British Aikido History

"I felt his initial dealings with the Board could have been handled more compassionately than appears to have been the case"

In the above statement the chairman concedes in his opinion, his predecessor Tony Davis and the exec team failed to handle the matter correctly.

Comment B. When I wrote to Mr Ellis on 17 Apr 02, my understanding of the controversy [erroneous, I now believe] was that this was a disagreement between Mr Ellis and Mr Poole on the accuracy of Mr Poole's aikido c.v. The previous Chairman, Mr Davis, had - it seemed to me - either ignored the issue or chosen not to become involved. Thus, my words of "I felt his [Mr Ellis'] initial dealings with the Board could have been handled more compassionately than appears to have been the case” were meant to be tactful way of saying, "I'm listening to you, Mr Ellis; let's take this forward." At this stage I had definitely not formed any opinion about Mr Davis' handling of the issue and, in regard to the rest of the Executive, I hadn’t even given it a thought that they might be involved in the issue. I repeat, for me - at that time - it was more a matter of a dispute between Mr Ellis and Mr Poole. Nothing more.

"I thought it inappropriate to apologise for the past actions of the Board"

Although this statement was made in the context of a pre-requisite to a meeting, Mr. Sumpter doesn't refute for the need of an apology in principle but, in the context of his previous comments, clearly admits Mr. Ellis had been treated less than compassionately but, still remained neutral despite the issues he'd already conceded IE: He knew of the complaint and he knew Mr. Ellis had not been treated correctly in the past. We see this as nothing short of an avoidance of an admission of responsibility.

Comment C. Given what I have said in Comments A and B, above, of course I thought it inappropriate to apologise for the past actions of the Board. I didn't yet know what I was supposed to be apologising for. As the new Chairman, I had hoped that my 17 Apr 02 letter to Mr Ellis let him know that I understood there was a real need to deal with his complaint. I had no pre-conceptions on the issue and genuinely wanted to hear all sides of the issue first- hand - round the table, so to speak. Frankly, I was affronted by Mr Ellis' reply of 28 Apr 02 as, without having met me he obviously credited me with no integrity whatsoever. I would have been more than willing to admit to the Board's responsibility in the matter once I was in possession of all the facts to be presented at the proposed meeting. I'm afraid Mr Ellis' immediate wish to tar me with the same brush as he had applied to Mr Davis rather closed the door on further communication and resolution of the matter. And, I make no apology for the decision I took at that time to inform Mr Ellis that I was not prepared to accede to pre-requisites on his part before the meeting could take place.

Response to the Complainants: Again, if we are to move forward in resolving this complaint, then Mr Ellis must first accept he was wrong to assume that I was trying to avoid an admission of responsibility.

During a BAB general meeting on 11th March 2000, Mr. Ellis was physically prevented from speaking by the then chairman Mr. T Davis. Mr. Davis abruptly halted the meeting at the point [any other business] at which Mr. Ellis wished to speak, despite the objections of another eminent Aikido Instructor [Mr. William Smith MBE] who protested at the chairman that Mr. Ellis should be allowed to speak. Mr. Davis claimed the room they occupied was waiting to be used by another group. This statement was in fact incorrect having been verified at the time (but following the meeting) the abruptness of the end of the meeting is reflected in the fact that the date and time of the following BAB meeting were missed from the minutes.

Comment D. I was not present at this GM but the minutes [passed as a true record at trhe next meeting] show that under Any Other Business the Chairman apologised to anyone wanting to bring up matters under AOB but it was necessary to close the meeting as the time allocated for the room had expired. Additionally, I now have in my possession a written statement made by the BAB Secretary in which she says:

"Towards the end of the meeting he [Mr Ellis] stood up and asked if he could say a few words, at the same time officials from the Birmingham Sports Centre came into the meeting room and told us that we would have to vacate the room straight away as we had run over the time we had booked, and there was another meeting wanting to start. The Chairman (Tony Davis) promptly closed the meeting, which did not please Mr Ellis."

Whilst I do not doubt Mr Ellis' account of events following the closure of the meeting, that is, he was later told by other Sports Centre staff that they were not aware of the room being needed for another meeting, the reason for closing the meeting without hearing AOB items was as stated above and for no other reason. That said, under the BAB Constitution, matters under AOB are at the discretion of the Chairman. The Constitution also states that items to be raised under AOB shall be notified in writing to the Secretary before the start of the meeting. Mr Ellis took no such action. Thus, in regard to this element of the dispute, I am satisfied that the Chairman (T Davis) acted appropriately and within his Constitutional right. Despite what Mr Ellis may claim now, Mr Davis did not close the meeting because he did not want to discuss the "controversy" in the GM forum. Whether he should have found time to speak with Mr Ellis outside the Meeting to hear what he wanted to raise is a different matter and one I cannot comment upon.

(iii)
The Chairman continues concerning Jack Poole's martial arts history

"...a dated resume of Jack Poole's aikido history – which, if I have read it correctly, does not appear to pre-date the mid-60s"

[This information supplied to Mr. Sumpter by an affiliate of Mr. Poole’s organisation, It appears unless we are mistaken, that Mr. Poole himself has not contributed to the clarification of his background directly to the British Aikido Board]

Mr. Sumpter has stated and clarified that Jack Poole's experience in aikido does not predate the mid 1960's. [The exact year is 1968]

Comment E. Agreed. Mr Poole has not - to my knowledge - personally clarified his aikido c.v. to the Board.

This answers one point of our contention regarding Mr. Poole however; We would like to point out, the question relating to [when] Jack Poole actually commenced aikido was presented to the British Aikido Board on 28th February 2000 where, during a meeting between Shirley Timms [Secretary BAB] Derek Eastman, Henry Ellis & Hyden Foster, it was established that Jack Poole had not commenced aikido before 1968 yet, it has taken the British Aikido Board nearly fours years to confirm and acknowledge what was previously presented to them and, the confirmation of this information only resulted as a direct response to the involvement of Sport England.

Comment F. It has only taken 4 years because for the past 2 years the Board has been silent on the matter of the "controversy." For the record, however, my Chairman's statement in March this year - which acknowledged that the Board could not confirm Mr Poole's aikido history any earlier that the mid-60's - was drafted prior to the involvement of Sport England. That said, I don't want this to be a point of order or argument in the mediation process. I am happy for Mr Ellis and the other complainants to think that their involving Sport England in this debate has contributed to resolution of this point.

In clarification of Mr. Poole's approximated year of commencing Aikido [Actually 1968] The Chairman has made in our opinion an indirect admission that; the circulation of the [Jack Poole 47th year in aikido] poster [Included] through the Governing Body, as an official vehicle for advertising this seminar was unsubstantiated; the claim being made was not verified as accurate, and lead the British Aikido Board membership into believing Mr. Poole was celebrating an aikido career beginning in 1953. This has now been established by the chairman as incorrect. Resulting from this inaccuracy, students who participated in that course did so entirely under false pretences and paid an entrance fee for that privilege.

Comment G. Let's be quite clear here. The BAB is not and never has been an "official" vehicle for substantiating the claims on Member Association's advertising literature distributed by the Board's Secretary as a BAB "service" to its membership. The Board's sole role in this regard is to distribute (if asked) course flyers from member associations; such course flyers are only sent out to members when they can be included in official mail (Minutes of Meetings, etc) being sent to the representatives of Member Associations. We (the Executive) have neither the time nor the resources to check the "wording" on course flyers. Thus, the distribution of the course flyer in question is not an INDIRECT ADMISSION of the veracity of the claims on the flyer. Of course, we could withdraw the service and thus do nothing to promote aikido training in this country. Is that what Mr Ellis wants?

Page one of the Constitution (under AIMS AND OBJECTIVES) states that the Board shall… "Promote aikido by bringing together aikido associations sharing a common aim in the development of aikido, whilst recognising and maintaining the autonomy of its Members". The distribution of course flyers from Association Members is one way of achieving this.

I understand that Mr. Poole later stated the wording on the poster was incorrect and should have read "47 years martial arts experience" [or words to that effect] It is worth pointing out, this poster was to our knowledge designed, created and then passed to the British Aikido Board from directly within Mr. Poole's own aikido organisation; however, according a previously released biography, [Prepared and released by Simon Deering - A student and friend of Mr. Poole since 1973] It is claimed that Mr. Poole commenced Judo at the age of 8 (circa 1928/9) If this is to be believed, then the figure of "47" is grossly inaccurate. We would be pleased to see the British Aikido Board approach Mr. Poole in this regard and clarify the exact nature of that celebratory seminar. In addition, explain why the poster was in fact circulated given Ms. Timms involvement in the February meeting where it was established that Mr. Poole’s [Aikido] commenced in 1968, and not 1953 as suggested by the actual wording on the poster.

Comment H. I refer the complainants to the answer given in Comment G above.

It is obvious that despite being alerted to the concerns of Mr. Ellis – [Mr. Ellis being Mr. Poole's first Aikido instructor in 1968, and a primary researcher in to his biographical claims] The British Aikido Board failed to investigate any discrepancies, in doing so failed to legitimise the award prior to it’s issue and, following the awards; resulting from the continued public concerns of the accuracy of the information released on behalf of Mr. Poole. We would therefore be pleased to see the British Aikido Board approach Mr. Poole in relation to the matter of a previously released biography, to substantiate where Mr. Deering obtained the data from and whether its release was authorised.

Comment I. The admission that "47 years in aikido" should have read "47 years in martial arts" is all that is required here. They made a mistake/error on the poster and have admitted it. There is nothing more to be gained by digging deeper for the reasons.

We would like to state, without prejudice to either Mr. Poole or the British Aikido Board, It is relevant to point out that; to make a claim of experience, qualification or accreditation, to which one is not entitled, in order to establish a gain, is known as Pecuniary Advantage and is contrary to Section 15 of the Theft Act.

We would like to state again that we are not accusing either Mr. Poole or the British Aikido Board of Pecuniary Advantage however, in line with a previously and publicly released biography which was displayed for a period of time on an internet website promoting Mr. Poole and, released to Mr. Scarfone in justification of criticism that Mr. Poole received following his inclusion of the 2000 awards; we would like to make clear that the British Aikido Board did absolutely nothing to clarify the accuracy of Mr. Poole’s history in aikido or his other alleged experience that was raising concerns within the wider martial arts community.

Comment J. I (the Chairman) concede that - in relation to the green highlighting above - this would appear to be the case from the information I have to hand.

We would like to clarify... The issues at hand aren't about Jack Poole per sé; they are specifically about establishing a highly questionable line of decision making within the British Aikido Board executive team relating to Mr. Poole and a failure to legitimise the award issued, both prior too and after its presentation.

Comment K. Clarification agreed; albeit, 4 years ago it was also about Jack Poole's integrity and role in the affair.

Additionally and pertinent to Mr. Poole’s background, it has been established beyond doubt, through the officials responsible for the running and administration of Judo within the UK, (both past and present) that Jack Poole does not hold any black belt grade in Judo [Claiming a 3rd degree] or represented the British Judo Council in any [international] competitive events during the 1950's. The British Judo Council are in no doubt that no record exists of a 'Jack Poole' ever studying Judo within the United Kingdom in relation to the biography prepared and released on behalf of Mr. Poole by Simon Deering. They have also confirmed that no International competitions took place in the 1950's within the BJC or the MOSJ. Incidentally, the British Judo Council was not formed until 1958 despite it being suggested that Mr. Poole represented that organisation before that date.

As such, the British Aikido Board contributed to a misleading of its membership in circulating a document that made a false and grossly inaccurate claim. Note the statement at the bottom of the poster "Member of the British Aikido Board" The circulating of this document was in effect an unofficial endorsement of the information presented on it.

Comment L. I refer the complainants to my earlier remarks (at Comment G). That said, and just to show that we can all make much words [by misrepresenting or adding undue meaning to them], it is a material truth that Mr Poole (and his Association) is a "Member of the British Aikido Board"; however, the same cannot be said of Mr Ellis in his letter of 28 April 2004 where, despite his Association having resigned from the BAB in the month previously, he claims in bold letters at the foot of page one of his letter still to be: "Member of British Aikido Board (Sports Council Approved)". Is this blatant misrepresentation by Mr Ellis or just forgetfulness? Or, am I to assume that because I or the Board did not dispute the claim at the time, then this is in effect an unofficial endorsement of his continued membership? I think not.

Incidentally; but pertinent to further establishing the questionable background of Mr. Poole [which should have investigated by the BAB] Mr. Poole has claimed through a previously issued biography, experience, grades and accreditation in several martial arts namely, and in brief:

•Judo
[Grades and competitive experience where no record exists]

•Kendo
[Instruction from a Japanese National who it is revealed was a schoolboy at the time, and not teaching Kendo]

•Karate
[Contrary to the documented history of Karate in the UK, would make Mr. Poole the first black belt in the UK 11 years before its recorded inception to the UK.]

•Aikido

[Claims of training and years of experience with instructors that has been clarified as incorrect.]

In each of these instances, comprehensive research has revealed that all of the claims are in fact false. One must consider that Mr. Poole like many martial arts instructors, especially a Principal Coach in charge of an organisation, derives its members, membership fees and monetary recompense based upon a reputation and not just technical ability. Although the British Aikido Board is not responsible for any martial art other than Aikido, their members have a responsibility to act honestly. As a Governing Body, The British Aikido Board surely must be directly responsible for the conduct of its membership whether presented in writing, electronically through the internet or in the actual practice of the art/sport.

In a letter addressed to Mr. Ellis, 20th August 2003, Mr. Arnold Davies [Bushido ZaZen International] is quoted as stating…

“Based on our misguided trust, Jack Poole was elected head of Aikido for the ZaZen Society. At no time whilst he was with the Society did he mention that he had trained or graded in Kendo / Judo /or Karate, if he had, this would have been recorded, IT IS NOT.

In the wish to introduce Aikido into our Society I was one of those that trusted this man, at my age I should have known better. I am however wiser, for the experience.

My own opinion of Jack Poole and which is drawn from experience is; I see him as a very egotistical man who will use and abuse the trust of genuine people in order to develop an identity for himself."

Comment M. I am not in a position to dispute any of the above information nor would I wish to.

It is unfortunate, and we regret, that Jack Poole and issues surrounding the BAB are a matter of public debate. This matter however, could have been dealt with appropriately, timely and involving all the parties concerned. However; despite the fact that Mr. Ellis was unwilling to attend a meeting where the BAB acted as mediators and not participants in a complaint, the BAB could have taken positive action early in this controversy and made their own investigations, putting a conclusive end to the public debating over the credibility of one of their seemingly most senior and principle members. Whilst it is somewhat understandable that the British Aikido Board would not want to add fuel to an already widely discussed topic, we are unable to comprehend why the executive team did not take the appropriate action to substantiate the facts, present them to their membership and conclude the matter.

Comment N. The answer is quite simple. When the mediation terms in 2002 proved unacceptable to the Chairman (and for that matter, Mr Ellis), the matter for the Board was considered closed. The presentation had been made and nothing was to be gained in substantiating facts that should have been clarified prior to any presentation.

(iv)
The chairman continues with regard to Mr. Poole and his inclusion in the awards...

"I was not privy to the discussions and decisions prior to 2000 which resulted in the presentation of commemorative statuettes to a handful of long-standing aikidoka; but I can say with some conviction that nobody received a statuette for "47 years" in aikido – Mr Poole's presentation was for his "many years" in aikido Therefore, not withstanding the rights and wrongs of subsequent handling of this complaint, I am satisfied that in this one regard the Board's conscience is clear."

The Chairman states that discussions were entered into relating to the inclusion of Mr. Poole in the awards, We do not expect Mr. Sumpter to be able to account directly for these discussions however, a very large portion of the existing executive team predate him to the time in question and, would be able to clarify exactly what criteria was used to select Mr. Poole over and above several eminent instructors within the UK [see list] who have a substantial amount more years within aikido. We would also expect the minutes of these meetings discussing Mr. Poole's inclusion, to substantiate the reasons; we would be pleased to see the BAB present them to Sport England.

Comment O. I asked the BAB Secretary to peruse the historical record of the Minutes of Meetings to find all information regarding the presentation of statuettes to senior aikidoka at the year 2000 BAB Annual course. Regrettably, very little is minuted. The minutes of the 23 Sep 00 General Meeting state that: "Mr Reynolds advised [the meeting] that the Lord Mayor of Birmingham would be making the presentations [of statuettes] to the senior instructors who have been teaching for 40 years."

Additionally and with regard to the inclusion of Mr. Poole. It is obvious the decision to include him in the awards was made after the publishing and distribution of the 'October 2000 posters' [Included] earlier that year. Unless we are to believe that someone within the BAB neglected to include Mr. Poole in the list prior to going to press. Although a plausible reason, this would however have left a grammatical error in the description of both the criteria for the awards specifically… "40 continuous years teaching aikido" Which Mr. Poole never had and, the actual number of recipients (6) but, the poster clearly states 5 in line with the correct listed individuals. Therefore, we suggest the poster was accurate at the time of publication and distribution, a later decision was made to add Mr. Poole to the awards ceremony. The question therefore arises... What initiated or prompted Jack Poole's inclusion in the awards after the decisions had been taken about the seminar, the poster gone to print, and later advertised and distributed through the membership?

Comment P. Despite the lack of minuted material on this subject, I have now obtained a written statement from the then Vice-Chairman (Ralph Reynolds) giving his recollection of the events leading up to the inclusion of Mr Poole as a recipient of a statuette for his "many years in aikido". Mr Reynolds states that:

" The idea of awarding the "trophies" was mine [Mr Reynold's]. We were in the year of the Milenium and I thought it would be a nice gesture on the part of the BAB to recognise the work that some of the very senior members should be recognised by some sort of award. My idea was that anyone who had instructed in aikido for 40 years or more should receive whatever award was agreed by the [Executive] Committee. No cost was mentioned at this time neither was the type of award to be made.
" I think that the first person I spoke to was Henry Ellis; Henry being one of the senior people and was in at the beginning of aikido. He was very enthusiastic about the idea. I also mentioned to him that I could only think of about 5 people who would qualify: Mr Foster, Mr Ellis, Mr Reynolds, Mr Eastman and Bill Smith. Mr Foster and Mr Bill Smith were then contacted; again I had a very positive reaction. I also spoke to the Chairman (Mr Davis) and the Secretary (Mrs Timms); again, nothing but a positive reaction.
" The Secretary was told to circulate a notice, drawn up by myself, to all Association Members to ensure that we did not inadvertently leave anyone out. The notice included the words, 'any nomination for the award required that their claim of 40 years or more must be verifiable". I certainly was ready to accept that I could not be absolutely correct that only the names mentioned were the only people that could be nominated.
" T Davis [Chairman], if I remember correctly, a little time later said he had received a nomination from Jack Poole's Association. I did not know Jack Poole and could not say he was eligible for the award. I did however point out to Tony Davis that my notice said the claim had to be verifiable, if not then the award could not be made. I understand that Tony Davis did get in touch with JP's Association, pointing out that proof of claim needed to be produced. This produced a strong reaction from Jack Poole's Association, saying that if JP was not granted the award they would not support the forthcoming BAB Annual Seminar. There was no threat of leaving the BAB.
" The reaction by his Association was not a surprise to me, and should not have been to anyone else. I would certainly expect any Association to stand and support their Head of Association. My thought was to tell them [that] without proof the answer to them should be 'no'. However, Tony Davis - who I believe acted in what he sincerely believed the correct manner - made further contact with Jack Poole's Association whom, I believe, he calmed down and they withdrew their threat of boycotting the BAB Seminar. JP's people had no doubt in their minds that he [JP] did qualify for the award. We, of course, did not other than it was thought he had been around for a long time. It was Tony Davis' idea that a trophy should or could be awarded to Jack but the wording would have to be different. " Tony Davis did not make any decision on his own. This idea was put to the [Exec] Committee and accepted. We thought that everything would be satisfactory but, alas, Mr Ellis objected to Jack Poole being given the award. I believe I spoke to Mr Foster and we both agreed it didn't matter that much; we did not want to damage the name of the BAB and certainly not bring aikido into disrepute.
" Jack Poole did not help matters by circulating a notice of a forthcoming Seminar to be held by himself claiming to have practised aikido for 47 years. " I have no problem in understanding Henry Ellis' reaction. He considered that Jack Poole was claiming a pedigree that he was not entitled to. I have said that the real history cannot be altered by any disputed claims and I believe it should stop there. I did move at a General Meeting some time back that the BAB should have no more to do with this matter, it should be closed. The meeting agreed that the motion be accepted, therefore the matter was closed by democratic vote of the BAB membership. This thing has gone on and on like an ever-developing cancer. If people are aikido lovers then they should drop the matter once and for all.
" I rue the day that I ever had this awards idea; what I considered would be a superb gesture, I still cannot believe it could all go wrong. .

We understand from the minutes of a British Aikido Board meeting just 14 days prior to the awards ceremony in October that no references were made to the inclusion of Mr. Poole despite reference being made relating to the existing five recipients.

Comment Q. Agreed - see my Comment O, above.

We are additionally informed by Mr. Ralph Reynolds [Then Vice Chairman] the previous Chairman Mr. T Davis had commented the giving of a statue to Jack Poole would “appease him” [appease Jack Poole]

Comment R. See my remarks in Comment P, above.

One must also assume given a part of Mr. Sumpter's statement...

"…nobody received a statuette for "47 years" in aikido – Mr. Poole's presentation was for his "many years" in aikido, which suggests that someone on the Executive did listen or take note of Mr. Ellis' concerns in this matter"

This statement suggests the British Aikido Board was not aware of Mr. Poole's questionable background prior to Mr. Ellis alerting them to the discrepancies previously illustrated. Additionally, Mr. Sumpter's statement strongly suggests 'a change' was made to Jack Poole's award [In line with Mr. Ellis's concerns] otherwise it appears Mr. Poole would have received his award under the same circumstances as the other recipients, which as established, would have been unjustified. [as Mr. Sumpter has already publicly clarified]

Comment S.I know no more that is stated in Mr Reynolds' statement at Comment P which, I think, answers the concerns in the above paragraph.

It is also important to note, that at no time during the presentation of the awards by the then Mayor of Birmingham, absolutely no distinction was made or offered to the large number of watching students, that, an award for "Many Years" was being made. Everyone including myself was unaware that Mr. Poole was receiving this award for any other reason than stated on the seminar poster. Another aspect where we feel the British Aikido Board contributed to a misleading of its membership and, allowing Mr. Poole to rest within a reputation for which he was/is un-entitled. [Photo of presentation available for the meeting]

Comment T. I do not contest the line of thought in the para above.

We therefore feel that Jack Poole's award was illegitimate based upon the existing criteria used in the selection of the remaining recipients, additionally, the British Aikido Board mislead its membership in believing Mr. Poole received his award in line with the criteria stated on the advertising poster. [Regardless of the fact the presentation was supposedly for “Many Years”] Further, they discredited themselves for failing to substantiate the facts surrounding Mr. Poole's background prior to the awards despite the earlier meeting that established the actual year Mr. Poole commenced Aikido. A photo of Mr Poole as a beginner in 1968 was loaned to the British Aikido Board secretary, this has never been returned.

We would like to state that the ‘giving’ of the award to Mr. Poole isn’t our primary concern had; the award had been given in a transparent presentation where, the reason for it was known to the membership, and a clear distinction for the legitimateness had been established.

The question specifically surrounding the legitimateness of the award then presents itself again... Why was Jack Poole included in the awards?

We understand from the then Vice Chairman Ralph Reynolds, that coercion was placed upon the British Aikido Board to include Mr. Poole in the awards, this coercion was a veiled threat to remove the Shinwakai, Mr. Poole's sizable organisation and its affiliated members, from the British Aikido Board if he was not included in the awards ceremony. We are unable to substantiate exactly who was responsible for the coercion; merely that it did take place and was the reason for Mr. Poole’s involvement.

Comment U. I believe that Mr Reynold's statement at Comment P answers most of the concerns raised in the above paras. The inclusion of J Poole in the awards ceremony without an explanation of the nature of his award (in that it was different to those awarded to the other five) is, in hindsight, regrettable but what is done is done! Moreover, since my statements in the March AGM/GM Minutes, the membership of the BAB is now aware of the differing nature of JP's award ("many years in aikido" as opposed to "40 years …..")

CONCLUSION

We feel satisfied that inclusive of the information presented here, there is enough weigh of doubt upon the British Aikido Board’s credibility, as an [officially recognised] organisation to represent the interests of the Aikido Community within the United Kingdom.

Comment V. This is a ridiculous claim. 4 years ago we had a Chairman who presented his Executive Committee with a dilemma and solution regarding a disputed aikido c.v. and the up-coming awards ceremony to some notable aikido personages. The Chairman's proposal, though flawed, was well-meant and his Committee supported him rather than vote him down. This decision cannot by any stretch of the imagination outweigh all the other work that is constantly on-going in managing an aikido community of some 35 Member Associations with over 9,000 students in membership.

RECOMMENDATIONS
(i), (ii), (iii), (iv)

• The upholding of our complaint would illustrate in our considered opinions as instructors and students of aikido within the UK that, the BAB are, in it's current format, unfit to represent the interests of British Aikido as an honest, honourable and trustworthy association. We respectfully request that Sport England consider the removal of their 'recognition' of the British Aikido Board as the Governing Body for Aikido within the UK or, that Sport England request the resignation of the Executive Board if that is indeed appropriate or within the bounds of Sport England's remit.

Comment W. This "controversy" was inherited by the present Chairman who, following an unsuccessful initial and immediate attempt at resolution, took the decision - later ratified by General Meeting - to ignore the matter and on-going web-site debate. The rights and wrongs of this decision are not the issue as it was upheld by the Member Associations. I submit that the resignation of the present Executive committee would serve no useful purpose. Of the Elected members (Chairman, V-Chair, Secretary, Treasurer and Coaching Officer) involved in the decision to award a statuette to Mr Poole 4 years ago, only the Secretary and Coaching officer are presently serving as elected officers - both are doing superb jobs in specialised posts which are for the most part "thankless"; I doubt we would find replacements with as much energy and enthusiasm for the work.

• We do not seek to publicly name the parties involved in this matter. Enough has regrettably been said and presented in the public domain. We do not seek to cause embarrassment however; we feel it is only prudent to ensure a full written statement appears on the BAB website advising its membership of the content and conclusions of this meeting; this statement should include a specific apology to the complainants by name and, we strongly feel it is important for an apology to be offered to the British Aikido Community. We also feel that a letter or copy of the BAB's statement in these affairs be sent to every Principal Instructor within the membership.

Comment X. This request is unreasonable. The phrase, "We do not seek to cause embarrassment" is disingenuous; if it were true why ask for the specific motions stated in the above paragraph?

Turning to the stated PURPOSE of the written complaint - Page one of this document - I now offer the following answers to points (i) to (iv):

(i)I cannot speak for the actions of the previous Chairman in apparently ignoring letters of complaint from Mr Ellis. But I am willing to apologise for any shortcomings, which may be laid at his door. For myself, I made a genuine attempt at reconciliation and resolution to this matter. It failed because Mr Ellis did not believe in my sincerity and I, in turn, took umbrage at his impugning my integrity. We exchanged letters but at no time during my Chairmanship has the Board received an "official" letter of complaint about the past or present actions of the Board which would require official investigation under the Constitution. Moreover, there was no unconstitutional handling of the issue on my part as my decision was later upheld by the General membership.

(ii) Mea culpa. But I also lay the same charge at the complainants - and would wish them to acknowledge the same.

(iii) What martial arts biography are we talking about? Not that it has any bearing on my answer as the accusation as stated refers to clarification post-award. However, I refer you to my answers in Comments G and J above.

(iv) There were certainly shortcomings in the way this matter was handled and the Board is prepared to acknowledge this fact. However, I do not believe this one sorry episode makes us unfit to govern aikido in Britain.

Dave Humm

Dojo Directory | Yudansha Index | Courses & Seminars

» aikido-database.co.uk «


Create an account