It turns me off.

[johncharles]

I don't try and impose my diets onto anyone else so why is it okay for others to impose theirs on me, I do not see that it makes any more sense to only provide vegan food and not to include meat products.

Think I already answered that one:-

Because you only need to make one meal that everyone can eat?

I don't think anyone is imposing anything. If you only supply meat based food you automatically exclude people. If you only provide vegetarian food nobody is excluded.
Seems pretty simple to me.

You are imposing your dietry requirements on others .

Where have I said that you should only provide meat based food. I haven't, but you have said it is okay to only provide non meat based foods so you are imposing your requirements on others.

[kwackers]

You are imposing your dietry requirements on others .

Where have I said that you should only provide meat based food. I haven't, but you have said it is okay to only provide non beat based foods so you are imposing your requirements on others.

Actually I'm answering your question:

I do not see that it makes any more sense to only provide vegan food and not to include meat products.

Are you suggesting it makes more sense to provide all options?

At the risk of being pedantic, providing any food imposes your views on food on others - unless you have a fairly open and extensive menu. If you're simply providing a cheap meal for those that want some then it makes more sense to provide a single meal that all can eat (within reason) than to cater for every variation of carrot hating, lettuce loving, chip loving, meat eating, non-meat eating, gluten intolerant person that might attend.

If it bothers you that much I'd suggest carrying bacon sprinklies with you so that next time you find yourself offended by the lack of meat in your food you can sprinkle some on the top, alternatively simply ring up, ask if there's meat on the menu and if not then vote with your feet and don't attend - they'll get the message if enough do it.

[CREPELLO]

It's about time people realised that the best way to grow cycling is to sell it for what it is. We must keep green politics out of it. What chance is there of getting the Daily Mail reader on a bike when we're spouting this at them?

Sorry I'm coming late to the debate. Have I missed much? Wow, I didn't realise there was so much mileage to be had on discussing the dangers of being exposed to veganism. I'm vegetarian, by the way.

Apart the afront felt by the OP to the Veagizing he was subjected to I'm interested in the more important take on whether the CTC and the cycling community in general should acknowledge the useful function their activity can serve.

Many cyclists seem keen to play down any environmental beneifit there activity can have. Of course there are certain forms of cycling that don't have such a benificial impact. The point is that we should fully acknowledge the positive benefit cycling has, right across the board.

Do I need to list them? Probably not, but it's not just about lowering your carbon footprint (for those reading this that are anthropological climate change sceptics). The benefits are manifold.
I'll be accused of evangelising by some I guess. Well, what is evangelising exactly? Unfortunately, as some of the more aware of our society are very concerned about the enviroment's future they sometimes speak with some urgency. I supposed they're then just seen as lecturing ninnies.

Apart from the whole evangelising thing, don't we all need to become more aware of the cause and effect of our actions? And that includes the good effects of our actions. There's no need to feel holier than thou about it,. but lets be clear - many forms of cycling have a positive effect on the individual and those and the environment around them.

The flip side of that coin would be the slogan from that Keep Britain Tidy campaign of the 70's/80's - "My bit of litter won't make any difference". I hear many people (including on this forum) say that even if they changed their bad habits for good ones, it's not going to make a blind bit of difference. 'Business as usual' eh? Carry on - down the great cosmic plughole then

I'm afraid the the root of this antagonism towards the encroachment of green politics into our various group and institutions, whether mainstream politics, NGO's or cultural groups like the National Trust or CTC, is the deep distrust of what the green political agenda implies. And this mistrust and the continued discrediting of environmental groupings is driven by a collective fear by many in the establishment and members of the public (via the great Tabloid Font of Wisdom) to something akin to being overrun by Communists. A fear of socialism. Yes, green politics tends to be fairly socialist in nature, although it doesn't have to be. The Tory Party can truely reinvent itself as a green right wing party if it understood the theory of green politics and how closely it may overlap with the old style 'country conservative' philosophy. But they've missed a trick, unless I'm mistaken.

If we can envisage a future where it will become increasingly necessary to cooperate at different levels of society, then that cooperation could be by mutual agreement - something benevolent and built on trust. Or it could be forced on to us. either by government or through the shear breakdown of global society and the natural ecosystem. And if it was by government, it wouldn't necessarily be a left wing government. Any government will move to a Police state (or state of emergency, with draconian restrictions) to maintain stability.

It's either going to be that scenario, or it'll be dog eat dog until the final curtain. Which would you prefer? And does a little green evangelising offend you now, when all you are being encouraged to do is modify your actions to build a more sustainable approach towards achieving a more benevolent future? "My bit of eco-action isn't going to make any difference",eh? Well, I'd beg to differ. It's akin to the notion of "little acts of kindness" and nobody can judge the sum of all those little acts.

[thirdcrank]

... I'm afraid the the root of this antagonism towards the encroachment of green politics into our various group and institutions, whether mainstream politics, NGO's or cultural groups like the National Trust or CTC, is the deep distrust of what the green political agenda implies. ....

That's not the case for me at all. If I want to hear about something I tend to ask. If somebody wants to convert me to their way of thinking about something (which may, of course, be reiterating my way of thinking) I have something of a tendency to be put off. That would be particularly the case if I were trying to find out about A and somebody decided that I could only hear about it in the context of B. This is not the same as saying that people who support this or that policy should not try to promote their views - of course they should.

[CREPELLO]

... I'm afraid the the root of this antagonism towards the encroachment of green politics into our various group and institutions, whether mainstream politics, NGO's or cultural groups like the National Trust or CTC, is the deep distrust of what the green political agenda implies. ....

That's not the case for me at all. If I want to hear about something I tend to ask. If somebody wants to convert me to their way of thinking about something (which may, of course, be reiterating my way of thinking) I have something of a tendency to be put off. That would be particularly the case if I were trying to find out about A and somebody decided that I could only hear about it in the context of B. This is not the same as saying that people who support this or that policy should not try to promote their views - of course they should.

It turns you off, right? I understand that and from my position I'm not try to convert anybody to a specific politics, but I do think we all should open our eyes and ears to what is happening in the wider world and stop making excuses for not modifying our behaviour. So, to not be seen as pontificating I shall now and forever more pose all my opinions as thought provoking questions. It could be exhausting though. Opinions are just so much easier. Imposing ones opinions? Well...

Regarding your indifference to the perceived red threat, you are probably in a minority. It's almost an unspoken, sub-concious thing. The fear of communism was driven very deeply into our society, perhaps more so in the US. It runs so deep that the Labour Party essentially re-invented itself as a market promoting social justice party. Anyway, that another sorry story, still playing out.

Obviously I'd like to see a greener society, with cycling at the heart of it (for sport as well as utility cycling. All major cycling competitions would be televised and every council would organise local street racing events on Mayday ) But I know in my bones that to most people the thought of anything like a Green Party in government would to be little better than a communist state. For myself a Green Party government would have much more depth to it's policies than that, but trying to get that scenario over to the person in the street with the tabloid media in real power sometimes seems nigh on impossible. But I'm an optimist.

[thirdcrank]

CREPELLO

The point I'm trying to make is this: For example, this is a cycling forum. Although it tends towards "touring" in it's broadest sense, it is a cycling forum. The people who post (and lurk?) do so primarily because they are interested in cycling and that's the common denominator, even though they may have many other interests and areas of knowledge. (We really have had some apparently well-informed answers to some non-cycling questions.)

There are loads of other forums specialising in different topics wich probably have the same breadth of knowledge.

Now it seems obvious to me that if somebody tries to elevate one of those subsidiary interests to a point where it is of equal standing to the umbrella topic, a lot of people will resent it. (A "green" forum where some boff like me was obsessed with cycling?) That is not to say that those "subsidiary" subjects are not more important on a world scale, just less important to many people in that setting.

Back to the OP, my understanding is that a meeting about the promotion of cycling was said to have been hijacked by what I've termed a "subsidiary" interest. If somebody wants to know about promoting cycling, what we might call the green benefits are just one of the aspects to be considered, as well as physical fitness, self-esteem, companionship, economy (a doubtful one for some ) competition, and probably more (there's a whole thread running on reasons for cycling.) Emphasise any one of those benefits to the exclusion of everything else and you risk losing a lot of people (and alienating some who agree with you.)

[CREPELLO]

I'm at a loss as to how to answer to that. You seem to be saying that as the issue of the environment and it's relation to cyclingis being highlighted in this thread, that I shouldn't discuss this in more detail?

"Now it seems obvious to me that if somebody tries to elevate one of those subsidiary interests to a point where it is of equal standing to the umbrella topic, a lot of people will resent it."
I'm sorry if I appeared to be emphasising the 'subsidiary interest' at the expense of the main interest. It just seems ironic and a little sad that there are apparently so many good people out there cycling, but who are dismissive of any notion that what they are doing is beneficial for the environment. I wanted to raise that point. And I also felt it pertinent to speculate on why some people are reluctant to embrace green activities that are seen as a bit weird or hippy and on the larger scale, a bit lefty. Are we to have political debate censored here? Have I overstepped the mark? This issue goes to the heart of what the CTC is campaigning for these days. They're not doing just because they like to ride. Perhaps as an older member you are uncomfortable with the direction the modern CTC is taking? But a direction that is entirely within what I would understand to be it's original calling.

"A "green" forum where some boff like me was obsessed with cycling?" - Hey, they'd love you for all that knowledge Thirdcrank. The cycle is innately green in it's original form (excluding all that carbon) and the fact that it can be kept going on minimal resourses if desired it's part of it's charm, without high tech fixes, although built in obsolesence is a challenge to cope with from the component companies. I think we should celebrate that fact. I think that is an undeniable fact of greenness and sustainable engineering, in as much as our modern cycles are sustainable.

"Emphasise any one of those benefits to the exclusion of everything else and you risk losing a lot of people (and alienating some who agree with you.)"
So you are implying that I would exclude all the other atributes of cycling. I was emphasising the environmental

[CREPELLO]

So I guess that I've turned you all off then? But should I censor myself for the sake of a quiet life, for you all as well as myself? Mmm...I'll sleep on it Good night!

[thirdcrank]

For goodness sake, I'be be the last person to say stuff should not be discussed in detail. I'm saying - and I think this was the point of the OP - that other stuff should not be promoted to being an exclusive topic.

[CREPELLO]

For goodness sake, I'be be the last person to say stuff should not be discussed in detail. I'm saying - and I think this was the point of the OP - that other stuff should not be promoted to being an exclusive topic.

So by that you mean I'm doing this?:

...my understanding is that a meeting about the promotion of cycling was said to have been hijacked by what I've termed a "subsidiary" interest. If somebody wants to know about promoting cycling, what we might call the green benefits are just one of the aspects to be considered, as well as physical fitness, self-esteem, companionship, economy (a doubtful one for some ) competition, and probably more (there's a whole thread running on reasons for cycling.) Emphasise any one of those benefits to the exclusion of everything else and you risk losing a lot of people (and alienating some who agree with you.)

So I've emphised too much maybe. Perhaps, but not exclusively. This is the Campaigns and policy board, is it not? We are able to debate and analyse a subsiduary topic without loosing sight of the whole picture? Forgive me if you thought I'd done otherwise.

Look, I know perfectly well that "beating them over the head with a great big stick; a stick with Carbon Footprint written on it," as Ru88ell put it in the OP is not the positive way forward. But are we not allowed to mention the green benefits of cycling? Are we not allowed to ask people to consider if they could make that journey by cycle instaed of by car. It's getting near crunch time, certainly with the congested road network, so isn't it a perfectly reasonable question to ask of people. Or do we just stay mute and hope they'll just follow by good example! Sometimes I am frustrated by how slowly the world changes, but then I thing most of us are who aren't content with the status quo. So it appears that I've falling into the trap of describing my world view and hoping that some of you might recognise something in it. But is that so wrong? Has it turned you off? Or are you not prepared to discuss certain underlying fundamentals that are not only holding back the progress of cycling, but progress in the world at large. Maybe things a far better pigeon holed and neatly pre-wrapped for discussion, like a micro wave ready meal. Nut roast, anyone?

Yes cycling is (as Ru88ell said) "not only for health and enjoyment, but also for utility trips, day to day transport and commuting. Cycling is wonderful, and I continue to encourage as many people as I can to participate", but it has a huge environmental benefit to the planet, but also to ourselves. This is in the broadest sense.

I'll quote Ru88ell again, because it's important what he is talking about:
"It's about time people realised that the best way to grow cycling is to sell it for what it is. We must keep green politics out of it. What chance is there of getting the Daily Mail reader on a bike when we're spouting this at them?"

Well I'd go along with that, especially if I was organising a local cycling group. Everyone's welcome.
But being green really ought not to be political, even if you think I've promoted it that way. I was talking about the future of world society and of future politics because it's important to recognise the underlying dynamics at play. This is why I mentioned the fear of a Green government.
Is it not possible to debate an argument on two levels? I think this is the right place to have this discussion. As I said, this goes to the heart of what the CTC is campaigning for.

So why is the CTC campaigning for more cycling? It's a simple but important question. Get a clear consensus and we'll understand the position, or dilemma we're in more clearly. I promise that if I don't fit in with the consensus, I will cease my membership.

"Our church isn't broad enough, and we should work at being a coming together of all political persuasions, each doing their bit for themselves and at the same time adding to a collective effort that puts more people on two wheels insead of four. "Saving the Planet" will surely then become a by-product of our success."

Now this statement I have difficulty with. I suppose the problem is that so much of what the green movement stands for is the same as much of what the CTC aspires to work towards. So as a result if I as a green emphasise such things, I'll be seen as politicising the agenda. Our church is broad enough. I could be a Communist (you probably thing I am, but I'm more complex than that) but that would not stop me working with people of other persuasions to better the position of cycling as a widespread activity. Why should being environmentally friendly be seen as being anathema to what the CTC is striving towards?

[johncharles]

You are imposing your dietry requirements on others .

Where have I said that you should only provide meat based food. I haven't, but you have said it is okay to only provide non beat based foods so you are imposing your requirements on others.

Actually I'm answering your question:

I do not see that it makes any more sense to only provide vegan food and not to include meat products.

Are you suggesting it makes more sense to provide all options?

At the risk of being pedantic, providing any food imposes your views on food on others - unless you have a fairly open and extensive menu. If you're simply providing a cheap meal for those that want some then it makes more sense to provide a single meal that all can eat (within reason) than to cater for every variation of carrot hating, lettuce loving, chip loving, meat eating, non-meat eating, gluten intolerant person that might attend.

If it bothers you that much I'd suggest carrying bacon sprinklies with you so that next time you find yourself offended by the lack of meat in your food you can sprinkle some on the top, alternatively simply ring up, ask if there's meat on the menu and if not then vote with your feet and don't attend - they'll get the message if enough do it.

So veggie/vegan food is fine and ok for every one to eat then.

What on earth are these bacon sprinklies you are on about? If that is what you think would satisfy someone who wants to eat meat then you had better think again.

[kwackers]

So veggie/vegan food is fine and ok for every one to eat then.

Mostly everyone, obviously some people will be upset there if there are no carrots or broccoli; but for 99% it's completely edible, doesn't offend principles, is healthier and represents a common ground. For those that eat nothing but meat it could even be the start of a brave new world.

What on earth are these bacon sprinklies you are on about? If that is what you think would satisfy someone who wants to eat meat then you had better think again.

A strangely contradictory sentence - not like you at all!
The first part queries what they are, yet the second appears to suggest some form of knowledge!

[mark_w]

If it bothers you that much I'd suggest carrying bacon sprinklies with you so that next time you find yourself offended by the lack of meat in your food you can sprinkle some on the top, alternatively simply ring up, ask if there's meat on the menu and if not then vote with your feet and don't attend - they'll get the message if enough do it.

Except Bacon Sprinklies are actually made of Textured Soy Protein, so are Vegan.

[kwackers]

Except Bacon Sprinklies are actually made of Textured Soy Protein, so are Vegan.

Sshhh! I nearly had them there - vegan by the back door!

[glueman]

I'm afraid the the root of this antagonism towards the encroachment of green politics into our various group and institutions, whether mainstream politics, NGO's or cultural groups like the National Trust or CTC, is the deep distrust of what the green political agenda implies.

I'm not sure that's the case with me, we could all do with being more sustainable and less polluting. The concern is the CTC as a cycle touring organisation is at a few steps of remove from dietary preferences. If those personal conclusions are allowed to resemble club policy, where will it end? Do we tell people where they can live or work? What they should do with their free time? How many children are carbon sustainable for a family?

On club runs I've listened to all shades of political thought and opinions on most topics while realising they in no way represent Club thinking. Once something like food choice is seen as synonymous with cycle touring in an official forum we're going down a very exclusive and PC view of cycling.