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

[Ravi]

I did not get where I am today by standing up to bullies
..... the only man on woman's Hour
...

Respect! Woman's Hour was one of the highlights of my day when I 'worked from home'. I wonder if I ever heard your dulcet tones.

On the subject of this thread ......
I have made efforts to keep up but having to been through a divorce and a family dispute over a will I find it depressingly familiar, I think that the advice that others have given to "walk away and leaving everything behind" is pretty good.
Go out and live. When you are on your death bed, I can't think that any effort any you expend on putting right this injustice will be the highlight of your life. If you devoted the same time and attention to planning a sailing adventure, you might end up happier!

 

[Tam Lin]

God, is this thread still going on?!

 

[l'escargot]

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've resisted posting up to now, watching with with mild amusement like many others I would guess but I'm afraid I've got to say it may be you that hasn't any idea how Internet forums work - anyone is free to post on threads within certain rules laid down by the forum owners.

Threads don't continue under the "ownership' of the OP or exist solely as a platform for their views, nor does the OP have any control over who posts on the thread. You just can't post on a forum and not expect responses. I'm afraid once you enter the public arena, you relinquish any control

There is a certain irony in accusing someone of being a control freak whilst trying to dictate who posts, what they say and telling them to go off and start their own thread don't you think?.

I've been here longer than I can remember, have nothing to do with the club in question and have got to say I'm as free as anyone else to post on this thread whether it is considered by others to be my "business" or not - now that is how forums work, whether you think it "etiquette" or not...

 

[Bathdave]

T

Hi Floyd,
Well I think you need to consider when someone raises an an issue that they really feel has hurt them, outside opinion, whilst being asked, is unwelcome, Sometimes!!!. Im sure you meant well, personally id have given my view or opinion, and left it alone.
I don't know why Nick did not go to a committee meeting, without falling of your chair, I suspect he felt uneasy, not guilty, perhaps a waste of time. As for police, or any other conspiracies, yes they do exist, I now as ive been part of uncovering one myself. Its on the parliamentary ombudsman website, it found the government guilty of significant maladministration and lead to criminal fraud investigations for millions.

What I can tell you, A club is full of men very similar in character to this forum. forget being personal , the forum is pretty bad actually. kid ourselves as much as we like, the characters and mentality are very evident. So taking those views which are mine in to account, it would be so easy to visualise a group of miserable old men would turn on another over nothing. How sad is that. It would have hurt me.
So rather than polling for Nick, or having an online trial, as adults try to understand what was the cause is really not the issue now. If they were grown rational men, they would not have thrown him out, they would have been understanding. So think me of being weak, but im not. can we stop the ill feeling, either support nick, or give sensitive advise not aimed to be confrontational, or go our own way.

Best Wishes

Steveeasy

Steve if you had followed the thread from the start you would have seen that NC did have lots of constructive and helpful advice, the problem seems to be that he doesn't like the advice and chooses not to hear the bits that don't fit his view of the world.

I got very bored with it a while ago, but the new dynamic of these new 'personas' who claim to be independent but have very detailed inside information made it seem like one of those dreadful tv dramas where everything is so excruciatingly bad (acting, script, characters) you know you want to turn it off, but it is strangely compelling so you don't.

Nick....many, many members here have advised you to walk away. You are choosing to keep this alive, and being quite abusive to people who post on what you now see as 'your thread'.

I am not sure what you expect to happen ...one definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Whilst I think we all understand your sense of injustice, nothing or nobody on this forum is going to change the outcome that has occurred.

It really is time to wrap it up and move on, or if you can't, at least take it somewhere other than this forum.

 

[captainpugwash88]

Re: imposters on this thread

I think he is really AS


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

I think he is

Had he been ere since start ok but see when he joined

Then let him post ere as AS no lies bout who he is.

 

[Floyd Raser]

Re: imposters on this thread

I think he is

Had he been ere since start ok but see when he joined

Then let him post ere as AS no lies bout who he is.

Posted anywhere else since you were invented back in April Pugglet?

 

[Floyd Raser]

Re: imposters on this thread

OK, I've just had a butcher's through the back catalogue:

Page 29 is where I came in trying to make Nick see where he was going wrong. Follow it forward and you will see where he starts to be less than gentlemanly towards my efforts.

Within the last few hours Nick has again accused me of being something to do with the club, suggested a threat (?) and then stated I have nothing to with the club. Just another example of how he has tried to manipulate facts to suit his own agenda and forgets what he lied about. Paranoid or what? I wonder if it could be something to do with drugs or something else.

Notice how he goes quiet when people are having a go at me, then comes in with quotes and twisted facts/logic afterwards. Notice how my post 550 with a good idea (acknowledged by Pandos 556) to a seasoned member of the forum set Nick off into the stratosphere of rage. With Kindergarten type accusations. Accusations which have been previously made about him. All very infantile. Oh and yet another insult to the club.

Back in post 368 Nick lists his demands including an apology and reinstatement. READ IT! I haven't just made that up, it's there.
The other stuff he demands, numbered 1 to 4 could have been adhered to but either Nick would never tell us or maybe they're waiting for him to get in touch as he didn't show up for the meeting.
Ah the meeting, which is mentioned in the letter of expulsion in post 259 in which it clearly states that all the rules were adhered to. By that, I take it the evidence may have been there but Nick can't prove anything. All Nick has had to do is prove otherwise and it would all be over by now. No need for this thread at all.

So now I'm going to give you a week off to sort it all out without me. You are free to suggest that it was all my doing and I am responsible for everything. I'll be reading but not posting. Just watch how Nick performs. Look for the signs.

For those who count posts, see how long I dominate the thread for in my absence. (I'll ad to that in a week, remind me)

Perversely, I have been flattered by the accusations of being someone close to the subject here. Trying work out what's going then getting very close to the truth is like hitting double top or sinking a long putt. YES!

It's a people thing; in people management it helps to be able to read people so you can avoid sacking the wrong person for the wrong reasons. Get it wrong and your *ss is on the line.

By for now
Floyd

 

[Seajet]

Re: imposters on this thread

Floyd,

it has been suggested you may have a pro-club agenda, and you said you don't want this thread in pole position, but you do indeed keep on posting to ensure it stays.

That's all up for discussion, but I find your suggestion someone here may be on drugs is outrageous, I suggest you delete that remark - it's not acceptable behaviour and does not show you in any improved light.

 

[robertj]

Hi Robert,
Im a 51 year old forum member, spent a year on the forum and found it fab. Ive watched this thread for several months and in the end had to comment over what I saw was absolute bullying and behaviour with intent to hound the person referred to as nickC.

I don't know Nick, never will, and don't know anyone else. Ive been disgusted by the actions on this thread, and actually the whole forum seams to have the potential to create forum trolls, who seam only to latch on to threads such as this. Its so sad when you then consider the age of forum members and the level of intelligence clearly evident. The forum is outstandingly interesting with great topics and im sure a beneficial tool to many.

Just to bring back Floyd again, whey does he feel the need for the topic to fall of the page. I understand where hes coming from, Id like the thread to help nickC with his fight. remember im not saying Nick is right or not. But this is NickCs thread. not Floyds.

Oh by the way, I know you mean no ill intent, but im not a character. I have come on this thread simply because its an outrage how some of the people act. To Floyd, I m no academic, no not massively successful, yes ive taken some hits, but really what has gone so wrong in your life. your successful, articulate, and your only point is to get self gratification from deformating peoples characters.
If you need help ask Nick, I bet he would help as would most people in life. this forum has far more to it than the few sick people attached to this thread. Id like to clarify a lot of people looking at this thread do so for similar reasons as mine. they are appalled by a few, one stands out more than any of them. I repeat you could change in an instant, no one would hold a grudge.

Steveeasy

Steve

Thank you for your post which as you rightly said I mean no ill.
I take you to task over my post which I feel on reading again didn't quite put my question over in the intended way to which on reflection I should have omitted the 'character' rather than the 'new posters' possibly.
I didn't want to read past posts to which the 'question' arose in the first place.
I'm glad you have laid your cards on the table and I back you with your support for nickc whether we are wrong when the full story is known is another matter.

 

[robertj]

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

If the letter isn't signed by a identifiable signature or supported by the vote from the members then they have hoodwinked you into this situation.
I would have dealt with this in a far different way.
I would not have recognised this committees decision in the first place, if as you say the rules were infringed. A written notice of intent attached with my subscriptions if applicable would have been sent to an individual of the committee to which you then can attach further redress through that individual.
I would have not excluded myself from the club or its facilities and carried on as if nothing had happened.
This would have produced another awkward situation for that committee to deal with.
Possession is nine tents of the law as 'they say, and in this case sadly you dispossessed yourself from the club.
How you are going to get redress other than write to every member of the club for support (which I strongly advise) is about your only option, this will then give a strong indication to yourself of whether you are a well liked asset to the club or not.
If the prior then canvass them to instruct the committee to reinstate you and if the latter walk away and get on with your life elsewhere.

 

[jordanbasset]

Okay my tuppence worth, I think NickC had a legitimate grievance (okay I only reach this conclusion from what he said) and I can understand why he was upset and the situation appears to have been badly handled by the committee.
But I also think he has not handled it well, not attending the meeting was a silly mistake.
Do not know the club involved but form this thread I assume it is fairly small and committee members don't get paid for their roles. Expecting such club to follow legalistic rules exactly is a little precious, it is not a court of law but I assume a group of like minded people trying to run a club for all. A little give here and there is surely required, personally I dislike the intrusion of legalistic methods into what are essentially social clubs.
NickC and Captain Pugwash has attracted some negative comments by others on here, which I do not think helps. But from my reading of the thread Floyd Rasor has received at least as much in the way of negative comments if not more. But this is an internet forum, people get a little over excited on occasions and it is all part of the cut and thrust of debate.
I have noticed Floyd Rasor does try to pull out of the debate, but invariably gets dragged back in when he is criticised. I think his last post to stay away for a week is a good idea and hopefully people will stop attacking him now and concentrate on the substantive issue. Although I do think trying to control who posts on a thread is a little control freakery.

 

[NickC]

Thread hijack

There is reasonable, thoughtful & constructive posting, and then there is hijack, trolling and deliberate attempt to derail a thread.

For someone who wasn’t a member of the forum while the previous related threads were evolving, and in fact wasn’t even a member when this thread started, to write 67 posts on the same thread, that looks an awful lot like attempted hijack.

If someone has that much to say on a subject then it is only polite that they start their own thread and post it all there. You do not hijack someone else’s thread, that is simply not done, etiquette old boy.

When one particular forumite has despatched more posts than the OP, something has gone very wrong.

 

[l'escargot]

Re: Thread hijack

There is reasonable, thoughtful & constructive posting, and then there is hijack, trolling and deliberate attempt to derail a thread.

For someone who wasn’t a member of the forum while the previous related threads were evolving, and in fact wasn’t even a member when this thread started, to write 67 posts on the same thread, that looks an awful lot like attempted hijack.

If someone has that much to say on a subject then it is only polite that they start their own thread and post it all there. You do not hijack someone else’s thread, that is simply not done, etiquette old boy.

When one particular forumite has despatched more posts than the OP, something has gone very wrong.

Most of those posts look like responses, to various posters, to me - you can't expect people not to respond, that is not under your control.

"The practices and forms prescribed by social convention..." is etiquette, I would say responding to posts directed at an individual by that individual falls into that category

Perhaps the OP has run out of anything meaningful to say when other posters overtake him...

 

[Daydream believer]

Re: imposters on this thread

'

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!

I cannot agree with that.
The OP placed the matter in the public domain & hence must expect comment from the forum at large. I would expect that very few people have any connection with the club, but have been invited to comment by the OP simply because he has posted the thread in the first place
If he, or any other for that matter, do not like the comments then that is a risk that we all take when posting on a forum.
Floyd has every right to post his opinions provided they do not insult or contain defamatory content. & just because some do not like his comments does not make them defamatory.

 

[NickC]

Re: imposters on this thread

Splendid, it has been a couple of days of peace all looking good here.

Now perhaps we can continue constructive debate in a more rational fashion and without interference.

 

[NickC]

Well one way or another there are two obvious points one can learn from this thread;

1, if I were in the area concerned I'd make a point of finding which club this is and avoiding them like the plague
…

Lessons learned:

If a bunch of control freaks start to take over your club deal with the matter urgently.
Do not just assume that all will be fine because it has always previously been a nice friendly club. Look what has happened here.

If you allow these types of people to get away with one small change, that only serves to give them more confidence for their next outrageous plot.

 

[NickC]

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....

No you are not wrong. Standard legal practice is absolutely clear as is the RYA’s interpretation of it and guidance. See below copied from post #41.

RYA guidlines

Extract from RYA document ‘EXPULSION OF MEMBERS’

The Respondent should have a full and fair hearing: In practice this means that he should:

• be told well in advance the precise nature and details of the complaint against him;
• be given well in advance any written statements made by witnesses;
• be entitled to cross examine any witnesses, produce his own witnesses, give evidence himself, and make a closing statement;
• not be subject to unreasonable time restraints in any of the above. For example, he should be given all the relevant documents at least 3 weeks before the hearing, and the committee should be prepared at the very least for a 2 - hour hearing; in many cases it will take longer.

Can't get any clearer than that!

 

[VicS]

If a bunch of control freaks start to take over your club deal with the matter urgently.

How ?

These people you call control freaks must have been democratically elected by the membership at an AGM. How do you stop that happening.

 

[sailorman]

No you are not wrong. Standard legal practice is absolutely clear as is the RYA’s interpretation of it and guidance. See below copied from post #41.

RYA guidlines

Extract from RYA document ‘EXPULSION OF MEMBERS’

The Respondent should have a full and fair hearing: In practice this means that he should:

• be told well in advance the precise nature and details of the complaint against him;
• be given well in advance any written statements made by witnesses;
• be entitled to cross examine any witnesses, produce his own witnesses, give evidence himself, and make a closing statement;
• not be subject to unreasonable time restraints in any of the above. For example, he should be given all the relevant documents at least 3 weeks before the hearing, and the committee should be prepared at the very least for a 2 - hour hearing; in many cases it will take longer.

Can't get any clearer than that!

Had you been an RYA personal member they would have supported you

 

[NickC]

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.

No problem Mike, it was to be held in a pub but there was nothing informal about it. It was supposedly a disciplinary hearing but rather than being held in private as would have been appropriate, it was to be held in the middle of a local pub, within earshot of all of their customers.

It was impossible to prepare for such a hearing as no specific accusations had been made and no supporting evidence had been supplied. Will send you a link below so you can see the volume of correspondence it would have been necessary to print out to have covered all possible accusations.

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

To better understand reasons for not attending the hearing, apart from those I have already mentioned, read the email I received from one of the Committee members which was attached at the end of my reply to the Committee in post #40: "Response to xxx Sailing Club Committee from Nick regarding expulsion from xxx".

I think that makes it obvious that there was no intention whatsoever of providing an appropriate full, fair and unbiased hearing to these matters.

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.

You are quite right neither are directly related to the Club so neither are valid reasons for expulsion. Will pm you the link to website of correspondence and documentation where you can also find these original threads.

... 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.

So they are allowed to stop me being able to sail my boat but I am not allowed to discuss their actions on a sailing forum?

That letter was not produced until after the hearing, no mention had been made of that reason for expulsion at any time prior. Although the letter does not specify, we can only assume, due to it’s timing, that it relates to the oversized outboard thread. Those who read it know that I did not say anything derogatory about the club, in fact quite the contrary. It is available on the correspondence and documentation website for evidence, you can read it yourself.

So not a valid reason for expulsion then.

Come to think of it I do not believe you will find that I have said anything derogatory about the club on this thread either, that is another false rumour which has been propagated. Some of it’s Committee possibly, not surprising frankly considering the outrageous way they have behaved, especially those who have joined the forum under false names solely with the intention of spreading false rumours and disrupting constructive discussion of this thread.

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?

No of course not, that wouldn’t make any sense. I think that was a poke at Floyd Raser who really could be the commodore. CaptainPugwash is probably just a Club member who doesn’t want to risk being exposed to bullying.