Why didn’t CTC do this?

Discussion of the re-branding of CTC as Cycling UK.
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 12992
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby gaz » 17 Apr 2016, 8:55am

Philip Benstead wrote:... So my question is if I can get my TP insurance cheap elsewhere and I do not want to ride with a group why should join the CTC?


Why do you feel that the only possible reasons to want to join CTC are for third party insurance or to ride with a local group?

As to price, the market clearly supports numerours providers of Third Party insurance cover for motoring and yet not every motorist opts for the cheapest cover. There's no reason to think cyclists would always buy cheap.

Perhaps people join for the member benefits. Perhaps they join to support our campaigning. Perhaps they join to support our project work. Perhaps they join for a combination of reasons that Cycling Uk now describe as to "protect the gift of cycling".

There are 67,000 members with around 67,000 subtely/widely different reasons for joining/renewing/remaining life members.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Philip Benstead » 17 Apr 2016, 9:21am

gaz wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:... So my question is if I can get my TP insurance cheap elsewhere and I do not want to ride with a group why should join the CTC?


Why do you feel that the only possible reasons to want to join CTC are for third party insurance or to ride with a local group?

As to price, the market clearly supports numerours providers of Third Party insurance cover for motoring and yet not every motorist opts for the cheapest cover. There's no reason to think cyclists would always buy cheap.

Perhaps people join for the member benefits. Perhaps they join to support our campaigning. Perhaps they join to support our project work. Perhaps they join for a combination of reasons that Cycling Uk now describe as to "protect the gift of cycling".

There are 67,000 members with around 67,000 subtely/widely different reasons for joining/renewing/remaining life members.

I agree but most people think what in it for me, cyclists are often shown to have deep pockets and short arms
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Philip Benstead » 17 Apr 2016, 9:23am

gaz wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:... So my question is if I can get my TP insurance cheap elsewhere and I do not want to ride with a group why should join the CTC?


Why do you feel that the only possible reasons to want to join CTC are for third party insurance or to ride with a local group?

As to price, the market clearly supports numerours providers of Third Party insurance cover for motoring and yet not every motorist opts for the cheapest cover. There's no reason to think cyclists would always buy cheap.

Perhaps people join for the member benefits. Perhaps they join to support our campaigning. Perhaps they join to support our project work. Perhaps they join for a combination of reasons that Cycling Uk now describe as to "protect the gift of cycling".

There are 67,000 members with around 67,000 subtely/widely different reasons for joining/renewing/remaining life members.

Note that ramblers have a larger potential membership but have membership of 106,000 also royal yacht ing association also has membership of 106,000 .
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 14828
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Si » 17 Apr 2016, 2:11pm

Philip Benstead wrote:
Si wrote:...why didn't the CTC do it? Dunno but you can bet that if they had then there would be all sorts of posts criticising them for wasting money and effort on jollies for the lads. It's just another situation where no matter what the CTC do someone will find a way of holding it against them.

FWIW, when he came to visit our group he smiled for the cameras, metaphorically kissed the babies, ignored everything that was said to him and left us wondering why we bothered. Let us hope that having someone with the national fame and eloquence of CB with him might have made more of an impression on him this time.
that is the point I have been trying to get across to does not care what members think. He will with the help of the chair turn CTC into a grant/contract chasing body. To do this he has destroyed one of cycling greatest resource that of cycling knowledge eg technical and travel information. I do not accept this information is available on the web easy, it need organised for potential and current members.
By removing this resource it give more reason not to be a CTC member. So my question is if I can get my TP insurance cheap elsewhere and I do not want to ride with a group why should join the CTC?


So, you are saying that the ctc rebrand is a conspiracy engineered by Robert goodwill and the chair, working together to maliciously syphon of government money and feed it into cycling? Do you not think think that you might be overdoing your efforts to paint every decision of the ctc council as evil, to the extent that people will question whether or not to take you seriously?

User avatar
honesty
Posts: 2415
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 3:33pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby honesty » 17 Apr 2016, 5:55pm

Labrat wrote:
did you approve/assent to the approval of the minutes that you now claim to have not been an accurate representation of the discussions at council or not?


Here you go PB, in case you missed it.

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Philip Benstead » 17 Apr 2016, 8:23pm

honesty wrote:
Labrat wrote:
did you approve/assent to the approval of the minutes that you now claim to have not been an accurate representation of the discussions at council or not?


Here you go PB, in case you missed it.


So there is no misunderstanding I am on record of suggesting the CTC could change its name to the cyclists’ Association, I suggested that about 20 years ago.

Yes, I did second the motion to investigate the possibility of a name change to the National Cycling Association, but also suggested at the time we should use in conjunction with the CTC, but that was not recorded in the minutes. If you do not believe me, tough.

WHAT FOLLOWS IN A FIRST DRAFT AND OFF COURSE SOME POINT COLD BE MERGED, BUT HERE IT IS FOR YOUR DISCUSSION.

Well what my personal view of what the CTC, it should be:
AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS
An organisation that promotes non-competitive cycling
Membership lead, meaning the members are consulted on overall policy and strategy, via various forums based regionally and the web and via the magazine to increase participation.
Communicate with it members, meaning to publish non-confidential ASAP on the website of the development of policy, there should be presumption that most information is non confidential this is so engendering participation
Democratic, meaning that members’ vote for the council that represent geographical areas in an open and fair competition free of electoral maladministration, with the results of election publish in full
Development of organization, meaning increase knowledge/organisation expertise at local, regional and national level
Development of information and campaign networks, meaning connect members’ and others in regional network to aid campaigning and the provision of members’ activities
Authoritative, meaning it generates or collects or configure data, knowledge and information that will be of use to CTC members’, potential members’ NGO, HMG local authorities etc. this information may be providing free or at cost/profit depending on the situation.
Increase it knowledge and expertise, meaning active development of it volunteers at local to national level and it staff by providing training courses
Aims
Campaign for the safe use and reduce barriers in the use of a cycle on and off road at national and regional and local level.
Increase influence of the CTC by increasing media coverage and national and reginal and local level
The development of influential network of experts in the field of cycle trade, cycle engineering, traffic engineering, highway planning, traffic modelling, law in regard to cycling, human Psychology in regarding to transport, travel, marketing etc.
Maximising the use of the expert panel by utilizing them on council sub committees in the development of policy etc.
More to follow…….
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

User avatar
honesty
Posts: 2415
Joined: 16 Mar 2012, 3:33pm
Location: Somerset
Contact:

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby honesty » 17 Apr 2016, 8:43pm

Philip Benstead wrote:
honesty wrote:
Labrat wrote:
did you approve/assent to the approval of the minutes that you now claim to have not been an accurate representation of the discussions at council or not?


Here you go PB, in case you missed it.


So there is no misunderstanding I am on record of suggesting the CTC could change its name to the cyclists’ Association, I suggested that about 20 years ago.

Yes, I did second the motion to investigate the possibility of a name change to the National Cycling Association, but also suggested at the time we should use in conjunction with the CTC, but that was not recorded in the minutes. If you do not believe me, tough.

WHAT FOLLOWS IN A FIRST DRAFT AND OFF COURSE SOME POINT COLD BE MERGED, BUT HERE IT IS FOR YOUR DISCUSSION.

Well what my personal view of what the CTC, it should be:
AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS
An organisation that promotes non-competitive cycling
Membership lead, meaning the members are consulted on overall policy and strategy, via various forums based regionally and the web and via the magazine to increase participation.
Communicate with it members, meaning to publish non-confidential ASAP on the website of the development of policy, there should be presumption that most information is non confidential this is so engendering participation
Democratic, meaning that members’ vote for the council that represent geographical areas in an open and fair competition free of electoral maladministration, with the results of election publish in full
Development of organization, meaning increase knowledge/organisation expertise at local, regional and national level
Development of information and campaign networks, meaning connect members’ and others in regional network to aid campaigning and the provision of members’ activities
Authoritative, meaning it generates or collects or configure data, knowledge and information that will be of use to CTC members’, potential members’ NGO, HMG local authorities etc. this information may be providing free or at cost/profit depending on the situation.
Increase it knowledge and expertise, meaning active development of it volunteers at local to national level and it staff by providing training courses
Aims
Campaign for the safe use and reduce barriers in the use of a cycle on and off road at national and regional and local level.
Increase influence of the CTC by increasing media coverage and national and reginal and local level
The development of influential network of experts in the field of cycle trade, cycle engineering, traffic engineering, highway planning, traffic modelling, law in regard to cycling, human Psychology in regarding to transport, travel, marketing etc.
Maximising the use of the expert panel by utilizing them on council sub committees in the development of policy etc.
More to follow…….


Which is all great, but doesn't answer the question of why you approved minutes you are now saying are wrong. If specific details were mining why did you not refuse to sign them off at the time?

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Philip Benstead » 17 Apr 2016, 9:01pm

Which is all great, but doesn't answer the question of why you approved minutes you are now saying are wrong. If specific details were mining why did you not refuse to sign them off at the time?

I did not say they are wrong this point has been discussing at length, many time I have said there are sometimes a lack of details in the minutes with hind sight if I knew person pestering me asking the same question and not accept it then I would record the each meeting I went to and to point out the lack of full details. I was one of many who accept the minutes, on reflection I should raise and have recorded an objection, in future I will do so at all meeting I will go so to covered my back. this will be very irritating to other present.
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

Labrat
Posts: 131
Joined: 3 Mar 2014, 11:58am

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Labrat » 17 Apr 2016, 10:41pm

Philip Benstead wrote:I did not say they are wrong this point has been discussing at length


Page one of this thread:
You must remember the minutes of council do not give the true feeling of the councillor s. Some have been worn down by pt cabal

Page six of this thread:
I think I said or implied that the minutes were incomplete and misleading



I don't know if you're attempting an experiment in sophistry, but I think its pretty clear to everyone you have that alleged in this thread that the published minutes were in fact not representative of discussions at council meetings, ergo 'wrong' ... despite your having previously supported them as a true and accurate record of proceedings.

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Philip Benstead » 18 Apr 2016, 10:33pm

Labrat

You appear to have a problem with me. You are suggesting i am tell untruths or misdirecting information or person with no moral scruples. Given whatever i say you will not accept i suggest we should meet face to face to have it out.

I suggest at the CTC AGM where we can discuss the issue in a claim and reason manner.

I am not prepared to go further in the discussion of this particular issue on this forum. It a waste of my time which can be more usefully spent trying to stop the powers that be destroying the CTC, of course you have only been a member since 2014 you have no knowledge what went before.
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

Labrat
Posts: 131
Joined: 3 Mar 2014, 11:58am

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Labrat » 18 Apr 2016, 11:39pm

Philip Benstead wrote:You are suggesting i am tell untruths or misdirecting information or person with no moral scruples.


No, I am suggesting that you are a hypocrite, who was all for renaming the club until you weren't re-elected, and this whole thing is nothing at all to do with renaming or governance, but your way of trying to continue your battle against some perceived injustice.

I am not prepared to go further in the discussion of this particular issue on this forum. It a waste of my time which can be more usefully spent trying to stop the powers that be destroying the CTC, of course you have only been a member since 2014 you have no knowledge what went before.


Well, you're wrong there, that's the date I joined this forum, however here again we have your 'destroying the CTC' argument, which is completely undermined by the fact that you were at the forefront of doing it, and barely raised a whimper.

The minutes show conclusively that not only were you previously in favour of renaming the CTC, but that you and the rest of council were fully appraised of the process throughout, you pernonally were bought into it, there was clear concencus that it didn't need to go to the membership.

The ONLY thing that changed between then and now is that you didn't get reelected - to me that says it all!

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Philip Benstead » 18 Apr 2016, 11:47pm

Labrat wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:You are suggesting i am tell untruths or misdirecting information or person with no moral scruples.


No, I am suggesting that you are a hypocrite, who was all for renaming the club until you weren't re-elected, and this whole thing is nothing at all to do with renaming or governance, but your way of trying to continue your battle against some perceived injustice.

I am not prepared to go further in the discussion of this particular issue on this forum. It a waste of my time which can be more usefully spent trying to stop the powers that be destroying the CTC, of course you have only been a member since 2014 you have no knowledge what went before.


Well, you're wrong there, that's the date I joined this forum, however here again we have your 'destroying the CTC' argument, which is completely undermined by the fact that you were at the forefront of doing it, and barely raised a whimper.

The minutes show conclusively that not only were you previously in favour of renaming the CTC, but that you and the rest of council were fully appraised of the process throughout, you pernonally were bought into it, there was clear concencus that it didn't need to go to the membership.

The ONLY thing that changed between then and now is that you didn't get reelected - to me that says it all!
prove with sign affidavits
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

PH
Posts: 5830
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby PH » 19 Apr 2016, 12:58am

Labrat wrote:No, I am suggesting that you are a hypocrite, who was all for renaming the club until you weren't re-elected, and this whole thing is nothing at all to do with renaming or governance, but your way of trying to continue your battle against some perceived injustice.

Can we not just draw a line under this. You've asked the question, Phillip has given his answer, you've asked it again, got the same answer, asked it again...
You are obviously not satisfied with the answer, but why not give the rest of us credit for being able to decide for ourselves what we think? There is nothing to be gained by asking the same question again for the same answer. I don't believe you are unable to see the difference between supporting research into a new name and agreeing on what that new name should be. From where I sit your questioning has gone past the Paxman like inquisition and is looking like bullying, please stop.
I don't necessarily agree with everything Phillip says or does, but his belief that CTC is going the wrong way hasn't come about since loosing his seat on council. None of the other players in these events are prepared to come on an open forum and make their case. He doesn't hide behind some anonymous moniker or get others to make his statements for him. You make great play in the fact he lost his seat on council, where are those who joined CTC to beat him putting themselves up for scrutiny? Not here.
He's not the only CTC councilor who feels they've been pressurised into doing something they later felt they'd rather not have. The irreversible move away from member control was the transfer of assets from club to trust on 2004. I've spoken to several who took that decision who later felt they should at the very least have insisted on more time to look at the proposal. In comparison, someone agreeing to some minuets that you later feel they should have challenged is a minor error.

User avatar
Philip Benstead
Posts: 1147
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 7:06pm
Location: Victoria , London

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Philip Benstead » 19 Apr 2016, 7:07am

PH wrote:
Labrat wrote:No, I am suggesting that you are a hypocrite, who was all for renaming the club until you weren't re-elected, and this whole thing is nothing at all to do with renaming or governance, but your way of trying to continue your battle against some perceived injustice.

Can we not just draw a line under this. You've asked the question, Phillip has given his answer, you've asked it again, got the same answer, asked it again...
You are obviously not satisfied with the answer, but why not give the rest of us credit for being able to decide for ourselves what we think? There is nothing to be gained by asking the same question again for the same answer. I don't believe you are unable to see the difference between supporting research into a new name and agreeing on what that new name should be. From where I sit your questioning has gone past the Paxman like inquisition and is looking like bullying, please stop.
I don't necessarily agree with everything Phillip says or does, but his belief that CTC is going the wrong way hasn't come about since loosing his seat on council. None of the other players in these events are prepared to come on an open forum and make their case. He doesn't hide behind some anonymous moniker or get others to make his statements for him. You make great play in the fact he lost his seat on council, where are those who joined CTC to beat him putting themselves up for scrutiny? Not here.
He's not the only CTC councilor who feels they've been pressurised into doing something they later felt they'd rather not have. The irreversible move away from member control was the transfer of assets from club to trust on 2004. I've spoken to several who took that decision who later felt they should at the very least have insisted on more time to look at the proposal. In comparison, someone agreeing to some minuets that you later feel they should have challenged is a minor error.
i agree o all counts
Philip Benstead | CTC London and FORMER CTC Councillor SE
| 0794-980-1698 | philipbenstead1@gmail.com |
Organizing events and representing cyclist in southeast since 1988
Cycle Ride? http://www.meetup.com/socialcycling4u/
Bikeability Instructor/Mechanic

User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 42477
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?

Postby Mick F » 19 Apr 2016, 2:07pm

PH.
Nicely put.
Mick F. Cornwall