OxVox Committee Applications

[Jem]

Out of interest, when will we be informed of the number of applicants and their names please?

Hi mate

We have a committee meeting on Friday this week and then, within a few days, we'll release the names of the members who've put their names forward. We just need a few days to tie up the admin (and to be sure no one changes their mind!!).

We really do have some excellent candidates and it doesn't look as though there will be a need for an election.

We'll get all the info for the AGM to members as soon as we can.

Cheers

Jem

 

[Jem]

So, just for clarity, is it, NO, you aren't going to answer the question., or NO, you've never been an OxVox committee member?

As preously asked, I'd also be interested in why you feel things were so much more open, transparent and with no secrecy in the past?

Cheers

Jem

Still just wondering what your response is to the above T'ai Chi?

Your comments would be very much appreciated.

Cheers

Jem

 

[T’ai Chi]

Why not drop T'ai Chi a PM, Jem? Oh, you can't because his privacy settings won't allow it. (Ironic that he disapproves of perceived 'secrecy' amongst others).

OK then, why not have a chat with him at an upcoming match? Oh, you can't, because T'ai Chi values his own privacy, posts anonymously and and no-one else knows who he is. (Well, a few undoubtedly do, but they won't be telling ....)

Sorry Pete but for some of us privacy is a right a right that should be cherished.

As for the post you refer to, I have no intention of giving an answer to a question that is indeed irrelevant. I notice that there will be no need for an election as the number of people who wish to stand was below the number required to hold one. Yet again that is informative.

 

[ZeroTheHero]

I notice that there will be no need for an election as the number of people who wish to stand was below the number required to hold one. Yet again that is informative.

How so? You could infer that the membership are happy with the current incumbents (those that are staying) and thus haven't put themselves up for election, you could infer that the whole trust membership has been seized by apathy and so cannot be bothered or you could infer that there are only a certain number of people with the time, enthusiasm and rhino-like skin required to take the job(s). I know which my money would be on, but have no way of knowing for sure!

 

[Colin B]

Sorry Pete but for some of us privacy is a right a right that should be cherished.

As for the post you refer to, I have no intention of giving an answer to a question that is indeed irrelevant. I notice that there will be no need for an election as the number of people who wish to stand was below the number required to hold one. Yet again that is informative.

[I][IMG]https://yellowsforum.co.uk/data/avatars/m/0/814.jpg?1519827517[/IMG][/I]
T’ai Chi
Junior Member
Saturday at 07:27
#5
I hope that we have a diverse range of candidates standing at the election and look forward to reading their manifestos. I think it is time for a fully open and transparent approach and the end to the secrecy that has been in evidence in the past. Members should always be informed of what’s in the pipeline and if their are candidates standing that promise this change then they will get my support. No to NDAs and secrecy of meetings.

Are the two posts above, both by "T'ai Chi" not the height of hypocrisy?!?!

 

[T’ai Chi]

I must point out that I am an individual who has posted my thoughts/ concerns on a forum that I am a member of. I am not an elected official of a group whose prime role is to represent membership and therefore have a responsibility to keep their membership informed. It is of course my right to set my parameters as to how I want them to be. It is however not the right of those elected but those who are members to set such parameters.

 

[Foley]

It's not 'informative' at all. Why didn't more people want to stand? Who knows, but it would be interesting to see who wished to stand, and who didn't ....

At least nobody can say that they didn't have a chance to stand and put forward their views. It appears that they would probably have ended up on the Committee.

 

[Finlandia]

I must point out that I am an individual who has posted my thoughts/ concerns on a forum that I am a member of. I am not an elected official of a group whose prime role is to represent membership and therefore have a responsibility to keep their membership informed. It is of course my right to set my parameters as to how I want them to be. It is however not the right of those elected but those who are members to set such parameters.

Were you so vocal and did you ask the old committee when they announced the RTB without any consultation of the membership and with everything done in secret?

 

[DannyW]

I must point out that I am an individual who has posted my thoughts/ concerns on a forum that I am a member of. I am not an elected official of a group whose prime role is to represent membership and therefore have a responsibility to keep their membership informed. It is of course my right to set my parameters as to how I want them to be. It is however not the right of those elected but those who are members to set such parameters.

so you didn't stand then

 

[Deleted member 222]

It will be inteeesting if Charlie or co went for it. If not then they really need to stop with the petty digs in every post.

 

[Deleted member 462]

I must point out that I am an individual who has posted my thoughts/ concerns on a forum that I am a member of. I am not an elected official of a group whose prime role is to represent membership and therefore have a responsibility to keep their membership informed. It is of course my right to set my parameters as to how I want them to be. It is however not the right of those elected but those who are members to set such parameters.

So why are u so keen on convincing others like me to run, rather than operate in those parameters yourself. It seems a little ironic the amount of abuse I took from certain areas on the old forum for supposedly hiding behind a username, when nearly all the people mentioned (bar Myles)as being big and brave and saying what they think under their own name are now doing the exact opposite

 

[Colin B]

I must point out that I am an individual who has posted my thoughts/ concerns on a forum that I am a member of. I am not an elected official of a group whose prime role is to represent membership and therefore have a responsibility to keep their membership informed. It is of course my right to set my parameters as to how I want them to be. It is however not the right of those elected but those who are members to set such parameters.

No, you are a hypocrite.

You are somebody that wants to tell others how to conduct themselves whilst not conducting yourself in the same manner. You talk of openness and transparency, while hiding behind a pseudonym and enhanced privacy settings. You make accusations of secrecy and a lack of information from the supporters trust, (which have no foundation), but are not prepared to stand for election to make change from within, nor even attend a fans' forum to make your points in person. You will not even answer a simple, and pertinent, question about whether you have previously served on the committee, claiming it's irrelevant, yet you expect answers from others. You have an agenda in virtually every post you make.

You pontificate from your keyboard, with anonymity, and that may be your right. But don't expect to be taken seriously by the rest of us.

No, you are a hypocrite and a coward.

 

[m]

Sorry Pete but for some of us privacy is a right a right that should be cherished.

Of course it is.

I'd say it's vital when your sole intention is to smear as much s**t as you possibly can.

 

[Colin B]

Sorry but I think you've gone too far there Colin. I've been a familiar face (greyer now) following OUFC since the 50s, I'm quoted in The Boys From Up The Hill, I'm an OXVOX Life Member, and I'm an East Stand STH. But I've got some very good personal reasons for pontificating from my keyboard with anonymity. And I do still expect to be taken seriously even if I am out-of-line with majority thinking, as TaiChi is.

And that's never a problem. As Pete says above, it's nothing to do with being anonymous (most people on here are) it's to do with the hypocrisy and agenda of the poster in question.

FWIW I enjoy reading your posts, as they're generally well thought through and not agenda laden, unlike some on here.

 

[T’ai Chi]

No, you are a hypocrite.

You are somebody that wants to tell others how to conduct themselves whilst not conducting yourself in the same manner. You talk of openness and transparency, while hiding behind a pseudonym and enhanced privacy settings. You make accusations of secrecy and a lack of information from the supporters trust, (which have no foundation), but are not prepared to stand for election to make change from within, nor even attend a fans' forum to make your points in person. You will not even answer a simple, and pertinent, question about whether you have previously served on the committee, claiming it's irrelevant, yet you expect answers from others. You have an agenda in virtually every post you make.

You pontificate from your keyboard, with anonymity, and that may be your right. But don't expect to be taken seriously by the rest of us.

No, you are a hypocrite and a coward.

Thank you for your thoughts, although I don’t agree with the content, I do agree that as a member of this site you have the right to post them. As for being taken seriously, I don’t look for your or anyone else’s approval of what I post re this matter.

 

[Paul Cannell]

Wikipedia tells me that T'ai Chi is "the ultimate source and limit of reality, from which spring yin and yang and all of creation.". Amazing.

 

[Finlandia]

Thank you for your thoughts, although I don’t agree with the content, I do agree that as a member of this site you have the right to post them. As for being taken seriously, I don’t look for your or anyone else’s approval of what I post re this matter.

So, just a quick question as you didn't answer it yesterday. Were you this vocal and did you ask similar questions when the old committee announced the RTB with no consultation to members and everything done in secret - just a quick simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[T’ai Chi]

Of course it is.

I'd say it's vital when your sole intention is to smear as much s**t as you possibly can.

“Smear as much s**t” I was asked a question by the chairman of Oxvox and answered it. The follow up question was irrelevant so I did not answer it. End of. It’s others that have shown an aggressive response.

 

[T’ai Chi]

So, just a quick question as you didn't answer it yesterday. Were you this vocal and did you ask similar questions when the old committee announced the RTB with no consultation to members and everything done in secret - just a quick simple yes or no will suffice.

No and yes to your two questions.

 

[m]

“Smear as much s**t” I was asked a question by the chairman of Oxvox and answered it. The follow up question was irrelevant so I did not answer it. End of. It’s others that have shown an aggressive response.

I personally couldn't care less which questions you choose to answer or otherwise. I wouldn't trust your answers in any case.

I object to the lies, half-truths, gossip and general incoherence that you peddle.

I'm not being aggressive and I won't apologise for my words.