Bicycler wrote:I think Gaz had his tongue in cheek, hence the Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy reference.
He's quite right that this has not been a secret, but I think it's fair to say that the CTC has done nothing to draw members attention to it. Like the Vogon planning application it has been done by the book yet in such a way as to minimise the risk of actually having to consider people's objections.
Thanks Bicycler never ever watched HHG so the reference went right over my head.
Regulator wrote:Paul Tuohy has been involved in a shameful personal attack on Philip Benstead on LinkedIn. Totally inappropriate behaviour for a member of staff.
The only comment I can see on LinkedIn is pointing out that, while the mechanism exists to call for a poll of the membership, the last time it happened it cost the CTC £14k so make sure you know what you are signing up for before imposing that cost on the organisation. Was there something else posted?
But since Philip was the Councillor who seconded at Council the principle of changing the name, I'm just wondering what he was expecting it to be changed to. Perhaps he could enlighten us.
At which point it is David Cox who wrote this, not Paul Tuohy
No. I'm talking about this comment from Paul Tuohy:
Philip is very committed to cycling but somewhat misguided. He stood for re-election of the charity board but times have changed and he received the lowest polling ever in CTC's 138 history with 0.2% of the possible share of voters. But that's democracy. It's such a shame he pursues this vendetta against a charity working for cycling that he still promotes for his own self interest. He could do much more positively for cycling if he chose to. Meanwhile next week the Minister for cycling will announce £500,000 to help Cycling Uk get more hard to reach communities to engage with cycling to school, work for pleasure and good health. Just for clarity. The vote for our rebrand was 15-1, not 10 -5.
Funnily enough, it has now been removed - perhaps someone pointed out how unprofessional and counterproductive it was? But not before it had been copied elsewhere (contemporaneously as well)....
Regulator wrote:... No. I'm talking about this comment from Paul Tuohy:
Philip is very committed to cycling but somewhat misguided. He stood for re-election of the charity board but times have changed and he received the lowest polling ever in CTC's 138 history with 0.2% of the possible share of voters. But that's democracy. It's such a shame he pursues this vendetta against a charity working for cycling that he still promotes for his own self interest. He could do much more positively for cycling if he chose to. Meanwhile next week the Minister for cycling will announce £500,000 to help Cycling Uk get more hard to reach communities to engage with cycling to school, work for pleasure and good health. Just for clarity. The vote for our rebrand was 15-1, not 10 -5.
Funnily enough, it has now been removed - perhaps someone pointed out how unprofessional and counterproductive it was? But not before it had been copied elsewhere (contemporaneously as well)....
I find that quite disgraceful. But I suppose it says it all. I do find it surprising how much people in some sectors get away with ... behaviour that would not be accepted in other walks of life. Still, I guess it comes down to experience and the post really say it all in that regard.
Barred1 wrote:Come on - give Tuohy a chance, he's never had a job in the real world of business - throw him a rope, he might use it
B1
But he has worked in the charity sector for many years, ten of them heading up charities before taking over at the CTC. He is also a keen club cyclist. Not sure what else you are looking for in the head of a cycling charity unless you are hoping to turn it into a cycling business instead in which case you would need someone with business experience. But having worked in both myself, there is a big difference between running a business and running a charity.
Regulator wrote:... No. I'm talking about this comment from Paul Tuohy:
Philip is very committed to cycling but somewhat misguided. He stood for re-election of the charity board but times have changed and he received the lowest polling ever in CTC's 138 history with 0.2% of the possible share of voters. But that's democracy. It's such a shame he pursues this vendetta against a charity working for cycling that he still promotes for his own self interest. He could do much more positively for cycling if he chose to. Meanwhile next week the Minister for cycling will announce £500,000 to help Cycling Uk get more hard to reach communities to engage with cycling to school, work for pleasure and good health. Just for clarity. The vote for our rebrand was 15-1, not 10 -5.
Funnily enough, it has now been removed - perhaps someone pointed out how unprofessional and counterproductive it was? But not before it had been copied elsewhere (contemporaneously as well)....
I find that quite disgraceful. But I suppose it says it all. I do find it surprising how much people in some sectors get away with ... behaviour that would not be accepted in other walks of life. Still, I guess it comes down to experience and the post really say it all in that regard.
Ian
You probably won't be surprised to know that I think it needed to be said. I am not sure what happened with Philip but something did because he went from being a Councillor supportive of what was happening - as the records Gaz dug out show - until he failed to get re-elected and now seems on a campaign to block the things he was part of starting and challenge the results of the election. I'm not even actually clear what he is hoping to achieve - re-election? A change of the name to what? The name remaining the same despite him helping start the name change process? If I knew what his proposals were it might be different but he seems more focussed on what he doesn't want to be rather than what he does.