont apy enough, I reckon the minimum should be £10, if you then have 50 -100 rings subs should be £20 100-200 rings £30 over 200 rings then you should be paying £100 subscriptions as it is quite obvious your making money out of selling birds so you should be paying a comercial subscripition, mosttrade organisations CARRY A £250 SUBSCRIPTION.

[me]

"First of all the vote for change was supposedly 'won' using straight majority, when in fact this constitution change required a clear 2/3 majority; when that was pointed out at the meeting, the 'status quo' decision was declared 'undemocratic'" -Bruno"

 

this is what you said Bruno and any fair minded person reading it would clearly get the impression that this all happened at the meeting, IT DID NOT I was there you were not the facts are different from what you have posted.

 

[GREENGRASS]

Obviously Greengrass you like the rest are golng about with your RPRA tinted glasses on. John Fairbairn was a good friend of mine and I would never have a go at him didnt fall out when he was alive so wont when he cant answer. As for rings being transferred you cant transfer them when your suspended as Peter Virtue is so whoever done the checking needs to go back and do it again through the proper channels or maybe they dont want to pay the 10p fee to the SHU for verification. Thats my last word on this matter.

 

Henrik are you having a laugh or what the SHU  refused to verify the rings for the SNRPC so i suggest you re check your allegded "facts".

[Guest]

"First of all the vote for change was supposedly 'won' using straight majority, when in fact this constitution change required a clear 2/3 majority; when that was pointed out at the meeting, the 'status quo' decision was declared 'undemocratic'" -Bruno"

 

this is what you said Bruno and any fair minded person reading it would clearly get the impression that this all happened at the meeting, IT DID NOT I was there you were not the facts are different from what you have posted.

 

You are quite right in what you say about any fair minded person reading it would clearly get the impression that this all happened at the meeting.

 

If people at that meeting hadn't thought that the motion had been won, why did they then write to the BHW 'sad day for democracy, wishes of the majority ignored'? Did they intentionally set out to make public fools of themselves in the letters pages of the pigeon press where it was also made clear in responses that a 2/3 majority was required to carry this motion?

 

And I'm sure a report on the meeting also said that it had to be pointed out that a 2/3 majority was required. Again, I wasn't there, you were. I am posting recollections of 'letters to and reports in the press' following that meeting. There appears to be differing accounts from those who were there.

[square_peg]

"THE PROPOSAL WAS "FIFE FED TO BE SELF GOVERNING""

 

am i reading betwen the lines correctly here square peg,was that against a status quo of being "governed" by the shu which some members were not willing to remain members of?

 

WELL THATS WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN WITH EVERY PROPOSAL AT EVERY MEETING

[Guest]

 

Henrik are you having a laugh or what the SHU  refused to verify the rings for the SNRPC so i suggest you re check your allegded "facts".

 

facts now your having a laugh, ;D ;D ;D   shu still going strong

[Chris Little]

We are members of both the SHU and RPRA, there is simply no comparision between the two, the RPRA is miles ahead on all accounts, their conduct and professionalism one would expect of a huge organisation is excellent.

 

It filled us up with immense pride last year when we collected our RPRA award and medal.

 

Before some start getting excited, we joined the RPRA many years ago long before the outbreak of civil war with the view of joining some English classic clubs to participate in 700 - 800 mile races.

 

Leave politics to the overpaid old farts in Holyrood and Westminster and just enjoy your pigeons

[GREENGRASS]

 

facts now your having a laugh, ;D ;D ;D   shu still going strong

 

where on that post does it say anything about the shu not going strong try reading it again . I could fill this website with case after case of mismanagement, both of members funds and interests, failure to adhere to their own constitution, etc etc etc etc..

 

Chris you are 100% correct the two organisations could not be further apart in professionalism, and how they conduct their business.

[fifestay]

"ME its not about Fife Fed its about the CLUBS ...it was the CLUBS that debt suspended people who wrote to the FED who wrote to the SHU. "

 

no point in posting these things for me Dandydoo/Fifestay I have already decided not to take any notice of anything you put up after the misleading posts you put up when you were selling your doos.

FAO ME

I dont mind having arguments about Feds or Unions BUT... You have just crossed the line ....... "you put up after the misleading posts you put up when you were selling your doos".

Are you saying the ads and the Birds were not as advertised .... their breeding and their positions .... I am offended by this. We are honourable people and I wont have a nameless person sniping at me when you dont have the guts to say who you are.  

YOU are trying to suggest that we misled people in our ads we have receipts and pedigrees and you can contact the breeder or owner they were bought/bred from.

 

You will retract this immediately I will not have you slurring our name ...we spent a long time trying to build and buy a Team of Pigeons and I wont have you demeaning Ian's ability or his integrity

 

Its Folk like you that made the decision to leave the sport easier

 

[me]

Don't know who "Ian" is Dandydoo/Fifestay and I have no beef with him.

This is what you said on the 24/7/06

 

"We are packing up due to work committments and really not having time to work the Birds as we would like. ----------  We are not going to bother with a big sale or auction ( this decision is killing us)"

 

And this is what you said on the 29/10/06 after you had flogged your doos

 

THE PARTNERHIP I RACED IN IS NOW DISSOLVED WHO SAYS I AM NOT RACING BIRDS AS ME .....BAD INFORMATION

 

Most fair minded people would think these posts were so ever so slightly contradictory and hence the original post a little misleading. And then in your last post you say

 

"Its Folk like you that made the decision to leave the sport easier"

 

I'm sure I am not the only one who is confused.

 

 

Enjoy your forum just leave me out don"t think thats so terribly much to ask is it?

 

[me]

 

 

"If people at that meeting hadn't thought that the motion had been won, why did they then write to the BHW 'sad day for democracy, wishes of the majority ignored'? Did they intentionally set out to make public fools of themselves in the letters pages of the pigeon press where it was also made clear in responses that a 2/3 majority was required to carry this motion?

 

And I'm sure a report on the meeting also said that it had to be pointed out that a 2/3 majority was required. Again, I wasn't there, you were. I am posting recollections of 'letters to and reports in the press' following that meeting. There appears to be differing accounts from those who were there. " -Bruno

 

Surely Bruno you have heard the old chestnut advising one to stop digging when in your in a hole.

 

Your right there is two accounts your imagined one and the correct one that people like me who were at the meeting are familiar with.

 

The vote was taken and the club's auditor tallied the votes did a quick calculation and advised the President the motion had failed. The President then announced the result of the ballot to the members present at the meeting.

 

I know this because I was there.

 

Do yourself a favour Bruno lad put away your shovel.

[me]

"WELL THATS WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN WITH EVERY PROPOSAL AT EVERY MEETING" - Square Peg

 

generally agree with you here Square Peg. The members who left the fed had already stated they would no longer be members of the shu so when the motion fell it could be argued they technically forfeited their membership of the fed. So insisting they have to pay their fees not to be members is a bit silly is it not?

[square_peg]

WELL ITS BACK TO THAT OLD CHESTNUT "ITS MA BAW AND YOUR NO PLAYIN"

 

SO WHEN I GO TO MY NEXT AGM  AS SOON AS A PROPOSAL GOES AGAINST WHAT I WANT    I JUST GET UP AND LEAVE     YEAH THATS ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ME ISNT IT

[Guest TAMMY_1]

NICE TO SIT BACK AND WATCH AND NOT BE INVOLVED

[me]

"THATS ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ME ISNT IT"

 

nope was not trying to say that Square Peg what i'm really saying when it gets down to it is if I was you or any other member of fife fed for that matter i would have said to them good riddance i don't need you money to enjoy my hobby and just let them get on with it.

 

if they can't race their doos with us why make them pay for the priviledge it justs smacks of the old "pound of flesh" scenario to me and i personally would be uncomfortable with that if i was a member of fife fed.

[square_peg]

OK YOU WIN    have a good season me

[me]

"OK YOU WIN    have a good season me"

 

believe "me" square peg there have been no winners in the sorry carry-on that has been scottish doos over the last few years.

 

All the best to you as well with the doos when things get going again. God knows we all need a bit of luck with them nowadays.

[square_peg]

NAH   YOU WIN  GAME OVER  :'(

[Guest]

NAH   YOU WIN  GAME OVER  :'(

 

you must be getting old pegy

[square_peg]

CANT PLAY GAMES WITH BETTER DOO MEN THAN ME GEORGE :-/