Are all associations affiliated to BBKA?

[Hivemaker.]

The association i was a member of carried on just the same as the one Heather mentions, and it is one of the biggest associations,no vote for anyone,cut and dried.
Regarding the public liability insurance,it resembles one of those kinds of cheese,with the big holes.
Polyanwood,you say when they did the deal with bayer in the first place they were nieve,so when they did it a second time were they still just nieve. I would think more like greedy and could not care less what members thought.

 

[Brosville]

I met the local representative from head office - carefully groomed in what to say, firmly "on message" for the "official line", arrogant, self-assured, was going to vote for what he wanted to vote for come what may, and had breath that could strip paint!
VERY reminiscent of the Eastern bloc "officer class" during the cold war!

 

[Jenxy]

That is a brilliant idea.... wouldn't something like that cause a few ripples tho?

 

[Brosville]

erm.........yes! Stuff ripples, lets go for a storm surge!

 

[Jenxy]

ay... count me in.... " up the revolution!"

 

[Polyanwood]

Surf's up then.

Look forward to seeing your progress.

 

[Bcrazy]

Hi guy's

I have always been under the impression that I was an individual member of the BBKA, as I have a individual membership number, 3rd party liability insurance, and can buy Convention tickets at members rate.

Now I find I am NOT an individual member of the BBKA as I belong to an affiliated association to the BBKA, and therefor I am only a Registered Member of the BBKA.

If I wished to pay ?33 on top of my monies to the association then I would become an individual member of the BBKA.

I know that I am thick but this Registered and/or Individual membership of the BBKA beggars belief.

What a Bcrazy way to run an National Association.

Regards;

 

[Jenxy]

Climb aboard bcrazy....plenty of room on the battle bus.

 

[Chris B]

Folks,
just a small but important point: the recent ADM vote basically granted the BBKA exec. the authority to continue or drop the various endorsement arrangements, at their discretion. It ain't over 'til it's over.

 

[BKF Admin]

I think it flatters the BBKA exec to say they may of been a little "Naive" regards the chemical company funding,I think if you scratch the surface you will find that the current President Tim Lovett recently sold a chemical company he owned.

(So I have been told,so only in my opinion)

 

[Jenxy]

When will the decision be made? Will any of the Associations be balloted do you think?

 

[VEG]

No ballot they dont ask the members for their point of view. They do what they want to do

 

[Polyanwood]

I'll second that. Most of us do not know who our delegate is and certainly weren't consulted by our associations.

 

[Poly Hive]

Actually BCrazy you are better off as an associate member as the Individual members have no say at all and that I established by mailing the BBKA and getting a reply from the General Sec.

And despite the meaningless worth of the Individual status they push it on their web site.

I wonder if Watchdog might be interested.

PH

 

[Bcrazy]

Hi PH

Yes I have to agree with you reference being an associate member, as the individual members are not represented by any body or individuals where ballots and voting are concerned.
If the members of any affiliated association were not consulted regarding the proposals put forward by the Exec Com then I don't understand why the associations delegate allowed the count to proceed as members of the associations did not vote on the proposals. I can't fathom this out.

Members please lets not open old debating sessions as I feel there has been a lot spoken and written by all concerned and unfortunately we will have to wait another few years before any debate regarding Bayer can be undertaken.

Confused as ever

Regards;

 

[Brosville]

"unfortunately we will have to wait another few years before any debate regarding Bayer can be undertaken".........
that's what they think! - that only applies all the time people allow themselves to be walked all over.......

 

[David P]

Whilst I have no wish whatsoever to defend the BBKA in this discussion, I still think that the individual associations are defensible. Dont forget the vote was not unanimous so before condemming individual associations remember, enough of those delegates voted against to give the exec food for thought.
I still think initially the link was entered into in a very niave fashion. Bayer clearly wanted an name association which is what they have got, for the BBKA to believe that the association would only be made on the understanding that it was specific product used in a specific way is the bit that was niave.
Sadly unwhittingly we ourselves contribute to this, as every time the name Bayer and BBKA are used in the same sentence it reinforces the message that Bayer care. (images of Norfolk Farmer in a straw hat thinking oh yeah Bayer those are the ones who care about bees, all their product must be ok ). This kind of publicity can not be bought certainly not for under 20k, the figures needs rather a lot more 0's on it to my mind.

There is a way round this for the BBKA though i doubt they will follow it.
What they should do is demand that Bayer pay a much more appropriate figure for use of the logo. I would suggest a figure somewhere around the £4 million mark, to be paid not to the BBKA but into a quantifably independant research fund.
Then we may see some progress


David

 

[mikethebee]

I VOTE FOR THAT DAVID, but when?
all the best mike

 

[Brosville]

Something was lost forever during the 80's - along with adoption of the idea that "Greed is good",
somewhere along the line, principles went out of the window - they would not appear to have ever revived.
Whether it's 20 pieces of silver, or 20,000, or 20 million - it is plain, good-old fashioned WRONG, and as a point of principle, the forces of darkness should be told to shove it where the sun don't shine!
The very idea that the companies who are killing bees should be given any help or encouragement whatsoever in their quest to sell more of their pernicious poisons is to be frank, in the true and original sense of the word - incredible!
I've remarked in the past that 5,000 pieces of silver was far too low a sum, but not to encourage it to be increased, when by some twisted logic it suddenly becomes "acceptable", but merely to point out the total naivety of those who negotiated such a laughably low figure........

 

[David P]

Again I didnt once suggest that £20,000000 would be acceptable , just a little more palatable.
Sadly I, and the rest of the Bee Keeping fraternaty have to live in the real world not in some utopian cloud cukkoo land. We can no more shut down the chemical companies than the luddites could close the woolen mills, and to set that as a goal is to court eventual dissappointment. Much better to play the system, try to steer the direction and hope that at the end of the day both you and your bees are alive and well.
It may be that the lunatics are well and truly running the asylum, but I still believe that they forgot to lock the door, so there is still a way in without knocking down the walls.

So Softly softly catchee monkey, because I believe that if the drums are banged too loud it plays into the chemical companies hands by allowing them to dismiss opposition as being a lunatic fringe.


David