Cycling UK Forum

meic wrote:My proxy form is still waiting on the cupboard to be filled in.

I'm mailing mine tomorrow, at which point I had best make my mind up, and figure out how it works, as it's not just an absentee ballot (why??).

belgiangoth wrote:

meic wrote:My proxy form is still waiting on the cupboard to be filled in.

I'm mailing mine tomorrow, at which point I had best make my mind up, and figure out how it works, as it's not just an absentee ballot (why??).

If you want a guide to filling the proxy form in, there's a step-by-step guide on the Save the CTC web-site.

And we won't insist that you vote against or for anything...

Just a bit of pedantry here, but it should be "If you want to appoint a third party, then you need to ensure that their name".
Just one question, what happens to a proxy vote if the appointed proxy doesn't show? Eg. what happens if Simon Legg is unavoidably detained at the last minute?

belgiangoth wrote:Just a bit of pedantry here, but it should be "If you want to appoint a third party, then you need to ensure that their name".
Just one question, what happens to a proxy vote if the appointed proxy doesn't show? Eg. what happens if Simon Legg is unavoidably detained at the last minute?

If you have deleted the line giving your proxy to the chair, then I think your vote is lost, in the same way as if you had not turned up to vote personally. If you have not deleted that line, then your proxy passes to the chair, who must follow your instructions on the form. If you have left the boxes open giving discretion to your proxy, in your proxy's absence, that discretion passes to the chair.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Turning to our anonymous hirsute councillor who lacks the concentration span to grasp the opposite arguments, before dismissing regular contributors to this forum as tiresome reactionaries, he should read posts like this on the CTC forum you have been priceless thread: -

Just thought I would mention how grateful I am for this communities invaluable help throughout my planning stages of my first ever cycle tour. You have been absolutely brilliant and your advice has been better than I could of ever expected. I haven't been on here as much as I hoped due to heavy student workload (you may think were slackers...that is just the art students!) but every time I return to my pleas for help I always find detailed and respectful replies that make huge differences on every part of my planning. I am probably one of the youngest members on here at just 18 but you have treated me with the same respect as any other user which would be hard to find on any other user based support forum.

Thank you very much CTC community, your help is unrivalled.

I'd like to think that feedback typifies the way we are on here and although some of us are BOF's we are still anxious to put as much back as possible into something that has brought us so much. It may just be that some of our collective wisdom - which is vastly wider than just cycling - qualifies us to comment without being dismissed out-of-hand. At least do us the courtesy of accepting that we act in good faith. OTOH, if you really want to see a personal attack, read what AS used the CTC facilities to circulate widely about Simon Legg. Utterly unworthy. IMO.

Agreed. One of the most revealing parts of the email is:

I’ve just spent a depressing hour or so scanning the CTC Forum. I can’t be bothered to get involved in this street fighting it would take up too much time defending against personal attacks and getting drawn into endless argument.

Have you noticed that few, if any, of the YES camp have posted here? This is the official CTC website, and this is a forum for debate on the charity vote, probably the single most important issue the CTC will have to decide on in a generation.

That being the case, isn't it bizarre (but extremely telling) that no-one from the "pro" camp is confident enough in their case to defend it in public on this forum?

toontra wrote:That being the case, isn't it bizarre (but extremely telling) that no-one from the "pro" camp is confident enough in their case to defend it in public on this forum?

They know they don't have to. Council has Cycle magazine and the few who bother to vote will take their word it's a good idea. Forum members have been written off as cumudgeons living in the past who don't understand the bright new future that awaits if only we'd do as we were told and not meddle in things we clearly don't understand.
It will be astonishing if the No vote wins the day considering the weight behind the Yes camp.

Yes, I understand that, but, even so, you would think that if the "pro" camp were so sure of their facts and arguments they would be eager to come on here and quickly dispel all our doubts. This is called the "CTC Charity Debate" board, after all. It just seems curious that none of them, even in an idle moment, feels able to contribute, let alone debate. The silence is almost deafening!

toontra wrote:Have you noticed that few, if any, of the YES camp have posted here? This is the official CTC website, and this is a forum for debate on the charity vote, probably the single most important issue the CTC will have to decide on in a generation.

Yes, disappointing, and making it very hard for anyone to convince me...

belgiangoth wrote:Just a bit of pedantry here, but it should be "If you want to appoint a third party, then you need to ensure that their name".

Well pedanted... now fixed!

toontra wrote:Yes, I understand that, but, even so, you would think that if the "pro" camp were so sure of their facts and arguments they would be eager to come on here and quickly dispel all our doubts. This is called the "CTC Charity Debate" board, after all. It just seems curious that none of them, even in an idle moment, feels able to contribute, let alone debate. The silence is almost deafening!

As by chance I came on here in an "idle moment" I think I should point out that most councillors don't have the time or typing skills to keep up with all of the posts on here. I've made quite a few posts which you can find by looking me up in the membership list under J and then moving to the last few pages where you will find me listed as joining on 21 December 2009. This link might also work http://forum.ctc.org.uk/search.php?author_id=13186&sr=posts.

Since a forum such as this means that it is difficult to see the wood for the trees, I also set up a blog at http://witherthectc.blogspot.com/2009/1 ... r-ctc.html to set out my thoughts.

At the end of the day I think it comes down to an issue as to whether you see the CTC as being an organisation to promote and campaign for cycling and cycle touring to the general population, or one that concentrates on providing services to its members for the lowest possible subscription rate. (That is setting out the extremes and most members probably lie near the middle of the spectrum - so they have to decide, on balance, where they lie).

Regards,

John

I have to agree with what John has just said. Especially the last paragraph.

However it is tainted by the "spin" thrown in to it. I dont know if it is intentional spin or just enthusiasm for the project tainting objectivity.

The idea is given by the words "and cycle touring" that a pro-vote is a vote on the side of cycle touring.
The idea given by the words "at the lowest possible subscription rate" is of a bunch of misers.

Why were these two phrases thrown into the argument? They are not a major point (in fact probably not a point at all) for the side that are being accredited with that view.

The idea that National Office is going out of its way to help cycle touring is pretty soon removed if you have an interest in starting doing some cycle touring. Most of the cycle touring being done seems to be despite the National Office.
I would like to make a list of the remaining Touring events and ask what the help the organisers have had off the National Office but I cant as I have only been in the CTC 5 years and the National Office hasnt been publicising the events any more in that time.
They even arranged the AGM clashing with the Heart of England Rally.

So the superfluous and misleading addition of the phrase "and cycle touring" in the last paragraph is similar to finding half a maggot in my beautiful apple.

I do agree though with his very last words "- so they have to decide, on balance, where they lie"

I think back now to the councillor who said that they would not come and get involved with the "streetfighting" on this forum and my post could well support his argument. However if while talking to your friends you built up a distorted world view then when you leave that ingroup you are likely to get some challenging questions.
It cuts both ways and they are welcome to come here and have a few jabs at my preconceptions, which are probably many as the National Office hasnt made it a priority to keep me informed so much as well managed.
So a bit of well reasoned debate could convince me however it is difficult to strip off the spin first.

John Catt wrote:

toontra wrote:Yes, I understand that, but, even so, you would think that if the "pro" camp were so sure of their facts and arguments they would be eager to come on here and quickly dispel all our doubts. This is called the "CTC Charity Debate" board, after all. It just seems curious that none of them, even in an idle moment, feels able to contribute, let alone debate. The silence is almost deafening!

As by chance I came on here in an "idle moment" I think I should point out that most councillors don't have the time or typing skills to keep up with all of the posts on here. I've made quite a few posts which you can find by looking me up in the membership list under J and then moving to the last few pages where you will find me listed as joining on 21 December 2009. This link might also work http://forum.ctc.org.uk/search.php?author_id=13186&sr=posts.

Since a forum such as this means that it is difficult to see the wood for the trees, I also set up a blog at http://witherthectc.blogspot.com/2009/1 ... r-ctc.html to set out my thoughts.

At the end of the day I think it comes down to an issue as to whether you see the CTC as being an organisation to promote and campaign for cycling and cycle touring to the general population, or one that concentrates on providing services to its members for the lowest possible subscription rate. (That is setting out the extremes and most members probably lie near the middle of the spectrum - so they have to decide, on balance, where they lie).

Regards,

John

John

I'm afraid that your post, particularly the last paragraph, seems to imply that those opposing these changes are only trying to seek services at the lowest cost and are not interested in promoting and campaigning for cycling generally.

This is a gross distortion of the facts and you know it. I find such an assertion personally offensive. Perhaps you'd like to withdraw that part of your post?

John Catt wrote:As by chance I came on here in an "idle moment" I think I should point out that most councillors don't have the time or typing skills to keep up with all of the posts on here. I've made quite a few posts which you can find by looking me up in the membership list under J and then moving to the last few pages where you will find me listed as joining on 21 December 2009. This link might also work http://forum.ctc.org.uk/search.php?author_id=13186&sr=posts.

Thanks John, your response is appreciated. I did read all your posts at the time but have just refreshed myself! Following your link above, your input here seems to have dried up on 12th February, when your post prompted several direct questions which went unanswered. Now I'm not suggesting that quantity equals quality by any means, but at a certain point, just as the debate was "warming up", you appear to have abandoned your efforts to argue the "yes" case here.

Along with the two posts above, I'm pretty amazed at the simplification of your last paragraph, but I think it goes a long way to explain how polarized, and even contemptuous, the debate has become in some people's eyes. Your summary doesn't cover my concerns by a long way - I'm far more concerned about the financial and control implications of the proposed changes than I am about retaining low-cost membership benefits. Those concerns haven't been addressed here by anyone from the "pro" camp, including yourself.

Regulator
I didnt read it as being aimed at you in particular at all, rather than a general stereotype of many of us independent posters on here. There is infact more than one post in these pages where people have said quite openly that things are tough now financially and they cant afford to splash money out on charities.

He did quite clearly state that that was the extremes and most are in the middle.

It may leave the impression you have got but it isnt what he said.

meic wrote:Regulator
I didnt read it as being aimed at you in particular at all, rather than a general stereotype of many of us independent posters on here. There is infact more than one post in these pages where people have said quite openly that things are tough now financially and they cant afford to splash money out on charities.

He did quite clearly state that that was the extremes and most are in the middle.

It may leave the impression you have got but it isnt what he said.

Maybe I'm a bit touchy at the moment. I and other councillors, and former councillors, who have epxressed concerns over the proposals have been subject to some quite nasty attacks on our integrity and intelligence...

It gets quite wearing.