Adverts: 0161 709 4576 - Editorial: 0161 709 4571
Mail Order: 0161 709 4578 - Subs: 0161 709 4575 - Webteam: 0161 709 4567
Northwood House, Greenwood Business Centre, Regent Road, Salford, M5 4QH

Issue: 21/09/2018

Sorry saga continues...

Can it really be the case that, as yet more damning information emerges, the Chairman of the Kennel Club does not do the honourable thing and 'fall on his sword' and resign? 
At the very least he should step aside until an investigation takes place into the business of the judges' questionnaire he submitted 
Under his watch the world of dogs now appears to be embroiled in a series of bullying and intimidation episodes which beggar belief. It is alleged that phone calls are being made to put people under pressure to change their views regarding the SGM
Is this the type of behaviour we expect of leading figures of our governing body? Have they considered the reputational damage they have inflicted upon the Kennel Club? Is this the legacy they leave behind in their wake? It is abundantly clear that they lack integrity, a pre-requisite characteristic of someone who aspires to hold high office. 
I am certain that I am not alone when I state that I find the whole situation abhorrent and irreconcilable with all three retaining their respective positions? Swift, remedial action must be taken in order to avert further worldwide ridicule.
Yours etc,
Charles Dickson

Voice of dissent 
gives hope

I am a lawyer. A crime lawyer. It is my 'lot' to grasp both sides of an argument and to have an innate sense of 'right & wrong'.
In last week's OD you reported that Geoff Duffield had been expelled from KC membership.
He screwed up, albeit 'honestly'. He got a ban. It disqualified him 'from judging at any event licensed by the Kennel Club' (as in the UK).
He was already contracted to judge abroad. He was committed. He was NOT prevented from so doing by this ban. If that was the intention then the Disciplinary Committee wording should have  been extended to add 'or by any Kennel Club with whom there is a reciprocal arrangement.'
The suggestion was that he had 'caused embarrassment to the KC membership'. Would it have not been more 'embarrassing' had he breached these judging contracts? He met his obligations and HE WAS NOT ON NOTICE otherwise. He acted honourably.
I make no comment as to the fact this issue was NOT put to the membership (as at  an SGM requiring a two thirds majority as is required of breed clubs by the KC) but rather to a panel of three members delegated the task as members of the KC Membership Election Panel.
The hope comes both from the fact there was a dissenting member AND that this fact has been made public by the KC. Someone searched their conscience and was not afraid to go on record. Someone felt it was never right to seek to rectify the wrong of this wording by this method. You issue a courteous warning as to the (albeit unstated) intention of the wording as opposed to evicting him, under escort, from the premises. He is then on Notice. You let it go and pass word back that more clarity is needed before ever seeking to invoke expulsion.
Yours etc
Howard Ogden

One rule for one...

Geoff Duffield banned from judging and expelled from KC membership - for making honest mistakes; Simon Luxmoore allowed to continue judging and continue his KC membership - for what some would consider a similar error on a KC Judging Questionnaire.
 The KC Questionnaire Section 4 states "Please list below the names and dates of SHOWS at which you have judged CLASSES of breed/variety in the UK" and "Note 1: This is to indicate ONLY those classes in which dogs were actually present, not simply those scheduled." Any Tom, Dick or Harry in the dog hobby knows that matches and seminars are not shows, and that they do not hold classes.  
Mr Luxmoore's correct judging experience: 10 CLASSES at 2 SHOWS, 16 dogs judged, and yet gets passed to award CCs!
This could not be more clear!
If he had any honour about him he would resign.
Another sharp contrast: A potential championship show judge of a breed in which he has owned two dogs and exhibited them but only a very few times was, according to the championship show secretary who invited him to judge them, turned down by the KC as most of his judging experience was overseas. He had judged 84 classes and 290 dogs of the breed in question from 351 dogs entered (most of the absentees were in classes removed from him because his entries had exceeded the limit allowed in an FCI country for critique writing on every dog judged). 
The particular UK breed club requirement is to have judged a minimum of 50 classes and a minimum of 150 dogs over a minimum of five years with an adequate geographical spread. He has been a championship show judge of his main breed since 1982 (36 years) and has awarded CCs on 16 occasions in that time. He has owned and/or bred 91 champions in his main breed worldwide, and has owned and/or bred CC and RCC winners in two other breeds both in different groups to his main breed. For the breed in question he has judged a breed club open show in the UK, and a breed club championship show in an overseas country. 
He was trained and tested by three doyennes of the breed in question in the UK (this was before formal exams were even thought of) and he has been mentored ringside by a fourth doyenne of the breed in question (before ringside mentoring was even thought of by the KC). 
He was observed and approved by two top all rounders on his first time championship show appointment for the breed in question in their country. He is approved by FCI for judging the said breed at FCI International Championship Shows. He did not include on his KC Questionnaire the number of the breed judged at three seminars, as the questionnaire was only asking for details of classes judged at shows. 
He asks: does that sound like equality of consideration or equality of judging experience, or is it a matter of one rule for the inner circle and a different rule for others, or is something else involved?
 Please note: how do I know this? Because it is about me!
Yours etc
Name and address supplied

Sheer arrogance

What sheer arrogance by the Kennel Club hierarchy. Knowing that members have called for an S.G.M., and knowing that the futures of the three men at the top are in jeopardy, they expel a member for an activity from which he was not banned, at an event over which they have no jurisdiction. 
These arrogant despots really do think they are untouchable, don't they?
Your etc.
Name and address supplied

Click the buttons below to toggle between issues


Go to Index

Please write your letter in the box below...
OUR DOGS is always happy to consider letters for publication but reserves the right to edit these as required.
Letters will not be considered for publication unless full name and contact details are supplied, including telephone number.