Approximately 12 months ago Canine Newspapers reported on a case concerning the three year suspension of a Championship Judge, this suspension was under Rule F8 which states that Judges at Kennel Club Licensed Shows must abide by the highest standards in accordance with Kennel Club Rules and Regulations and appropriate Codes of Best Practices.

This is self explanatory and this part covers all judging appointments, as all Judging is held under Kennel Club rules and Regulations and even under the Kennel Club Rules Section F(1) Specific Show Regulations, Championship, Open and Limited Show Regulations. Sub-section Judging Contracts 22b it clearly states: -
*  Societies are required to include the following wording in Judges Invitation:
In accepting this invitation you agree to be bound by Kennel Club Rules and regulations and the Kennel Club Code of Best Practices for Judges. In doing so you also recognise that you are obliged to notify us in writing of any change in personal circumstances which will affect your ability to fulfil this judging appointment.
You should also note that we reserve the right to cancel the contract before that date of the appointment if there is any change in your circumstances, which in our reasonable opinion would adversely affect your ability to fulfil the appointment.
I write this because that person who was suspended from awarding CCs by the Kennel Club under that F8 and F(1) 24f rule, has in fact been given an Judging appointment at a Breed Limit Show in May 2006.

As an exhibitor and a Judge, I find this most confusing as how can a A1 judge who has been suspended for not complying to a Kennel Club Code of Best Practice for Judges judge at any level, in the Rule F(1)22b it applies to all Judges, as so it should.

It is the general public that will unsuspectingly be entering under a judge that the Kennel Club have deemed not to have the character/integrity to award their CCs, but will allow to officiate in the same capacity at a Limit Show which is held under the same regulations. I feel that this is no more than a few people, using this as a statement against the people that strive hard to maintain a standard of etiquette within judging and also it is like poking two fingers up to those who obey the rules and those that set them.

How can the Kennel Club justify this, have they considered what happens if there is a complaint concerning the judgement on the day, how could the Kennel Club support the judges decision, when they have already condoned this person actions.

How could a Breed Club who have had the honour bestowed upon them, (by the KC) so that they are able to award CCs on a every other year basis justify appointing this person, when it was widely known that this person was punished by the Kennel Club for their actions and punished for this, also this is taking into account that there must be numerous of people that could do this Show without causing any problems, also this same Club is a member of the Breed Council which has now removed this very same person from all judging lists, is this in the best interests of the Breed or is it in the interests of the judge or is it just a statement, against the Kennel Club ruling which followed a High Court Settlement.

At best this is a committee who seem to support an individual, even though they should not, as they are then putting personalities over what is correct, at worst, it is clearly disregarding the ruling that the Kennel Club made as well as ignoring the Code of Best Practice for Judges which is the ground rule for all judges? If this Club has so little thought for the exhibitors, then maybe they should forfeit their right to award CCs. They do not deserve the support of its members nor any entries at subsequent shows.

We must ask what has this person done to get suspended, it was not putting incorrect entries to obtain judging appointments, nor was it falsifying puppy registrations, both of which would been disciplined under Rule 42, the 'crime' was to give out anonymous letters at a Championship Show by a person who was serving in their official capacity of Secretary of that Club perhaps the Kennel Club should look again to their own rules F12 concerning Discreditable Conduct at Shows, one must also ask why was this matter not disciplined under Rule 42 taking into account that the original offence was at a Championship Show and was perpetrated by an elected official of that Club. However it was not just the anonymous letters that was the whole problem, it was the fact that the letters contained incorrect information solely designed to attempt to discredit a fellow committee member, that person cited in those letters had just been put on the Breed Councils A3 list and was also on the Breed Councils subcommittee for education, the author of those letters continued to attempt to deceive (once they had been exposed by DNA tests) not just the Club but all Breed Clubs by inept counteraccusations, some of which are still believed today, hence maybe the appointment?

Why do 'we' the paying public have to stand for this obvious indiscretions from both the Breed Club and the Kennel Club which has allowed this to happen, why are we not protected from these inappropriate actions, which allows people to flaunt the very rules that are meant to be in place to protect us from this being allowed to go on. I have always believed that one should judge with honesty and integrity at any level and one should leave ones personal feelings outside of the ring or Club's committee meetings which instigate these decisions.

Is this a clear message that this Club has set themselves above the High Court settlement whereas the person concerned admitted, retracted and apologised for the events that took place and resigned from their position and in doing so put themselves over the KC ruling on this matter, do they feel that Honesty and integrity are only synonymous to only Championship Judges and they have no thought for the people that enter only for the person that will judge it. Is this what these Clubs think about the Betterment of the Breed?

If this Judge is allowed to officiate at this or any other Show during this 3 year time span, all it will become is a referendum of this case and its outcome, it will also show what authority the Kennel Club has at Breed Club level, especially at enforcing their rules at non CC level, will this person get any entries, the short answer is 'yes' as there will be those that did disagree with the outcome, there will be those that still do not believe the verdict, there will be friends and colleagues and there will be those who are unaware of this matter and the Kennel Clubs ruling, for I doubt if it will be put in the introduction of the 'Judge of the day'.

The problem is that, this matter has been finalised and that person did admit, retract and apologise for the wrongdoing and the Kennel Club and Breed Council did punish, so why is this still going on? If this person is still (in private) stating that the outcome was wrong, then they should have continued to proclaim their innocence not capitulated, once again others are being drawn into this matter, just to try and justify one persons grievance.     

         

As you obviously feel strongly about this, surely the obvious thing to do is to contact the Kennel Club yourself & ask for their reasoning.
TBH have only skimmed your post but would point out that a canine society can appoint virtually anyone (within the rules of course) to judge at their shows whereas ONLY the KC can give permission (or not) for a person to award KC Challenge Certificates.
The "paying public" can exercise their choice on whether or not to enter a show, if you don't like/know a judge, you don't enter.

The problem is that all Shows are held under Kennel Clb Rules and Regs, the Kennel Club have been informed and they are looking into this now???

I don't really understand this post.   Are you trying to draw our attention to a misdemeanour?   If so, what is it?

Margot

In amongst it all ;) this seems to be the misdemeanor

> the 'crime' was to give out anonymous letters at a Championship Show by a person who was serving in their official capacity of Secretary of that Club

Bit hard to give any opinion when we don't know what the letters were about but, I must say, I don't like the sound of the anonymous bit.

The anonymous letters were about my name being put on to the Breed Council's A3 list and it questioned my CV concerning this, the acusations were unfounded, but 'mud sticks' also once the person was named I was then accused of writing the letters with the sole purpose of discrediting the very person who did write them, I had DNA testing done on the envelopes to prove my version of events, only to be accused of contaminating the tests? I was also subject to a petition to remove me from the Clubs membership. I took private legal action, which resulted in the KC action, however this person has still managed to get a Breed Limit Show appointment, which means that they will be judging under KC rules and regs, this is an insult to the people that want an honest and unbaised opinion of their stock. it is also an insult to those people who are eligible to Judge it.

What was the outcome of your legal action?

I received an admittance, apology and retraction to the letters, but now the person is stating that this was done only because they could not afford the solicitors bills???

I suppose to those "in the know" this posting will mean something.   To me, and I would suspect most of the board the post does nothing to clarify anything.  You are obviously very upset at what appears to you to be a miscarriage of justice, but have the legal proceedings come to an end?   If not, are you not jeopardising your case by publicising it on a public forum?

I am sorry that you are so upset, but I don't know how we can help you.   You haven't (and probably shouldn't) given us sufficient information to make constructive suggestions.

Speaking from the experience of having a particularly nasty work experience, some 10 years ago which had a very unsatisfactory conclusion for me, and which, on medical and family advice, I dropped, I can only say this - that was then.  This is now.   Today the sun is shining (hooray!) - enjoy it with your dogs - and let the past go.

Regards

Margot

All information is now back with the KC, I felt that the paying public should be aware of this matter, as the Club that nominated this person to judge has blocked my aplication to return to Breed Council subcommittee for education.

As we can't possibly hear the KC's or this other person's version of events I don't see how you can expect us to comment.