KC Ultimatum - Page 1

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by simple on 12 March 2010 - 13:03

Great to see some old friends at DFS Crufts yesterday. Surely the use of DFS for sponsorship shows how far the KC have declined.

However, i found it disturbing to hear that BAGSD have signed the KC dictate. Anybody confirm this? If so it is a sad day for everyone concerned as theKC will now use this victory to further control our breed.

by bazza on 12 March 2010 - 13:03

Actually beginning to wonder if it would be safer in todays show/breeders hands. Never thought i would think that, believe me.

by Penny on 13 March 2010 - 00:03

Simple,

I can confirm that BAGSD have voted to sign the KC undertaking.   I am disgusted too, but it was inevitable, the way things went  -  and I further learned at Crufts that the branches that didnt vote (Iand I know of one personally that never even got told) were counted as a Sign it  vote !!!
It is hoped that on BAGSD website will be the clarity again that everyone expects.  This is that the Branches should be listed and the count vote for each branch should be printed.... i.e.   Derbyshire    20 - all in favour of not signing.   and this is not divulging members personal votes, but clearing for everyone to see, the distribution of Yes or No votes. There then could be a place for individual non branch members and a number which voted for yes and one for Not signing.  If BAGSD decide to do that - then the EC could print if they individually wished, their personal votes and views and why they voted that way.  I would find this very interesting, because I took a telephone call at my home on the Thursday before the EC meeting from the Chairman of BAGSD - spending time telling me that if he personally had a choice he wouldnt sign the agreement !!!    Then we get the other side of the coin that he actually voted at the meeting before that conversation to sign it !  When I mentioned this to others, they also had been told by him that he wished not to sign it. THIS IS THE CHAIRMAN OF BAGSD - what more influencial person should there be?????
I think it is all very important too, as the word is spreading like wildfire that Andrew and the Gen Sec took the voting papers and then gave them to the auditor for counting.
If so, this is a flawed way of doing things if it is to be seen to be done independantly..    They should have been sent to the auditor by each member of the EC that received them - I personally know that John ward received all of ours direct.  what really should have happened is what the members asked for, and a much simpler way  -  one member of the EC from both sides of the debate to sit together and count the votes.... job done.... what were the auditors proving when the counting had already taken place before they received them.   Mo

by Penny on 13 March 2010 - 00:03

reverting to DFS Crufts   (what a come down).   I too very much enjoyed meeting up with people, and the topic of conversation around the ring was what we were all going to be doing, and the choices we were looking forward to, that have already been put in place.  Seems that the folk that can see the light are now full of enthusiasm for the clear beginning of the correct way in which our breed should go.  I also have to say, that although the GSD ring was literally swmped with officialdom - some even sitting at the side of the ring taking notes on dogs movement - the atmosphere was pleasant and no incidences occured thank goodness.
I had an interesting BBC live conversation this morning with Caroline Kisco, a vet from the Greyhound Re-Homing Trust and Joanne Malin.
It all centred around the 2008 BBC documentary, and whether BBC should have pulled out.    My view, like others, was that by pulling out, they have changed nothing about the KC`s apathy on health screening. Mrs Cisko felt that More4 were doing a good job and quote "people will just have to get used to it" unquote  -  where have we heard that attitude before !! 
They simply pulled out and left many people at home without their favourite viewing of Crufts.   They also left the KC to a sofa company that whilst having the money to sponsor them, knew nothing of dogs or dogdom and certainly arent interested in the seedier side of things to do with the registration of dogs with no identification or health checks for breeding.. A lively debate followed whereby Catherine upheld the accredited breeder scheme, and I made sure that it would be effective ONLY if it were accredited dogs - I also quoted having found 45 people that had paid their £15 in the last 12 months - finding them within 3 days, and they had no checks at all from the KC - and Carolines answer was that for the past 7 years or so, they have been looking at health issues and turning around breeds to get them within themselves to improve - mypoints were its ok looking, do something about not registering these poor puppies from un-checked parentage.
At the point that I explained that the Best in Show at Crufts on Sunday could have chronic HD or another debilitating hereiditory disease - there was no moving back, it had to be explained that to be BIS at such a prestigious looking event in the calender, your dog just had to look good.  In answer to my question of why couldnt the KC only register dogs from health checked parentage, Carolines point was that in regard to hip scores they are all written down, every single one on the KC website  -  pity I didnt then get chance to have the microphone back, and ask what good it was writing them down on their website if they werent going to act upon them.    I do think I got our point over, and from the conversations afterwards - I am sure we will be hearing more - now is MEDIA time - and it will have been incepted by themselves, not us.
Catherine seemed a nice lady, but certainly has the remit from the KC to be the Queen of Waffle when trying to defend the KC`s awful stance on health issues as opposed to losing money on registrations.    Mo.


by redriding on 13 March 2010 - 08:03

THIS IS THE CHAIRMAN OF BAGSD - to quote Mo- but more to the point WHO is the Chairman of bagsd, and what are his or AW's credentials for holding such influencial positions- what have they achieved? (beyond political advancement for themselves)

Incidentally, a close friend told me they looked well under the kosh at dfs crufts

Good.

Red

by Penny on 13 March 2010 - 12:03

I have to ask myself regularly what Andrews credentials and agenda are now.....  I was sent an email from him, about one month ago,,,,for no reason at all,... that he asked me to keep confidential. At this point, might I say that he was, as he is now, being very off hand due to my honestly on this database...but he expected my guarantee of confidentiality as to the contents and to date... he has been given it.... I have done so, but I keep going back and having a read at it, trying to fathom out

1.  why he sent it
2.  what did he expect me to do with it
3   what he hoped to receive back from it.
4   what hat did he wear when I got it
             a)    KC Hat
             b)    BAGSD hat
             c)    Own hat

Nothing told me in the letter which hat, and it demanded answers to strange questions.   It also promised to divulge to "some-one"  - unknown - that I had "declined to answer" if I didnt jump to and answer his questions in the email !!!

Damn, I forgot to bother.    However, I did keep the email for future amusement as I like opening joke emails and having a little smile.. 

Chairman of BAGSD?   Its Bob Honey.

Mo.



by simple on 13 March 2010 - 19:03

Mo.

Be careful he doesn't steal it back :-)

by Penny on 14 March 2010 - 00:03


sorry??

Mo 

by dragon on 14 March 2010 - 00:03

well mo his hat is helmet he walks like the pc of noddy i nearly wet meself when someone mentioned it to me at crufts i needed me camera so desperately
jeanette
ps ive had same mo saying one thing doing another

Sue B

by Sue B on 14 March 2010 - 00:03

Mo, methinks simple was possibly referring to the allegations that AW et co had alledgedly stolen information from someones PC. Thats what, at a guess, I presume simple was refering too when he/she said be careful he doesnt steal it back (meaning your email from him that you think of as a joke). Am I right Simple or is my sarcasm making me leap much too far ahead of myself again?? lol

Regards
Sue b





 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top