Attempt by our Committee to change the Club rules without notifying the members

[steveeasy]

Hi Steve,

I would still be interested in your opinion as to Nick's disproportionate activities versus a simple apology, and his grounds for a personal insult, which I don't think you have answered.

Cheers
Floyd.

Hi Floyd,
id rather not give personal opinion on anyones specific actions. what will it do ?. personally if I had a grievance id pursue it if I felt it justified. sometimes the action required to get a resolution is far greater than the result. sometimes one never gets a result.
I think I sort of covered the second part to your question. needless to say time could be a big factor now. I think there is every possibility everything could be forgotten with the drop of a hat. just think what a sense of achievement that would be on a forum. Personally I am going to forget anything said to me in the past on this thread, not that much has. I am going to wish NickC good Luck and hope everyone can be dare I say it friendly. I know its bloody hard.

Best Wishes

Steveeasy

 

[mikefleetwood]

Quite simply because there was no case to answer. No specific accusations of wrongdoing had been made, no supporting evidence had been produced.

Sorry to stick my oar in again - and without any malice or agenda:

Surely that was the point of the meeting? An informal (I think that's what you originally said) meeting for them to tell you what the problem was, from their perspective, and, presumably, for you to argue your case in return? I guess that had you been there, any "supporting evidence" would have been revealed.

 

[pandos]

........ but at least it would be yet another attempt to get Nick to realise the errors he has made in his quest.............

I guess you have summed up your position in one line..... , to paraphrase ....lets have a fair trial and hang him afterwards....

Tony

 

[NickC]

Surely that was the point of the meeting? An informal (I think that's what you originally said)...
I guess that had you been there, any "supporting evidence" would have been revealed.

No, sorry Mike, that clearly wasn't the point of the meeting. There certainly wasn't any suggestion of it being informal. Had this been a request to assist the Committee in a genuine investigation it would have had my support, that was something I had been asking for, this I am afraid most definitely wasn't.

See letter 1 from the Committee. Note how this letter contains no details of where to respond to notify whether I would be available to attend or not (Club does not have a postal address). It wasn't even signed by an Officer of the Club.

I understand you viewpoint but had you been following the arguments, legal threats etc. of the boat with the oversized outboard engine you may have realised why this meeting was not as genuine as it may sound.

Before the 'hearing' no specific accusations nor supporting evidence were provided; that's not a hearing that is a Kangeroo Court.

Advice from Ordinary Members was to not attend the Kangeroo Court as 'they cannot throw you out without a vote by the members'. At least that is what is says in the rules but this bunch don't think the rules apply to them.

Well as you know the hearing went ahead and, as you may have guessed by now, even then still no supporting evidence was revealed, I have spoken to a couple of people that were present.

They have produced no evidence because there is none. As there has been no wrongdoing by myself there cannot be any genuine evidence.

 

[ianj99]

It is a rambling thread full of hotair, tit for tat bitching, etc, half truths, really bad grammer, puur spellings etc..... but beneath the surface it is not " Much Ado About Nothing" it concerns an individual and his interaction with a club where he feels he was expelled wrongly, whatever else that is, it is not an ado about nothing...

Is not life too short and far more precious? I have every sympathy for victims of maltreatment, but come on, get a life and move on: its not as if his winning lottery ticket was stolen by the club! (thank goodness or the thread really would qualify for the GBWR.)

 

[NickC]

attempt to get Nick to realise the errors he has made

I guess you have summed up your position in one line..... , to paraphrase ....lets have a fair trial and hang him afterwards....

Absolute classic from brother Floyd aka The Committee. Those that have read the correspondence and documentation will be able to see who has used that phrase before.

'attempt to get Nick to realise the errors he has made' - sounds to me like a thinly veiled threat, 'the errors' I assume being not caving in to their bullying and refusing to accept their 'tax' on the mooring.

 

[fireball]

No, sorry Mike, that clearly wasn't the point of the meeting. There certainly wasn't any suggestion of it being informal. Had this been a request to assist the Committee in a genuine investigation it would have had my support, that was something I had been asking for, this I am afraid most definitely wasn't.

See letter 1 from the Committee. Note how this letter contains no details of where to respond to notify whether I would be available to attend or not (Club does not have a postal address). It wasn't even signed by an Officer of the Club.

I understand you viewpoint but had you been following the arguments, legal threats etc. of the boat with the oversized outboard engine you may have realised why this meeting was not as genuine as it may sound.

Before the 'hearing' no specific accusations nor supporting evidence were provided; that's not a hearing that is a Kangeroo Court.

Advice from Ordinary Members was to not attend the Kangeroo Court as 'they cannot throw you out without a vote by the members'. At least that is what is says in the rules but this bunch don't think the rules apply to them.

Well as you know the hearing went ahead and, as you may have guessed by now, even then still no supporting evidence was revealed, I have spoken to a couple of people that were present.

They have produced no evidence because there is none. As there has been no wrongdoing by myself there cannot be any genuine evidence.

Nick - do you have me on ignore?

You're ignoring my questions ...

 

[NickC]

as to Nick's disproportionate activities

And how many times has Floyd now posted on this thread which has nothing whatsoever to do with him. He supposedly doesn't even know the Club involved.

versus a simple apology

To whom and for what?

Again for those with access to the correspondence and documentation you can probably see where this has come from.

 

[fireball]

And how many times has Floyd now posted on this thread which has nothing whatsoever to do with him. He supposedly doesn't even know the Club involved.


To whom and for what?

Again for those with access to the correspondence and documentation you can probably see where this has come from.

Nick - do you have me on ignore?

You're ignoring my questions ...

 

[NickC]

Floyd,

I am the OP, this is my thread, you are not wanted here. Can't be any more plain than that can I!

If you want your own thread go away and post it elsewhere. Do not keep disrupting my thread.

 

[Floyd Raser]

And how many times has Floyd now posted on this thread which has nothing whatsoever to do with him.
QUOTE]

OK Everybody who has no business here can go. Head count?

 

[Floyd Raser]

I guess you have summed up your position in one line..... , to paraphrase ....lets have a fair trial and hang him afterwards....

Tony

Enlighten me please; explain how it's a good idea to not turn up at a meeting for the reasons given, insult the people you are trying to reason with and insult those who try to help you.

 

[NickC]

Re: imposters on this thread

you can't be arsed to give a straight forward response as to what you're doing or have done to get back in the club or what on earth you want to happen to the club if not ...

I am not in the habit of repeating the same answer time and time again.

The Committee must do as they are required to by Club rules and allow the Ordinary Members a vote on the issue.

 

[NickC]

Thank you for link. I read it all.

Way I see it someone tried to add £250 "tax" to new mooring. They got caught doing it. Everything else just be trying to cover up they got caught.

Yes, could well be.

By the way only it is only £220 "tax" if you read the whole lot.

 

[pandos]

Sorry to stick my oar in again - and without any malice or agenda:
Surely that was the point of the meeting? An informal (I think that's what you originally said) meeting for them to tell you what the problem was, from their perspective, and, presumably, for you to argue your case in return? I guess that had you been there, any "supporting evidence" would have been revealed.

It is never fair to bring someone to a meeting where he is to be accused of something without first letting him know in advance the case he will be expected to answer and the evidence on which it will be based.

The lack of understanding surrounding this concept seems to be the nub of this thread.

One side says he was given an opportunity to speak but failed/refused to do so, the other side and Nick say he never was really given an opportunity arising from the flaws in the procedures.

Perhaps I am wrong....

 

[Floyd Raser]

It is never fair to bring someone to a meeting where he is to be accused of something without first letting him know in advance the case he will be expected to answer and the evidence on which it will be based.

The lack of understanding surrounding this concept seems to be the nub of this thread.

One side says he was given an opportunity to speak but failed/refused to do so, the other side and Nick say he never was really given an opportunity arising from the flaws in the procedures.

Perhaps I am wrong....

"Informal" though. Is it not reasonable to expect there was some off the record discussion before this meeting? Is it not a possibility that there may have been a pint and a handshake waiting for Nick at that meeting? Is there evidence to show otherwise?

 

[NickC]

Re: imposters on this thread

'elsie' first post 28/9/2015 - 14 posts here none nowhere else
'Floyd Raser' first post here 26/9/2015 - 41 posts

Latest message count:

'Floyd Raser' first post here 26/9/2015 - now totals 64 posts

That's 64 posts from someone who has nothing to do with the Club in question, has been asked not to post here by the OP & others, has no business posting here and wasn't even a member of this forum when the thread started. Does he have no idea of Internet forum etiquette? Do not hijack someone else's thread!

He clearly has control freak issues, suggest he or someone else starts a separate thread where he can post as often as he likes.

 

[VicS]

Re: imposters on this thread

Latest message count:

'Floyd Raser' first post here 26/9/2015 - now totals 64 posts

That's 64 posts from someone who has nothing to do with the Club in question, has been asked not to post here by the OP & others, has no business posting here and wasn't even a member of this forum when the thread started. Does he have no idea of Internet forum etiquette? Do not hijack someone else's thread!

He clearly has control freak issues, suggest he or someone else starts a separate thread where he can post as often as he likes.

I think he is really AS


As a forum member he has as much right to post here as any other member

 

[Floyd Raser]

Re: imposters on this thread

Excuse me? That's not how you spell "undercover committee member". You've been accusing me of being so ever since I summarised the situation and accidentally got near to the truth. I hope the people who have been encouraging Nick are taking note of this.

 

[mikefleetwood]

No, sorry Mike, that clearly wasn't the point of the meeting. There certainly wasn't any suggestion of it being informal. Had this been a request to assist the Committee in a genuine investigation it would have had my support, that was something I had been asking for, this I am afraid most definitely wasn't.

I've just spent an hour or so (whilst trying not to watch the Apprentice) trying to scan through this thread from the start - I only managed about 2/3 of the way. I was trying to find where you talked about the meeting. I was sure I got the impression that it was to be an informal meeting in a pub somewhere - I couldn't find it, and if I was mistaken I apologise.

I still think it was an error not to attend the meeting, even though maybe not 'legally' convened.

I don't know anything about the outboard and mooring chain issues, other than reading what has been written here. However, neither of them directly concern the club, although they do involve other members. None of them make much sense to me.

I did have a skim-read though the post where you copied all the correspondence. They do fairly clearly accuse you of bringing the club into disrepute by airing your grievances on the internet. I don't know what you wrote about the other issues, and how much you included the club in your complaints - but, if they were anything like this one, I can see their point.

Perhaps there is something else that you could clear up for me - "CaptainPugwash" appeared in most of his posts to be supporting your position - yet recently he claimed to be the Commodore of the club. Is this for real?

Others have said that as the club is affiliated to the RYA, then perhaps you should take it up with them. There is certainly every appearance that the committee is acting without regard to their own rules - which, if I recall, was the original point of this thread - so there at least, barring any evidence to the contrary, you have my support (for what it's worth).

Personally, I think you're banging your head against a wall over this one. I think that even if you do win your "case" you are not going to want to remain(return) a member of this club - I know I wouldn't. Please walk away, join another club if you're inclined, find another syndicate to buy into if you haven't already sorted that one.