Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

A place to discuss the issues relating to the proposed change in the national CTC’s structure.
Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby Regulator » 29 Nov 2010, 10:19am

The information provided by the Article 36 petition organiser, Jeff Tollerman, for the 'Cycle' article was very heavily edited and censored. The full information provided is below. The bits in red were the bits that weren't published. The bits in blue were edited (some quite heavily) before publication.


• This petition was submitted because I and many others are so unhappy at the way in which the proposal to convert the CTC into a full charity was presented to members and the way in which the motion promoting it at the AGM was handled. These grounds are clearly spelt out as numbers one to five in the petition now published in the current issue of Cycle Magazine.

Presentation was heavily biased; those opposed to the proposal were given little opportunity to state their case widely and some were subject to shockingly personal abuse by National Councillors.

At the AGM Motion 8 was lost on votes cast and directed proxy votes. The Chairman, however, then used his discretionary votes not for the ‘status quo’ but to push through the motion by a narrow majority.

You asked why serve the petition since Motion 10 (to adopt the revised Memorandum and Articles of Association) had been defeated at the AGM. This stopped the CTC from proceeding with conversion. However, at no time have the Chairman or Chief Executive acknowledged that the proposal is abandoned. There has been silence and nothing said to confirm that the National Office will not resubmit motion 10 to proceed with conversion.

• The CTC is a membership organisation and that is what members wish it to remain. The CTC has failed to make a convincing case to demonstrate benefit for members not achievable without becoming a full charity. Far from gaining more control, the CTC as a charity would be required to put public interest and charitable objects above the interests of members.

Gift Aid would qualify for tax rebate only if used for charitable purposes, not member benefits.

• As a charity, benefits to members would be limited to 25% of subscriptions, subject to some exemption.

• Members feel strongly that the focus of the CTC has moved heavily away from serving members and concentrated instead on seeking to obtain government contracts and project work. That is not the main purpose of a membership oriented organisation. Support for local groups seems to have dwindled. Let’s concentrate on the basics.

• With the massive cut-backs in public expenditure, the CTC Trust can anticipate a huge loss of income, when it is already being subsidised by membership subscriptions.


The time is not right for the CTC to become a full charity. Instead it should concentrate more steadfastly on its core functions: providing services to members, campaigning for, promoting and protecting the rights of all cyclists.

• What do I seek to achieve? That the CTC postpone its ambition to register the CTC as a charity and merge the Club with the CTC Charitable Trust, but concentrate instead on developing and enhancing its core functions as a membership club.



Jeff Tollerman


8 November, 2010

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15084
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby Si » 29 Nov 2010, 11:01am

Out of interest, why did Jeff decide not to comment in the article (it claims that he was asked for comments but declined), and when he declined not to comment was he aware that this editing had taken place (i.e. did be believe that the unedited version of his text spoke for itself and didn't need further comment)?

User avatar
Yorkshireman
Posts: 352
Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 6:59am
Location: North Hykeham, Lincoln.
Contact:

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby Yorkshireman » 29 Nov 2010, 11:04am

Hmm! That gives a slightly different slant than the (edited) piece in the magazine. This isn't the first example of information/views etc being published in 'edited form', is it? I haven't seen anything to persuade me to vote other than my original vote of no, so my paper has been marked NO and is in the post (I don't need the incentive of possibly winning a cycling 'jumper' either - even if I were in the habit of wearing such apparel) :evil:
Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... but the wind is mostly in your face!
http://www.freewebs.com/yorkshireman1/

Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby Regulator » 29 Nov 2010, 11:07am

Si wrote:Out of interest, why did Jeff decide not to comment in the article (it claims that he was asked for comments but declined), and when he declined not to comment was he aware that this editing had taken place (i.e. did be believe that the unedited version of his text spoke for itself and didn't need further comment)?



Jeff explained that he wasn't used to being interviewed and asked if he could know what the questions were likely to be. Fairly standard stuff - happens all the time in the press. The editor's response wasn't particularly helpful and contained this little gem of a comment:

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.


The editor indicated that Jeff could put in a written statement and this is what he did. This was heavily edited and censored - but Jeff was not given the opportunity to see the draft article before it was published or to comment further.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15084
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby Si » 29 Nov 2010, 11:15am

Has any explanation been asked for or given as to why each of the edits took place? I'm sure that some people will see this editing as some sort of underhand dealing, so it would be nice if we could get all of the facts/explanations out in the open before it all kicks off again. For instance, regarding one of the items omitted I can see why it might have been thought wise to leave it out as it only told half of the story.

However, I fully accept that a clear explanation of what had happened should have been given to Jeff, and should also have been included with the article.

Dan Joyce
Posts: 8
Joined: 2 Feb 2007, 1:41pm

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby Dan Joyce » 29 Nov 2010, 11:19am

Here's the complete transcript of the emails between Jeff and me, which you'll need to read from the bottom up. (Jeff supplied more than twice the amount of words than there was space for. I also had lots of stuff from Barry on tape that didn't get used.)


Dan

Thanks very much. I'm sure that you will be entirely even-handed. Every
author is very protective of his copy. Cut a word and you will be accused of
genocide. No way to win.

I do have a copy of the handover photo, which was cropped. Size is 2211 x
1474 (1.6mb) attached. Is that hi-res enough?

Many thanks

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Joyce [mailto:danjoyce@btconnect.com]
Sent: 09 November 2010 15:45
To: Jeff Tollerman
Subject: Re: Your petition and Cycle magazine

Jeff
Rest assured I will give both sides roughly the same amount of space.
I suspect neither side will be completely happy with my edits, but all
any journalist can do is report the situation as they see it.

Do you have a higher resolution copy of the photo of you handing Peter
Jackson the petition, by the way? I may be able to use it, if there's
space.

Dan

On 9 Nov 2010, at 15:05, Jeff Tollerman wrote:

Dan,

Thanks for the update.

I appreciate that you have to make the best use of precious space
and also
provide a balance for both sides of the argument. I tried to be as
concise
as possible (475 words). On a presentation that is going to decide the
constitutional future of the CTC for the foreseeable future, I would
obviously not want my case to be understated.

I fully appreciate your concern about possible duplication with the
grounds
spelt out in the petition.

My bullet point one was an introductory summary of the position, which
referred to the 5 grounds, without repeating them. This I think should
remain (except for the last 9 words).

Bullets 2 and 3 do duplicate elements in the petition, while still
containing other points.

All other points, I think, are not duplications.

As always, the Editor's decision is final, but given its importance, I
naturally want my case to be presented as fully as possible.

Many thanks for keeping me informed.

Best wishes

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Joyce [mailto:danjoyce@btconnect.com]
Sent: 09 November 2010 11:17
To: Jeff Tollerman
Subject: Re: Your petition and Cycle magazine

Jeff
There won't be room to reproduce this in full. As such, I'll be
focussing on points you make that don't duplicate what's already in
the petition - since that appears in full already.

All the best
Dan

On 8 Nov 2010, at 14:33, Jeff Tollerman wrote:

Dan

Thank you for your reply and clarification about legal commentary.

I have put together a few bullet points to give some idea of why I
submitted
the petition and some of my reasons for opposing the proposal to
change the
constitutional status of the CTC. Hopefully you will be able to
include
these in full, but you are the Editor!

I had no intention of questioning your editorial principles. My
concern is
only to communicate my feelings as clearly and accurately as
possible. I
really was not confident that I could do this over the telephone,
when
whatever I said would be published in black and white as my reasons
for
submitting the petition and opposing the proposal to convert the
Club into a
full charity. I really did not wish to make an unwitting fool of
myself.

On a subject about which I felt less personal responsibility, I would
happily talk without inhibition on the 'phone.

I greatly appreciate you willingness to allow me this opportunity,
despite
my evident reluctance to 'misspeak' in the course of a telephone
conversation. You may have seen Frank Skinner's opinion article in
The Times
last Friday about the pitfalls of talking off the cuff.

Thank you very much for your forbearance.

Best wishes,

Jeff


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Joyce [mailto:danjoyce@btconnect.com]
Sent: 08 November 2010 10:35
To: Jeff Tollerman
Subject: Re: Your petition and Cycle magazine

Jeff
You misunderstand me. Any CTC legal feedback I seek will be on the
petition itself, to put that into context for members, if necessary,
and not on any dialogue I have with you.

If you wish to submit a brief statement, I'll use it - quite possibly
all of it. Alternatively, I am happy to speak to someone else from
the
savethectc camp instead. However, I need to resolve this one way or
the other no later than tomorrow. And today would be better.

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.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Dan


On 7 Nov 2010, at 23:47, Jeff Tollerman wrote:

Dan

I was disappointed to receive your reply.

I made clear my unease about making impromptu statements over the
telephone
on such an important subject. Since you are unwilling to recognise
my
concerns and I am not prepared to make instant responses to
unexpected
questions on such a crucial issue, subject as you say to CTC legal
analysis,
we would not seem to share much common ground. A telephone
conversation on
these terms does not therefore seem likely to be most fruitful.

I speak as an ordinary member, not a politician or one trained in
the arts
of communication. I therefore wish to reflect on my words when they
will be
a counterbalance to those in favour of the proposal.

Given your position, I shall therefore be happy to provide a very
brief
statement to answer why I have submitted this petition and what I
would
expect to achieve, from the position of one opposed to the proposal
to
convert the CTC into a charitable trust.

I very much regret that we do not seem to have been able to
accommodate each
other on what is, to me, a vital issue.

Jeff


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Joyce [mailto:danjoyce@btconnect.com]
Sent: 05 November 2010 14:47
To: Jeff Tollerman
Subject: Re: Your petition and Cycle magazine

Jeff
Can I call you on Monday? Time's getting a little tight. The gist of
my questions will be:

- Why have you put in the petition?
- What do you hope to achieve by it, given that the enabling motion
wasn't passed anyway?

But I'd rather just chat for 10 minutes than give you a specific
list.
I will also be asking Barry Flood to comment, and I won't be giving
him a list of questions either. I'm not Jeremy Paxman, don't
worry. I
want to put myself in the position of a typical CTC member and ask
the
kind of questions I think they might ask.

The article will just be a report on the fact that there is to be a
revote (including full details of the petition) plus the opinions of
you and of Barry on this, to help put it into context. I may pick
Shivaji's brains too, if there's anything regarding procedure or
Mems
and Arts type stuff that I think needs clarifying.

Hope that helps.

cheers
Dan

On 5 Nov 2010, at 14:12, Jeff Tollerman wrote:

Dan

Thanks very much for the opportunity to make a few comments from my
ordinary
member's perspective. With the passage of time since delivery of
the
petition, I was getting a bit anxious about how the issue would be
presented.

I would be very happy to have a chat on the 'phone early next week.
However,
I do feel a little uneasy about making impromptu remarks over the
telephone
on a subject as thorny and controversial as this. It might be quite
easy to
give unwitting offence!

It would therefore be greatly appreciated if you would email me the
questions that you would like to ask. That would give me the chance
to
reflect on my replies and make sure, hopefully, that I do not say
anything
inaccurate or incomprehensible! Who else will you be asking to
comment?

What is your deadline?

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best wishes,

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Joyce [mailto:danjoyce@btconnect.com]
Sent: 04 November 2010 15:00
Subject: Your petition and Cycle magazine

Jeff
When's a good time to call you, ideally within office hours or not
too
late on an evening? In the Dec/Jan issue of Cycle, along with news
about the motion 8 re-vote, and the details of your petition, I'd
like
to include a few comments from people on either side of the debate.
To
do this, I'll just phone you up and ask some questions, and then
I'll
quote you in the news piece.

cheers

Dan Joyce
Editor, Cycle magazine
editor@ctc.org.uk
Last edited by Dan Joyce on 29 Nov 2010, 11:42am, edited 1 time in total.

lobsterboyuk
Posts: 17
Joined: 16 Nov 2010, 10:59pm

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby lobsterboyuk » 29 Nov 2010, 11:41am

Could Dan clarify why it wasn't mentioned in cycle that the petition had been edited for the sake of space? I am concerned that the editing was not highlighted on page 8? Maybe it's standard practice to edit content but why wasn't it mentioned - like the disclaimer on the letters page which makes clear that letters might be edited - I was under the impression the petition was published in full until I saw this thread?

* Edited for readability

Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby Regulator » 29 Nov 2010, 11:44am

lobsterboyuk wrote:Could Dan clarify why it wasn't mentioned in cycle that the petition had been edited for the sake of space? I am concerned that the editing was not highlighted on page 8? Maybe it's standard practice but why wasn't it mentioned - as per the disclaimer on the letters page - I was under the impression the petition was published in full until I saw this thread?



The petition itself wasn't edited (with the exception of an agreed edit to remove some repetition). This thread is about the supporting article and what some may percieve as bias in the coverage of the Article 36 motion.

Dan Joyce
Posts: 8
Joined: 2 Feb 2007, 1:41pm

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby Dan Joyce » 29 Nov 2010, 11:58am

lobsterboyuk wrote:Could Dan clarify why it wasn't mentioned in cycle that the petition had been edited for the sake of space? I am concerned that the editing was not highlighted on page 8? Maybe it's standard practice to edit content but why wasn't it mentioned - like the disclaimer on the letters page which makes clear that letters might be edited - I was under the impression the petition was published in full until I saw this thread?

* Edited for readability


It is standard practice to edit anything overlong – unless there's e.g. a constitutional requirement to print it in full, which was the case with the petition. I thought the fact that Jeff's statement had been edited was clear from the context: 'a written statement, in which he said', followed by quotes that include couple of instances of ellipsis.

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15084
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby Si » 29 Nov 2010, 12:06pm

I would guess that Dan didn't clarify that it had been edited because he was following normal editorial practise and had treated both participants the same way.

The trouble is that with the charity debate people are especially sensitive to what and how each thing is said or handled (especially after some of the shenanigans that have already occurred). It's very easy to start reading everything (from and for both sides) as being part of some kind of conspiracy. It would probably help the ordinary members of the CTC to understand the debate better, and encourage them to participate, if we all held fire on making incriminating posts in answer to any errant comment that we see until we'd asked for an explanation/clarification.

WRT the article, given the sensitivity of the subject I do think that it would have been beneficial for a statement to have been made within it just to clarify that both Jeff's and Barry's comments had been edited following normal editorial policy, but I do not blame Dan for not doing it as it seems that he's done no different with this article than any other.

Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby Regulator » 29 Nov 2010, 1:18pm

Si wrote:I would guess that Dan didn't clarify that it had been edited because he was following normal editorial practise and had treated both participants the same way.

The trouble is that with the charity debate people are especially sensitive to what and how each thing is said or handled (especially after some of the shenanigans that have already occurred). It's very easy to start reading everything (from and for both sides) as being part of some kind of conspiracy. It would probably help the ordinary members of the CTC to understand the debate better, and encourage them to participate, if we all held fire on making incriminating posts in answer to any errant comment that we see until we'd asked for an explanation/clarification.

WRT the article, given the sensitivity of the subject I do think that it would have been beneficial for a statement to have been made within it just to clarify that both Jeff's and Barry's comments had been edited following normal editorial policy, but I do not blame Dan for not doing it as it seems that he's done no different with this article than any other.



I think what people are objecting to is not that the comments have been edited - but the manner in which they have been edited.

Given the particular sensitivity of these matters, surely it would have made sense to discuss the proposed edits with the authors?

User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby Simon L6 » 29 Nov 2010, 2:35pm

yup! Dan I'm sorry, but you've walked in to this one. It takes a lot to rouse Jeff Tollerman, whose general sunniness out outlook is an example to us all, but the editing of his statement has done that very thing.

lobsterboyuk
Posts: 17
Joined: 16 Nov 2010, 10:59pm

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby lobsterboyuk » 29 Nov 2010, 3:30pm

Dan Joyce wrote:
lobsterboyuk wrote:Could Dan clarify why it wasn't mentioned in cycle that the petition had been edited for the sake of space? I am concerned that the editing was not highlighted on page 8? Maybe it's standard practice to edit content but why wasn't it mentioned - like the disclaimer on the letters page which makes clear that letters might be edited - I was under the impression the petition was published in full until I saw this thread?

* Edited for readability


It is standard practice to edit anything overlong – unless there's e.g. a constitutional requirement to print it in full, which was the case with the petition. I thought the fact that Jeff's statement had been edited was clear from the context: 'a written statement, in which he said', followed by quotes that include couple of instances of ellipsis.


Oops, I understand now - for some reason I read the thread as indicating that the petition itself had been edited - if it's actually agreed edits to the petitioners comments then that is to be expected. Thanks for the clarification...

thirdcrank
Posts: 28687
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby thirdcrank » 29 Nov 2010, 5:11pm

Jeff Tollerman did provide a written statement, in which he said '....


Once it had been made clear elsewhere that the statement had been edited, those words can be interpreted to mean that the statement had been edited.

My apologies to all concerned if I am damning them with faint praise. "Here's an edited version of Jeff Tollermans written statement ..." or something similar would have been clearer without taking up extra space. I suppose that looking at it more widely, this is why the traditional printed media are struggling in the era of the internet.

Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Re: Article in December/January Issue of Cycle

Postby Regulator » 29 Nov 2010, 7:04pm

If there was supposed to be balance in the article in 'Cycle', can comeone explain why people are referred to the CTC web-site for further information - but not to the Save the CTC web-site (or any other web-site)?

Is that a balanced approach to take?