Morning all, I've run through the postings on this thread but haven't checked the grammar & spelling!
With regards to the positions set up by CUK (Miss you CTC), but all I see is the Newspeak, chasing popular approval rating, been there, ticked the box, look good in a PR way!
Chase the Charitable Status dosh.
As I don't meet the perceived membership format, too much cycling experience, too much cycling knowledge, no desire to be trendy!
The sheer inanity of the dumbing down process which includes wrong speak! "Big Bike Week"? Well if the want an inclusive membership the should push the "Cycling" message not the bicycling message. I pointed out that very point to Chris Boardman when he launched Liverpool bie pick up scheme, what about those unable to use a fall over machine?
So not the correct stance as far as I'm concerned, little diversity. The old CTC always offered a good mix of membership, not perfectly reflective of the new box ticking mob, but only because certain people didn't think it was for them. Surely that must be their choice?
My way is always try to acknowledge a fellow cyclist, apart from them who act against the common good by using their cycle in an anti-social manner, red light, pavement cycling for example, they get an education chat!
So my advice for CUK is drop the BLM slant, emphasise the ALM message - All Lives Matter. Treat all others as you would wish to be treated.
Cut out the "Virtue Signalling" twaddle, offer cheer not dreer! MM