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 4.
Chapter 4.
At the time I wrote “Its Small Change” I also submitted the propositions it contains, formed from the views of myself and others. Shortly after that I received the "Notification of Complaint" and I knew instinctively that the object here was to exclude me from the Club in an attempt to make those propositions invalid. I made this known to several people at that time and whilst some thought it improbable others agreed with me. With that in view the same propositions were re-tabled by Bill Morris and Bernie Bennett and actually re-submitted, by recorded delivery, on the day I received the judgement notice, 25th November. Nothing further was heard about them until the propositions were sent out to the membership to vote. None of “our” proposals were included. You will find below the propositions and the exchange that followed:
Proposals for change of B.I.C.C. Rules proposed by:-
William Morris ES 202
.................................................................................................
Seconded by
Bernard Bennett ES 64
..............................................................................................
1. Delete General Rule 5 and replace with.
The primary objective of the B.I.C.C. is to Organise, Encourage and Enable British participation in the Western European International Racing programme. Its secondary objective is to organise a series of at least five National races to both school and train pigeons for the International races and provide and stimulate National competition. These races will be reviewed and determined annually by the Management Committee and will reflect the expressed wishes of the Membership.
2. Delete General Rule 15 and Replace with.
The B.I.C.C. shall be divided into Sections for Racing purposes. The Sections will reflect the wide boundaries of the Club, geography, race distances and membership in order to make the distribution of prizes and positions more equitable and fair to the entire membership. The sections will be reviewed and determined annually by the Committee.
3. Delete Racing Rule 3 and 5 and Replace with.
Distribution of Prices and Awards will be reviewed and determined annually by the Committee.
4. Delete Racing Rule 6 and replace with.
International Races. Every pigeon timed must be verified within 60 minutes of timing.
National Races. The first pigeon timed must be verified within 60 minutes of timing. When verifying the following information must be given:- B.I.C.C. Number, Name, Town, Ring number, the time clocked in and anyWing Marks when applicable. If the race extends beyond three days then verification must be within 12 hours.
5. Delete Racing Rule 7 and Replace with
The duration of all races, and the result, will extend to 25% of the entry.
6. Delete Racing Rule 12 and Clock Rule 7, Replace with
All International entries and timings must comply with International Rules, which will be advised by the Secretary.
The following proposal to be made to Region for a change to R.P.R.A. Rules
1) R.P.R.A. Rule 182. Delete the words, “and the annual election of officers of the organization”.
New rule to read: -
“If an organization has members residing outside the area of a circle of 50 mile radius centered on the headquarters of the organization, all resolutions to be submitted to general meetings of the organization shall be permitted to be dealt with by votes submitted in writing by the members and the secretary of the organization shall send appropriate voting papers to members for this purpose, provided that adoption of the secretary’s annual report and the annual accounts and balance sheet of the organization shall not be permitted to be dealt with by postal vote.
(E-mail)
Sent: 18 December 2008 14:36
To: jeanette.deacon3@ntlworld.com <mailto:jeanette.deacon3@ntlworld.com>
Subject: Propositions
Dear Mrs Deacon,
I recieved today the 18th Of December" BICC" propositions, and note the seven propositions I seconded with Mr W Morris of Horchurch being the proposer is not included on the agenda. These propositions were sent recorded to your address, could you please confirm whether you recieved them or if you did, why they are not included on the agenda.
yours in sport Mr B Bennett ES025
(E-mail)
To: 'Bernard Bennett'
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: Propositions
Hello Mr Morris,
The propositions that were sent in by Mr Morris and originally sent in by Mr Nigel Lane were discussed by the committee and they were not accepted for various reasons that were listed in the letter to Mr Morris.
Jan
(Letter)
4th December 2008
Mr W. Morris,
1 Fernbank Ave., Elm Park,
Hornchurch,
Essex
RM12 5RA
Dear Mr Morris,
Re. Proposals for chance of B.LC.C. Rules.
Further to receipt of your proposals for the change of B.I.C.C. rules, these were put before the Committee for their opinions.
Unfortunately the Committee decided that they would not be accepted for the following reasons: -
Incorrectly worded.
Too ambiguous.
Contravening R.P.R.A. rules.
Also they were seconded by a Mr B Bennett stating his membership number as ES64 but this is the membership number of Mr & Mrs J Cheverst.
Yours in the sport
J Deacon, (Mrs)
Secretary
(Letter)
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The B.I.C.C. Committee,
2, Silverdale Drive,
Waterlooville,
PO7 6DN
Dear Committee Members,
You must all know that I remain a Full Member of the B.I.C.C. until the appeal procedure is exhausted.
I have learnt from some members, who have received the propositions for the approaching AGM, that the propositions I submitted have not been included. Further to that the propositions submitted by Mr William Morris, which were identical, have also not been included.
I understand that Mr Morris has been informed that “the Committee” decided that they would not accept his propositions. The Committee have no authority to act in this way. It is the absolute right of the Member to make proposals for alterations and additions unimpeded or otherwise influenced by the Committee or any other body or power. The sole exception to that is:-
156. No alteration or addition to the rules of the Organisation which would conflict with any of the Rules of the Association shall be permitted to be proposed.
This may have been considered to apply to Proposal 5, and if it had been so excluded that would have been one thing but to discard them all is a continuing act of dictatorial arrogance which this Committee is demonstrating time after time.
You still have an opportunity to put right your mistake and reassume your proper role, which is one of service and representation. You must postpone the approaching AGM and put these proposals out to the vote. If you fail to do this then the scheduled AGM will be out of order and you will leave me with no alternative but to take the matter to Southern Region.
Yours faithfully
Nigel Lane
(E-mail)
2nd January 2009
Dear Nigel,
With reference to your letter dated 23`d December 2008.
Unfortunately, as you were an excluded member of the B.I.C.C. at the time of posting out the propositions and amendments your propositions, although considered incorrect for various reasons by the committee, were not dealt with.
Yours in the sport
J. M. Deacon,
(Mrs) Secretary
(E-mail)
Sent:09 January 2009 14:40
Subject: Re Letter
Dear Jan,
With reference to your letter dated 2nd January 2009.
My letter dated 23rd December 2008 was addressed to The Committee of the B.I.C.C. and as it is they who will be called to account for any failings it is important that they fully understand both the content and implications of that letter.
I must point out to you, in order that you can so advise the Committee, that whether I was or was not an "excluded" member of the B.I.C.C. at the time of posting out of proposals is a matter of fact and not one of opinion. It is a fact that I was at that time, and remain, a full member of the B.I.C.C.
Best wishes
Nigel
Comment
The AGM on 11th January 2009 went ahead and I could only assume that my letter had been ignored. A question was asked about the proposals submitted by Mr. Morris and the questioner was told that they had been found out of order and that Mr. Morris had been informed in case he wished to re-submit them and that they had heard no more from him. One Committee member asked at which meeting the proposals had been found out of order and was told at the Meeting held immediately after that which excluded me.
The 11th January Committee meeting minutes, when published, made no mention of my letter. I lodged an Appeal to Southern Region, concerning the AGM proceeding without these proposals being considered, and received the Appeal documents towards the end of February which contained the following:
(Letter)
11 February 2009
Dear Hazel,
As you are aware, we have an ongoing situation with Mr Nigel Lane. He was asked to attend a meeting under R.P.R.A. Rule 169 on 121h November 2008 to examine his conduct which he failed to attend. We were hoping, at the time, that we could resolve the matter at the meeting but due to his absence this was not possible. At the meeting it was decided in his absence to exclude him from the Club until he was prepared to apologise and retract the articles that he had placed on certain web sites. After the meeting some discussion took place about some propositions that Mr Lane had submitted for the A.G.M. on 11th January 2009. The Committee decided for various reasons that they were not suitable to be put forward, one of them being that as he was now an excluded member they were no longer valid.
We then place the propositions we had and other relevant paperwork in the hands of our printers as we only have a short period of time to get paperwork printed and then sent out to approximately 1200 members so that they can examine, vote and return to us before the A.G.M.
When we received the letter on the 12th December 2008 stating that Mr Lane had appealed against our decision all the paperwork had been sent our to the members. We received an email from Mr Lane on December 23rd which we enclosed, stating that he thought that the A.G.M. would be out of order because we had not submitted his propositions to be voted on. We explained that this would be impossible to do due to the time factor and the fact that he was an excluded member of the Club at the time of posting relevant paperwork out to our members.
To conclude, Mr Lane was well aware that his propositions could not be dealt with due to his exclusion from the club, otherwise why did he get Mr Morrison to submit exactly the same propositions? We returned these immediately to Mr Morrison stating the reasons to give him a chance to re-submit if he wanted but heard no more from him
Yours in the sport
A. J. Deacon M. Bunney
Chairman President
Comment.
Here I must ask you to start making some comparisons of detail, if you have not already begun to do so. The above is a letter addressed to the Secretary of Southern Region and I can only assume it is the B.I.C.C. response to my appeal concerning the AGM. You will note it is signed by the Chairman and President and thus carries some authority but it also carries a number of untruths. In the last sentence of the first paragraph the reason for this entire episode is revealed “as he was now an excluded member they were no longer valid.” It is wrong of course but it demonstrates the mindset. I was excluded on 21/11/08 and even within the B.I.C.C.’s own letter they state I have 21 days to lodge an Appeal, which means that the exclusion does not take effect until that period has expired and if an appeal is lodged then it does not take effect until the expiration of proceedings. In other words I, or anybody else effected in this way, remains a member during this period. Those 21 days ran to 12th December when, in the above letter they even acknowledge having received notification of appeal themselves let alone at Southern Region, so they knew within the time scale.
But let us assume for a brief moment that I was excluded at that time, what about the proposals submitted by Mr Morris and Mr Bennett. “We returned these immediately to Mr Morrison stating the reasons to give him a chance to re-submit if he wanted but heard no more from him” What do you call immediately? To give him a chance to re-submit if he wanted! The proposals were required by 1st December, so look at the date on the letter to Mr. Morris above, 4th December, and if that were not enough the envelope containing this letter, with the stamp carefully removed, was dispatched within the envelope containing the voting slips and balance sheet and posted on 15th December and received on 21st December. What chance did that give? And what reasons did they give for rejection, Incorrectly worded. Too ambiguous. Contravening R.P.R.A. rules. Mr. Morris, Mr. Bennett and I accept that one of these propositions, namely No 5, could be considered to be contrary to R.P.R.A. Rules, but the rest, judge them yourself.
Proposals for change of B.I.C.C. Rules proposed by:-
William Morris ES 202
.................................................................................................
Seconded by
Bernard Bennett ES 64
..............................................................................................
1. Delete General Rule 5 and replace with.
The primary objective of the B.I.C.C. is to Organise, Encourage and Enable British participation in the Western European International Racing programme. Its secondary objective is to organise a series of at least five National races to both school and train pigeons for the International races and provide and stimulate National competition. These races will be reviewed and determined annually by the Management Committee and will reflect the expressed wishes of the Membership.
2. Delete General Rule 15 and Replace with.
The B.I.C.C. shall be divided into Sections for Racing purposes. The Sections will reflect the wide boundaries of the Club, geography, race distances and membership in order to make the distribution of prizes and positions more equitable and fair to the entire membership. The sections will be reviewed and determined annually by the Committee.
3. Delete Racing Rule 3 and 5 and Replace with.
Distribution of Prices and Awards will be reviewed and determined annually by the Committee.
4. Delete Racing Rule 6 and replace with.
International Races. Every pigeon timed must be verified within 60 minutes of timing.
National Races. The first pigeon timed must be verified within 60 minutes of timing. When verifying the following information must be given:- B.I.C.C. Number, Name, Town, Ring number, the time clocked in and anyWing Marks when applicable. If the race extends beyond three days then verification must be within 12 hours.
5. Delete Racing Rule 7 and Replace with
The duration of all races, and the result, will extend to 25% of the entry.
6. Delete Racing Rule 12 and Clock Rule 7, Replace with
All International entries and timings must comply with International Rules, which will be advised by the Secretary.
The following proposal to be made to Region for a change to R.P.R.A. Rules
1) R.P.R.A. Rule 182. Delete the words, “and the annual election of officers of the organization”.
New rule to read: -
“If an organization has members residing outside the area of a circle of 50 mile radius centered on the headquarters of the organization, all resolutions to be submitted to general meetings of the organization shall be permitted to be dealt with by votes submitted in writing by the members and the secretary of the organization shall send appropriate voting papers to members for this purpose, provided that adoption of the secretary’s annual report and the annual accounts and balance sheet of the organization shall not be permitted to be dealt with by postal vote.
(E-mail)
Sent: 18 December 2008 14:36
To: jeanette.deacon3@ntlworld.com <mailto:jeanette.deacon3@ntlworld.com>
Subject: Propositions
Dear Mrs Deacon,
I recieved today the 18th Of December" BICC" propositions, and note the seven propositions I seconded with Mr W Morris of Horchurch being the proposer is not included on the agenda. These propositions were sent recorded to your address, could you please confirm whether you recieved them or if you did, why they are not included on the agenda.
yours in sport Mr B Bennett ES025
(E-mail)
To: 'Bernard Bennett'
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:40 PM
Subject: RE: Propositions
Hello Mr Morris,
The propositions that were sent in by Mr Morris and originally sent in by Mr Nigel Lane were discussed by the committee and they were not accepted for various reasons that were listed in the letter to Mr Morris.
Jan
(Letter)
4th December 2008
Mr W. Morris,
1 Fernbank Ave., Elm Park,
Hornchurch,
Essex
RM12 5RA
Dear Mr Morris,
Re. Proposals for chance of B.LC.C. Rules.
Further to receipt of your proposals for the change of B.I.C.C. rules, these were put before the Committee for their opinions.
Unfortunately the Committee decided that they would not be accepted for the following reasons: -
Incorrectly worded.
Too ambiguous.
Contravening R.P.R.A. rules.
Also they were seconded by a Mr B Bennett stating his membership number as ES64 but this is the membership number of Mr & Mrs J Cheverst.
Yours in the sport
J Deacon, (Mrs)
Secretary
(Letter)
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The B.I.C.C. Committee,
2, Silverdale Drive,
Waterlooville,
PO7 6DN
Dear Committee Members,
You must all know that I remain a Full Member of the B.I.C.C. until the appeal procedure is exhausted.
I have learnt from some members, who have received the propositions for the approaching AGM, that the propositions I submitted have not been included. Further to that the propositions submitted by Mr William Morris, which were identical, have also not been included.
I understand that Mr Morris has been informed that “the Committee” decided that they would not accept his propositions. The Committee have no authority to act in this way. It is the absolute right of the Member to make proposals for alterations and additions unimpeded or otherwise influenced by the Committee or any other body or power. The sole exception to that is:-
156. No alteration or addition to the rules of the Organisation which would conflict with any of the Rules of the Association shall be permitted to be proposed.
This may have been considered to apply to Proposal 5, and if it had been so excluded that would have been one thing but to discard them all is a continuing act of dictatorial arrogance which this Committee is demonstrating time after time.
You still have an opportunity to put right your mistake and reassume your proper role, which is one of service and representation. You must postpone the approaching AGM and put these proposals out to the vote. If you fail to do this then the scheduled AGM will be out of order and you will leave me with no alternative but to take the matter to Southern Region.
Yours faithfully
Nigel Lane
(E-mail)
2nd January 2009
Dear Nigel,
With reference to your letter dated 23`d December 2008.
Unfortunately, as you were an excluded member of the B.I.C.C. at the time of posting out the propositions and amendments your propositions, although considered incorrect for various reasons by the committee, were not dealt with.
Yours in the sport
J. M. Deacon,
(Mrs) Secretary
(E-mail)
Sent:09 January 2009 14:40
Subject: Re Letter
Dear Jan,
With reference to your letter dated 2nd January 2009.
My letter dated 23rd December 2008 was addressed to The Committee of the B.I.C.C. and as it is they who will be called to account for any failings it is important that they fully understand both the content and implications of that letter.
I must point out to you, in order that you can so advise the Committee, that whether I was or was not an "excluded" member of the B.I.C.C. at the time of posting out of proposals is a matter of fact and not one of opinion. It is a fact that I was at that time, and remain, a full member of the B.I.C.C.
Best wishes
Nigel
Comment
The AGM on 11th January 2009 went ahead and I could only assume that my letter had been ignored. A question was asked about the proposals submitted by Mr. Morris and the questioner was told that they had been found out of order and that Mr. Morris had been informed in case he wished to re-submit them and that they had heard no more from him. One Committee member asked at which meeting the proposals had been found out of order and was told at the Meeting held immediately after that which excluded me.
The 11th January Committee meeting minutes, when published, made no mention of my letter. I lodged an Appeal to Southern Region, concerning the AGM proceeding without these proposals being considered, and received the Appeal documents towards the end of February which contained the following:
(Letter)
11 February 2009
Dear Hazel,
As you are aware, we have an ongoing situation with Mr Nigel Lane. He was asked to attend a meeting under R.P.R.A. Rule 169 on 121h November 2008 to examine his conduct which he failed to attend. We were hoping, at the time, that we could resolve the matter at the meeting but due to his absence this was not possible. At the meeting it was decided in his absence to exclude him from the Club until he was prepared to apologise and retract the articles that he had placed on certain web sites. After the meeting some discussion took place about some propositions that Mr Lane had submitted for the A.G.M. on 11th January 2009. The Committee decided for various reasons that they were not suitable to be put forward, one of them being that as he was now an excluded member they were no longer valid.
We then place the propositions we had and other relevant paperwork in the hands of our printers as we only have a short period of time to get paperwork printed and then sent out to approximately 1200 members so that they can examine, vote and return to us before the A.G.M.
When we received the letter on the 12th December 2008 stating that Mr Lane had appealed against our decision all the paperwork had been sent our to the members. We received an email from Mr Lane on December 23rd which we enclosed, stating that he thought that the A.G.M. would be out of order because we had not submitted his propositions to be voted on. We explained that this would be impossible to do due to the time factor and the fact that he was an excluded member of the Club at the time of posting relevant paperwork out to our members.
To conclude, Mr Lane was well aware that his propositions could not be dealt with due to his exclusion from the club, otherwise why did he get Mr Morrison to submit exactly the same propositions? We returned these immediately to Mr Morrison stating the reasons to give him a chance to re-submit if he wanted but heard no more from him
Yours in the sport
A. J. Deacon M. Bunney
Chairman President
Comment.
Here I must ask you to start making some comparisons of detail, if you have not already begun to do so. The above is a letter addressed to the Secretary of Southern Region and I can only assume it is the B.I.C.C. response to my appeal concerning the AGM. You will note it is signed by the Chairman and President and thus carries some authority but it also carries a number of untruths. In the last sentence of the first paragraph the reason for this entire episode is revealed “as he was now an excluded member they were no longer valid.” It is wrong of course but it demonstrates the mindset. I was excluded on 21/11/08 and even within the B.I.C.C.’s own letter they state I have 21 days to lodge an Appeal, which means that the exclusion does not take effect until that period has expired and if an appeal is lodged then it does not take effect until the expiration of proceedings. In other words I, or anybody else effected in this way, remains a member during this period. Those 21 days ran to 12th December when, in the above letter they even acknowledge having received notification of appeal themselves let alone at Southern Region, so they knew within the time scale.
But let us assume for a brief moment that I was excluded at that time, what about the proposals submitted by Mr Morris and Mr Bennett. “We returned these immediately to Mr Morrison stating the reasons to give him a chance to re-submit if he wanted but heard no more from him” What do you call immediately? To give him a chance to re-submit if he wanted! The proposals were required by 1st December, so look at the date on the letter to Mr. Morris above, 4th December, and if that were not enough the envelope containing this letter, with the stamp carefully removed, was dispatched within the envelope containing the voting slips and balance sheet and posted on 15th December and received on 21st December. What chance did that give? And what reasons did they give for rejection, Incorrectly worded. Too ambiguous. Contravening R.P.R.A. rules. Mr. Morris, Mr. Bennett and I accept that one of these propositions, namely No 5, could be considered to be contrary to R.P.R.A. Rules, but the rest, judge them yourself.
Here you can see the envelopes concerned. Bill, because of his failing eyesight, marked them B I C C so that he could identify them. To the right you can see what remains after the stamp had been peeled off and below the postmark and date they were posted.
I must ask when were the proposals submitted by Mr Morris considered and by whom? When asked at the AGM the answer was, at the Meeting held immediately after that which excluded me i.e. 21st November. Clearly, as they were not submitted until after this date, they could not actually have been considered at that meeting. Perhaps it was meant that, as they were identical to those I had submitted, the decision relating to them was carried over without further scrutiny. But when and by whom were the proposals that I had submitted considered? No minutes have been produced, although they were required to be by the Appeal procedure, so do any minutes exist? If it was a meeting then minutes should have been taken. If no minutes exist then can it have been a meeting? If it was not a meeting how could the decision have been reached? And so on and so on.
“We received an email from Mr Lane on December 23rd which we enclosed,” No such email was enclosed, perhaps because it was a letter, but then the letter was not enclosed either. This might seem a trivial difference except that at the Southern Region hearing Mr. Deacon declared that the B.I.C.C. did not respond to emails. He also stated that they had never received a letter dated 23rd December insisting it was an email. It was only at this stage that I realised the Committee had never seen that letter and that it had never been delivered to them. I pointed out to Mr. Deacon, before the Southern Region Committee, that clearly they had received the letter as evidenced by the letter from the Secretary dated 2nd January 2009, see above. The President was present at this hearing and heard this evidence. I must ask what enquiries has he made about this letter?
At the opening of the AGM those present may recall Mr. Deacon’s mini tirade against me in which he announced to all that I was present and stated, amongst other things, that I had accused him of committing incest. What he was actually referring to was this sentence “In effect this denies the bulk of members any say in the affairs of the Club whilst at the same time encouraging the incestuous re-election of a small clique which goes on throughout the sport right up to and including R.P.R.A. Council.” taken from “Its Small Change”. Because someone else had queried my use of this word I had included a definition from the Concise Oxford Dictionary. Could Mr. Deacon really believe what he was saying here or was it merely a ploy? I dismissed it at the time as a bit of theatre but on reflection perhaps it was a little more sinister. Perhaps this act was laying ground to deflect any comment I might make about the letter or I suppose anything else.
You may wonder why anyone would want to suppress these proposals but at the 26th October Committee meeting Mr. Deacon stated that they, although subsequently it has been pointed out that he only really meant the Secretary, would not carry on unless the number of races was reduced. The first of these propositions sought to establish at least the same number of races if not more, which was the feeling and desire of many I knew. Clearly it might have been felt that the majority of the membership might want this.
In the final analysis of course the R.P.R.A. Council found the B.I.C.C. Committee’s action “reasonable”. Perhaps that tells you more about Council than I possibly could, so I will not dwell on it. Instead, in Chapter 5, I will try to demonstrate that everything I stated in the articles was true. It is not easy to do of course because often, without verifiable documentation which I have tried to supply you with here, it is just one word against another. However with the help of the Presidents critique I hope to verify most of it. There were of course some independent people at the meeting who in normal circumstances might be able to verify some of what I say, but I have no wish to open them up to the vitriol I have received. Lets us see if we cannot do it out of the mouths of those directly concerned.
Nigel Lane
“We received an email from Mr Lane on December 23rd which we enclosed,” No such email was enclosed, perhaps because it was a letter, but then the letter was not enclosed either. This might seem a trivial difference except that at the Southern Region hearing Mr. Deacon declared that the B.I.C.C. did not respond to emails. He also stated that they had never received a letter dated 23rd December insisting it was an email. It was only at this stage that I realised the Committee had never seen that letter and that it had never been delivered to them. I pointed out to Mr. Deacon, before the Southern Region Committee, that clearly they had received the letter as evidenced by the letter from the Secretary dated 2nd January 2009, see above. The President was present at this hearing and heard this evidence. I must ask what enquiries has he made about this letter?
At the opening of the AGM those present may recall Mr. Deacon’s mini tirade against me in which he announced to all that I was present and stated, amongst other things, that I had accused him of committing incest. What he was actually referring to was this sentence “In effect this denies the bulk of members any say in the affairs of the Club whilst at the same time encouraging the incestuous re-election of a small clique which goes on throughout the sport right up to and including R.P.R.A. Council.” taken from “Its Small Change”. Because someone else had queried my use of this word I had included a definition from the Concise Oxford Dictionary. Could Mr. Deacon really believe what he was saying here or was it merely a ploy? I dismissed it at the time as a bit of theatre but on reflection perhaps it was a little more sinister. Perhaps this act was laying ground to deflect any comment I might make about the letter or I suppose anything else.
You may wonder why anyone would want to suppress these proposals but at the 26th October Committee meeting Mr. Deacon stated that they, although subsequently it has been pointed out that he only really meant the Secretary, would not carry on unless the number of races was reduced. The first of these propositions sought to establish at least the same number of races if not more, which was the feeling and desire of many I knew. Clearly it might have been felt that the majority of the membership might want this.
In the final analysis of course the R.P.R.A. Council found the B.I.C.C. Committee’s action “reasonable”. Perhaps that tells you more about Council than I possibly could, so I will not dwell on it. Instead, in Chapter 5, I will try to demonstrate that everything I stated in the articles was true. It is not easy to do of course because often, without verifiable documentation which I have tried to supply you with here, it is just one word against another. However with the help of the Presidents critique I hope to verify most of it. There were of course some independent people at the meeting who in normal circumstances might be able to verify some of what I say, but I have no wish to open them up to the vitriol I have received. Lets us see if we cannot do it out of the mouths of those directly concerned.
Nigel Lane