How to become a member of the Society of Ploughmen?

Howard150

Member
Location
Yorkshire
I have to say, that all of my complaints over the years have been dealt with in a manner that I am satisfied with, they have been brought up at directors meeting and or the executive meeting, either way they have been sorted out,
and it is the SOP that are the only body that set the rules for the national ploughing, where else is there for a member to contact, and really if anyone has any problems, then the SOP head office should be your first port of call,
with all the complaints I have had, they have been as far as I can see, been sorted out in a democratic way,
and as with any/all or none of the my questions to sop, I will go with the majority vote, which is more than Can be said for some,
on a note of the above mentioned club, I have been told that it is now run more professionally, with no complaints, so some good came out of it,

it dose seem to me, that them that is against the SOP, most are none members have in the past had a disagreement with them or some sort or another, and would like to see the demise of the SOP to bring it to an end, if this was the case, we would not have any body or club to run a national final each year,
and out of all them that are against the SOP either on this forum or not, the only thing that is stopping you from starting a bigger and better national club is yourselves, as knocking what we have is not doing the sport any good, along with not encouraging any new entrants to the sport or hobby,
hijacking a thread on how to become a member, really is the pits, and goes to show that your really are scrapping the barrel, along with having absolutely nothing to offer the original poster

Throughout my involvement with the SOP I think it's fair to say that I was an advocate for change rather than a new venture. I was always told that it was run in a fair and above board manner. Has that now changed or is 'more professionally' more politically correct.

As far as a majority vote goes, then a majority vote is significantly different to a 'contrived majority vote' and any regime that stays in power abusing the likes of a proxy vote will always be suspect.

Over the years I have had on several occasions raised a formal complaint with the management. In one particular instance a plain and simple abuse of power and bad timing by the SOP led to contention in the countback. The version I got back was that they could not be held responsible 'for what was after all an error in the printing'. Try and contest any result or vote a week after the event and there is no chance as everything, according to a senior executive director, finds the most direct route to the shredder. (Comments made after the challenge on the European result by Northern Ireland)

Forgive me for seeming slow on the uptake John but please tell us what the magical change has been apart from the fact that there is a new CEO and Alan Jones has gone. Exactly the same faces are on that Executive, every man jack of them right down to the last CEO and his advisor.

Before going overboard in terms of hi-jack, just cast a glance back to the sarcastic (or otherwise) jibe that led me into this thread in the first instance.

I rest my case
 
Last edited:

Pennine Ploughing

Member
Mixed Farmer
Till the need next arises either on here or in the vernacular somewhere else!

I wait with baited breath for your clarification of all the changes. Please explain
David. Things will not alter over night as you will know, and with all due respect you are aware of some changes as of the last AGM, or have they slipped your mind, and I am sure there will be more changes over the next few years
 

BobP

New Member
Location
Kent
This is a response to Howard

You invited me to correct you if you're wrong. With pleasure!

There were no 'loggerheads' from the 'Kentish faction'. This 'faction' as you call it were delighted to host the Nationals.

I will correct you again as your presumption that I have never been to an AGM is also wrong. I have. I have also seen valid complaints and I have seen people treated fairly. I have also heard some people talking absolute rubbish there.

A bit of heresay from your 'senior executive director' seems to be wrong too. For someone who is in such an elevated position he is not very well informed as apparently the original score sheets are not shredded immediately as they keep them on file.

Is there anything else incorrect in your 'facts'? All the Executive committee remain the same do they? I am told there are 4 new people on the Executive Committee. Not a bad percentage of changes if there are how many on it in total, 8 10? and would you believe it, they were all voted in democratically at a directors meeting by the majority vote of the other directors!

Don't dress up your opinions or treat rumours as facts to try to justify slating the SoP or attack individuals in an open forum.

As you say, each to their own, but this speaks volumes:-

We are all entitled to our own opinions however we arrive at them Bob, factually or by hearsay. Coinciding or conflicting with that right is the right of others to attack that view howsoever they see fit.
 

Howard150

Member
Location
Yorkshire
This is a response to Howard

You invited me to correct you if you're wrong. With pleasure!

There were no 'loggerheads' from the 'Kentish faction'. This 'faction' as you call it were delighted to host the Nationals.

I will correct you again as your presumption that I have never been to an AGM is also wrong. I have. I have also seen valid complaints and I have seen people treated fairly. I have also heard some people talking absolute rubbish there.

A bit of heresay from your 'senior executive director' seems to be wrong too. For someone who is in such an elevated position he is not very well informed as apparently the original score sheets are not shredded immediately as they keep them on file.

Is there anything else incorrect in your 'facts'? All the Executive committee remain the same do they? I am told there are 4 new people on the Executive Committee. Not a bad percentage of changes if there are how many on it in total, 8 10? and would you believe it, they were all voted in democratically at a directors meeting by the majority vote of the other directors!

Don't dress up your opinions or treat rumours as facts to try to justify slating the SoP or attack individuals in an open forum.

As you say, each to their own, but this speaks volumes:-


Good Morning Bob
You have not told us yet how long your History with the SOP goes back. There was definitely a point of contention which prevented the National revisiting Leeds Castle for a second time.

As far as the Senior Executive Director goes, then he was at the 6 Nations held in Lossiemouth. There was at the time, an issue over the European Vintage result where the Dutch official was at fault for either misreading the judges score sheet or entering the score incorrectly in the spreadsheet. The contention was over whether or not one of the handwritten digits on the original score sheet was a 4 or a 7 written with a bar as is the European convention. Ronnie Coulter had made a big issue of this and had tried to convene a meeting at the 6 Nations. In his own inimitable way said SED said to me 'wey oor man has it reet - would nivver happen in England - he has it all straight through the shredder'. Forgive me for daring to be so bold but I am one of a great number of English winners who has never been privileged to see a handwritten Judges scoresheet, despite several of us having asked.

The above point - if you are privy to the gospel according to Doncastrians, bears an uncanny similarity to an issue in the sacking of the 5 dissenting Directors, where a certain advisor to the SOP stated quite clearly in a Facebook post that proxy votes were freely available for inspection at the registered office in Doncaster, despite the solicitor acting for the SOP having issued a quite curt letter to the 5 Directors saying that he / she saw no valid reason why any member should be allowed to inspect the proxy votes.

Your stance does not surprise me in relation to the SOP, nor the spin which emanates so obviously from Doncaster. After all it was one of your number who was asked specifically to judge the plough off at Marden last it was there, by the eventual winner. Not a know or recognised judge but a friend of the eventual winner. Not only a friend but someone conspicuous by his absence from the approved plough off judges list, doubtless that has now been corrected. Strange that whilst the other 3 plough of judges concurred, your man had a points differential of at least 24. Deja-vu but in a similar scenario to Harry's landlord.

One other very very significant point which must be said is this....when the National was at Losely Park last and we were all enjoying the glorious ice creams (whatever else he does the this guy is definitely in the top echelons of ice cream makers) Mike Childerley was censured or disqualified for riding his Grandkids around with him in the tractor cab - note the word cab. The rules are quite clear on this one - ONLY ONE PERSON PER TRACTOR. At Marden last, your Kentish faction of Stewards allowed the eventual winner of the World Style Plough off to ride around the field with one of his many wives / partner stood on the tractor footplate, which to my mind and probably that of every honest upright guy, quite clearly should have meant disqualification.

The SOP - 40 years in the making of a simple everyday saga of farming folk where all the punters are equal - just that some are a teensy weensy bit more equal than others - at least that's an Orwellian slant on it.

Take it as you will. You have your opinion, I have mine, however or whichever rocky road led us there. Now that cherished opinion held by another ex member of the SOP (posting on here) with 60 years standing, is another kettle of fish altogether!
 
Last edited:

Dealer

Member
Location
Shropshire
Once again, another thread is hijacked by the ‘We Hate The Society of Ploughmen’ brigade! A simple question was asked – what age do you have to be to join the SOP? A simple answer would be ‘any age are welcome’. I personally would add that it is a great Society to be part of! It organises the British Ploughing Championships each year and put on a splendid World Ploughing Championship in York last year.

But no, off we go with the same old rants.

I don’t post on here simply because anyone with anything positive to say about the SOP is shot down. But I love to read the forum and enjoy the subjects raised and even most of the banter between members and I am sure there are plenty of other people in the same boat as me.

But I cannot sit back any longer without comment. I am sick to death of the despicable accusations being posted! They drag up things time and time again and I hope most who read the posts can see right through them as for reasons known to themselves this small brigade clearly each have an axe to grind and are unable to move forward. Most are not members and now we find there are also the ex-directors who have been kicked out.

Some of you should be ashamed of yourselves with posts which are just heresay masquerading as the truth, or where the truth has been edited or stretched to suit. At times the posts on here have been vitriolic and downright slanderous. I thought of the phrase pot calling the kettle black when Howard accused Harry of talking drivel and the utter belief of his opinions. Howard, you obviously believe your own opinions as absolute truth. some of us know otherwise but we know it's not worth the effort to respond.

The troubles started because the 5 wouldn't accept majority decisions, ended when the majority voted them out and they still don’t accept it! Instead, they are clearly still pulling on strings and looking for any scraps they can find to try and pull the SOP down. It makes for interesting to reading looking back over the posts of TCN Ploughman, now knowing that he was one of those kicked out.

Personally, I believe the decision made about the succession was probably one of the best made! The present 'incumbent',CEO or whatever you want to call her has proved herself the best 'man' for the job. As Harry said she was catapulted forward when Ken was ill and ensured the 2015 National in Kent was a success and with his continued illness went on to ensure the World match ran smoothly. Not many of you have pointed out what a splendid match it was! Harry is the only one with the guts to admit he was wrong. You don't drag up all the threats you were posting that it would fail, they were losing money, the SOP would go bankrupt, Sue would fail, no-one would want to be members etc...and now they've worked hard, been successful and made a profit you want to discredit them for that too!

Its now time to move on! Stop the bickering and stop hijacking almost every thread by having a 'dig' at every opportunity. We should all be embracing the fact that the SOP has proved itself a success and celebrating the triumph of the World contest in this country.

So draw a line, move on and set out to encourage young people to join and take part in competition ploughing. It's not just up to SOP to encourage young ploughmen, it starts with local societies and you as ploughmen. If you don't, when you are all dead and buried, there won’t be any ploughing matches left as all the youngsters (or even older people) you are discouraging on here through all the negativity may well go find a different hobby instead. That would be a great legacy for you to leave behind.

We have a good Society, run by good people and a great national. I'm not saying it's perfect, nothing ever is, but I for one am very proud to be a member and will continue to support it. So start afresh and use this Forum as a positive tool and promote competition ploughing, your local matches and our national to the world.


Makes me smile that the comments about the national went smoothly. When I watched with my own eyes the new ceo. Involved in the fiasco of results in the classic class when the winner was presented to the public only to point out that they had not added the scores correctly and in fact another competitor had actually won. Pee up in a brewery comes to mind.
 

Ley253

Member
Location
Bath
Morning David,
I dont think you will ever see a hand written score sheet, it wont exist, a multitude of partial ones will however!
Just because a solicitor tells someone that there is no need for an action, doesn't mean it cant be carried out.I do agree that they should not now be used, and a system of postal voting be put in their place.
Marden judging that you mentioned is strange, and certainly gives you ammunition, but, just because the other three were similar, doesnt mean they were not "leaning " the opposite way! I was not there, so have no opinion regarding the accuracy(or not) of the result .
The Losely park and subsequent rule interpretation is down to the steward involved, he needs to make sure the exec know of the transgression,did he? Bill Tonkin was disqualified at a national somewhere, for carrying a passenger, but only after he refused to comply with the rule.
 

arcobob

Member
Location
Norfolk
One or two other events occurred at Losely Park. Tony Bradley broke his plough and spent some time driving about like a lunatic, sounding his brass horn and shouting as he drove through the crowds at high speed. Many people commented on this as he then turned on John Plowright complaining about modifications on his plough. Graham (I think) Witty, the head steward, was called and resolved the matter of TB`s complaint which was unfounded. He was clearly very upset and was going to take it out on somebody. I wrote to KC and complained about this highly dangerous and ill mannered behaviour but of course no action was taken because he was one of KC`s favoured few. There are so many records of incidents that absolutely stink that they cannot be ignored or brushed under the carpet.
 

Howard150

Member
Location
Yorkshire
Thank you Harry

I am not after, nor do I need ammunition or even brownie points. Over the years I have experienced a great deal first hand. The only thing which I will readily admit to a certain amount of conjecture is how proxy votes have been obtained over the years. Several good friends of mine have received either phone calls or e mails asking for proxy votes. proof of one such occurrence is proof sufficient. A simple check on phone and Internet use would confirm or deny this though.
Several contentious issues arise from this
The SOP until very recently were the only ones with the members list - a call centre dream.
Any such contact made would have been done in SOP time at the members expense in terms of phone / internet usage and wages. Hoist by their own petard as it were.

With regard to your last post, then in an ideal world, I would be be the first to hold up my hand and agree wholeheartedly with you. Unfortunately we, as ploughmen, exist in a world far far from ideal, where it would appear that one particular family, by fair means or foul, have manoeuvred themselves into an unassailable position. Unfortunately a postal vote would be subject to the same flaws and corruption as a proxy vote. A further point of contention is that there has never been any cross check of whether or not members who have submitted proxy votes actually attended the meeting and voted a second time. Sorry but on this point, then as far as I see it - One member, One vote, Attend the meeting and post it. Never mind the Chairman being given free rein - it is a contentious point whether as an elected officer he should be voting in any other capacity than having a casting vote.

With regard to the passenger at Marden, then the offender is fully aware of the rules and was probably complicit with sanctions imposed on others over the years. Animal Farm rules OK no less.
 
Last edited:

Ley253

Member
Location
Bath
One or two other events occurred at Losely Park. Tony Bradley broke his plough and spent some time driving about like a lunatic, sounding his brass horn and shouting as he drove through the crowds at high speed. Many people commented on this as he then turned on John Plowright complaining about modifications on his plough. Graham (I think) Witty, the head steward, was called and resolved the matter of TB`s complaint which was unfounded. He was clearly very upset and was going to take it out on somebody. I wrote to KC and complained about this highly dangerous and ill mannered behaviour but of course no action was taken because he was one of KC`s favoured few. There are so many records of incidents that absolutely stink that they cannot be ignored or brushed under the carpet.
Right Bob, you wrote to KC? If so, he only had to give you his opinion, he has no personal power. If you wrote to the society, then the exec would have been involved, but again, as they have no enforcement system, nothing could be done, the only sanction would have been censure on the day! Membership needs to be changed and embody a "competition licence", which would need to be held by any competitor in an approved event.Should that be the case, then activities brought to the directors attention could, if proven merit punishment awards, IE suspension of the licence. Until that happens, the society will not only be a paper tiger, but a toothless version as well!
 

Ley253

Member
Location
Bath
Thank you Harry

I am not after, nor do I need ammunition or even brownie points. Over the years I have experienced a great deal first hand. The only thing which I will readily admit to a certain amount of conjecture is how proxy votes have been obtained over the years. Several good friends of mine have received either phone calls or e mails asking for proxy votes. A simple check on phone and Internet use would confirm or deny this though.
Several contentious issues arise from this
The SOP until very recently were the only ones with the members list - a call centre dream.
Any such contact made would have been done in SOP time at the members expense in terms of phone / internet usage and wages. Hoist by their own petard as it were.

With regard to your last post, then in an ideal world, I would be be the first to hold up my hand and agree wholeheartedly with you. Unfortunately we, as ploughmen, exist in a world far far from ideal, where it would appear that one particular family, by fair means or foul, have manoeuvred themselves into an unassailable position. Unfortunately a postal vote would be subject to the same flaws and corruption as a proxy vote. A further point of contention is that there has never been any cross check of whether or not members who have submitted proxy votes actually attended the meeting and voted a second time. Sorry but on this point, then as far as I see it - One member, One vote, Attend the meeting and post it. Never mind the Chairman being given free rein - it is a contentious point whether as an elected officer he should be voting in any other capacity than having a casting vote.

With regard to the passenger at Marden, then the offender is fully aware of the rules and was probably complicit with sanctions imposed on others over the years. Animal Farm rules OK no less.
Postal votes are far from perfect, but at least they can be directly tied to the voter.
Regarding the membership list, with the data protection laws the way they are, I dont see how the sop could pass on the details, without contacting every member to obtain their approval. There obviously is a way, but not being of a legal bent, its beyond me.
I agree re the passenger, and the chauffeurs knowledge of the rules, but, as we all know, rules that get in the way (handling for example) are there to be ignored!
Regarding the Chaimans vote, it should be one or the other.
The AGM really needs to move around the country, that would, at a stroke improve its standing, it would also make it much more representative of the membership, as many members would attend who at the moment do not.
 

arcobob

Member
Location
Norfolk
Right Bob, you wrote to KC? If so, he only had to give you his opinion, he has no personal power. If you wrote to the society, then the exec would have been involved, but again, as they have no enforcement system, nothing could be done, the only sanction would have been censure on the day! Membership needs to be changed and embody a "competition licence", which would need to be held by any competitor in an approved event.Should that be the case, then activities brought to the directors attention could, if proven merit punishment awards, IE suspension of the licence. Until that happens, the society will not only be a paper tiger, but a toothless version as well!
So the Chief Executive Officer cannot communicate with the executive. I was told on the day that nothing would happen because of the person involved and his position within the SOP. If the CEO cannot exert influence when a senior member endangers members of the public it is a pretty poor show. With regard to the comment on handling, I am with you all the way on this. The problem is getting worse and a Norfolk competitor who goes North on a regular basis admits that his bad habits have developed because he cannot win in that company without handling.
 

arcobob

Member
Location
Norfolk
Regarding the membership list, with the data protection laws the way they are, I dont see how the sop could pass on the details, without contacting every member to obtain their approval.
Every company in the country has account customer`s names and addresses on file. The employees of these companies who are concerned with these matters have access and that includes the directors. The law on this is a bit vague but basically these lists are not for public circulation or publication, they are for the use of the company in the conduct of its business. In the case of the SOP, a "company" , there is no reason for the directors to be denied access to these records other than to unreasonably withhold important information required for the conduct of the business. The five took legal advice on this and forced the snake pit to release the information. There are certain publications from the SOP which divulge this type of information to the general public. All very innocent in the case of programmes but did they specifically ask permission ?
 

Ley253

Member
Location
Bath
The difference was, it was in the fives business, not the societies. To become the societies, the five would have had to have won a vote. Interesting point re programs but they dont contain home addresses and phone numbers, where as I would expect the membership list to contain this information.

So the Chief Executive Officer cannot communicate with the executive. I was told on the day that nothing would happen because of the person involved and his position within the SOP. If the CEO cannot exert influence when a senior member endangers members of the public it is a pretty poor show. With regard to the comment on handling, I am with you all the way on this. The problem is getting worse and a Norfolk competitor who goes North on a regular basis admits that his bad habits have developed because he cannot win in that company without handling.
Unless you asked for the matter to be brought before the exec, there was no compulsion for this to be done, and I would have been surprised if it had been, coming from one of the "Little people"!
,
 

arcobob

Member
Location
Norfolk
The five were, at the time, directors and the withholding of information to them was illegal. The reasons for this were obvious. How do you conduct a proposal requiring a vote and allowing the canvassing of proxy votes with one hand tied behind your back when the snake pit hold all the cards ? You really are splitting hairs regarding the CEO and communication with the executive. Compulsion to protect members of the public from idiot behavior was a subject of procedure ? You should set up as a comedian.:scratchhead::scratchhead:
 

Ley253

Member
Location
Bath
The skill in splitting hairs, is the "nice little earner" enjoyed by the legal eagles! Fact remains, he did not have to act on your letter, so, he didn`t. Comedian? Moi? I would be a poor second to those bewigged characters who seem so remote from the real world!
Returning to the loosely incident, all that could have been done would have to have been done on the day, the SOP has no method of enforcing its decisions, other than at the national.I suppose they could have banned him from the following years event, but that could have caused problems with the Welsh.
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 81 42.2%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 68 35.4%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 15.6%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 7 3.6%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,294
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top