TRF becomming Extinct?

[AndyB]

I'm sorry but making making a public statement claiming that 2 out of 5 directors worked together but only naming them by PM is a pretty stupid thing to do because it leaves 3 people potentially implicated but with no chance to clear their names.

Bad luck on the other 3 but never mind, at least they know they're not the ones having the finger pointed at them :unsure:

Mate...all you ever do is pick holes in everything that people post on here. It really pisses me off

Anyway, all the information is available to ANYONE on companycheck.co.uk or on the gov.uk website and by doing 2 minutes of cross-checking of names.

I was being polite, not stupid, by not mentioning the names of the two who were associated in business.

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.

[Scott_rider]

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?

[Crossrutted]

I'm sorry but making making a public statement claiming that 2 out of 5 directors worked together but only naming them by PM is a pretty stupid thing to do because it leaves 3 people potentially implicated but with no chance to clear their names.

Bad luck on the other 3 but never mind, at least they know they're not the ones having the finger pointed at them :unsure:

Andy, since the info is in the public domain, Scott's post was hardly the crime of the century.

(I was just too lazy to search!)

[Mul001]

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?

Gotta find someone and somethin' to have a go at now Moto Al's gone. Keeps the post count up you know. As for the "stupid" thing, priceless hypocrisy given the current shenanigans.

[Hugh]

Greetings,

Folks, I am fairly new on here but this subject seems to be turning the way that another Forum has been going over the past year

Please, take a breath and agree to differ (thumbs)

Maybe a change will come about in January :unsure:

TTFN

Hugh.

[Marionette]

2 of the current 5 directors of the TRF used to be in business together for a number of years...probably coincidence but just sayin' :whistle:

Found very quickly on companies house, looks like they were in business for nearly 7 years, one resigned in November 2015, about when they became a TRF director.
Now does that seem strange.

[3BsBiking]

Ok so to move on.....
It appears, despite a TRF director initially denying this on the forum, that members whose subscription year has lapsed, who have not renewed and have not sent the TRF a written resignation may be able to vote at the AGM. If their membership year expired within 3 months of the AGM. Basically there is a 3 month 'grace' period, according to the Articles lodged at Companies House.
So those on the old calendar year membership are eligible to vote at the AGM without needing to renew their membership. They can wait to see how the AGM pans out first.
This was confirmed by email and on the thread on the trf forum but unfortunately the thread on the forum got deleted.
I have asked why it got deleted. I await an answer before making cynical assumptions.

[johnnyboxer]

2 of the current 5 directors of the TRF used to be in business together for a number of years...probably coincidence but just sayin' :whistle:

Found very quickly on companies house, looks like they were in business for nearly 7 years, one resigned in November 2015, about when they became a TRF director.
Now does that seem strange.

Interesting

[Mike54]

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.

[Mike54]

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.