page 11 the act was amended in 2002 who was involved in that ?
what was agreed ?
and by who?
and who else knew about it ? because this is the first i have heard of it
who was incharge of n a f b a e at that time ?
was it published in the forge magazine?
THE F.R.C. ACT in the forge mag
Stuart,
We now have a super new Registrar, I suggest you ask these questions of her. I know you will get honest factual answers, about what was done by whom and using what method.
SJC raised the question of the 2002 amendment at our induction meeting of MWN, who gave a simple very short explanation really saying little that stuck with me.
It seems another amendment is taking place today by virtue of a statutory instrument regarding the Highlands and Islands.
Your elected members on council in 2002 may be able to help.
PNB.
We now have a super new Registrar, I suggest you ask these questions of her. I know you will get honest factual answers, about what was done by whom and using what method.
SJC raised the question of the 2002 amendment at our induction meeting of MWN, who gave a simple very short explanation really saying little that stuck with me.
It seems another amendment is taking place today by virtue of a statutory instrument regarding the Highlands and Islands.
Your elected members on council in 2002 may be able to help.
PNB.
there is probably a very good explanation why it was ammended
what conot be excused is WHY WERE FARRIERS NOT KEPT UP TO SPEED ON THIS why was it brushed under the carpet
it seems to me that the powers that be are not and were not brave enough to any possible critisism
not many years ago many will recall haw many used to turn up to N.A.F.B.A.E. branch meetings everyone would have there say there was back biting and alot of crap talked but everyone had there say and went home felling they had contributed something
naw it is the turn of the U.K.H.S.U. on this site .all can have there say. this is shown by the large number of daily hits
some may say its full of crap and destructive comments i would strongly disagree its open to all democratic and fair so to all those with no balls that havnt the guts to talk publicly YOU ARE NOT HEARD only behind backs
what conot be excused is WHY WERE FARRIERS NOT KEPT UP TO SPEED ON THIS why was it brushed under the carpet
it seems to me that the powers that be are not and were not brave enough to any possible critisism
not many years ago many will recall haw many used to turn up to N.A.F.B.A.E. branch meetings everyone would have there say there was back biting and alot of crap talked but everyone had there say and went home felling they had contributed something
naw it is the turn of the U.K.H.S.U. on this site .all can have there say. this is shown by the large number of daily hits
some may say its full of crap and destructive comments i would strongly disagree its open to all democratic and fair so to all those with no balls that havnt the guts to talk publicly YOU ARE NOT HEARD only behind backs
-
Italian stallion
- Posts: 380
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:40 pm
Csc,
There is a simple explanation as to why the act was amended it has nothing toodo with MWN, but has done a good job in protecting the brittish farrier.
The new amendments were to ballster the existing act to bring in rules requirements for all EC farriers wishing to gain entery to the brittish register as simple as that no hidden agenda just looking after the brittish farriers.
Regards
E.W.
There is a simple explanation as to why the act was amended it has nothing toodo with MWN, but has done a good job in protecting the brittish farrier.
The new amendments were to ballster the existing act to bring in rules requirements for all EC farriers wishing to gain entery to the brittish register as simple as that no hidden agenda just looking after the brittish farriers.
Regards
E.W.
E. W the amendment has not protected the british farrier however with no choise for the powers that be i think due to gov pressure it may have been there only route so i see where you are comming from however i think it hasnt been thought out correctly and is wildly open to abuse mayby we are paying a high price for gov funding
I posted this message yesterday but it was deleated for some reason.
Stuart you are saying that no-one knew anything about an amendment to the Act that took place in 2002. Is everyone asleep or have they got their heads firmly up their own backsides!! It was the Statutory Instrument which gave farriers on parts 2 and 4 the opportunity to switch to part 1 and closed 2 and 4 to new admissions. It took place as a result of European law and there was much discussion about it on the UKHSU website!! The postings are still there for all to see.
http://www.ukhsu.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21
Stuart you are saying that no-one knew anything about an amendment to the Act that took place in 2002. Is everyone asleep or have they got their heads firmly up their own backsides!! It was the Statutory Instrument which gave farriers on parts 2 and 4 the opportunity to switch to part 1 and closed 2 and 4 to new admissions. It took place as a result of European law and there was much discussion about it on the UKHSU website!! The postings are still there for all to see.
http://www.ukhsu.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21
i have looked into this it seems that the f.r.c. had no choise at all with the 2002 amendment and it was direct from gov i am reasured that those in office got the best deal poss however if anyone wants more info the f.r.c. did sent a report out in there 2002 bulitin i hav e acopy and anyone wanting one please send your adress and i will send a copy of the 2 documents i have
basicly it was a E.C directive that took president over national legislation acopy of this can be obtained from H.M.S.O.
basicly it was a E.C directive that took president over national legislation acopy of this can be obtained from H.M.S.O.
Return to “farriers - contact your FRC rep”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest