Cycling UK Forum

I wonder if the real question is:
"Has somebody been accused by the Trustees of posting something on the forum (or elsewhere) that (in the view of the Trustees) has caused either reputational damage or reputational risk to CTC/Cycling UK?"

With a supplementary question of:
"Are the Trustees considering removing someone from the Membership (on such grounds) using their powers under Article 4.5?"

Whilst I do wonder if those are the real questions I do not know whether such allegations have been made. Therefore they are questions I would not wish to speculate upon.

gaz wrote:I wonder if the real question is:
"Has somebody been accused by the Trustees of posting something on the forum (or elsewhere) that (in the view of the Trustees) has caused either reputational damage or reputational risk to CTC/Cycling UK?"

With a supplementary question of:
"Are the Trustees considering removing someone from the Membership (on such grounds) using their powers under Article 4.5?"

Whilst I do wonder if those are the real questions I do not know whether such allegations have been made. Therefore they are questions I would not wish to speculate upon.

You may be right, particularly how it's now some time since the CTC (unusually - 1st time ever?) instructed the forum mods to ban one forum member who has been critical of the CTC. It was under an excuse (i.e. not relating to anything on the forum) and pending an "investigation" which should have finished long ago.

I think companies and organisations that spend their time shutting down critical voices are doing themselves immense damage. They should be listening to that input as it provides an excellent window on how some perceive what the company/organisation is doing. It's like complaints - every company/organisation gets them and those who hate and try and dismiss them are missing a great opportunity to actually improve things, to learn. Of course you try and avoid things that cause complaints/criticisms but things always go wrong or are misjudged and often you don't notice what is going wrong and complaints/criticisms are really just pointing that out.

Ian

Psamathe wrote:... pending an "investigation" which should have finished long ago.

The investigation is being made as part of Cycling UK's disciplinary procedures. The formal announcement can be found here, posted 6 November:

Graham wrote:

Cycling UK National Office wrote:Following the Board meeting on Saturday 22 October, a formal complaint has been received and is being investigated. An independent investigation is being conducted and a report will be made to the Board of Trustees. In view of the seriousness of the complaint and in accordance with the Disciplinary Procedure for Members and Volunteers a member has been suspended from offices within the charity during the investigation.

That is all the only information that forum staff have. We have been instructed to prevent him from posting.

Any enquiries to Cycling UK National Office.

The very little that I know about such matters comes from the statement above and details of the disciplinary procedure here.

From the above posts and the linked procedure I would feel the investigation, hearing and any subsequent judgement aren't going to be over quickly, certainly not before January's Council meeting*. Depending upon the outcome there could also be the matter of further time to consider an appeal.

Edit: *Presumably item 11.2 on the Agenda.

gaz wrote:

Psamathe wrote:... pending an "investigation" which should have finished long ago.

The investigation is being made as part of Cycling UK's disciplinary procedures. The formal announcement can be found here, posted 6 November:

Graham wrote:

Cycling UK National Office wrote:Following the Board meeting on Saturday 22 October, a formal complaint has been received and is being investigated. An independent investigation is being conducted and a report will be made to the Board of Trustees. In view of the seriousness of the complaint and in accordance with the Disciplinary Procedure for Members and Volunteers a member has been suspended from offices within the charity during the investigation.

That is all the only information that forum staff have. We have been instructed to prevent him from posting.

Any enquiries to Cycling UK National Office.

The very little that I know about such matters comes from the statement above and details of the disciplinary procedure here.

From the above posts and the linked procedure I would feel the investigation, hearing and any subsequent judgement aren't going to be over quickly, certainly not before January's Council meeting. Depending upon the outcome there could also be the matter of further time to consider an appeal.

My information (about what it is about and from sources outside public postings on this forum) is that it is such a trivial matter that is unlikely to go to any appeal and I'd expect any investigation to pretty well dismiss the complaint as "trivial". Which is why I consider the action in relation to the ban from this forum as an "excuse".

Ian

I do not have any further knowledge of the complaint that has led to the disciplinary procedures being invoked. I do not have any knowledge of the investigation being undertaken.

Rightly or wrongly it is not being treated as a trivial matter by the Trustees.

Edit 1: Minutes of October 2016 Board Meeting, Governance 7d.

Edit 2&3: Philip Benstead has posted comments on facebook on 31/3/17 suggesting that his Life Membership of CTC has been revoked.

YEWBAB wrote:

Audax67 wrote:With polls such as this there's certainly the risk of being thought unbearably stuffy and not fully in command of English. "Reputational" would have earned you a stern talking-to when I was at school.

Explain?

In the absence of anything else, I can only guess that it's because reputational isn't in the dictionary, although my spellchecker accepts it. In an era when the different parts of speech are increasingly treated as being interchangeable, I doubt if many people care.

If on the other hand you do a Google search on "reputation risk", you will be offered "reputational risk"
Americanism or modernisation? Probably modernisation as my (American English) spellchecker doesnt accept "reputational" as a valid word.

I don't know if that complaint mentioned above is trivial, but it certainly looks like revenge from here, now. I hope it'll all become public record when the dust settles and then people can make their own minds up properly.

The poll question does come from the CTC Facebook group (the unofficial group, not the tightly controlled official page) but I also felt it was worth asking due to the extremist tea shop stuff.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... putational

See reputation

The entry for reputation gives no adjectival form. In practice, if you want an adjectival form, it's reputational. But perhaps the point A67 wants to make is that we should be using the noun? Possibly he would like to distinguish between reputation risk: the risk to one's reputation, and reputational risk: the risk caused by one's reputation?