Chapter 10

BUFORA Limited

Patricia Farson presents John Rimmer’s editorial analysis of the BUFORA Limited Company Report and Financial Statement.

John Rimmer is the editor of Magonia Magazine, and whilst we at the Alternative Fortean Times have a sustained head-to-head confrontation with sceptical Brentfordians, there are matters on which we agree. One of these areas is the burgeoning bureaucracy of ufology. On a noted occasion some 18 months ago Bennett and Rimmer (on the UFO Updates List) found themselves on a united front facing a new brand of dialectical ufologists who were behaving as belief-interrogators in the manner of Stalinist Commissars. Chiefest amidst these were Stanton Friedman, Dick Hall, and Jan Alrdich, whose minds produce case histories and archives vast enough to rival those of the crumbling fossil monarchy of Franz Joseph of Austria.

Many assume that ufology is full of crazy people. They might be surprised to know that in most cases, exactly the opposite is true. In this case, sanity proves as dangerous as anything else. Strange that such a wierd and fantastic subject should offer itself to the worst bureacratics in the world, and oh what a furrow do they plough! They would offer the nail-pairings of a second cousin removed as a prize grail, though what this would mean in terms of what may or may not be required is a mute question. They would be good at tracing laundry lists, the car number plates of 1955. “Evidence” is justified as a means in itself. They pride themselves on how much “evidence” they have, no matter how insignificant or meaningless. The result is some of the most boring books ever written. No bad books, not incompetent books, not crazy books, but books from the last Victorian minds on their last gasp. We see their crabbed faces in old booking halls of our dreams tick-tocking the hours away filling Kafka-like Ghormanghast castles with railway time tables and the equivalent to great nosological books of the 19th century.

But let John Rimmer himself now gives us his assessment of the BUFORA Report.

From Editorial Notes, Magonia Magazine Issue 85.

I’ve just been reading one of the most depressing UFO documents I’ve seen in a long time. No, it’s not a bungled investigation, or a report of the manipulative exploitation of an abductee. It’s something headed ‘BUFORA Limited Company Report and Financial Statement.’

Page 2 gives a ‘statement of directors responsibilities’, which include ‘select suitable accounting policies and then apply them consistently’ and ‘prepare the Financial Statement on the going concern basis unless it is inappropriate to assume that the company will continue in business’. It furthermore informs us that the directors are responsible for ensuring that the Financial Statements comply with the Companies Act 1985, and safeguarding the assets of the company and taking reasonable steps for the prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities. What a weight of responsibilities to be loaded on the shoulders of the voluntary, unpaid directors, but at least we are assured that ‘advantage has been taken in preparation of the Directors’ report of the Special Exemptions applicable to small companies conferred by part II of Schedule 8 to the Companies’ Act 1985.’ So that’s alright then.

After this there are pages and pages of accountants’ jargon about ‘tangible fixed assets’, ‘turnover less prime cost events’, ‘balance of general funds including fixed assets’, etc, etc, etc.

The odd thing is despite this public parade of what is probably called accountancy best practise, I can find no indication whatsoever of what BUFORA is actually doing with all these fixed assets, tangible, or otherwise.

At least they are doing something: creating a computerized archive of all BUFORA’s case reports since 1963, which is admirable. The project is planned to take two years, and if completed will be a valuable resource.

But perhaps a more realistic view of the general level of BUFORA’s activities is given by some of the amendments proposed to the group’s Articles of Association at the previous AGM. One called for the quorum for BUFORA Council Meeting to be reduced to three, another called for the required minimum number of Council members to be reduced to four. Hardly evidence of a thriving organization, especially as another proposal called for the reduction of the quorum for members at an AGM to be reduced to seven! More revealing still was the voting on these proposals. They were all passed, but only eight BUFORA members actually voted in person at the meeting, as against 34 and 36 proxy votes wielded by the Chairman.

But even reducing the quora to miniscule levels seemed not to be enough to ensure that members would actually turn up, as John Spencer then proposed the holding of ‘virtual’ meetings. Claiming that when the articles were drawn up in 1975 the technology was not available for such meetings. He defined ‘virtual’ as meaning ‘any communication, be it electronic or otherwise, that is not in person’. Well, such means of communication as the postal service, telephones, telegrams and carrier pigeons were certainly around in 1975, but for some reason those who drew up the Articles did not consider them a reasonable way of conducting a committee meeting.

Perhaps if the BUFORA hierarchy spent less time pretending they were running a multinational corporation, and a little bit more time actually providing something for their members, they might find that more than seven people would turn up at the Annual General Meeting, and they would be able to at least get three people along to a Council meeting without relying on ‘virtuality’.

Of course that might be the answer. With BUFORA’s current development they will probably end up with just virtual members! Perhaps they’re the ‘intangible assets’?

John Rimmer