sceptic

They dont abstain the step down and another juror found???????????

I abstained and wont say why

The first two reasons in my opinion (not that it appears to be worth much here) You should never have been allowed to abstain as you should never have been on the panel anyway due to the reasons you state, why you need legal advice for something a basic as grievance procedures, disciplinary or complaints procedures I will never understand, as they should have been in place anyway as for the third person whilst I understand the reasons, but why not replace said person with a another to get an odd number of people so you do not get into a even number vote and cant decide on what to do, not that it mattered in this case as 4-0 is an overwhellming decision p.s I do not expect an answer on this, just my thoughts

But this is what my issue is, if they have a bias because of the people involved, they should be honest and open aboout it.. woudl it not be quite amusing to discover that one of the abstainers knew what the women were going to do on the podium this is why transparency is required..... if they are going to take the easy option and abstain

opps, did you mean the 19th or 20th century Mike?

I usually say this to someone that is talking bolloxs :)

Now to the ridiculous 10 people on a governemnt decison about slaughter houses the motion can only be carried if more than 5 vote yes 6 vegitarians abstain wtf do we do now get real lads, if you are in a position to make decisons make them

actually you are right, I have never been on a committe that has to vote 80 times a year , but when ever I have been in a position to make a decsion ( possibly hundreds of disciplinary hearings or accident investigations, formal appeals, I usually find the facts out and make my decison based on that, when I have heard what has happened, what I have found from experience, I was never put in the position of doing something without knowing the facts, obviously I would not sit a hearing if I did not know what was going on as for personal conflicts, I had to sack my brother once (hahaha) not one person in the company objected to me sitting and doing this, nor did I shirk from my responsibility of doing what I was employed to do (and in his case what he deserved) I was more pissed he actually put me in the position I had to do it) p.s I have never lost a Tribunal and this aids my arguement, if these people had all the facts conflicts of interests and all, then they should stand down and let some others make the decision if they cant do what is right due to their own biases

OK I am not arguing that point you may well be right, may be just I cant think of a better way of putting it

ok maybe I do not explain myself well Arend, I can read and I realise what jdonn said I will try simplicity if you are in a position to vote on something, irrespective of what it is you need to understand the issue and vote on it, now to gain trust with the people effected if you feel for some compelling reason you have to abstain,,, then make the issues clear to everyone, it is simply not good enough to tell the comitee or what ever and keep it private as that does not instill trust in the masses to be honest I think what the girls did was funny as I think Bush is a twat, but that is just my opinion, I think the forum they chose to do it was poor and I think the comittee should discuss it and decide what if any thing to do about it, but as they choose to do things in public they should be held accountable in public the examples of comittees or what ever it is a body of people in a position of power where they have to make decisions, should make decisions, if they have a very good reason for not making a decision it should be absolutey transparent for all effected to see those that disagree with me may well be entitled to their views as I am of mine. try a poll should people be accounatble if in a position of power do do what they are elected to do. pr if they abstain do people have a right to know why they abstain and probably a few other ptions could be thrown in

I have no idea how they would vote my only issue is that people in positions like this should vote or why else are they ?

4 of them managed to make a decision and based on your comment, they had conflict of interests also, so why are they capable of making a decision

as I said they are scared ( to lose their income) cowardice is money the only thing that matters or is doing the right thing what matters most, as I said does this not stink of cowardice?, you may wish to say money, livelyhood and bringing home the wages is all that matters. personally I think that bush went intop Iraq for that reason (money or oil) and you slate him for that so where is the moral high ground on this? if you do a job where you have to make decisions and you have a conflict of interest, then dont take the bloody job in the first place (IMHO)

sometimes you have to make a decision even if it is not clear cut and sitting on the fence is not the way to go forward (IMHO) nor is tossing a coin

Can you honestly say hand on heart if it was your kids going to war and died fighting, you would not feel a bit of disrepect for the two abstainers who could have prevented it I agree with all you said, but I have seen them have strong opinions and and the buggers still abstain ok lets say someone abstains from a decision and that I agree that you can abstain , do you not think the reasosn for abstaining should not be made clear in this open and honest world we live in, long live transparency

anotehr view is say 201 politicians have to vote to go to war in Vietnam or Iraq and 2 abstain, the vote goes 100 for war and 99 vote against, the decision is set on majority vote so the 100 win you go to war. do you still think the other 2 should abstain? well that to me is not the point and yes I am probably using a silly arguement but thats just the way I think rightly or wrongly some people could argee it was 4-0 so it made no difference if 3 abstain, but what if the vote went 2-2, this is why I do not personally like people abstaining as I still (rightly or wrongly belive it is cowardice) maybe I have chossen a bad word to describe it, I just cant think of another way I can put it

hope this is not aimed at me, I am not complaining, you would know if I was, I merely voiced my opinion, free speech and all that, whether I am right or wrong (I know I am not always right) I just personally dislike people sitting on the fence on issues There are a few posters here I sometimes think are talking crap, but I quite admire the fact that they have opinions and are prepared to take a stance on their view. I actually totally disagree with this statement about politicians and this is why. We vote these idiots in (I would like to see an arguement proving me wrong in most cases) if we have elected a member of parliament, we expect him to make decisions on our behalf and abstaining is not democracy it is cowardice almost as contemptable as those people that dont vote in an election because they cant be bothered

This to me is still unacceptable, what happens if they were the only 3 on the comitee, I have often been put in positions where I have had to decide things against people I respect and friends, I just personally hate the idea people can abstain because it puts them in a difficult position, life is full of difficult situations, I just don't accept, people can do the nice bits of a job and as soon as it interferes with thier personal relationships or make it awkward for them they can abstain OMG it is almost like they are politicians, sorry Roland, I still think they are not doing their job properly

I find that the 3 people that have abstained thier right to vote, that is BS, what is the point of being on a comittee if you dont make decisions

I did have some info on there, but I had a disaster with the hotel I arranged in scotland, they changed their tact at the last minute and it meant I would have to be liable for a considerable sum of money, through cancellations, apparently this is not indicative of the hotel chain, just the particular manager at this particular hotel, if I cant trust someone to keep to the spirit of an agreement, I have no wish to do business with them, so the others will be planned in 2008 for 2008, I will post further details on that link, but it wont be until after Feb 2008. I am trying to get some of the other meetings in europe publicised on via the BBO advert and a shared website, if we pool dates etc, it will open a few more opportunities for people to meet face to face with their friends in a relaxed atmosphere doing what we all enjoy

would not be the first time I had LOL

Thanks

Might be worth asking the question if signs are allowed at the award ceremony

HI all, As some of you are aware we now run an annual meeting in the UK, there will also be a Scotish one next year at some point, I am aware that in Europe there are a lot of meetings, I know of some in Italy, Spain and France. I would like to know how you advertise these as I am continually asked to run them in other countries, I just want to know if anyone who organises these would care to pool information and perhaps look at putting the info on a website and sharing the cost of the very reasonably priced BBO adverts (Fred, please note a bit of crawling here) I have people that would like to go to others abroad and I get good responses from people that want to come to the UK meet we already have 8 from europe coming to the one in Jan 2008 in Coventy and are expecting 100+ based on conversation and interest already shown If you are interested or just wish to have a chat about it, you can email me wayne.mayer@btinternet.com or phone 01908 613918 or write to me at 10 Newbolt Close Newport Pagnell Buckinghamshire MK16 8ND my web site is www.weekendbridge.com if you wish to see some more info on what and how we do things Unfortunately I only seak English (apologys for my lack of linguistic skills) If anyone knows someone that maybe interested in this post but does not frequent the forums, I would be grateful if you would pass it on Thanks