Cycling UK Forum

Kevin, I understand what you are saying about registering complaints, but surely you must be aware and deeply concerned about the numbers of errors which have shown up, and that many will not be reported.

Verifying complaints against the membership record is no use if that membership record is so wrong that 20% of papers are in error. Were the lists of ballots not verified against the membership record in the first place, because, if they were, the error rate is massive. If the error was elsewhere, then the process is deeply flawed.

Sending out papers with extra voting spaces leaves the door wide open to using those votes either deliberately or in error, and makes it all the more important that you answer my questions upthread, which you should have considered in advance in any case.

All I am asking for is that my club does what it can to conduct a fair ballot. I am not hearing the reassurance that it will.

John, you have a very valid point. The admin of any membership vote - never mind one of such moment - should be better conducted than this.

Perhaps this disaster will mean the executive can be finally persuaded that the problems with the membership dept are not just anecdotal, but are real, and are frustrating any attempt at democracy in the organisation.

I note that Peter will be out of the office until Tuesday, when he will no doubt have a large number of emails to attend to.

Possibly bad form to quote myself, but I think we should receive answers to these questions

Clarion wrote:We should have a published protocol for acceptance/rejection of ballot papers.

1. Will papers be rejected if there is a blank vote?

2. Or will all votes be disregarded if there is an unverifiable vote on a paper?

3. Or will votes simply be counted, and any errors accepted?

4. Can we have an assurance that the same standard will apply to both 'yes' and 'no' votes.

This is what struck me particularly as bizarre:

Dan Joyce wrote:Journalists in this country don't use pre-set questions. We're not
living in totalitarian state. I am accommodating you by giving you
the
opportunity to support your petition.

It is quite normal for an interviewee to be given a list of questions to be asked, especially on such an important issue. Paxman and Humphrys aside, it's just good manners to let someone prepare full and informative answers.

The skewing comes in the way the bullet points were edited. Jeff conceded that edits could be made, but makes it clear which ones he feels are most important. That is not how the edited version came out, and some important points were thus not communicated to members.

I agree that the prize draw does make me uneasy about the whole process.

And, although the coverage this time was less biased than prior to the AGM, the very partisan editing of Jeff's comments, and the sometimes bizarre correspondence which Dan has kindly published for us, show a sadly skewed approach.

ERS should have been used.

swansonj wrote:

Snakes wrote: .... me as Returning Officer at CTC National Office (peter.jackson@ctc.org.uk)....

Just out of interest, if Peter is the returning officer, why are we sending our ballot papers back to Kevin Mayne?

John

That is a very valid concern, especially for staffers, whose votes are identified, and passing over KM's desk.

We received a ballot paper for the four members in our house with five spaces on it, and one name repeated.

I am the person who started the quick'n'dirty survey in a place where a large number of CTC members visit, as I had picked up on the comments of others about their papers being wrong.

So far, we have ten members reporting incorrect ballot papers, three not yet received, and one received by a former member. This represents over 23% of the respondents. While there is no scientific methodology to that survey, it casts significant doubts on the preparations made for this ballot. I am certain, from my involvement in, inter alia, the National Trust, that the Charity Commissioners would not accept this degree of error, which raises questions in itself.

The Returning Officer should make the announcement much wider than just this forum, as we have an important and probably widespread issue here, and votes should be properly verified.

In addition, we should have a published protocol for acceptance/rejection of ballot papers. Will papers be rejected if there is a blank vote? Or will all votes be disregarded if there is an unverifiable vote on a paper? Or will votes simply be counted, and any errors accepted? Can we have an assurance that the same standard will apply to both 'yes' and 'no' votes.

I have a Silver Medal, which I ride about 200km per week.

Great bike.

It's made from 531ST, so is comfortable and resilient. It's well worth upgrading. Mine has an 8-spd at the rear, though that is from a 135mm hub being squeezed in to the 130mm OLN. Once I took out one of the two spacers the idiots at the lbs had used, it stopped the chain sawing through the chainstay, and it now works perfectly.

Just about any cantilevers should work. I tried fitting V-brakes, and there isn't the clearance. The Silver Medal was designed as a fast tourer - between the Gold Medal/Gold Medal Extra which could be used for trekking, and the Harrier, which is ideal for audax, so it was a bit more tightly set up than, say, a Galaxy. I currently have some old Dia-Compes which have a wider profile than the STXs originally fitted, so there is more modulation. You can get good cantis easily on ebay.

However, most problems with cantis can be sorted out by getting them set up well. Unfortunately, it's an area where Sheldon Brown doesn't give a lot of useful detail, but I think you can get some from Park Tools website, I think. The thing to keep in mind as a rule of thumb is to make a right angle at the cable hanger, and right angles where the cable meets the arms. That may not be perfect, but it'll be close.

Hope this helps. Get in touch if you need any more information

I've spoken to the Police again, and they have taken more details. They would love to hear from anyone else who can help.

I've also had a chance to speak to the CTC, who are interested in helping

Two witnesses have made contact. I'm waiting for the Police to get back to me. Might take a while...

I used to live near Rough Bottom. It's between Hole Bottom and Thistle Bottom.

I loved Albert's articles in Cycling World. He's a good Clarion CC member. Never seen him speak, but I've heard it was impressive and inspiring. He goes to York every year.

Badgers Mount is also near Orpington.

I am pretty sure that when I first went there, there was a sign which read 'Badgers Mount Pratts Botton', but I have been unable to find it, even when I worked in Orpington.

I believe that Torpenhow Hill means 'Hillhillhill Hill'