Racing Pigeon Post
The content (content being images, text, sound and video files, programmes and scripts) of this website is copyright of Racing Pigeon Post. All rights expressly reserved.
Articles.
“All we want are the facts!”- Dragnet
Chapter 1.
Chapter 1.
Well that’s it, my International racing career is over and as that was my sole racing interest, racing pigeons for me is at an end. The R.P.R.A. Council, in their wisdom, have decided that the B.I.C.C. acted “reasonably” in excluding me from their Club. Intriguing really, justice as it is done within the R.P.R.A. as I have not broken any Rule, neither have I ever had a charge laid against me nor for that matter has anybody at any stage cited exactly, or even in broad terms, what I have done wrong. Instead I have been accused, prosecuted, judged and sentenced by those who alleged I “offended” against them and, after a short lived intervention by Southern Region, dismissed on an appeal without ever a trace of grounds suggested, let alone established. That’s pigeon racing I suppose. I wonder why it has not been accepted as a sport?
Just the other day somebody said to me, “The trouble is you never really know what has happened in these disputes because they are never fully reported, all you get is rumour and findings but no explanation, no facts, no idea of what has really gone on.” This lack of information, this absence of reporting sits like a great abscess on the face of pigeon racing encouraging rumour and gossip to run unchecked while a culture of secrecy pervades all parts, and why? In my personal experience the only people who seek this kind of secrecy are people who have something to hide, not necessarily anything wicked or even wrong often just incompetence or the fear it brings with it. It was of course reporting and giving an idea of what had really gone on that brought this all about, but that of course is my story, my truth, make of it what you will.
To begin at the end or near to the end at least, the BICC lodged an appeal to Council against findings made by Southern Region over my appeal, on two counts, against decisions made by the BICC Committee. This lodgement and first finding by Council I believe provides a micro vision of the whole dispute and process. It is also very easy to follow so I invite you to make an early judgement, on this matter alone, based upon the real evidence as it was presented.
Within the appropriate time the BICC submitted a Notice of Appeal text as below:
24th March 2009
Dear Committee Members,
BICC v Mr Nigel Lane - Appeals
Following the two rulings by the RPRA Southern Region at a meeting held on 7th March, 2009, at Basingstoke, in the case against Mr Nigel Lane, whereby the Appeals Committee ruled against the BICC Committee's decision to; "exclude Mr Lane from the Club until an apology was received' we wish to lodge an appeal under RPRA Rule 83.
In both matters The B.I.C.C. Management Committee believe they acted correctly and although the case appears to have been ruled against us on a technicality we believe that Mr. Lane was well conversant with RPRA rules 70 and 168, and knew full well he could be represented. The BICC Committee therefore wish to appeal against both decisions and enclose a cheque in accordance with the appeals procedure, as laid down under RPRA rule 83 (1)
If you require any further documentation please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours in the sport
J. M. Deacon, (Mrs)
Secretary
Mr M. Bunney
President
I did not get sight of this document until two weeks before the hearing, which is quite normal, and so I was unable to make any application before the hearing itself. Council did allow me to challenge the legitimacy of this appeal as follows:
“I must challenge the validity of this Appeal.
As you will appreciate I have only known the details of this Appeal for a few days and as there is no other channel open to me I must make my challenge to you.
Appeals to Council are governed by Rule 83 and Section (1) clearly states that the Appellant, amongst other things, must state “the grounds for appeal”. The word ground means some rational basis for a belief or action, something related to reason or cause. The B.I.C.C. has stated no such grounds.
Looking at the Notice of Appeal dated 24th March 2009 you see they seek to establish three points.
1.The BICC Management Committee believes they acted correctly.
2.Case appears to have been ruled against us on a technicality.
3.We believe Mr Lane was well conversant with RPRA Rules 70 and168, and knew full well he could be represented.
Dealing with each in turn, the fact, if it be true, that the Committee believed they acted correctly does not of itself constitute a ground for appeal. It is not the belief that amounts to grounds but the rational basis that gives rise to the belief, and none has been provided here. If you do something that is wrong the mere fact that you thought you were right does not make it any less wrong. It might serve to mitigate any penalty certainly but it would not amount to a defence nor can it amount to a ground for Appeal
The case appears to have been ruled against on a technicality. I am not at all sure from where they think this appearance arises, the judgement is quite clearly stated, “The BICC did not apply the correct procedure when calling a 169 meeting”. I am not going to haggle over the use of this word but the BICC do not state or in any way suggest that this “technicality” was wrong and clearly seem to accept the finding. How then could this possibly be described as a ground for appeal?
Finally there is the question of the understanding of Rules 70 and 168. I really have no idea from where this arises. Can I just say immediately that if this is the issue that concerns you then I plead Guilty here and now. Whilst I profess no expert knowledge I certainly did understand Rule 70 and 168 and for that matter Rule 169 which was actually the Rule the proceedings were brought under. And yes I did understand I could be represented. Not only did I understand the rules but I sent a letter, which was apparently read at the meeting, pointing out where I believed they were failing to comply with those very rules. The reasons I set out in this letter later formed part of my grounds for Appeal against the BICC Committee decision and subsequently the finding in my favour made by Southern Region. At no stage has this been part of my case, my grounds or my appeal. As far as I am able to determine this has never formed part of the judgment or deliberation unless of course there is something which I do not know about. Has the BICC received some information or indication that has not been passed to me? This is not a ground for Appeal frankly it is a nonsense.
There are no grounds for Appeal stated or even suggested in this notice and if it is allowed to proceed it would make a mockery of RPRA Rules and procedure.”
The R.P.R.A. President stated he thought whether it made a mockery was a matter for Council.
Comment.
Whilst of course "whether it made a mockery" was a matter for Council it is also a matter for you and for me. We are after all voluntary members of an association are we not and they, Council and Committee’s, our representatives? We still operate under a democracy do we not? Autocracy has not yet taken its grip, or has it?
After due deliberation Council decided they would hear the Appeal.
Comment.
What, I must ask, are the "grounds for appeal" upon which Council could proceed? Are they not as much bound by the Rules as are we all? If anybody can provide a satisfactory answer to this I would be most interested to hear and to learn. Whilst I feel Council were quite wrong in coming to this decision I have no wish to pursue it further here. None of us are infallible. You have the facts before you and can reach your own conclusion. All I would wish to point out is that in any judicial system a right of appeal must be a fundamental right. As I have said, we are all fallible and when mistakes are made or thought to be made there must be a right to challenge and test. Equally however that right must be based in some reason or cause, exactly as is required by RPRA Rule 83(1). To simply allow an appeal against a judgement without any cause completely undermines any authority or respect for the authority that made the judgement. Frankly what point is there in having a hearing at all, at that level, if you pay no respect at all to its decision? The whole point of working to rules is to bring conformity and fairness to a pattern of activity. To this end Rules should be followed according to there true meaning and purpose.
One Councillor, who I am sure felt he was being both fair and constructive, said that he thought I was probably “clever” with words. Normally one might think this a complement, but not on this occasion, he went on to ask if I had not tried to make suggestions to the Committee, which of course I have on numerous occasions and this is what will bring us back to the beginning, in Chapter 2.
What is to come?
Mr Deacon brands me a liar but, is it really him that is telling porkies?
Mr Bunny says I have never had anything interesting to say, perhaps what he has had to say will prove more interesting.
Nigel Lane
Just the other day somebody said to me, “The trouble is you never really know what has happened in these disputes because they are never fully reported, all you get is rumour and findings but no explanation, no facts, no idea of what has really gone on.” This lack of information, this absence of reporting sits like a great abscess on the face of pigeon racing encouraging rumour and gossip to run unchecked while a culture of secrecy pervades all parts, and why? In my personal experience the only people who seek this kind of secrecy are people who have something to hide, not necessarily anything wicked or even wrong often just incompetence or the fear it brings with it. It was of course reporting and giving an idea of what had really gone on that brought this all about, but that of course is my story, my truth, make of it what you will.
To begin at the end or near to the end at least, the BICC lodged an appeal to Council against findings made by Southern Region over my appeal, on two counts, against decisions made by the BICC Committee. This lodgement and first finding by Council I believe provides a micro vision of the whole dispute and process. It is also very easy to follow so I invite you to make an early judgement, on this matter alone, based upon the real evidence as it was presented.
Within the appropriate time the BICC submitted a Notice of Appeal text as below:
24th March 2009
Dear Committee Members,
BICC v Mr Nigel Lane - Appeals
Following the two rulings by the RPRA Southern Region at a meeting held on 7th March, 2009, at Basingstoke, in the case against Mr Nigel Lane, whereby the Appeals Committee ruled against the BICC Committee's decision to; "exclude Mr Lane from the Club until an apology was received' we wish to lodge an appeal under RPRA Rule 83.
In both matters The B.I.C.C. Management Committee believe they acted correctly and although the case appears to have been ruled against us on a technicality we believe that Mr. Lane was well conversant with RPRA rules 70 and 168, and knew full well he could be represented. The BICC Committee therefore wish to appeal against both decisions and enclose a cheque in accordance with the appeals procedure, as laid down under RPRA rule 83 (1)
If you require any further documentation please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours in the sport
J. M. Deacon, (Mrs)
Secretary
Mr M. Bunney
President
I did not get sight of this document until two weeks before the hearing, which is quite normal, and so I was unable to make any application before the hearing itself. Council did allow me to challenge the legitimacy of this appeal as follows:
“I must challenge the validity of this Appeal.
As you will appreciate I have only known the details of this Appeal for a few days and as there is no other channel open to me I must make my challenge to you.
Appeals to Council are governed by Rule 83 and Section (1) clearly states that the Appellant, amongst other things, must state “the grounds for appeal”. The word ground means some rational basis for a belief or action, something related to reason or cause. The B.I.C.C. has stated no such grounds.
Looking at the Notice of Appeal dated 24th March 2009 you see they seek to establish three points.
1.The BICC Management Committee believes they acted correctly.
2.Case appears to have been ruled against us on a technicality.
3.We believe Mr Lane was well conversant with RPRA Rules 70 and168, and knew full well he could be represented.
Dealing with each in turn, the fact, if it be true, that the Committee believed they acted correctly does not of itself constitute a ground for appeal. It is not the belief that amounts to grounds but the rational basis that gives rise to the belief, and none has been provided here. If you do something that is wrong the mere fact that you thought you were right does not make it any less wrong. It might serve to mitigate any penalty certainly but it would not amount to a defence nor can it amount to a ground for Appeal
The case appears to have been ruled against on a technicality. I am not at all sure from where they think this appearance arises, the judgement is quite clearly stated, “The BICC did not apply the correct procedure when calling a 169 meeting”. I am not going to haggle over the use of this word but the BICC do not state or in any way suggest that this “technicality” was wrong and clearly seem to accept the finding. How then could this possibly be described as a ground for appeal?
Finally there is the question of the understanding of Rules 70 and 168. I really have no idea from where this arises. Can I just say immediately that if this is the issue that concerns you then I plead Guilty here and now. Whilst I profess no expert knowledge I certainly did understand Rule 70 and 168 and for that matter Rule 169 which was actually the Rule the proceedings were brought under. And yes I did understand I could be represented. Not only did I understand the rules but I sent a letter, which was apparently read at the meeting, pointing out where I believed they were failing to comply with those very rules. The reasons I set out in this letter later formed part of my grounds for Appeal against the BICC Committee decision and subsequently the finding in my favour made by Southern Region. At no stage has this been part of my case, my grounds or my appeal. As far as I am able to determine this has never formed part of the judgment or deliberation unless of course there is something which I do not know about. Has the BICC received some information or indication that has not been passed to me? This is not a ground for Appeal frankly it is a nonsense.
There are no grounds for Appeal stated or even suggested in this notice and if it is allowed to proceed it would make a mockery of RPRA Rules and procedure.”
The R.P.R.A. President stated he thought whether it made a mockery was a matter for Council.
Comment.
Whilst of course "whether it made a mockery" was a matter for Council it is also a matter for you and for me. We are after all voluntary members of an association are we not and they, Council and Committee’s, our representatives? We still operate under a democracy do we not? Autocracy has not yet taken its grip, or has it?
After due deliberation Council decided they would hear the Appeal.
Comment.
What, I must ask, are the "grounds for appeal" upon which Council could proceed? Are they not as much bound by the Rules as are we all? If anybody can provide a satisfactory answer to this I would be most interested to hear and to learn. Whilst I feel Council were quite wrong in coming to this decision I have no wish to pursue it further here. None of us are infallible. You have the facts before you and can reach your own conclusion. All I would wish to point out is that in any judicial system a right of appeal must be a fundamental right. As I have said, we are all fallible and when mistakes are made or thought to be made there must be a right to challenge and test. Equally however that right must be based in some reason or cause, exactly as is required by RPRA Rule 83(1). To simply allow an appeal against a judgement without any cause completely undermines any authority or respect for the authority that made the judgement. Frankly what point is there in having a hearing at all, at that level, if you pay no respect at all to its decision? The whole point of working to rules is to bring conformity and fairness to a pattern of activity. To this end Rules should be followed according to there true meaning and purpose.
One Councillor, who I am sure felt he was being both fair and constructive, said that he thought I was probably “clever” with words. Normally one might think this a complement, but not on this occasion, he went on to ask if I had not tried to make suggestions to the Committee, which of course I have on numerous occasions and this is what will bring us back to the beginning, in Chapter 2.
What is to come?
Mr Deacon brands me a liar but, is it really him that is telling porkies?
Mr Bunny says I have never had anything interesting to say, perhaps what he has had to say will prove more interesting.
Nigel Lane
