Where should CTC be going?

[Psamathe]

If I follow Philip's link:-

Untitled.png

There doesn't seem to be any "read only" option.

Likewise when I follow earlier links to the group from Chris Jeggo.

Likewise. Can't even see the "debate".

Ian

[SA_SA_SA]

In case anyone missed it this is a summary of Paul Touhy's thoughts on where CTC is going (CTC forum source):
'...'
I feel that's the right destination.

Couldn't that be have done by a subsidiary charity without removing the parent club's Touring Club part (and member benefits like the Technical Officer etc)?

[Graham]

The beauty of holding the debate on Facebook is that is severely skews the selection of those invited to the debate.

A good way of minimising the impact of those bearded, sandaled old dinosaurs who trundle around the countryside on thirty year old bikes with canvass saddlebags dangling from their rear.

Much more of the trendy, extroverted youthful voices to be heard in a debate on Facebook.
.

Er, have you actually had a look through that Facebok Group ??
https://www.facebook.com/groups/911322558887222/

Declaration : I'm in it ! Not active though.

[Psamathe]

The beauty of holding the debate on Facebook is that is severely skews the selection of those invited to the debate.

A good way of minimising the impact of those bearded, sandaled old dinosaurs who trundle around the countryside on thirty year old bikes with canvass saddlebags dangling from their rear.

Much more of the trendy, extroverted youthful voices to be heard in a debate on Facebook.
.

Er, have you actually had a look through that Facebok Group ?? :wink: :lol:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/911322558887222/

Declaration : I'm in it ! Not active though.

We can't see it. Just a login prompt page!

[Graham]

Fair enough. It causes me some distress to have an association with Facebok.

Contributors to the group mainly appear to be the sort that Beardy supposes would be not be present.

Saddlebag - tick
Bike(s) of impressive vintage & of steel - tick
Brooks saddle - tick
Sandals - at home - tick


Worthy people : Salt of the earth !

[beardy]

You just cant get rid of them it seems!
Some sort of dogged determination forged by long hours in the (Brooks) saddle.

[gaz]

Couldn't that be have done by a subsidiary charity without removing the parent club's Touring Club part (and member benefits like the Technical Officer etc)?

In 1906 we* wanted to become The Touring Club, so we could get on with that all important Touring Club business whilst dropping the pesky focus on Cyclists . It wasn't the members that stopped it, it was the High Court.

More recently Members were asked to consider becoming a Charity, to quote from another thread.

If you really want to trawl through the information on why becoming a Charity was recommended by Council you can, here.

. . .. If in doubt the Council asks you to consider just one point

Do you believe society will be better off if CTC works to bring the benefits of cycling to all, or do you believe CTC is a self serving members club? If you instinctively know the answer to that question you know whether you support Cyclists’ Touring Club becoming a charity.

The members voted (at least a few of them did ), the members chose CTC's direction.


*"We" in terms of the CTC's members, I wasn't around then .

[horizon]

As an example a similar charity for 18-30 year olds was set up via social media in Bristol. I believe they had a 2.5k membership take up in a month (don't quote me. A peer told me this)

Summary? FB and Twitter are necessary evils for any business or charity these days.

I'm not sure why you would want the general public to have a say in the future of the CTC. Great if they join, even better if they find their way to the CTC's own forum and make their case. At the end of the day the future of the CTC is decided by its members (more or less).

Had there been no facility such as this forum (or the debate on it had been stifled) or someone had suggested setting up a new organisation, then yes I could see why you might want to attract more voices. Otherwise I would have thought the Facebook debate simply duplicates (and perhaps even dissipates) what is on here.

Could the OP return and discuss his reasoning?

[gaz]

The forum debate includes contributions from a number of vociferous non-members.

I'll reiterate that the Facebook Group was started by Chris Jeggo, not Philip.

[horizon]

I think that the forum (outsiders, non-members etc notwithstanding), contained the debate and focussed it in one place. I get the impression that the Facebook discussion (which I haven't seen) is an attempt to change the course of events and is thus a pressure group rather than a debate.

I understood that the debate was fundamentally over and that the CTC is clear about its future role - a charity that champions everyday cycling (which includes IMV touring).

My own take on it was that the CTC had three principal roles:

1. To undertake projects and give out information promoting and facilitating cycling.
2. To act as a political pressure group on issues affecting cycling.
3. To provide an organisational framework for local groups, tours and rides.

There has been endless debate on this as we know, mainly because of the conflict between the touring, charity and political roles. I think the CTC can (and should) do all three. My fear (like others') is that it will concentrate on the first (the charitably funded work) because that is what will sustain the organisation financially.

What I have said before is that the CTC will probably go the way of many other voluntary oganisations - the YHA and the Camping and Caravanning Club come to mind - and develop a corporate identity backed up by extensive marketing, image management and a provider-customer relationship in its work.

But to be fair to the current management, it's a bit early to judge. And until I can come up with a better idea, there may never be, for me at least, a time to judge.

[PH]

Had there been no facility such as this forum (or the debate on it had been stifled) or someone had suggested setting up a new organisation, then yes I could see why you might want to attract more voices. Otherwise I would have thought the Facebook debate simply duplicates (and perhaps even dissipates) what is on here.

None of us knows what the future holds, if some people want to hold a debate on the future of the CTC it makes sense to me to do so somewhere not under the CTC's control.
I've found the debate on that group interesting and informative, it stays far more on topic than debates on here and attracts some people that for whatever reason are not attracted to this forum. The likes of Mark Waters, Chris and Helen Juden, several Councillors past and present and people involved in grass roots CTC activities. I don't agree with all of it and it is by it's nature a very self selected group, it's still given me a better insight in to how the organisation is being run.
As for the intrusive nature of Facebook, well it can only intrude where you let it, you don't even need to give your name to register, you only need a valid email address and they can be set up easily.

[Ron]

But to be fair to the current management, it's a bit early to judge.

Indeed, but is it not about time we knew a little more about the plans?
The waiting for firm proposals merely provides fuel for the rumour mill which is not good for any organisation.

[PH]

I understood that the debate was fundamentally over and that the CTC is clear about its future role - a charity that champions everyday cycling (which includes IMV touring).

A large part of the debate is about where the traditional members and the Member Groups fit into this plan, if at all. This at a time when it looks like yet another MG is deciding it's better off leaving the organisation. We're told that only around 15% of the membership are involved with the local groups, and my local knowledge shows this to be about right, but that's still a lot of members. National Office does often give out mixed messages, for example saying how they wish to increase participation then reducing the number of rides a non member can participate in before joining. The policy that encourages independent clubs to set up and affiliate, then offer them the same support as MG (Despite that fact they only contribute a fraction) does put those traditional groups at a disadvantage, which is why they're leaving.

[landsurfer]

Any campaign that bases itself on facebook will only give results based on face book users. The rest of us will not be there.

Any campaign that bases itself on the over 31m active Facebook members in the UK - 50% of the UK population - will be doing pretty well thank you.

On that basis why not hold the next general election on Facebook ... after all ..." Any campaign that bases itself on the over 31m active Facebook members in the UK - 50% of the UK population - will be doing pretty well thank you"

Seems there may be a democracy problem to deal with..

[TonyR]

Any campaign that bases itself on facebook will only give results based on face book users. The rest of us will not be there.

Any campaign that bases itself on the over 31m active Facebook members in the UK - 50% of the UK population - will be doing pretty well thank you.

On that basis why not hold the next general election on Facebook ... after all ..." Any campaign that bases itself on the over 31m active Facebook members in the UK - 50% of the UK population - will be doing pretty well thank you"

Seems there may be a democracy problem to deal with..

I hate to break this to you but all the parties were running campaigns on Facebook in the 2015 election and the Electorial Commission worked with Facebook to encourage people to register and to vote. Over a million people clicked the Facebook "I'm a voter" button. No democracy problem because like the CTC group, it was only used for discussions and campaigns and not the vote itself.