Pigeon Network

Original post copied from another site ?????

A STATEMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT & VICE-PRESIDENTS - R.P.R.A.

Unread postby john@formula 1 lofts » Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:56 pm
I have been asked to post this by the president and vice presidents of the RPRA.

Brian Walsh (President), John Gladwin, Ray Harris & Geoff Richmond (Vice-Presidents) were all elected at the RPRA AGM.
All four of us were new to the top table but highly experienced officials in various capacities within our sport. We were honoured to have been elected and under Brian’s leadership were keen to work together as a ‘team’ for the benefit of the RPRA.

Shortly after our appointment a ‘disciplinary issue arose’ following two formal letters of complaint from senior staff who had worked for the R.P.R.A. for many years, against the General Manager, which we were legally obliged to investigate. We immediately took advice from the RPRA’s solicitors ‘Rickerby’s’, and throughout our investigation their advice was followed at all times. As a part of our assessment we considered it both necessary and useful to talk to all staff at ‘The Reddings’. This we hoped would clarify issues relating to the ‘legal matter’, but also allow us to introduce ourselves, get to know the staff as individuals and understand their jobs. This was beneficial on many levels, with some staff explaining how we could help them do their jobs better and improvements they would like to see in their work place. These interviews took two full days. Only one member of staff who was on holiday was not interviewed. The time however was well spent as it brought to light practices we considered unsatisfactory and others that required change.

The outcome of the disciplinary matter was a formal letter to the General Manager of our findings, the contents of which again were approved by the R.P.R.A’s solicitors Rickerby’s. He was advised of our findings and given a letter relating to his future conduct. The G.M. responded to this with a five page ‘Open Letter’ sent by email and post to all Councillors listing his own grievances, many concerning the President and Vice-Presidents and his interpretations on a multitude of issues. These were largely on general matters, unrelated to the formal letters of complaint.

Such was the intensity of this letter that fifteen Councillors requested a ‘Special Meeting’ to discuss both the circumstances of the disciplinary matter and to give the G.M. a chance to appeal directly to Council on the outcome of our formal enquiry.

The President replied to each Councillor with his own letter, advising them that the matter would be discussed at the October meeting. The meeting of Councillors on 23rd October 2014 was not a ‘special meeting’ nor was it a ‘full Council meeting. The Council meetings were clearly advertised for the 24th and 25th October 2014.
The meeting on the 23rd October 2014 was a courtesy meeting for Councillors, called by the President and Vice-presidents with two aims. Firstly to allow the Association's solicitor to explain the procedure that had to be followed under employment law, whereby the complaints made by two of our most senior staff members had been heard. Theses members of staff had ten and fourteen years service and were amongst our most experienced and valued.
The second reason was to address the rants contained in the G.M’s ‘Open Letter’ to all Councillors, sent after he had been issued with a final written warning.


With regard to any appeal by the General Manager, Rickerby’s advice had been that the G.M. could appeal, but that this would need to be heard by an H.R. firm specialising in employment issues, as the four senior officials of the RPRA had all been involved in the initial hearing.
The G.M. had also complicated issues by writing to all Councillors with his own version of events. This left no-one in the organization who had not made some sort of judgement on the matter. All Councillors had therefore become briefed leaving no-one with an unbiased view. The ‘G.M.’s appeal therefore by necessity had to be heard by an independent body. The G.M. was therefore asked to select from three choices of H.R. Consultants all based in or around Cheltenham. This would have given him a totally independent assessment of his case. This he declined to take up.

On 23rd October at 1.30p.m. the President addressed Councillors. He introduced the solicitor from Rickerby’s, who had been asked to attend to advise Councillors on employment law procedure and answer their questions. The President and Vice-Presidents had followed the RPRA’s Solicitors advice throughout the process but felt it would be helpful to Councillors to be able to put their own questions directly.
However a proposition was received from the Cumbria Region to ask any non RPRA members to leave the room. This was passed. After some discussion a second proposition was received ‘Not to hear the solicitor’s advice’. This was also passed and she was informed that she could leave the building.

The President had prepared a full written response to the G.M’s ‘Open Letter’ for each Councillor and stood up to explain its contents. However the mood of the meeting was such that he had little chance to speak. After about ten minutes a proposition was received from an E.M.R Councillor of “No confidence in the President and Vice-Presidents”. This was seconded by the N.E Region. The President and Vice-Presidents were also told that they were not allowed to vote on this issue.

The voting was 13 For and 9 Against. Had the four officials been allowed to vote as in RPRA Rule 54 the voting would have been 13 For and 13 Against so the ‘status quo’ would have remained.

Our Points are:-
The solicitor should have been heard.
The President’s response to the legal issue and the G.M’s Open Letter should have been heard.

The conclusion must be that certain Councillors were disinterested in the answers and therefore working to a different agenda.

The facts remain that the four officials remain in office:
RPRA Rule 39 is quite clear ……..that the President & Vice-Presidents shall be elected at the A.G.M. from four different Regions and shall hold office for one year. …..

It is also a fact that Votes of ‘No Confidence’ simply reflect the mood of a meeting on one particular day and do not require officials to ‘stand down’.

Brian Walsh (RPRA – President:) John Gladwin, Ray Harris & Geoff Richmond (Vice-Presidents).
http://www.formula1lofts.com please have a look at our web site

John Gladwin

flying name Gladwin & Jarvis



Further Update -


The statement by Les Blacklock, Richard Carlton, Pat Mitchell and Brian Tattersall gives no clarification of the meeting of councillors held on 23rd October 2014.
A proposition from the north east region was on the agenda for the council meeting on 24 October 2014.This proposition had been received at the Reddings by the general manager on 7th October 2014 too late to be included on the council agenda for October as per R.P.R.A. Rule 48.
The proposition passed at the north east region on the 4th October 2014, sent by letter dated 6th October 2014 proposed a vote of no confidence in the R.P.R.A .president and vice-presidents and requires them to leave office with immediate effect'.
R.P.R.A. Rule 39 states 'The officers of the association shall be a president and 3 vice-presidents who shall be elected from delegates representing 4 different local regions at the A.G.M. of the association and shall hold office for one year'.
The vote taken on the proposition (13 for with 9 against) was not taken in accordance with the rules of the R.P.R.A.
R.P.R.A. Rule 54 states 'Each councillor shall have 1 vote’. There are 27 councillors. Some councillors' votes were not counted.
The meeting was not called to order before a vote was taken for an acting chairman and 3 advisors, now called support councillors.(Not one of these positions is recognised under R.P.R.A. Rules).
Many councillors were out of the room. The vote for acting chairman was 14 for with 1 against and 0 abstentions. The vote for the advisors was 11 for with 0 against and 8 abstentions.
Les Blacklock quotes R.P.R.A. Rule 38, but only in part. R.P.R.A. Rule 38 states 'The ultimate control of the affairs of the association shall be exercised by the council in general meeting.....'
This does give council the democratic right to remove any officer from office that has been elected under R.P.R.A. Rule 39.
It is important to consider how council arrived at this position.
It is a fact that e-mails had been sent by the general manager to all councillors.
It is a fact that a special meeting was called for under R.P.R.A. Rule 51.
R.P.R.A. Rule 51 requires the signatures of the councillors requesting the meeting. There were not 15 signatures as suggested by Les Blacklock, but enough for the request to be considered by the president and vice-presidents
R.P.R.A. rule states ’Only business of a non-routine or urgent nature shall be dealt with at a special meeting of the council but the decision of the president and vice-presidents as to whether any matter is non-routine or urgent is final.
Fact .The signatory councillors wanted a special meeting to hear the appeal of Stewart Wardrop against the disciplinary action taken against him.
Fact. The president did refuse to call a special meeting.
The advice from the association's solicitor was that the appeal of Stewart Wardrop must be heard by an outside HR company. The general manager had been given a choice from 3.
The president called a meeting of councillors for 23rd October 2014 to advise of the actions taken with regard to the general manager. The association's solicitor was invited to the meeting to advise on employment law and to answer any questions.
A number of councillors would not hear the solicitor speak and shouted down the president when he attempted to address the meeting.
There was a special meeting called in 2009 and I was one of those that signed the request.
The meeting was requested because the president, Les Blacklock, and the vice-presidents were breaking R.P.R.A .rules. They wanted to change R.P.R.A .rule 241 by using R.P.R.A. rule 142 and get councillors to agree by the means of a 'round robin'.
R.P.R.A. Rule 142 states 'That council shall have power to make and alter rules and regulations to cover any emergency. Such rules and regulations may be made or altered at a general meeting or a special meeting...'
If the rule was to be altered it had to be done at a special meeting of council as the rule states.
In this case a special meeting was not called because Stewart Wardrop's appeal could not be heard at council. Council recognised this fact by passing a proposition on the 23rd October 2014 that the general manager's appeal should be heard by an outside HR company.
The issue has not been snowballed into a full blown debate as those that say they will keep the R.P.R.A. functional will not let the other side of the argument be heard.
They have prevented the editor from publishing my letters, which I had hoped would keep the membership informed.
Les Blacklock talks of democracy and democratic rights. Where is my democratic right to let the membership know my side of the debate?

Let us not forget the real reason why this situation as arisen. Two long serving members of staff at the Reddings had made written complaints against Stewart Wardrop .The general manager stated that as general manager he was the only one able to hear their grievances.
The president and vice-presidents took advice from the association's solicitors they advised that the grievances must be heard by the president and vice-presidents. The solicitor's advice was followed throughout the grievance procedure.
Sadly the R.P.R.A .have lost a very valuable member of staff who had worked for the association for 10 years because she was unable to work any longer with Stewart Wardrop.

Ray Harris
Vice President

Letter in books w/e 12/12/14

R.P.R.A. COUNCIL
‘New Gang’ (Messrs Walsh, Gladwin, Harris, & Richmond) -
‘Old Gang’. (Messrs Blacklock, Carlton, Mitchell and Tattersall).

I do not know John Dennis but as one of the ‘New Gang’ would like to thank him for taking an interest in this unfortunate drama. Sadly as he points out in his final paragraph (Letter to the ‘Racing Pigeon’ - 28th November), the ‘New Gang’ had only two options, to either accept the present situation and their removal from office, or take legal advice. He does mention that the RPRA Rules would not be helpful, but on this point he is quite wrong.
Rule 39 is quite specific in that this defines that the President and Vice-Presidents will be elected….at the A.G.M…. and shall hold office for one year. This seems pretty unambiguous to me and a good point to start our defence.
It is of course, rules like this that the legal world thrive on, as they are simple and clear. There is no debate as to what they mean. It is really the only rule we need although there are several others that we are finding useful.

The acting Chairman Les Blacklock wrote in his article in the BHW 14th November that when he was President and had a request for a ‘Special Meeting’ he complied exactly with the Rule and called one within ten days. In the RP of 5th December he acknowledges receipt of a ‘Special Meeting’ request from the elected President Brian Walsh and then admits not calling one. His reasons are quite trivial and irrational.

His explanation - well, that the request for the meeting was not addressed to him, but to the President! “Yes” but such meeting requests have to be made to the President, that is the rule. Brian simply passed the signatures onto him. Having accepted the position of acting Chairman and placed himself very comfortably in the President’s chair, then he must also accept the responsibilities of the seat that he occupies. He cannot have it all ways. If the ‘Old Gang’ deny the President the right to carry out his duties of office, they cannot then pretend that they have no responsibilities to run the RPRA as close to the Rules as possible. Bleating “I can’t do it. I am not the President” is quite simply pathetic. It will just not wash.
Of course if the acting Chairman had called the Special Meeting it is possible a resolution could have been reached.

The third item the acting Chairman says he has received, is a letter he assumes is ‘legal’ signed by the President and three Vice-Presidents. However he writes that this fails the numbers test as per RPRA Rule 51. Since when did ‘Barristers’ have to comply with RPRA Rule 51? Is this acting Chairman really doing a good job for himself and his three advisors, also named in the legal document? A good guiding principle is that if something looks like a legal document and reads like a legal document, then it very probably is one.

The acting Chairman also arrogantly states that because one of the documents he received was headed the ‘Royal Racing Pigeon Association’ instead of the ‘Royal Pigeon Racing Association’ he can simply dismiss the whole package. How can a Region secretary and ex President really believe this? The law is much wiser and more flexible than the RPRA, where I have seen an issue won or lost on a missing comma! I can assure him that this minor typing error will have no affect on the validity of the documents he received.

All fanciers will by now have heard how the ‘Old Gang’ and their supporters managed to carry a proposition from an East Midland delegate of ‘No confidence in the top officials and that they should be removed from office’. If anyone doubts that this action was hasty and against RPRA Rules please read my first paragraph again. To do this without giving the officials any reasons, or allowing them a response, beggars belief.

The question all fanciers should now ask is why the unseemly haste? Shortly after the ‘New Gang’ took office we were advised by the G.M. of ‘secret documents’ which the past President and himself, had signed with two different companies. There were clear penalties for revealing details. We were told by the G.M. that as the ‘new officials’ we would also have to sign. Well, “Yes, it is Christmas, but the ‘New Gang’ did not fall off a Christmas tree.” We would only consider signing documents after being given full details and then only after consultation and approval from Council.

The ambition of the ‘New Gang’ is for us all to return to active office both for this year and beyond. We certainly wish to study past expenditure and many other issues if we are given the opportunity. With the intransigent attitude of the acting Chaisrman we have had no choice but to seek legal redress. Our aim is for a speedy ‘legal decision’ on what we believe was our ‘illegal eviction’ from office. Finally I would like to thank the many benefactors who are actively supporting us with their generous donations. Apart from some donations from supporting Regions this action has been taken with private funds given willingly by ourselves and friends. This action is not against the RPRA but the four individuals who put themselves forward to replace the President and Vice-Presidents. We wish all our supporters and all RPRA members a ‘Very Happy Christmas’.

Dr. Geoff Richmond (Vice-President R.P.R.A.) on behalf of ‘The New Gang’.

RE: RPRA COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 2014 - Letter in BHW 16/01/15

Over the past weeks various communications have been published in the letters column of the BHW regarding the vote of no confidence in the appointed President and Vice Presidents of the Association..As an RPRA Councillor myself who attended the October meeting of council i am somewhat bemused about what transpired..A request was put forward from a Councillor calling for a vote of no confidence in the top officials ..At no time did he give any reference to what this vote was for ..Picking through the pieces it appears that the President had become involved in a Regions business, agreed that the President should remain impartial..But as for the Vice Presidents i cant understand the reasoning behind his request..Was it concerning the General Managers disciplinary ?..if so the vote of no confidence is out of order..The Associations solicitors were contacted to gain advice as it falls under Employment Law and as no one on council is familiar with the laws relating to employment , the President and Vice Presidents acted in the correct way

When the Councillors who are ,in their words, acting Chairman and support officers were appointed it was passed that the General Manager had his appeal heard by an HR Company..it will be interesting to see the outcome ( correct action implemented by council ) The RPRA Council will then be in a position to see if the President and Vice Presidents had acted in the correct manner when dealing with the General Manager


With regard to the vote of no confidence , in my lifetime i have witnessed , as many of you have , issues regarding dissatisfaction concerning MPs and the lack of confidence in the actions they have but it didnt remove them from office..In the case of the President and Vice Presidents it should not and under RPRA rules cannot be removed from office ..Reprimanded , yes, if it is proven that they had not acted in the interest of the Association and its memebers (you the fanciers )

The RPRA Rules are there to guide every member /fancier at all levels of the membership, it makes no difference if you are a back garden flyer a club or federation official, a delegate appointed to Region, a Region Councillor or an RPRA Councillor, we are all bound by the same rules of the Association...The President and Vice Presidents were duly elected at the AGM and nowhere in the rules does it allow their removal, irrespective of a vote of no confidence being requested but more importantly at no time was any reason given for why this request was made

You the membership have a right to know what is happening within the Association and should not be kept in the dark having been given only part of what has transpired..Its your Royal Pigeon Racing Association the one to which you all pay an annual subscription , and you all deserve to be told the truth.

Yours

Alan King
Life Vice President Southern Region
Southern Region RPRA Councillor

Posted end January 2015 -
In the matter of the High Court Proceedings
Brought by Brian Walsh (President) RPRA and Vice Presidents ( The Claimants )
and L Blacklock, Richard Carlton , Pat Mitchell and Brian Tattersall ( The Defendants )

As you will know following the General Meeting of the RPRA held at Coventry on 23rd October
the President , and 3 Vice Presidents were removed from Office following a vote of no confidence.

Letters had been received from 2 Regions - East Midlands and North East requesting the vote , and after a very heated exchange the vote was taken under duress , and the President and 3 Vice Presidents were removed. There were two votes taken at the time - the first on a show of hands with 13 for the motion and 10 against . Included in this vote was the vote of Ray Harris Vice President .

Prior to the vote being taken the Mr Carlton and Mr Ewart and others shouted that “ you cannot have a vote “ The comment was made by one of the parties that it would be like “ a turkey voting for Christmas “ The President then took a second vote on the motion and the result was 13 in favour and 9 against . The President and Vice Presidents were not allowed to vote .

Against this background there then followed an election of Officers , with 13 Councillors being out of the meeting room . This election was undertaken by 13 Councillors with one abstention. When the meeting was re convened the newly appointed “Acting Chairman and 3 helpers “ were in control of the meeting .

The role call of those Councillors attending the meeting was listed as 27 and on this basis the election was unconstitutional . Also it was the Presidents view that the following Rules were broken :
Rule 39- Essentially this rule allows for the President to be in office from one AGM to the following AGM
Rule 48 - Any Local Region acting through its Secretary can request the President to include any matter providing 21 days notice is given of such
Rule 54 – Each Councillor shall have one vote and in the event of an equality of votes , the Chairman of the meeting shall have the casting vote .

The dispute arose under the alleged breeches of these rules , and it was this matter that came before
His Honour Patrick MaCahill QC in the Chancery Division of the Bristol High Court . The matter came before the Court on Monday 12 th January . I have not detailed all the arguments put forward by each side , but it is suffice to say that in the witness statements there was a fundamental difference of opinion relating to the voting procedure . On the one hand Mr Walsh recalled the voting as being 13/ 9 and him being advised that he and the 3 Vice Presidents could not vote . It was Mr Blacklocks view that it was not the case that the votes of the President and Vice Presidents should not be counted .

This fundamental difference in the two statements meant that the Judge could not decide this issue without a full trial, where both parties would be subject of cross examination. The hearing therefore proceeded to establish whether or not the duly elected Presidents and Vice Presidents could be returned to office.

Produced below is the Judgement given by His Honour Patrick McCahill which I have produced and was taken at the time - The decision has been provided in précis form as the Judge”s decision took almost an hour to be delivered .
“ The RPRA has a long historic tradition and is run by local Regions . In February 2014 at the AGM of those Regions represented an election took place at which the Claimants ( C) were elected President and Vice President of the RPRA .
The election process is not taken by the entire membership . The Association is run by a number of Regions each Region according to the number of members , and returns a number of Councillors dependant on the numbers in each area . The Region Council elects its own Councillor who then Goes onto the National Council. It is the National Council who accept themselves and nominate and vote on the position of President and Vice President . It appears the whole process takes place at Coventry each year . This election is not prefaced by any manifestos and the Region Delegates elect the P and VP .

It is against this background of the AGM and at Council that the P and VPs are elected
The constitution and Rules provide a common ground between members and these operate at local and National level. The powers are invested in the National Council . Under the rules all those elected are members of Council who elect a President and VPs as Officers of the RPRA . The executive control of the RPRA is placed on the P and VPs . The principle role of the P / VP is to control meetings of Council and all are members of various sub committees .
The P is ex officio on all committees of the Association. The VPs have a roll in discipline and procedure .
An issue arose concerning the conduct of the General Manager at which the Officers suspended him
The Officers wished to examine his conduct – The GM had circulated all members about this - referred to being “ vindictive “ moreover “ old fashioned “ - master and servant attitude .
What happened then was that the P was written to by 2 local Regions asking what this was about ,and asking for a “special meeting “ to discuss . Such a request of “ Time to be called” was time barred being less than the 21 days permitted by the Rules . The P refused this request . No special meeting was called .

There were meetings called on 23 rd , 24 th and 25 th October at Coventry Hills.These meetings were properly called the meeting on the 23 rd was of full Council . An agenda was produced .
The meeting on 23 rd commenced at 1.30 and it is supported by the Defendants that the President referred to a “ courtesy meeting “ This was objected to – Rules show that meeting s can be a general meeting , a special meeting or AGM .
There then surfaced the matter of the vote of No Confidence raised by the 2 Regions against the P and Vps.
The meeting rapidly degenerated the 2 motions were eventually put to the vote . The P Brian Walsh
Maintained that he had been bullied into submission. The vote was taken and one view of the voting

( Mr Walsh) 13/ 9 . the issue of the 4 missing votes – the claimants say that they were not allowed to vote and had they done so it would have been 13/13 Under the Rules the P would have had a casting vote . The motion would have been defeated
The Defendants case is that the 4 did note vote – one of them Ray Harris did vote and voted against the motion .The result would therefore have been 13/12 . again common ground The Rules do not confer an express power to remove and the vote claimed by the Claimants that this would have been null and void.

There then followed reference to the manner in which the application for the injunction was requested
The Defendants claim was that they had insufficient time after receipt of summons on 13 December to prepare a proper response. The Judge questioned why an “immediate injunction “ had not been applied for . Further discussion took place regarding the requirements of Practice Directions Note .
The Judge continues – “ There was no application for an immediate injunction ,Rule 142 allows Council of the RPRA to amend the Rules – they may substitute appropriate rules to cover an emergency . discussion took place regarding defects in the Rules – in particular for example what would happen on the death of a Councillor or imprisonment .
The real question I have to address is should I grant the Injunction . I cannot decide the issue relating to the differences in the statements of Mr Walsh and Mr Blacklock and this I cannot do without a full trial, where each is cross examined . Should I grant the injunction permitting the Claimants ( Mr Walsh and VPs) back in office .

I am minded that the next AGM of the RPRA is only 6 weeks away on February 27 th.I am being asked to disturb arrangements which have been put in place . After the meeting in October a special meeting was requested of Mr Blacklock – who then declined . That special meeting was denied to the Claimants Mr Walsh and other signatories .
The Claimants allege that since that date the Defendants have been more than holding the reigns of the Association but have been making executive decisions . The claim has also been made that the HR review of the GM has been allowed to pass by default since no one represented the RPRA at the HR hearing .

At the meeting of Council on 24 th October it was agreed that this review be undertaken by an independent external HR company . In conclusion I simply say that it is unsafe for me to say anything on that particular matter . There have been other matters raised as to financial irregularity . The Claimants had been investigating , but have not been permitted in their absence to pursue this .

I have to decide the tests to be applied in the application for the Injunction. Are for exam damages an adequate compensation , or do I consider damage to reputation .This is difficult argument for me to decide.
In summing up and coming to his final conclusion Judge MaCahill the following point are made :
1. It is now the 12 January - 3 months since the events of the 23 rd and only 6 weeks to the next AGM .
2. No manifestos are submitted by Councillors and effectively they put their hats in the ring for election to Officers , President etc at the time
3. Each college , local region has already elected their candidates for Council . They must therefore be highly regarded by their Regions .

These are experienced members , and there is no expectation of any major events between now and the next AGM . The Council is evenly divided and it seems to me that neither side has a distinct majority . People need to examine their conscience and nominate candidates , and under the special circumstances decide properly on the day……….

Suffice to say the evidence before me shows that I should maintain the “status quo”. and to retain the current position . I am not persuaded that any harm will come to the Association .
The situation that the RPRA finds itself in is “ messy” and I hope that there will be a change in the regime . Accordingly I refuse the injunction. “
Comment - As a result of the High Court action clearly the affairs of the Association have come under the spotlight , and the Association needs transparency and accountability . Members should be aware of the disorder following the events of the 23 rd October .

Divisions now need to be set to one side to ensure that the Association proceeds and that all members are aware of the actions of Councillors who need your support at local level. I was distressed at the events of the 23 rd which to made me ashamed to be a Councillor .

3 Times ive sent it for publication

sir

Omerta, the Sicillian code of silence, or, in RPRA parlance, "ignore it and it will go away"

"Those who need to know are in the know "...sound familiar ???, it does to those who are old enough to remember

I am a citizen of the UK, ruled over by Royalty and government, a government that is elected by the populace every five years, there are any number of candidates, but i can vote only for one, once and once only...it is the law of the land, there are also local council elections every two years or so, again, one vote...the law of the land

I am also a pigeon fancier, and in any pigeon club im a member of , in matters pertaining to that club, i have one vote, when i raced in partnership with my brother we had one vote, there were two other partnerships of two people and one of three, they had one vote, any club im a member of races in a federation, in any matters pertaining to that federation, the club has one vote, one club has 9 members, another has twice that number, another had three times that number, they each have one vote...should either the club or federation have cause to vote at Region level, they have one vote.....when you reach the upper echelons of administration within pigeon racing everything changes, Region A has more votes than Region B, Region C has more votes than A and B, why ??? because Region C has more members than A or B, a system held open to manipulation

Government investigated "proportional representation " for electoral voting and dismissed it as unfair and biased, but it is this same system used by the RPRA for voting in matters involving the pigeon fanciers of this country...it is a system corrupted by collusion and cronyism ...Pigeon racing has never been a level playing field, many have cited different reasons, wind direction, geographical location etc, all this system does is increase the incline , and at the top of this incline sits Mr RPRA ( whoever it may be ), safe, untouchable and immovable, put there by collaboration within the ranks,using a system that is unchanged and cannot be challenged... if a proposal to change this system went to every Region and Council meeting for the next ten years it would never be adopted, because it takes away the power and prestige of some that regard their place among the hierarchy as their divine right

Administration in pigeon racing is a thankless task, i know, having held most offices up to federation level, and i can hear every Region delegate, secretary and reserve, shouting at this letter, "i give up my time ", "i dont get paid", " my family suffers ", "someone has to ", ive heard them all, and my reply is this.....Stand down...give it up...go on, i dare you, bring each and every one of those statements to bear and walk away, ill bet my pension not one will...... power, status, prestige, call it what you will, but the ability of the few to manipulate the majority will always happen with a system that ignores the law of the land

I have an MP where i live that represents my interest in Parliament and the running of the country, he can hold any number of offices and occupations, but in matters of Parliament he can represent only the constituency he was elected to, again, the law of the land....not so it seems in pigeon racing, it appears you can represent more than one region if you word the title correctly, and please dont quote the Mr and Mrs part at me, it is tenuous at the very least, laughable at the extreme, i do not know them , have little knowledge of them other than the name crops up with astonishing regularity in RPRA matters, but id gamble that the two Regions have never voted in opposition to each other while ever the name represents them....collusion, collaboration, a system that readily allows all these this to happen....Government wont use it.....why does the RPRA ???, form your own opinions

One more snippet from the rules of the Association
Rule 38 ...Quote."In the event that a straight majority of the members of the Association vote for or against any matter of resolution put to the vote in this manner the Council shall be obliged to take the necessary actions to give effect to that vote. In all other cases THE COUNCIL SHALL NOT BE OBLIGED TO COMPLY WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE MAJORITY OF VOTES CAST ON ANY SUCH MATTER OR RESOLUTION BUT SHALL TAKE SUCH VOTES INTO ACCOUNT IN THE COUNCILS DELIBERATIONS....isnt that good of them considering the majority, in other words if we dont like it , sod the majority out it goes, would the government of the land get away with such a statement tailor made for corruption ...

This is one of the major reasons why nothing will ever be changed through "proper channels and due process "Glyn, youve been there, you know how it works...it is any wonder the more rural Regions are tired of banging their heads against the wall...there are times when for instance 3 Regions can outvote 5 others simply because they have more votes...it cannot be fair in anyones language
"IF YOU DONT VOTE, YOU HAVE NO VOICE,"

" TELL ME YOU DONT CARE, TELL ME YOURE NOT BOTHERED, BUT DONT TELL ME YOURE SORRY, IT INSULTS MY INTELLIGENCE "

PETE JONES

South West Region RPRA AGM Meeting

Thursday 14th January at Frys Keynsham .

There will be the opportunity for you to express your views at the next AGM for the SW Region on 14th January . The AGM will commence at 7.00 pm followed by a Committee meeting afterwards .

We want your views as to how the Region should be run - currently the Region Committee is made up of up to 8 members , and we would welcome additional support . Bill Morris will be unable to stand this coming season , due to his health , but will still remain an active member of the sport .
We can ill afford to lose any other Councillors . In the past year much work has rested on Alen Gibbs shoulders , and the WoeSRCombine whose support has been very much appreciated .

We want to try to involve other members - younger fanciers and also those with some spare time on their hands . Attendance is only needed 3/4 times during the year , although the last year has been exceptional in view of the \" Olympiad affair\" .

If you care for your sport let us have your attendance - with some 1400 members in the Region it is unfair that the administration of the Region should involve a Secreatary , President, Vice President and a handfull of perhaps 4/5 Committee members .

I am anxious to see the Region show its true colours - we have some nationally / internationally well known fliers in the Region - your help would be most welcome .
The current Committee all give their time free . if you attend the AGM it will at least show that you care for what is your sport , and gives pleasure to fanciers young and old . We are not beaten yet but your full support at the AGM would give Committee members some recognition for the time and effort that they put in. That alone would be an acknowledgment to us ! A successful and eventful 2016 flying season to all South West Region members .

Ronald Shirley SW Region Vice President
tel / fax 01 453 843180

RPRA COUNCIL & THE \'MAQUIS\' DICKIN MEDAL

GRANDSON FIGHTS RPRA FOR WW2 MEDAL:
This dispute involves the ownership of a Dickin Medal awarded after the war to a racing pigeon ‘Maquis’ for three flights from occupied territory in 1943 & 1944. After the war Percy Cope a respected builder and business man purchased the pigeon and was delighted when it was subsequently awarded a Dickin Medal for its heroic flights. Percy specified in his ‘Will’ that the medal was to be kept ‘In trust’ as a family heirloom and not to be owned by a single individual.

After his death Percy’s son Anthony took charge of the medal jointly with his mother but when she died in 1988 the medal could not be found. A family member recalled that it had been loaned out for display to local shows and the family advertised for information in local papers.

Anthony renewed his efforts to trace the medal and in 2010 they contacted the PDSA who keep records of issued medals and their owners. They agreed that the medal was registered to the Copes and issued the family with a half sized replica. By April 2013 the PDSA had become aware the Maquis Medal was in possession of the ‘Royal Pigeon Racing Association’ and notified the Cope family. Anthony Cope however by this time had been diagnosed with a terminal cancer and so the return of the medal became a family priority. The RPRA were contacted. Several members of the RPRA Council where sympathetic to the situation and Brian Walsh a Vice-President of the RPRA at the time and a Councillor for 20 years agreed to contact all Councillors individually by letter. They responded agreeing to return the medal as soon as possible, although this was blocked by the General Manager and President.
Tony finally died in August 2013.

The General Manager’s own uncertainty of the RPRA’s ownership of this medal was demonstrated when on 24th May 2013 he wrote in the RPRA’s weekly newspaper the BHW “There are five medals shown - four of which are owned by the RPRA and one belonging to “Maquis” and we are researching the legal ownership of so that it may be returned to its rightful owner. If any pigeon fancier has any knowledge of the legal ownership of the ‘Maquis’ medal, can they please contact me urgently.” The RPRA were making it explicitly clear that they were not actually claiming that they were the legal owner themselves, but that they were trying to find out who the legal owner was.

A report by the General Manager showed that the medal had been acquired between October 1998 and February 1999 by a single Councillor acting alone. No-one else had been present and there was no receipt for the £4,000 said to have been paid nor any provenance for the medal. The RPRA’s solicitor advised in an email to the G.M. “If the seller did not have the right to sell the Medal the contract is void”. Percy’s grandson Guy Cope has endured considerable costs, but still working hard to persuade the RPRA to return it. To the RPRA this Medal is simply one of five Dickin medals kept in a drawer but to the Cope family it has real meaning and over seventy years of close personal attachment. Hopefully the forthcoming AGM of the RPRA will re-address their right to ownership.
I am sure that RPRA members do not want this three year drama to continue. RPRA Council quote \"Posession is nine-tenths of the law\". This is wrong. If you possess a stolen car, it most definately is NOT YOURS. The Cope family have the Provenance for this medal and it should be returned.

In recent times RPRA Council have let the membership down badly. The President has made it clear that the RPRA RULES DO NOT APPLY TO HIM & THE OLYMPIAD COMMITTEE ARE UP TO THEIR KNECKS WITH THE FCI DEFENDING THEIR TEAM MANAGER, OVER FALSE ENTRY INFORMATION AT THE BUDAPEST OLYMPIAD. The membership needs a Council that is honest and works for the interests of its members. Returning the Maquis Medal to the Cope family would be a good start both for them and for the sport of pigeon racing. I hope that the 2016 Councillors will see that this happens. Dr Geoff Richmond. (Resigned Councillor)

RPRA COUNCILLORS IGNORE GUY COPE’S £4,000 LETTER:

Most of you will know that I am a retired GP and so have considerable experience of people in their last few weeks of life. This report is an update of the Cope’s families efforts to regain the Maquis medal from the RPRA, which they do have legal title to. Guy’s father Tony approached me, as an RPRA Councillor, three months before his death as the PDSA had traced the family’s missing Dickin Medal - the Maquis medal to the RPRA. The GM admitted in the BHW of 24th May 2013 that the RPRA had five medals, four of which they owned and that they were seeking the owner of the fifth. They didn’t have to look far, as they already had Tony Cope’s letter in their possession! Yet they chose to do nothing! What a missed publicity opportunity for the RPRA. In the last months of life no-one suddenly decides to take on an organization like the RPRA. They do however try to resolve matters they feel they have some responsibility for and fulfill promises they may have made.

Brian Walsh an RPRA V/P and myself wrote personally to all Councillors making them aware that Tony’s position was desperate and urging them to return it. We had a considerable majority in favour, but the then President vetoed our vote, saying we did not have the authority to canvas Councillors in this way. Three years later nothing has changed. I promised Tony I would support him in the return of the Maquis medal to the family and I will continue to support his son Guy in the same way. Sadly although the GM had a copy of the letter from Guy Cope (printed below) as did all individual Councillors, Council did not even include it on the agenda for the recent Council meeting!
Although Councillors did not see fit to discuss Guy Cope’s letter how strange then, that they should find time to discuss another unsolicited letter, an invitation to Buckingham Palace to celebrate the Queen’s ninetieth birthday. “Yes” of course Les Blacklock and his wife are able to go (tickets £150 each). In fact after some discussion it was decided that the RPRA would apply for ten tickets. The RPRA will pay for the President and his wife. The other eight will be on offer to Regions or individuals, but of course they will have to be paid for.
I URGE YOU TO READ THE LETTER BELOW - GUY COPE HAS APPROVED MY USE OF IT.

LETTER FROM GUY COPE to All RPRA Council Members
WITHOUT PREJUDICE: 19th February 2016

Dear Sir, RE: MAQUIS DICKEN MEDAL
It is well documented that my family is seeking the return of the Maquis Dickin Medal from the RPRA on the grounds that although the medal is in the RPRA’s possession my mother, Marie Cope, claims good title. Aproximately 12 months ago I wrote to all Council Members (c/o Stewart Wardrop) offering a donation to a charity of the RPRA’s choosing in return for the Maquis medal - I was informed that ‘the Council chose not to hear the letter’ which was of great disappointment to me as a genuine offer of conciliation had been simply dismissed out of hand. Since that time I have taken further legal advice and considered my families position. My mother and I have concluded that we should try one again to appeal to the honourable members of the Council to return the medal which is of great sentimental value to us both. We ask you to consider our appeal on the grounds of moral decency in addition to the factual matters.

To recap: John James acquired the medal from person(s) unknown; the medal was acquired without the benefit of citation; the RPRA made no attempt to find out if the seller had good title to the medal and hence the right to sell it; The RPRA do not know from whom the medal was acquired and, it appears made no attempt to find out; John James did not produce a receipt for the ‘purchase’; The RPRA gave John James £4,000 simply because he asked for it; The RPRA’s solicitor in an email to Mr Wardrop dated 17 July 2013 wrote “If the seller did not have the right to sell the medal the contract is void”; The seller had no right to sell the medal

The medal is of negligible monetary value to the RPRA as no well-informed person would consider purchasing it in the knowledge that it ownership remains in dispute and my family can prove provenance as it is in the possession of the citation. You may ask why, if we are so confident in our case, we do not have the matter determined by the courts. The answer is simple - before he died my father asked that I take care of my mother and this I have done, as far as I am concerned it would not be in my mother’s best interests (she is now in her mid-seventies) for her to attend court to give evidence as the experience would no doubt be a particular stressful and unpleasant one - I am sure that you will appreciate this if you have ever attended court to hear a litigation case.

In consideration of the return of the medal I will: Make a donation to the RPRA or a charity of its choice (the PDSA perhaps?) in the sum of £4,000 on the condition that the Maquis medal is returned to the Cope family. The RPRA confirm in writing via their legal representative that the renounce all claim to the medal and that in their opinion it belongs unequivocally to the Cope family and the RPRA provide a signed and witnessed receipt for the monies received.

I hope that in considering our proposal you will acknowledge that my father found the whole matter deeply distressing in the weeks prior to his death and I will always regret that he was not able to find some little comfort in his final days through being re-united with the medal. The return of the medal would however go someway towards making amends in enabling both me and my mother to fulfill my father’s wishes and create a family heirloom, recognizing Maquis’ magnificent achievements, to be passed through future generations.

I trust that our proposal is considered in the spirit that it is made and sincerely hope that you will publicly support the return of the medal to my family at the forthcoming AGM. Another option would of course be for the RPRA to act magnanimously and return the medal directly. From what I have read it would appear that the RPRA may well benefit from some positive publicity just now.
Yours faithfully,
Guy Cope

NOTE: It is fact that the purchaser of the medal, John James was not a man of principle as many in the Gloucester area will testify. Monies belonging to the Gloucester Fed and the South West Region were banked into his own personal accounts and only returned after his death, due to the good and trusting nature of his wife. Dr. Geoff Richmond.
My purpose in joining this site is to learn from it and follow current pigeon topics as pigeons are a large part of my life. My contributions will be occasional, none controversial and hopefully helpful. I will be a reader rather than a writer and hope to enjoy the site through following the varied opinions it represents.
GEOFF RICHMOND