Save the CTC Web Site

[Jimmy The Hand]

I don't know where you get your figures from but there aren't just two councillors against the proposals. There are four that I am aware of - and possibly more. It is for them to decide whether they wish to make their names public. Certainly John Meudell and I both have.

So we have to work with what we've got and that is the two names you gave earlier and the fact that one councillor voted against at the Council meeting. If I add 2 + 2 to make six and guess that you were the councillor who voted no then that leaves only two against.

BTW I do admire you for sticking your head above the parapet, I may not agree with you, but I do respect you for having the courage to stand up and be counted.

[Regulator]

I don't know where you get your figures from but there aren't just two councillors against the proposals. There are four that I am aware of - and possibly more. It is for them to decide whether they wish to make their names public. Certainly John Meudell and I both have.

So we have to work with what we've got and that is the two names you gave earlier and the fact that one councillor voted against at the Council meeting. If I add 2 + 2 to make six and guess that you were the councillor who voted no then that leaves only two against.

BTW I do admire you for sticking your head above the parapet, I may not agree with you, but I do respect you for having the courage to stand up and be counted.

Actually, I voted for at the meeting Manchester. It wasn't until after that meeting, when I received additional information about the accounts and a shameful couple of episodes with the membership system - which had been withheld from Council, that I changed my mind. I informed my colleagues on Council that I had changed my mind - and a number of other Councillors voiced their concerns when I showed them the information that had been withheld from them.

Funnily enough, we haven't had another vote on the proposals since Manchester. The next vote will be at the end of this month and I will be interested to see whether the vote is as strong as it appeared last time.

I should also note that some Councillors seem speak against the proposals but, when pressure is put on them by the Chair and other Councillors, they go along with the majority. Unfortunately this happens a lot on Councils and Boards...

[Si]

I can see Jimmy's problem here - on the one hand the No campaign is demanding info concerning the trust and money and complaining when it's not forthcoming, not to mention the complaints about several councillors who seem to be saying "vote Yes because I say so" and not giving hard and fast reasons. But on the other hand, we now are told that there are councillors who are questioning the proposal but you can't say who they are and they won't tell us this. So we are getting a bit of "Just trust me and ask no questions" from both sides now.

Obviously, it's not your fault Greg, if other councillors have privately voiced concerns to you but then refuse to put their money where their mouth is in public - it puts you in a problematic position. But I have to wonder, how can the Chair and other Councillors apply pressure to these people? After all, no one on the Council in a professional capacity - if they disagree they won't find themselves out of work and on the bread line. And being Councillors, representatives charged and trusted to voice concerns of their electorate, they should not be the sort of shrinking violets who might be worried because another Councillor might threaten to pinch their dinner money. So how is pressure being applied, and does the fact that pressure can be successfully applied mean that we have the wrong people representing us?

edit: to remove Freudian slip

[Simon L6]

there's no big secret being let loose by letting people know that Colin Quemby, former VP of the CTC is looking at the accounts from the 'nay' perspective, and the entire SW London DA committee voted to set up the little blog that preceded the website. And there's no gainsaying that there is a majority on Council for the takeover. Nobody's pretending otherwise. What is disreputable is the suggestion that there is only one Councillor against by people sending out mass e-mails - disreputable, but foolish, because people have worked it out!

I'd be really happy to have my name on the front of the website.

[Regulator]

I can see Jimmy's problem here - on the one hand the No campaign is demanding info concerning the trust and money and complaining when it's not forthcoming, not to mention the complaints about several councillors who seem to be saying "vote Yes because I say so" and not giving hard and fast reasons. But on the other hand, we now are told that there are councillors who are questioning the proposal but you can't say who they are and they won't tell us this. So we are getting a bit of "Just trust me and ask no questions" from both sides now.

I've named the two who have gone public (myself and John Meudell) in a big way. A third, Helen Vecht, has also publicly stated that she will be voting against the proposals. We are encouraging the others with concerns to put their heads above the parapet.

Obviously, it's not your fault Greg, if other councillors have privately voiced concerns to you but then refuse to put their money where their mouth is in public - it puts you in a problematic position. But I have to wonder, how can the Chair and other Councillors apply pressure to these people? After all, no one on the Council in a professional capacity - if they disagree they won't find themselves out of work and on the bread line. And being Councillors, representatives charged and trusted to voice concerns of their electorate, they should not be the sort of shrinking violates who might be worried because another Councillor might threaten to pinch their dinner money. So how is pressure being applied, and does the fact that pressure can be successfully applied mean that we have the wrong people representing us?

I'm afraid to say that the Chair is a party political man and not adverse to trying to use political tricks to get his way. Also, Councillors are bombarded with information and then not given the chance to take time to think it through. When the Trust was set up, councillors weren't given advance notice of what was being proposed and were given only 15 minutes to agree and sign it off - that's not even enough time to read the papers properly.

When Councillors and former Councillors are publicly denigrated by the Chief Executive and the Chair takes no action, or when personal attacks are made on Councillors who have the guts to speak out or they are falsely accused of acting maliciously, is it surprising that some of those with doubts don't want to be seen to be rocking the boat or going against the flow?

[workhard]

at which point the ordinary Club "frankly I'm in it for the benefits" member, like me, may ask "qui bono?" in an attempt to figure out why people allow themselves to be treated in such a manner.

[PH]

I'd be really happy to have my name on the front of the website.

I think you should, along with the other contributors. I'm surprised you didn't from the outset. I'm trying to look at the information and come to my own conclusion. Knowing where information comes from is important. Regulator thinks it's clear who is behind the site, I visited the site before here and didn't think it was.

[JT]

I don't think it matters if the people behind it are named. I'd hazard a guess that the majority of members have no idea who current or ex-councillors are.

For me the most important aspect of that site is to get the main argument across as succinctly as possible while giving people the opportunity to find out more if they wish. Don't be fooled into thinking that your readers have the time or inclination to read pages and pages of information. In fact your main argument should be on the home page.

[patricktaylor]

I don't think it matters if the people behind it are named ...

I believe it does, for any website that seeks to persuade. It goes to credibility and trust, as does the presentation of the website itself. Any fool can put up half-baked opinion on the web, but someone serious about their message should take the extra step and present it professionally.

[Simon L6]

I don't think it matters if the people behind it are named ...

I believe it does, for any website that seeks to persuade. It goes to credibility and trust, as does the presentation of the website itself. Any fool can put up half-baked opinion on the web, but someone serious about their message should take the extra step and present it professionally.

well, fear not. When we get the webmachine cranked up again we'll put some names on.........

[BOBBOUGHTON]

Both sides have presented strong arguments.
Refrence is made to problems with administration and finiancial accountablility,this is a management issue and until this is addressed it realy does not matter if we vote yes or no.
The council and trustees of the charity (are they the same people ?) need to come to the members with a credible plan to get administration and finianciantial accountability back on track before asking us to vote.

R. Boughton
Herts.

[Jimmy The Hand]

Can you tell me why, in your comments on the email from the North West councillors, you make the point that neither the Chair of Management nor the financial advisor is an accountant?

From save the CTC website/spinwatch/1st email

……As part of the accountability process our financial advisor and chair of a management committee, both of whom are highly qualified financial experts [The chair of the Management Committee has made it clear he is not an accountant and the financial advisor is a banker – not an accountant], have examined the accounts in detail and confirm the positive figures presented.

[gaz]

Spin, both sides are capable of pedalling facts at a high cadence.

[Regulator]

Can you tell me why, in your comments on the email from the North West councillors, you make the point that neither the Chair of Management nor the financial advisor is an accountant?

From save the CTC website/spinwatch/1st email

……As part of the accountability process our financial advisor and chair of a management committee, both of whom are highly qualified financial experts [The chair of the Management Committee has made it clear he is not an accountant and the financial advisor is a banker – not an accountant], have examined the accounts in detail and confirm the positive figures presented.

As they are the people who are being put forward as 'confirming' the accounts, I would suggest it is important to know whether or not they are accountants.

[Regulator]

Spin, both sides are capable of pedalling facts at a high cadence.

You haven't met me, have you