Stabbing CTC in the back!

[661-Pete-oldversion]

Hello (I've been away from this forum for a long time, sorry). I feel I really must come back here, to say this.

I'm fairly active in a different cycling forum (under a different login name ) where there has been a lot of stuff about the 'charity' debate, although I've played no part in that.

All along, and especially now, there has been the most odious, vindictive, I would say libellous, invective against all things to do with the CTC. There have been members openly yelling about 'tearing up their CTC memberships'. There have been members openly boasting about urging 'every cyclist they meet' to cancel their CTC membership. This hate campaign has been going on for months, and especially now.

This has been going on at other internet sites too.

I'm sick of it.

My wife and I did not vote. I did not vote partly because, while I know the vote is meant to be anonymous, I was scared of this cyber-bullying. And put off. Count my wife's vote and mine as two 'yes' votes, albeit a bit late!!!

I have no hostility to those who voted 'no'. The vote has been carried, by an overwhelming majority. Live with it. If you really can't stay with the CTC, leave quietly please! Don't shout it in the street! Please!

[glueman]

I have no hostility to those who voted 'no'. The vote has been carried, by an overwhelming majority. Live with it. If you really can't stay with the CTC, leave quietly please! Don't shout it in the street! Please!

I joined a cycling club for riders who weren't primarily interested in racing. It also had a campaigning element but it wasn't influential enough to do more than shout a bit, something it did rather well considering the limited resources available to it. The technical advice was sound too. It was quite jolly, in an eccentric, cantankerous sort of way. Now it feels corporate and unaccountable and the last few year's subs have been paid more in hope than expectation that someone would prove it otherwise. Hardly a stab in the back.

There's still a need for such a club, one that'll succeed in getting the thousands of leisure cyclists joined together in a way the CTC never managed. It may happen, who knows but the bottom line is CTC membership is far too expensive for the results delivered or to encourage any but the most committed rider to join. The cost alone will inhibit its future progress.

[Guy951]

I joined a cycling club for riders who weren't primarily interested in racing. It also had a campaigning element but it wasn't influential enough to do more than shout a bit, something it did rather well considering the limited resources available to it. The technical advice was sound too. It was quite jolly, in an eccentric, cantankerous sort of way. Now it feels corporate and unaccountable and the last few year's subs have been paid more in hope than expectation that someone would prove it otherwise. Hardly a stab in the back.

There's still a need for such a club, one that'll succeed in getting the thousands of leisure cyclists joined together in a way the CTC never managed. It may happen, who knows but the bottom line is CTC membership is far too expensive for the results delivered or to encourage any but the most committed rider to join. The cost alone will inhibit its future progress.

+1

[hubgearfreak]

+1

and me. agreeing with glueman

[sadjack]

I am sorry you feel that way Ratatouille.

Personally I have not experienced much of what you say other than people who are passionate about the CTC and hold strong views. Some of those views have been very forthright I agree. There can be no excuse for some of the things you have experienced.

Whilst it is correct that the Yes vote was won with a big majority, its is a big majority of a very low turnout to vote and I find that very sad when the subject is so important to the club.

I am sure that those who have debated the issue so strongly have done so out of a sincere desire to get the best for their club. It seems that the process has run its course and we all must accept the vote. However there is another arm to all this and that still, as far as I am aware, needs resolving.

Personally I hope the debate continues to be vigorous and searching, but NOT personal in attacking anyone, whatever their view is.

After all when all is said and done we might need each other

[irc]

All along, and especially now, there has been the most odious, vindictive, I would say libellous, invective against all things to do with the CTC.

Libel is a serious charge. Any examples.

I've seen full frank exchanges of views. Compared to discussions on other forums everything I've seen here has been restrained and well moderated.

Following any controvertial vote there is bound to be ongoing discussions. Anyone that disagrees with the result may well highlight the issues here or elsewhere. Why not? It's a free country.

[Simon L6]

Quite. Libel is a serious charge.

I let my membership lapse when it ran out in December - I lost my wallet with all my CTC membership cards from 2003 in, so the tearing up thing didn't even get considered.

I may be back by way of affiliate membership if, by starting an affiliate club, it helps people get 3rd party insurance for £12. The FNRttC will probably become an LCC ride. If FNRttCers want to stick with the CTC that's fine by me. I just don't feel the need to pay the full membership fee for not much by way of benefits and service.

[John Catt]

Can I make one thing clear - the poll was simply a vote confirming the motion at passed at the AGM which was that

"This AGM agrees that the Cyclists' Touring Club should be registered as a charity and merge with CTC Charitable Trust to form a single unified membership organisation with charitable status".

IT CHANGES NOTHING.

The CTC cannot progress to charitable status without changing its M&AA. This will need another vote with 75%+ of those voting being in favour.

The poll only just exceeded the 75% figure and if you read the grounds for the protest below you can see that the grounds were very critical of the chairman who acted perfectly correctly in voting with the stated position of his Board (Counci). I speculate that some of the votes in favour may have been to show support for the Chairman.

The grounds given by the petitioner were:

We protest the motion on the following grounds:

1. there was insufficient consultation with the membership on the proposals outlined in the motion;

2. that the membership were provided with incomplete and misleading information as to the potential effects of the proposals;

3. that those opposed to the proposed changes were not given equal access to the resources of CTC, such as the member magazine, e-mail newsletter and membership lists, to put forward their arguments to the membership;

4. that motion 8 had been lost on the votes cast at the meeting and the directed proxy votes, and was passed only by the use of the Chairman's discretionary proxy votes which were cast against the prevailing wishes of the membership;

5. that the Chairman acted inappropriately in casting his discretionary proxy votes after the results of all other votes had been revealed, rather than at the time other discretionary proxy votes were cast were cast by those holding them.

Regards,

John Catt

[hubgearfreak]

I may be back by way of affiliate membership if, by starting an affiliate club, it helps people get 3rd party insurance for £12.

i think that maybe the clarion cc already provide this

[661-Pete-oldversion]

Quite a debate then. This has clearly aroused a lot of passions here, and I'm really only sorry that it's got so angry. But perhaps that can't be helped.

If people think the CTC is too expensive, then they should say how it can be trimmed. I don't undestand why that is linked with it not registering as a charity. But I'm sure all this has been discussed already!

Regarding the accusations of libel, I was careful to say "I would say, libellous" rather than simply "libellous". It's a touchy subject and I don't want to mention examples. People often get it wrong. If you think I should have left the words out, fine.

The vote was 75% majority on about a 25% turnout, it appears. Alright so turnout was poor. But I find it inconceivable that a 100% turnout would have gone the opposite way!

[Simon L6]

I may be back by way of affiliate membership if, by starting an affiliate club, it helps people get 3rd party insurance for £12.

i think that maybe the clarion cc already provide this

I didn't know that - it's not on its list of member benefits.

[meic]

People had joined a club and then somebody decides to change that club.
Then 75% may well approve and remain in the new club.
However if you are in the 25% who liked the club they joined but it will cease to exist, then it can hardly be a surprise if they want to leave can it?

This was a vote of intent to change the nature of the club.

Fortunately the club can not be changed because the vote to actually change the club didnt succeed.

So I wont be a rat on a sinking ship yet.

Rats on a sinking ship is a good analogy of the situation.
Stabbing in the back is not a good analogy for people who have been clearly voicing their views "Face to face" for ages.
The threats to leave were made quite openly and face to face before the vote.

[hubgearfreak]

I didn't know that - it's not on its list of member benefits.

you're right, i thought i'd find the link for you all, but it's not there.

i'm sure that they offered it to me, you'll have to contact them to be sure

if i'm right (and i always am ) does that makes a slim magazine of mostly MTB & racing interest £3 a copy?

[Simon L6]

I'm fine with the set-up we're putting in place. And I do think it makes it £3 a mag, although I imagine that you have to pay extra for the Bovril infused in to the cover.

[David Cox]

I am sure that those who have debated the issue so strongly have done so out of a sincere desire to get the best for their club. It seems that the process has run its course and we all must accept the vote. However there is another arm to all this and that still, as far as I am aware, needs resolving.

Personally I hope the debate continues to be vigorous and searching, but NOT personal in attacking anyone, whatever their view is.

After all when all is said and done we might need each other

I agreed with this but especially the last point. In the last month Roger Geffen has been very helpful in channelling the anger of local cyclists about a motorist killing a time triallist and getting a minimal driving ban so that we can influence prosecution and sentencing guidelines. Another rider was knocked down by a car that didn't stop last weekend and a commuting friend physically attacked by a 4x4 driver who had just squeezed him off the road. These incidents are fortunately rare but I am willing to give time to CTC Council because I firmly believe that all cyclists need to stick together and take care of each other.