Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Resolution for AGM

Expand Messages
  • Tony Kell
    Ian, Firstly, I was simply putting forward a sensible argument against an entirley open membership, not suggesting that we should follow some sort of rigorous
    Message 1 of 54 , Aug 1, 2006
      Ian,

      Firstly, I was simply putting forward a sensible argument against an
      entirley open membership, not suggesting that we should follow some
      sort of rigorous vetting procedure. I understand that, currently,
      all applications to become a member the Guild, are usually upheld
      unless there is some very strong evidence to reject that
      application. I see no sensible reason to change this position.

      As for the protection of the Law. This only serves to protect
      Victims. To become a victim, there follows, a crime has already
      been committed. As a responsible organistation, surely it is the
      duty of the Trustees or Board to ensure some form of preventative
      measure be established. To this end it may be necessary to prevent
      someone becoming a member. Yes, rumour and hearsay may form part of
      that reasoned decision process. Clearly, this measure can not
      prevent all unfortunate incidents occurring but surely it would be
      an error to remove all procedures to veto any such applications.

      Your arguments are all very sound but appear to be based on the
      premise that we are all as trustworthy as each other unless proven
      otherwise, in Court. I am afraid that my experience tells me
      different. Proof in a Magistrates or Crown court is not 'On the
      balance of probabilities' but is 'Beyond reasonable doubt' and if
      there is any 'doubt' the case is dismissed. Cases where 'Justice'
      is dealt, do not always imply that the offender did not commit the
      crime simply that there may have been just a shadow of doubt
      introduced and guilt could therefor not be 'found'. This does not
      imply that there was no Justice, merely that Justice is not always
      what it seems.

      In view of this, I cannot entirely agree with your resolution.

      But then.... That's what this forum is about. To allow exchange of
      ideas without anyone actually falling out. I for one respect others
      views, even when I disagree with them.

      Tony Kell





      --- In Gauge0@yahoogroups.com, "Ian Kirk" <iankirk@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi Tony,
      >
      > You ask: Are you seriously happy to have "known" theives become
      members of our friendly and trusting organisation?
      >
      > The answer to that is another question. "Known" to whom?Are we to
      exclude people on rumour and hearsay? What has happened to the
      concept of "innocent until proven otherwise."
      > The point is that our friendly and trusting organisation should be
      just that and welcome everyone. If someone subsequently abuses that
      trust and uses their membership to further some dishonest purpose
      then that is gross misconduct and if proved they should be expelled
      using the correct procedures which to continue the principle of
      fairness must include the possibility of an independent appeal. The
      resolution itself allows for all of that but merely seeks to
      restrict the possibility of anyone pre-judging the issue.
      >
      > All of us, whether members of the Guild or no have
      the "protection " of the criminal law. "Judgement" and "punishment"
      are a function of that law but have no place in an organisation like
      ours. We should concentrate on being "friendly and welcoming" to
      everyone and leave the prosecution of "thieves" (if it can be
      proved) to the police and the magistrates.
      >
      > best wishes,
      >
      > Ian
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Peter Dugher(BT)
      Ian, And me, Peter Dugher 12311 ... From: Dennis Mowatt To: Gauge0@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:01 PM Subject: Re: [Gauge0] Re:
      Message 54 of 54 , Aug 24, 2006
        Ian,

        And me,

        Peter Dugher 12311
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Dennis Mowatt
        To: Gauge0@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:01 PM
        Subject: Re: [Gauge0] Re: Resolution for AGM



        Ian,

        So have I!

        Regards

        Dennis




        > Ian,
        >
        > Just to confirm my proxy has gone in assigned to you. Its open, so you can
        > choose how to vote on everything !
        > Also my friends in the O gauge bit of the South Hampshire MRC (otherwise
        > known as G0SH!) are doing likewise. - so that's 5 of us so far !
        >
        > I'm still hanging on hoping to get a hotel room , so I may even get there
        > as
        > well....
        >
        > cheers
        >
        > Roger
        >
        > Anyone within range of Portsmouth is welcome to help or just gossip.
        > We meet Thursday evenings, and the G0SH gang meet to work on the layout
        > every Wednesday from about 11am (we're all very, very old)
        > http://www.shmrc.co.uk/ and see our puny efforts on Durbridge
        > (there's other stuff like P4 etc as well )
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >





        You received this message via the Gauge0 email group.


        Yahoo! Groups Links









        --
        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.11.1/421 - Release Date: 16-08-06



        ----------

        No virus found in this outgoing message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.11.5/426 - Release Date: 23-08-06


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.