Allan Bennett wrote:
More of the same. I think, if you research the matter, you will find that
there were similar personal attacks to those just witnessed directed at David
Kemper and myself which helped caused the demise of this group.

'Personal attacks' didn't casue the demise of anything. They're
ten-a-penny on usenet when discussions get heated, as they did on
UKRBP. I'm not condoning this behaviour and am guilty of it myslef, but
I don't see how it's particularly relevant here.

The problem was you incessant posting of your views on the BCU et al.
Even that would have been fine if you'd stuck to relevent threads, but
you posted to and corrupted nearly every thread, you changed titles,
you repeatdly posted the same

Frankly, I think it is better without those that think they own it, but
nobody was compelled to leave.

In the first ten days of August there have been 10 posts:

- 3 on the problems with the BCU
- 6 on the problems with this group
- 3 from the SCA access officer
- 1 asking about campsites
- 1 sad little content free troll in repsonse to the campsite question.

Total number of posters, around seven. In what possible way is that
better than the vibrant community that existed here before you started
your spamming?

I also take this opportunity to repeat my earlier question that you
conveninetly ignored. If you issues with the BCU are so far reaching
and important, why is the only place I've ever heard about them on a
low traffic newsgroup like this?

Nobody thought they owned it. It was the vast majority of posters who
asked you (politley at first) to moderate (not stop!) your behaviour.
In a fit of pig headed arrogance you ignored the majority view and look
what happened.

You're right in that no one was compelled to leave but somewhat niave
in missing the fact that you made the group so intollerable and useless
that they decided to leave and go elsewhere. Again, remember, not just
a few folks but almost eveyone.

You are not clever in being able to make abusive and personal remarks.

I know that, I don't make abusive remarks in order to show that I'm
clever, I do it becase I'm ****ed off at the demise of this newsgroup
and blame you for it.

As for complaining about personal abuse, as someone who has openly
accused someone of child abuse on this group you have a bit of a cheek.
There are, as you well know, correct procedures for handling suspicions
or allegations of abuse. None of these suggests accusing someone by
name on usenet!

It
does nothing to advance any argument you might have, and as anyone that knows
me will confirm, it will not cause me to deviate from the issues.

Allan, given that you utterly ignored the pleas, arguements and
complaints of the vast majority of (now ex) contributers to this
newsgroups, I have no expectations that you'll pay any attention to me.

However, to answer some of the naive points raised in the typically
pejorative manner:

Hardly pejorative. I've been reading the same nonsense from you, on and
off, for years so I


The BCU Child Protection Policy (and poster!) contain the following:

"If you have any concerns that a child may be experiencing any form of abuse,
it must be reported either to your appointed club officer or to the BCU Child
Protection and Harassment Officer. Alternatively, any concerns can be
reported to Social Services, the Police or NSPCC Childline on 0800 800 500."

So where does it mention public accusations on usenet?

The Police are only interested in matters of a criminal nature.

And "sexual abuse" (your words) is not a criminal nature?

Most of the issues that have been reported to me are of a coaching matter and
should be addressed by the BCU. If they believe the matter to be of a
criminal nature, it is /their/ duty to pass it on to the Police.

Rubbish! Amongst other things your own quote from the BCU poster
contradicts this. You made allegations of sexual abuse and as a result
were accused of wasting police time. So you take to posting the deatils
to usenet.

The fact that I was expelled for (allegedly) reporting a Child Abuse incident
is unforgivable.

Allegedly - did you report the case or not, you should know.

As you claim you are satisfied with the BCU reply to your enquiry, how about
sharing it with us? In my experience, their answers do not stand up to
scrutiny.

It was three years ago Allan. I don't still have it. I was given
details of a case number a police officer to contact if I had further
questions. I left it at that.

I am currently involved with a number of issues with the NSPCC

Well I'd suggest that you put your efforts into that and leave usenet
in peace.

Think long term Allan - if you **** off and leave UKRBP in peace the
numbers will build up again. That way, when you return in, say, five
years time, they'll be lots of people to listen to your rantings rather
than the dozen or so that there are now.

Regards.

In message .com,
urchaidh writes

Think long term Allan - if you **** off and leave UKRBP in peace the
numbers will build up again. That way, when you return in, say, five
years time, they'll be lots of people to listen to your rantings rather
than the dozen or so that there are now.


Whilst I agree with the arguments advanced here, I just wanted to log
the (sad) fact that few Internet users are frequenting newsgroups these
days - I know of other groups lamenting a steady decline in activity. So
frankly, I suspect that for many people, pukka websites are what they
expect to find or frequent (and Google's newsgroup access is no real
substitute). I rather suspect that, even without Messrs Bennett and
Kemper, this group would anyway now be a shadow of its original self.
--
David Pearson

David Pearson wrote:

Whilst I agree with the arguments advanced here, I just wanted to log
the (sad) fact that few Internet users are frequenting newsgroups these
days - I know of other groups lamenting a steady decline in activity. So
frankly, I suspect that for many people, pukka websites are what they
expect to find or frequent (and Google's newsgroup access is no real
substitute). I rather suspect that, even without Messrs Bennett and
Kemper, this group would anyway now be a shadow of its original self.

uk.rec.climbing is a shadow of its former self for (AFAICT) those
reasons. No particular cancer on the group, folk just drifted off to
web forums (with Work Of Stan user interfaces that aren't a shadow of a
good newsreader).

Others have fared better: uk.rec.cycling continues to thrive and grow,
uk.rec.walking seems to be sustaining very well too.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Whilst I agree with the arguments advanced here, I just wanted to log the
(sad) fact that few Internet users are frequenting newsgroups these days -
I know of other groups lamenting a steady decline in activity.

Interestingly, of the few other groups I have time to subscribe to, one
lists 79 unread posts and the others 100+ - I began to subscribe to all at
the same time - only UKRBP has died (effectively) - and Allan and David
don't post to the others...

Keith
(not a fan of obsessive compulsives) ;-)

"Keith Meredith" wrote in message
...


Whilst I agree with the arguments advanced here, I just wanted to log the
(sad) fact that few Internet users are frequenting newsgroups these
days - I know of other groups lamenting a steady decline in activity.

Interestingly, of the few other groups I have time to subscribe to, one
lists 79 unread posts and the others 100+ - I began to subscribe to all at
the same time - only UKRBP has died (effectively) - and Allan and David
don't post to the others...

Keith
(not a fan of obsessive compulsives) ;-)


It seems we still have a few lurkers reading even if they pretend to have
gone away.

Most other groups don't hold much interest for me, Keith.
Paddling does. My kids paddle. I paddle. I'm involved with flat water
competition paddling.
I know most of the people in charge of competition paddling in the UK. I see
what they get up to. I don't like what I see.
I don't like the way money from outside has corrupted our sport. The money
has become the focus rather than the participants.
I don't like child abuse, especially in sports my kids are involved with,
being covered up and effectively condoned.

I lurk at several other groups, mainly transport related, but rarely post
anything as I don't have the involvement or the inclination.

To address your actual complaint; I'm very busy with work ATM, but if you
let me know which groups you hang out at, I may see what I can do for you.
:~)

David,
Not a fan of slow readers.

It seems we still have a few lurkers reading even if they pretend to have
gone away.

Most other groups don't hold much interest for me, Keith.
Paddling does. My kids paddle. I paddle. I'm involved with flat water
competition paddling.
I know most of the people in charge of competition paddling in the UK. I
see
what they get up to. I don't like what I see.
I don't like the way money from outside has corrupted our sport. The money
has become the focus rather than the participants.
I don't like child abuse, especially in sports my kids are involved with,
being covered up and effectively condoned.

I lurk at several other groups, mainly transport related, but rarely post
anything as I don't have the involvement or the inclination.

To address your actual complaint; I'm very busy with work ATM, but if you
let me know which groups you hang out at, I may see what I can do for you.
:~)

I think that you would have to try very hard to exceed the vitriole that has
arisen from time to time on uk.rec.scouting, and it still thrives :-)

Ewan Scott

"Ewan Scott" wrote in message
...

I think that you would have to try very hard to exceed the vitriole that
has
arisen from time to time on uk.rec.scouting, and it still thrives :-)

Ewan Scott

Yeah, but you have to _be prepared_ for that sort of thing if you're a
Scout, don't you?

David
Not a fan of vitriol

"urchaidh" wrote in message
oups.com...
The fact that I was expelled for (allegedly) reporting a Child Abuse
incident
is unforgivable.

Allegedly - did you report the case or not, you should know.

Allan did not report the incident to the police. I did. Police said to me
they felt there was grounds for concern but as the victim declined to make a
complaint and give a statement, they could not take action. They also stated
that they were sure further incidents would occur and they would hope to be
able to use the information I had given to them in a future prosecution. At
no point did the police say I had wasted their time or that the accused was
innocent. The BCU whitewashed the affair citing the lack of police action as
the reason for not taking action themselves. So young people continue to be
at risk because the BCU cover up for their employees..
Allan was falsely accused of "maliciously" reporting the matter to the
police by another BCU employee, one whose job should be to investigate child
abuse issues. That BCU employee knew it was I that reported the matter to
the police because I reported it to him first. He tried to cover up his
failure to take preventive action by saying Allan Bennett had reported the
matter, knowing that Allan was already in the BCU's bad books, and less
likely to be believed than myself. He also damaged the police investigation
by warning potential witnesses that the police would be asking questions.

David
Not a fan of cover ups

In article , David Kemper
wrote:


[snip]
He [MIKE DEVLIN] also damaged the police investigation by warning
potential witnesses that the police would be asking questions.


.... and did the police accuse /him/ of 'Wasting Police Time'? - the
accusation that was falsely laid against me by Alan Laws (erstwhile BCU
Chairman and proven liar) at a BCU AGM.



Allan Bennett
Not a fan of liars
--

An open letter to Brian Chapman (Chairman of the BCU) and Paul Owen (Chief
Executive of the BCU):

"The board's decision not to renew your membership was not taken in response
to the fact that you raised an issue of potential child abuse. It was taken
in response to the manner in which you chose to raise it, particularly in
relation to the wide circulation and frequent repetition of the accusations
which caused stress and concern amongst members of the BCU staff to whom the
BCU has an employer's duty to protect them from such actions."

(Letter from Chapman to David Train)

OK Mr Chapman - how should such an issue be raised, then?

? The BCU refused to communicate with David Train until he raised it with
other organisations and pressure was put upon the BCU to formulate a policy.

What you want (obviously!) is for everyone to keep quiet, isn't it?

? Regarding the 'wide circulation':

Please tell us to whom we are NOT allowed to write if we want to be BCU
members.

And to how many should we limit our circulation list?

? To what accusations are you referring which caused so much stress to your
weak and feeble staff?

Why is it that you are so concerned that your staff are reminded that they
aren't doing such a good job as they like us to believe and yet show such
scant regard for the welfare of our young paddlers or the membership as a
whole? Seems like someone has their priorities in a twist.

? You've tried the legal route and failed. There is nothing illegal in the
posts: no harassment; no libel; no defamation. There is nothing inaccurate in
his posts, nothing immoral, insulting or abusive. So, what has David Train
done that is /wrong/?

? Where is your evidence and where are the BCU rules that will curtail our
rights and liberties in this way?


** we now hear that it is the /tone/ of David Train's letters that has got
him banned! It gets even better!

Why is it that you can ban someone for expressing their views in the only way
they know how? Would you, in turn, ban someone who has a stutter and cannot
express themselves? Would you ban someone who is unintelligent and unable to
express themselves?

Or is it that you prefer to label David Train as 'mentally sick' (which you
have done and not repealed the statements publicly). Mentally sick people
are denied an opinion and freedom of expression within our sport, are they?



Following is a recent letter to the Princess Royal - going to ban her from
reading it, are you?

Capt Nick Wright, LVO, Royal Navy,
Private Secretary to HRH The Princess Royal,
Buckingham Palace,
London SW1A 1AA
7th August 2005
Dear Nick,

Institutionalised Emotional, Mental and Spiritual Abuse of Young People in
British Olympic Sport

"If you have any concerns that a child may be experiencing any form of abuse,
it must be reported either to your appointed club officer or to the BCU Child
Protection and Harassment Officer. Alternatively, any concerns can be
reported to Social Services, the Police or NSPCC Childline on 0800 800 500."

British Canoe Union Poster

In May this year I became aware of what I believed to be the abuse of young
people within the British Canoe Union, which I duly reported. Because I was
aware of the wider implications I wrote to a number of people, including you.
You rightly informed HRH the Princess Royal and said that you would speak to
Simon Clegg.

On 16th July I replied to your letter, saying that I believed that The
Princess would be astonished by the turn of events. Those events took an
even more astonishing turn last week when the Board of the British Canoe
Union, with Albert Woods -its President - taking part, banned me from
membership of the British Canoe Union, without any hearing, for four years,
for ‘daring’ to write to people to express my concerns, despite
admitting having no procedures in place to examine the issue.

Albert is also the Vice Chair of the British Olympic Association and, in my
opinion, he has brought both the name of the British Canoe Union and the
British Olympic Association into disrepute, and I wish to bring a case
against Albert Woods with the British Olympic Association, to bring some
sense into the situation. I cannot go to Craig Reedie or Simon Clegg
because, as you are aware, they are involved. I would therefore ask you to
take the matter, with some urgency, to The Princess.

There may be an easier way. The Princess is, like her father, well known for
not suffering fools gladly, and for being somewhat outspoken. At the time of
an earlier Olympic bid, often quoted by Alan Hubbard of the 'Independent on
Sunday', The Princess was heard to call Seb Coe a 'prattling'. Her
sharp 'coaching' words seems to have helped to change Seb and, today,
he is a hero, after winning for London. I am sure that The Princess will
see that for Albert Woods to be involved in banning anyone for reporting
what they believe to be a case of child abuse, whatever methods they use,
deserves the award of the 'prize prattling' of the Olympic movement.
Perhaps, to save wasting more time, you could inspire The Princess to fire a
shot across Albert's bow, to prevent him facing a broadside from a
disciplinary hearing of the British Olympic Association. Who knows, The
Princess's sharp 'coaching' words might yet transform Albert into a
hero!! We will all be winners.

Yours sincerely,


David W. Train.

cc. Peter Luff MP., Lord Coe, Albert Woods, Paul Owen. Alan Hubbard. Craig
Reedie, Simon Clegg. BCU Board.




--