The BCG
 

Have you noticed that all reference to the 2009 Conservation appeal has disappeared, not only from the Newsletter, but recently also the BCG web site?

I haven't noticed but haven't been really looking.

So they realized they had either made a mistake or realized that it wasn't worth the hassle to deal with.

This kind of brings to mind another group hounding a petstore chain about some of their products and practices... end result... the chain pulled the product.

There is a paralell and a similar net result... a select few dictate what choices we have to make.

Thanks ed for your valued input. The first sentence says it all.:roll:

There's really no point in looking. There was obviously an agenda involved in the witch-hunt and BCG was smart enough to remove the fuel.

Oh... many do see my input as a value... which is why I persist. Someone's gotta speak up for the silent majority.

I have no problem with your point of view, but as for speaking for a silent majority, Ed I do think that that is a bit off the mark!
Maybe you and your majority, should consider the point here?
Why should a statement made by the Chairman and his Deputy simply disappear, especially as it gave a pledge to the membership to keep them informed on developments in this rather contentious conservation appeal. Afterall, it was due to recieve several £000's of group funds in 2009!!
If it were merely a Witch hunt, I might have considered posting this question last Saturday?

Paul... enjoy your quest. It seems to give you a good amount of pleasure.

Sadly Ed, just FRUSTRATION!!

Just rec'd, probably for the last time, the latest Newsletter of the BCG.
Interesting, the fact they have split the Symposium on the 13th March 2010, from the AGM on the 11th April 2010, which is being held in the tiny "Rectory cottages" in Milton Keynes as a separate venue.
It will be seen, that reference has been made to a handout prepared by a fully paid up member who tabled a question for the committee at last years meeting. They obviously do not want this behaviour repeated!
It is also clear that by accepting only fully paid up members, they seek to exclude people like myself, who have been removed from the group for daring to ask a question about communication within the BCG, which was correctly tabled in "Any Other Business". By making me "Persona non Gratia", before next springs important elections.
Why split the AGM from the Symposium? Some might say: "To dissuade ordinary members from turning up to their usual social gathering and attempt to make the important business of Voting in the election as difficult as possible".

THE IMPOTANT QUESTION STILL NOT ADDRESSED IN THE LATEST NEWSLETTER: "What has happened to the 2009 Conservation appeal"; Home for homeless tortoises at Carapax?

I am very sad that the BCG do not appear to allow freedom of speech and freedom to ask for clarification when something is clearly wrong. :( To ‘throw’ a member out for simply doing this is, in my view, very wrong. :mad::-o:shock: I am so sorry Paul, but delighted to have you in Just Me and my Tortoise. :D

Many in Just Me and my Tortoise are appalled by the actions of the BCG and will not be renewing their membership. Others do not want to join the BCG. Very sad as I feel their work outside of CARAPAX has been very good.

The venue they have chosen for the AGM is where the Committee hold their meetings it cannot hold 50 people - are they stopping many going? Why move it:?: Will it not cost more for two venues:?:

Why is the AGM not, as usual ahead of the Symposium, in March:?:

Wendy,
You raise a very good point about the size of the Venue, and of course, the additional cost in these tough econonomic times of splitting the AGM, from the ever popular Spring Symposium.
These costs of course, are not just borne by the Group as an additional drain on precious financial resourses, but also by members who now have to budget for two potentially expensive weekend meetings just so they can exercise their democratic right to vote and as importantly debate the actions of their Committee.
Perhaps other paid up members would like to comment on these points, and who knows maybe, even a member of the British Chelonia Group COMMITTEE might have the courtesy to explain the reasons for the costly changes in 2010?