It is not a Welsh issue though it is plain to see where he comes from as he wears it all over his tractor. This made him easily identifiable to laymen and women in the public areas who were shouted out of the way as he drove through. No harm came of this fortunately and I don`t know the man well enough to to judge whether this is part of his normal behaviour.
How to become a member of the Society of Ploughmen?
- Thread starter Farmerpickle
- Start date
From my few meetings with him, I believe him to be fitted with a very short fuse! At a sale years ago, he was car park attendant on a very wet day. I was passenger in a vehicle, the driver of which decided to try to get out without waiting for the tow out tractor, we submerged of course. and Tony had to come and help, as he knew me, I received the "benefit" of his wisdom. Things were not helped by my remarking forcefully that the vehicle was not left hand drive, and so could he stop telling I, and tell E.!
Last edited:
Roy Stokes
Member
- Location
- East Shropshire
Laugh all you like, but , if the directors do their job correctly, he hasn't. If he is found to be making decisions "on the hoof" then the fault is theirs.
Now, that has no doubt opened a new can of worms, and rightly so, for the directors were found to be wanting, the five for their airing of, as yet unproven allegations, the rest for their poor handling of the situation.
Now, that has no doubt opened a new can of worms, and rightly so, for the directors were found to be wanting, the five for their airing of, as yet unproven allegations, the rest for their poor handling of the situation.
Harry I have to admire your tenacity, however or whoever the fallout is directed at.
Unfortunately, to me and many others, whilst probably being a welcome diversion for the SOP, you are beginning to sound very much as an idealist Labour politician, where the idealism and grasp of the situation is far far detached from the reality.
The Executive allegedly work for and on behalf of the Directors. What's your take on that one Harry, because according to some executive Directors past and present that's not the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The burning question is 'who directs the executive?'
One very significant point in how the Executive operate and vote was made by the current Chairman in his own inimitable fashion.......'it's always unanimous'. Is that not something you would expect to see in North Korea rather than in Doncaster where fine upstanding men have fine upstanding values and independent views.
In the immortal words of Tom Charlton 'It's been like that for 40 years'
Last edited:
Words like if, unproven,disproven and poor handling are all relevant but in this scenario useless because the dark shadows which have covered many of the tracks will make sure that this argument runs forever. Doncaster postbox is filtered and censored by the first people on the scene and anything unpalatable is ignored or dumped. It never reaches the executive whether it is directed at them or the main suspects. I have proven that and that indicates that policy and criticism, appeals for change and anything else that does not meet approval never sees the light of day. Has anything changed with the new incumbent or will anything change ? Even your optimism cannot stretch that far Harry .
My belief is that the chief executive is the person who executes the decisions made by the directors.
Nothing will change until the next agm, and its up to members to make sure the exec members are made aware of any requests.I believe that the "filter" has been removed from the inbox, but only time will tell.
Nothing will change until the next agm, and its up to members to make sure the exec members are made aware of any requests.I believe that the "filter" has been removed from the inbox, but only time will tell.
That`s if the directors get to hear about the matter in the first place.
I did just that and sent a copy of my complaint, which I had addressed to head office, to a member of the executive and another copy to a director. They confirmed that the matter was never raised at any meeting. No transparency and thus so much distrust will always prevail while blatant nepotism is so rigourously and unashamedly promoted.
What you need to do Harry is to gather up all your idealism in the biggest basket you can find and take yourself off to an AGM - just to see if you can be elected to Director.
After that it's just a simple step (ha ha) to becoming an executive director where you will become party to all the clandestine meetings before the appointed time and all the face watching within appointed meetings to see which way to vote and what dare be exposed. If after that the result looks kinda shaky, there is an advisor readily at hand to tip the scales of justness (ha ha ha) in the right direction. Don't loose sight of the fact that the Chairman did say 'it's always unanimous'
Sorry to pull your trump card Harry, but I have never been a Director - Executive or otherwise - more to the point is that I know several who have or are. Sad point is that anybody brave and outspoken enough for t'other side would never get to be a director.
Come on Harry all the nominations are vetted and they have Dianne Abbot counting the vote, and that's before we use the proxy votes - 50% of the electorates worth! Similar scenario got Micheal Hart voted off despite his good works and the fact that he was to run the vintage display at York. When one of the Directors pointed this out, said advisor said 'no problem - we can co-opt him back on'
Now then - did somebody mention change?
Last edited:
I've reached the conclusion It's not worth the effort taken to respond in this forum as certain writers refuse to allow anyone else a chance to correct, contradict or offer a differing opinion without derogatory remarks. We are not allowed to be ordinary people or members. It feels like anybody who dares to speak out must have a hidden agenda, be a director, live,lodge or be related to Doncaster or be a, what was it Howard called the Welshman in his post he quickly deleted yesterday, a 'Chapelite'
I was going to say again, draw a line and use this Forum as a positive tool to promote your sport.
But I've just realised that some people are unable and unwilling to do that.
I was going to say again, draw a line and use this Forum as a positive tool to promote your sport.
But I've just realised that some people are unable and unwilling to do that.
Good morning once again Bob.
96% of the electorate will never have need to cross the SOP and a further 80% of the Electorate take newsletters as gospel. This gives a fairly healthy pool of 'ordinary members' in their favour.
To me this would point to an overwhelming majority in favour, so whatever our opinion on here it's hardly going to make a dent in things.
There are a number of us of a differing view as is our right. A good number of ploughmen with a lot to offer have walked away and this begs a lot of questions. This is a democracy is it not, where we all have a right to an opinion and a vote - whether it be on paper or with our feet and what's more, a right to call time on issues which we find unjust or unpalatable. Do you find offence in the fact that we disagree with the unnasailable position of the current management, however contrived it is? Do you find offence in the degree of points of contention some of us hold or our ability to put those points.
As far as promoting the 'sport' goes then had you done a quarter of what I have done over the years in promoting youngsters, helping them with their kit and running matches, then you would be a good man Bob. Never ever ever forget Bob, who it was that was called upon to alter the No25 mouldboards for a certain advisor and a certain Doncastrian reversible ploughman. Not you Bob.
There has over the years been a certain degree of 'usage' coupled with a degree of slander, but I suppose that's fine in your book seeing as it emanated from Doncaster.
Each to his own Bob and strange that you never took the time to comment on the issues at Marden.
Last edited:
Let's get Marden out of the way first. It isn't strange I haven't commented on the issues there . I have only read what's been posted on here about the judging, so it must be the truth. I have said in the past that it was a poor site and I felt sorry for some of the ploughmen who quite frankly deserved a medal. I went, I enjoyed, I thought it was a good match.
I agree that a differing view is your right and the right of all the others who also have an axe to grind and I am happy to hear them ..once. I don't want to read them over ..and over ..and over ..again.
I don't find offence with any differing opinions. Neither do I find offence in the degree of hatred or contention you or others may have. I wouldn't find offence if you fired off your comments and anger towards the sop in general, towards the directors in general or towards committees in general.
What I find offence in is the way those opinions are put on here with venemous personal attacks, insults and derogatory comments aimed at individuals within the sop. You may not always use names but all the time we hear 'the last ceo', 'the new ceo', 'a certain Doncastrian', 'the said advisor', 'the last incumbent', 'the present chairman', 'Doncaster' 'Doncaster' 'Doncaster'.
I find offence in the way you dress up your opinions and rumours as fact. Yes, I know there are some facts posted, but when you read through, the majority are not.
Personally I find the newsletters fairly innocuous and the only slander, or libel, I have seen has emanated not from Doncaster but on these pages of the Farming Forum. If most of the members choose to read the newsletters as gospel, then that is their choice, but they will be closer to the truth than the gospel of St.Howard!
I agree that a differing view is your right and the right of all the others who also have an axe to grind and I am happy to hear them ..once. I don't want to read them over ..and over ..and over ..again.
I don't find offence with any differing opinions. Neither do I find offence in the degree of hatred or contention you or others may have. I wouldn't find offence if you fired off your comments and anger towards the sop in general, towards the directors in general or towards committees in general.
What I find offence in is the way those opinions are put on here with venemous personal attacks, insults and derogatory comments aimed at individuals within the sop. You may not always use names but all the time we hear 'the last ceo', 'the new ceo', 'a certain Doncastrian', 'the said advisor', 'the last incumbent', 'the present chairman', 'Doncaster' 'Doncaster' 'Doncaster'.
I find offence in the way you dress up your opinions and rumours as fact. Yes, I know there are some facts posted, but when you read through, the majority are not.
Personally I find the newsletters fairly innocuous and the only slander, or libel, I have seen has emanated not from Doncaster but on these pages of the Farming Forum. If most of the members choose to read the newsletters as gospel, then that is their choice, but they will be closer to the truth than the gospel of St.Howard!
Last edited:
Thank you Bob for taking the time to reply.
Whilst you did not fully expand on Marden, it is significant that you 'went' as an ordinary member and obviously neither saw nor understood the complexities or vagaries. There were several other happenings, one of which was the Chairman telling Ashley Boyles, the main contender in the plough off, to 'F--k off Ashley' we don't need your kind here'. If you are not sure about this one drop me a pm and I will willingly give you Ashley's number.
It is also fact that Dave Boyles was present when one of your number was asked to judge the plough off despite him not being a recognised judge or even a recognised ploughman. Again - if you are not sure on this one, pm me for Dave Boyles number.
Doubtless both of these gents could give you countless other points of contention, none of which you really want to hear or would find palatable.
Your comment on the winning ploughman and said passenger is conspicuous by its absence, you were there after all.
Whilst you accuse me of dressing things up, I could well accuse you of dumbing things down and also of being selective with what you did and did not acknowledge.
Perhaps you never heard of or saw the letter sent out from SOP headquarters a few years ago to the Directors describing 'a bad man from Tadcaster'. You must have had the one to the members vilifying, naming and shaming the 5 Dissenting Directors, somewhat questionable in its legality, more of a first cut being deepest scenario.
Sorry but the canonisation fell on stony ground and falls far short of your apparent need for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Next you speak to Doncaster, just remind them that there are a number of people paying their subs by standing order / direct debit, who have not been updated to the correct amount. Not to put too fine a point on it, this could lead to more null votes in times of contention.
You clearly have a very poor grasp of how the SOP has run for years and are a gullible receptor to propaganda . You should start living in the real world and accept that the world is not 100% populated by good men and true.
I did not go to Marden but by all accounts it follows a succession of poor sites in recent years for which I have heard no apologies given by the SOP. It has been a bone of contention that the allocation of land available is not fairly distributed. How can it be a good match when one of the objectives is to select, in fair competition, a ploughman or ploughmen to represent their country. You were undoubtedly not in that category of expectation.
If you know anything about the SOP you will realise that it is being increasingly populated by directors who do anything but plough. Many are only interested in the possibility of financial gain or are plants by the main suspects while a huge percentage of directors have never ploughed for years, never attend meetings and are simply a convenient supply of proxy votes. How does your conscience deal with this ? A list of directors and their details is available from companies house.
Please do not belittle me. Yes, I 'went' as an ordinary member but have I ever said I am not a ploughman? Once again your presumptions are wrong ..so yes I do understand. The problem I have with these 'complexities and vagaries' is if we get the whole story on here, and I fear we often do not. You may taunt but is there anything wrong in wanting to find the truth?
You just don't get it do you? You are still banging on with 'he said, she said'. If you asked the chairman ...not that you ever would ..if he said that to Ashley Boyles he might just tell you he said something different. Then there would be two sides to consider. Could that be possible? Thank you for offering me their numbers.. I am in no doubt whatsoever they would definitely give me 'countless other points of contention', considering that Mr Boyles senior was one of the 5 directors who were removed!
I agree that passengers on tractors and speeding through crowds should be penalised whoever does it. Maybe you lot should all go and steward the nationals then you can ensure everything is in order.
Finally, why should I not be selective about what I reply to, you certainly are! If I responded to every point I would be here all night. In fact, I've just deleted 2 paragraphs of response because I'm just wasting my time and energy trying to argue, as in your eyes you will always be right, I will always be wrong and you will always have the last word.
You just don't get it do you? You are still banging on with 'he said, she said'. If you asked the chairman ...not that you ever would ..if he said that to Ashley Boyles he might just tell you he said something different. Then there would be two sides to consider. Could that be possible? Thank you for offering me their numbers.. I am in no doubt whatsoever they would definitely give me 'countless other points of contention', considering that Mr Boyles senior was one of the 5 directors who were removed!
I agree that passengers on tractors and speeding through crowds should be penalised whoever does it. Maybe you lot should all go and steward the nationals then you can ensure everything is in order.
Finally, why should I not be selective about what I reply to, you certainly are! If I responded to every point I would be here all night. In fact, I've just deleted 2 paragraphs of response because I'm just wasting my time and energy trying to argue, as in your eyes you will always be right, I will always be wrong and you will always have the last word.
I have first hand experience of problems within the SOP. It is not hearsay, it is fact. You have not explained why the poor site at Marden provided a good match. The two are not reconcilable any more than the site at Taunton provided a good match in 2011 in which I ploughed. I complained to the chairman on the day as he came round with the mementos and informed him that I would also write to head office as I did. Perhaps if you still have a report on that match you will realise that it was reported as a wonderful match. No apologies were given. Of course it was a wonderful event for a few and the sponsors had to be convinced, hence the propaganda machine kicked in and the problems were buried as usual.
Sorry Bob, I speak from first hand experience of having been let down and the hearsay happens to reinforce my experience. You appear to be ill informed and easily satisfied because you appear to operate in the margins and have never been hurt by the shenanigans . If that satisfies you I suggest you stop getting involved with deeper discussions. You will only destroy the glossy image you possess..
Sorry Bob, I speak from first hand experience of having been let down and the hearsay happens to reinforce my experience. You appear to be ill informed and easily satisfied because you appear to operate in the margins and have never been hurt by the shenanigans . If that satisfies you I suggest you stop getting involved with deeper discussions. You will only destroy the glossy image you possess..
Good morning Bob
I echo your sentiment. I'm just wasting my time and energy trying to argue, as in your eyes you will always be right, I will always be wrong and you will always have the last word.
I would never expect you to take all I say as gospel, it is simply either my opinion or my take on what you have to offer. You have shown your colours on here by dismissing Dave Boyles right to an opinion beacause he was one of the 5. Very few people are man enough to stand up and be counted - and that goes for either side. There are however other parts of this once great land ploughing apart from Doncaster and Kent. You may be well advised to travel further afield and seek other opinion, but then again yours must be the right one as your side had the majority vote, proxy or otherwise and after all whatever comes out of Doncaster is gospel. I for one have experience otherwise - of meeting minutes in particular - written in the school of Hans Christian Andersen style of writing or vote counting in the Dianne Abbot school of hard sums style of accounting.
I have many axes to grind apart from the dismissal of 5 innocent men by very questionable means. Say what you like Bob but no matter how hard I try, I am unable to reconcile what good came out of their dismissal or what benefit it brought to the members or society in general.
On a much lighter note then comrade Corbyn must at some time or other have links to the SOP or even could the same advisors be batting for both sides. He did after all sack 3 front bench MP's last night and another 1 or 2 resigned. At least he did give an excuse which was 'not toeing the party line' but you must admit the striking similarity.
The 5 still eagerly await adequate description of their crime. Not pulling together is not sufficient excuse, especially considering what 2 of those guys put into the SOP coffers over the years, unless of course we are talking tug of war!