Re: Why didn’t CTC do this?
Posted: 19 Apr 2016, 2:58pm
Philip Benstead wrote:i agree on all countsPH 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.