Your elected members the freedom to speak for you.

For farriers to raise concerns with elected Farriers Registration Council representative Peter Baker. Anonymous postings will be deleted.
PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Your elected members the freedom to speak for you.

Postby PNB » Thu Jan 18, 2007 4:24 pm

All Elected Members Of Council,

Today, I received an invitation from the council secretary,[MWN] to sign a document agreeing to uphold "The Rules and Procedures of Council", Adhere to the principles of " The Nolan Committee" and the crunch bit for me, "Declare any interests that may conflict with the Council's business", [rule 127 of council rules issued on 1st March 2006].

It may be of your interest here Elected Council Members, I am advised The Farriers Registration Council have no power, right or obligation to make these types rules and restrictions within the farriers registration acts. I am further advised that rules are useless for elected members unless the elected members contract into the said RULES by signing up to agree to conform with their content.

Further more it seems "Nolan" only applies to "Public Bodies" which FRC is not, and it further seems elected members of council do not hold a public office.

The further information being, The Interests of FRC by definition may be totally different from that of the Public Interest, specifically in regards to openness, freedom to speak, council opinion, debate and argue ponts of view.

A word of caution before signing away your independence. BUYER BEWARE!! This last element is preposterous, how can a member of council represent the interests of those that elected him to speak out for them , debate and argue for them in public when he is under the fear of disiplinary action for breech of this third element. You don't believe it could happen to you, well think on.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Thu Jan 18, 2007 5:56 pm

With that Peter, have you sought a solicitor’s advice on this subject to clarify the information you received from MWN, is indeed correct and lawful within the bounds of the FRC. If it is, you have no option but to sign the agreement, and become another puppet within the organisation, and therefore strengthen the power of MWN even more. And if you don’t, they will throw you out and bring in someone who will. A case of heads they win, tails you lose. More power to the FRC, BINGO

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Thu Jan 18, 2007 6:11 pm

John,

I am using the service of a professional advocate, yes.

Sign up, I have declined the invite thanks, to sign up from my view point would be letting those that voted me onto council down!! and demonstrate a GAGGING mechanism that is not currently in place for me.

By the way I didn't sign up last year as the Rules and Procedures were being modified and as they didn't exist I couldn't agree to them.

And yes I voted against them at the last FRC AGM and the included manual of financial procedures for FTA they also contained.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:00 pm

The one problem I can see with that Peter is that although the FRC have moved the goalposts since your election on to council. If the proposed new code of conduct for council members was voted for with a majority vote, although you may have voted against it, in a democracy it has to be upheld. With that in mind as I said before, you can’t win the argument either way. Your morals and conscience may make you sleep more soundly at night, but without you on the inside getting information and fighting for the rights of farriers,( although at the same time being silenced to your members.) I feel is a travesty to the voters who put you there, because the FRC will only replace you with another nodding donkey which can only give those behind it all, even more power.

slowhand
Posts: 302
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 6:28 pm

Postby slowhand » Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:44 pm

I need a drink!!! :drinking:

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:01 am

John,

As the law does not have avenues for either Council to make these types of rules for itself or be the suject of Nolan, procedings I am advised can only adversly result to judicial scrutiny if a contract has been unconditionally signed!! I have signed no such contract.

To further demonstrate a cautious approach to signing anything I don't have to, I voted against the new codes and rules to demonstrate my democratic right to show my feeling towards something which I am not alone in feeling has been corrupted during the passage of many years.

My rejection of a non obligoratory contact; I think I was one of two that did reject those codes and rules that day!

What am I in the "do do" for?? I crossed that invisible the line. I maintain I was correct within my thank you note part of a UKHSU initive, to simply try to bring CRAFT CRITICAL matters to the notice of the CRAFT. Every Farrier in Wales, Scotland and England got the flyer and thank you letter. I have massive support from the craftsmen, yet at present the rank and file craft feelings are being denied!!

It is time that this matter went before a JUDGE, I feel a judicial review is the only way the brakes will be applied. Three farriers have started a FIGHTING FUND, the bank account is in place, it is hoped this will swell to a point that the costs of a full review will be covered.

PNB.

Giles
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 4:41 am
Location: Wales
Contact:

Fair Play for All

Postby Giles » Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:30 pm

Peter, All,
The original reason for elected farriers being on the council was to represent farriers and only farriers. The fact that they were accepted on the council shows that the FRC accepted this fact and went with the idea that this was the reasoning behind it. The fact that the present secretary and management group don’t want this to be does not give them the right to change things. I think this is a power thing and is being used and promoted and bolster their ego’s and to hide their insecurity, and not only that, but also to control the stirring in the ranks of the common or garden farriers.

The use of what are in effect gagging orders to control the openness, and the dissipation of knowledge and decisions that have been made in secret or even in the open, is only a small part of the way this FRC group are heading. The fact that they need to do this must tell you something. Secrecy can be obtained in two ways. First the obvious one, i.e. in closed session which they admit to, and secondly by making decisions in open session, but then not publicising the results. Whichever way it is done, in effect the result is the same..

The setting up of a small unrepresentative group without consultation or even publication of the results of the meetings in respect of the new veterinaries act, is typical and shows that this elitist group think that the ordinary farrier is of no account and his ideas and opinions do not even need to be heeded or acknowledged in any way. You may not be as educated as they are, but of course just as intelligent as they are and a lot more so in a lot of cases. The use made of their undoubted education in the hopes of negateing your intelligence, and the assumption of their superiority is typical of these sort of people.

The elected representative should be wary of signing anything that smacks of a gagging order where the interest of farriers is being eroded, or even I might add the welfare of horses. Mutch is made of the welfare issue, but I have seen very little actual practical use of their power in this respect. Much as we agree with the Nolan rules of conduct in any part of public life, they must not be high jacked by a small group to their own ends. Their use in this context is completely unethical, and in an open society should not in fact be needed. The fact that they are using blunt instruments like this shows you to what level these people have descended.

The fact that other council members do not publish what they are doing in their groups name, does not make it right for our elected, and not appointed I might point out, to carry on in the same secretive manner. There are two types of secrecy, as I have said, though that word seems to bother them somewhat, I’m you can understand why.

Let us Farriers support OUR representative and not sit by passively accepting rules made up to suit the few. Money is needed by your representative if only a few pouds. If you all sent the price aof a set it would be more than enough to put these upstarts in their place, and restore democracy to farriers

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Rules and Procedures of council. Corrupted systems!!

Postby PNB » Sat Jan 20, 2007 7:18 am

Giles, John, All,

There is a sad irony to this, I actually feel it is desirable to have standards of behavior on committees "Nolan" actually marries up to my ideal, and procedures of course there has to be roads that lead everything to everywhere, breeches would need specific approval of council with no delegated powers.

Rules that is the crunch, I suppose if there were no relatively fixed OBJECTS within the structure of FRC this concept would be fine, but is has fallen on its head as the structure of THE CURRENT RULES can now be used to manipulate and deflect normal democratic principle.

I can suggest a reason these rules have become the all enveloping pancake which dumbs down, veils, muffles democratic healthy craft output and is choking the very acoustics from the voices of its minority craft elected members. I suggest the reason is the peoples that have been implicit in forming these rules, administer the same rules using a matrix of farrier unrelated life experiences are having little regard for modern civil fairness and principle. Yet with democratic principle these rules could even now be quantified. The rules of the register, a different and lawfully approved area are presently going through what I feel is a true democratic process in which the true craft are 100% involved.

Rules fall down when the persons involved in the rule formation / setting use those rules FOR THEIR PERSONAL PROSCUTION.

Loss of Democratic Freedom of Speech is the reason I feel a judicial review is required here, which will cost you and I [the working craft] thousands of pounds and could easily be avoided by a strong direction force from within. I thought with the new chair it would happen, MY CONCEPT OF THAT FOCUS IS DULLING!!

We have a great registrar in accordance with the law, a huge chance, help and support. Great caution is needed however that the staff central core of registration administration is not lost or allowed to walk away.


PNB.

csc
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 5:40 am
Location: berks

Postby csc » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:48 am

why is mwn sending you this not curtis i thought mwn was no longer the registar does he still sit on f.r.c. council

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:44 am

Stuart,

Simon actually inherited this joint concept from the previous chairman [MC], he asked for the relative definition of the jobs of Felicity and MWN at the induction meeting. It was stated there would be cross over and a joint responsibily to communicate with each other

The explaination was Felicity would deal with all things relative to the register, [and supposidly those matters she is delegated as registrar within the registration acts].

The secretary of council [MWN] will deal with everything else. It may be interesting to note there is no facility within the act that raises a suggestion that there should even be an FRC company secretary let alone one to share VITAL administrative roles within council.

This could be one a basis for part of a challenge through a Judicial Review.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:12 pm

This is just a thought that has crossed my mind over the past 24 hours. When we start to question the legality of decisions made within the FRC & FTS and also the rules laid down by the same, does this really concern or be changed by the normal legal process. Why I ask this question is that the Act 1975 was a private members bill drawn up by amateurs with many flaws in it, which can be withdrawn any minute by a drop of a hat. Yet we have another organisation in this country called The Jockey Club who make and change rules every year. They will suspend jockeys, trainers, and anyone who steps out of line, even Joe Public can be warned off all racecourses. They can impose heavy fines where they think fit. The Jockey Club has the same type of organisations in every horseracing country in the world, who will uphold any decision of warning-off if appropriate on their own tracks regardless of the law in that country.
With this in mind as laid down in the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 and Amendment 1977. The Council has the right to make rules as they feel fit to meet day-to-day situations, and therefore like The Jockey Club can do as they please providing it has been voted and passed by the organisation controlling the sport, or in our case Farriery.
I’m not saying I’m right or wrong, it is just an observation, which many readers will very quickly correct me I’m sure.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:08 am

John,

I don't understand the second sentace in your first paragraph, please re-read it and enlighten me a bit.

Your next point the farriers registration bill was a private [LABOUR] members bill, its drafting however was undertaken I understand by a formal government drafting committee Standing Committee C.

Details of the drafting can be obtained from HMSO or viewed a a liberary in the form of a booklet called "HANSARDS" parliamentary debates [Wed 12th - 19th March 1975], which will enlighten you who will represent farriers.

The registration act lays certain obligations for farriers to be represented on the council, amongst which is included the constitution of the 16 man council. It goes to some length to prevent veterinary surgeons being over represented on the council. "The chances are [VETS] they will be more than over-represented". [Mates Petersfield], says it all. An outline for a balanced council followed. It further outlines the purpose of the two NAFB&AE appointees, it describes NAFBAE as being the farriers "Trade Union", amalgamated to the TUC !!, John is NAFB&AE amalgamated thus??

The Jockey Club has a different type of constitution and I think holds the Royal Charter which I UNDERSTAND GIVES THEM MORE FLEXIBILITY TO ACT, yet they are restricted to governing only those licenced by them and have control of the sites used by them for the purpose of Horse Racing. The Jockey Club have a power to fine, FRC does not.

The power for making making rules by FRC are restricted by section 4 of the Registration Act and seemingly the making of rules can only apply to the REGISTRATION element. You should have a copy of the registration act somewhere in one of your registration bundles anyway its on the FRC web site.

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:21 pm

Peter I have the 1975 Act and amendment 1977. I have read it many times, but you can make many of the clauses within it, fit the way you read it. The Act says there must be a Council with other committees such as Investigating, Disciplinary, and to licence outside training providers. Not once does the Act say how these committees should be run internally. With that in mind, it seems to me that this part of the Act is left up to the Council to form its own rules on a day to day basis.
The only way I can see the Council making sure this situation doesn’t happen again, is to make sure every candidate signs an agreement before an election is held, and to agree that a mistake has been made on their part after the last election by not doing so. The Council should then be man enough to stand up and say that there will not be any gagging restrictions for two years until they have an agreement rule drawn up that all candidates must sign before sitting on Council.

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:26 pm

John,

So you feel your elected representatives on COUNCIL SHOULD BE GAGGED THEN. I strongly disagree!!

Investigating Committee cannot stand alone as complaints are lodged with Sefton House.

Disciplinary committee does stand alone without back referance to Sefton House or Council.

It appears that the only rules that can be upheld at law are those made under section 4 of the ACT, unless a contract is agreed by the council member. You are right but any signing is by invitation, it has has to be a by mutual agreement, this needs a level of trust which I do not have!!

PNB.

john ford
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 7:20 pm
Location: Pucklechurch, Bristol.

Postby john ford » Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:18 pm

Peter please don’t try to put words into my mouth. I didn’t say I agreed with the gagging of representatives . I was saying that Council should give clear warning to anyone on Council if this was the action they were going to take, and make candidates sign a form before an election and not after someone has taken their seat. At least everyone would know where they stood.
Please don’t get mixed up between a correct procedure being taken, against something that one doesn’t agree with, as they are two separate issues .

PNB
Posts: 2239
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2002 6:59 am
Location: Wilts, Berks, Ox, Hants, Avon.

Postby PNB » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:31 am

John,

I don't need to put words in your MOUTH there are plenty there already [ No Criticism meant].

Sorry if I was mistaken, but this is what you wrote. "The Council should then be man enough to stand up and say that there will not be any gagging restrictions for two years until they have an agreement rule drawn up".

There doesn't exist a way out their mess by that route. But try a published apology and an acceptance of "facile complaint" that might work for them.

PNB.


Return to “farriers - contact your FRC rep”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests