KC PRESS RELEASE - Meeting with Reps from GSD Breed Club - Page 2

David there is no discrimination here this is a meeting for sign'ees only if you are not a member of a club  then you would not be invited to there meetings that is not discrimination, but i do see where you are coming from.

The KC are a sleekit bunch about that there is no doubt they will move the goalposts when ever it suits them and the clubs that signed up to this undertaking will not be able to do anything about it as they signed there rights away by signing stating that the KC is god and they will abide by there rules because that is what they signed up for and the sooner these clubs realise this the better if for instance the KC bring in a rule that all judges for GSD shows are from a list that they draw up then the signing clubs will have to abide with that or resind there signing but that will take time because another vote will be required which may or may not be accepted by the KC
jim h

The fact the KC only invited the clubs having signed the undertaking to this meeting is no surprise, as Jim H says, the KC made this selection process perfectly clear in previous correspondence and press releases.  Personally I would not wish to attend this meeting, even if I had signed I believe I would find it quite demeaning to be lectured about the correct conformation (type) etc of the German Shepherd breed I specialise in,  by some of these chosen speakers. Knowing myself (as I do) I would have found it virtually impossible not to have questioned any verbal trash relating to our breed, its type, backline, proportions, movement, angulation (doubtless they will forget about Character),  that could well spew forth.
 
I assumed from the thread I started some days ago on this very subject, that all would have realised this was a meeting for the YES CLUBS to be further groomed in the ways our breed is supposed to be developed, by the KC 'elite' blue eyed boys, you know, the ones who have never actually bred anything of memorable note but who fit the KC mold perfectly in both speech and dress sense, not to mention their heads are aptly adapted to constant nodding with a more than suitably timed laugh. 

Do I fit this mold, ER certainly not. I learned early on in life that a constant nodding of the head causes brain damage and I only manage to laugh when I find something funny, I dress according to the needs of my dogs, since they are a working / pastoral breed I find the most suitable attire to be jeans with the only suit (unless judging) being a tracky!!! As the first in my family to own dogs (let alone show them), I didn't rise up on my parents coat tails, nor did I marry into a famous kennel.
I am rarely economical with the truth and believe in democracy and freedom of speech, so would I fit neatly into this KC circle? Of course not ! Would I want to? Absolutely not , I actually value my integrity and sense of fair play.

What I would raise here however (since it was never covered properly on the other thread), is who the Breed Council reps are actually supposed to be representing at this meeting????? As the KC took the step last year to bypass the Breed Council by going straight to the Clubs and now to invite only the Clubs which signed the Undertaking, are the KC now saying they are inviting the Breed Council as representatives of the Clubs that didn't sign or are they saying that they consider the Breed Council should ONLY now consist of the Clubs that DID sign?? An interesting analogy, any thoughts anyone???
 
Regards
Sue b

Missbeeb, Your guess is as good as mine. However, since the Breed Council Secretary has not seen fit to inform me, as the Secretary of one of the Clubs that didn't sign, one can only presume the Breed Council Secretary has taken it that the ONLY CLUBS THAT MATTER are those the KC will already have invited (i.e. the signed clubs).
As for who will attend from the Breed Council, well again I don't know, no doubt the Breed Council Secretary will decide for herself (as is usually the case) with perhaps consultation with our BC Chairman, who also belongs to a Club that signed and possibly our BC Vice Chairman, who actually heads two clubs that didn't sign. After all, the BC Sec will more than likely be attending on behalf of her own signing Club and therefore not find it necessary to afford herself an automatic seat at the meeting as the BC rep.
Some Democracy !!! ALL MEMBER CLUBS HAVE PAID THE SAME £50 IN SUBS TO BE MEMBERS OF THE BREED COUNCIL , YET THE BC HAVE NOT SEEN FIT TO INFORM ANY OF ITS CLUBS OF THIS MEETING, or have they? They most certainly havent informed ours !!!!! Actually when it comes to informing clubs of meetings to be held with the KC it is pretty much the norm, despite the constant insistence that the BC Sec should IMMEDIATELY INFORM ALL MEMBER CLUBS of the details of ANY meeting the KC have called for,  PRIOR and not AFT the fact.

 As is usual with a one step mind set which is just as archaic in thought and Draconian in view as the Kennel Clubs itself,  some things never change.

Regards
Sue b

jaymesie51 , I'm sure David is big enough to speak for himself, but the point he was making (I think) is that the clubs who did NOT sign are still KC registered clubs and so its not simply a case of  "if you are not a member of a club then you would not be invited to there meetings ". And that is where the discrimination lies.
What is not really clear is whether those agreeing with David are also agreeing to his call to boycot club shows where they send delegates to the meeting?

Sue, The B.C. before this breakup, was the only body the K.C. would, and want to talk with. If this new group of 21 clubs becomes the new body of clubs, it sounds sensible from the K.C. point of view to invite reps from the B.C. to possibly reform as a new council so they can re-establish a link to the 21 clubs. The K.C. may, through there actions, have isolated what, they may consider to be the disruptive element within the GSD breed. SO what!!!!! like I have already said, people have made their decisions, the 7 clubs need to concentrate on moving on, were on a different platform, and are catching a different train. Lets enjoy the journey. regards Bill Owen.

Zac The non signing clubs are not members of this new yes sir cap tilting club, the KC had said that it would call a meeting with all the clubs that signed their undertaking  this was known to all, so there is no discrimination, yes they are still KC members but not members of this  yes yes yes club, the KC are doing what they have tried to do all along divide and conquer so round one to them, but there is a long road to go down yet, i hope that the GSDL will call a meeting with all the clubs who took a stand against the KC undertaking and decided to put the health and welfare of our breed first, a meeting which will outline the next stages of where we are going.

jim h

Zac, I do not see how we could possibly be sure of who does or does not attend the meeting and of those that do whether their non appearance was due to a democratic stance or merely due to having other business committments on the day. Therefore IMO to try to make a principled point by boycotting those clubs which send a representative, without the knowledge that those who did not attend actually intended to but failed to turn up, would be a fruitless exersise.

However, more to the point is why these clubs who have signed still think it OK to hold any KC show, especially their CC shows without fully enforceing the KC rules and regulations as set out in the KC Undertaking they signed up to ? Or why any of the Club Secs, Chairpersons , committee members etc, should be seen racing around the rings attracting their dogs the same as usual? Now to me, that's not just hypocricy, but also shows a lack of integrity, after all how can anyone put their signature to an Undertaking that at the time they know full well they intend to break at the very next KC show they attend? And what are the KC doing about it? Well we will have to wait and see but of the two KC shows I have so far attended, absolutely nothing, so more hypocricy. !!! 

But hey ho, we the KC are willing to talk to all those people who have agreed to sign this undertaking, many of whom just nod when necessary but actually have absolutely no intention of fullfilling what they signed up for  i.e. the definition of Undertaking = make promise,  guarentee to fullfil an enterprise, task : promise to fulfil an obligation, yep, we will talk to all these who fully intend to ignore everything they have signed up for and refuse to talk to the very people who have the honesty and integrity to say , "No, we refuse to sign as not only are some of these items not feasible, in that they are unworkable, others are unjust in their attempt to restrict our freedom of choice".  Well I suppose mixing Like with Like (KC with nods and liers) is easier than having to deal with those who tell it as it is (i.e TRUTH) because with nods and liers they can all walk away and continue to be afflicted by the Ostrich syndrome, as in the KC view on Health and Soundness what the eye cannot see the heart dont grieve over !!!!

Regards
Sue

David you are wrong in this instance and you wont bully me into agreeing with you so get a grip i know what discrimination is and what the KC are doing is not discrimination so its you who needs to learn they had stated that they would hold a meeting with the SIGNING clubs so how is that discriminating
jim h