ErnestWorthing 0 Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 Supporters Direct have issued a paper regarding the conduct of elections by Trusts that are members of SD: http://www.supporters-direct.org/downloads...estPractice.pdf Some of the issues are "Required" and some are merely "Recommended" as best practice. The RST appear to have broken several of the "Required" rules, for instance by not indicating on the nomination notice how many people will be elected, the procedure to be followed, the complaints procedure, or by not requiring a statement from candidates. There are several other examples of "Required" rules apparently not having been followed. If the RST wish to remain a member of Supporters Direct perhaps they should follow SD's rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andypendek Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 You don't like them much, do you? I admit there may be faults but I think they're doing their best in good faith. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricksen_da_best 2,034 Posted June 29, 2008 Share Posted June 29, 2008 I excpect to see this in a national newspaper by wednesday morning Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
parkheadbear 0 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 You don't like them much, do you? I admit there may be faults but I think they're doing their best in good faith. You sure? If what i have heard what went on at the meeting with Murray is true then it is tru;y sickening. :angry2: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briton 394 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 You don't like them much, do you? I admit there may be faults but I think they're doing their best in good faith. You sure? If what i have heard what went on at the meeting with Murray is true then it is tru;y sickening. :angry2: Are you going to tell us what went on then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
parkheadbear 0 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 You don't like them much, do you? I admit there may be faults but I think they're doing their best in good faith. You sure? If what i have heard what went on at the meeting with Murray is true then it is tru;y sickening. :angry2: Are you going to tell us what went on then? No because what has been said i do not if true so would rather not spread something for it then to become fact if not true. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 You don't like them much, do you? I admit there may be faults but I think they're doing their best in good faith. You sure? If what i have heard what went on at the meeting with Murray is true then it is tru;y sickening. :angry2: Are you going to tell us what went on then? No because what has been said i do not if true so would rather not spread something for it then to become fact if not true. So you'll stick with implication and insinuation then? Very helpful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
parkheadbear 0 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 What did i insinuate? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 505 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 I think it's vital for the integrity of the Trust that they ensure they're working within SD rules. Genuine honest mistakes and oversights can happen so hopefully the board will address the issues contained in the opening post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 What did i insinuate? You seem to be insinuating that "something" went on at a meeting with Murray which was truly sickening. I think it's pretty clear from this post: You sure? If what i have heard what went on at the meeting with Murray is true then it is tru;y sickening. :angry2: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
parkheadbear 0 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 What did i insinuate? You seem to be insinuating that "something" went on at a meeting with Murray which was truly sickening. I think it's pretty clear from this post: You sure? If what i have heard what went on at the meeting with Murray is true then it is tru;y sickening. :angry2: I didn't go into what has been posted elsewhere because as i said i can prove it is true and would rather not spread something i don't know to be fact. If it is true it is a sad state. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briton 394 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 [ I didn't go into what has been posted elsewhere because as i said i can prove it is true and would rather not spread something i don't know to be fact. If it is true it is a sad state. What a tease you are. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
parkheadbear 0 Posted June 30, 2008 Share Posted June 30, 2008 [ I didn't go into what has been posted elsewhere because as i said i can prove it is true and would rather not spread something i don't know to be fact. If it is true it is a sad state. What a tease you are. Ooo Err :harhar: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts