BC Mission Statement

[Hans Datdodishes]

[KJ]

[mosschops]

[Plurien]

NIMBYism definitely isn't what EUG's about.
Not in My Back Yard means you don't want whatever's proposed.
We actually want MORE of what's proposed. That's right, more Olympic sport - especially the ones we had before Eastway closed.
We would like the needs of our community to be taken into account by the planners. These needs might be a bit wider than some organisations are able to cope with. History shows you can't put a lid on this kind of thing; not in a democracy anyhow.
- Maybe that's why I started this thread... but no, it isn't.

Obviously I think BC should have a mission statement. There are times when it would definitely have been a help to have the mission.
For the record, EUGs mission is;-
“To campaign for the New Eastway to have improved facilities for all disciplines of cycle-sport (including infrastructure such as club and changing rooms, car parks etc) without any facilities being lost during the construction phases.”
- Criticise if you like, but anyone, anytime can point to it and say we know what we're doing. If you take the present situation it looks as if we failed, but that would only apply if the fat lady had sung. She's not even out of the bath yet.
EUG is definitively NOT some anti-BC organisation. It actively encourages BC to assist in its aims, which seems a pretty reasonable thing to ask. IF EUG was convinced that BC is no good, we wouldn't keep on at it, would we?

I am interested to find out if people are bothered by BC not having a mission statement and, if they are, what they think should be in it.

- ps: Any sign of those velopark meeting minutes, Hans?

[Hans Datdodishes]

[KJ]

[Billynobrakes]

Couldn't give a stuff if BC have a Mission Statement or not. I think it's quite clear what they do and what they aim to do. Their list of objectives posted by Trevor Reade are clear and concise and their is no need to 'flower it up' for the sake of PR.

What I find incredible about this whole situation is that I actually sympathise with EUG and in principle support what you stand for. The way you are going about things however is doing nothing to encourage me to further support your actions. This shouldn't be about driving devides between different factions it should be about working to ensure the best possible results for all.

Plurien I think you have posted some really good stuff on here and I have been able to learn alot about what is happening with these facilities, you obviously feel strongly about campaigning to maintain cycling facilities which is to be applauded. But to start a thread like this dilutes all that good work so much, it is completely counterproductive. All it does is highlight in bright lights the other agendas at play here which I find hugely disappointing.
_________________
Blame me for robbing Peter but don't you blame Paul

[Hans Datdodishes]

[marc burden]

[Hans Datdodishes]

[Hans Datdodishes]

There is no answer, because I am right, again.
_________________
World Masters Drive HillClimb For Taureans Category C Champion 2013.

I'm a qualified coach.

[Killer C]

[KJ]

[George Gilbert]

[Hans Datdodishes]

In my defence, I only started baiting when I saw the anti-BC rhetoric being wheeled out
_________________
World Masters Drive HillClimb For Taureans Category C Champion 2013.

I'm a qualified coach.

[marc burden]

[Zeco2]

[Plurien]

Well George, I don't suppose you will agree, but we do campaign positively and we have achieved a lot - especially this week. The CEO of the ODA confirmed to our political sponsors that Hog Hill will be open in September and that the '34ha is still available', which ain't bad.
To be criticised as negative is fair enough if this hadn't been going on so long - We knew Eastway would go in 2003 and we were ready to negotiate a relocation from February 2004 when we published the 'Book of New Eastway' which actually specified what it would take. We never said 'no' and we always sought as many meetings as possible - so many I've completely lost count, and four more this week, not including press.
You don't get to hear about most of the stuff we do for our sport (quite apart in my case from running the family team and promoting a few races here and there) so it's possibly true that you only get to hear the bad stuff - especially if you're not a member of the EUG.

What is undeniable, is that on the whole the EUG has achieved more for the people who were doing cycle sport on Eastway than any other body, apart from the LDA and its money - and it loses a lot of points for taking Eastway in the first place. LB Redbridge gets a gold star and was EUG ever lucky with that exploratory meeting in 2005!

If we now have the ear of the CEO of the ODA it's only because we made this into an issue which wouldn't go away for him. That's not something to be repentant about, though it's true to say that we all earnestly wish this whole matter had been resolved long ago.

As to the BC thing - well I dealt with that in an earlier posting this week. It might be worth adding that f BC was clear as to its aims, its objectives and its clients I'm sure we could all see where to turn for help
- Just like I did in November 2003 when I made that call to Manchester, only to be told that everything was in hand and I should keep my nose out. It all seems an awfully long time ago, but I do recall the first meeting after that in December 2003 with London 2012 where EDAW said they'd been told by BC that no replacement of Eastway would be needed once there was a velodrome. - This is all perfectly true.
It was about then that things all went off the rails as far as many of BC's regional officers were concerned and it's been a bit of a struggle ever since. There are many more officers of BC who are critical of its actions, but they can speak for themselves.
Do you wonder that some are a little skeptical and want to see a few things change? A lot of what BC does is done just right, and I don't have a principled objection against it - I only organise under BC, for instance - but the idea of change shouldn't ever be taken as a negative or as a 'moan' per se - isn't that a negative and unprogressive view?
I find that people only moan when something's wrong and they're not prepared to do something about it for themselves. Having a mission makes it easy for all to understand what they are meant to be doing.

Sorry if you think that doing what it takes to get high-level support for a community group has 'damaged' BC in some way, but really it's a bit more robust than that, and still deserves the right to come in and do the right thing by the people who did cycle sport on Eastway. After all, the way is and always was there for BC to support the EUG (as long as KJ doesn't think that's delusional).
- Why shouldn't an organisation like BC have a clause in its mission which has to do with acting in the interests of its members? (and no, I don't mean in providing legal assistance and insurance services, which are each contracted-out) Can't it be a bit accountable in that area?

[Plurien]

If you want to see comments by those who are really left out, you could try the trade press;-
http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=284&storycode=3084321&c=1

or websites reflecting community interests
http://www.gamesmonitor.org.uk/

This is just two sources - there are many many more.

The people at London 2012 - whether ODA or LOCOG have a bunker mentality and it's probably justified. They're not going to win in the popularity stakes by bringing so much change. Actually we recognised that a long time ago and they almost always find we're positively trying to help them achieve their aim.

[Brian Cookson]