| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should BC have a mission statement? |
| YES |
|
30% |
[ 14 ] |
| NO |
|
17% |
[ 8 ] |
| Not bothered |
|
52% |
[ 24 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 46 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Brian Cookson
E, Silver
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 883
Location: Whalley, Lancashire
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Chris - I think its pretty clear what I am saying. Michael has said that he was told by a third party that it was BC policy that if a velodrome was built it would not be necessary to replace Eastway. I am saying that if anyone really did tell him that, then they were mistaken, and I have asked him to provide evidence of who said it or wrote it, where, when and to whom. Not hearsay or speculation, but evidence.
BC's policy on the replacement of Eastway and the Olympic legacy in general is perfectly clear and has been set out time and time again on here and in statements on our website. Unfortunately, it suits Michael and a small number of other people to ignore the facts, stick with their prejudices and continue to spread misinformation about British Cycling.
As you are one of the voices of reason involved with the EUG (and I accept that there are many) I urge you to consider again the confrontational and abusive stance adopted by your chairman. Read the posts on here that don't originate from the EUG inner circle, and I think you can see that Michael's approach has become increasingly counter-productive.
All of this ill-feeling could quite easily have been avoided and we could have had a multi-facetted approach to the issue, but Michael has insisted, as evidenced time and again on here and in his e-mails, that only his approach is the right approach, and we either agree with him or we get the same abusive treatment as everyone else.
Its as simple as that.
Brian.
PS David - sorry, you'll have to try much harder than that before I treat you seriously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
david123
E, Silver
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 1868
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Brian,its nice of you to apologise but I fear it may be to late,ive had an offer from that well known Sugar daddy Sri Alan .Its a big challenge but he wants to compete directly with the new York bunch of Trumps.The main challenge is to compete on hairstyles,no need for you to worry there.So hes put £3million up for wigging and anudder £2million for me if I could prove a point.The diffi culties were not necessarily going to be sorted just cus we was loaded and after a few fuzzy moments we managed to straighten it out.Hes now a natural blonde with long flowing locks but as he doesnt like it he offering you the job of hairstyle stunt double with your own private poodle(real),woofs wonderfully.
Just in on a related subject ,Ive just been offered a place on the jury at the sheep dog trials in Japan(Tony may steal this)
_________________
Tony Bell dates my hamster |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ldncycle
Elite Poster
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 229
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Brian, Plurien seemed to give a pretty detailed account of what happened in those meetings with exactly who was present. Would seem to be a fairly straight forward thing to check the detail, not that it would matter because your mind seems to be already made up.
Sorry to bring this one up again, but Royal Docks....
Seeing as we are talking about evidence, been trying to find out the evidence that planning permission was applied for in December,as was publicised on the LDA and BC's websites, so far can't seem to find anything for December with Newham.....
When exactly did planning applications get submitted? Or did BC just take LDA's word for it?
Should perhaps apply the same level of evidence requirements to everyone.....
And for the record, am really pleased that there will be racing at the Ford venue, personally won't be able to get there to use it but think it is great that there will be racing on the go. Won't be Royal Docks in terms of convenience, but at least it is something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stretch armstrong
Div 3 Pro
Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Posts: 4350
Location: Doncaster (sleaze capital o the north)
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian Cookson wrote: |
| All of this ill-feeling could quite easily have been avoided and we could have had a multi-facetted approach to the issue, but Michael has insisted, as evidenced time and again on here and in his e-mails, that only his approach is the right approach, and we either agree with him or we get the same abusive treatment as everyone else. |
abusive ? I haven't seen one instance of where he's been abusive  , critical ? maybe
_________________
lector benevole absit invidia
Putting the dross back in Clay Cross (RT) |
|
| 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: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
World Masters Drive HillClimb For Taureans Category C Champion 2013.
I'm a qualified coach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KJ
T de F Winner
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 26400
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Was that a picture of some spectacles? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ByneaBoyo
Cat 2 Groupie
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 40
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian Cookson wrote: |
Chris - I think its pretty clear what I am saying. Michael has said that he was told by a third party that it was BC policy that if a velodrome was built it would not be necessary to replace Eastway. I am saying that if anyone really did tell him that, then they were mistaken, and I have asked him to provide evidence of who said it or wrote it, where, when and to whom. Not hearsay or speculation, but evidence.
BC's policy on the replacement of Eastway and the Olympic legacy in general is perfectly clear and has been set out time and time again on here and in statements on our website. Unfortunately, it suits Michael and a small number of other people to ignore the facts, stick with their prejudices and continue to spread misinformation about British Cycling.
As you are one of the voices of reason involved with the EUG (and I accept that there are many) I urge you to consider again the confrontational and abusive stance adopted by your chairman. Read the posts on here that don't originate from the EUG inner circle, and I think you can see that Michael's approach has become increasingly counter-productive.
All of this ill-feeling could quite easily have been avoided and we could have had a multi-facetted approach to the issue, but Michael has insisted, as evidenced time and again on here and in his e-mails, that only his approach is the right approach, and we either agree with him or we get the same abusive treatment as everyone else.
Its as simple as that.
Brian.
PS David - sorry, you'll have to try much harder than that before I treat you seriously. |
I no longer feel ill toward BC - it is time to move on. Michael has got us to where we are - where is David Cockram these days, has he disappeared off the face of the earth? Brian - you're about the only BC constant throughout this whole process!
Michael owns the Eastway issue in London - period. You don't trust him, and that is why you won't work with him (us). The simple truth: no-one from BC owns this problem (we've seen people come and go - from regional chairs, to the national CEO, to the facility officer; and why so many people? Is it Michael? No, it's the issue - it's complex - it takes a first class mind to cut through the c r a p.
Michael has stuck his neck on the line for: the membership; the users; the local community; his kids; my kids. That is why EUG is successful, and that is why Michael is successful. Of course the organisation is not perfect, but this is grass roots stuff after all - it's an open organisation - I hope you can forgive us for that. Remember: the more vociferous among us were BC members long before we were EUG members.
--
I smell opportunity - this is the Olympics, a once in a life time chance! The sky's the limit - there is no lack of ambition here in London. Eastway may not have been much to look at, but remember, this is London: location location location is the key. I've lived, travelled & raced (albeit at a low level) in many large cities of the world - Eastway was unique - lets not lose what we had - and if we can, lets make it better for our kids, even if we have to fight for it a bit, and maybe sacrifice a bit!? Michael has stuck his neck out - are you prepared to?
As far as 2003 is concerned - Michael has named names, dates - feel free to pursue your line of enquiry further. Just because there happens to be no written evidence (as far as we know) doesn't make it any less true - does it? Believe me - I have no idea if Michael's statements are true or not - I'm indifferent. I judge BC (as far as legacy is concerned) on results - and lets face it, Brian, it's not been great, especially in relation to EUG's mission:
“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.”
--
Herne Hill's Good Friday meet was an eye opener - over a thousand people were prepared to sign a petition to lobby the Mayor of London. I can honestly say I met 3 people resistent to signing the petition. As for the rest, I explained the legacy situation the best I could - and yes, there were plenty of inquisitive questions. I was overwhelmed by the response - truely, I was. Prior to going, I was a bag of nerves - truely, I was - I expected a velodrome full of Hansdatdodishes - but I couldn't have been further from the truth.
--
Lets aim to get all the facilities back at Eastway, plus (of course) the track - now that would be something to brag about - and why not? What do you say? Can we agree that we stand before a once in a lifetime opportunity, and that we should go for it?
Chris Jones.
Last edited by ByneaBoyo on Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingatestonian
Cat 1 Groupie
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ByneaBoyo wrote: |
| No-one from BC owns this problem (we've seen people come and go - from regional chairs, to the national CEO, to the facility officer; and why so many people? |
| ByneaBoyo wrote: |
Where is David Cochram these days, has he disappeared off the face of the earth?
Brian - you're about the only BC constant throughout this whole process! |
Maybe it's because BC is a team of many people with different talents?
Speaking from where I've been sitting, the involvement of senior BC personnel has been fairly constant - and specifically Peter King. But it should be fairly obvious that the normal work of running a major sports governing body continues unabated, so some of the tasks have to be delegated.
Also, might regional chairs bring some more local insight to the process?
As for Mr Cockram... well, here's a recent picture demonstrating his involvement:
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/bcf/News2007/20070424_interim_facility_statement.asp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ByneaBoyo
Cat 2 Groupie
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 40
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ingatestonian wrote: |
| ByneaBoyo wrote: |
| No-one from BC owns this problem (we've seen people come and go - from regional chairs, to the national CEO, to the facility officer; and why so many people? |
| ByneaBoyo wrote: |
Where is David Cochram these days, has he disappeared off the face of the earth?
Brian - you're about the only BC constant throughout this whole process! |
Maybe it's because BC is a team of many people with different talents?
Speaking from where I've been sitting, the involvement of senior BC personnel has been fairly constant - and specifically Peter King. But it should be fairly obvious that the normal work of running a major sports governing body continues unabated, so some of the tasks have to be delegated.
Also, might regional chairs bring some more local insight to the process?
As for Mr Cockram... well, here's a recent picture demonstrating his involvement:
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/bcf/News2007/20070424_interim_facility_statement.asp |
Mr Cockram: it's the first time I've seen him. I must admit, I wasn't around 'back in the day' when this whole thing kicked off. How about he call a summit to consult with users?
Dunton will be great for those in the East (the East of England) - I applaud the resource! But how does it help those in the inner city, and perhaps further a field? What about those without a car? Seriously, how?
All I'm asking is for is more ambition from BC - much, much more outward ambition - this isn't a popularity contest - BC should be getting stuck in. It's what the local membership wants.
Does that sound unreasonable?
We are on the verge of losing a large area of cycle-sport real estate - prime real estate!
Lets shout about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingatestonian
Cat 1 Groupie
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Once again, I think this is moving off-topic - which as a reminder was mission statements.
Another thread is the place to discuss Dunton, Eastway, and other such topics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingatestonian
Cat 1 Groupie
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ByneaBoyo wrote: |
| Dunton [...] What about those without a car? |
Bearing in mind my last post, and not wanting to start a debate on this...
Just a point of information: Laindon has a railway station, less than 2 km from the circuit.
Yes, I know there's restrictions on bikes at certain times of day... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plurien
E, Silver
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1966
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's surprising that you wanted to persist with that one Brian. The meeting did happen and it was as outlined. Enough said. You asked the question. If you don't like the answer for its content, that's another matter.
You are welcome to come and meet with EUG and all interested users. - Remember this is much broader than the set of people who, like me are members of BC. They weren't consulted either. You may say you don't represent them, and again, this relates to the topic.
Please take some time to study what was said at the London Assembly last week and wonder how it is that the CEO of the ODA is floundering over this issue of the cyclists who, he is embarrassed to say, got their facility shut with nowhere to go to. He promises to have Hog Hill open in September. He now says the 34 hectares is still there. He is given a really hard time but he doesn't get cross or abusive and he wanted to speak with me after as well. We had a very civil and productive conversation just before he went out to do his interview with BBC World (220m viewers worldwide) all about the reasons for the worries over the Velopark. This guy heads an organisation with a budget of £9bn and he's having to field questions about newts on a project which isn't even his?! How are you thinking he regards the way in which this matter has been handled? Who's been responsible?
Obviously things are heading towards the meeting on the 3rd when ODA, together with its partners, Sport England, LDA, LVRPA, BC, TfL 'gives an update' of developments relating to the Velopark to user stakeholders. Sadly neither David Higgins or Lord Coe will be there, but there's no doubt the opportunity to resolve their 'issues' (which started off as 'our issues') will be there.
FYI: Despite what was said in the press, Coe doesn't want to meet with me again, and also to the contrary, BC did go out of its way to meet. It seems once again I'm the victim of PR spin. However, I was pleased to attend at BC's request and made a very constructive proposal which sadly was not taken up. - Those wishing for assistance from EUG do find that the mission statement is there to qualify any such request. Everyone knows our mission and it's a great focus.
- In fact it was that thought from that meeting which prompted the posting waay above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ByneaBoyo
Cat 2 Groupie
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 40
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ingatestonian wrote: |
| ByneaBoyo wrote: |
| Dunton [...] What about those without a car? |
Bearing in mind my last post, and not wanting to start a debate on this...
Just a point of information: Laindon has a railway station, less than 2 km from the circuit.
Yes, I know there's restrictions on bikes at certain times of day... |
Fenchurch->Laindon approx 35mins.
I'm willing to work with you - how about setting aside a carriage for riders to transport themselves and their cycles to Laindon? Of course, it probably won't help those in the East of London, as I'm not sure where they would pick-up the train, does anyone know?
For those living in the South East it would mean getting home very late. But, it could work!
--
But lets not take our eye off the ball - Eastway Legacy is the real issue - well, and mission statements of course  . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingatestonian
Cat 1 Groupie
Joined: 16 Feb 2007
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ByneaBoyo wrote: |
Fenchurch->Laindon approx 35mins.
I'm willing to work with you - how about setting aside a carriage for riders to transport themselves and their cycles to Laindon? Of course, it probably won't help those in the East of London, as I'm not sure where they would pick-up the train, does anyone know?
For those living in the South East it would mean getting home very late. But, it could work! |
Perhaps a thread about transport provision is the way to take this idea forward? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ByneaBoyo
Cat 2 Groupie
Joined: 21 Apr 2006
Posts: 40
Location: London
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ingatestonian wrote: |
Once again, I think this is moving off-topic - which as a reminder was mission statements.
Another thread is the place to discuss Dunton, Eastway, and other such topics. |
One of the reasons I got behind EUG was because of its mission statement - simple, brief. Enough wiggle room for compromise.
I think the renaming/rebranding from 'British Cycling Federation' to 'British Cycling' was a good thing. 'British Cycling' is universal - there's something for everyone.
But, when I look at BC today, I see something more along the lines of: 'British Cycle Sport'.
I think British Cycling is an organisation aspiring to be universal.
--
I commute to work by bike. It astonishes me how many people are now commuting by bike in London - London of all places, with its awful traffic, roads & pollution. I'm certain that most of these cyclist are not associated with BC. Why is that? Surely they would benefit from good insurance; better representation at Westiminster, City Hall and local boroughs? Maybe London Cycle Campaign and CTC are more their bag?
Would I like to see a BC mission statement? Yes. But I think it would take from now until the end of time to agree on one.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian Cookson
E, Silver
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 883
Location: Whalley, Lancashire
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plurien wrote: |
It's surprising that you wanted to persist with that one Brian. The meeting did happen and it was as outlined. Enough said. You asked the question. If you don't like the answer for its content, that's another matter.
You are welcome to come and meet with EUG and all interested users. - Remember this is much broader than the set of people who, like me are members of BC. They weren't consulted either. You may say you don't represent them, and again, this relates to the topic.
Please take some time to study what was said at the London Assembly last week and wonder how it is that the CEO of the ODA is floundering over this issue of the cyclists who, he is embarrassed to say, got their facility shut with nowhere to go to. He promises to have Hog Hill open in September. He now says the 34 hectares is still there. He is given a really hard time but he doesn't get cross or abusive and he wanted to speak with me after as well. We had a very civil and productive conversation just before he went out to do his interview with BBC World (220m viewers worldwide) all about the reasons for the worries over the Velopark. This guy heads an organisation with a budget of £9bn and he's having to field questions about newts on a project which isn't even his?! How are you thinking he regards the way in which this matter has been handled? Who's been responsible?
Obviously things are heading towards the meeting on the 3rd when ODA, together with its partners, Sport England, LDA, LVRPA, BC, TfL 'gives an update' of developments relating to the Velopark to user stakeholders. Sadly neither David Higgins or Lord Coe will be there, but there's no doubt the opportunity to resolve their 'issues' (which started off as 'our issues') will be there.
FYI: Despite what was said in the press, Coe doesn't want to meet with me again, and also to the contrary, BC did go out of its way to meet. It seems once again I'm the victim of PR spin. However, I was pleased to attend at BC's request and made a very constructive proposal which sadly was not taken up. - Those wishing for assistance from EUG do find that the mission statement is there to qualify any such request. Everyone knows our mission and it's a great focus.
- In fact it was that thought from that meeting which prompted the posting waay above. |
Michael - so no evidence then, just what somebody apparently said at a meeting, around which you have built a whole "BC are against us" stance.
Meanwhile, you now say that your chief ally in the press has published the opposite of the truth, the truth being that in fact Seb Coe won't meet you, but BC will, so you are the victim of spin.....
Meanwhile further, you attend a meeting and make a perfectly rational proposal which BC irrationally reject. Well that's not quite the way I heard it, and I have a witness. In fact what happened is that you demanded that BC support you on your terms, with your approach and your tactics. No change there then.
Chris - BC's Chief Executive has continued to be our lead on this matter for several months now, reflecting the importance with which we view it. By definition, as head of the rganisation, he will from time to time delegate matters.
Everyone - I hope I've made BC's position clear on this again, thanks for understanding why from time to time I can't let some of the wilder statements go unchallenged. Anything else we have to say on the matter will come via the BC website.
Off out on the bike now, as suggested.
Brian
PS David - no sorry, still not even slightly funny. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
david123
E, Silver
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 1868
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Brian Cookson wrote: |
| Plurien wrote: |
It's surprising that you wanted to persist with that one Brian. The meeting did happen and it was as outlined. Enough said. You asked the question. If you don't like the answer for its content, that's another matter.
You are welcome to come and meet with EUG and all interested users. - Remember this is much broader than the set of people who, like me are members of BC. They weren't consulted either. You may say you don't represent them, and again, this relates to the topic.
Please take some time to study what was said at the London Assembly last week and wonder how it is that the CEO of the ODA is floundering over this issue of the cyclists who, he is embarrassed to say, got their facility shut with nowhere to go to. He promises to have Hog Hill open in September. He now says the 34 hectares is still there. He is given a really hard time but he doesn't get cross or abusive and he wanted to speak with me after as well. We had a very civil and productive conversation just before he went out to do his interview with BBC World (220m viewers worldwide) all about the reasons for the worries over the Velopark. This guy heads an organisation with a budget of £9bn and he's having to field questions about newts on a project which isn't even his?! How are you thinking he regards the way in which this matter has been handled? Who's been responsible?
Obviously things are heading towards the meeting on the 3rd when ODA, together with its partners, Sport England, LDA, LVRPA, BC, TfL 'gives an update' of developments relating to the Velopark to user stakeholders. Sadly neither David Higgins or Lord Coe will be there, but there's no doubt the opportunity to resolve their 'issues' (which started off as 'our issues') will be there.
FYI: Despite what was said in the press, Coe doesn't want to meet with me again, and also to the contrary, BC did go out of its way to meet. It seems once again I'm the victim of PR spin. However, I was pleased to attend at BC's request and made a very constructive proposal which sadly was not taken up. - Those wishing for assistance from EUG do find that the mission statement is there to qualify any such request. Everyone knows our mission and it's a great focus.
- In fact it was that thought from that meeting which prompted the posting waay above. |
Michael - so no evidence then, just what somebody apparently said at a meeting, around which you have built a whole "BC are against us" stance.
Meanwhile, you now say that your chief ally in the press has published the opposite of the truth, the truth being that in fact Seb Coe won't meet you, but BC will, so you are the victim of spin.....
Meanwhile further, you attend a meeting and make a perfectly rational proposal which BC irrationally reject. Well that's not quite the way I heard it, and I have a witness. In fact what happened is that you demanded that BC support you on your terms, with your approach and your tactics. No change there then.
Chris - BC's Chief Executive has continued to be our lead on this matter for several months now, reflecting the importance with which we view it. By definition, as head of the rganisation, he will from time to time delegate matters.
Everyone - I hope I've made BC's position clear on this again, thanks for understanding why from time to time I can't let some of the wilder statements go unchallenged. Anything else we have to say on the matter will come via the BC website.
Off out on the bike now, as suggested.
Brian
PS David - no sorry, still not even slightly funny. |
Dear Brian,I never said you were.
(98-99%) unfunny
The £2million I told you of is now mine as I bet Sir Alien I would hear from you again,the point in question being that you spend to much of your prescious time talking to the deluded and it might rub off.
All future posts of mine will have a fun rating so as to warn you in advance of the impending disaster that would befall all who might laugh at the congenitally non funny.Ive been to the top of the podium ,once on imodium,as I won the race ,there was not a trace, on any other riders face.
p.s. Brian is that by any chance the web site with the open forum where people can air their views openly at any time.Like you I cant let the wilder statements go unchallenged but of course I need to be informed about what is or isnt going on .That is something you have continually left to my vivid imagination.Every time i ask about what is going on I either get some derogitary reference to you and yours or a "what do you expect from that lot".It didnt take me long to start agreeing with them,no not because Im a sheep longing for a shepherd(my trip to Japan will explain) but because its obvious that its not working and to say to a large group of people,who are represented by the ones with no fear and an obvious clarity,that your going to sort their lives out for them but in secret is rather audacious.
Could you consider the idea of a poetry corner on your Zeb site with a special section for unfunny prose as I have loads
_________________
Tony Bell dates my hamster
Last edited by david123 on Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ldncycle
Elite Poster
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 229
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Brian, I think you should read Plurien's post again.
you both make the same statement about spin, rational - irrational point: Plurien said constructive proposal was made, my take is that BC deciding to not take it up does not add up to irrational. Seemed fairly neutral there. Thats the way I took it anyway.
Far to defensive there. and the whole thing of witnesses, that works both ways.
At any rate, Brian, what was the real story behing Royal Docks? You are really hot on asking Plurien for all types of evidence, surely it would be easy for BC to provide that evidence? I can't find the planning application that was said to have been made as reported on the BC and LDA websites in December.....
Hope you enjoyed your ride, lovely day for it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plurien
E, Silver
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1966
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Happy to deal with your points in order, Brian
Evidence - There's more evidence in the answer I gave than in the ones you have.
Spin - The point here is that it's not the press misrepresenting EUG; it's the people who think it's OK to do the exact opposite of what they've told the press. I'm happy to meet with whoever, provided there's a clear objective and that people are willing to listen.
As to the 'chief ally' being the press, two things;-
1 Members of the press are free to make up their own minds about the issues they are presented with most days. They acquire a good nose for what's real and what's not. - Doesn't it belittle your case to be pointing the finger at them, as if there aren't any issues for real to be dealt with? -
2 What's wrong with allies? BC could be a very effective ally with EUG and v-v.
The present 'BC against us' topic relates to the recent behaviour of you and your board, Brian. You say the plans are 'unacceptable' but you're not willing to oppose them. Elsewhere on this forum you have been advised that this is not a wise strategy. There are similar cases going right back to the meeting of Dec 2003 - notably to do with Rammey Marsh - which do give rise to some suspicion that you could do more. If you appear to be on the side of the developer throughout this whole affair, well that's hardly EUG's fault is it? What is it that you don't like about the position you're in and what could you have done differently to change it?
So, about the meeting on Thursday last - Did your witness tell you about the bit where I suggested why it would be a good idea for BC to come and meet with the EUG's legal firm? Is it wise for BC to be taking advice from a firm which is not at all a *CENSORED* in planning and property law? Obviously I can't disclose the case evidence shown to me at the meeting but the reason for the suggestion I made must be obvious. So was the reason for making it - BC should have the strongest possible legal case, BUT it cannot expect to 'piggy back' EUG's legal investment for free and then expect to allow the application to go through unchallenged.
So no, for me to demand that BC support the terms of EUG was not unreasonable. After all, as I was moved to say in the meeting, I pay my BC dues for BC to act on behalf of riders and to help them protect their interests in the sport. - This is why I asked the mission question, but without referring to the meeting.
I thought BC had some chutzpah to ask for EUG's assistance, when it's telling the press it won't talk to us. I still went to the meeting and I still heard what was said.
For you to criticise EUG for not helping you out after you've refused to make objection to the planning application is beyond metaphor.
Get real Brian: There are youth riders with nowhere to ride, loads of events missing from the calendar, no Inner E London cycle facility. You caught up with Dunton after EUG and its allies - we could have been riding there in March. You failed miserably with The Royals (which EUG got written-in to the agreement on Hog Hill it made with LDA). You haven't communicated with the clubs about the assistance packages you now realise they need since Eastway closed SIX MONTHS AGO. Nobody has a clue what you're supposed to be doing over Victoria Park. Dunton is too far away for many. Crystal Palace is running once a week anyhow - have you done anything to get that second night, and which night will it be? How will you run it? Hainault Forest Country Park was sorted by EUG for Beastway in Sept/Oct 2006, without reference to BC.
And now you want to say the Legacy is safe in your hands, if EUG would just reduce the pressure on your colleagues in the ODA.
I've met with the ODA's CEO and I can tell you he doesn't mind the things we're doing one bit. He does absolutely hate the embarrassment that the falling apart of the Eastway cycle circuit relocation and legacy strategy has caused him. I now have quite a bit of faith and optimism that the issue can be resolved. - There is no hope in hell of it being done any other way. |
|
| 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: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
blah blah blah blah blah, you parochial twonk with an agenda. Tell it to the London luvvies who might still mistakenly believe thst EUG are acting in the best interests of London cyclists.
Bottom line, you will have more facilities.
_________________
World Masters Drive HillClimb For Taureans Category C Champion 2013.
I'm a qualified coach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
