Cycling UK Forum

I joined this debate uncertain of the way to vote, leaning towards "NO" simply because I felt that the debate was biased towards the yes. I see that lots of other posters here have very varied reasons why they are not keen on the "YES" vote.
So, what would convince you if you are currently leaning towards "NO"?
In my case I'd like to see that if the CTC had been a charity last year, we would have been better off. (A couple years ago the Rugby League Championship went to a bonus point system, at the end of that year someone compared the league table to what it would have been had the bonus point system not been in place the league table would have been essentially unchanged. Obviously it's easier to do with footy league tables than with accountancy).

belgiangoth wrote:
So, what would convince you if you are currently leaning towards "NO"?

A fail safe factor that the club could revert to its current status any time members viewed the benefits not to be to our advantage. This would mean ensuring the status of large assets like HQ were kept in trust (oops, too late) and weren't subject to capricious gambles based on a fleeting political background.
Although this seems to be painted as fuddy-duddyism, if not reaction, I'd take precisely the same view with my own house and assets. It's not risk averseness, it's common sense. If income is needed for projects there's enough goodwill and ingenuity among members to provide shortfalls (see the fighting fund), so long as the cash is seen to benefit us and isn't thrown at nebulous projects designed to keep CTC in the shop window, i.e. compete for morsals and here today, gone tomorrow big ideas.

The charity proposal says the current framework has failed but the political picture is permanent, and we're stymied as cyclists. The only barrel we're over is the one council has commissioned and left conveniently in our way. We're giving away our only asset for a few percent more income, maybe. Given the vagueries of accounting thus far, where will the paper trail be to ensure we got VFM by giving away the family silver? The pro campaign haven't nailed a single solid figure or promise to their projections, beyond the assertion 'it'll be better'. Better by how much, when and for whom? Provide those, with a person or group to name so we know where to look for our club back if it doesn't happen, and I might take the risk.

Nothing would confince me at all because I just want to be a CTC bike club member without all the rubbish other things entail.
John
I have voted NO by proxy.

I wouldn't reject the charity proposal on principle, just because I didn't like change; no, that would be silly. Thus, I'd be happy to vote for it if someone could give me a convincing reason. This reason would have to show how it would benefit the average CTC rider in the street, or at the very least it would have to guarantee that the 'club' side of things would not be encroached upon.

So far the best that has been put forward has been 'no change' (assuming that we accept the unanswered criticisms of the tax position - ie that so little would be allowed to be used on 'club' rather than general campaigning issues that it'd make little difference). The other reason, that it would promote national campaigning and that would help ordinary CTC members as a side effect, sounds nice but again issues have been raised (for instance: why can't we do likewise now if the trust has been such a good thing? Does it run the risk of putting us in a sustrans-like position where our good work is often undone by the organisations that we are in partnership with? What of the danger of a partner organisation pulling out and leaving us to fully fund expensive projects) and not satisfactorily answered (as satisfactory answer would actually included some proof and reasoned argument rather than just saying that the issue had been considered and deemed a non-issue).

If our one role aim was as a cycle campaigning organisation then I could accept that the charity proposal could be a good thing. Or if the charity proposal could be enacted without any worry over the club itself then fair enough (but then doesn't that put us back with a linked club and trust?). But, as yet, I can't see what I and my fellow MG riders are going to get from the proposal?

Because the proxy forms have now been distributed I fear that no further convincing argument will be made. If it is made then I fear that it will not be as an answer to any questions posed on this forum - the Yes Team seem to have conceded the forum some time ago and thus are not bothering to continue their campaign here, which is a pity as I believe an attempt to show willing to enter into discussion here would have painted them in a much better light. As it is they have just given the impression that they are only prepared to use media where people cannot answer back - this, surely, is a reverse of the process that Council should follow: they should be listening to us not telling us what to do. Council's blundering approach to publicising the proposal should not be confused with the actual merits and short comings of the proposal itself, alas I'm afraid that it will be, much the the detriment of both Council and the CTC.

Si wrote:I wouldn't reject the charity proposal on principle, just because I didn't like change; no, that would be silly. Thus, I'd be happy to vote for it if someone could give me a convincing reason. This reason would have to show how it would benefit the average CTC rider in the street, or at the very least it would have to guarantee that the 'club' side of things would not be encroached upon.

So far the best that has been put forward has been 'no change' (assuming that we accept the unanswered criticisms of the tax position - ie that so little would be allowed to be used on 'club' rather than general campaigning issues that it'd make little difference). The other reason, that it would promote national campaigning and that would help ordinary CTC members as a side effect, sounds nice but again issues have been raised (for instance: why can't we do likewise now if the trust has been such a good thing? Does it run the risk of putting us in a sustrans-like position where our good work is often undone by the organisations that we are in partnership with? What of the danger of a partner organisation pulling out and leaving us to fully fund expensive projects) and not satisfactorily answered (as satisfactory answer would actually included some proof and reasoned argument rather than just saying that the issue had been considered and deemed a non-issue).

If our one role aim was as a cycle campaigning organisation then I could accept that the charity proposal could be a good thing. Or if the charity proposal could be enacted without any worry over the club itself then fair enough (but then doesn't that put us back with a linked club and trust?). But, as yet, I can't see what I and my fellow MG riders are going to get from the proposal?

Because the proxy forms have now been distributed I fear that no further convincing argument will be made. If it is made then I fear that it will not be as an answer to any questions posed on this forum - the Yes Team seem to have conceded the forum some time ago and thus are not bothering to continue their campaign here, which is a pity as I believe an attempt to show willing to enter into discussion here would have painted them in a much better light. As it is they have just given the impression that they are only prepared to use media where people cannot answer back - this, surely, is a reverse of the process that Council should follow: they should be listening to us not telling us what to do. Council's blundering approach to publicising the proposal should not be confused with the actual merits and short comings of the proposal itself, alas I'm afraid that it will be, much the the detriment of both Council and the CTC.

Well put Si.

With respect to your comment about the 'Yes' campaign abandoning the forum, you might be interested in this e-mail sent by a senior CTC councillor (who I'll leave nameless to save his embarassment) to the members of a groups in the 'Heart of England':

I also wanted to say many thanks for your support on the Charity issue. If you can persuade any fellow members to use their proxy vote in favour of the proposals or come to the AGM I would be grateful. I am amazed at how controversial and heated this has become. 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. I am amazed at how vituperative it has got – apart from Karen Sutton it is an entirely male preserve. There is a significant group who got used to being a persecuted minority and don’t really want cycling to expand, become a broad church and really challenge the national car centred status quo. Some people are also pursuing a vendetta against Kevin by all means possible.

The prize of an even larger mass membership organisation pushing the interests of cyclists at a key time when health, fun, sustainability and transport intersect is being put at risk by internal strife.

However, where the National Office messes up membership or fails to take note of Member Group activities or even national events like Meriden it clearly does not endear itself to the core membership as you say. If I had time I would try to spend a couple of days in Guildford there is something lacking around the detail organisational interaction and administration.

This was a response to an e-mail complaining about CTC scheduling the AGM on the same day as a CTC national event... and it doesn't seem to answer that point. The author of the original complaint e-mail just happened to mention he supported the charity proposals - and he got this back.

Can he really be surprised about the feedback he's getting when he adopts such an arrogant and patronising air? Yet again we get spin and baseless allegations/suggestions that those against the proposals are either wanting to be seen as a 'persecuted minority' or don't want CTC to be a vibrant organisation...

As for it being personal and vituperative, perhaps he didn't read the various e-mails sent out by pro councillors where they attack named individuals?

They really don't get it, do they...

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. I am amazed at how vituperative it has got – apart from Karen Sutton it is an entirely male preserve. There is a significant group who got used to being a persecuted minority and don’t really want cycling to expand, become a broad church and really challenge the national car centred status quo. Some people are also pursuing a vendetta against Kevin by all means possible.

That's probably the least factually accurate and most arrogant summary of the debate I've yet read. It illustrates perfectly the attitude of some of the PRO lobby, containing as it does the blatent hypocricy of accusing the No camp of personal attacks - it was personal attacks against Simon that started this whole unpleasantness off in the first place.

Whoever is responsible for this bile should remove themselves from the forthcoming process entirely (if they are indeed directly involved).

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. I am amazed at how vituperative it has got – apart from Karen Sutton it is an entirely male preserve. There is a significant group who got used to being a persecuted minority and don’t really want cycling to expand, become a broad church and really challenge the national car centred status quo. Some people are also pursuing a vendetta against Kevin by all means possible.

The prize of an even larger mass membership organisation pushing the interests of cyclists at a key time when health, fun, sustainability and transport intersect is being put at risk by internal strife.

Personal attacks? IMO the forum debate has been reasoned and even tempered.

Endless argument? If that means discussing all the pros and cons of an irreversable change to the club then endless argument is a good thing.

An entirely male preserve? How does he know when many people post using nicknames or initials? In any case as females are not in any way excluded what point is he making. My childrens primary school was an all female teacher zone. Is that bad?

I got a similar email from my Councilor, complaining about his treatment on the forum. Yet, a trawl through the forum doesn't show one post accredited to him. It seems to be that to some people any argument against the Charity Proposal, however mildly it is phrased, is taken almost as a personal insult. I'm thinking that if some people think that they have been ill treated on the forum then they are going to be in for a shock should they turn up at the AGM, where things might get a little heated. Personally I won't be there as I will be at the event mentioned by Reg (yeah, it had been mentioned that despite us asking for help with publicising the event for a number of years, NO have decided to plonk the AGM on the same weekend, thus taking away even more of our potential audience ).

However, should anyone reading this, Councillor or otherwise, feel that they have been unfairly treated on the forum then you, like any other user, are welcome to report it to the moderators and we shall deal with it.

.

gaz wrote:

Si wrote:Because the proxy forms have now been distributed I fear that no further convincing argument will be made.

I feel that having distributed the proxy forms the arguments are more or less over. Many proxy forms will have been returned "yes", "no" or even "abstain", some will be nestling amongst the recycling in the bin. I imagine very, very few are sat on the sideboard's of floating voters who are waiting for the last moment to make their choice.

CTC, Cyclists' Touring Club or Cyclists' Touring Charity?

My belief is that if it does change, we won't notice the difference.

There I would have to disagree with you. There isn't going to be some 'big bang' but it is clear that the interests of members will be put behind the 'public interest' if CTC becomes a charity. And I am sure that will lead, by a series of small changes, to an undermining of the benefits that members receive and to their further disenfranchisement.

To paraphrase the nameless councillor's comments (best in a Terry-Thomas voice):

"Thanks for being on-message. I really don't understand what's got into people, we never used to get this barrack room lawyer stuff when we spirited Cotterill House to the dark side. Absolute Trots the lot of them! I really am getting one of my heads over those beardie, sandle-wearing [ another tedious repetition ], so any rallying of the troops would be a tonic because at this rate we'll all be down the Job Centre. Honestly, you'd really think they owned the club to listen to some of them.

What they don't seem to realise is if we could get a hundred and fifty k names on the books, babes in arms, the recently deceased, Aunty Lulu and her Evensong Shopper, there could be a gong in this for someone and it would raise the old profile no end. As for member's groups, really, have you seen some of them? You'd think there was rationing! I'd got a marvellous Health and Efficiency type from central casting, an absolute popsie truly and most obliging, it would have the Audi TT Johnnies straight onto two wheels and into the ample bosom of the Winged Wheeler, when one blighter noticed her straddle wire had slipped its moorings and we had to pull the whole ruddy project.

Anyway don't fuss over the forum, there are only twelve of them and they'll be Gathered to God presently taking their Freddie Grubb's to a better place will a bit of luck, but if you can find someone to prep the bike for the next photoshoot I'd be obliged.
Regards,

....

glueman wrote:To paraphrase the nameless councillor's comments (best in a Terry-Thomas voice):

"Thanks for being on-message. I really don't understand what's got into people, we never used to get this barrack room lawyer stuff when we spirited Cotterill House to the dark side. Absolute Trots the lot of them! I really am getting one of my heads over those beardie, sandle-wearing [ another tedious repetition ], so any rallying of the troops would be a tonic because at this rate we'll all be down the Job Centre. Honestly, you'd really think they owned the club to listen to some of them.

What they don't seem to realise is if we could get a hundred and fifty k names on the books, babes in arms, the recently deceased, Aunty Lulu and her Evensong Shopper, there could be a gong in this for someone and it would raise the old profile no end. As for member's groups, really, have you seen some of them? You'd think there was rationing! I'd got a marvellous Health and Efficiency type from central casting, an absolute popsie truly and most obliging, it would have the Audi TT Johnnies straight onto two wheels and into the ample bosom of the Winged Wheeler, when one blighter noticed her straddle wire had slipped its moorings and we had to pull the whole ruddy project.

Anyway don't fuss over the forum, there are only twelve of them and they'll be Gathered to God presently taking their Freddie Grubb's to a better place will a bit of luck, but if you can find someone to prep the bike for the next photoshoot I'd be obliged.
Regards,

....

The Councillor in question sports a beard ......

Rob

robgul wrote:
The Councillor in question sports a beard ......

Rob

Just a joke old chap. Got a summer face garden sprouting myself as it happens and a pair of sandals. Bit below the belt painting everyone as paranoid anti-expansionists when most would like to see the member's club grow like Topsie. It's the price of all-things-to-all-cyclists expansion we're worried about.
I take it you know the bod intimately?

My proxy form is still waiting on the cupboard to be filled in. I am quite surprised that my councillor hasnt said or printed a word that I know of on the subject.
My local group has adopted a neutral stance but ensured that the local NO sayers were allowed to give a link to where they put their point across in response to the latest mag.

glueman wrote:

robgul wrote:
The Councillor in question sports a beard ......

Rob

Just a joke old chap. Got a summer face garden sprouting myself as it happens and a pair of sandals. Bit below the belt painting everyone as paranoid anti-expansionists when most would like to see the member's club grow like Topsie. It's the price of all-things-to-all-cyclists expansion we're worried about.
I take it you know the bod intimately?

Realised it was all in tongue in cheek jest - I can visualise the character you paint complete with string-backed driving gloves and an old MG TC or TD, or even one of those "new" TF models ... it was just worth raising the stakes a little on who it might be ... and yes, I do know who he is.

Rob