PDA

View Full Version : CKCS CLUB Committee Votes



HollyDolly
19th April 2010, 07:29 PM
Hello

Having only just read another forum I note an obvious error has been made on my part,may I therefore offer my full apologises to all parties concerned for my mistake .


Brian it is realy good you have apologised, they NEED to grow up especial Ms VBG

Nanette

Tania
19th April 2010, 07:44 PM
Hello

Having only just read another forum I note an obvious error has been made on my part,may I therefore offer my full apologises to all parties concerned for my mistake .

I am shocked and amazed that people let alone Cavalier lovers can be so nasty publicly
:shock:

Margaret C
19th April 2010, 09:00 PM
Hello

Having only just read another forum I note an obvious error has been made on my part,may I therefore offer my full apologises to all parties concerned for my mistake .


Hello Brian,

Your timely apology, as soon as you realised you mistake is a responsible and sensible thing to do.

Unfortunately the Cavalier Club does not share your responsible attitude and I have been forced, for the second year running, to withdraw from the Club committee election.

Very briefly, the Cavalier Club circulated a defamatory statement that both the committee, and the writer, knew was a lie to over 1,000 people.

They have removed the untrue statement from the latest official Club documentation ( and why would they do that unless they knew it was untrue? ) but they have ignored my request that they inform the members that it is not true at the same time.

The whole saga has been protracted and quite complicated, so I have decided to start a blog which will allow me to explain the breeders attitude to talking about health issues in dogs.
I hope that over the weeks I will be able to explain the reasons why I gave an interview to the film Pedigree Dogs Exposed, and explore my relationship with a Club that seems more intent on punishing me for breaking the unspoken rule of silence, than with working to improve the future of our beautiful, but very health compromised, cavaliers.

Below is an excerpt from my email to the Cavalier Club Secretary...

"You will be aware that last year I stood for the committee and was elected unopposed. This led to key members of the Club threatening to resign and, as I did not want to see the Club unable to function, I withdrew my nomination.

This year there were more nominees than vacancies. I had hoped that I would be elected to the committee by members votes, so that it could be demonstrated that the majority of Cavalier Club members, in a postal vote, supported my stand on cavalier health and it was their wish that I should serve on the committee.

However, I now feel I cannot continue with my candidature, as in doing so it would appear that I have condoned the unfair and improper way this committee election has been run.

I am withdrawing my name from the list of candidates because I believe that the election process has been flawed by the irregularities that have made it necessary to set three different AGM dates, increase the stated vacancies from 4 to 7, and then to 8, and necessitated the printing of two sets of ballot papers.

I believe that I was personally disadvantaged by the circulation of a defamatory statement to over 1,000 members, and this was either deliberate manipulation, or gross incompetence, by committee members that knew that the statement contained untrue information.

Whether deliberate or not, this falsehood in official club documentation will have prejudiced my chances of being elected to the committee.

The removal of the defamatory statement from the AGM agenda, and the substitution of a revised page, is clear indication that the Club recognises that publication of the falsehood was wrong.

The refusal to inform all the membership that the statement was incorrect, before they voted again, means that the Cavalier Club has failed to provide a level playing field for all candidates.

The conduct of the committee members, in allowing a discriminatory sentence about being "sufficiently fit, in body and in mind" to be included in another Candidate's statement, is also of concern to me as a disabled person, and to many of the members that supported my nomination.

I will be submitting a complaint to the Kennel Club about the manner in which the Cavalier Club committee conducted this election".

Sabby
19th April 2010, 09:27 PM
After reading Margaretís post I ask myself how many people in The Cavalier Club really want to change things. I am not having a go at breeders my good friend is a breeder and I know there are good breeders out there but it canít be just two or three people in the Club to have that much influence over things? And there we are the pet owners that donate money to make things better the ones who end up with the vetís bills and the heart break. I think itís time that the Dinosaurs get a shove up the behind.

Karlin
19th April 2010, 10:57 PM
Unfortunately some of the better known breeders and judges, and the ones who tend to become involved in (micro) managing things, have a lot of reasons to have nothing change: going from the inconvenience in changing the way they have always practiced their 'hobby', to a threat to the money they make from puppies and stud fees (which in turn supports their 'hobby' and often more), to their reputation suddenly turning hollow if (and when) EBVs reveal the poor health in their lines and some of their key dogs of the past (as they never chose to tell other breeders of the problems they knew were coming from that line), to determination to keep pet owners, other breeders, or documentaries from revealing problems in their lines.., lots and lots of reasons.

There are also many decent breeders who do not support the approach and attitude of these others at all --mostly quite small breeders but some with more significant involvement. The bullies you see posting (and revealing themselves :rolleyes:) regularly elsewhere ensure most of these people are too afraid to speak out though many work quietly and with determination behind the scenes. Most of them are utterly fed up with clubs and individual breeders who keep trying to bury the health issues and who refuse to do more than window-dressing acts on behalf of breed health, if even that. But it is hard to risk losing your ability to show in your own country much less get a fair chance at being judged when so many of the names you will all recognise from their comments elsewhere on breed health issues are the ones who judge their dogs. Fortunately, many breeders are now concerned about SM and are scanning their dogs despite the best efforts of some;hopefully, they will also go forward using whatever tools for breeding emerge. What (little) has been done about MVD though remains a pretty sad example to date of how the bulk of club breeders respond to serious health issues. They will do a little bit here and there but the puppy gazettes show how many breed dogs, especially studs, long before they should be bred, when health tests are meaningless in progressive diseases. By the time a problem might show, that dog's genes are spread far and wide in the breed.

Club elections are intimidating because they turn into the sort of farce we all saw with the EGM at which Margaret was removed from the committee, having been the one person with the courage and decency and dedication to the breed to say publicly what many, many knew and about what widely goes on. Some of public criticism comes from the ones who keep insisting they have never bred a dog with SM or never been informed of such by an owner of one of their dogs and this, quite simply, is a pack of lies (in one case admitting they have a dog with SM but it was 'bought in from outside' as one post stated, not explaining that the dog's sire was the breeder's own stud dog and hence was hardly 'from outside'. These people know they produce SM; some of the affected dogs' owners have sent them registered letters; I have seen copies of the correspondence in many, many cases. It is a corrupt and morally bereft system overall which needs outside regulation. It is a system populated by some good people who actually care about ensuring a future for this breed, outweighed by far too many people trying to protect their cash flow and show profiles and nice trips abroad to attend and judge dog shows around the world.

Margaret, I am sure your writings will be followed with great interest by many publications, dog owners, and dare I say, the same breeders who seem to spend so much time reading this board and writing about it amongst themselves... :lol: I am sure many TDs and people involved with the parliamentary enquiry groups on dog breeding will also find the insights helpful of someone who knows the breeding world as well as you do.

Tania
19th April 2010, 10:58 PM
I hope that over the weeks I will be able to explain the reasons why I gave an interview to the film Pedigree Dogs Exposed, and explore my relationship with a Club that seems more intent on punishing me for breaking the unspoken rule of silence, than with working to improve the future of our beautiful, but very health compromised, cavaliers.


Dear Margaret

Most Cavalier Pet Owners who watched Pedigree Dogs Exposed are grateful this
programme was aired and your contribution to it. If I had not seen this programme
Molly would have died a very painful death and it would have been assumed Dougall was a quiet dog not a dog living in pain!

I am appalled and disgusted how nasty people have been towards you. We are
all grateful for all of the hard work you have done for the Cavaliers and all of the support you have given endlessly to people who desperately seek help for their poor sick dogs.

You shouldn't have to explain your reasons for giving the interview to PDE, it is obvious to everyone, "The pain and suffering has to stop".
This continual back biting and malicious nastiness makes you wonder if the club is truly interested in improving the future health of these dogs. It is a shame that peoples pride and self interests are getting in the way of what really matters.

kind regards

Teresa
19th April 2010, 11:27 PM
I so agree!!!! I'm glad to hear of more people speaking out and addressing the problems, hiding heads in the sand isn't going to help!!
When looking for my second Cav I have done a lot of "digging around" and chatted to people who give a damn about the health of the dogs they breed and the breed in general!

I know there are no guarantees with any puppy but after having a friend who lost both of hers (unrelated) to SM I wanted to go to a breeder who I felt was doing their best for the breed.

The breeder I settled on is a lovely lady, passionate about Cavs, even though she shows some of her dogs and has bred them for a long time she cares very much about the future of the breed. Funnily enough she was very interested in finding out a lot about my family too - a few people I called didn't ask a thing about my life and I wasn't happy going to them for a pup.

She does the best she can to breed healthy pups, MRI scans her dogs as well as the other checks. Thankfully Cassie passed two separate vet checks and at the moment is a healthy happy girl.

So again, hear hear to the people brave enough to break the mould and speak out, This can long term only be a positive step!!!!!!

Right that's it I'm getting off of my soap box now :)

Bet
20th April 2010, 10:56 AM
I so agree!!!! I'm glad to hear of more people speaking out and addressing the problems, hiding heads in the sand isn't going to help!!
When looking for my second Cav I have done a lot of "digging around" and chatted to people who give a damn about the health of the dogs they breed and the breed in general!

I know there are no guarantees with any puppy but after having a friend who lost both of hers (unrelated) to SM I wanted to go to a breeder who I felt was doing their best for the breed.

The breeder I settled on is a lovely lady, passionate about Cavs, even though she shows some of her dogs and has bred them for a long time she cares very much about the future of the breed. Funnily enough she was very interested in finding out a lot about my family too - a few people I called didn't ask a thing about my life and I wasn't happy going to them for a pup.

She does the best she can to breed healthy pups, MRI scans her dogs as well as the other checks. Thankfully Cassie passed two separate vet checks and at the moment is a healthy happy girl.

So again, hear hear to the people brave enough to break the mould and speak out, This can long term only be a positive step!!!!!!

Right that's it I'm getting off of my soap box now :)


I feel I have a right to chime in here about Margaret's Post

To have my Mental State called into Question on a Public Forum on the Internet , by a Person who is standing for the UK CKCS CLUB COMMITTEE,I just do not know, but is this not breaking this CKCS Club Rule.

Part A .General , Paragraph 3, Which States

That Members should not use any Method of Communication whatsoever that could be considered

Defamatory

Insulting

Detrimental to another Member

I am a Member of the UK CKCS CLUB .

I believe this was the Rule used to have Margaret removed from the UK CKCS CLUB Committee.

I maybe wrong about this, I don't know.

Bet

Kate H
20th April 2010, 11:32 AM
I'm sorry that the thread of appreciation for Lesley Jupp has now become a thread of criticism of the Cavalier Club (however justified!). This makes the thread title very misleading. Please could we start another thread about the Cavalier Club AGM, ballots etc - and perhaps Karlin could move some of the posts on this thread (say, from message #4) over to the new thread?

Kate, Oliver and Aled

wotton12000
20th April 2010, 12:02 PM
I agree with Kate's comments about changing the thread to Cavalier Club AGM.

And Karlin, you speak the truth so bravely and elegantly.

I'm very saddened to hear of Margaret's decision to withdraw again from her nomination to the Cavalier Club Committee. It is a very great loss for the breed. I was also amazed that such inferred criticisms of Margaret were allowed to appear on the agenda. This, with the mismanagement of the election by an attempt to lower the number of vacancies available is shocking. The Cavalier Club has over 1000 UK members and its committee should be accountable to them, rather than to the few who shout the loudest.

One of my proposals for the AGM is that the minutes of committee meetings be made available on request to ordinary members. In that way there is more openness and transparency and a better connection with the members. Just this simple change in the way of doing things is how trust can begin to be built.

Carol

Bet
20th April 2010, 12:30 PM
Yes Kate ,

What a good suggestion you have made.

Could I be allowed to start this New Thread with this Comment?

Is it possible that the New Voting Papers we CKCS CLUB Members have been sent ,the Vote could be now declared NULL and VOID?

Since Margaret has now with-drawn her Nomination ,and Club Members possibly will have given Margaret their Vote who had'nt known about Margaret's Nomination With-Drawal,could have given their Vote to another Person wishing to be on the Club Committee.

I would think that this is unfair to those others who wished to be on the Committee ,that they did not have the Chance of getting more Votes.

Will the best plan now be for the CKCS CLUB to make all CLUB MEMBERS aware of Margaret's Nomination Withdrawl ,in order that the other Election Candidates are given a fair distribution of all Votes Cast?

Bet

Teresa
20th April 2010, 05:16 PM
I'm sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick with this thread, I'm in no way slating the club or its members, I just don't agree that people who speak out about the problems etc should be made to feel bad...The point I was trying to make was a more positive one about people trying to do their best for the breed.

Margaret C
20th April 2010, 11:31 PM
The Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club
ELECTION ANNOUNCEMENT
On 19th April 2010, Mrs Margaret Carter informed the Club and Electoral Reform Services (ERS) that she had withdrawn her nomination for the Cavalier Club committee elections.
ERS issued ballot papers on 15th April 2010 and some of these may already have been returned. ERS recommended that the election process should not be halted, and the Club has accepted this advice. Members should therefore complete and return their ballot papers before the stated deadline. The Club confirms that the date for the AGM remains 29th May 2010.
CKCSC - 20th April 2010

Margaret C
21st April 2010, 12:36 AM
I apologise to those members that have already voted for me, and to those candidates who may have received those votes instead.
I had made my objections to what was going on known for quite some weeks.

I did not make the decision to withdraw my name from the list of committee nominees lightly.

I thought about my options over last weekend, but there had been a series of irregularities, for want of a better word, that occurred during this election, and I could not condone what seemed to be deliberate manipulation of the election procedures.

The first ballot was halted because there was an attempt to keep someone in a three year co-opted committee vacancy without that co-opted member standing as a candidate at this AGM.
This has never happened before, and is not allowed in the rules. 'Custom and practice' has meant that all co-opted members have competed for their committee place at the first possible AGM.

It seems that when the Cavalier Club eventually consulted the KC it was found that other vacancies should have been available for competition. The number eventually went from four to eight.

One of the other issues was that the AGM agenda contained a proposal statement with a spiteful allegation against me that both the writer and the Cavalier Club officers knew was untrue.
This was sent to every person that would vote.

I had hoped that the envelope with the new ballot papers would contain an apology. I had pointed out that a revised page with the deliberate lie taken out would not remove the the damaging impression given to members in official Cavalier Club documents.

I happen to believe in democracy. I believe that the whole membership, in a fair and open election, should be deciding who they want on the committee, not a few people conniving to disadvantage those they do not like.

This Club election has not been fair or open.

Evelyn
21st April 2010, 12:49 AM
"The first ballot was halted because there was an attempt to keep someone in a three year co-opted committee vacancy without that co-opted member standing as a candidate at this AGM.
This has never happened before, and is not allowed in the rules. 'Custom and practice' has meant that all co-opted members have competed for their committee place at the first possible AGM"




Does this co-opted member now have to stand and be be voted on the committee?

Margaret C
21st April 2010, 01:37 AM
"The first ballot was halted because there was an attempt to keep someone in a three year co-opted committee vacancy without that co-opted member standing as a candidate at this AGM.
This has never happened before, and is not allowed in the rules. 'Custom and practice' has meant that all co-opted members have competed for their committee place at the first possible AGM"




Does this co-opted member now have to stand and be be voted on the committee?

That would have been the only way for her to stay as a voting member of the committee.
She is not on the list of nominees.

Bet
21st April 2010, 10:53 AM
That would have been the only way for her to stay as a voting member of the committee.
She is not on the list of nominees.


CAVALIER CLUB COMMITTEE VOTES


Because I posted yesterday wondering about the Validity of the New Election for the UK CKCS CLUB Committee,I contacted the Electoral Reform Services, explaining I had already sent off my Votes which included Margaret,and that I felt this was now unfair since I would have Voted for some-one else if I had Known that Margaret had withdrawn her Nomination.

I have now to receive another Voting Paper.

Should any other CKCS CLUB Member in my position who has voted for Margaret,now contact the Electoral Reform Services and ask for another Voting Paper for the CKCS CLUB Committee?

Could I give now this Food For Thought ???

With all that has happened recently ,should it now be Time to consider for another CKCS CLUB be being formed.

There are I am sure many,many Cavalier Owners who only wish our Beloved Cavaliers to have Healthy ,Longer Lives than many do at the Present Time.

Why I asking this question is because knowning that in 1983 the Cavalier Breeders were warned about how serious and wide spread the MVD Problem was in the Breed and that at the Last CKCS CLUB AGM, Simon Swift the Cardiologist said that 50 % of Cavaliers will have a Heart Murmur at 5 years of age ,that this is no better than it was 18 years ago.

Maybe now let the Cavalier Breeders who are only interested in the Show Scene carry on with that , but we others who have Health and Well Being of Cavaliers have another Club,just look at the Money we collected recently for MRI Scanning Older Cavaliers.

Think back, it was more than a year on the UK CKCS CLUB Web Site a Plea was made by the SM Researchers for assistance in obtaining Older Cavaliers to help in their SM Research.

Take a look at the Kennel Club Breed Supplements at the number of Cavalier Breeders who are still not following the Breeding Guidelines.

If there was another CKCS CLUB ,those Cavalier Breeders who are Health Testing their Cavalier Breeding Stock could perhaps be involved.

I know this will cause Ructions ,but just maybe it should be being
thought about.

Any Body else got Views about this?

Bet

Bet
22nd April 2010, 10:52 AM
[QUOTE=Bet;358863]CAVALIER CLUB COMMITTEE VOTES


Because I posted yesterday wondering about the Validity of the New Election for the UK CKCS CLUB Committee,I contacted the Electoral Reform Services, explaining I had already sent off my Votes which included Margaret,and that I felt this was now unfair since I would have Voted for some-one else if I had Known that Margaret had withdrawn her Nomination.

I have now to receive another Voting Paper.

Should any other CKCS CLUB Member in my position who has voted for Margaret,now contact the Electoral Reform Services and ask for another Voting Paper for the CKCS CLUB Committee?


CAVALIER CLUB COMMITTEE VOTES

Could I now mention that I have to-day received my New Voting Paper which is Marked Duplicate.

I have Posted this information in-case there is any other CKCS CLUB Member like me who had sent off their Votes for the CKCS CLUB Election Committee before knowing about Margaret with-drawing her Name from the CLUB Election.

What does though does seem a wee bit unfair , how many other CKCS CLUB MEMBERS who don't have access to the Internet will know about this ,and will still be voting for Margaret when they could have given their vote ,like me to some-body else.

Will the lack of knowledge about what has happened ,now mean that some-body will not get onto the Committee , but who could have had the chance to ?

Is the fairest way in this situation ,so that all CKCS CLUB MEMBERS are made aware about what the position is ,is to send a Letter to every-body and not to rely on only some CKCS CLUB MEMBERS who have a Computer getting this information from the CLUB WEB-SITE.

Bet

Bet
23rd April 2010, 10:21 AM
[QUOTE=Bet;358863]CAVALIER CLUB COMMITTEE VOTES


Because I posted yesterday wondering about the Validity of the New Election for the UK CKCS CLUB Committee,I contacted the Electoral Reform Services, explaining I had already sent off my Votes which included Margaret,and that I felt this was now unfair since I would have Voted for some-one else if I had Known that Margaret had withdrawn her Nomination.

I have now to receive another Voting Paper.

Should any other CKCS CLUB Member in my position who has voted for Margaret,now contact the Electoral Reform Services and ask for another Voting Paper for the CKCS CLUB Committee?


CAVALIER CLUB COMMITTEE VOTES

Could I now mention that I have to-day received my New Voting Paper which is Marked Duplicate.

I have Posted this information in-case there is any other CKCS CLUB Member like me who had sent off their Votes for the CKCS CLUB Election Committee before knowing about Margaret with-drawing her Name from the CLUB Election.

What does though does seem a wee bit unfair , how many other CKCS CLUB MEMBERS who don't have access to the Internet will know about this ,and will still be voting for Margaret when they could have given their vote ,like me to some-body else.

Will the lack of knowledge about what has happened ,now mean that some-body will not get onto the Committee , but who could have had the chance to ?

Is the fairest way in this situation ,so that all CKCS CLUB MEMBERS are made aware about what the position is ,is to send a Letter to every-body and not to rely on only some CKCS CLUB MEMBERS who have a Computer getting this information from the CLUB WEB-SITE.

Bet



CAVALIER CLUB VOTES.


Could I mention that there is now a New Announcement Posted on the UH CKCS CLUB WEB-SITE about this at

thecavalierclub.co.uk

I still am a wee bit confused about the latest Announcement.

I sent off my Duplicate Voting Paper, but on the Announcement it says that CLUB MEMBERS should not need to request another Ballot Paper although they are entitled to do so ,but that is not necessary as all votes will be counted as usual.

Just supposing that Margaret had received 800 votes , then those 800 votes are now useless , but they could have gone to another Person who could have been put onto the Committee if they had received those Votes.

Bet

Bet
23rd April 2010, 06:57 PM
[QUOTE=Bet;358998]



CAVALIER CLUB VOTES.


Could I mention that there is now a New Announcement Posted on the UH CKCS CLUB WEB-SITE about this at

thecavalierclub.co.uk

I still am a wee bit confused about the latest Announcement.

I sent off my Duplicate Voting Paper, but on the Announcement it says that CLUB MEMBERS should not need to request another Ballot Paper although they are entitled to do so ,but that is not necessary as all votes will be counted as usual.

Just supposing that Margaret had received 800 votes , then those 800 votes are now useless , but they could have gone to another Person who could have been put onto the Committee if they had received those Votes.

Bet


CKCS CLUB COMMITTEE VOTES

In this weeks Dog World there is a mention about Margaret having with-drawn her Nomination for the CKCS CLUB COMMITTEE

It also said about Margaret being removed from the Committee at an SGM 18 months ago following her appearance on Pedigree Dogs Exposed when Margaret had spoken about SM in the Cavalier Breed .

There is to be a Full Story about what is happening in Next Week's Dog World.

What has disappointed me to-day though, are the Two Snide Comments which were Posted about what is happening concerning the Voting for the CKCS Club Committee made by two Vociferous Members on the CC LIST.

I have been a Cavalier Pet Owner for over 30 Years, but it seems to me when any-one dares to mention that there is a Health Problem in our Cavalier Breed .

All Hell Is Let Loose .!!

Bet

Cathy Moon
24th April 2010, 07:08 PM
Unfortunately some of the better known breeders and judges, and the ones who tend to become involved in (micro) managing things, have a lot of reasons to have nothing change: going from the inconvenience in changing the way they have always practiced their 'hobby', to a threat to the money they make from puppies and stud fees (which in turn supports their 'hobby' and often more), to their reputation suddenly turning hollow if (and when) EBVs reveal the poor health in their lines and some of their key dogs of the past (as they never chose to tell other breeders of the problems they knew were coming from that line), to determination to keep pet owners, other breeders, or documentaries from revealing problems in their lines.., lots and lots of reasons.

There are also many decent breeders who do not support the approach and attitude of these others at all --mostly quite small breeders but some with more significant involvement. The bullies you see posting (and revealing themselves :rolleyes:) regularly elsewhere ensure most of these people are too afraid to speak out though many work quietly and with determination behind the scenes. Most of them are utterly fed up with clubs and individual breeders who keep trying to bury the health issues and who refuse to do more than window-dressing acts on behalf of breed health, if even that. But it is hard to risk losing your ability to show in your own country much less get a fair chance at being judged when so many of the names you will all recognise from their comments elsewhere on breed health issues are the ones who judge their dogs. Fortunately, many breeders are now concerned about SM and are scanning their dogs despite the best efforts of some;hopefully, they will also go forward using whatever tools for breeding emerge. What (little) has been done about MVD though remains a pretty sad example to date of how the bulk of club breeders respond to serious health issues. They will do a little bit here and there but the puppy gazettes show how many breed dogs, especially studs, long before they should be bred, when health tests are meaningless in progressive diseases. By the time a problem might show, that dog's genes are spread far and wide in the breed.

Club elections are intimidating because they turn into the sort of farce we all saw with the EGM at which Margaret was removed from the committee, having been the one person with the courage and decency and dedication to the breed to say publicly what many, many knew and about what widely goes on. Some of public criticism comes from the ones who keep insisting they have never bred a dog with SM or never been informed of such by an owner of one of their dogs and this, quite simply, is a pack of lies (in one case admitting they have a dog with SM but it was 'bought in from outside' as one post stated, not explaining that the dog's sire was the breeder's own stud dog and hence was hardly 'from outside'. These people know they produce SM; some of the affected dogs' owners have sent them registered letters; I have seen copies of the correspondence in many, many cases. It is a corrupt and morally bereft system overall which needs outside regulation. It is a system populated by some good people who actually care about ensuring a future for this breed, outweighed by far too many people trying to protect their cash flow and show profiles and nice trips abroad to attend and judge dog shows around the world.

Margaret, I am sure your writings will be followed with great interest by many publications, dog owners, and dare I say, the same breeders who seem to spend so much time reading this board and writing about it amongst themselves... :lol: I am sure many TDs and people involved with the parliamentary enquiry groups on dog breeding will also find the insights helpful of someone who knows the breeding world as well as you do.

Couldn't agree with you more, Karlin.

Margaret C
15th May 2010, 08:55 PM
As the Cavalier Club controls the information that goes to the non-show members, it is unlikely that ordinary Club members will ever know what happened in these election procedures.

So I thought I would post another blog..............


"Why I withdrew from this Year's Cavalier Club Committee Election"

Margaret C
17th May 2010, 11:23 PM
Those that have been following the Cavalier Club committee election story may have read a rather peculiar and rambling AGM Notice from the Electoral Reform Services on the Club website.

I objected to the ERS at the suggestion, contained in this statement, that in withdrawing my nomination I was somehow breaking rules that did not exist.

I also objected that the ERS and the Cavalier Club allowed another candidate to write a sentence that clearly discriminated against me as a disabled person.

I'm pleaed to see that this notice has been removed, as I asked, from the website.
I will now wait to see what other steps the ERS will be taking.