TRF becomming Extinct?

[-Ralph-]

Polite? No you weren't, you were pointing a finger at a group of 5 and saying that 2 of them had a previous business connection and the other 3 unidentified ones hadn't. Now if you can't see how that's unfair on the 3 that weren't involved then that's a shame.

As for being pissed off, Well that's a shame but it's not something that I particularly care about.

You don't understand it do you. It's not finger pointing, it's information that's in the public domain. As for not mentioning the names then I'm sure that you've heard of the law of libel, so it's important not to 'publish' third party information. Anyway, why do you care about how the other 3 would feel...no-one has named them or anyone...and why do you think it's appropriate to tell someone that they are stupid?

This is total BS. You say the info is in the public domain, then you talk about libel and not publishing third party information. By saying "they were in business together before", if that's correct and in the public domain then it's not libellous. However, by virtue of pointing this out, there is an implicit accusation of "something funny" and in that regard you need to be careful, since you've not stated what the problem is with this.

Sorry but you clearly have absolutely no earthly idea what you are talking about and the above demonstrates it beautifully.

Sorry, but he's right.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[DavidS]

It's not even slightly relevant that directors had a shared interest at some point. To suggest there is something awry by doing this is simply mischief making.

....the members are the owners, the Directors are voluntary "caretakers" and the money ( even if we can afford it) is not for them to spend on Hotels and expenses when they only live a couple of hours away.

I see nothing in the new articles as at 2015 filed at companies house which state that the members are the owners. Can you elaborate please and clarify?

By legal definition of a company limited by guarantee, it has no owners. It has members who have control of it.
A member could not for example sell their membership to someone else to transfer their portion of ownership, as they could sell their shares in a company limited by shares.
Ultimate control is with the membership who must elect at least one director for the day to day running of the company. So if members are not happy with the way it's being run, they have the power to act.
I have made my proxy vote, roll on the AGM!

I know what a company limited by guarantee is. The detail of the responsibility is set out in the specific articles, and I have read the articles of the TRF, hence making the comment. These articles are somewhat unusual for a membership organisation.

That is because the Articles were written by a pair of control freaks who don't want to lose that control now they have it. Then add in the Byelaws for extra control....... They want the Board to have absolute power.
If you go back to the original Articles, they were short and sweet.

[Crossrutted]

Back on track - the TRF forum thread seeking clarification from the "directors" regarding the AGM voting process has now been completely removed.

There remains uncertainty about how to cast a proxy vote, voting by attendance and also who can vote.

The "directors" have taken no action to resolve this situation.

Any TRF members reading this thread should be very concerned at the behaviours of the current "directors" and get involved, before it is too late to save the TRF.

[Crossrutted]

Polite? No you weren't, you were pointing a finger at a group of 5 and saying that 2 of them had a previous business connection and the other 3 unidentified ones hadn't. Now if you can't see how that's unfair on the 3 that weren't involved then that's a shame.

As for being pissed off, Well that's a shame but it's not something that I particularly care about.

You don't understand it do you. It's not finger pointing, it's information that's in the public domain. As for not mentioning the names then I'm sure that you've heard of the law of libel, so it's important not to 'publish' third party information. Anyway, why do you care about how the other 3 would feel...no-one has named them or anyone...and why do you think it's appropriate to tell someone that they are stupid?

This is total BS. You say the info is in the public domain, then you talk about libel and not publishing third party information. By saying "they were in business together before", if that's correct and in the public domain then it's not libellous. However, by virtue of pointing this out, there is an implicit accusation of "something funny" and in that regard you need to be careful, since you've not stated what the problem is with this.

Sorry but you clearly have absolutely no earthly idea what you are talking about and the above demonstrates it beautifully.

Sorry, but he's right.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Oh no he's not !

(it is Panto season )

[johnnyboxer]

I know what a company limited by guarantee is. The detail of the responsibility is set out in the specific articles, and I have read the articles of the TRF, hence making the comment. These articles are somewhat unusual for a membership organisation.

I thought so too

[garyboy]

I was led to believe that the TRF was a registered charity and that no profit was made for personal use? but that member contributions went towards the benefit of all. Surely a limited company is in business to make a profit for its members or shareholders .. and that is its sole/main purpose? I would not have thought that that philosophy is conducive to our perceived aims? ie the protection and use of our dwindling trails for the use of all!!

to me there is a simple answer. everyone ditch the TRF as it now exists, and set up a proper registered charity for the betterment of our sport/interest/ hobby .. give it a name, eg `Trail Riding For All` (TRFA) or maybe a better name?

and let the present directors preside over their own business interests, in their own unique way.

[Scott_rider]

This is total BS. You say the info is in the public domain, then you talk about libel and not publishing third party information. By saying "they were in business together before", if that's correct and in the public domain then it's not libellous. However, by virtue of pointing this out, there is an implicit accusation of "something funny" and in that regard you need to be careful, since you've not stated what the problem is with this.

Sorry but you clearly have absolutely no earthly idea what you are talking about and the above demonstrates it beautifully.

You clearly have absolutely no understanding of the law of Libel. Seeing something written somewhere else doesn't mean it is true and repeating it is libellous. That's a fact of law. The only way it isn't libellous is if you check the facts and the sources yourself and make sure it's true, whether that information is in the public doamain or not. If something has been in the public domain for some time and no action has been taken then that means it becomes much harder for anyone to take libel action but that information could still be incorrect. Hence why the names were not mentioned.

Let's move on...

[Crossrutted]

to me there is a simple answer. everyone ditch the TRF as it now exists, and set up a proper registered charity for the betterment of our sport/interest/ hobby .. give it a name, eg `Trail Riding For All` (TRFA) or maybe a better name?

and let the present directors preside over their own business interests, in their own unique way.

That could well happen.

However, the traction with councils, government etc has been built under the TRF name over many years, a new organisation would take time to establish itself . Also the presence of two bodies representing a relatively small interest group would dilute effectiveness.

Surely it is better to correct the shortcomings of the existing organisation?
Which needs all interested members to register their votes at the forthcoming AGM with a view to changing the current Directors behaviours.

Just paying a yearly membership fee is no longer enough to support the future of the TRF.

[-Ralph-]

This is total BS. You say the info is in the public domain, then you talk about libel and not publishing third party information. By saying "they were in business together before", if that's correct and in the public domain then it's not libellous. However, by virtue of pointing this out, there is an implicit accusation of "something funny" and in that regard you need to be careful, since you've not stated what the problem is with this.

Sorry but you clearly have absolutely no earthly idea what you are talking about and the above demonstrates it beautifully.

You clearly have absolutely no understanding of the law of Libel. Seeing something written somewhere else doesn't mean it is true and repeating it is libellous. That's a fact of law. The only way it isn't libellous is if you check the facts and the sources yourself and make sure it's true, whether that information is in the public doamain or not. If something has been in the public domain for some time and no action has been taken then that means it becomes much harder for anyone to take libel action but that information could still be incorrect. Hence why the names were not mentioned.

Let's move on...

But you haven't just repeated some allegation written somewhere else that may not be true. You have checked reliable sources yourself (companies house) and made sure it's true. So by your own definition you have not been libelous (one "L"). So why did you not want to say the names for fear of libel?

[garyboy]

.