[24-7 S C Services]

Hi everyone,

As this subject is going to continue and continue, I thought I would share this letter with those interested, which I received from the FWC today.

What surprises me, is the fact I also received information today saying that this was not a committee decision and that only two people made the decision. Again, signs of a dictatorship at work: -

Dear Mr Mullen

Following your constant emails and recent defamatory Internet activities, the federation sought legal advice and have been instructed to inform you that should these slanderous activities continue we will consider legal action in this respect.

Your subscription will not be accepted at this time and your cheque is attached to this letter.

As for the defamatory Internet activities and slanderous activities, (slanderous is spoken not written) these can only be used if the information I have provided is incorrect, which it is not. For those FWC committee members reading this, ‘Go ahead and carry out your threat as per the letter’.

As for my membership, I've stated my intentions about this subject and intend to see it through.

To any FWC members out there, that are sick of the apparent mismanagement and the overall so called secret society, you have the power to change this!!!!! 

Andrew

Ps I know several of the FWC committee members come on this forum, perhaps you will have the decency to answer this question.

Q. Where you given the opportunity to vote on my membership renewal?

[windows_chepstow]

Your subscription will not be accepted at this time and your cheque is attached to this letter. [/b] [/color]

Can they do this without giving a reason why? 

[Paul Coleman]

Hi everyone,

As this subject is going to continue and continue, I thought I would share this letter with those interested, which I received from the FWC today.

What surprises me, is the fact I also received information today saying that this was not a committee decision and that only two people made the decision. Again, signs of a dictatorship at work: -

Dear Mr Mullen

Following your constant emails and recent defamatory Internet activities, the federation sought legal advice and have been instructed to inform you that should these slanderous activities continue we will consider legal action in this respect.

Your subscription will not be accepted at this time and your cheque is attached to this letter.

As for the defamatory Internet activities and slanderous activities, (slanderous is spoken not written) these can only be used if the information I have provided is incorrect, which it is not. For those FWC committee members reading this, ‘Go ahead and carry out your threat as per the letter’.

As for my membership, I've stated my intentions about this subject and intend to see it through.

To any FWC members out there, that are sick of the apparent mismanagement and the overall so called secret society, you have the power to change this!!!!! 

Andrew

Ps I know several of the FWC committee members come on this forum, perhaps you will have the decency to answer this question.

Q. Where you given the opportunity to vote on my membership renewal?

It sounds like the sort of body that would not be transparent enough for my taste.  I thought about joining at one point and even filled in the application form - though never sent it.
As for slander vs. libel.  I can't recall the exact circumstances but there are certain conditions where the written word can be referred to as slander rather than libel.  I once saw it explained on a legal forum but cannot recall the details of it.  The slander/libel laws can cover a wider set of circumstances than might be apparent at face value too so tread carefully.  A friend of mine once did a journalism course.  After doing the legal part of the course, he was amazed that anything ever got printed at all.

[reah]

well thats made my mind up i was in doubt about renewing my subscrition and am glad i have not.
Well done for standing up.

[24-7 S C Services]

Hi Everyone

Tosh, it would appear they think they can. However, I have already spoken to my solicitor about this and to refuse my membership without a good reason is a breach of my human rights, so I can therefore peruse this in court.

Shiner, it is a shame you did not send it in, because you could have stood up against these committee members. From what I have seen in the past though, a large number of members would have to stand up all at once; otherwise, well I am sure you can all see what happens, when only one person stands up.

Reah, same as above, the good thing though, you have saved your money this time around.

It is just a shame that members of the FWC are not prepared to do anything about this situation. You guy's should all stand up and take action.

Andrew

PS I notice no committee members have commented on my question yet!!!!!!!!!!!

[jeff1]

Thank you Andrew for the help in saving my money, its now better spend on my grandchildren.

Like Andrew said there has to be team work here guy's, I was always tought there is no I in team work.
 
I think those of us who have now refused to join and save our money, have shown our support to Andrew, now its upto the members to team together and support him.

Good Luck Andrew

[matt]

PS I notice no committee members have commented on my question yet!!!!!!!!!!!

Andrew

what you need is for me to post, then the "watchers" (you know who you are) will be on the phone / e.mail to certain people and they will look in

I urge EVERY member of the farce that it the fed to get on the phone / e.mail the fed and get answers

its your money they are spending to "feather there nests"

its seems the comm members who have posted here dont like whats happening either (is that because they are not in on the deal OR they just know right from wrong, you would hope its the latter )

[DaveWilkinson]

I nearly joined years ago, and I'm happy I didnt.

I considered joining a few weeks back for a new business venture but will now join another body.

What strikes me is if the members are not prepared to stand up for there rights and carnt be bothered with it, whats the point in being in it...oh yes so you can say im a member of blah blah, Look I've got the logo on my van and letterhead so I must be a trusted and proffesional wc.... well no it seems there not, if they were they would be shouting from the tree tops that this aledged deal needs looked at and if needed some rules brought in place to stop this from happening again.

 Remember this body is here to represent you.

[Paul Coleman]

Andrew

what you need is for me to post, then the "watchers" (you know who you are) will be on the phone / e.mail to certain people and they will look in

I urge EVERY member of the farce that it the fed to get on the phone / e.mail the fed and get answers

its your money they are spending to "feather there nests"

its seems the comm members who have posted here dont like whats happening either (is that because they are not in on the deal OR they just know right from wrong, you would hope its the latter

I believe it is the latter.  Having met some of the people involved, I want everyone to be clear that there are people of integrity in the FWC committee.  I'm not sure that there was anything really out of order about the deal  with the building as owning a place is better than paying rent for a place in the long term.  However, it's  the shortage of openness that can make it appear that something was amiss.

[reah]

They should still have put it to the members

[Paul Coleman]

They should still have put it to the members

That does seem like it should be the way to do things.  As I'm not a member, I've no idea what the FWC rulebook says about such things.  If the rulebook states that what the committee did was OK, then maybe the membership needs to look at changing the constitution.  Of course, assuming that no rules were breached, that can't be applied retrospectively.   Also, there would be no point in voting certain committee members out unless there are people prepared to replace them.  In any case, I think I once read that the committee can co-opt people onto the committee in certain situations so this may not be effective anyway.
In situations like this, although it may appear to fly in the face of fairness, the rulebook prevails unless it is in breach of Parliamentary law.

[24-7 S C Services]

Hi Shiner

I only know several of the committee members and I can vouch for those people. These same people have also stressed publicly that they rather did not vote or abstained from voting because they thought that the actions of other committee members were immoral.

Unfortunately, as for the rulebook. I personally feel it is not worth the paper it is written on!!! I feel that time and time again, this rulebook has not been used by the committee in some situations and other times it has. With everything that is happening to me, I personally feel they are writing the rules as they go along (this may not be true, it is only how I view it).

In addition, one rule that the committee is ignoring is this.

Rule 8.Officers & Committee

Sec 8

No member of the committee of management or member of staff, shall have any financial connection with any firms or persons supplying goods or services to the federation.

The purchase of the building is in direct breach of that rule, because several of the committee members are involved in both sides and will benefit financially from the sale.

Andrew

[windows_chepstow]

These same people have also stressed publicly that they rather did not vote or abstained from voting because they thought that the actions of other committee members were immoral.

Andrew

Surely, had they voted 'No', rather than abstain, would've been better?  Unless I'm missing something here.

[DaveWilkinson]

I'd more worried about a comittee that wouldnt renew the membership of a member just because he doesnt agree with certain decisions, stinks if you as me.

[Majestic]

All of this should of been discused between FWC Members only not just anyone who wanted to coment.
I remember when the NAWC was first formed , if you was not at that meeting you could not find out anything that was discused

[matt]

All of this should of been discused between FWC Members only not just anyone who wanted to coment.
I remember when the NAWC was first formed , if you was not at that meeting you could not find out anything that was discused

but you dont need to be a member to have a opinion (wether your opinion is right or wrong, its still yours )

[Majestic]

If its FWC business then FWC members  should coment on it .

[windows_chepstow]

If its FWC business then FWC members  should coment on it .

Why?  Will I receive a letter telling me to shut up too?

I'm not a member of the Conservative party, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, or the Girl Guides, but if I want to comment on them; I will I'm afraid.

What about ex FWC members who're refused to have their membership's renewed?

I take it they should shut up too?  Even though it sounds like it's going to be their fees who're going to be lining the pockets of some of the committee members.

[Terry_Burrows]

The only thing I would say is Fed members are welcome to go to an AGM
in april in blackpool and disscuss matters,but do they bother there arse
 er not many I am not on the board by the way,all I will say is,in the past all matters have been dealt with in a correct and pro way,that I can say as I was on the Board they have been here for half a centry 

[matt]

If its FWC business then FWC members  should coment on it .

Why?  Will I receive a letter telling me to shut up too?

I'm not a member of the Conservative party, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, or the Girl Guides, but if I want to comment on them; I will I'm afraid.

What about ex FWC members who're refused to have their membership's renewed?

I take it they should shut up too?  Even though it sounds like it's going to be their fees who're going to be lining the pockets of some of the committee members.

i think thats covered it, so no need for me to add anything

thank you tosh