barbelfishingRay

Denys Watkins-Pitchford, or do you mean the other "BB" billy bunter? Kind regards Ray

To All Concerned, On Friday 30-05-2003, Barclays Bank Plc who hold the RSSG bank account, informed me of the following below after spending considerable time scrutinising all the relevant information now available to them; The Barclays bank official responsible for the RSSG account, carefully examined more information supplied to them by myself, information that was previously disclosed by Peter Waller in email correspondence he and I had, and further revelations of a financial nature relevant to the management of the RSSG finances contained within a post Peter Waller made on an open forum on the internet. Also, the official examined emails I received from Ian Jobling and most recently Chris Goddard. The bank official has also read through the minutes of the RSSG EGM held on the 2nd of November 2002 where no resigning Treasurers financial report was either asked for or presented. The Bank have also considered the fact that there appears to be only one or maybe two committee members left within the RSSG committee. Chris Goddard has suggested to me in a private email recently that I be co-opted onto the RSSG committee in order to deal with the outstanding funds that the bank holds. This is not only impossible due to the fact that I am already a properly resigned officer of the RSSG, whilst also; I am no longer a RSSG member as I resigned that position also. Obviously, if indeed I were to agree to be co-opted, as a non member such a course of action could not take place under recognised protocol. So, the bank also now consider this suggestion to be highly irregular and they further state they would not accept Chris Goddard as a single signatory for the bank account. They also have informed me that even if the RSSG were in a position to be able to provide two acceptable signatories for the account, there would not be enough time for the applicants to be processed through the procedures laid down by Barclays Bank PLC before the RSSG AGM scheduled for the 14th June 2003 where it has already been indicated by Steve Richardson and Chris Goddard that the only item on this AGM’s agenda is for the RSSG to be dissolved. The bank also consider it highly irregular for an AGM to take place without its notification going out to all RSSG members individually as is normally accepted procedure and would expect, that a full and detailed financial statement be made available for all concerned (full membership) prior to monies, funds etc being donated as per the RSSG constitution prior to the organisations possible dissolution. Seeing as no one from within the RSSG committee either in a past or present capacity has contacted the bank concerning its members account, the bank fails to see how any financial statement could be prepared in readiness for this forthcoming AGM. The RSSG banker’s conclusions are now to date as follows; ”There are now so many irregularities in this case surrounding none adherence to previously agreed upon financial operating procedures as laid down by Barclays PLC within mandates it has with all of its customers, and many irregularities pertaining to correct and proper financial procedure being adhered to within the RSSG committee past and present, that in the banks considered opinion, the following course of action should now take place in as much that I, Ray Wood, acting under the banks “recognised” capacity, should close the RSSG bank account down immediately. This course of action had been put to me by the bank in the most strongest of terms” Since this issue arose I have tried to help out in this matter in order to make things easy for those past and present that are I might add, ultimately responsible for the management of RSSG funds. But whilst doing so, I took certain legal steps myself at my own expense in order to make sure everything was undertaken correctly. I asked Chris Goddard to forward the "Mandate" he claimed to have had in his possession for some time to me, filled in with the persons he wished to have instated as signatory's on the account. Chris Goddard has now stated to me that he can not bring this document to hand. I advised him that he could go into any branch of Barclays bank and obtain one. I also stated that he could seek help at a local Barclays branch should he be unsure of what to do. I further advised him that it would save time if he did this rather than me send him the "Mandate" I had received as this course of action would save valuable time prior to the run up to the RSSG AGM. That was on 29-05-2003. Up until the of 2nd of June 2003, I had no response to this request from him. What I have had, is a request from a third party made seemingly on his behalf. This third party, asked me to take a particular course of action. A course of action I might add which previously I had categorically informed all concerned in a public announcement that I was not prepared to take under any circumstances as advised to me by my Solicitor. I did however take the weekend commencing the 31st May 2003 and beyond to further consider this request. After the long conversation held with the Bank official on the 30th of May 2003, I held another meeting with my Solicitor on Monday 2nd of June 2003. I informed my solicitor in full concerning all details as relayed to me by Barclays Bank Plc surrounding this issue the previous Friday. It was my Solicitors considered opinion that I should comply with the wishes of Barclays Bank immediately without further delay in the interests of protecting my own position. I therefore on the 2nd June 2003, instructed Barclays bank PLC to close the account they held in the name of the Rivers System Support Group, an account opened by me that traded under my home address. An account I found myself still responsible for months later due entirely to the elected Treasurer and other elected officers still in place after my own resignation that were ultimately responsible for the management of RSSG funds. These officers did “NOT” take any of the appropriate steps required to keep the RSSG bank account functional. This broke Barclays accepted banking rules whilst also broke accepted procedures of a financial nature within elected committees pertinent to the management of its membership’s funds. It should also be noted that the incoming RSSG committee personnel also had responsibilities in this financial matter. They also failed to meet those same responsibilities and criteria entirely. On closing the account, I instructed the bank to make out a draft cheque payable to the River Systems Support Group for all funds contained in the RSSG bank account. I asked the bank to hold the cheque until I could consider the two options given to me. Those options being, I could release all funds held by the Bank to the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children, or have the draft cheque made out payable to the RSSG released and forwarded to the present RSSG officers. The latter was the course of action the bank and my solicitor strongly recommended jointly. I also asked for a final statement for the account which will reflect what funds were in the bank account up until the 4th of November 2002 which was the last day any transaction took place to date when a deposit of £40 was paid into the account. After a lot of soul searching I had another meeting with both the bank and my solicitor on Friday 6th of June. In view of all the circumstances, both the bank and my solicitor advised me in the strongest terms that I should not under any circumstances release the funds held by Barclays Bank PLC to anyone other than the present RSSG officials left in office. It was my Solicitors considered opinion that if I did indeed release these funds to anyone other than the RSSG officials, I could be committing an illegal act as I could not produce any Treasurers report or accurate details of a final financial statement concerning all aspects to date surrounding the group’s funds. This being as I had resigned in September 2002 and I had had no dealings with the bank account since that time. My solicitors position is that whilst the bank might well consider me lawfully responsible for this account due to past and present RSSG officers refusal to operate its membership’s funds “at all”, the ultimate responsibility for the actual “management” or “disposal” of RSSG funds “still” lies with those responsible in the previous and present RSSG committee. He considered that only Chris Goddard the present RSSG secretary, other RSSG officials, together with the help from past RSSG treasurer Ian Jobling, were in a position to do that. Quite simply I would be disposing of the funds of the RSSG when in fact the RSSG was still in operation as a group. He also stated that as it is not a foregone conclusion that the RSSG will be dissolved at the forth coming AGM as indicated by some, that these funds should remain intact and be handed over to Chris Goddard the RSSG General Secretary prior to this AGM being held. I therefore asked the Bank to release to me the draft cheque they were holding in the name of the Rivers System Support Group. This cheque is for all funds held by them in the name of the Rivers System Support Group. This they readily agreed to do. Any monies possibly intended for the funds of the RSSG after my resignation in September 2002 outside of those listed on the November 2002 statement, I, Ray Wood, have no knowledge of what so ever. It should also be stated that any monies possibly intended for the funds of the RSSG after the 4th of November 2002, I, Ray Wood, the RSSG bankers nor my solicitors have no knowledge of what so ever. The draft cheque and final bank statement have today Saturday the 7th of June 2003 been handed personally to Chris Goddard at his home address by myself. These funds and accompanying November 2002 statement can now be presented to members attending the forth coming RSSG AGM and for proper management of the same. At the request of both the bank and my solicitor, a third party witnessed the handing over of these funds and bank statement to Chris Goddard and furthermore, that a statement declaring this event has been subsequently made signed by myself and the witness. A copy of this statement has been reserved by my own solicitor and another copy sent to the bank for their own files. Chris Goddard will now have six months from the date when the bankers cheque was made out to open a new account with a RSSG appointed co-signatory at any bank of the RSSG choosing. If the RSSG should dissolve at the forth coming AGM, all RSSG funds can then be subsequently donated as per the item in the RSSG constitution. On a final note, I should add that in cases of funds being donated as will be the case if RSSG dissolves, there is a requirement whereby details of the donation transaction should be made available should anyone concerned wish to view it thereafter. Regards, Ray Wood.

To All Concerned, I am now in a position after talking to the RSSG bankers Barclays at some length, and my own solicitor, to reveal certain realities surrounding the current state of play regarding aspects of the RSSG funds to date. My apologies for my posting having taken a while, but I have needed to clarify certain legal aspects surrounding this issue before I could post all the relevant information. But first I would like to make it quite clear that my Solicitor will be monitoring this thread, this will be done to protect my own position in this matter. A position I now find myself in due to others not previously following correct procedures. I would also point out to anyone concerned, and in particular “Fisherking” (whoever this individual may be), that any Solicitors fees incurred regarding this matter have been paid for as always by myself from my own personal funds. The course of seeking legal representation in this case has been necessary to not only protect myself, but to also make doubly sure that the RSSG membership funds are also legally administered under the present circumstances. Steve Richardson has stated that he is a little confused as to how a properly resigned committee member can have access to the RSSG Bank Account; I hope this statement helps him and others unsure, to fully understand just what has been going on and how I have been placed in this position. To begin with; I originally set up the RSSG bank account when the RSSG was formed, which was to be administered in conjunction with the elected RSSG treasurer Mr Ian Jobling. Between ourselves, both Ian and I were appointed as co-signatories to all RSSG cheques payable for any financial transactional purposes that the RSSG undertook as per the co-signed bank mandate. Ian of course as RSSG Treasurer was responsible for keeping detailed records and accounts for submission at AGM’s / EGM’s for the membership’s scrutiny, ratification and approval. The account was attributed by Barclays under my name and the accounts postal address was my present home address. Before Ian and I could officially operate the RSSG account, we both had to be approved as fit to run a Barclays account via financial checks made by the bank. At all stages of opening the RSSG account, all Barclays bank accounting criteria was stringently met by Ian and myself as demanded by the bank. Copies of subsequent monthly bank statements were sent to Ian’s address and my own. These dual statements, and co-signatures on RSSG cheques, ensured that no one person in RSSG had sole control of RSSG funds. Pretty much standard procedure really that most clubs adopt and one that Barclays themselves endorse and encourage. I would also like to point out at this stage, there are certain legally binding obligations that “ALL” elected committees, be they professional or voluntary as is the case with fishing clubs, organisations etc, “MUST” follow and adhere by. In particular, there are certain legal obligations pertaining to certain committee officers regarding to the overall management of membership funds they are ultimately responsible for whilst serving their terms of office in committee. If indeed, these legally bound rules are broken or not adhered to, there “may” be a case answerable to in law. Also, if any banks rules are deemed to have been broken as stated in their own operating agreements which are entitled “Mandates”, funds can be effectively frozen by the bank until such time that the bank is satisfied the account is being managed properly. When I resigned as RSSG chairman back in September 2002, I informed Barclays in writing on the 17th of September 2002 concerning my decision to resign as Chairman whilst also officially notifying them that I would no longer be responsible for operating the RSSG bank account in conjunction with Ian. I further stated that I expected the RSSG Treasurer would be in contact with the bank shortly in order to have another co-signatory appointed and to have a new postal address for the account registered. I received a letter in return from Barclays on the 25th of September 2002 confirming they had received my letter with thanks. In that letter Barclays Bank informed me that they needed a new mandate to be completed in order for my name to be removed as co-signatory, they also informed me that they needed a letter from the remaining signatory to confirm the RSSG’s new trading address. This I was informed was the responsibility of the remaining signatory or the RSSG Treasurer in this case Ian Jobling. As this letter was addressed to the Officials of the Rivers System Support Group I can only presume that Mr Jobling received a copy also. That was back in September 2002 and as far as I was concerned, I had nothing further to do with the RSSG, its bank account or its financial affairs. One might imagine my surprise when on the 2nd of May 2003 the RSSG bankers Barclays contacted me asking if the RSSG was still either in existence or active? I was informed by Barclays that the last RSSG banking transaction of any type was made back on November 4th 2002 and as such, the RSSG account had now been officially classified as “dormant” by the bank. I telephoned the bank and told them that, I would contact known RSSG officials in order to clarify what was going on regarding the financial issue. I later informed them that I had emailed Peter Waller the RSSG Chairman and Chris Goddard its General Secretary, explaining my situation whilst asking them certain questions. This I did on Friday 2nd of May 2003. But every email address I tried for Chris Goddard got sent back by the mail administrator so I had to rely on Peter Waller for some insight as to what was going on inside RSSG. Over the last couple of weeks I have had numerous dealings with the branch of Barclays where the RSSG has its account in order to clarify my own position and I have held meetings with my own solicitors and relayed to them and the Bank all the information I had at my disposal. This information includes all emails exchanged between myself and Ian Jobling also the emails exchanged with Peter Waller. I have also furnished both Barclays Bank and my own Solicitor with copies of the official minutes of the RSSG EGM published by Steve Richardson in which there is no mention of any financial statement being produced by the resigning Treasurer or being asked for by either the resigning committee or the in coming General Secretary. The overall conclusion is as follows; Since my resignation back in September 2002, no one from the RSSG has been in contact with the bank in order to have new RSSG representatives vetted by Barclays to start operating the RSSG account. Either during the last administration after I resigned, nor from within the new administration. According to the bank, Ian Jobling has never informed them of his resignation. I advised Ian Jobling on hearing he had resigned to send the bank cheque book back to the Barclays branch where it was issued from. From information received from the branch that holds the account, they say they have never received it. The bank have told me that as I opened the account in my name trading from my address on behalf of the RSSG, and as they have not heard from Ian Jobling nor anyone else in RSSG regarding the account since my official resignation notice sent in writing back in September 2002, I am now solely empowered by them to have the RSSG funds donated as itemised in the RSSG constitution towards the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Sick Children. The bank considers the account to be now fully dormant and the RSSG inactive. This has apparently come about due to neither Mr Jobling nor anyone else from either the old RSSG committee or the incoming committee completing the necessary forms to have both myself and Mr Jobling removed from the RSSG bank account, and also not supplying the Bank with a new trading address. It has also come about because the banks mandate has been broken via this lack of contact from the RSSG committee concerning its membership’s funds account. Amazingly, I advised the RSSG exactly what they should have done regarding getting the account fully functional once again back in 2002 on their own website!! I find it unbelievable that out of all those committee members past and present, no one took the very simple steps of contacting the bank. The reason why I have been left in this position is that according to Barclays rules,(which are in fact backed up by law) I opened the account in my name whilst also being recognised that the accounts postal address was trading from my home address, I am still responsible for the funds held within the dormant account. I am also the last official contact that the bank had with the RSSG committee. Legally on their side of the fence, the bank states I can authorise them to donate the funds as per the RSSG constitution. Chris Goddard and Steve Richardson on his behalf have now announced a forthcoming RSSG AGM on angling websites. The one item on the agenda is the dissolution of the RSSG and appropriation of remaining funds as itemised in its constitution in the event of dissolution. The major problem about this forthcoming AGM’s agenda is the fact that whilst they might well dissolve the RSSG, they cannot gain access to the RSSG funds unless they follow the banks criteria as stated in their operating mandate. Yes, the bank has already empowered me to authorise them to donate these funds. Be assured, I have no intention of doing so. Firstly on the specific advice given to me via my solicitor who is carefully watching as these events unfold. Secondly, I have no intention to direct the appropriation of funds that DON’T belong to me or funds that are not under my management. They remain the sole property of the rank and file RSSG membership managed under the auspices of its committee. In law, the management of these funds remain the responsibility of the RSSG elected/co-opted committee members to administer. So please, can the present RSSG doers, whoever they may be, get something right for once on its financial front. Approach the bank as previously advised by myself, and get someone in place to administer the account properly as demanded by Barclays. You will not gain access to the RSSG funds unless you do. You are also technically acting unlawfully by not managing or administering the RSSG funds properly In the interests of the RSSG membership, I took steps on the 21-05-2003 to make this easy for you. The bank have agreed to send me a new mandate which both Mr Jobling I and will have to sign, once I sign it I will forward it to Ian. Hopefully he will then forward it to Mr Goddard so he is able to complete the mandate with the nominees he wishes the bank to instate as signatories and operators of the RSSG bank account. I have now relinquished any responsibility for this account after consulting with both the Bank and my Solicitor. This account is now solely the responsibility of the present RSSG committee whoever they may be. Please fully understand though, Ian Jobling will have to play his part as will Mr Goddard in order to resolve this properly. Also, as this procedure does take some time to set up to the banks satisfaction, (mandates can be painfully slow to process) please realise that the procedure might not be fully complete within the time period between now and the announced date of the RSSG AGM. Obviously, the RSSG “could” be getting itself in a position of dissolving the organisation “before” having an official financial representative approved by the bank before possible dissolution. In this case, it might be extremely wise to postpone the AGM until the RSSG has a proper recognised financial representative in place that the bank fully endorses. Once the RSSG has this, it can dissolve via an AGM if it so wishes and its financial representative can then appropriate remaining funds as directed in its constitution. Be absolutely assured though, certain voluntary committee officers and treasurers, ARE legally bound by law to uphold standard practices regarding the management of an organisations/memberships funds. Committee officers deemed to be legally responsible for the management of funds, (not just the responsibility of the treasurer) must follow certain criteria at all stages of their own terms of office. Even when resigning, those deemed to have been responsible for the management of membership funds still have to fore fill certain criteria before the management of funds can be passed onto another elected/co-opted administration. Even in the case of dissolution, properly audited and up to date accounts should be made ready for presentation to any section of the membership who may request to receive a copy prior to the dissolved organisations funds being finally donated as per the constitution. Finally, please understand that being placed in this position has not been one of my own choosing. However once placed in this position, I felt that in the best interests of all concerned this issue had to be sorted out once and for all. I sincerely feel that once I have the banks new mandate along with the co-operation of Ian Jobling and Chris Goddard, we can jointly sort this out very easily. The purpose of this statement is not been one of trying to instigate an argument with anyone. Merely a statement based upon the facts surrounding the issue of RSSG funds and an announcement of efforts made by myself at my end trying to sort this out. I would ask though if Ian Jobling and Chris Goddard would contact me now to agree the final signing of the banks new mandate so as to bring this issue to a successful conclusion. Regards, Ray Wood.

To all concerned, As promised, I will shortly be in a position to post information relating to the up to date management of the RSSG bank account and the membership's funds held in the account. I feel it would be inappropriate to post the information on this thread, reasons being that this thread is about the forthcoming RSSG AGM and what I will post is related to specific details of the RSSG bank account and management of the RSSG funds only. When I receive written conformation of various discussions that have taken place over the last two weeks, between my Solicitor, myself, and members of staff at Barclays Bank PLC I will be in a full position to give out relevant information. I have been assured by telephone this morning, written conformation will be with me from Monday onwards. I will then give out the information I have under a separate thread. Regards Ray Wood

Mr Heylin,I have read your response with disbelief. “Structures in National Angling Representation” Who drafted this? Was it perhaps yourself? Thank you for emailing Lee. I have that email and am looking at its contents carefully as are others. We will respond to it shortly. Both to the SAA via a looped email, and here to the open fishing community. Ray Wood has in fact responded on this issue to you and the SAA before via the proper channels which is through the RSSG General Secretary Lee Fletcher. Lee always responds on important issues only after consultation with myself and others in RSSG that look after the organisations political interests. So you are clearly, quite wrong and would do well not jumping to conclusions yourself. The point you made about not being consulted over the SAA minutes will be fully dealt with later. I do not entertain the “Blame” culture. But I DO believe that when repeated mistakes are being made, those responsible should be held accountable. More on that in full later as well. Alan, I feel it is safe to say we all already know who the NAA are. I am greatly troubled by your opinion on the NAA not having individual membership though. To state that having a constitution or a democratic body in NAA would bring chaos and stagnation doesn’t say much for the SAA or others having the same constitution based organisation. Why exactly, do you object to our national governing body having individual membership? I ask because I don’t accept the reasons you give. Angling in this country needs to have the one organisation that all anglers can individually belong to. All this talk coming from David Bird over and over again about anglers joining one of the constituent members of NAA is absolute rot. Our national body should be open to all. And it should be properly funded and those representing angling made accountable for their actions as well. Otherwise, we continue in the same old way that things have been tried, and failed, before. At the moment, the NAA is a self elected quango with NO structure. Its funding is none existent in real terms. I find your perception of how match men, carp anglers and salmon anglers regard each other as alarming seeing as the NAA promotes unity so much. The RSSG for example embraces all angling practices akin to the SAA in the specialist angling realms. The only difference being that we in RSSG care little for an anglers label. We all wet a line and share the angling passion. For us, that’s enough. As for vitriol and bile Alan? We prefer to call it debate. Heated at times admittedly for some, but one gets that face to face around the table at meetings do they not? And every ones entitled to an opinion. Especially on these open forums. Surely as a moderator on these mediums, you yourself embrace that concept Alan? Lets face reality, open heated debate can be extremely healthy. And productive in the long term. Delegated responsibility is fine when that responsibility comes from the majority. Anything less becomes futile and dictatorial. As for getting things done Alan, give us all a list of all the things the NAA has managed to get done in a finalised meaning since its formation. The RSSG Alan is fully aware that elected positions can be contested in the appropriate democratic manner when terms in office expire. Representing angling “IS” a thankless task at times. On the other hand, those taking up office realise this from the very beginning. Those naïve in this concept soon get out because they can’t take the pressure or realise the pitfalls at the start. Or, they are removed because they are truly seen as being promoted to a state of incompetence. This can be done in democratic organisations. It can’t in the NAA. With that organisation, on going performance is based on trust, or on what little information comes out of it. How do the majority remove unwanted representation in the NAA? They don’t. Because they cant. Having no structure effectively means that all within are fully protected behind a wall of no positions in a none structural organisation. In short, bullets are wasted when fired into empty seats. Its an old method used effectively down the ages. But a method that has always resulted in its own downfall eventually. That very reason is why the RSSG in particular criticise the present system. You see Alan, we DON’T want the concept of the NAA to fail. We actually want to see it grow into something powerful. Far bigger and better than it is already. We want our national governing body to be for ALL anglers on individually based memberships. Properly funded with paid representatives representing it. Now you tell me here Alan, what’s so wrong with that? Rest assured Alan, whilst the RSSG membership believe in what it is that we, their representatives are trying to achieve, we will keep on pressing for an NAA that is open to all. And we will keep on pressing for the SAA to be better than it is presently as well. We joined to make a real difference. And we are not going away Alan. All is NOT rosy in the garden. I know that Alan, you know that. But that’s not to say that we all can’t work to make it better. We are willing to try. Are you? Ray Wood. RSSG Chairman.

Lee,Disgraceful is what I call it. Are we, the RSSG, fully paid up members of the SAA? Does that not also make us part of the NAA are we not also paid up members of NAFAC? Are you telling posters on this site that the SAA secretary did not send a member group minutes of meetings? And also, the same secretary did not send a member group notification of a meeting held on Sunday? Disgraceful is not a strong enough word for it. In all my years of being associated with angling clubs and organisations, I have never heard of such a thing. Yes, we have had some problems with the SAA secretary but not sending us minutes and so forth seems plain childish. The SAA claim to represent 10,000 anglers, the NAA claim to represent a hell of a lot more. A question comes to mind here, how the hell do you represent anybody if you don't ask them anything, don't tell them anything?? These organisations appear to be shaping angling into what "they" think it should be, for they hardly seem to be asking any of the members groups for any ideas. Another question for the posters and lurkers of this site. Do you think the NAA, the body that claims to be our national body should have open membership? Do you also think that we as ordinary anglers should have some say in what our claimed national body is doing for angling? Or do you think we should just let half a dozen men with no structure take angling where it may not want to go. I echo Lee's request will someone from the NAA come on this site and give us some answers as to why a body that claims to be our national body is not open for individual membership? As for the RSSG not receiving minutes from the last meeting or the agenda for Sundays meeting when clearly everyone else did on the 8th of August, we will be making our protests to the SAA secretary in the strongest terms possible. Again. Ray Wood. RSSG Chairman.

Dear Alan,This is my first post on Anglersnet and it is a shame it has to be in response to your attack on the population of Blackpool and the 'Gay and 'Black' population of this wonderful Country of ours. Given the words in your post, you have now probably alienated all of these people against angling. What on earth has being Gay, Black or living in Blackpool got to do with this thread?????? You clearly hold some sinister views about our present government. I see that Lee has answered your post, so I will not enter into your argument but what I will say is this, Lee Fletcher has mine and the whole of the RSSG committee's 100% support in matters pertaining to the SAA/NAA and angling politics in general. You appear to think that Lee should not be in angling politics, are you also suggesting that he should not be the voice of the RSSG at political level. If so Alan, then please attend the RSSG AGM get yourself proposed and seconded and stand against Lee. I look forward to seeing you at the AGM Alan but I won't hold my breath. Regards Ray Wood RSSG Chairman