Don't mention the CUK

Discussion of the re-branding of CTC as Cycling UK.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Don't mention the CUK

Postby Bicycler » 7 Apr 2016, 2:01pm

geocycle wrote:In the late 16th century a cuk or cuck was a slang term used as an insult, short for cuckold. I seem to recall Malvolio in Twelth Night but I can't look it up at the moment.

I mentioned upthread that the shortened term is apparently still used by people who find such a situation erotic :? My informant didn't have the sense to claim Shakespeare as his source of information :lol:

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

Re: Don't mention the CUK

Postby Philip Benstead » 7 Apr 2016, 2:14pm

Psamathe wrote:
gaz wrote:...
Perhaps a former Councillor, one who was on Council from the announcement of the re-brand process in July 2013 up until just 23 days before the new brand was approved would be better placed to assist you.

Or better still somebody from National Office who knows what was spent. Or a current Councillor who will/should have access to the figures. I don't quite understand why you think an ex-Councillor would be well placed to find out such information.

Ian



I have state previously that the cost of re-branding nor governance was never discussed by the council.
I have understand some members of the executive committee do not know the cost.
I expect the cost to be spread over 2014 to 2015 and 2015 to 2016 accounts.
I will be asking the question as the agm as to the amount that was budgeted for the cost.

I have been told by somebody with a knowledge of these things it could be in the region of £250,000 if you take account of staff time.

It is the staff in Control of the CTC not the CTC Council.
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
gaz
Posts: 12992
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Don't mention the CUK

Postby gaz » 7 Apr 2016, 2:34pm

Philip Benstead wrote:I have state previously that the cost of re-branding nor governance was never discussed by the council.

The Minutes for the Council Meeting of 19 July 2014 show you were present.
10 Brand Refresh
There was some discussion on consistency within the paper on prices quoted and some thought needs to the given to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Council fully support and noted this paper and agreed for the requested sum of £10,000 be released from reserves.

In the light of the Minutes I cannot accept your statement that the cost of re-branding was never discussed by Council.
Hand wash only. Do not iron.

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

Re: Don't mention the CUK

Postby Philip Benstead » 7 Apr 2016, 2:38pm

gaz wrote:
Philip Benstead wrote:I have state previously that the cost of re-branding nor governance was never discussed by the council.

The Minutes for the Council Meeting of 19 July 2014 show you were present.
10 Brand Refresh
There was some discussion on consistency within the paper on prices quoted and some thought needs to the given to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Council fully support and noted this paper and agreed for the requested sum of £10,000 be released from reserves.

In the light of the Minutes I cannot accept your statement that the cost of re-branding was never discussed by Council.


That is the release of £10,000 is a initial investigation costs. I say again somebody who should know the total cost said they did not know. Is that clear.
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: Don't mention the CUK

Postby Philip Benstead » 7 Apr 2016, 2:44pm

I was talking to an ex CTC councillor

His view was on the rebranding and governance are the same as mind.
But his observation are that
The charity commission is unconcern with members and democracy, what they are worry about is correct financial control and fulfill the objects of the charity.
He accept that there is nothing to stop CTC from doing anything for it members as long as it does not disadvantage non memebers.
He view is that the CTC council is there to represent it members any technical expertise should come from the staff and or brought in experts.
Question
If I am a liar am I telling the truth.
Therefore, if I am an expert in say marketing but no knowledge or interest in say ballet, is it appropriate for me to sit on the royal ballet company as trustee?
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

Psamathe
Posts: 8826
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Don't mention the CUK

Postby Psamathe » 7 Apr 2016, 3:22pm

gaz wrote:
10 Brand Refresh
There was some discussion on consistency within the paper on prices quoted and some thought needs to the given to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Council fully support and noted this paper and agreed for the requested sum of £10,000 be released from reserves.

In the light of the Minutes I cannot accept your statement that the cost of re-branding was never discussed by Council.

Releasing £10 000 from reserves back in 2014 is completely different from knowing the total cost of rebranding (consultants, stationary, mugs, web site, staff/employee time, videos, etc.).

It should be a straightforward matter for somebody from National Office to lookup and tell members how much of their money has been spent on this exercise. I'd doubt any numbers from ex Council members (out of date and questions as to complete costs e.g. incl staff time, merchandising, web site, etc.)

Idea: Rather than attack the person, lets discuss the ideas. Too much attacking the person going on in some quarters..

Ian

Whimwham7
Posts: 31
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 2:33pm

Re: Don't mention the CUK

Postby Whimwham7 » 7 Apr 2016, 4:25pm

geocycle wrote:In the late 16th century a cuk or cuck was a slang term used as an insult, short for cuckold. I seem to recall Malvolio in Twelth Night but I can't look it up at the moment.


But that word (cuckold) utilises the hard "C" sound as in "comfort" or "confectionary". "Cycling" uses the soft "C" sound, as in "cymbal". Therefore, the acronym CUK should be pronounced with a soft "C" as in "suck", for example, "it CUKs" (to use a rather uncouth Americanism) :wink:

W

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 7886
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Don't mention the CUK

Postby Cunobelin » 7 Apr 2016, 7:30pm

"Off Message" ?

WTH

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Don't mention the CUK

Postby Bicycler » 7 Apr 2016, 8:10pm

It's fairly common political/management jargon meaning going against the party/company policy. I was using it rather ironically.

Karen Sutton
Posts: 608
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:18pm
Location: Greater Manchester

Re: Don't mention the CUK

Postby Karen Sutton » 7 Apr 2016, 9:00pm

Paulatic wrote:
Bicycler wrote:According to the branding materials we should always refer to CyclingUK and never use the acronym CUK. I bring this up because many forumites appear to be terribly off-message and using the forbidden acronym. Maybe this could be another use for the forum's auto-substitution facility?

I think whoever wrote the branding materials is a little naive. I'm no longer a CTC member so I can use CUK. If I was a member I would still use CUK.
Why? Because I hate being told what to do. ( I see now why I was expelled from school)


And me, nobody told me I couldn't use it so I will.

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

Re: Don't mention the CUK

Postby Labrat » 7 Apr 2016, 10:11pm

gaz wrote:The Minutes for the Council Meeting of 19 July 2014 show you were present.
10 Brand Refresh
There was some discussion on consistency within the paper on prices quoted and some thought needs to the given to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Council fully support and noted this paper and agreed for the requested sum of £10,000 be released from reserves.

In the light of the Minutes I cannot accept your statement that the cost of re-branding was never discussed by Council.


Funny you should mention that, because I noticed this from January 2014

Screen Shot 2016-04-07 at 22.03.26.png

Psamathe
Posts: 8826
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Don't mention the CUK

Postby Psamathe » 7 Apr 2016, 10:15pm

Labrat wrote:
gaz wrote:The Minutes for the Council Meeting of 19 July 2014 show you were present.
10 Brand Refresh
There was some discussion on consistency within the paper on prices quoted and some thought needs to the given to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Council fully support and noted this paper and agreed for the requested sum of £10,000 be released from reserves.

In the light of the Minutes I cannot accept your statement that the cost of re-branding was never discussed by Council.


Funny you should mention that, because I noticed this from January 2014

Screen Shot 2016-04-07 at 22.03.26.png



Idea: Lets discuss the issues rather than attacking the person. Seems to be an increasing number of attacks of the person rather than discussing issues.

And I also note that the item/vote was in relation to "National Cycling Association" and was a vote "in principle" and subject to further reports. So the point you are making does not seem relevant to CUK .

Ian

Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Don't mention the CUK

Postby Bicycler » 7 Apr 2016, 10:24pm

+1 It makes zero difference to the case for or against the name change. Maybe we could have a "debate Philip Benstead" sub-Forum like the one for the helmet debate. I don't think many of us are interested either way.

Also, you're not pointing out anything new. It was in the chair's statement viewtopic.php?f=48&t=103845 and has been discussed at length on here.

Karen Sutton
Posts: 608
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:18pm
Location: Greater Manchester

Re: Don't mention the CUK

Postby Karen Sutton » 7 Apr 2016, 10:31pm

As previously mentioned, the fact that a request was made at a council meeting for members' views on the new name does not appear in the minutes does not mean that request was not made. Council are known to be very selective about what is minuted.

Manc33
Posts: 1286
Joined: 25 Apr 2015, 9:37pm

Re: Don't mention the CUK

Postby Manc33 » 8 Apr 2016, 2:31am

Paulatic wrote:I hate being told what to do.


I have respect for this guy off this alone. :)

The way I see it, "Cycling UK" is a really generic term. Thats a better thing if you want the forum to take a hold and have an online presence etc. Touring members joining years back now having a name change done on them have a point I think.

Call me Nostradamus but I think more people will be riding bikes that aren't only MTB's or only road, but something in between like a touring bike or a commuter bike in future. So if it kept the touring part of the name, it might have been better off because it is becoming more of a niche.

Now which site is the main bicycle touring site?!

A touring bike makes a good "short trip" commuter bike as well, I am sure a lot of those two "disciplines" cross over (I know commuting isn't a discipline I just thought it would be funny to say it). There has to be more people commuting than touring, MTB'ing and racing combined.

For example something I would never do is be clipping my shoes in and out of pedals, I want a comfy bike I can just get on and ride with flat platform pedals, a chain guard and mudguards.
Only weird bikes are interesting anymore.