This is a placeholder text
Group text
by missbeeb on 01 March 2010 - 17:03
Had it all been done fair and square, I don't think anyone would have had any truck with it, Zac. However, the KC bullying the Ob and some people making much of it, not allowing proxy votes, etc, etc... hardly amounts to a fair crack of the whip, does it?
by Zac on 01 March 2010 - 17:03
Proxy votes are not allowed under the clubs constitution. It isnt just something new that's happened!
It all seems to me like a small number of people who didnt get their own way!
by missbeeb on 01 March 2010 - 17:03
OK... if that's what's enshrined in the Club rules? The few people are the BREED people, not the Ob or the KC members / brown noses. This is about our BREED, not Ob. Why would the Ob be interested... think about it, Zac.
by Penny on 01 March 2010 - 17:03
Hi Zac,
Missbeeb is quite right - and I`ll tell you whats wrong with "us people". The vote can go any way as far as we are concerned ............. if its fair and square,
So- what about this for "fair and Square"
1. The club is Birmingham & District German Shepherd Dog Association.
2. Rule 2 says that the association is for the BETTERMENT OF THE BREED
3. 2003 saw all breeds being allowed in to the training clubs. The are known as Associate members. They have no voting rights, and cannot serve on a committee - this is the rule for anyone not owning a GSD.
Well, the KC member - that literally took the floor - even though the presentation was agreed at EC level to be done by Shirley, (who had ready all the paperwork for them all - so that the floor could understand) .well he has collies.
The vet who spouted long and hard about unsondness in our breed and feels that the KC will be very fair with us...........- works 2 collies
even members of the committee work collies.
So. Seems that a lot of things werent so fair and square as one would believe,and if you had worked with Birmingham and District GSD since it was triple status and a premier club, well it does matter that you strive to keep order for our breed, which is what it was set up for. Mo.
Missbeeb is quite right - and I`ll tell you whats wrong with "us people". The vote can go any way as far as we are concerned ............. if its fair and square,
So- what about this for "fair and Square"
1. The club is Birmingham & District German Shepherd Dog Association.
2. Rule 2 says that the association is for the BETTERMENT OF THE BREED
3. 2003 saw all breeds being allowed in to the training clubs. The are known as Associate members. They have no voting rights, and cannot serve on a committee - this is the rule for anyone not owning a GSD.
Well, the KC member - that literally took the floor - even though the presentation was agreed at EC level to be done by Shirley, (who had ready all the paperwork for them all - so that the floor could understand) .well he has collies.
The vet who spouted long and hard about unsondness in our breed and feels that the KC will be very fair with us...........- works 2 collies
even members of the committee work collies.
So. Seems that a lot of things werent so fair and square as one would believe,and if you had worked with Birmingham and District GSD since it was triple status and a premier club, well it does matter that you strive to keep order for our breed, which is what it was set up for. Mo.
by Penny on 01 March 2010 - 17:03
Oh, by the way Zac - we have no intention of "conspiring against the committee and the sizeable vote to sign was not sizeable at all........... I think 7 voted for and 3 voted against and certain people abstained as they didnt own a GSD who were very honest, and others just voted and we found out at a later date that they didnt own a GSD. fair and square ? Mo
by peterlee on 01 March 2010 - 18:03
I have to admit that I agree with Zac. The club has voted and made their decision. You may not like it but that is what it was. Birmingham has not been the only club to vote this way.
And I am sorry but I do not have much sympathy with the argument that in some way the obedience people did not have the right to vote. They were obviously members of the club and had the right to vote in whatever way they wanted. If they were ill-informed or leaned on then the people who wanted a ‘yes’ vote may have been more unscrupulous or better at handling voters than the people who wanted a ‘no’ vote. It is hardly an answer to bus in supporters enrolled for the occasion for a re-run. That is as bad as the behaviour you are complaining about.
Zac has hit the nail on the head – ‘Why don’t you just set up a new club and run it under the rules you want it to have?’
And I am sorry but I do not have much sympathy with the argument that in some way the obedience people did not have the right to vote. They were obviously members of the club and had the right to vote in whatever way they wanted. If they were ill-informed or leaned on then the people who wanted a ‘yes’ vote may have been more unscrupulous or better at handling voters than the people who wanted a ‘no’ vote. It is hardly an answer to bus in supporters enrolled for the occasion for a re-run. That is as bad as the behaviour you are complaining about.
Zac has hit the nail on the head – ‘Why don’t you just set up a new club and run it under the rules you want it to have?’
by myfanwy on 01 March 2010 - 18:03
Zac
I may be wrong but wasn't the KC undertaking first aimed at the breed side of clubs and the allocation of breed CCs
and when the KC thought they were losing ground they decided to threaten the lose of CC for the obedience side.
Perhaps this is why there are some of use up in arms about the situation.
I may be wrong but wasn't the KC undertaking first aimed at the breed side of clubs and the allocation of breed CCs
and when the KC thought they were losing ground they decided to threaten the lose of CC for the obedience side.
Perhaps this is why there are some of use up in arms about the situation.
by Blerio on 01 March 2010 - 18:03
Peterlee, and Zac are right, If the yes vote anticipated they could manipulate the vote, maybe people will learn that politics is a dirty business and you need to be one step ahead. But remember the obedience section were always welcome because without their income many clubs would have folded a long time ago. One other point, All the no vote clubs who will not accept K.C. rules and regulations, I assume they wont be showing at K.C. shows in the future, because if they do, it makes them into the biggest load of hypocrites that dog showing has seen for a long time. As Peterlee says, Move on, start another club away from the unacceptable constraints imposed by the K.C. I'm sure both sides will be happier without all the constant and unpleasant bitching. Bill Owen.
by missbeeb on 01 March 2010 - 18:03
I fully intend to show at KC shows... if there's a judge to my liking, Bill. I will use the KC shows as suits me, if some find that hypocritical... OK, it won't keep me awake nights. If I had to choose one or the other, I'd dump the KC, without a backward glance... just as they're dumping on us!
by jaymesie51 on 01 March 2010 - 19:03
I also intend to show at both because it will be a while before the lg shows are up and running and if i pay my entry fee then i am entitled to show at both i will still register my stock with the KC i will still pay my yearly affix subs to the KC so just like everybody else i am entitled to show my dogs at both if i so decide that is not being a hypocrite is is having a choice. And i will say here and now i voted not to sign this dictating undertaking with both clubs i am a member of and i will accept the vote what ever way it goes that does not mean i agree with it.
jim h
jim h
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top