| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do you think BC should make formal objection to the Eastway Legacy Planning Application? |
| YES, BC SHOULD MAKE OBJECTION KNOWN |
|
67% |
[ 46 ] |
| NO, BC SHOULD NOT MAKE OBJECTION KNOWN |
|
8% |
[ 6 ] |
| I WAS NOT A USER OF EASTWAY - DON'T HAVE A VIEW |
|
14% |
[ 10 ] |
| I WAS A USER OF EASTWAY - DON'T HAVE A VIEW |
|
8% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 68 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Plurien
E, Silver
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1966
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Sorry - this just in and I wanted to keep y'all posted on the press coverage this is getting 'for balance'
http://www.singletrackworld.com/article.php?sid=2367
- see how many supporters there are for BC in the thriving mountainbike community - obscure Olympic sport that it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
George Gilbert
Div 3 Pro
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 4159
Location: Somewhere, over the rainbow
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plurien wrote: |
| Sitting at the top of this 'rant' is a poll. Ok it's not a truly objective measure, but there's been consistently around the ten percent mark in agreement with the policy adopted by BC not to object. |
Well, that's one way of viewing the data.
Another, equally valid way is to say that out of BCs 22,000 members, the several thousand people who visit this website and few thousand people that used Eastway, just 45 have voted in the poll to suggest that BC should be doing something else than what they are currently doing...
Fickle things polls - even if you try and skew the question in your favour, they can be made to show precisely the opposite to what you wanted them to!
Personally, I havn't voted because the option I would go for isn't there. Personally, I'd like BC to do what is in the best interests of cycling as a whole. If that's objecting to the plans so be it, if it's not and doing something behind closed doors, so be that too.
Who am I, or anyone else here to turn arround to BC and say that they *must* take one course of action? I havn't got a clue what the best course of action is, but I do trust those who do to do the right thing.
| Plurien wrote: |
| The 'silly "question"' you've been unable to answer was simply a request to give one thing that BC has done for Eastway's riders since 2003 - Or you would have been on it pretty quick and quite right too. |
If you look further up the thread, I've given about 10 - I'm sure there are plenty more though. I'm sure Brian has better things to do than answer tedious questions - I'm sure you can think of a few things he could be doing instead too 
| Plurien wrote: |
| Face up to it Brian, this has not been BCs finest hour. You're left with a bunch of members who want to see you join them for the strength and unity of purpose. |
Helping being part of a bid that will bring the Olympics to this country - quite possibly (one the many of) BCs finest hours...
BTW; I think you'll find that it's your actions that are the direct cause of the lack of strength of unity and purpose! If you were to work with BC in trying to secure better facilities at the Eastway site rather than spending what appears to be all your time and effort trying to bring them down, we might not be in the situation we are now... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ldncycle
Elite Poster
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 229
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
George, good post, very reasoned.
Just the last part. I don't think you realise just how hard it has been dealing with BC over the course of this whole issue.
I can't forget how hard BC was working with the LDA to make the move to Rammey Marsh even though Hog Hill had been put on the table soooo long before. The pattern has been not necessarily working with the developers but working for them.
There is a huge amount of work that has been done by the EUG that BC could very very easily have utilised but chosen not to.
And yes, I went to all the meetings, met all the BC reps and come to my own conclusions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ridley
E, Silver
Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 1342
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
George
Well written post, thank you for taking the time to neatly summarise what I suspect the vast majority are thinking about this and the earlier threads on the same issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnC
E, Bronze
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 480
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hans Datdodishes wrote: |
| Plurien wrote: |
Brian
Sitting at the top of this 'rant' is a poll. Ok it's not a truly objective measure, but there's been consistently around the ten percent mark in agreement with the policy adopted by BC not to object. I'm not sure if you're thanking the ten percent who are supportive as a 'persecuted minority' or the abstainers or the ones who are supportive of the idea of doing something - this one thing at this most important time - in favour of Eastway's riders.
The 'silly "question"' you've been unable to answer was simply a request to give one thing that BC has done for Eastway's riders since 2003 - Or you would have been on it pretty quick and quite right too.
Face up to it Brian, this has not been BCs finest hour. You're left with a bunch of members who want to see you join them for the strength and unity of purpose. You must see that cycle sport needs to secure the step on from Hog Hill which had to be secured by riders entirely without support from BC. You can do oppose and it won't compromise your relationship with the ODA - even the most informed opponents of the tactics in this thread agree on that.
Lastly, read back through the postings and see who's been abusive. Abuse is not to be confused with debating points and information. Like I said, when you're going for the man, you're really not getting to the argument.
....and there I think we will have to leave it. |
JohnC, mostly |
Can you flag up where I have been abusive in this thread please? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thomo
Div 1 Pro
Joined: 20 Dec 2002
Posts: 6964
Location: Milton Keynes (home) Hemel Hempstead (work)
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plurien wrote: |
You'd have to ask TLI. It's public knowledge that TLI has been making its own arrangements and getting on fine. For instance;-
http://www.londoncyclesport.com/forum/forummessages/mps/dt/1/UTN/294/V/6/SP/ (8th posting)
Plus there seems to be something brewing for TLI at North Weald - all done on their own initiative and expense, nothing to do with EUG which exlicitly states it is independent of such organisations.
You could try a web search, like I just did and came up with
http://www.theleagueinternational.com/londonhomecounties.htm
Proactive and positive contributions most welcome, particularly for racers who are presently without any replacement facility for BC events. |
Just quickly looking at both the links given here: The first one doesn't mention TLI at all, but does mention that they want BC racing - the main element of the thread was that it's too far away from London to get to for evening events. What may have confused Michael was the part about getting a league to race there - I didn't read that as TLI at all but as a series of races forming a league.
The 2nd link was to the TLI London and home counties page - which there is almost no information on at all. So I searched the lists of events - which was national and could not find a single event listed for the London region at all. Not one. What's the point of them in London then? 
A previous comment from someone was that most racing at Eastway was TLI - I can only really remember the Thursday League events being TLI, but the majority of the weekend events were BC (LVRC events excepted) - and the TLI were only involved for a few years and finished a few years ago. In recent years I think TLI have done some events at North Weald but that's about all. They are certainly very poorly represented in the London regions and it's probably for a good reason - they simply are not needed as BC fulfilled all that was needed.
Sorry - a little OT, but I needed to revisit this point.
Paul
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roy Gardiner
T de F Winner
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 21249
Location: London and Essex
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thomo wrote: |
| A previous comment from someone was that most racing at Eastway was TLI - I can only really remember the Thursday League events being TLI, but the majority of the weekend events were BC (LVRC events excepted) |
Not really. Probably 50% (conservatively) were Ciclos Uno events. Two formats, either LVRC + open or Open (novices) + Open (anyone). BC weren't strongly represented at all.
_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken
"Everything in war is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult." Carl Von Clausewitz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnC
E, Bronze
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 480
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, Eastway Supporters League went BC in 2006 (after they had to reduce their fees to try to get a foothold). Before that perhaps only 7 or so meetings a year took place that were BC (appart from the youth series), yet non BC was twice a week at least, 3 if you include RTTC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hans Datdodishes
T de F Winner
Joined: 28 Feb 2002
Posts: 28370
Location: On the Superior Forum with the cool kids
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JohnC wrote: |
| Yes, Eastway Supporters League went BC in 2006 |
Coincidence?
_________________
World Masters Drive HillClimb For Taureans Category C Champion 2013.
I'm a qualified coach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plurien
E, Silver
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1966
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Debate seems to be stalling on some factual points:
EUG called on BC in early 2004 to make Eastway a regional centre for its activities, but it declined.
BC ended a relationship it had with the circuit's management that left a bit of acrimony there, but you'd have to find out from those who were in on it. There were comments about a placard on the judges' cabin which should no longer be displayed and it was removed.
Of course the Beastway series (more riders per week than the whole of a track series at Manchester) was not BC.
ESL was targeted by BC with an offer on 'affordable racing' when BC wanted to have a partner in its proposal to move to Rammey Marsh that it could claim as a users group. This caused some confusion with the authorities for a little while, but motions were passed that indviduals should not represent the League as having a policy and in the end ESL came out against the Rammey scheme. You would have to ask ESL what its promotions this season are going to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hans Datdodishes
T de F Winner
Joined: 28 Feb 2002
Posts: 28370
Location: On the Superior Forum with the cool kids
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plurien wrote: |
| Debate seems to be stalling |
because we've lost interest in all this spinning
_________________
World Masters Drive HillClimb For Taureans Category C Champion 2013.
I'm a qualified coach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnC
E, Bronze
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Posts: 480
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hans Datdodishes wrote: |
| Plurien wrote: |
| Debate seems to be stalling |
because we've lost interest in all this spinning |
What Plurien says seems pretty factual and interesting.
It is true that BC were invisible. When I met a chap from BC on a Sunday watching the racing in 2001 or so I told him that ordinary punters like me weren't going to pay £15 a race + licence to get shot out the back and that I was grateful to TLI for giving me the opportunity to try bunch racing.
I'd started out with the Tuesday tens under RTTC, as many did 20 times more than any subsequent Go Race initiative.
Thus the BC RM/HH/Royals/new planning fiasco is even worse in context.
I say this as sponsor/organiser of Go Ride/BC races/BC ClubMark/Level 1 & 2 coach training etc etc. We do work with BC but the failings are clear and they are having a radical effect on our operation and particularly new young riders present and future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Important Notice: VeloRiders copyrights all images appearing
on this website and in the Gallery. Images are displayed for viewing only,
and commercial or personal use of any of these images without the written
permission of VeloRiders is prohibited under international copyright law.
Copyright 2002/2013 VeloRiders. All rights reserved.
Powered by phpBB
© 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
E-mail VeloRiders. Comments, questions or send your photos
to , Order your photos@
