Search forum
Back to German Shepherd Dog
Liked top 20
ForumsGerman Shepherd Dog > KC PRESS RELEASE - Meeting with Reps from GSD Breed Club (68 replies)
KC PRESS RELEASE - Meeting with Reps from GSD Breed Club by Videx on 19 April 2010 - 20:47 |
Kennel Club PRESS RELEASE MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG BREED CLUBS Now that the deadline for receipt of the signed Undertakings from those clubs wishing to be considered for 2012 CCs has passed, a meeting with representatives from those clubs which signed the Undertaking has been planned for Friday 30th April 2010 at the Kennel Club. The Kennel Club has invited two representatives from each of the 21 breed clubs which signed the Undertaking, along with representatives from the GSD Breed Council and Mr Brian Wootton, the KC Breed Liaison representative. It will be a full day meeting covering canine conformation and movement as it relates to the German Shepherd Dog and a presentation on the education of judges. There will also be plenty of opportunity for discussion between the delegates and speakers. The speakers will be; Mike Herrtage, Professor of Small Animal Medicine at Cambridge University and Dean of Cambridge Veterinary School Bill Hardaway, Vice Chairman of the Kennel Club Gerald King, Chairman of the Kennel Club Training Board Gary Gray, Breeder, Judge & breed enthusiast It is intended that this will be the first of a number of meetings/seminars with the aim of putting in place sensible, effective and cohesive actions to address and improve soundness in the GSD. |
Videx by bazza on 20 April 2010 - 07:22 |
| Would love to be a fly on the wall at that meeting!!! |
by jaymesie51 on 20 April 2010 - 07:30 |
| I would hope that at this meeting that the clubs do not agree to anything other than what they have signed up for and if the KC want to add anything into the mix then all clubs should leave the meeting jim h |
jaymesie51 by Videx on 20 April 2010 - 07:37 |
| Carefully consider the following paragraph from the GSD League - "OUR FUTURE PLANS" "We sincerely hope that meaningful dialogue and progress can be made with the Kennel Club, and to this end we will continue to play our part, both as a National GSD Club and alongside all other GSD breed Clubs." Then remind yourselves that the Kennel Club are "discriminating" against those KC licensed GSD breed clubs that have NOT signed their "undertaking". The Kennel Club have EXCLUDED these clubs from this meeting. I would understand if the meeting was simply to discuss the allocation of CC's from 2012, which it clearly is not, just read the third paragraph. The Kennel Club have behaved disgracefully, and every single GSD Breed Club should immediately write to the Kennel Club and tell them exactly that. Any GSD Club which sends any representative to this Kennel Club meeting is openly supporting the Kennel Clubs disgraceful behavior and blatant discrimination. I guarantee that we will NEVER enter any of our GSD in any show held by any GSD breed club that sends a representative to this meeting, unless the Kennel Club invite representatives from every single KC licensed GSD breed club. Solidarity and unity is crucial to effectively challenge ALL types of discrimination. David & Rhoda Payne Videx GSD |
by Doppelganger on 20 April 2010 - 07:43 |
| Here we go again. You're just not listening are you David? |
by Zac on 20 April 2010 - 07:57 |
Videx wrote: I guarantee that we will NEVER enter any of our GSD in any show held by any GSD breed club that sends a representative to this meeting, unless the Kennel Club invite representatives from every single KC licensed GSD breed club. |
by Videx on 20 April 2010 - 07:58 |
| Doppelganger: You should certainly do some homework about me. Your comment here is hysterical! I would recommend you very carefully read the GSDL "Our Future Plans" and 'smell the coffee'. Zac: Such principles are of necessity a personal choice. Some people live by principles, others find life easier to live without them, a truly selfish trait. |
by Penny on 20 April 2010 - 08:16 |
| David is absolutely correct ..... Think about it all. the clubs that have not signed have not excluded anyone - signed or not - from their events forthcoming. Neither would anyone signed or not, be excluded from any seminars regarding the betterment of the breed or relating issues - The KC are purporting in the media to want to make this "great change" and if they obviously consider rightly or wrongly that this meeting is to improve matters for the GSD - not the people - then EVERYONE should be invited and choose whether to attend. This is the correct way of doing things, and this is the only way to improve matters. No "governing body" of any association or business would tell half of its work-force about a meeting for plans for improvement would they. Good leadership comes from everyone singing from the same hymn sheet !!! However, the KC have a track history of wanting unrest until they get their little sect together and its beginning to show more and more with their every step. Mo. |
by jaymesie51 on 20 April 2010 - 09:03 |
| If you look at this logically the clubs that did not sign are not entitled to attend this meeting as the meeting is for only clubs that signed the undertaking that was made clear at the time.Thats fine providing they only disscuss what was signed in the undertaking and nothing else and remember they have also invited 2 reps from the BC so in my thinking that should be 2 from any of the clubs that did not sign 1 of which should be from the GSDL. jim h |
by Videx on 20 April 2010 - 09:28 |
| IT IS NOT LOGICAL - TO DISCRIMINATE - EVER! |
by jaymesie51 on 20 April 2010 - 09:42 |
| 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 |
by Sue B on 20 April 2010 - 11:08 |
| 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 |
Sue B by missbeeb on 20 April 2010 - 11:16 |
Yeah... my thoughts are, that the KC haven't actually grasped what they've done, they just want as many as possible to attend, in order that the "non signers" may look / feel outnumbered. Who do the BC think they'll be representing? |
missbeeb by Sue B on 20 April 2010 - 11:53 |
| 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 |
by Zac on 20 April 2010 - 12:01 |
| 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? |
by Blerio on 20 April 2010 - 12:07 |
| 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. |
by jaymesie51 on 20 April 2010 - 12:32 |
| 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 |
by Sue B on 20 April 2010 - 12:37 |
| 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 |
by Videx on 20 April 2010 - 18:09 |
| Jim h - Please desist from telling me that I am wrong regarding discrimination. The "whites only" places that used to exist in South Africa & the USA - were discriminating. You should learn exactly what discrimination is! |
by jaymesie51 on 20 April 2010 - 19:02 |
| 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 |
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!