Why is there a Clash between the Tutors and the AFC

Jbodoski wrote:I'm not sure what you mean about dealing with the Uptons. Steven was wrongly accused of something he didn't do, and left the SNU to clear his name as the SNUs usual inexperienced witch hunt committee would not listen and found him guilty. The NEC reacted to the findings of the committee. Steven left and took all the evidence to the police, his own and the accusers, something the committee did not allow, and he was found innocent no case to answer.
Paul on the other hand was removed from his position for trying to block tutors he did not like. The NEC makes the decisions not the president. As I said before, I was there.

Jbodoski wrote:He was not charged by the police, because after he presented his case, and the evidence checked, they said there was no case to answer. The accused had their evidence presented to the NEC investigation committe, and it was also made availble to anyone who they felt stood at their side. That wouldnt be allowed in a court of law. Steven dedpite sticking to the rules and not sharing his evidence to the contrary, was ajugded to be guilty. Hence his reason for leaving. I prefer to remain anonymous but have been at the NEC table. And served both presidents in some capacity.

Jbodoski wrote:I could go on but I think we are moving away from the original subject of the tutors. But another chat point could be the down fall of Andrew Hadley, and why he fell alone??

Broadly speaking we can, given the detail being given, recognise that someone knows what they are talking about and has some inside knowledge. We also know that regardless of which of the last two Presidents you deal with, there will be heavy punishment and only possibly some reward. Therefore anonymity is quite sensible.

mac wrote:Devil's Advocate again - apart from grumbling and grousing about things, is anybody going to try to do something to rectify the situation?  Assuming there's anything that CAN be done to change the picture.

There's no more than a handful of anonymous new members contributing to this conversation and one might wonder if any of the hundreds/thousands of SNU members are involved in discussions elsewhere.  Anyone know?

mac wrote:deleted for brevity....

Broadly speaking we can, given the detail being given, recognise that someone knows what they are talking about and has some inside knowledge. We also know that regardless of which of the last two Presidents you deal with, there will be heavy punishment and only possibly some reward. Therefore anonymity is quite sensible.

I can't disagree with individuals wanting to stay in whatever role they fulfill but from what I'm hearing WHY would anyone so upset even want to continue their role?

I also welcome all the new members, even if many have not posted. It does not matter to me that they only visit this thread while its active.

I would hope though that they visit all the other wonderful material that is on this thread, some copied from other sources but much original and meticulously researched. My feeling is that, even if Spiritualism fails, its successor must study the experience of the last 176 years and learn. Studying the past is to often forgotten by humanity its why the same idiotic ideas keep coming back.

Anniemillo1 wrote:Well where do I begin.



We also have another tutor, who has been allowed to teach without going through the same hoops as all the other tutors, new or old.   Was renowned for his comments about the SNU.  Left under a cloud and now back teaching without any teaching qualifications from the SNU.  No doubt he will be hurriedly put through any courses he needs.  What on earth is going on at the AFC?

notabigjump wrote:

mac wrote:Devil's Advocate again - apart from grumbling and grousing about things, is anybody going to try to do something to rectify the situation?  Assuming there's anything that CAN be done to change the picture.

There's no more than a handful of anonymous new members contributing to this conversation and one might wonder if any of the hundreds/thousands of SNU members are involved in discussions elsewhere.  Anyone know?

It's radio silence from the NEC and the tutors are bound by a confidentiality clause. Many who care have equated the situation as merely a tactic to throw the election for the current president. Yet it has been ongoing since February. What could  they do? Many trust one side or the other - but do not have any evidence to take action. Other discussions have taken place on social media, yet they are fairly unpleasant. Coming here to discuss has been an opportunity to have a discussion rather than an offensive meme or vitriolic attack.

Anniemillo1 wrote:


This situation is getting messier and messier.   First we have the deplorable way that the twenty long serving tutors have been treated (but, they have only done this to throw the elections!!!)
Then we have an alleged writ served on JW (no denial or acceptance, if true is this to throw the election)?  If it is true then why is the P allowed to continue with her duties because the NEC made a precedence when another tutor was awaiting trial and removed him from teaching at the AFC and stripped him of his awards before being found guilty.  My thoughts are if the alleged writ is true why is the same not happening now and who will be held responsible for this not being carried out if true?

My friend did online voting and received an email stating that she has successfully voted for a president and VP.  She DIDN'T vote for a VP.   After complaining they sent her a paper voting form.  Now then, did they cancel online votes?   Which candidate did the automatic VP vote go to?   How many others didn't read their email properly confirming their vote and have automatically voted for a candidate?    How can this be checked whether an outside company or not, this has happened and how many times so I don't have much confidence in this vote.

notabigjump wrote:

Anniemillo1 wrote:Well where do I begin.



We also have another tutor, who has been allowed to teach without going through the same hoops as all the other tutors, new or old.   Was renowned for his comments about the SNU.  Left under a cloud and now back teaching without any teaching qualifications from the SNU.  No doubt he will be hurriedly put through any courses he needs.  What on earth is going on at the AFC?

It sounds like time for all the other tutors who had to pay for training and assessments, to start a class action against the college to recoup their expenses. If we are going to do the 'face fits' game, then all the others at least deserve a full refund.

Anniemillo1 wrote:

notabigjump wrote:

Anniemillo1 wrote:Well where do I begin.



We also have another tutor, who has been allowed to teach without going through the same hoops as all the other tutors, new or old.   Was renowned for his comments about the SNU.  Left under a cloud and now back teaching without any teaching qualifications from the SNU.  No doubt he will be hurriedly put through any courses he needs.  What on earth is going on at the AFC?

It sounds like time for all the other tutors who had to pay for training and assessments, to start a class action against the college to recoup their expenses. If we are going to do the 'face fits' game, then all the others at least deserve a full refund.

Hi,
I seem to have lost the initial paragraphs which was in reply to the post about Mr. Upton.   Has it been deleted or is it somewhere else?

mac wrote:trimmed for brevity

Apologies JNR in all the quoting and re posting this very important snippet seems you have been overlooked.

As part of her Promotion to retain the Presidency the non expenditures on the AFC has been quoted and it was used to help persuade people to donate

An actual provable terminological inexactitude (if you like a porkie) that JW actually said in a recorded interview. How many more are there around, or being buried hurriedly. I admit it was Lis that spotted this ripper.

At the risk of sounding confrontational, so what.....?  OK you don't like her, you say she can't be trusted but then what do you propose doing?  There's a grand-master of terminological inexactitude running for president over the big pond and telling lies has rarely led to any major slow-down of his activities.  Do you really believe less than that will slow down the activities of the incumbent SNU president?

JNR wrote:

mac wrote:trimmed for brevit


A valid point Mac, but fundraising is a regulated activity, and it is regulated by The Fund Raising Regulator.

There is a code of conduct that all charities must comply with. I can't give you the full details on here, but you can read it for yourself if you are interested:

fundraisingregulator.org.uk/code (I am not able to post link on here yet)


As a flavour, this is the kind of thing that is expected.

1.3. Informing donors and treating
people fairly

1.3.1 You and the fundraising materials
you use must not mislead anyone,
or be likely to mislead anyone, either
by leaving out information or by
being inaccurate or ambiguous
or by exaggerating details.

Comparing the SNU to a political party is like comparing apples and pears. The charity sector is reliant on donations, undermining public trust in this sector is taken very seriously, and I hope you can see there is a strict set of regs concerning all of this.

and yes, I have reported it to the regulator.

Bang to rights then! She must resign!

mac wrote:
I can't disagree with individuals wanting to stay in whatever role they fulfill but from what I'm hearing WHY would anyone so upset even want to continue their role?

Hence the tutors withdrawing from their courses from today, until there is resolution.

notabigjump wrote:

mac wrote:Devil's Advocate again - apart from grumbling and grousing about things, is anybody going to try to do something to rectify the situation?  Assuming there's anything that CAN be done to change the picture.

There's no more than a handful of anonymous new members contributing to this conversation and one might wonder if any of the hundreds/thousands of SNU members are involved in discussions elsewhere.  Anyone know?

It's radio silence from the NEC and the tutors are bound by a confidentiality clause. Many who care have equated the situation as merely a tactic to throw the election for the current president. Yet it has been ongoing since February. What could  they do? Many trust one side or the other - but do not have any evidence to take action. Other discussions have taken place on social media, yet they are fairly unpleasant. Coming here to discuss has been an opportunity to have a discussion rather than an offensive meme or vitriolic attack.

JNR wrote:

mac wrote:trimmed for brevity

Apologies JNR in all the quoting and re posting this very important snippet seems you have been overlooked.

As part of her Promotion to retain......................... How many more are there around, or being buried hurriedly. I admit it was Lis that spotted this ripper.

 Do you really believe less than that will slow down the activities of the incumbent SNU president?

A valid point Mac, but fundraising is a regulated activity, and it is regulated by The Fund Raising Regulator.

There is a code of conduct that all charities must comply with. I can't give you the full details on here, but you can read it for yourself if you are interested:

fundraisingregulator.org.uk/code (I am not able to post link on here yet) allow me:fundraising


As a flavour, this is the kind of thing that is expected.

1.3. Informing donors and treating
people fairly

1.3.1 You and the fundraising materials
you use must not mislead anyone,
or be likely to mislead anyone, either
by leaving out information or by
being inaccurate or ambiguous
or by exaggerating details.

Comparing the SNU to a political party is like comparing apples and pears. The charity sector is reliant on donations, undermining public trust in this sector is taken very seriously, and I hope you can see there is a strict set of regs concerning all of this.

and yes, I have reported it to the regulator.

JNR wrote:

mac wrote:trimmed for brevity

Apologi.............riedly. I admit it was Lis that spotted this ripper.

At the risk of sounding confrontational, so what.....?  OK you don't like her, you say she can't be trusted but then what do you propose doing?  There's a grand-master of terminological inexactitude running for president over the big pond and telling lies has rarely led to any major slow-down of his activities.  Do you really believe less than that will slow down the activities of the incumbent SNU president?

A valid point Mac, but fundraising is a regulated activity, and it is regulated by The Fund Raising Regulator.

There is a code of conduct that all charities must comply with. I can't give you the full details on here, but you can read it for yourself if you are interested:

fundraisingregulator.or.............rning all of this.

and yes, I have reported it to the regulator.

Bang to rights then! She must resign!

mac wrote:

notabigjump wrote:

Anniemillo1 wrote:Well where do I begin.



We also have another tutor, who has been allowed to teach without going through the same hoops as all the other tutors, new or old.   Was renowned for his comments about the SNU.  Left under a cloud and now back teaching without any teaching qualifications from the SNU.  No doubt he will be hurriedly put through any courses he needs.  What on earth is going on at the AFC?

It sounds like time for all the other tutors who had to pay for training and assessments, to start a class action against the college to recoup their expenses. If we are going to do the 'face fits' game, then all the others at least deserve a full refund.

I expect you'll have approached those affected?

notabigjump wrote:





It sounds like time for all the other tutors who had to pay for training and assessments, to start a class action against the college to recoup their expenses. If we are going to do the 'face fits' game, then all the others at least deserve a full refund.

I expect you'll have approached those affected?

Of course!

mac wrote:

notabigjump wrote:





It sounds like time for all the other tutors who had to pay for training and assessments, to start a class action against the college to recoup their expenses. If we are going to do the 'face fits' game, then all the others at least deserve a full refund.

I expect you'll have approached those affected?

Of course!

And the reaction was????