CTC Membership Services

Anything relating to the clubs associated with Cycling UK
Post Reply
Jimmy The Hand
Posts: 116
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 11:26am

Re: CTC Membership Services

Post by Jimmy The Hand »

Karen Sutton wrote:
So to answer your questions Jim:

The Membership issues were not poo pooed, but were also not actually discussed by full Council so, no, the words conspiracy theorists were not discussed during the discussion. that happened as detailed above.


Thanks for that Karen
Karen Sutton
Posts: 608
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:18pm
Location: Greater Manchester

Re: CTC Membership Services

Post by Karen Sutton »

Regulator wrote:
Karen Sutton wrote:With regard to the comments about Simon,Regulator, hellymedic and myself being Conspiracy theorists, these were made by a member of staff who approached us as the meeting closed. The Forum discussions were mentioned and Helen spoke about her poll on yacf which revealed many problems which CTC members have had recently with regard to their memberships. The staff member agreed that the poll on yacf was of good quality and more or less apologised to Helen. it was clear that the objection was to the discussion on this board.


I have to correct you there Karen. The remarks about "disgruntled ex-councillors" and "conspiracy theorists" occured during what passed as discussion and consideration of the Membership Report (which wasn't actually a full item on the agenda but a 'Matter Arising' from the Management Committee minutes). You may recall my remark about such comments being indicative of the attitude that CTC seems to have to its members.

The member of staff concerned came over after the meeting to assure us they he didn't mean us when he made those comments...

That such a comment was made in a public meeting was, quite frankly, unacceptable.


Greg, I stand corrected. I see from the agenda that it was a "matter arising from the MC minutes". This makes it even worse. There was never any proposal for the Review to be discussed by the full Council.

So, if he did not mean us, then who was he talking about? The only person it could be is Simon, but it sounded as though the "disgruntled ex-councillors" and "conspiracy theorists" was plural.
Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Re: CTC Membership Services

Post by Regulator »

Karen Sutton wrote:Greg, I stand corrected. I see from the agenda that it was a "matter arising from the MC minutes". This makes it even worse. There was never any proposal for the Review to be discussed by the full Council.

So, if he did not mean us, then who was he talking about? The only person it could be is Simon, but it sounded as though the "disgruntled ex-councillors" and "conspiracy theorists" was plural.


I'm not sure who was meant if it wasn't you, me or Helen.

I might describe Simon as a fop and a dandy - but certainly not a conspiracy theorist... :wink: :D
Jimmy The Hand
Posts: 116
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 11:26am

Re: CTC Membership Services

Post by Jimmy The Hand »

Regulator wrote: How do you know that? The fact is that CTC does not collect adequate or substantive data on these matters.

So How do you know it is a major problem?

The reason that the number of registered complaints seems so low is that people are not bothering to complain - they're just walking away. A certain proportion of our 17% churn rate might be down to the curernt economic situation - but it would be blase to assume that all of it is.

How do we know that people are not leaving due to infirmity, age, moving or even death? add that to the economic situation and that reduces your % If people have loyalty to the brand the will complain and see it through others, who may only want the insurance package won't renew when they don't need the insurance for whatever reason.

And don't forget that one disgruntled person will tell a lot more people than one satisfied person will. If we screw up then we don't just lose one member - we lose potential members.

I wonder how many this thread and others like it have lost - not all posters are CTC members and how many see the rhetoric here and say no thanks?

What do you think we've been trying to do? We have raised concerns and put forward potential solutions. Yet our concerns are ignored, no proper assessment of the situation is undertaken and the suggestions for improvements aren't even given basic consideration - they're dismissed out of hand.

You just have to keep nibbeling away, and maybe we should have a rule that councillors can only serve for two consecutive terms and then must stand down for a term! Wouldn't that put the cat amongst the pigeons!!!!
User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15191
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: CTC Membership Services

Post by Si »

I know Si is sympathetic to this view and would like us to shut up and go away.

As Si has already said if you have a problem with your dealings with CTC NO then contact your councillor, and if he/she won’t help then contact another councillor or chair of council but don’t just moan on here and expect things to happen, they won’t.


I think that you misread the approach adopted by the forum staff (well, by me at least).

I do not want anyone to shut up or go away at all.
This is the CTC forum and as such its members and potential members should be perfectly free to discuss and air their opinion of the CTC, its policies and its processes.

HOWEVER, speaking as a moderator, I request that any such discussion is done in a polite, respectful and civil way; a way that is constructive, precise and does not target individuals or throw insults around. It has been pointed out already that one of the reasons that National Office does not like to contribute to threads anymore is that in the past things have turned ugly and people have been victimised. Hence, my comments above about phrases like "conspiracy theorists" having the potential to draw discussion away from the real issues (of, for instance, whether the membership form I'm about to put in the post will result in my membership going through with no hassle this year?). Likewise, phrases such as "don't bloody patronise me" also give the impression that hackles are being raised and that things are starting to get a little personal. So, I will re-emphasise, my role as a mod here is to stop the thread becoming a slug-fest or witch hunt against individuals, but my role is certainly not to try to discourage reasonable debate.

It is certainly true that I encourage people to contact National Office or their councillor directly if they want to be sure that someone has read and will acknowledge their problems. However, I see know reason why problems should not be discussed here also as long as the contents of the above paragraph are borne in mind, and people realise that the forum is not a replacement for direct contact, but a possible addition to it.

Hope that has cleared things up...carry on. :D
Jimmy The Hand
Posts: 116
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 11:26am

Re: CTC Membership Services

Post by Jimmy The Hand »

Karen Sutton wrote:So, if he did not mean us, then who was he talking about? The only person it could be is Simon, but it sounded as though the "disgruntled ex-councillors" and "conspiracy theorists" was plural.

I can think of another ex councillor who fits both categories, although he doesn't post on here very often
Jimmy The Hand
Posts: 116
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 11:26am

Re: CTC Membership Services

Post by Jimmy The Hand »

Si wrote:.....having the potential to draw discussion away from the real issues (of, for instance, whether the membership form I'm about to put in the post will result in my membership going through with no hassle this year?).

Your putting your membership form in the post two days before a national postal strike :x brave man!!
User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15191
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: CTC Membership Services

Post by Si »

Jimmy The Hand wrote:
Si wrote:.....having the potential to draw discussion away from the real issues (of, for instance, whether the membership form I'm about to put in the post will result in my membership going through with no hassle this year?).

Your putting your membership form in the post two days before a national postal strike :x brave man!!


I like to live dangerously. :twisted:
Regulator
Posts: 523
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:13am

Re: CTC Membership Services

Post by Regulator »

Jimmy The Hand wrote:... and maybe we should have a rule that councillors can only serve for two consecutive terms and then must stand down for a term! Wouldn't that put the cat amongst the pigeons!!!!


Something I would wholly support...


...and which has the potential to make it into the revised constitutional documents. :twisted:
Karen Sutton
Posts: 608
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:18pm
Location: Greater Manchester

Re: CTC Membership Services

Post by Karen Sutton »

Regulator wrote:
Jimmy The Hand wrote:... and maybe we should have a rule that councillors can only serve for two consecutive terms and then must stand down for a term! Wouldn't that put the cat amongst the pigeons!!!!


Something I would wholly support...


...and which has the potential to make it into the revised constitutional documents. :twisted:


I would also support this wholeheartedly. it would perhaps bring in new blood which can look at things like incompetence through less rose tinted spectacles.

That being said, I'm not sure there are many on the current council who have served more than two terms. Maybe somebody who has been counting might correct me if I'm wrong?
Karen Sutton
Posts: 608
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:18pm
Location: Greater Manchester

Re: CTC Membership Services

Post by Karen Sutton »

Si wrote:
I know Si is sympathetic to this view and would like us to shut up and go away.

As Si has already said if you have a problem with your dealings with CTC NO then contact your councillor, and if he/she won’t help then contact another councillor or chair of council but don’t just moan on here and expect things to happen, they won’t.


I think that you misread the approach adopted by the forum staff (well, by me at least).

I do not want anyone to shut up or go away at all.
This is the CTC forum and as such its members and potential members should be perfectly free to discuss and air their opinion of the CTC, its policies and its processes.

HOWEVER, speaking as a moderator, I request that any such discussion is done in a polite, respectful and civil way; a way that is constructive, precise and does not target individuals or throw insults around. It has been pointed out already that one of the reasons that National Office does not like to contribute to threads anymore is that in the past things have turned ugly and people have been victimised. Hence, my comments above about phrases like "conspiracy theorists" having the potential to draw discussion away from the real issues (of, for instance, whether the membership form I'm about to put in the post will result in my membership going through with no hassle this year?). Likewise, phrases such as "don't bloody patronise me" also give the impression that hackles are being raised and that things are starting to get a little personal. So, I will re-emphasise, my role as a mod here is to stop the thread becoming a slug-fest or witch hunt against individuals, but my role is certainly not to try to discourage reasonable debate.

It is certainly true that I encourage people to contact National Office or their councillor directly if they want to be sure that someone has read and will acknowledge their problems. However, I see know reason why problems should not be discussed here also as long as the contents of the above paragraph are borne in mind, and people realise that the forum is not a replacement for direct contact, but a possible addition to it.

Hope that has cleared things up...carry on. :D


I don't think I worded that very well Si, and I apologise for that. What I should really have said was that you would like us to stop discussing this topic as it doesn't show CTC in a good light. I know you may not have been directing all the above comments at me Si; but as I was quoted at the top, I wanted to make sure that you did not think that I have not tried to be polite, respectful and civil in my posts. I do not recollect getting personal with any other poster. I have nothing against any individual on here. If I have offended anyone then I am truly sorry. That has never been my intention. My intention is, as you suggest, to put across my opinion of the CTC, its policies and its processes, particularly in its dealings with the Membership Services Contractors.

I am particularly disgruntled by the patronising way in which the Members wishes have been carried out in the conducting of the Membership Services review only for the recommendations from the Review to be almost wholly disregarded. Now we have to await the next AGM before anything further can be done.
Edwards
Posts: 5982
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: CTC Membership Services

Post by Edwards »

I am at a loss to understand why the membership problem has gone on so long. I first read about it on this forum some time ago.
I assume the issue is because a contractor of the CTC is being paid to do job and not doing it properly. Even if is a small percentage of the total, why has the company not been brought to task.
Personally I do not pay for some body to do a job and keep paying for years if they fail in any way.
I also fail to understand how anybody can complain about something being asked on this forum. Then not ask why the same problem is being discussed on another forum. It is the attitude of shut up and we know better that seems to be coming out here.
I am sorry but that lack of concern about membership issues raised on this forum is what is most likely to make me not renew. I do not want to read about the CTC else where. If the CTC wants people to just shut up and accept they should expect larger numbers not to renew, in this day and age people do not complain for long but move on.
If it is made hard for me to pay for a service or membership I do not think I will bother.
This is one of the only organisation I have ever heard of that has to be pestered by any member to give them money.
Normally it is the other way round. I wish the tax man would use the same people to collect my tax's.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar
User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Re: CTC Membership Services

Post by Simon L6 »

well here's the thing. CTC membership is a great thing. You get to belong to a fine campaigning organisation, you can join in any one of hundreds of organised rides that capitalise on the vast experience of members, you get a great mag, you get money off at cycling shops and if you're in difficulties, you get the legal advice. And that's before we get in to the excellent solicitors going to law on behalf of cyclists to make sure the law stays in shape, or the near-biblical authority on all things bike from the wise-beyond-measure Mr. Juden.

That's what brings me back time and time again. There's no way that I would roam the byways of southern England in the way I have without having my eyes opened by the Cheam and Morden. There's no way that Daniel Cadden would have been aquitted if it hadn't been for the CDF. There's no way I'd be leading 40 or more people who should know better across the North Kent marshes in the early hours of this coming Saturday without the protection of the CTC's insurance cover. So if they don't want to take my money next January I'm going to go down to Arvato and slap a wodge of rusty tenners on the counter and demand my 2010 card then and there..........
User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15191
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: CTC Membership Services

Post by Si »

What I should really have said was that you would like us to stop discussing this topic as it doesn't show CTC in a good light.


Well, that's the thing - it's tightrope walking isn't it? It's like cycling in general - if you tell everyone it's perfectly safe then there is more chance that they will do it. But if we do say that it's perfectly safe then how are we going to campaign to make things safer: reduce bad driving, make sure laws are enforced, get 'real' cycle facilities, etc. If on the other hand we say that it is not safe then we stand more chance of making it so, but put more people off doing it!

If a problem can be perfectly happily resolved without kicking up a fuss and making the CTC look bad, then it's probably better that it is done in that way. If, on the other hand, the normal channels have failed (as many seem to be arguing on this and similar threads) then it's understandable that many think that perhaps more public action is required? After all, the CTC is there to serve its members and they have a right to be heard as long as they voice their opinions in a reasonable way.

I wanted to make sure that you did not think that I have not tried to be polite

No, I thought that you had been politeness personified - apologies if you thought that I was getting at you. My comments were just addressed to the forum generally, and were added to demonstrate why certain complaints against the CTC had been 'binned' in the past - i.e. not necessarily because of their message, but because of the way that they were put across. As I often say - if you want someone to see your point of view, then insulting them isn't the best way to go about convincing them to act as you think they should!
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: CTC Membership Services

Post by thirdcrank »

Jimmy the Hand

:?:

To help me understand what you have been saying, I should find it helpful if you would explain what you mean when you refer to 'rhetoric' (a word you have used several times.) My own Chambers seems to have two relevant definitions:

The whole art of using language so as to persuade others; false, showy or declamatory expression.


It seems to me that the first of those is what any forum should seek to promote so when you ask for it to stop, you must have something unacceptable in mind, possibly the second. (Incidentally, part of the same dictionary article defines 'rhetorical' as 'insincere.') I really do hope, therefore, that you mean something else. If you mean something like 'exaggeration for effect' (hyperbole) then the only obvious example I can see in the thread is "fan the flames".
Post Reply