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 5.
Chapter 5.
In an earlier Chapter I stated that I received the Notification of Complaint before I was able to offer Mr Bunney an opportunity to correct mistakes that I felt his response contained. However as it was published on the IPRR web site I shall deal with it as it was received. Below you will see the full text of Mr Bunney’s response, paragraph by paragraph, accompanied by my comments.
Reply to Nigel Lanes Letter re: BICC meeting 26-10-08
Having just read Mr. Lanes letter regarding the BICC meeting I am somewhat bemused as to how Mr. Lane came to his findings as I do not see his views as a true reflection of the meeting in question, my first reaction was to ignore it and assume him as just another trouble maker trying to make a name for himself by using controversy, but then on reflection I felt the need to reply as the truth needs to be conveyed for the good of the BICC committee and the future of our beloved sport.
Comment.
This is Mr Bunney’s opinion. I would merely draw your attention to his feeling that “the truth needs to be conveyed” something with which I both heartily agree and endeavour to carry out in everything I write.
In Mr. Lanes first paragraph he states there were no figures available for the committee to, as he puts it scrutinise, I can assure him there were figures available but were not asked to be viewed, what Mr. Lane fails to realise is that the majority of this committee have been together for a good number of years and within this time a certain amount of trust and respect has transpired, it is probably for this reason that when a statement is made by a committee member, written proof is not required and the spoken word is accepted when deciding certain matters, although again I reiterate figures were there to be viewed if called upon.
Comment.
Mr Bunney states “In Mr. Lanes first paragraph he states there were no figures available for the committee to, as he puts it scrutinise” similar to that, according to the minutes, which he subsequently stated at the 21st November 2008 Committee Meeting “It was also pointed out by Mr Bunney that Mr Lane had stated there was no detailed set of accounts and financial analysis' on the table.” I said nothing of the kind, I did not mention “available” or “on the table” and my use of the word scrutiny did not even relate to the Committee’s consideration at all. What I actually said, in referring to the Committee, was “you would no doubt expect that they would have before them a detailed set of accounts and financial analysis. Actually they had nothing at all, not even a scrap of paper. Added to that not one Committee member asked for this detail either.” If you think I am merely being pedantic over the use of a few words then I am afraid you have missed the point of what I was saying altogether, as well as allowing Mr Bunney’s exercise in obscuration to work.
I attended and reported on a Committee meeting. If you read that first paragraph you will see that my criticisms were of the Committee and the way it worked, not any particular element’s or individuals but the Committee as a whole. Immediately however this presents a problem. I have observed, and others have mentioned to me, that Mr and Mrs Deacon seem to believe that they are the Committee while, more unfortunately, the rest of the Committee appear to believe this as well. This is where the heart of the problem lies. The whole point of having a Committee is that it is part of a democratic management process. It should be drawn from the constituent parts of the organisation and both reflect and represent the views of all members. It is there to test, evaluate and implement the best options on behalf of the membership and it is each Committee member’s duty to participate in this process. If it does not perform that function it fails. If it simply follows the dictat of one or two individuals, however well meaning and informed they may be, then there is no point in having a Committee at all.
I did not say that the Secretary/Treasurer did not have a pile of books next to her, which nobody looked at or referred to, because that would have been untrue. The Secretary/Treasurer did have a pile of books next to her, which nobody looked at or referred to. I said that the Committee had nothing before them, as in front of as “before their very eyes”. I did not say that Mr and Mrs Deacon had not done any research or made any preparation because, from this meeting, I could have no idea what they had done but more to the point the Committee could have no idea either because nothing of the kind was presented or put before them. I have no idea what the books beside the Secretary/Treasurer contained, your guess is as good as mine or the Committees for that matter because nobody looked at them and nothing was presented from them.
Mr Bunney goes on to extol the virtues of the Committee and talks of the apparently blind trust that has built up over years. Here he can only be talking about Mr and Mrs Deacon, as clearly they are the ones who do the work. If he is saying that this Committee simply takes the word of Mr and Mrs Deacon, or anybody else for that matter, without question or evaluation then, in so doing, they fail to carry out a primary function and duty. This admission alone, I would suggest, is prima-facie evidence that the statement “this committee, in its present form, is, in that popular phrase, not fit for purpose.” is true.
But how did this blind trust ever arise? You can clearly see, from the examples in these Chapters alone, that the output from Mr and Mrs Deacon is littered with errors. Many are small and carry little individual significance but they are indicative of a sloppy approach and lack of attention to detail. For instance when replying to Bernie Bennett’s e-mail, addressing him as Mr Morris is not the greatest sin but it is quite rude. Then in the appeal document dated 11th February, signed by the Chairman and President, referring to Mr Morrison when it should have been Mr Morris is again quite shabby, not to mention the highly dubious nature of the statement itself. Then getting the relevant Rule numbers confused in the appeal document dated 24th March, signed by the Secretary and President, is hardly inspiring. Some errors have more significance of course, like that over ETS timing, and the refusal to change or enquire when errors are pointed out displays a contemptible blend of ignorance and arrogance. These are just some of the errors to be seen in this small sample which gives every reason to believe that others abound but never get revealed. Two other areas that display this sloppiness are the Minutes of Meetings which are scant and inadequate to say the least. It would be only too easy to blame the Secretary, but this would be unfair as within her ability range she has made quite a good fist of the job, but they are the Committee Minutes and it is the Committee’s duty to see that they are correct. Then of course there are race results. When can you last recall a result that was correct first time? Results enjoy the luxury of each competitor eagerly searching through to see that their own result is correct and so mistakes are found and put right, but this is precisely the job the Committee should be doing with the entire Club’s business. How could any responsible group come to accept blind trust in such circumstances?
So while Mr Bunney misconstrues my words about available data he confirms that my comments about what the Committee was provided with, what they saw and what they acted upon was true. “I can assure him there were figures available but were not asked to be viewed”
Mr. Lane finishes this paragraph stating the committee are not fit for purpose, I would like to point out to Mr. Lane that as far as I am aware he has attended three meeting and as yet he has said nothing of any interest and has added no comments that are worth repeating, having said that I ask myself what right has Mr. Lane got to judge and try to decry the BICC committees integrity, this committee work for the good of the sport, without pay or praise and should be applauded, I would also like to point out to Mr. Lane that under this as he calls it, not fit for purpose committee, the membership and finances has quadrupled within the BICC, not bad considering our sport is in a decline.
Comment.
I will leave you to make your judgement about my comments. One is documented in Chapter 2, relating to the Rule on Electronic timing, the others unfortunately are not and so cannot be compared in that way.
The final statement in this paragraph I find intriguing. Here we have Mr Bunney trying to claim, on behalf of himself and his cohorts, full credit for the undoubted success the B.I.C.C. enjoyed under the direction of Brian Long. There is no doubt of course that Mr and Mrs Deacon did the work but you only have to look at the communications I had with them, documented in these Chapters, to see who actually controlled every single move.
Mr. Lanes second paragraph he refers to the chairman's comments that the secretary is not prepared to continue with the same amount of races as this year as the secretary found it not manageable to have two races on the same weekend and wanted one race to be dropped, Mr. Lane states a new secretary should have been considered, on this point he may be right and a new secretary possibly should have been considered, in defence of the committee I would like to state the current secretary has done an excellent job and the committee would be more than reluctant to find a new secretary taking into consideration we are going through a transition period having just lost our president Mr. Brian Long, perhaps Mr. Lane would also like to consider secretary's do not grow on trees especially excellent ones and you only have to look at the British Barcelona Club whose secretary only lasted one year and also the trouble the National Flying Club had prior to the appointment of Sid Barkel.
Comment.
Mr Bunney concedes that the Committee probably should have considered a new secretary, in effect accepting that what I said was true, and so I have no wish to labour this point. He also corroborates that the Secretary’s inability to cope came from Mr and Mrs Deacon and not from me as has been suggested elsewhere. I agree with him that good secretaries are not easy to find but the concept adopted by this Committee, and defended by him here, of when making a suit cutting the cloth to fit the tailor rather than the customer I find quite absurd.
Mr. Lanes third paragraph he writes that there were no detailed information for the committee to act upon regarding pick up times of birds from the marking stations, obviously Mr. Lane did not see or perhaps want to see the written document put forward by the chairman explaining pick up points and suggested times for same, this had to be discussed with the convoyer to see it times were viable considering time of day, traffic etc again Mr. Lane only sees what he wants to see.
Comment.
Once again I did not say “that there were no detailed information for the committee to act upon regarding pick up times of birds from the marking stations” And once again I did not say it because it would have been untrue. It is quite true that Mr Deacon did produce a list of times and pick up points, but it was wrong. The convoyer had to work out a provisional list himself there and then. But this of course obscures the point I did seek to make and that is that there was no detailed information supplied for the Committee to base its decision to change the ferry route from Dover to Portsmouth, the time at pick up points being entirely dependent on this decision. This fait accompli was accomplished so well by Mr Deacon that one Committee member told me, just after the meeting, that he did not believe they had decided to go by that route at all. You will not find it in the minutes, neither was there a vote, but the decision had been made nevertheless. If not, why the fuss over pick up times and the route? In the minutes of course it merely mentions the lack of a small transporter, which would have some effect, but the real reason for route changes and times was the change in ferry route, a decision made without any detailed evaluation provided at all. It might have been the right thing to do of course, I do not know, but the point I sought to make was that there was no way that the Committee could have known it was the right thing to do on the information available to them.
Mr.Lane's forth paragraph states that the rise of birdage costs was plucked from the air, yet again he fails to inform, the secretary went to great lengths to explain in detail extra costs involved for the forthcoming season taking into consideration the BICC has to stand on its own and will not be receiving the generous donations from the late Brian Long, I will add to this Brian did not invoice all costs to the BICC, he paid some transporter costs himself through his transport business, obviously these extra costs have to be met by the BICC birdage and at this stage the secretary could only make an educated guess what the costs will be.
Comment.
This paragraph is nothing more than a complete admission that the Committee had little idea of what exactly was going on while Brian Long managed the Club. Why not? It would have been one thing to accept donations from Mr Long, or anybody else, but it is quite another not to account for them.
I think we all realised that Mr Long had control of the finances which is why it was so important that the Committee acquired a detailed knowledge of them as soon as possible and made its decisions in light of that detailed knowledge and analysis. None of this happened of course. It was a disgrace.
Then we come to the 20p per bird for the marking stations, which Mr. Lane writes sarcastically and I quote, to suit the secretary, what's the problem it was voted in with only one against, does Mr. Lane begrudge the markers having a drink for their efforts.
Again Mr. Lane fails to inform the facts.
Comment.
Clearly I did miss something here, I did not realise until I read this paragraph that the reason for the 20p charge was to supply the markers with drink. Had I known that I would have written something quite different. What I understood this to be, from the only explanation given, was a method of marking stations recouping expenses directly themselves at source and so alleviating the Secretary of the task of paying them out when claimed at a later date. There were no criteria discussed or established about what expenses could or should be included although it was clear that some marking stations had made various claims while others had made none. The method of arriving at the figure was quite novel. Mr Deacon, without producing any figures to justify the amount, said 20p, while Mr Wills stated it was too much and said 10p, then both for the next full 2-3 minutes faced each other off, almost shouting, 10p, 20p, 10p, 20p and so on until 20p was the final figure mentioned. At the hearing before Council Mr Deacon stated that this figure had been previously calculated and agreed between himself, Mr Bunney and Mr Wills, an interesting contrast. What a pity he did not mention this to the Committee at the meeting, or perhaps Mr Wills, as it could have saved some time.
Fifth paragraph, Mr. Lane is about right except he fails to inform that the £2500 per annum has in the past been paid for by Brian Long.
Comment.
Yet again it seems what I said was true.
Mr. Lanes next paragraph are his finding and ideas, I see no reason to comment apart from the last line of the paragraph where he states he offered to establish a web site for £20, yes he did offer this but fails to mention that he was informed that the search engine at this cost was not possible taking into account the BICC has approximately 1500 members.
Comment.
Here we have a perfect example of the way Mr Bunney and this Committee act. Without the slightest trace of knowledge or possession of any facts he offers a definitive account of something which is actually false in every particular. It is true that I offered to run a web site for £15-20. However I quickly withdrew the offer, realising I should not have made it in the first place, saying to myself “Why should I do this for this bunch of cow-boys.” I would have been more than happy to do this for the Club and its members but not for this Committee.
Mr Bunney states “he was informed that the search engine at this cost was not possible” what he is actually referring to was a question “What about the bandwidth because that’s the trouble we had at the NFC.” Bandwidth and Search Engine are two quite different things and I would not necessarily expect Mr Bunney to know the difference, but if he does not know why talk of them with such authority? As a small matter of fact I run several web sites on a single hosting package which has the capacity for several more sites, and the Bandwidth on that package is described as “Unlimited”. The price I quoted was realistic and I felt a suitable proportion of what I pay for the whole package. The work I would have gladly done for nothing. Incidentally the web site is in place; just a specimen front page but you can find it HERE.
He then goes on “taking into account the BICC has approximately 1500 members.” From where I wonder did this figure arrive? Looking at the official B.I.C.C. Press Report of the 2008 Prize Presentation we see “The BICC looks set for a good season with 83 new members bringing the total to 1152” which means that at the time Mr Bunney quoted the 1,500 figure the membership was really just over 1,000, making him almost 50% wrong, and he accuses me of not presenting “a true reflection” when he “felt the need to reply as the truth needs to be conveyed”. Now perhaps Mr Bunney has just made a simple mistake, but wouldn’t you expect him to check his facts in these circumstances, or is it deliberate in an attempt to embroider his case, or was he misled, or did he just guess, or couldn’t he care less, or is this just another example of the many, many careless errors you find throughout the work of the B.I.C.C. Whatever else it was it wasn’t true.
Mr. Lanes next paragraph is again his own opinions, I personally am not prepared to finance the northern section nor am I prepared to vote on spending BICC money to subsidise a particular section.
Comment.
This final statement I find quite incredible for a man who is now President of what purports to be a National Club, but it sits well with a comment he made in an earlier paragraph “I ask myself what right has Mr. Lane got to judge and try to decry the BICC committees integrity” Here we see quite plainly the division he perceives between them, the Committee, and us (I was a member at this time) the members. What gave me a right to judge the Committee was simple, I was a Member, and what more authority should I need? What he clearly forgets, ignores or fails to understand is that it is he and the Committee that have a DUTY to us, the members, a duty to work on our behalf and represent us not dictate to us. This sense of duty seems to have gone missing from our society which you can see reflected in every area right up to Government itself, they all seem to think that they are above reproach, above criticism and even in some cases above the law but in all cases they are quite sure they are above us.
Finally I must ask, where does providing a service to members end and subsidy begin? How far from Portsmouth do you really have to be before it becomes “financing”? Are all B.I.C.C members equal or are some more equal than others?
Mr. Lanes ends by saying do not despair.
My reply, with people such as him reporting on meetings, PLEASE DESPAIR.
Mike Bunney,
Vice President B.I.C.C.
Comment.
Before the R.P.R.A Council Mr Deacon stated that all I had written about that Committee meeting, in these articles, was lies, all lies. I think you can see here that even Mr Bunney, who has tried valiantly to defend and help his friend, could not bring himself to quite that point. You will see above, I believe, that Mr Bunney, apart from his attempts to obscure, accepts pretty much that all I had to say was true. In the final analysis of course it is up to you.
In Chapter 6 I shall lay before you my defence.
Nigel Lane
Reply to Nigel Lanes Letter re: BICC meeting 26-10-08
Having just read Mr. Lanes letter regarding the BICC meeting I am somewhat bemused as to how Mr. Lane came to his findings as I do not see his views as a true reflection of the meeting in question, my first reaction was to ignore it and assume him as just another trouble maker trying to make a name for himself by using controversy, but then on reflection I felt the need to reply as the truth needs to be conveyed for the good of the BICC committee and the future of our beloved sport.
Comment.
This is Mr Bunney’s opinion. I would merely draw your attention to his feeling that “the truth needs to be conveyed” something with which I both heartily agree and endeavour to carry out in everything I write.
In Mr. Lanes first paragraph he states there were no figures available for the committee to, as he puts it scrutinise, I can assure him there were figures available but were not asked to be viewed, what Mr. Lane fails to realise is that the majority of this committee have been together for a good number of years and within this time a certain amount of trust and respect has transpired, it is probably for this reason that when a statement is made by a committee member, written proof is not required and the spoken word is accepted when deciding certain matters, although again I reiterate figures were there to be viewed if called upon.
Comment.
Mr Bunney states “In Mr. Lanes first paragraph he states there were no figures available for the committee to, as he puts it scrutinise” similar to that, according to the minutes, which he subsequently stated at the 21st November 2008 Committee Meeting “It was also pointed out by Mr Bunney that Mr Lane had stated there was no detailed set of accounts and financial analysis' on the table.” I said nothing of the kind, I did not mention “available” or “on the table” and my use of the word scrutiny did not even relate to the Committee’s consideration at all. What I actually said, in referring to the Committee, was “you would no doubt expect that they would have before them a detailed set of accounts and financial analysis. Actually they had nothing at all, not even a scrap of paper. Added to that not one Committee member asked for this detail either.” If you think I am merely being pedantic over the use of a few words then I am afraid you have missed the point of what I was saying altogether, as well as allowing Mr Bunney’s exercise in obscuration to work.
I attended and reported on a Committee meeting. If you read that first paragraph you will see that my criticisms were of the Committee and the way it worked, not any particular element’s or individuals but the Committee as a whole. Immediately however this presents a problem. I have observed, and others have mentioned to me, that Mr and Mrs Deacon seem to believe that they are the Committee while, more unfortunately, the rest of the Committee appear to believe this as well. This is where the heart of the problem lies. The whole point of having a Committee is that it is part of a democratic management process. It should be drawn from the constituent parts of the organisation and both reflect and represent the views of all members. It is there to test, evaluate and implement the best options on behalf of the membership and it is each Committee member’s duty to participate in this process. If it does not perform that function it fails. If it simply follows the dictat of one or two individuals, however well meaning and informed they may be, then there is no point in having a Committee at all.
I did not say that the Secretary/Treasurer did not have a pile of books next to her, which nobody looked at or referred to, because that would have been untrue. The Secretary/Treasurer did have a pile of books next to her, which nobody looked at or referred to. I said that the Committee had nothing before them, as in front of as “before their very eyes”. I did not say that Mr and Mrs Deacon had not done any research or made any preparation because, from this meeting, I could have no idea what they had done but more to the point the Committee could have no idea either because nothing of the kind was presented or put before them. I have no idea what the books beside the Secretary/Treasurer contained, your guess is as good as mine or the Committees for that matter because nobody looked at them and nothing was presented from them.
Mr Bunney goes on to extol the virtues of the Committee and talks of the apparently blind trust that has built up over years. Here he can only be talking about Mr and Mrs Deacon, as clearly they are the ones who do the work. If he is saying that this Committee simply takes the word of Mr and Mrs Deacon, or anybody else for that matter, without question or evaluation then, in so doing, they fail to carry out a primary function and duty. This admission alone, I would suggest, is prima-facie evidence that the statement “this committee, in its present form, is, in that popular phrase, not fit for purpose.” is true.
But how did this blind trust ever arise? You can clearly see, from the examples in these Chapters alone, that the output from Mr and Mrs Deacon is littered with errors. Many are small and carry little individual significance but they are indicative of a sloppy approach and lack of attention to detail. For instance when replying to Bernie Bennett’s e-mail, addressing him as Mr Morris is not the greatest sin but it is quite rude. Then in the appeal document dated 11th February, signed by the Chairman and President, referring to Mr Morrison when it should have been Mr Morris is again quite shabby, not to mention the highly dubious nature of the statement itself. Then getting the relevant Rule numbers confused in the appeal document dated 24th March, signed by the Secretary and President, is hardly inspiring. Some errors have more significance of course, like that over ETS timing, and the refusal to change or enquire when errors are pointed out displays a contemptible blend of ignorance and arrogance. These are just some of the errors to be seen in this small sample which gives every reason to believe that others abound but never get revealed. Two other areas that display this sloppiness are the Minutes of Meetings which are scant and inadequate to say the least. It would be only too easy to blame the Secretary, but this would be unfair as within her ability range she has made quite a good fist of the job, but they are the Committee Minutes and it is the Committee’s duty to see that they are correct. Then of course there are race results. When can you last recall a result that was correct first time? Results enjoy the luxury of each competitor eagerly searching through to see that their own result is correct and so mistakes are found and put right, but this is precisely the job the Committee should be doing with the entire Club’s business. How could any responsible group come to accept blind trust in such circumstances?
So while Mr Bunney misconstrues my words about available data he confirms that my comments about what the Committee was provided with, what they saw and what they acted upon was true. “I can assure him there were figures available but were not asked to be viewed”
Mr. Lane finishes this paragraph stating the committee are not fit for purpose, I would like to point out to Mr. Lane that as far as I am aware he has attended three meeting and as yet he has said nothing of any interest and has added no comments that are worth repeating, having said that I ask myself what right has Mr. Lane got to judge and try to decry the BICC committees integrity, this committee work for the good of the sport, without pay or praise and should be applauded, I would also like to point out to Mr. Lane that under this as he calls it, not fit for purpose committee, the membership and finances has quadrupled within the BICC, not bad considering our sport is in a decline.
Comment.
I will leave you to make your judgement about my comments. One is documented in Chapter 2, relating to the Rule on Electronic timing, the others unfortunately are not and so cannot be compared in that way.
The final statement in this paragraph I find intriguing. Here we have Mr Bunney trying to claim, on behalf of himself and his cohorts, full credit for the undoubted success the B.I.C.C. enjoyed under the direction of Brian Long. There is no doubt of course that Mr and Mrs Deacon did the work but you only have to look at the communications I had with them, documented in these Chapters, to see who actually controlled every single move.
Mr. Lanes second paragraph he refers to the chairman's comments that the secretary is not prepared to continue with the same amount of races as this year as the secretary found it not manageable to have two races on the same weekend and wanted one race to be dropped, Mr. Lane states a new secretary should have been considered, on this point he may be right and a new secretary possibly should have been considered, in defence of the committee I would like to state the current secretary has done an excellent job and the committee would be more than reluctant to find a new secretary taking into consideration we are going through a transition period having just lost our president Mr. Brian Long, perhaps Mr. Lane would also like to consider secretary's do not grow on trees especially excellent ones and you only have to look at the British Barcelona Club whose secretary only lasted one year and also the trouble the National Flying Club had prior to the appointment of Sid Barkel.
Comment.
Mr Bunney concedes that the Committee probably should have considered a new secretary, in effect accepting that what I said was true, and so I have no wish to labour this point. He also corroborates that the Secretary’s inability to cope came from Mr and Mrs Deacon and not from me as has been suggested elsewhere. I agree with him that good secretaries are not easy to find but the concept adopted by this Committee, and defended by him here, of when making a suit cutting the cloth to fit the tailor rather than the customer I find quite absurd.
Mr. Lanes third paragraph he writes that there were no detailed information for the committee to act upon regarding pick up times of birds from the marking stations, obviously Mr. Lane did not see or perhaps want to see the written document put forward by the chairman explaining pick up points and suggested times for same, this had to be discussed with the convoyer to see it times were viable considering time of day, traffic etc again Mr. Lane only sees what he wants to see.
Comment.
Once again I did not say “that there were no detailed information for the committee to act upon regarding pick up times of birds from the marking stations” And once again I did not say it because it would have been untrue. It is quite true that Mr Deacon did produce a list of times and pick up points, but it was wrong. The convoyer had to work out a provisional list himself there and then. But this of course obscures the point I did seek to make and that is that there was no detailed information supplied for the Committee to base its decision to change the ferry route from Dover to Portsmouth, the time at pick up points being entirely dependent on this decision. This fait accompli was accomplished so well by Mr Deacon that one Committee member told me, just after the meeting, that he did not believe they had decided to go by that route at all. You will not find it in the minutes, neither was there a vote, but the decision had been made nevertheless. If not, why the fuss over pick up times and the route? In the minutes of course it merely mentions the lack of a small transporter, which would have some effect, but the real reason for route changes and times was the change in ferry route, a decision made without any detailed evaluation provided at all. It might have been the right thing to do of course, I do not know, but the point I sought to make was that there was no way that the Committee could have known it was the right thing to do on the information available to them.
Mr.Lane's forth paragraph states that the rise of birdage costs was plucked from the air, yet again he fails to inform, the secretary went to great lengths to explain in detail extra costs involved for the forthcoming season taking into consideration the BICC has to stand on its own and will not be receiving the generous donations from the late Brian Long, I will add to this Brian did not invoice all costs to the BICC, he paid some transporter costs himself through his transport business, obviously these extra costs have to be met by the BICC birdage and at this stage the secretary could only make an educated guess what the costs will be.
Comment.
This paragraph is nothing more than a complete admission that the Committee had little idea of what exactly was going on while Brian Long managed the Club. Why not? It would have been one thing to accept donations from Mr Long, or anybody else, but it is quite another not to account for them.
I think we all realised that Mr Long had control of the finances which is why it was so important that the Committee acquired a detailed knowledge of them as soon as possible and made its decisions in light of that detailed knowledge and analysis. None of this happened of course. It was a disgrace.
Then we come to the 20p per bird for the marking stations, which Mr. Lane writes sarcastically and I quote, to suit the secretary, what's the problem it was voted in with only one against, does Mr. Lane begrudge the markers having a drink for their efforts.
Again Mr. Lane fails to inform the facts.
Comment.
Clearly I did miss something here, I did not realise until I read this paragraph that the reason for the 20p charge was to supply the markers with drink. Had I known that I would have written something quite different. What I understood this to be, from the only explanation given, was a method of marking stations recouping expenses directly themselves at source and so alleviating the Secretary of the task of paying them out when claimed at a later date. There were no criteria discussed or established about what expenses could or should be included although it was clear that some marking stations had made various claims while others had made none. The method of arriving at the figure was quite novel. Mr Deacon, without producing any figures to justify the amount, said 20p, while Mr Wills stated it was too much and said 10p, then both for the next full 2-3 minutes faced each other off, almost shouting, 10p, 20p, 10p, 20p and so on until 20p was the final figure mentioned. At the hearing before Council Mr Deacon stated that this figure had been previously calculated and agreed between himself, Mr Bunney and Mr Wills, an interesting contrast. What a pity he did not mention this to the Committee at the meeting, or perhaps Mr Wills, as it could have saved some time.
Fifth paragraph, Mr. Lane is about right except he fails to inform that the £2500 per annum has in the past been paid for by Brian Long.
Comment.
Yet again it seems what I said was true.
Mr. Lanes next paragraph are his finding and ideas, I see no reason to comment apart from the last line of the paragraph where he states he offered to establish a web site for £20, yes he did offer this but fails to mention that he was informed that the search engine at this cost was not possible taking into account the BICC has approximately 1500 members.
Comment.
Here we have a perfect example of the way Mr Bunney and this Committee act. Without the slightest trace of knowledge or possession of any facts he offers a definitive account of something which is actually false in every particular. It is true that I offered to run a web site for £15-20. However I quickly withdrew the offer, realising I should not have made it in the first place, saying to myself “Why should I do this for this bunch of cow-boys.” I would have been more than happy to do this for the Club and its members but not for this Committee.
Mr Bunney states “he was informed that the search engine at this cost was not possible” what he is actually referring to was a question “What about the bandwidth because that’s the trouble we had at the NFC.” Bandwidth and Search Engine are two quite different things and I would not necessarily expect Mr Bunney to know the difference, but if he does not know why talk of them with such authority? As a small matter of fact I run several web sites on a single hosting package which has the capacity for several more sites, and the Bandwidth on that package is described as “Unlimited”. The price I quoted was realistic and I felt a suitable proportion of what I pay for the whole package. The work I would have gladly done for nothing. Incidentally the web site is in place; just a specimen front page but you can find it HERE.
He then goes on “taking into account the BICC has approximately 1500 members.” From where I wonder did this figure arrive? Looking at the official B.I.C.C. Press Report of the 2008 Prize Presentation we see “The BICC looks set for a good season with 83 new members bringing the total to 1152” which means that at the time Mr Bunney quoted the 1,500 figure the membership was really just over 1,000, making him almost 50% wrong, and he accuses me of not presenting “a true reflection” when he “felt the need to reply as the truth needs to be conveyed”. Now perhaps Mr Bunney has just made a simple mistake, but wouldn’t you expect him to check his facts in these circumstances, or is it deliberate in an attempt to embroider his case, or was he misled, or did he just guess, or couldn’t he care less, or is this just another example of the many, many careless errors you find throughout the work of the B.I.C.C. Whatever else it was it wasn’t true.
Mr. Lanes next paragraph is again his own opinions, I personally am not prepared to finance the northern section nor am I prepared to vote on spending BICC money to subsidise a particular section.
Comment.
This final statement I find quite incredible for a man who is now President of what purports to be a National Club, but it sits well with a comment he made in an earlier paragraph “I ask myself what right has Mr. Lane got to judge and try to decry the BICC committees integrity” Here we see quite plainly the division he perceives between them, the Committee, and us (I was a member at this time) the members. What gave me a right to judge the Committee was simple, I was a Member, and what more authority should I need? What he clearly forgets, ignores or fails to understand is that it is he and the Committee that have a DUTY to us, the members, a duty to work on our behalf and represent us not dictate to us. This sense of duty seems to have gone missing from our society which you can see reflected in every area right up to Government itself, they all seem to think that they are above reproach, above criticism and even in some cases above the law but in all cases they are quite sure they are above us.
Finally I must ask, where does providing a service to members end and subsidy begin? How far from Portsmouth do you really have to be before it becomes “financing”? Are all B.I.C.C members equal or are some more equal than others?
Mr. Lanes ends by saying do not despair.
My reply, with people such as him reporting on meetings, PLEASE DESPAIR.
Mike Bunney,
Vice President B.I.C.C.
Comment.
Before the R.P.R.A Council Mr Deacon stated that all I had written about that Committee meeting, in these articles, was lies, all lies. I think you can see here that even Mr Bunney, who has tried valiantly to defend and help his friend, could not bring himself to quite that point. You will see above, I believe, that Mr Bunney, apart from his attempts to obscure, accepts pretty much that all I had to say was true. In the final analysis of course it is up to you.
In Chapter 6 I shall lay before you my defence.
Nigel Lane