• If you're a past member of the board, but can't recall your password any more, you don't need to set up a new account (unless you wish to). As long as you recall your old login name, you can log in with that user name then select 'forgot password' and the board will email you at your registration email, to let you reset your password.

Cavalier club in turmoil

So in this case, the COE was made to the breed club, and then does the breed club simply hand it up to the KC for a hearing/decision......or does the breed club have a hearing/decision of its own and then pass it up to the KC?
Click to expand...

The complaint went from two club members to the national CKCS Club. It contacted BC and asked for a response to the complaint. She refused to reply to the complaint and clarify the issue. So the club then was required to refer the matter on up to the KC, at which point it was/is considered to have gone up considerably in seriousness, because the breeder herself has chosen to ignore a formal request for response from the national breed club. When she also refused to respond to the KC they took the route of the sanction they have for such a case -- she is barred from registering any puppies under her kennel affix Beauella because she has supplied *no defense* to the ethics charges against her. This is extremely significant yet neither the KC nor the CKCS CLub has chosen to issue a statement to this effect or clarify what has happened-- even though this is on evidence a full vindication of Margaret Carter's deep concerns about what happened and why she thought it so disturbing that it should be highlighted nationally. It says a lot that both CKCS Club and KC keep this key fact hidden away. Could be an agenda operating here?

I understand concern has also been expressed to the KC that this form of sanction nonetheless allows the dog to be used at stud by other breeders who can themselves register the puppies under their own affix -- shocking. And shocking that a couple of breeders *knowingly* have chosen to do this.

I will see if I can get the details of how Beverly Costello was incited to judge not at just one, but I currently understand two shows. I do know who has been encouraging others to put dogs forward as well. Maybe these people would like to express their open support for her -- they have the ability to make this known publicly after all.

I am sure there are many, many people who would like to know the role they are playing in this situation. If they are not ashamed then why will they not make their support publicly known and publicly encourage people to show before her as judge? Or is this all stuff they prefer to keep hidden? And if so, doesn't that itself speak volumes? In some ways I feel sorry Beverly has such 'friends' who keep shoving her name out in public while hiding away themselves and refusing to lay their own cards on the table. If I were her, I'd sure want these great pals to make their support publicly known rather than privately contacting and pressuring breeders to 'show their support' by showing under her when they themselves won't make their support public!
 
It is the indivual show society that chooses their judges, each area usually has the own society i.e. my area is Bolton so it is Bolton show society. Each year at their committee meetings they would choose their judges for their shows the following year. Many judges are approached for each breed and and it would be their decision to take up the judging appointment. For Open shows no KC permission is required but that changes for Championship Shows when Challenge Certficates are on offer.
On each show committee someone usually knows someone who would be able to judge a particular breed and the criteria is that person would NORMALLY have been showing/breeding for a few years.
In this case I would think that BC would have been appraoched by the secretary of that show society (Nantwich) and asked to judge Cavaliers long before PDE was televised.
I would have hoped that this appointment would have been revoked and another judge appointed, obviously not.
Having her kennel banned from registering puppies, her affix (Beauella) is rendered worthless and it is usually this that show people use to determine if they want to show under that judge..

Nanette
 
Follow on from previous post

Nantwich and District Canine Society
Secretary 01270/664645.

CAVALIER KING CHARLES SPANIEL. JUDGE: Miss.Bev Costello.(BEAUELLA)
43. Puppy Dog. 44. Junior Dog. 45. Post Graduate Dog. 46. Open Dog.
47. Puppy Bitch. 48. Junior Bitch. 49. Post Graduate Bitch. 50. Open Bitch.​
 
In the latest bit of ludicrousness, I see Veronica Hull and Nessie, moderator of the CavaliersUK list, both are sure I am 'Quincy' posting on Dog World comments. Someone even suggests Quincy is... er, my FATHER? :rotfl: Amazing as it may seem to some, my 80+ father has no interest in dogs or dog breed notes. :rolleyes:

I haven't even followed the breed notes comments in weeks -- and as people know, I always have used my own name for comments and participation on boards (for 20+ years) -- I am registered on Breed Notes, have posted comments there before, and unlike, say, ignoramuses like the charmless (and spelling-challenged) "Cav-Carer", I don't criticise others while hiding behind anonymous names.

I do know who Quincy is however. :)

Veronica has a habit of getting things wrong, though! She already thought someone else (EddyAnne) was me, too, til Marianne, moderator on the Cavaliers list, pointed out that Veronica clearly had not spent much time actively on the various cavalier lists and clearly didn't know 'everyone in cavaliers' as she has insisted, as EddyAnne has been 'in cavaliers' for at least as long as Veronica Hull, and is extremely well known and respected.

But then, as I have repeatedly pointed out, these silly people seem to think there are about three people, and not a broad public, who disagree strongly with their perspective.

Oh, and I do multitask, but not quite to the degree they seem to think! :lol:
 
When she also refused to respond to the KC they took the route of the sanction they have for such a case -- she is barred from registering any puppies under her kennel affix Beauella because she has supplied *no defense* to the ethics charges against her
Click to expand...

I was interested to read this, as in response to a letter I wrote in December I was told that the CKCS Club could not comment on an ongoing investigation. But at this point, surely it can no longer be considered ongoing if BC refuses to correspond with the KC. I would therefore expect a notice on the CKCS Club website – to not post such a notice shows their support to BC and other members who refuse to scan their dogs or follow breeding protocols.

In the same letter I was told that the CKCS Club could only “encourage” members to follow breeding protocols and scan their dogs, and had no authority to insist. I feel that the CKCS Club wants it both ways: to get the credit for health initiatives and research, but also doesn’t want to upset those members who still insist that they know better than any researcher. This is shown by their failure to condemn BC for not responding to the investigation into her dog, among other things. A Club doesn’t have to have legal authority to make it’s position clear in what they believe should be happening

It appears that BC has a lot of support within the club, so I would like those who do support her to show the courage of their convictions and make themselves known. As a pet owner and future puppy purchaser I would like to know who I may be dealing with so I can make an informed choice. Ditto those who feel it is acceptable to post anonymously in order to spread rumours and innuendo (I notice that Cav Carer is rather quiet now since the great election fiasco).

There are a lot of good breeders out there, but it seems to be a minority that make the most noise. A pity with PDE revisited coming up…………….
 
Last edited:
I do know who Quincy is though. :smile:
Click to expand...
Honestly woman,have you no control over your cat! Allowing him to run amok on a Dogmagazine?It's no place for a cat with all those doggy comments flying around.:rolleyes:
I must admit though that I have no idea who Quincy is,although I might have narrowed it down to a specific continent.It's also been suggested that Quincy is in fact The Stig.Some say he's part man/part machine.....others say he has the feet of a cavalier...
It ranks up there with other great mysteries of our time:
Who was Charlie in Charlie's angels?
Who shot JR?
Who is Quincy?

On the subject of the woman who phoned the puppy register coordinators in high dudgeon.I was amazed that the language,conduct and behaviour of the woman caused them to admit to being "shocked" and "enraged".
Not one person batted an eyelid though, or was even remotely "shocked" by the diagnosis of SM in a ONE YEAR OLD cavalier.
Some more free PR advice coming:
Try developing a common strategy and formal protocol for dealing with dissatisfied customers who have bought puppies from club members.Try placating them if possible but even if the customer lights you to blazes, NEVER EVER refer to that customer in such a fashion in a widely read publication.It only serves to widen the gap between pet owner and breeder.Some recent posts about "pet people" shows the contempt that a small number of breeders demonstrate towards the people who buy their puppies.
 
Hi

I think Quincy is either Spartacus or Elvis and he was spotted outside the chippy on Woodchurch Road last night ,Elvis that is ,honest.:)
 
I have to disappoint you Brian, Quincy comes in our post office everyday to get info for the breed notes. :wggle:

Nanette
 
Hi
Will the really Quincy step forward ,sorry Holly Dolly it is definately Spartacus in drag .:) .
 
I,ve had my say on the DW thread,1st time i've posted there....not sure how it will go down thoughicon_nwunsure...........it's all the way down at the bottom,
 
I see the Cavalier Club has a committee again.There's a new announcement on the club homepage.
Sins
 
sins said:
I see the Cavalier Club has a committee again.There's a new announcement on the club homepage.
Sins
Click to expand...

There is an interesting story attached to this.

My letter to the Electoral Reform Society apparently did not arrive, & I was asked to send another. No problem, it was on my computer, but in the meantime I found out what was going to be put on the website when they withdrew their resignations.

I thought it unnecessary & divisive to list the formerly unnamed committee members who had offered to resign. This also has the effect of identifying those of the committee who had been willing to stay & continue to work with me. This had been quite brave of them. For those still showing dogs the unspoken threat of finding your dogs are no longer winning as they deserve, is very real.

The Chairman was away but the Vice Chairman and I agreed that I would give her a copy of my withdrawal letter and she would arrange for the statement to be modified. It seemed a civilised compromise.
She was on the way to collect the letter when she received a phone call from the Chairman saying the statement must go up as written. At that point the VC said her only option was to turn back, as she could no longer keep her promise to me.

The next day I phoned the ERS to inform them what had occurred. I told them that under the circumstances I did not intend to send another copy of my letter, but I again confirmed that I had withdrawn my nomination in an email sent to the Chairman on the night the resignation notice went up on the Club website.

Margaret C
 
Can someone please help me understand all this?
As I understood once you have offered your resignation than that has to stand, if maybe it was done in the heat of the moment well maybe that could be an exception. This was not so, a couple of weeks have gone by now so do they not have to stand again for re-election? Maybe the Kennel club can enlighten me!:confused:
 
Under 'normal' circumstances that is what should happen. But you have to remember this is the CKCS Club circa 2008! Spining themselves round and round in ever decreasing circles giving the press a field day yet again!
 
The whole episode makes the electoral procedure an absolute nonsence.

If Margaret had been voted in by members, would the Committee members named would still have resigned?

So really nobody that those Committee members don't like could get on the Committee without knowing they are causing major problems for the Club.

So much for the democratic election process.
 
This also has the effect of identifying those of the committee who had been willing to stay & continue to work with me. This had been quite brave of them. For those still showing dogs the unspoken threat of finding your dogs are no longer winning as they deserve, is very real.
Click to expand...

:sl*p:

Extraordinary. I give up: Veronica Hull was clearly right -- the Club obviously DO need to spend £8000 on PR to help them sort their behind from their elbow and stop showing the wrong end to the public at large :eek: ... the Clue Train has left the station, and most of the committee are still standing on the platform! :rolleyes: Maybe some professional advice would not go astray before the club implodes. The broader membership must find this whole situation appalling, and rightly so. For the rest of us, it is like watching a car wreck -- we know we shouldn't look, but it is so ghastly that you have to.
 
It would have been better not to have named the four committee members as they had not resigned or offered letters of resignation effective from next AGM.From the article on Dogworld it was indicated that they gave resignation promises (threats??)which are not the same as an actual resignation so it was not appropriate or necessary to name them.Only they know if they'd have gone through with it.Still, if they're ok with it, then that's fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top