Cycling UK Forum

Bonefishblues wrote:There's an opening at the RSPCA, I note, mischievously

I am interested, what is the salary?

Cyril Haearn wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:There's an opening at the RSPCA, I note, mischievously

I am interested, what is the salary?

.5cwt of winnalot pcm.

Psamathe wrote:

JohnW wrote:

Psamathe wrote:Trouble is, that makes it acceptable for PT to publish personal attacks online but can't take criticism (online) back. I think he set the "standard" with his personal attacks.

To be honest it's totally inappropriate for CTC CEO to launch into online personal attacks on others, the sort of thing that should have resulted in disciplinary proceedings (if the CTC was any sort of responsible employer).

Ian

Oh absolutely Ian - two wrongs don't make a right - and an ethical executive/management/trustee board could come down on a CEO who did publicly launch personal attacks, with dismissal being an option. However name-calling and personal attacks began long before this thread. We don't what's been said to who and by whom behind closed doors over the last few years and in these situations. Maybe a CEO isn't the villain of the piece - or at least not the sole villain......

He could have apologised about his attack - but he chose not to so one must assume he feels such behaviour quite acceptable. And if he does not consider it wrong, why should I and it is not a case of two wrongs making a right.

Ian

Understood Ian.

Is there some reason why the moderators haven't separated out my simple query and the few simple responses (which amounted to 'date not known') from the rest of the discussion drift about PT, as I requested?

The moderators are volunteers. They may not have noticed your on thread request for a tidy up. They may have noticed but not agree that the situation warrants the time and effort involved to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Thread drift whilst undesireable is not a direct breach of forum rules.

SA_SA_SA wrote:Is there some reason why the moderators haven't separated out my simple query and the few simple responses (which amounted to 'date not known') from the rest of the discussion drift about PT, as I requested?

I think your question was answered - nobody knows. So separating it out would mean removing your initial question to a thread of its own!.

Threads always drift, it's the nature of conversations. Also I don't regard threads as "owned" by the original poster. Just as in any conversation you can ask a question but if nobody answers and starts discussing related aspects do you start demanding people answer your question or go elsewhere ?

Ian

Psamathe wrote:

SA_SA_SA wrote:Is there some reason why the moderators haven't separated out my simple query and the few simple responses (which amounted to 'date not known') from the rest of the discussion drift about PT, as I requested?

I think your question was answered - nobody knows. So separating it out would mean removing your initial question to a thread of its own!.

Threads always drift, it's the nature of conversations. Also I don't regard threads as "owned" by the original poster. Just as in any conversation you can ask a question but if nobody answers and starts discussing related aspects do you start demanding people answer your question or go elsewhere ?

Ian

One tries to control and steer the conversation
Or one starts a new thread

SA_SA_SA wrote:Is there some reason why the moderators haven't separated out my simple query and the few simple responses (which amounted to 'date not known') from the rest of the discussion drift about PT, as I requested?

I didn't see the request. I assume that Si did (as he has posted on this thread). I suspect that he decided it wasn't worth the trouble.

Few threads get by on here without some drift, so we don't usually separate them.

When I have separated threads, it is usually because debate gets very heated on some side track issue. Then I will create a new thread for the debate, so the original question doesn't get lost. In this case, the original question doesn't have much to discuss. Either P Touhy is happy where he is and isn't going anywhere soon, or his job is done, and he'll be off to another charity conversion in a year or so.

I misplaced my crystal ball in the move to Norway, so I can't tell you which it is.

He is still there there nearly 2.5 years later

Cyril Haearn wrote:He is still there there nearly 2.5 years later

And what's the latest membership figure?

mjr wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:He is still there there nearly 2.5 years later

And what's the latest membership figure?

68,000 according to the latest email. I know it's fluctuated within my area, but never by more than a few percent and it's been steadily rising for at least five years. We used to get the contact details, but now just the numbers and a way of contacting them blind which complies with GDPR. There was never the mass exudes that some predicted, or even advocated.

PH wrote:

mjr wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:He is still there there nearly 2.5 years later

And what's the latest membership figure?

68,000 according to the latest email. I know it's fluctuated within my area, but never by more than a few percent and it's been steadily rising for at least five years. We used to get the contact details, but now just the numbers and a way of contacting them blind which complies with GDPR. There was never the mass exudes that some predicted, or even advocated.

It would be interesting to know membership figures in other areas, and does it compare with British Cycling and if cycling in the general population has gone up?

Tinpotflowers wrote:It would be interesting to know membership figures in other areas, and does it compare with British Cycling and if cycling in the general population has gone up?

British Cycling’s membership passed 150,000 earlier this year according to this article from May 2019. That is up from 40,000 in 2011 which, in turn, was up from 20,000 in 2007, according to this article on their website.

PH wrote:

mjr wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:He is still there there nearly 2.5 years later

And what's the latest membership figure?

68,000 according to the latest email. I know it's fluctuated within my area, but never by more than a few percent and it's been steadily rising for at least five years. We used to get the contact details, but now just the numbers and a way of contacting them blind which complies with GDPR. There was never the mass exudes that some predicted, or even advocated.

70,000 members in 2009 according to this forum quoting pages now deleted from the main website, so maybe not a mass exodus, but not steadily rising much either. Is CUK stagnating under Tuohy while other cycling organisations grow, especially the great danger to non-sports cycling for all which is BC?

Tinpotflowers wrote:... and if cycling in the general population has gone up?

Latest DfT figures show cycling continues to flatline since 2002: https://cyclingindustry.news/uk-cycling ... -dft-data/