This is a placeholder text
Group text
by crossingate on 16 February 2010 - 18:02
Blackmail by the Kennel Club - sign your rights away and we will CONSIDER allowing a restriction on registering non-standard colours - also health checks to be discussed for inclusion in the KC ABS - but nothing about restricting registration of puppies from animals that havent had any health checks or have bad hips. This is getting more ridiculous by the day!
More blackmail regarding CC's not given due to a club not signing - I suppose those clubs that have signed the agreement would feel morally obliged to turn down the offer of a set of CC's that should have gone to someone else? I THINK NOT!
Sally
More blackmail regarding CC's not given due to a club not signing - I suppose those clubs that have signed the agreement would feel morally obliged to turn down the offer of a set of CC's that should have gone to someone else? I THINK NOT!
Sally
by missbeeb on 16 February 2010 - 18:02
I love their little statements, Mo! Everyone digs them in a little deeper and makes more Shepherd folk more determined.
What complete pilchards they are; as I said on another thread a couple of weeks ago, I seriously doubt the legality of what they're doing. Their arrogance is quite embarrassing.
Perhaps the Ob guys will develop an interest in Sch... ? The KC is closing many, many doors on itself, all without sufficient savvy to see the writing on the wall... 2010 should be a good year for us!
by AmbiiGSD on 16 February 2010 - 18:02
The OFT has no teeth... good dog they've just shown that against the banks and unfair bank charges, you really think they will take on the KC... they couldn't regulate the preverbial piss up in a brewery.
The only way this can be dealt with is the National Press, it is about time the GSD Partnership or whoever the hell is running this ship...pointed it's sails to the nationals and started phoning, writing, anything to get them involved.
long over-due! Take it PUBLIC!!!
The only way this can be dealt with is the National Press, it is about time the GSD Partnership or whoever the hell is running this ship...pointed it's sails to the nationals and started phoning, writing, anything to get them involved.
long over-due! Take it PUBLIC!!!
by Penny on 16 February 2010 - 18:02
I do agree with every bit of press coverage that we can get with this - however, we have to delegate a GOOD speaker to speak for us, and all sing from the same hymn sheet. We need to think about what we want to talk about, as its easy to ramble on so many things... and we need to hammer the points that arre so wrong, that do the public out of good health checked pups and then it will become very apparent that the GSD folk are so far ahead of the KC they are left standing.
The OFt has every tooth to deal with with little companies that thrive on bad practice. That is about the only way to decsribe the actions that are coming from the Kennel Club - and they CAN deal with it, and I am sure they WILL deal with it, I think its a must that the press know the full details of the main points of our problem, and that the press give it the coverage that it deserves.
Lets talk speakers. This board is visited daily by KC officials, and also certain KC members who are taking it right back ot the lap of Clarges St, so we need to keep our counsel here now. Please email me mascani22@aol.com with any good lucid speakers and get their permission first full in the knowledge that they understand the details and they have as much passion about fairness as the rest of us do. I for one, am going to contact Joe Summerhill as my nominee - and I have another lady that is so used to public speaking and dogdom, she has appeared on TV favourably many times, (dont often rub shoulders with such folk, but hey) I have to ask his permission - and we can put our nominees together and come up with a professional front, able to speak to the press without babbling, and laughing in inappropriate places (I am sure we understand where that one came from) we will be speaking for the good of the dogs, and lets see what Fit For Life means - I am sure Hips and Elbows and Epilepsy come in to that some-where even if not demanded by the KC. Mo
The OFt has every tooth to deal with with little companies that thrive on bad practice. That is about the only way to decsribe the actions that are coming from the Kennel Club - and they CAN deal with it, and I am sure they WILL deal with it, I think its a must that the press know the full details of the main points of our problem, and that the press give it the coverage that it deserves.
Lets talk speakers. This board is visited daily by KC officials, and also certain KC members who are taking it right back ot the lap of Clarges St, so we need to keep our counsel here now. Please email me mascani22@aol.com with any good lucid speakers and get their permission first full in the knowledge that they understand the details and they have as much passion about fairness as the rest of us do. I for one, am going to contact Joe Summerhill as my nominee - and I have another lady that is so used to public speaking and dogdom, she has appeared on TV favourably many times, (dont often rub shoulders with such folk, but hey) I have to ask his permission - and we can put our nominees together and come up with a professional front, able to speak to the press without babbling, and laughing in inappropriate places (I am sure we understand where that one came from) we will be speaking for the good of the dogs, and lets see what Fit For Life means - I am sure Hips and Elbows and Epilepsy come in to that some-where even if not demanded by the KC. Mo
by Sue B on 16 February 2010 - 19:02
Hi All,
On the 8th of January in a thread topic titled "Kennel Club Press release", on making reference to the KC Undertaking I listed a number of items, Item 4 on this list was as just copied below:-
4. The point of law being that whilst still in the Process of Negotiations (i.e Our GSDP still
considered themselves in the process of trying to resolve these issues with the KC via
negotiative means. The KC alone decided to suspended all Negotiations and then without
even an attempt at arranging for Mediation they proceeded to ACT UNREASONABLY by way
of ABUSE OF A DOMINENT POSITION.
I suggested we got a fighting fund going and many were forthcoming with their pledges, then some Solicitor sort came on the thread and called me mad, coupled with some other dampeners I gave up on that thread. I now see we have come full circle and as if for the first time the Abuse of a Dominent Position has appeared again. I agree with most of what you have all said on here but going around in circles dismissing one idea only for it to be resurrected again later is getting us nowhere. Hopefully the BC Meeting on Saturday will help us come to some sort of COLLECTIVE DECISION. Until then I now find it pointless for anyone to suggest anything on here as most ideas get dissed until someone else thinks of it again 5 weeks later. We really do need to learn to work together.
Regards
Sue
On the 8th of January in a thread topic titled "Kennel Club Press release", on making reference to the KC Undertaking I listed a number of items, Item 4 on this list was as just copied below:-
4. The point of law being that whilst still in the Process of Negotiations (i.e Our GSDP still
considered themselves in the process of trying to resolve these issues with the KC via
negotiative means. The KC alone decided to suspended all Negotiations and then without
even an attempt at arranging for Mediation they proceeded to ACT UNREASONABLY by way
of ABUSE OF A DOMINENT POSITION.
I suggested we got a fighting fund going and many were forthcoming with their pledges, then some Solicitor sort came on the thread and called me mad, coupled with some other dampeners I gave up on that thread. I now see we have come full circle and as if for the first time the Abuse of a Dominent Position has appeared again. I agree with most of what you have all said on here but going around in circles dismissing one idea only for it to be resurrected again later is getting us nowhere. Hopefully the BC Meeting on Saturday will help us come to some sort of COLLECTIVE DECISION. Until then I now find it pointless for anyone to suggest anything on here as most ideas get dissed until someone else thinks of it again 5 weeks later. We really do need to learn to work together.
Regards
Sue
by Jeevs on 16 February 2010 - 20:02
The Kennel Club is a private club, not a business, the OFT would have no jurisdiction against them.
by Sue B on 16 February 2010 - 21:02
Jeeves, The European laws of Unfair Competition would though and in any lawsuit precedents set in any other case in law will still be relevant, private members club or not, it doesnt meant just because you have a business founded upon a Private Members club it makes you exempt from all laws.
However, getting back to the reason I came here again I just had to point out how hillarious some of the Q & A;s are in this latest KC press release. For example the KC are not even able to give a direct answere to one of their own questions. Can anyone tell us what the KC reply is to the question below, it really needs either a Yes or No answere,. Even Yes you can ask though you may not get what you ask for, would be an appropriate answere but much to what we are now accustomed to, the KC are incapable of issuing any directive other than gobble guke, unless of course they are issuing DEMANDS.
See below the KC Question that they fail to answere - after reading it could you please explain if the KC are saying a club can sign in future to regains its CC;s or not? See what I mean !!!! lol
Q. If my club does not sign this year can it sign in future years to regain its CCs?
A. The allocation for CCs is done on an annual basis and on the prevailing circumstances for each breed. After the deadline of 31st March the Committee will consider its options for unallocated Challenge Certificates. It may choose to reallocate the CCs to breed clubs in the existing rotation that have signed the Undertaking; it may choose to reallocate CCs to general canine societies; or it may choose not to allocate them at all meaning fewer opportunities for the breed at Championship level.
There are more gems like this in the recent press release but at the moment I am still laughing too much to put them on here.
Regards
Sue
However, getting back to the reason I came here again I just had to point out how hillarious some of the Q & A;s are in this latest KC press release. For example the KC are not even able to give a direct answere to one of their own questions. Can anyone tell us what the KC reply is to the question below, it really needs either a Yes or No answere,. Even Yes you can ask though you may not get what you ask for, would be an appropriate answere but much to what we are now accustomed to, the KC are incapable of issuing any directive other than gobble guke, unless of course they are issuing DEMANDS.
See below the KC Question that they fail to answere - after reading it could you please explain if the KC are saying a club can sign in future to regains its CC;s or not? See what I mean !!!! lol
Q. If my club does not sign this year can it sign in future years to regain its CCs?
A. The allocation for CCs is done on an annual basis and on the prevailing circumstances for each breed. After the deadline of 31st March the Committee will consider its options for unallocated Challenge Certificates. It may choose to reallocate the CCs to breed clubs in the existing rotation that have signed the Undertaking; it may choose to reallocate CCs to general canine societies; or it may choose not to allocate them at all meaning fewer opportunities for the breed at Championship level.
There are more gems like this in the recent press release but at the moment I am still laughing too much to put them on here.
Regards
Sue
by Sue B on 16 February 2010 - 22:02
RAOTFL Numero 2,
Q. “Unsound hocks have no known related health diseases” so why is the KC so exercised about this?
A. To suggest that a dog does not have a health issue when it cannot walk properly because of poor hocks, is patently nonsense. The KC’s Fit for Function campaign states that ‘all dogs must be able to see, breathe, and walk freely and be free from pain, irritation or discomfort’. The fundamental ability to walk soundly is a basic quality of life issue for any animal.
It has been said many times before on here that the KC are prepared to give CC;s out and Register progeny from anything that breathes and is able to walk into the ring. Sorry but I almost lost it when they almost confirmed this in their latest statement. Forget the Dysplastic Hips, dodgy temperament, goodness it could even be having an Epileptic fit in the ring, just as long as the dog can BREATHE, SEE and WALK FREELY and be free from pain (though how on earth you are supposed to assess that I will never know as most dogs have a high threshold for pain anyway, for example how would you assess if a dog was in pain from arthritis in his dysplastic hips? Most of the time I have pain in my arthritic spine but I dont limp or necessarily show the pain in any other noticeable , physical way.
The whole KC issue is now reading more and more like a farse and if it wasnt for the fact that the issue in discussion here is the future Health and Welfare of our breed it would make a most hillarious Sit Com ever, and yes Bill Hardaways Taxi driver could have a speaking part. lol
Q. “Unsound hocks have no known related health diseases” so why is the KC so exercised about this?
A. To suggest that a dog does not have a health issue when it cannot walk properly because of poor hocks, is patently nonsense. The KC’s Fit for Function campaign states that ‘all dogs must be able to see, breathe, and walk freely and be free from pain, irritation or discomfort’. The fundamental ability to walk soundly is a basic quality of life issue for any animal.
It has been said many times before on here that the KC are prepared to give CC;s out and Register progeny from anything that breathes and is able to walk into the ring. Sorry but I almost lost it when they almost confirmed this in their latest statement. Forget the Dysplastic Hips, dodgy temperament, goodness it could even be having an Epileptic fit in the ring, just as long as the dog can BREATHE, SEE and WALK FREELY and be free from pain (though how on earth you are supposed to assess that I will never know as most dogs have a high threshold for pain anyway, for example how would you assess if a dog was in pain from arthritis in his dysplastic hips? Most of the time I have pain in my arthritic spine but I dont limp or necessarily show the pain in any other noticeable , physical way.
The whole KC issue is now reading more and more like a farse and if it wasnt for the fact that the issue in discussion here is the future Health and Welfare of our breed it would make a most hillarious Sit Com ever, and yes Bill Hardaways Taxi driver could have a speaking part. lol
by Sue B on 16 February 2010 - 23:02
RAOTFL Numero 3
Q. If my club signs the Undertaking and then the judge at our show awards an unsound dog, will the club be penalised?
A. No – providing the show management has briefed the judge prior to its shows on their health and welfare responsibilities particularly in regard to soundness of conformation. In such circumstances, and as is the usual procedure, the club must report the matter to the Kennel Club within 7 days of the show to investigate the judge’s conduct.
In these new KC directives / undertaking Judges who promote unsoundness in the hindquarters and the hocks are to be reported by the Breed clubs. Just who exactly on the Breed Club is supposed to do the reporting and assessing they fail to tell you, could be some committee member who has never judged a dog in their life deciding if the judge is assessing soundness correctly or not. Makes a mockery of the whole situation to me. How a Breed club is supposed to stop judges awarding top placings to a dog someone on that committee believes is unsound is beyond me. What are the committee supposed to do, all get in a scrum huddle to debate the issue as to whether the judge has promoted an unsound dog or not? What if only one member of the committee saw the dog going away because everybody else on the committee were just getting on with the job of running the show, this committee member is not a judge so they run to another committee member who is, is this 2nd committee member then supposed to go to the ring and ask the dog to walk away and back again so that they too can assess its soundness. How crazy is all this sounding to the rest of you, because its beyond comprehension to me, yet this is what the KC want your club committee;s to sign up to.
So who exactly will be judging the judges in future? Everyone from the sound of it, KC assessors, club committee;s, the exhibitors, Jemima PDE and yes even Bill Hardaways taxi driver, in other words Uncle Tom Cobbly and all. Then remember Secretary;s of clubs that sign, at the end of every year you will have the pleasure of writing a full Report confiming and demonstrating compliance with the conditions in this Undertaking to submit to the Kennel Club. Whilst not forgetting of course that to Quote the KC undertaking, "Any evidence and reports of non compliance will be relevant factors when considering the Club's next CC allocation." In other words your report will not necessarily be believed. So you better hope that no exhibitor, committee member from any other club, KC assessor, any KC approved judge and oh yeh dare I forget to mention Bill hardaways Taxi driver, does not send any conflicting report in to the Kennel Club, or you might be joining those clubs that didnt sign sooner than you may otherwise have anticipated.
Regards
Sue
Q. If my club signs the Undertaking and then the judge at our show awards an unsound dog, will the club be penalised?
A. No – providing the show management has briefed the judge prior to its shows on their health and welfare responsibilities particularly in regard to soundness of conformation. In such circumstances, and as is the usual procedure, the club must report the matter to the Kennel Club within 7 days of the show to investigate the judge’s conduct.
In these new KC directives / undertaking Judges who promote unsoundness in the hindquarters and the hocks are to be reported by the Breed clubs. Just who exactly on the Breed Club is supposed to do the reporting and assessing they fail to tell you, could be some committee member who has never judged a dog in their life deciding if the judge is assessing soundness correctly or not. Makes a mockery of the whole situation to me. How a Breed club is supposed to stop judges awarding top placings to a dog someone on that committee believes is unsound is beyond me. What are the committee supposed to do, all get in a scrum huddle to debate the issue as to whether the judge has promoted an unsound dog or not? What if only one member of the committee saw the dog going away because everybody else on the committee were just getting on with the job of running the show, this committee member is not a judge so they run to another committee member who is, is this 2nd committee member then supposed to go to the ring and ask the dog to walk away and back again so that they too can assess its soundness. How crazy is all this sounding to the rest of you, because its beyond comprehension to me, yet this is what the KC want your club committee;s to sign up to.
So who exactly will be judging the judges in future? Everyone from the sound of it, KC assessors, club committee;s, the exhibitors, Jemima PDE and yes even Bill Hardaways taxi driver, in other words Uncle Tom Cobbly and all. Then remember Secretary;s of clubs that sign, at the end of every year you will have the pleasure of writing a full Report confiming and demonstrating compliance with the conditions in this Undertaking to submit to the Kennel Club. Whilst not forgetting of course that to Quote the KC undertaking, "Any evidence and reports of non compliance will be relevant factors when considering the Club's next CC allocation." In other words your report will not necessarily be believed. So you better hope that no exhibitor, committee member from any other club, KC assessor, any KC approved judge and oh yeh dare I forget to mention Bill hardaways Taxi driver, does not send any conflicting report in to the Kennel Club, or you might be joining those clubs that didnt sign sooner than you may otherwise have anticipated.
Regards
Sue
by Penny on 17 February 2010 - 09:02
Hi Jeevs,
The Kennel Club is a business. IT TRADES - IT TAKES MONEY FROM CLIENTS Therefore,It is accountable under laws of the land. taxes are paid, and I am sure their bank account is a business account, not a club account, this makes them accountable. Why are you so negative about this point You must have a reason. Mo.
The Kennel Club is a business. IT TRADES - IT TAKES MONEY FROM CLIENTS Therefore,It is accountable under laws of the land. taxes are paid, and I am sure their bank account is a business account, not a club account, this makes them accountable. Why are you so negative about this point You must have a reason. Mo.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top
