CTC CHANGE OF NAME

[TonyR]

The "personal comments" are just responding to a personal attack made by an individual - which seems perfectly reasonable

I'm glad you see it as perfectly reasonable that the CEO should finally respond with some personal comments to a string of attacks on him by Philip on Facebook, this forum, by email and elsewhere.

Care to provide some evidence of a "string of attacks on him [Paul Tuohy] by Philip on Facebook, this forum, by email and elsewhere"?

Although some of the worst abusive comments were sent to me as unsolicited email circulars I don't intend to breach the confidence of private communications. But you can find other examples such as:

"It is our opinion the entire decision-making process was flawed and any dissent was either ignored or shouted down. A similar technique was used regarding the governance issue, but more of that a little in the future."
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=103825&p=984255#p984255

"Does this mean PT has something about the night about him?"
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=103813&p=984143#p984143

"At agm will be the battle for governance this where the CEO will be packing the ctc council with yes men and women."
https://www.facebook.com/groups/9113225 ... nref=story

"CEO does not like to be criticized. ....... I suspect any critical motions CEO may try to be reject."
https://www.facebook.com/groups/9113225 ... nref=story

[Psamathe]

The "personal comments" are just responding to a personal attack made by an individual - which seems perfectly reasonable

I'm glad you see it as perfectly reasonable that the CEO should finally respond with some personal comments to a string of attacks on him by Philip on Facebook, this forum, by email and elsewhere.

Care to provide some evidence of a "string of attacks on him [Paul Tuohy] by Philip on Facebook, this forum, by email and elsewhere"?

Paul Tuohy's comments were unprofessional and potentially libelous, which is why I'm sure he was advised to delete them. If he had any integrity he'd apologise for them. I don't think anyone will be holding their breath though...

Everybody knows (particularly people at the level of the CTC/WACU CEO) that you press Send/Post/whatever and it is there however many times you press Delete afterwards. If they don't then it raises even more questions.

(also note that the above quotes are "mis-arranged" attributing the wrong comments to the wrong people; I did not say what is attributed to me).

Ian

[gaz]

Whilst the nesting of the quotes may lack clarity, all the attributions appear correct.
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=103838&start=30#p985888

... The "personal comments" are just responding to a personal attack made by an individual - which seems perfectly reasonable ...

viewtopic.php?f=45&t=103838&start=30#p986011

I'm glad you see it as perfectly reasonable that the CEO should finally respond with some personal comments to a string of attacks on him by Philip on Facebook, this forum, by email and elsewhere.

viewtopic.php?f=45&t=103838&start=30#p986015

Care to provide some evidence of a "string of attacks on him [Paul Tuohy] by Philip on Facebook, this forum, by email and elsewhere"?

Paul Tuohy's comments were unprofessional and potentially libelous, which is why I'm sure he was advised to delete them. If he had any integrity he'd apologise for them. I don't think anyone will be holding their breath though...

[Psamathe]

:? Whilst the nesting of the quotes may lack clarity, all the attributions appear correct.
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=103838&start=30#p985888

... The "personal comments" are just responding to a personal attack made by an individual - which seems perfectly reasonable ...

viewtopic.php?f=45&t=103838&start=30#p986011

I'm glad you see it as perfectly reasonable that the CEO should finally respond with some personal comments to a string of attacks on him by Philip on Facebook, this forum, by email and elsewhere.

viewtopic.php?f=45&t=103838&start=30#p986015

Care to provide some evidence of a "string of attacks on him [Paul Tuohy] by Philip on Facebook, this forum, by email and elsewhere"?

Paul Tuohy's comments were unprofessional and potentially libelous, which is why I'm sure he was advised to delete them. If he had any integrity he'd apologise for them. I don't think anyone will be holding their breath though...

Sorry. You are right - it was the missing 1st line of the quote of mine that put what I said in context. They were responding to a "reminder" by admin about personal comments (i.e. Mr. Tooey can launch into personal attacks on people yet we are not allowed to respond with our own opinions of those attacks (which by the nature of Mr Tooey's attacks can only be directed at him).

Seems to me that Philip was campaigning to make changes within the CTC (and make them follow their own procedures) and for that he was subject to a personal attack. I have not yet seen Philip make any personal attacks on Mr Tooey (though Mr Tooey has launched personal attacks on Philip).

Ian

[gaz]

... I have not yet seen Philip make any personal attacks on Mr Tooey (though Mr Tooey has launched personal attacks on Philip).

That may be due to this forum's excellent moderation policy combined with a shared dislike of Facebook and LinkedIn. ...
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=102886#p971873

Incidentally Phillip has responded to the LinkedIn blog but not posted his reply on here.

The initial response that Philip made (not sure if he's changed it since) was not deemed to fit within the forum's rules . We welcome constructive criticism of the CTC as long as it does not contain personal attacks and insults, etc. Likewise, if one is going to accuse members or staff of the CTC of wrong doing we would prefer that evidence is put forward and that the accuser sticks to the facts and is diplomatic.

Philip has let me know why he made the attack and has informed me that a complaint is being made at the next Council meeting. I have invited him to post an account ("the facts ma'am, just the facts ma'am") of his complaint and how it is handled at the meeting, should he want to.

... Or perhaps I'm putting two and two together and making five.

[Regulator]

Although some of the worst abusive comments were sent to me as unsolicited email circulars I don't intend to breach the confidence of private communications. But you can find other examples such as:

"It is our opinion the entire decision-making process was flawed and any dissent was either ignored or shouted down. A similar technique was used regarding the governance issue, but more of that a little in the future."
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=103825&p=984255#p984255

"Does this mean PT has something about the night about him?"
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=103813&p=984143#p984143

"At agm will be the battle for governance this where the CEO will be packing the ctc council with yes men and women."
https://www.facebook.com/groups/9113225 ... nref=story

"CEO does not like to be criticized. ....... I suspect any critical motions CEO may try to be reject."
https://www.facebook.com/groups/9113225 ... nref=story

Other than the 'something of the night' comment, these are hardly personal attacks and are the sort of criticism the CEO of a membership organisation should expect to be on the end of from time to time - particularly when some of his actions are clearly questionable.

If Paul Tuohey is such a delicate flower that he can't take robust criticism then he's in the wrong job. Good Lord, I've had worse comments made about me by the Chair of Council and Mr Tuohey's predecessor, Kevin Mayne...

[TonyR]

They were responding to a "reminder" by admin about personal comments (i.e. Mr. Tooey can launch into personal attacks on people yet we are not allowed to respond with our own opinions of those attacks (which by the nature of Mr Tooey's attacks can only be directed at him).

PT has not attacked anyone on here and AFAIK has only made one Facebook comment. On the other side, PB has been using this forum and Facebook to attach PT for weeks now.

Seems to me that Philip was campaigning to make changes within the CTC (and make them follow their own procedures) and for that he was subject to a personal attack. I have not yet seen Philip make any personal attacks on Mr Tooey (though Mr Tooey has launched personal attacks on Philip).

You clearly didn't read my post above giving some esamples of multiple personal attacks by PB on PT well well before PTs single reply

Campaigning is one thing - although PB has consistently refused to answer requests as to what he is trying to achieve with his campaign. But there is no need to sling personal mud such as accusing PT of fixing votes or stifling dissent.

Why is it a personal attack to say you think he's misguided and give some factual data about his election and the rebranding vote? Or are the CTC and its leadership not allowed to respond to all of the attacks on it.

And, for those saying PTs comment was libellous (not you I know) its not libellous to express an opinion or to make statements of fact.

[Regulator]

...And, for those saying PTs comment was libellous (not you I know) its not libellous to express an opinion or to make statements of fact.

I take it you're not a lawyer...

[Psamathe]

...
Why is it a personal attack to say you think he's misguided and give some factual data about his election and the rebranding vote? Or are the CTC and its leadership not allowed to respond to all of the attacks on it.
...

I don't have Tooey's post to hand but I was thinking more about the "lowest every vote for a candidate for Councillor" *when if you look at the real figures of %age potential votes. And quoting the vote a candidate received in an election in terms of %age of electorate voting for them when you have very low turn-outs and not to provide the comparative data for other candidates is misleading statistics.

But I'm going from memory of the post. (No time to search it out again right now).

Ian

[Psamathe]

Although some of the worst abusive comments were sent to me as unsolicited email circulars I don't intend to breach the confidence of private communications. But you can find other examples such as:

"It is our opinion the entire decision-making process was flawed and any dissent was either ignored or shouted down. A similar technique was used regarding the governance issue, but more of that a little in the future."
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=103825&p=984255#p984255

"Does this mean PT has something about the night about him?"
viewtopic.php?f=48&t=103813&p=984143#p984143

"At agm will be the battle for governance this where the CEO will be packing the ctc council with yes men and women."
https://www.facebook.com/groups/9113225 ... nref=story

"CEO does not like to be criticized. ....... I suspect any critical motions CEO may try to be reject."
https://www.facebook.com/groups/9113225 ... nref=story

Other than the 'something of the night' comment, these are hardly personal attacks and are the sort of criticism the CEO of a membership organisation should expect to be on the end of from time to time - particularly when some of his actions are clearly questionable.

If Paul Tuohey is such a delicate flower that he can't take robust criticism then he's in the wrong job. Good Lord, I've had worse comments made about me by the Chair of Council and Mr Tuohey's predecessor, Kevin Mayne...

I would agree.

But also, Tooey posts/publishes in his role as CEO of the CTC/WACU and that places an obligation on him to stick to arguing "the case" rather than trying to discredit the individual. And I feel his post was certainly (in part) trying to discredit Philip (e.g. the "misleading" bit about votes received in the Councillor elections). A bit like when a Police Officer gets a load of abuse from somebody being arrested - we expect them to show restraint. When some lout is found guilty in court and "expresses their opinion" about a Judge, we expect the judge to show restraint and not give back more than they receive.

Ian

[Philip Benstead]

...
Why is it a personal attack to say you think he's misguided and give some factual data about his election and the rebranding vote? Or are the CTC and its leadership not allowed to respond to all of the attacks on it.
...

I don't have Tooey's post to hand but I was thinking more about the "lowest every vote for a candidate for Councillor" *when if you look at the real figures of %age potential votes. And quoting the vote a candidate received in an election in terms of %age of electorate voting for them when you have very low turn-outs and not to provide the comparative data for other candidates is misleading statistics.

But I'm going from memory of the post. (No time to search it out again right now).

Ian

N S Names Votes Position total vote
2 1 Benstead, 17 7 0.1830
3 1 Clare, 18 6 0.1938
1 1 Bates, 19 5 0.2045
7 1 Smith, 21 4 0.2261
8 1 Wescombe, 27 3 0.2907
5 1 McCabe, 31 2 0.3337
6 1 Naughton, 37 1 0.3983
170
4 1 Johnston, transferred 0

[pga]

Whatever arguments the CTC Council puts forward in its defence, the change of name should have been agreed by the whole membership and not the handful that assume that they know best. There is an air of arrogance at the way the Council has responded to Philip Benstead's perfectly acceptable viewpoint. A change of name my be overdue but we all need to participate in the decision making process. I always thought that the CTC was a reasonably democratic democracy, compared, say, with the autocratic Sustrans, which is happy to take your money but not to let you have any say in policy making.

Arguing that a membership poll would cost thousands seems to be an over statement. Surely, there are cheaper ways - a polling slip could be included in Cycle magazine and I am sure a significant number of members would have been happy to put the completed slip into an envelope,put a stamp on and post to CTC HQ.

[TonyR]

But also, Tooey posts/publishes in his role as CEO of the CTC/WACU and that places an obligation on him to stick to arguing "the case" rather than trying to discredit the individual.

PB is not an individual. He was a Councillor until 31 December and as such has collective cabinet responsibility for any decisions and actions taken up to that date. And it is those decisions and actions that he is now railing against.

I think it also perfectly reasonable to point out that the reason he is no longer a Councillor is not because he resigned because he was unable to support the decisions being made but because, as PB's own post demonstrates, he came last in the election. That means he no longer has the popular mandate to represent members views because he was the members' last choice to represent them. I suspect that if PB had been re-elected, none of this would be happening.

[Philip Benstead]

But also, Tooey posts/publishes in his role as CEO of the CTC/WACU and that places an obligation on him to stick to arguing "the case" rather than trying to discredit the individual.

PB is not an individual. He was a Councillor until 31 December and as such has collective cabinet responsibility for any decisions and actions taken up to that date. And it is those decisions and actions that he is now railing against.

I think it also perfectly reasonable to point out that the reason he is no longer a Councillor is not because he resigned because he was unable to support the decisions being made but because, as PB's own post demonstrates, he came last in the election. That means he no longer has the popular mandate to represent members views because he was the members' last choice to represent them. I suspect that if PB had been re-elected, none of this would be happening.

I have been constantly critical of the actions and policy on various areas of the CTC activities for many years.

I know the minutes of the CTC do not reflect that, it the case that when graham smith a fellow CTC councillor question various short coming of the minutes he was told they are a general outline, even though in other place there is a verbatim account.

Therefore, it could be concluded that the minutes are doctored to show a certain view.

I am not misguided as according to some, if I am then a considerable numbers of the CTC members are also.

In 2014 I did second a vote to look into a rebranding name change, but I have never vote for any new name to be formally adopted. The case has not been made.


We could combine the CTC and /or the logo with “We are Cycling” but they have not tried.

I never had any trouble explaining what the CTC is, for that matter lots of people do not know what Sustrans is.

The survey was written by a consultant was carried out on the governance, that was totally misleading with no background information. When asked why there was not background information it was said the members would not understand it. The questions was loaded and misleading.

Regarding any mandate, does the elected council for the south east have a mandate the top person I think got 40 votes.

ad hominem

[Psamathe]

But also, Tooey posts/publishes in his role as CEO of the CTC/WACU and that places an obligation on him to stick to arguing "the case" rather than trying to discredit the individual.

PB is not an individual. He was a Councillor until 31 December and as such has collective cabinet responsibility for any decisions and actions taken up to that date. And it is those decisions and actions that he is now railing against.
...

I understod the decision on the name change was made in January AFTER Philip stopped being a councillor. If my understanding on this is correct it would be unusual for an ex-Councillor to be held to "collective cabinet responsibility" for decisions made AFTER his departure.

Ian