Removed Touring from name:-why not split into 2organisation?
Posted: 4 May 2016, 10:45am
Even though Head Office intended to autocratically remove Touring from the new name (after removing the Touring Benefits of Touring Officer and Technical Officer(who was also of benefit to all cyclists)), without outlining such plans 1st, surely it would still seem more honorable to split the organisation into two completely separate organisations: a Touring part with the CTC/Cyclists Touring Club(as a club) and CUK as a campaigning charity. Current members could then opt to join either or both (as 'real' club members of CTC/'supporting members' of CUK) . Cycle mag would seem to belong more to a CTC/TCC membership club. CUK could have their own newsletter in paper/electronic form (called 'and Campaigning'? ).
If the CTC club (or even CyclingUK supporting members) cannot control the charity (due to charity law saying the charity's articles trump members views) it seems better for them to be completely separate organisations.... That way one can at least vote against any dubious charity actions with ones feet..
It seems unfair for CUK to hold on to all the Touring names.
NB even as brand with no Touring in it Cycling UK doesn't seem the best name that could have been got for a campaigning organisation IMO.
Third party insurance: I suppose from CUK if only a CUK supporter else from CTC?
If the CTC club (or even CyclingUK supporting members) cannot control the charity (due to charity law saying the charity's articles trump members views) it seems better for them to be completely separate organisations.... That way one can at least vote against any dubious charity actions with ones feet..
It seems unfair for CUK to hold on to all the Touring names.
NB even as brand with no Touring in it Cycling UK doesn't seem the best name that could have been got for a campaigning organisation IMO.
Third party insurance: I suppose from CUK if only a CUK supporter else from CTC?