Reporting Threads as Offensive

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bazlerker

Well Known and Active Forum User
Non-VOC Member
Somebody asked for an explanation of what is going on here, so maybe I can help.

At the GCM a couple of weeks ago, a motion was tabled that a proposal to make Graham Smith an Honorary Member of the VOC should go forward to the AGM in October. I exercised my right to speak, and opposed the motion. For anybody interested in why, I will happily forward the script from which I read – contact tim.kirker@zen.co.uk. I do not think it appropriate to publish it on this forum, or any other for that matter. It was delivered to the main policy making body of the Club, the General Committee, and is, therefore, not confidential. But in line with practice since 1948 in the VOC, and in other organisations I have subscribed to, proceedings of the General Committee are circulated to members of the General Committee only, and not to every Club member. Members may ask for access to any Club minutes, but they are not, as a rule, published more widely.

[Note. Since drafting this post (Yes, Norman, I have thought about this before posting it . . .) the General Committee minutes have been circulated, including my script, verbatim.]

Since the meeting, many on this Forum have criticised me for things I did not say but, interestingly, very few, if any, comments question my description of actions carried out, and opinions put forward by Graham, which I find unbecoming of an Honorary Member of the VOC. In other words what I said had happened, had happened. It is a matter of opinion whether or not that was helpful or harmful to the VOC. And I am entitled to an opinion, and entitled to express it.

By way of example. I mentioned that Graham receives payment for some of the work he does in publishing MPH. This is fact, as confirmed by Robert Watson in his much more detailed and authoritative description of what happens. I did not say that Graham was ‘syphoning’ funds from the VOC. I also made it clear that my opinion of this arrangement was positive. We should be prepared to pay for these services. But we should know about it, and we should know where the funds are going.

[I don’t have access to exact figures (does anybody?), but just try this little calculation. If we are paying £2000 per month for MPH after postage, that is roughly equivalent to 10 hours per week, at £50 per hour. But maybe half the cost goes on printing, leaving 5 hours at £50? The point is, we don’t know, and I believe we should. Or, at least, the EC should know.]

It came as no surprise to me that what I said led to a heated and sometimes unpleasant discussion. That was not my intention, but was the inevitable by-product of challenging Graham’s position within the VOC. And I make no bones about having planned to speak, and having written out what I was going to say beforehand. Norman Walker seemed to think this was somehow underhand but, on such a contentious issue, and touching on an individual’s character and behaviour, I felt it was important that I had thought it all through and that I had my facts straight. My only regret is that Josh Smith had to sit through it, but the only way to have avoided that would have been to say nothing.

Sadly, since the meeting, the lies, rumours, innuendo, insults, abuse that colour this whole discussion have continued to proliferate on the forum. And now, as forum posters are running out of abuse to pile on me and others, they are adopting the time honoured tactic of invoking the dead in their support. Apparently, if you ever had lunch with Mark Goodson, you’ll know exactly what his position would have been. And everybody knows what Andy Everett would have thought. Having worked closely with both of them for twenty-some years, I don’t believe we would have been on opposite sides of this debate – but who knows? But it doesn’t stop there. Some people know exactly what Bryan Phillips and Jacqueline Bickerstaff think about this, by some sort of telepathy – and they can speak for themselves. The fact that they have not done so publicly, for whatever reason, does not give any of us the right to speak for them.

One final thought. Isn’t it strange that all these members who know what a mess the Executive Committee are making of running this Club, and who know exactly how it should be run, never appear on the ballot paper when the opportunity to serve the Club comes up, every year? I am no apologist for the Executive Committee. They do things I don’t agree with, and they don’t do some things they should do. (For instance, we know, to our cost, that there should be much greater rigour exercised in establishing who can and cannot vote at a GCM. This has not been an issue in recent times, because we’re all mates, but things have clearly become too lax.)

But where is the alternative Executive Committee, who can run the Club so much better? Or is Graham going to run it single-handed? I’m afraid that this lot is the best Executive Committee we’ve got and, if we want the Club to survive and prosper, they need our support, not our abuse.

I will, of course, be making these arguments at the forthcoming AGM, if the Chairman permits, where I hope the wider membership might take a more objective view of the proposal.

[A short note of explanation to Ron Thomas. The term ‘custodian’ in the rules is used, following legal advice, to denote the three main players who are ‘custodians’ of the Club’s finances and assets. They are also the cheque signatories. They are not ‘custodians’ of the club’s behaviour, ethics, morals, conduct of meetings etc. We’re all responsible for that.]

Tim Kirker
Finally…a person with the cojones to comment on his position. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.
 

Bazlerker

Well Known and Active Forum User
Non-VOC Member
Had to look up what cojones means . . . but I can live with that.

Tim
…and at the very least you respected the right of those people who frequent the forum to engage in a dialogue. The EC apparently thinks that it is beneath them to comment, on a forum owned by the very organization they claim to act on behalf of.
 

PaulB

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
I was on the EC as IT Officer some years ago and was, in part, responsible for migrating the members “database” from a collection of separate Excel spreadsheets onto a single, common database.
Graham and Tim were both on the EC at the time, but I can’t claim to know either of them really.
Putting aside the thinly veiled, but unsupported accusations by AF and without making any comment as to the accuracy of TK’s comments, I thought Tim’s objection was very considered and it can’t have been easy for him to have stood up and make it in front of friends. He clearly felt strongly enough to risk losing those friends and I applaud him for having the courage to do so.

Paul
 
G

Graham Smith

Guest
Somebody asked for an explanation of what is going on here, so maybe I can help.

At the GCM a couple of weeks ago, a motion was tabled that a proposal to make Graham Smith an Honorary Member of the VOC should go forward to the AGM in October. I exercised my right to speak, and opposed the motion. For anybody interested in why, I will happily forward the script from which I read – contact tim.kirker@zen.co.uk. I do not think it appropriate to publish it on this forum, or any other for that matter. It was delivered to the main policy making body of the Club, the General Committee, and is, therefore, not confidential. But in line with practice since 1948 in the VOC, and in other organisations I have subscribed to, proceedings of the General Committee are circulated to members of the General Committee only, and not to every Club member. Members may ask for access to any Club minutes, but they are not, as a rule, published more widely.

[Note. Since drafting this post (Yes, Norman, I have thought about this before posting it . . .) the General Committee minutes have been circulated, including my script, verbatim.]

Since the meeting, many on this Forum have criticised me for things I did not say but, interestingly, very few, if any, comments question my description of actions carried out, and opinions put forward by Graham, which I find unbecoming of an Honorary Member of the VOC. In other words what I said had happened, had happened. It is a matter of opinion whether or not that was helpful or harmful to the VOC. And I am entitled to an opinion, and entitled to express it.

By way of example. I mentioned that Graham receives payment for some of the work he does in publishing MPH. This is fact, as confirmed by Robert Watson in his much more detailed and authoritative description of what happens. I did not say that Graham was ‘syphoning’ funds from the VOC. I also made it clear that my opinion of this arrangement was positive. We should be prepared to pay for these services. But we should know about it, and we should know where the funds are going.

[I don’t have access to exact figures (does anybody?), but just try this little calculation. If we are paying £2000 per month for MPH after postage, that is roughly equivalent to 10 hours per week, at £50 per hour. But maybe half the cost goes on printing, leaving 5 hours at £50? The point is, we don’t know, and I believe we should. Or, at least, the EC should know.]

It came as no surprise to me that what I said led to a heated and sometimes unpleasant discussion. That was not my intention, but was the inevitable by-product of challenging Graham’s position within the VOC. And I make no bones about having planned to speak, and having written out what I was going to say beforehand. Norman Walker seemed to think this was somehow underhand but, on such a contentious issue, and touching on an individual’s character and behaviour, I felt it was important that I had thought it all through and that I had my facts straight. My only regret is that Josh Smith had to sit through it, but the only way to have avoided that would have been to say nothing.

Sadly, since the meeting, the lies, rumours, innuendo, insults, abuse that colour this whole discussion have continued to proliferate on the forum. And now, as forum posters are running out of abuse to pile on me and others, they are adopting the time honoured tactic of invoking the dead in their support. Apparently, if you ever had lunch with Mark Goodson, you’ll know exactly what his position would have been. And everybody knows what Andy Everett would have thought. Having worked closely with both of them for twenty-some years, I don’t believe we would have been on opposite sides of this debate – but who knows? But it doesn’t stop there. Some people know exactly what Bryan Phillips and Jacqueline Bickerstaff think about this, by some sort of telepathy – and they can speak for themselves. The fact that they have not done so publicly, for whatever reason, does not give any of us the right to speak for them.

One final thought. Isn’t it strange that all these members who know what a mess the Executive Committee are making of running this Club, and who know exactly how it should be run, never appear on the ballot paper when the opportunity to serve the Club comes up, every year? I am no apologist for the Executive Committee. They do things I don’t agree with, and they don’t do some things they should do. (For instance, we know, to our cost, that there should be much greater rigour exercised in establishing who can and cannot vote at a GCM. This has not been an issue in recent times, because we’re all mates, but things have clearly become too lax.)

But where is the alternative Executive Committee, who can run the Club so much better? Or is Graham going to run it single-handed? I’m afraid that this lot is the best Executive Committee we’ve got and, if we want the Club to survive and prosper, they need our support, not our abuse.

I will, of course, be making these arguments at the forthcoming AGM, if the Chairman permits, where I hope the wider membership might take a more objective view of the proposal.

[A short note of explanation to Ron Thomas. The term ‘custodian’ in the rules is used, following legal advice, to denote the three main players who are ‘custodians’ of the Club’s finances and assets. They are also the cheque signatories. They are not ‘custodians’ of the club’s behaviour, ethics, morals, conduct of meetings etc. We’re all responsible for that.]

Tim Kirker
Yet more accusations - looks like I've been thrown under the bus again.

Thanks Tim - is this something you're planning on doing on a fortnightly basis?
 

timetraveller

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
Of course TK has the right to express his opinion and those of us who disagree with it have the right to explain why. I have two objections to some of what was said. Firstly I do not agree that there has to be apparent unity on any committee if someone disagrees. Earlier I mentioned the enfranchisement of females and the poor. There had to be public disagreement over both those items and I hope that we all think the world is a better place for them. Secondly we have been assured that this forum will continue following the launch of CE, approximately at the end of this month. And yet I have been led to believe that Graham has, or will be, ordered to shut parts of it down at some stage. A version of this forum with reduced functions will not be this forum exactly. I do not see these two statements as compatible. Either someone is lying or mistaken.
 

Debbie Kemp

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
Just for the record, I (and I believe others who have mentioned them) have never attempted to assume the opinion of various notable VOC members regarding either the new IT system or of Graham. Regardless of how they would vote, I simply believe they would not be impressed with the manner in which the meeting was conducted.
 

Peter Holmes

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
Well I seriously doubt that anyone would be impressed with the way that meeting was conducted.
I think so far Arthur Farrow has got off extremely lightly, I think he should be formally asked to explain why he made the comments that he did, and if he chooses not to, he should formally retract those comments unreservedly and apologise to Graham and Josh Smith for making them in the first place.
 

Dinny

Well Known and Active Forum User
VOC Member
Well I seriously doubt that anyone would be impressed with the way that meeting was conducted.
I think so far Arthur Farrow has got off extremely lightly, I think he should be formally asked to explain why he made the comments that he did, and if he chooses not to, he should formally retract those comments unreservedly and apologise to Graham and Josh Smith for making them in the first place.
I think he should be removed from the Exec. As the Exec is ‘all mates’ then I suspect this won’t happen and nothing with come if this.

This is the problem, there needs to be a debate to reach an agreement and not just mates chatting and doing what’s best for them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top