easywriter

Alverity (non trustee of course) is under the delusion that I wish to harm the sanctuary. In recent years I have taken dogs to be cared for as well as giving homes to a couple of dogs myself so I have been there often enough to know what it used to be like compared to recent times. You referred to the Bamford family involvement - was that a bad thing? They did at least start the sanctuary and bring it to the renowned position it became.(unpaid)If you are calling this jobs for the boys, how about this then. One trustee has her mother working in the kennels.(paid)!!!!!! One trustee has his wife working in the kennels'(paid)!!!!! The trustee who looks after the snack bar made it one of her prime tasks to employ her husband who already has a full time job with company car. Perhaps she missed the point that the position could have been filled by some unfortunate without an income!!!!!!see,I also have a social conscience!! One last thing regarding the shortcomings of Steve Bamford. The sanctuary had a £450,000 legacy last year.This came from the estate of Steves long time friend. The entire estate was originally left to Steve but three or four years ago they decided that to avoid death duties and give maximum benefit to Thornberry the will would be changed in Thornberry's favour.Does everybody still think that Steve has ever had any thing but Thornberry's best interests at heart through the years?

Good old alverity, you and your fellow trustees moved very smartly on this one. Glad you enjoy Jackanory, I'm more of a Magic Roundabout person myself. As for Mrs McNeela's explanation/apology, as Mandy Rice Davies would say, "she would, wouldn't she". I would say, however, that when Thornberry was a family concern the place seemed to run trouble free and happily. EVERY PENNY GOES IN - DOES IT? If it does, is it spent prudently - I think not? To bring that silly business in about unemployment is pathetic. Is this to display your social awareness? No I was never abused by a Thornberry employee - what is the point of this silly question? As for why Steve was sacked, you show me your version and I'll show you mine. Thornberry is a wonderful place, it's the trustees and some staff who are making it otherwise. (The good ones will know who they are) I am pleased that nikonuser is now satisfied - I certainly wouldn't have been because nothing will change despite weasel words.

Once again Thornberry has become a lively topic. Firstly there is no manager to report to but one of the new trustees, ie Vice Chairman, is running things. In fact the current trustees have brought about this situation, changing Thornberry from what used to be a pleasant place to visit and work to the dreadful state it is in today for visitors and employees. Lets face it the place has gone down hill since they sacked Steve who always had time for everybody and welcomed them. Since apparently unfairly sacking Steve they have spent tens of thousands of pounds on legal costs which are still ongoing with final costs to be assessed after the tribunal. This is your money they are squandering on fighting personal vendettas, so be aware your money no longer goes to the animals as you would like to think. There is a misapprehension that there is a small core of paid employees with most of the work being done by volunteer workers - WRONG -they have at least 20 paid employees so guess what their wages bill must be (an awful lot of animal food). There used to be more volunteers than employees in the old days but this regime has made it so unpleasant for them that they just ont go any more. At least at Rotherham Dog Rescue you know precisely what your money is being spent on - they have no paid staff.

I do think that the SF is an interesting place to be and does have value as a place to debate issues of interest. I just do not see the virtue of stopping threads because 'its going on forever and there will always be disagreement' Surely as long as anyone can be bothered to post on a topic it should be allowed to carry on until it dies naturally.

Its been an interesting debate especially to a newcomer like me.I think that moderators must come under the category of pinko do- gooders. Why would anybody want to censure everybody else? What makes them the arbiters of opinion or taste?

Do any of you out there believe that the admins/moderators are completely unbiased? I noticed one thread recently cut off in its prime even though there wasn't a whiff of PC or libel involved just as interesting info was emerging

Anybody unfortunate to live on Brinsworth lane? This road is used by half wits treating it like a personal race track. Considering the number of school kids thronging the area its amazing nobody has been killed. Even seen the boss of a local garage testing a Range Rover up here today. What is it with Subaru and Celica drivers? Are they and the other lunatics lacking in some other department.( you know what I mean) Are they boys trying to be men?

Never heard of Ambleton. All talk? Do you mean me.Personally I've donated hundreds of hours to animal welfare.

That was quick. I presume it was an open and shut case in favour of S Bamford.If so I presume the trustees will now resign and pay Thornberry all the money they've wasted through extreme incompetance.I'm guessing it must be thousands.Think I'll get on to Charity Commission about it.

Nice to see Wolfstalin back on the case. Who do you think should pay the expenses of this tribunal? If S Bamford wins it will cost a few grand. The trustees have already run up legal fees. Ithink they should pay every penny spent on this business