CTC forum thread on 'Charity' status

[Fab Foodie]

I got my copy of 'Cycle' today and read the 2 arguments. I'm pretty clueless about this, but there was a beardy bloke on one side with suspect dress sense for the 'YES vote and some ugly bloke on a bike for the 'NO' vote...














After due consideration and discarding appearance...I'm going for the ugly bloke on the bike...

 

[dellzeqq]

After due consideration and discarding appearance...I'm going for the ugly bloke on the bike...

too kind.

There's clearly been a wave of orchestrated panic - messages from Councillors that members might previously have never heard from have been flopping in to inboxes all day.

My bit on 'CTC and inclusion' will reach new heights of low politics.........

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It's amazing as I can't get an email out of my councillors or my DA for love nor money.

 

[rich p]

I, too had an email from Master Bates (sorry, irresistible) and replied telling him that we would be opposing and got a thank you in return,. Very polite!

 

[dellzeqq]

It's amazing as I can't get an email out of my councillors or my DA for love nor money.

I may have sorted that - stand by your inbox!

 

[dellzeqq]

I, too had an email from Master Bates (sorry, irresistible) and replied telling him that we would be opposing and got a thank you in return,. Very polite!

He's a good egg. I like Richard a lot, and live in hope of him joining us on a night ride.

It would be a shame if people got the impression from the tone of some of these e-mails that animosity is rife within the CTC.

 

[srw]

It would be a shame if people got the impression from the tone of some of these e-mails that animosity is rife within the CTC.

Connoisseurs of organisational politics may enjoy - or be warned by - the spat currently being played out on the letters page of the Guardian.

 

[threebikesmcginty]

Got my copy of Cycle yesterday - I'm voting with the chap in the yellow jersey and the knee bandage.

Well put BTW Simon.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I may have sorted that - stand by your inbox!

just about to read my copy.

can't say my inbox is under siege as yet though.

 

[dellzeqq]

can't say my inbox is under siege as yet though.

I've been in correspondence with Horsham and Crawley CTC

 

[Tollers]

Cheam & Morden, SW London and Wayfarers have a blog post care of Tollers Sr

"Don't be a sheep - be a lion! You have 100 days! Here endeth the first lesson."

 

[mcshroom]

Two North West representatives emailed me too. Funny thing is I've only been a member a couple weeks and don't even have a membership card yet (but I did get a copy of cycle )

I've attached the letter if anyone's that interested, but it seems that you may have stirred up a little panic at CTC HQ. Obviously they're worried about your well constructed argument rocking the boat

 

[Bollo]

He's a good egg. I like Richard a lot, and live in hope of him joining us on a night ride.

It would be a shame if people got the impression from the tone of some of these e-mails that animosity is rife within the CTC.

The contents of my particular email from Richard Bates was reasonable in itself - more of a pep talk than an argument, but its the fact that it's the first non-solicited communication I've had from the CTC in 4 years. I understand that the charity vote is a Very Big Thing, but it smacks of baby-kissing.

That email from Peter Hayman is an altogether different matter. It's a clever piece of writing that manages to smear the 'anti' campaign while failing to address directly any of the criticisms that fuel it. In particular, the funding, accounting and membership issues that Simon raises are concrete and measurable. If they're inaccurate, lets see a concrete rebuttal, instead of daft statements like "democracy is a fragile animal".

 

[dellzeqq]

it's not that clever. Inclusion is the Achilles heel of the 'pro' campaign. The danger of repeating the same phrases round and round the same table is that you lose the ability to question. But more of this later....

 

[theclaud]

Can anyone explain what these "breakthroughs that had eluded the club for 80 years" are, that David Cox says have been achieved because of the Trust? It's a bit disingenuous, I think, to finish the Yes article by reiterating core values such as the right to ride on roads and bridleways, as if it were not the Club that had been achieving, upholding and safeguarding these things in the first place. It's also very telling that the very notion of a club is derided as "exclusive" - perhaps this explains the psychology of the Yes campaign, which I admit eludes me thus far - beyond the Gift Aid thing, none of its advocates seems to be able to evoke any tangible benefits for cyclists. I am forming the conclusion that they do not really like the idea that cyclists are a group of people with common interests that are not necessarily the same interests as other groups. It's all a bit Third Way.