Degeneration of banding today

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thirteen Ball

Active Member
Got to say that without all the information any comments may have to be qualified, but taking what has been said in good faith, surely any attempts to prevent members/non-members/carers/prospective members with the use of "doormen" seems excessive.

Were these members of the band or people that were paid to prevent access?

The band is a registered charity and to quote from their website "we are a friendly brass band" and "we welcome all players of brass instruments" also according to their aims as detailed on the Charity Commission site

"Charitable activities


  • Arts/Culture/Heritage/Science
  • Children/Young People
  • Elderly/Old People
  • The General Public/Mankind"

Not much charity being displayed based on what has been said.





Francis, from your post you seem to know more about the specifics of this case than any of us yet, given that you seem to know which band's website to look at.

Care to elaborate what all this moralising and 'how dare they' from all these new accounts is about?
 

tubafran

Active Member
Francis, from your post you seem to know more about the specifics of this case than any of us yet, given that you seem to know which band's website to look at.

All the information was taken from what was said by the OP, her profile tells you the band, the band website and charity commission sites are in the public domain. I suppose until someone from the other side of this situation passes a comment we are all in the hands of those people prepared to make a comment.

But on face value there are some issues which may be of general concern to all bands - who is entitled to attend a bands rehearsal?
 

Anno Draconis

Well-Known Member
Clearly Laserbeam, someone has an axe to grind and thinks they are drumming up support by posting in vagueries and general terms - when in reality they've just created a thread full of confusion and shadowy name-calling that does no-one any favours.

There's clearly been a bust-up of some sort and a band has split into two camps - but I haven't a clue what the issue of debate is because the OP and subsequent posters (who are clearly in the know) haven't seen fit to post anything to indicate what the cause of the separation is. Lots of low post-count IDS (probably created for the purpose) replying in general terms, sniping at people who'll know who they are but can't reply without putting themselves in the firing lin, hinting at things they 'know' about but the rest of us don't... We've seen it before and it doesn't get any less pathetic.

If you're using TMp to post a genuine grievance or raise awareness of a situation you think is unfair or unjust, then have the good grace to start from a point of honesty, state who you are and pin your colours to the mast for all to see.

Until that happens, this thread is pointless, and I hope the mods lock it.

Spot on. Another vague pop at someone dressed up as "if I were at liberty to share all the facts you'd all be appalled as me". Well, until someone's presented all the facts, I'll reserve judgement thanks very much. But there doesn't seem much danger of that happeneing, does there?

Having spoken to a member of this band i feel compelled to write. It is discracefull to have "heavies" at the door to keep band members away from rehearsals. Obviously due to legal reasons, members arent able to comment on the facts but surely no band is in a position to lose players in such large quantities. Constitutions are there to protect band members as well as committee members but ultimately they are there to safeguard the band. Clearly this has not been adheared to by the powers that be. By the amount of money being spent by the band on solicitors and security guards, there are people who feel they have something to hide. I hope you hang your heads in shame when you read this thread.

Why "obviously"? There would be no reason why a simple presentation of the facts would cause any legal problems. Biggest cop-out going, "due to legal reasons". If you've spoken to a member of the band, would you care to illuminate us as to why these "heavies" were there? Had some sort of threat been issued? Was there a legitimate reason to fear for someone's safety? Maybe there's a Duty of Care issue here, who knows? None of us, that's for sure, because we're not being given the full facts.
 

youngman

Member
Why "obviously"? There would be no reason why a simple presentation of the facts would cause any legal problems. Biggest cop-out going, "due to legal reasons". If you've spoken to a member of the band, would you care to illuminate us as to why these "heavies" were there? Had some sort of threat been issued? Was there a legitimate reason to fear for someone's safety? Maybe there's a Duty of Care issue here, who knows? None of us, that's for sure, because we're not being given the full facts.

I'd say that as several members recieved solicitors letters regarding this issue, it would be unwise to state ALL the facts on here.

Paid enforcement was hired to ensure certain members would not be allowed into the rehearsal.
I believe an egm had been called for to discuss the matters, but if you sack people from the band they no longer have that right.
Remove enough members and there is no longer a majority to call for an egm.
Dictatorship at its best.
Dont let them in, dont allow them a voice and then the remainder WILL do as they are told.

Very sad times for a band that seemed to be moving in the right direction.

I hope that all the players involved don't give up and a sensible conclusion can be reached
 

DRW

New Member
I'm not sure why, but this thread brings to mind a something I once saw on a bandroom notice-board: -
"Everyone that walks through our bandroom door creates pleasure: Some by staying, some by leaving." ;)

Has anyone thought of composing a piece called Band Politics?
Suggested movement titles: -
1st movement - All Friends in Harmony
2nd movement - Trouble-Maker in Sight
3rd movement - Alliance Formation
4th movement - Warfare! (subtitled: Much Ado About Nothing)
5th movement - Begruntled Departures
6th momement - Reprise: All Friends in Harmony (subtitled: Bad Rot Gone)
 

youngman

Member
I'm not sure why, but this thread brings to mind a something I once saw on a bandroom notice-board: -
"Everyone that walks through our bandroom door creates pleasure: Some by staying, some by leaving." ;)

A must for all bandroom walls !
 

cornyandy

Member
This feels like waking up from a bad dream to find life is a nightmare (its been a week or so since my last look at BM i've been really poorly). It smacks of politics and ego gone wrong. I hope for all concerned and for the movement this can be sorted before too much bad publicity leaks out in the OP's area
 

Anno Draconis

Well-Known Member
I'd say that as several members recieved solicitors letters regarding this issue, it would be unwise to state ALL the facts on here.

Only stating part of the facts makes this thread no more than a rant. Without the full story, no-one who doesn't know the band or their issues can form any opinion about the rights or wrongs of it, and this thread has no point.

By the sound of what you're saying, some members didn't like one or more committee policies and called an EGM to tackle the issue (which seems heavy handed in itself, but we don't know if attempts had been made to properly discuss it before or not). In order to avoid this EGM, the committee have sacked those members who called the meeting (which may or may not be unconstitutional, depending on the band) and employed solicitors and door staff to keep them out of the bandroom (which is also clearly heavy handed, but as I said before, we have no idea whether any threats had been made which justified these actions).

Sounds like a classic failure to communicate within the organisation. On the evidence presented here so far, a band to steer clear of it seems - but it also seems that only one side of the evidence is forthcoming.
 

Sonorous

New Member
The OP is happy to state the facts of the case from the point of view of the stopping people attend. However it's very clear that she doesn't want to detail the important event/s that CAUSED this to happen. So it removes any semblance of reason for making the post in the first place unless it was for nothing further than to stir up trouble itself.

If you want to place this event in the public domain, give all the facts or leave well alone. By starting this thread you've simply attempted to stir things up, and therefore I have to conclude that you are in some way part of the problem.

By picking through the very sketchy details, somone has had to be excluded from attending the band. Someone who is going through severe stress. This implies the potential for severe verbal or maybe even physical harrasment. If this is the case, then hiring security to ensure there is no trouble may well be the only option available.

And the fact that legal advice has been sought also suggests that the committee may well be trying to go down the only route that's rightly available to them in the face of what they deem to be aggressive behaviour.

I would suggest you have two options open to you: If you actually want to get constructive input into the problem, then put the facts out for everyone to see (including the part you so obviously don't want to mention). Or you may be better advised to ask the admin to remove this thread.

You have not helped yourself at all.
 

Sonorous

New Member
Add to this the fact that you were searching for the definition of 'what makes a member' nearly a month ago on here, and it really doesn't add up. This has obviously been brewing for some time, and you've obviously been part of whatever has been happening, rather than just some innocent bystander shocked at the antics of an 'oppresive' committee.

I really can't stand people ranting in public when they know full well that they're not giving the whole story. In my experience, these are the people that are often at the very heart of the problem (even though they themselves seem to have a hard time realising that)
 

DRW

New Member
Does anyone think that constitutions and rules work? Just a thought, but if you're in a situation of conflict like this where you have to call upon these 'sets of words', is it already too late for them to provide the answer? Surely rules and constitutions are there to document the spirit by which a band hopes to operate by. Once that spirit has been broken (which sounds like the situation here), can turning to the rules add additional conflict rather than help to resolve it?
 

tubafran

Active Member
Does anyone think that constitutions and rules work? Just a thought, but if you're in a situation of conflict like this where you have to call upon these 'sets of words', is it already too late for them to provide the answer? Surely rules and constitutions are there to document the spirit by which a band hopes to operate by. Once that spirit has been broken (which sounds like the situation here), can turning to the rules add additional conflict rather than help to resolve it?

"Where would be if we didn't have rules?"
"FRANCE!"
"And where would we be if we had too many rules?"
"GERMANY!"

To formalise the set up a "band" you'd need a constitution to set up a bank account and if you wanted to apply for any public funding for the band again you would need a full constitution to receive funding.
 

DRW

New Member
To formalise the set up a "band" you'd need a constitution to set up a bank account and if you wanted to apply for any public funding for the band again you would need a full constitution to receive funding.

I'm not sure that we have ever had to use our constitution for those reasons (or for any other reason other than to recall how many committee members we should elect at the AGM :) ), but I can see why that may be necessary by some organisations.

So, ever found benefit from them in times of band conflict?
 
Last edited:

Sonorous

New Member
Rules in theory are good, and can help guide decision making. Especially when dealing with conplex matters such as funding.

However any group of normal minded people should be able to see rights and wrongs of day to day matters without having to resort to the rule book. In general, if someone can't do this they are probably not the sort of people you'd want in your band.

People who live and die by rule books are more often than not at the heart of the conflict themselves anyway.
 

DRW

New Member
Rules in theory are good, and can help guide decision making. Especially when dealing with conplex matters such as funding.

However any group of normal minded people should be able to see rights and wrongs of day to day matters without having to resort to the rule book. In general, if someone can't do this they are probably not the sort of people you'd want in your band.

People who live and die by rule books are more often than not at the heart of the conflict themselves anyway.

I don't think I necessarily agree with the last point. I find that isolated rules are the first thing to be brought into play from those involved in a personal conflict.
The real problems arise when the rules do not give the power to a single person / office to make the resolving decision in potentially damaging situations such as this one. Decision by committee / EGM is a recipe for disaster.
It is apparent from this thread that an individual or a group of people are not welcome in the band or are displaying behaviour that is unwelcome. I suspect many in the band are apathetic to what's going on and really don't want to get dragged into it. The MD or Chairman should have the power to nip it in the bud as soon as it risks becoming a problem by a) deciding who is/are the disruptive party(ies) by objectively assessing the situation and b) asking them to behave or to resign if they won't.
Having an EGM to discuss it does nothing than to involve more people than necessary and (unless the vote is unanimous) and demonstrates a ganging-up of members. If it's left to one person, it avoids all of this and the result should be the same providing the decision-maker does his/her homework.
 

youngman

Member
By the sound of what you're saying, some members didn't like one or more committee policies and called an EGM to tackle the issue (which seems heavy handed in itself, but we don't know if attempts had been made to properly discuss it before or not). In order to avoid this EGM, the committee have sacked those members who called the meeting (which may or may not be unconstitutional, depending on the band) and employed solicitors and door staff to keep them out of the bandroom (which is also clearly heavy handed, but as I said before, we have no idea whether any threats had been made which justified these actions).

Sounds like a classic failure to communicate within the organisation. On the evidence presented here so far, a band to steer clear of it seems - but it also seems that only one side of the evidence is forthcoming.

Minus a few details your not far off the mark.

I would welcome an explanation from the "other" side of the story.

It just seems so sad to be able to throw people away when they serve no further purpose and turn new faces away as well.
 

The Wherryman

Active Member
The MD or Chairman should have the power to nip it in the bud as soon as it risks becoming a problem by a) deciding who is/are the disruptive party(ies) by objectively assessing the situation and b) asking them to behave or to resign if they won't.
A band which is an unincorporated association is a members' club. The committee manage it on behalf of the members. For the chairman (or the MD) to have total control and to decide on his/her own on any management matter would be totally wrong.

Furthermore, a band that is also a charity is required, by the Charity Commission, to have a governing document (constitution, if you will). The Charity Commission provide a suitable governing document on their web site. Perhaps the constitution of the band in question is somewhat lacking and powers are being invoked that aren't actually granted by their constitution.

IMHO, it is impossible to discuss what is happening within this band in any meaningful way, because, as has already been pointed out, all the details aren't known. As it appears that legal advice has been sought by at least one party, I would not expect this to progress as a discussion topic. However, it is rather jumping to conclusions to conclude that the 'problem' lies with one or more of the members. It could equally lie with one or more of the committee.
 

its_jon

Member
Unfortunatly , on TMP, I expect the discussion will be brushed under the carpet.
(we don't like to see our movement criticised)
 

WhiteStickMan

New Member
Firstly I wish to congratulate Stone Town Band on their 10th placing out of 24 bands at their first attempt in the regional round of the National Brass Band Championships. I do not know the details of their current ailments but sincerely hope that they can be resolved as quickly as possible and that they can then move forward and bring the fun and enjoyment back into their rehearsals and performances.

Mike Caveney
MD Trentham Brass
 

hobgoblin

Member
Unfortunatly , on TMP, I expect the discussion will be brushed under the carpet.(we don't like to see our movement criticised)
What bitter nonsense! The Wales 2011 thread that has only just (thankfully) been closed proves you are very wrong about this. If you read the last two pages you will see that folk on here enjoy a decent debate, but you can only debate something when you have the full picture. If you present nothing more than a one sided rant which seems to be pursuing a personal grudge then it will not be brushed under the carpet so much as put in the bin. Your last comment smacks of paranoia as there are plenty of threads on here questioning/criticising the BB movement.
 

Primary

tMP Assistant
Here are some related products that tMP members are talking about. Clicking on a product will take you to tMP’s partner, Primary, where you can find links to tMP discussions about these products.

 
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top