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 6.
Chapter 6.
Appeal against a judgement made by the Committee of the B.I.C.C. Dated 21st November 2008
I hereby appeal against a judgement made against me by the Committee, so convened, of the British International Championship Club on 21st November 2008. The facts are as follows:-
Brief Facts.
On 26th October 2008 the Committee of the B.I.C.C. held a meeting to decide various issues. I attended the meeting both out of my own personal interest, as a member of the B.I.C.C., and with the declared intent of writing about the meeting for the information of members who were themselves unable to attend.
I published this article on Racing Pigeon Post on 28th October, it was also published on the I.P.R.R. web site. The article contained a factual account of the meeting, though this was by no means comprehensive, as well as my opinions of the Committee’s working methods as observed on this occasion.
On 30/31st October I had an exchange of E-mail's with the secretary concerning the suggested Club web site.
I wrote another article entitled "Its Small Change" setting out changes I wished to see and my proposals to bring those changes about. This article was published on Racing Pigeon Post on 1st November and it was also published on I.P.R.R.
Both articles were featured in a Racing Pigeon Post Newsletter sent by E-mail to a subscribed list on 2nd November.
On 2nd November I received an E-mail response from the Chairman and Secretary of the B.I.C.C.. I had another exchange of E-mail's with the Secretary and I published their response, as a footnote to my original article, on Racing Pigeon Post in order that anybody coming upon the article would also come upon the response. It was also published on I.P.R.R.
On 3rd November I posted a comment to the Chairman and Secretary’s response on the I.P.R.R. web site.
On 4th November I received a response from a B.I.C.C. Vice President, Mr Bunney, which I acknowledged by E-mail. This response was published on the I.P.R.R. web site before I had an opportunity to query, with Mr Bunney, some of its content. I decided therefore to respond to it as published but before I was able to do so I received notice of the complaint.
On 7th November I received by E-mail the minutes of the 26th October Committee meeting.
On 13th November I received a letter from the B.I.C.C. Secretary, dated 12th November, notifying me of the complaint.
I requested particulars of this complaint by E-mail and letter.
On 14th November I received an E-mail with an attached letter, subsequently confirmed by post, stating the complainant was a Committee member but in effect declining any further detail.
On Tuesday 18th November I received a letter from the Secretary, dated 17th November, enclosing copies of the two articles I had written printed from the Racing Pigeon Post web site.
I wrote a letter dated 18th November addressed to the Committee setting out the grounds upon which I believed the proceedings failed and the reasons I had for not making any further comment at that stage.
On 21st November I sent a copy of the above letter by E-mail to the Secretary in case the original should have gone astray.
On 25th November I received a letter, dated 24th November, being the notification of findings and penalty imposed by the Committee.
On 26th November I received by E-mail a letter from the Chairman and Secretary that was to be published in the pigeon press.
Grounds for Appeal.
My grounds for appeal against this decision are:-
First that the Committee have failed to follow correct procedure both in fact, as regards rules of the R.P.R.A., and in spirit, in that they have failed to adhere to the basic principals of British justice.
Secondly that the Committee were not competent to deal with a complaint that, as far as can be judged, concerned the Committee as an interested party and was made, apparently, by a Committee member.
Thirdly the evidence adduced and interpretations drawn from it appear highly questionable and do not go to prove the offences alleged..
Fourthly the proceedings infringe upon the Human Rights Act 1998.
1a. The Committee refused to identify the Complainant. Whilst I accept that there is no specific rule that stipulates complainant’s should be identified it is a basic principal of British justice that an accused should know his/her accuser.
1b. The Club did not comply with Rule 169 which, amongst other things, stipulates that:- “The notice shall also state the charges made against the member or the circumstances which the meeting proposes to investigate.”
Apparently some sort of charge or accusation was made as it is said in the letter dated 12th November 2008 “You are requested to attend to answer these allegations” and in the letter dated 14th November 2008 “..welcome to come along to defend yourself.” Clearly there is an obligation to disclose these allegations to both me and all others who were entitled to receive notice and this was not done.
1c. The Club did not comply with Rule 169 which, amongst other things, stipulates that:- “..the secretary of the Organisation shall convene a general meeting of the Organisation or, if the Rules of the Organisation so prescribe, the committee of the Organisation for that purpose and shall give not less than 7 days notice in writing to the member and to all members of the Organisation or the committee, as appropriate, stating the date, place and time at which the meeting is to be held.”
The Secretary failed to convene a General Meeting and notify all members of the organisation. The Committee were not competent to deal with this matter as the Rules of the B.I.C.C. do not “so prescribe” them to do so and this cannot be considered an “emergency”.
In the Notification of Judgement the Committee seeks to rely, for their power to act, upon B.I.C.C. General Rule 8 and the sentence “It will be responsible for the running of the Club, including fund raising.”. However Rule 169 states “so prescribe” thus demanding a clear, specific and unequivocal statement, which this sentence and Rule does not contain. Nowhere else in the B.I.C.C. Rules is the Committee “so prescribed”, as required by Rule 169.
2. In any event if, as in the description given, the complaint concerns “remarks you made against the Committee..” the Committee must be considered to be an interested party. In the circumstances described they are not merely an interested party but the injured party, the complainant, the prosecutor, the judge and the jury. Clearly this is wrong. The particulars of the rights we all share to a fair trial is set out in Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. I can only ask, does the B.I.C.C. and more especially the R.P.R.A. adopt a lesser standard than this?
3. In the Notice of Complaint and Notification of Judgement the complaint is said to concern the report written and published about the Committee meeting. It is equally clear, from the first paragraph of the Notification of Judgement, that the Committee have made findings from material not contained in the article they have identified or indeed the second article “Its small change”. I have no wish to make any great point about this lack of attention to detail or the state of confusion it creates. Provided I have made a statement, at some time and in some place, I am quite prepared to answer for it. I am bound to say though that I have grave difficulty in recognising many of these alleged remarks at all. It is this that makes me question the evidence the Committee have reviewed, pressures brought upon them and the conclusions they appear to have arrived at.
It seems I have been convicted on four Counts of Dishonourable Conduct:-
3a. The primary offence appears to be that of suggesting, through “veiled” remarks, that the “Secretary is grossly incompetent and failing in her job”. I made no such remarks, veiled or otherwise. I did not intend or wish to make any such remarks. Had I so wished I would have done so clearly and overtly. The criticism's I made were of the Committee and the Committee alone for very good reason. I see a clear distinction between the duties of the Committee and those of the Secretary. The Committee is elected to represent the interest of the members in the management of the Club. It is the duty of the Committee to understand the issues and make the decisions. I hold the Committee totally responsible for their duty, the Secretary has no part in it.
The Secretary, on the other hand, is a paid servant of the Club. The Secretary’s job and responsibility is to carry out the instructions of the Committee in the day to day running of the Club. The Secretary is not and should not be involved in the decision making process. Of course the Secretary can be called upon to offer advice and guidance but the decisions remain the province of the Committee. The competence or otherwise of the Secretary, in as far as service to the Committee is concerned, is a matter for the Committee.
3b. The next count is that of the Committee not being fit for purpose. I made this remark at the end of the first paragraph of my report of the meeting. I was forced to this conclusion and gave my reasons. This was my opinion then and it is now. Nothing I have seen or heard since has served to alter that opinion. Essentially these reasons were that the Committee did not have before them the details and facts, nor did they ask for them or seek them out, nor did they consult them or refer to them, in fact they had no data or analysis before them on which to base their quite complex decisions.
I did not say, as Mr Bunney states, that these details were not available. I have no idea, nor would I wish to speculate, what was available. I have no idea what the Secretary had available for them, unfortunately neither do the Committee. Mr Bunney accepts that the Committee did not consider this detail, and that is the point. I can only repeat, how on earth can anyone reach such important decisions without being armed with the facts? How can this comment in these circumstances be deemed Dishonourable?
3c. I am next convicted of stating “B.I.C.C. press reports were “abysmal” and casting a slur on the Press Officer”. This is simply untrue. I have made no such statement. What I did say is something quite different. I made a comment, attached to the response by the Chairman and Secretary on the I.P.R.R. web site, in which I said, amongst other things “I am totally dissatisfied with the abysmal press coverage of what goes on within the Club”. In as far as the Press Officer is concerned this in no way reflects upon him or his reports, merely the material that they are based upon, which I am happy to explain by example if required.
3d. I am finally convicted of making totally inaccurate remarks about the finances and workings of the Club. I have no idea at all what these alleged remarks could be or where they might appear. I have no idea what remarks I have made that could be construed in this way. Whilst I accept that I can and do make mistakes I am not aware that I have made any in the articles in question. I have now examined them several times and I am confident that what I have said is true. When and if I do make mistakes I correct them, whenever I am able. I have no interest and can see no purpose in not being truthful. It is truth and the importance of the truth that has brought me here.
4. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1988 states, in its first sentence, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression”. The very nature of these proceedings is an attempt to deny this right and in so doing may well constitute an offence against this act. In this instance it is an attempt to deny this right of me, but who shall be next?
I realise that many within racing pigeon circles feel that all business should be conducted, somehow, within the confines of the organisation. Indeed this is something stated within the letter circulated and published by the B.I.C.C. Committee immediately following these disciplinary proceedings, when they say “Our concern is that there seems to be no proper control on certain web sites and we firmly believe that if a member has a grievance or concerns the correct procedure is to go through the club to resolve matters.”. How practical can this approach be however when the members are spread throughout the land? How can they all know what is being done and thought and planned without some form of media exposure? How can they possibly arrive at an informed opinion without some form of discussion, without various sources of information and without various exchanges of view?
This sentence though reveals much more than a simple desire to keep things “within the Club” because it also speaks of “proper control”. Control over what, by whom for what purpose? Certainly as far as I.P.R.R. is concerned it has welcomed and encouraged as wide a ranging discussion as possible and maintained a scrupulously fair policy of freedom of expression for all. I do not claim this for Racing Pigeon Post, as it is a completely different animal, however even there I am more than willing to publish any serious contribution or view on any aspect of pigeon racing that might impinge on the International scene. This has not been my experience of the B.I.C.C., where many consider it pointless to try to resolve concerns within the Club. I have had members tell me that it is pointless going to the AGM and even Committee members saying it is pointless going to committee meetings because they cannot get a serious hearing. Indeed there were examples at this meeting (26th October) where one committee member put forward an alternative race programme which was simply dismissed out of hand, and a letter I had written to the committee concerning two issues of some importance to me were treated with little short of complete contempt, as evidenced in Mr Bunneys response when he says “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.” This last example is well documented should confirmation be required.
In the final analysis of course it is the membership that must decide and they will have their opportunity both at the AGM and through the support they provide to the Club in the following season. I have only tried to bring to them a truthful account of what occurred and offer my opinions, which they are quite free to accept or reject. For my part, as I am only interested in International racing and as the B.I.C.C. is the only organisation involved in International racing in the UK I would have been delighted to have found that the B.I.C.C. was being well and properly managed. I would have been delighted to have reported that all looked well for the future. But that was not what I found and so it was not the message I relayed.
Nigel Lane
LN 7913
I hereby appeal against a judgement made against me by the Committee, so convened, of the British International Championship Club on 21st November 2008. The facts are as follows:-
Brief Facts.
On 26th October 2008 the Committee of the B.I.C.C. held a meeting to decide various issues. I attended the meeting both out of my own personal interest, as a member of the B.I.C.C., and with the declared intent of writing about the meeting for the information of members who were themselves unable to attend.
I published this article on Racing Pigeon Post on 28th October, it was also published on the I.P.R.R. web site. The article contained a factual account of the meeting, though this was by no means comprehensive, as well as my opinions of the Committee’s working methods as observed on this occasion.
On 30/31st October I had an exchange of E-mail's with the secretary concerning the suggested Club web site.
I wrote another article entitled "Its Small Change" setting out changes I wished to see and my proposals to bring those changes about. This article was published on Racing Pigeon Post on 1st November and it was also published on I.P.R.R.
Both articles were featured in a Racing Pigeon Post Newsletter sent by E-mail to a subscribed list on 2nd November.
On 2nd November I received an E-mail response from the Chairman and Secretary of the B.I.C.C.. I had another exchange of E-mail's with the Secretary and I published their response, as a footnote to my original article, on Racing Pigeon Post in order that anybody coming upon the article would also come upon the response. It was also published on I.P.R.R.
On 3rd November I posted a comment to the Chairman and Secretary’s response on the I.P.R.R. web site.
On 4th November I received a response from a B.I.C.C. Vice President, Mr Bunney, which I acknowledged by E-mail. This response was published on the I.P.R.R. web site before I had an opportunity to query, with Mr Bunney, some of its content. I decided therefore to respond to it as published but before I was able to do so I received notice of the complaint.
On 7th November I received by E-mail the minutes of the 26th October Committee meeting.
On 13th November I received a letter from the B.I.C.C. Secretary, dated 12th November, notifying me of the complaint.
I requested particulars of this complaint by E-mail and letter.
On 14th November I received an E-mail with an attached letter, subsequently confirmed by post, stating the complainant was a Committee member but in effect declining any further detail.
On Tuesday 18th November I received a letter from the Secretary, dated 17th November, enclosing copies of the two articles I had written printed from the Racing Pigeon Post web site.
I wrote a letter dated 18th November addressed to the Committee setting out the grounds upon which I believed the proceedings failed and the reasons I had for not making any further comment at that stage.
On 21st November I sent a copy of the above letter by E-mail to the Secretary in case the original should have gone astray.
On 25th November I received a letter, dated 24th November, being the notification of findings and penalty imposed by the Committee.
On 26th November I received by E-mail a letter from the Chairman and Secretary that was to be published in the pigeon press.
Grounds for Appeal.
My grounds for appeal against this decision are:-
First that the Committee have failed to follow correct procedure both in fact, as regards rules of the R.P.R.A., and in spirit, in that they have failed to adhere to the basic principals of British justice.
Secondly that the Committee were not competent to deal with a complaint that, as far as can be judged, concerned the Committee as an interested party and was made, apparently, by a Committee member.
Thirdly the evidence adduced and interpretations drawn from it appear highly questionable and do not go to prove the offences alleged..
Fourthly the proceedings infringe upon the Human Rights Act 1998.
1a. The Committee refused to identify the Complainant. Whilst I accept that there is no specific rule that stipulates complainant’s should be identified it is a basic principal of British justice that an accused should know his/her accuser.
1b. The Club did not comply with Rule 169 which, amongst other things, stipulates that:- “The notice shall also state the charges made against the member or the circumstances which the meeting proposes to investigate.”
Apparently some sort of charge or accusation was made as it is said in the letter dated 12th November 2008 “You are requested to attend to answer these allegations” and in the letter dated 14th November 2008 “..welcome to come along to defend yourself.” Clearly there is an obligation to disclose these allegations to both me and all others who were entitled to receive notice and this was not done.
1c. The Club did not comply with Rule 169 which, amongst other things, stipulates that:- “..the secretary of the Organisation shall convene a general meeting of the Organisation or, if the Rules of the Organisation so prescribe, the committee of the Organisation for that purpose and shall give not less than 7 days notice in writing to the member and to all members of the Organisation or the committee, as appropriate, stating the date, place and time at which the meeting is to be held.”
The Secretary failed to convene a General Meeting and notify all members of the organisation. The Committee were not competent to deal with this matter as the Rules of the B.I.C.C. do not “so prescribe” them to do so and this cannot be considered an “emergency”.
In the Notification of Judgement the Committee seeks to rely, for their power to act, upon B.I.C.C. General Rule 8 and the sentence “It will be responsible for the running of the Club, including fund raising.”. However Rule 169 states “so prescribe” thus demanding a clear, specific and unequivocal statement, which this sentence and Rule does not contain. Nowhere else in the B.I.C.C. Rules is the Committee “so prescribed”, as required by Rule 169.
2. In any event if, as in the description given, the complaint concerns “remarks you made against the Committee..” the Committee must be considered to be an interested party. In the circumstances described they are not merely an interested party but the injured party, the complainant, the prosecutor, the judge and the jury. Clearly this is wrong. The particulars of the rights we all share to a fair trial is set out in Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. I can only ask, does the B.I.C.C. and more especially the R.P.R.A. adopt a lesser standard than this?
3. In the Notice of Complaint and Notification of Judgement the complaint is said to concern the report written and published about the Committee meeting. It is equally clear, from the first paragraph of the Notification of Judgement, that the Committee have made findings from material not contained in the article they have identified or indeed the second article “Its small change”. I have no wish to make any great point about this lack of attention to detail or the state of confusion it creates. Provided I have made a statement, at some time and in some place, I am quite prepared to answer for it. I am bound to say though that I have grave difficulty in recognising many of these alleged remarks at all. It is this that makes me question the evidence the Committee have reviewed, pressures brought upon them and the conclusions they appear to have arrived at.
It seems I have been convicted on four Counts of Dishonourable Conduct:-
3a. The primary offence appears to be that of suggesting, through “veiled” remarks, that the “Secretary is grossly incompetent and failing in her job”. I made no such remarks, veiled or otherwise. I did not intend or wish to make any such remarks. Had I so wished I would have done so clearly and overtly. The criticism's I made were of the Committee and the Committee alone for very good reason. I see a clear distinction between the duties of the Committee and those of the Secretary. The Committee is elected to represent the interest of the members in the management of the Club. It is the duty of the Committee to understand the issues and make the decisions. I hold the Committee totally responsible for their duty, the Secretary has no part in it.
The Secretary, on the other hand, is a paid servant of the Club. The Secretary’s job and responsibility is to carry out the instructions of the Committee in the day to day running of the Club. The Secretary is not and should not be involved in the decision making process. Of course the Secretary can be called upon to offer advice and guidance but the decisions remain the province of the Committee. The competence or otherwise of the Secretary, in as far as service to the Committee is concerned, is a matter for the Committee.
3b. The next count is that of the Committee not being fit for purpose. I made this remark at the end of the first paragraph of my report of the meeting. I was forced to this conclusion and gave my reasons. This was my opinion then and it is now. Nothing I have seen or heard since has served to alter that opinion. Essentially these reasons were that the Committee did not have before them the details and facts, nor did they ask for them or seek them out, nor did they consult them or refer to them, in fact they had no data or analysis before them on which to base their quite complex decisions.
I did not say, as Mr Bunney states, that these details were not available. I have no idea, nor would I wish to speculate, what was available. I have no idea what the Secretary had available for them, unfortunately neither do the Committee. Mr Bunney accepts that the Committee did not consider this detail, and that is the point. I can only repeat, how on earth can anyone reach such important decisions without being armed with the facts? How can this comment in these circumstances be deemed Dishonourable?
3c. I am next convicted of stating “B.I.C.C. press reports were “abysmal” and casting a slur on the Press Officer”. This is simply untrue. I have made no such statement. What I did say is something quite different. I made a comment, attached to the response by the Chairman and Secretary on the I.P.R.R. web site, in which I said, amongst other things “I am totally dissatisfied with the abysmal press coverage of what goes on within the Club”. In as far as the Press Officer is concerned this in no way reflects upon him or his reports, merely the material that they are based upon, which I am happy to explain by example if required.
3d. I am finally convicted of making totally inaccurate remarks about the finances and workings of the Club. I have no idea at all what these alleged remarks could be or where they might appear. I have no idea what remarks I have made that could be construed in this way. Whilst I accept that I can and do make mistakes I am not aware that I have made any in the articles in question. I have now examined them several times and I am confident that what I have said is true. When and if I do make mistakes I correct them, whenever I am able. I have no interest and can see no purpose in not being truthful. It is truth and the importance of the truth that has brought me here.
4. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1988 states, in its first sentence, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression”. The very nature of these proceedings is an attempt to deny this right and in so doing may well constitute an offence against this act. In this instance it is an attempt to deny this right of me, but who shall be next?
I realise that many within racing pigeon circles feel that all business should be conducted, somehow, within the confines of the organisation. Indeed this is something stated within the letter circulated and published by the B.I.C.C. Committee immediately following these disciplinary proceedings, when they say “Our concern is that there seems to be no proper control on certain web sites and we firmly believe that if a member has a grievance or concerns the correct procedure is to go through the club to resolve matters.”. How practical can this approach be however when the members are spread throughout the land? How can they all know what is being done and thought and planned without some form of media exposure? How can they possibly arrive at an informed opinion without some form of discussion, without various sources of information and without various exchanges of view?
This sentence though reveals much more than a simple desire to keep things “within the Club” because it also speaks of “proper control”. Control over what, by whom for what purpose? Certainly as far as I.P.R.R. is concerned it has welcomed and encouraged as wide a ranging discussion as possible and maintained a scrupulously fair policy of freedom of expression for all. I do not claim this for Racing Pigeon Post, as it is a completely different animal, however even there I am more than willing to publish any serious contribution or view on any aspect of pigeon racing that might impinge on the International scene. This has not been my experience of the B.I.C.C., where many consider it pointless to try to resolve concerns within the Club. I have had members tell me that it is pointless going to the AGM and even Committee members saying it is pointless going to committee meetings because they cannot get a serious hearing. Indeed there were examples at this meeting (26th October) where one committee member put forward an alternative race programme which was simply dismissed out of hand, and a letter I had written to the committee concerning two issues of some importance to me were treated with little short of complete contempt, as evidenced in Mr Bunneys response when he says “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.” This last example is well documented should confirmation be required.
In the final analysis of course it is the membership that must decide and they will have their opportunity both at the AGM and through the support they provide to the Club in the following season. I have only tried to bring to them a truthful account of what occurred and offer my opinions, which they are quite free to accept or reject. For my part, as I am only interested in International racing and as the B.I.C.C. is the only organisation involved in International racing in the UK I would have been delighted to have found that the B.I.C.C. was being well and properly managed. I would have been delighted to have reported that all looked well for the future. But that was not what I found and so it was not the message I relayed.
Nigel Lane
LN 7913
Appeal against decisions made, or not made, by the Committee of the B.I.C.C. culminating in their decision to proceed with the AGM on 11th January 2009.
Further to the appeal I have lodged against the B.I.C.C. Committee, so convened, who at a meeting on 21st November 2008 excluded me from the B.I.C.C. I hereby appeal against decisions taken, or not taken as the case may be, by the Committee of the B.I.C.C. finalised by their decision to proceed with the AGM on 11th January 2009. I am both aggrieved by and dispute their decisions not to submit to the membership for a vote proposals for changes to rules, legitimately made by both myself and another member Mr William Morris. I further believe that whilst these two incidents might appear of different character they are inter linked.
Brief facts.
Subsequent to writing and publishing the article entitled “Its small change” I submitted the proposals set out in that article, substantially in that form, to the Secretary of the B.I.C.C.. These proposals were seconded by another B.I.C.C. member Mr William Morris. Whilst I received no acknowledgement, at the time or subsequently, that these proposals had been received by the Secretary this fact is evidenced in a later communication by the Secretary. The object of these proposals is set out in “Its small change” and I don‘t think I can make that objective any clearer here.
On receipt of the B.I.C.C. Notice of Complaint letter I realised that a probable motive for these proceedings was to expel me from the B.I.C.C. in an attempt to invalidate these proposals. I was aware that numerous members of the B.I.C.C. were in favour of the proposals, although of course it is not until it is put to the vote that a proper evaluation can be made, but it is at the very heart of our democracy that any proposals for change should be put to the membership so that they can exercise their judgement. With this in view and concurring with my apprehension Mr. Morris was keen to resubmit the proposals which Mr. Bernie Bennett eagerly seconded. I assisted them and they were posted the day after I received the B.I.C.C. Notification of Judgement.
No further indications were received concerning these proposals until mid December when members started to receive documentation and voting papers for the B.I.C.C. AGM. It became apparent that none of the proposals that I and Mr Morris had made were included. (Interestingly the only proposal that was sent out was, substantially, one that should have been sent out the previous year.) As a result of this on 18th December 2008 Mr Bernie Bennett sent an E-mail to the Secretary seeking an explanation and received a reply by E-mail that same day. This reply mentions a letter, allegedly sent to Mr Morris, which at that time had not been received. Mr Bennett’s response was to resign from the B.I.C.C. there and then.
On or about 22nd December 2008 Mr Morris received a letter from the Secretary of the B.I.C.C. dated 4th December 2008. This letter purports to give reasons why the proposals had not been included. The adequacy of explanation I am happy to leave to your judgement. The Secretary also points out that Mr Bennett had quoted his membership number incorrectly, which he had done, but this, in the scale of things, is quite a small though no doubt important error. There can be no doubt or question though that at the time Mr Bernie Bennett was a member of the B.I.C.C. and this must have been known, one would have thought, to the Secretary. It should also be noted that, as if the Secretary were trying to point out how easy it is to make such a simple error, in the E-mail reply she made to Mr Bennett, she addresses him as Mr Morris.
On 23rd December 2008 I wrote a letter addressed to The B.I.C.C. Committee. In this letter, in case they were unaware of the fact, I pointed out that none of the proposals submitted by both myself and Mr Morris had been sent out to the membership. I accepted that one of those proposals may have been seen to conflict with R.P.R.A. rules but that there was no legitimate reason for the exclusion of the others and made clear the action that they should take and what I would be obliged to do in default.
On Friday 9th January 2009 I received a letter from the Secretary dated 2nd January 2009 purporting to explain why “my” propositions had not been “dealt with”. Part of this explanation was that I was an “excluded” member at the time they were sent out. In view of the fact that the AGM was to be held on Sunday 11th January 2009, with a Committee meeting immediately before, I sent an E-mail to the Secretary, as it was clear that a letter would not arrive in time. This E-mail pointed out that my letter was addressed to the Committee and that as they would be held accountable for any failure it was important that they understood the content and implications. I also pointed out that it was a matter of fact that I was not an excluded member of the B.I.C.C. at the time in question.
I did not attend the Committee meeting on 11th January so I do not know what occurred. I did attend the AGM which began with Mr Deacon, the Chairman, pointing out to all concerned that I was present followed by a rather torrid tirade directed at me in which he threatened that if I criticised the meeting or accused him again of engaging in incest then he would pursue me through the Courts. The AGM then continued in what I can only describe as a fairly normal fashion for the B.I.C.C. I had no comment to make as I believed I had made the position clear in the letter and E-mail. One member, who had been aware of the propositions, did ask why they had not been sent out. He was told that Mr Morris had been informed of the reasons the Committee had refused them and that they, the B.I.C.C., had heard nothing further from Mr Morris. A Committee member asked at which meeting this decision had been made and he was told at the meeting held immediately after the meeting at which I had been excluded.
Subsequently I read the minutes of the 11th January 2009 Committee meeting which were published on the IPRR web site and noticed that there was no mention of my letter or E-mail being read, discussed or even mentioned. Clearly my letter had been received and ignored whether by the Committee or Secretary I cannot judge but I am bound to point out that if my letter has been deliberately withheld from the Committee then quite apart from any other consideration that could amount to Theft.
Grounds for Appeal.
I contend that:
1. The proposals I made were made in good time.
2. The proposals complied with R.P.R.A. Rule 155
3. I was a member of the B.I.C.C. at the time the proposals were made.
4. I was a member of the B.I.C.C. from that time until now and consequently I was a member at the time the proposals were sent out to the membership.
5. These proposals should have been sent out, along with any others, for the membership to vote upon.
6. The proposals made by Mr Morris were also quite legitimately made.
7. Subsequently, as they had not been sent out, the Committee should have deferred the AGM and sent the proposals out to the membership, especially when this omission was pointed out to them.
8. I believe the proposals are clear and concise and do not contain ambiguity.
9. I do accept that one proposal, namely No 5, dealing with race duration and result being limited to 25% of the entry, could be seen to conflict with R.P.R.A. Rules and thus could legitimately be excluded by R.P.R.A. Rule 156.
Apart from that one exception I further contend that the Committee were not simply wrong but exceeded their remit and in so doing grossly infringed the rights of not merely myself, Mr Morris and Mr Bennett but the entire membership in excluding these propositions and that their explanations are both inadequate and mistaken.
Nigel Lane
LN 7913
Further to the appeal I have lodged against the B.I.C.C. Committee, so convened, who at a meeting on 21st November 2008 excluded me from the B.I.C.C. I hereby appeal against decisions taken, or not taken as the case may be, by the Committee of the B.I.C.C. finalised by their decision to proceed with the AGM on 11th January 2009. I am both aggrieved by and dispute their decisions not to submit to the membership for a vote proposals for changes to rules, legitimately made by both myself and another member Mr William Morris. I further believe that whilst these two incidents might appear of different character they are inter linked.
Brief facts.
Subsequent to writing and publishing the article entitled “Its small change” I submitted the proposals set out in that article, substantially in that form, to the Secretary of the B.I.C.C.. These proposals were seconded by another B.I.C.C. member Mr William Morris. Whilst I received no acknowledgement, at the time or subsequently, that these proposals had been received by the Secretary this fact is evidenced in a later communication by the Secretary. The object of these proposals is set out in “Its small change” and I don‘t think I can make that objective any clearer here.
On receipt of the B.I.C.C. Notice of Complaint letter I realised that a probable motive for these proceedings was to expel me from the B.I.C.C. in an attempt to invalidate these proposals. I was aware that numerous members of the B.I.C.C. were in favour of the proposals, although of course it is not until it is put to the vote that a proper evaluation can be made, but it is at the very heart of our democracy that any proposals for change should be put to the membership so that they can exercise their judgement. With this in view and concurring with my apprehension Mr. Morris was keen to resubmit the proposals which Mr. Bernie Bennett eagerly seconded. I assisted them and they were posted the day after I received the B.I.C.C. Notification of Judgement.
No further indications were received concerning these proposals until mid December when members started to receive documentation and voting papers for the B.I.C.C. AGM. It became apparent that none of the proposals that I and Mr Morris had made were included. (Interestingly the only proposal that was sent out was, substantially, one that should have been sent out the previous year.) As a result of this on 18th December 2008 Mr Bernie Bennett sent an E-mail to the Secretary seeking an explanation and received a reply by E-mail that same day. This reply mentions a letter, allegedly sent to Mr Morris, which at that time had not been received. Mr Bennett’s response was to resign from the B.I.C.C. there and then.
On or about 22nd December 2008 Mr Morris received a letter from the Secretary of the B.I.C.C. dated 4th December 2008. This letter purports to give reasons why the proposals had not been included. The adequacy of explanation I am happy to leave to your judgement. The Secretary also points out that Mr Bennett had quoted his membership number incorrectly, which he had done, but this, in the scale of things, is quite a small though no doubt important error. There can be no doubt or question though that at the time Mr Bernie Bennett was a member of the B.I.C.C. and this must have been known, one would have thought, to the Secretary. It should also be noted that, as if the Secretary were trying to point out how easy it is to make such a simple error, in the E-mail reply she made to Mr Bennett, she addresses him as Mr Morris.
On 23rd December 2008 I wrote a letter addressed to The B.I.C.C. Committee. In this letter, in case they were unaware of the fact, I pointed out that none of the proposals submitted by both myself and Mr Morris had been sent out to the membership. I accepted that one of those proposals may have been seen to conflict with R.P.R.A. rules but that there was no legitimate reason for the exclusion of the others and made clear the action that they should take and what I would be obliged to do in default.
On Friday 9th January 2009 I received a letter from the Secretary dated 2nd January 2009 purporting to explain why “my” propositions had not been “dealt with”. Part of this explanation was that I was an “excluded” member at the time they were sent out. In view of the fact that the AGM was to be held on Sunday 11th January 2009, with a Committee meeting immediately before, I sent an E-mail to the Secretary, as it was clear that a letter would not arrive in time. This E-mail pointed out that my letter was addressed to the Committee and that as they would be held accountable for any failure it was important that they understood the content and implications. I also pointed out that it was a matter of fact that I was not an excluded member of the B.I.C.C. at the time in question.
I did not attend the Committee meeting on 11th January so I do not know what occurred. I did attend the AGM which began with Mr Deacon, the Chairman, pointing out to all concerned that I was present followed by a rather torrid tirade directed at me in which he threatened that if I criticised the meeting or accused him again of engaging in incest then he would pursue me through the Courts. The AGM then continued in what I can only describe as a fairly normal fashion for the B.I.C.C. I had no comment to make as I believed I had made the position clear in the letter and E-mail. One member, who had been aware of the propositions, did ask why they had not been sent out. He was told that Mr Morris had been informed of the reasons the Committee had refused them and that they, the B.I.C.C., had heard nothing further from Mr Morris. A Committee member asked at which meeting this decision had been made and he was told at the meeting held immediately after the meeting at which I had been excluded.
Subsequently I read the minutes of the 11th January 2009 Committee meeting which were published on the IPRR web site and noticed that there was no mention of my letter or E-mail being read, discussed or even mentioned. Clearly my letter had been received and ignored whether by the Committee or Secretary I cannot judge but I am bound to point out that if my letter has been deliberately withheld from the Committee then quite apart from any other consideration that could amount to Theft.
Grounds for Appeal.
I contend that:
1. The proposals I made were made in good time.
2. The proposals complied with R.P.R.A. Rule 155
3. I was a member of the B.I.C.C. at the time the proposals were made.
4. I was a member of the B.I.C.C. from that time until now and consequently I was a member at the time the proposals were sent out to the membership.
5. These proposals should have been sent out, along with any others, for the membership to vote upon.
6. The proposals made by Mr Morris were also quite legitimately made.
7. Subsequently, as they had not been sent out, the Committee should have deferred the AGM and sent the proposals out to the membership, especially when this omission was pointed out to them.
8. I believe the proposals are clear and concise and do not contain ambiguity.
9. I do accept that one proposal, namely No 5, dealing with race duration and result being limited to 25% of the entry, could be seen to conflict with R.P.R.A. Rules and thus could legitimately be excluded by R.P.R.A. Rule 156.
Apart from that one exception I further contend that the Committee were not simply wrong but exceeded their remit and in so doing grossly infringed the rights of not merely myself, Mr Morris and Mr Bennett but the entire membership in excluding these propositions and that their explanations are both inadequate and mistaken.
Nigel Lane
LN 7913
Following the Committee Meeting of 21st November 2008 and then the AGM held on 11th January 2009 I made two appeals against decisions taken by the Committee in the form below, as placed before Southern Region and subsequently the Council of the R.P.R.A.