Nominations for office have been circulated in the latest BN magazine. There are no contested offices and there are no nominations at all for Vice Chairman, Treasurer, International Officer, Youth Officer , KSER Rep, or Research & Liaison Officer (last time there was no candidate for PRO and the post has been vacant for many years now).
A thread discussion this lack of volunteers willing to be on the EC has been running on the BN Members Forum, and is becoming increasingly vitriolic. It seeks the answer as to why members are so unwilling to volunteer.
I think it might be helpful to raise the issue here to see what is said by non-members, ex-members and even members who wish to add their comments in an unregulated environment.
> A thread discussion this lack of volunteers willing to be on the EC has > been running on the BN Members Forum, and is becoming increasingly > vitriolic. It seeks the answer as to why members are so unwilling to > volunteer.
ISTM (as an ex-member) that there is little point in standing for election for an organisation who (appear to do) very little.
In fact, the answer as to why there is a lack of willing volunteers to stand for election, is probably the same one as the reason why there is a lack of people willing to join the organisation.
Inward looking, backward looking people in their autumn years who would like everything to be the way it was 50 years ago. 'Snot a good recipe for the future.
> Nominations for office have been circulated in the latest BN magazine. There > are no contested offices and there are no nominations at all for Vice > Chairman, Treasurer, International Officer, Youth Officer , KSER Rep, or > Research & Liaison Officer (last time there was no candidate for PRO and the > post has been vacant for many years now).
> A thread discussion this lack of volunteers willing to be on the EC has been > running on the BN Members Forum, and is becoming increasingly vitriolic. It > seeks the answer as to why members are so unwilling to volunteer.
> I think it might be helpful to raise the issue here to see what is said by > non-members, ex-members and even members who wish to add their comments in > an unregulated environment.
> Over to you, people.
> -- > Duncan Heenan
I think the answer is pretty self evident. There is no chance whatsoever of dislodging the Jurassic Park element on the EC and getting some kind of modern business oriented thinking into the organisation (you’ve already proved that). Membership is falling, and with it revenue, because the organisation simply does nothing for individual members and is unable to tell them the truth about what it’s really doing anyway. Since it remains an unincorporated body the EC are jointly and severally liable for its debts – who in their right mind is going to put their name forward for this sure fire route to personal bankruptcy?
I’m an ex-member who got out when I saw the organisation in its true light, and I’m very glad I did. The lack of nominations for no less than seven EC positions is simply another indication of CCBN’s inexorable slide into obscurity and dissolution.
I’m a bit surprised that the debate in the Members Forum is getting vitriolic. When I was a member I always found that forum was moderated almost out of existence so as to preserve the cosy false notion of shiny happy people and one great fellowship of naturists, ideas which the cold truth would very quickly puncture.
I know that they are not interested in people because, when I did not renew my sub this year - there was no so much as a letter from them. No follow up, no email to ask Why?. Nothing. They have no interest in learning why people are not renewing and, I suggest, that is because they do not want to know why. Those that already know why - know that it is best to kep quiet about the old guard, the lack of foresight and the whole long sorry tale that we have seen in the past years.
They don't want me and I no longer need or want them.
On 29 June, 23:50, Simon <Not_Heysfo...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> I know that they are not interested in people because, when I did not > renew my sub this year - there was no so much as a letter from them. No > follow up, no email to ask Why?. Nothing. They have no interest in > learning why people are not renewing and, I suggest, that is because > they do not want to know why. Those that already know why - know that it > is best to kep quiet about the old guard, the lack of foresight and the > whole long sorry tale that we have seen in the past years.
> They don't want me and I no longer need or want them.
> Simon.
I've been wittering on about an exit poll for eons, but as you rightly say, they're afraid to ask the questions in case they get answers they don't want to hear. The same goes for Duncans doomed survey, I even offered a digital video camera as a prize draw for those returning the survey, the offer wasn't taken up and the survey shoved under mat, where they hide all their bogeys, which is where Duncan found the Ayersgate fiasco.
As has already been stated in previous posts, the current regime is inward looking, it has failed miserably to raise the profile of BN, just try walking onto a naturist beach and asking a few people if they've ever even heard of BN. The prevailing attitude is that naturists shouldn't offend anyone, that we should be considerate, and not make a fuss, but I ask, how the hell are you going to get noticed with that mind set? In it's inward looking stance BN is preaching to the converted, but it does bugger all to expand the possibilities, or attract the free range naturists, of which there are a great number.
The free range and beach naturists won't join BN because it offers nothing for them, with the legal fund spent by Mick Ayers and no sympathy for the naturist hiker, they are hardly likely to have these types queuing at the door. BN membership offers little in the way of support for the vast majority of naturists, an untapped market as I see it.
If you're a social naturist, and like fun and games, then BN has something to offer, also many events are open to single males, who are ostracised by clubs, and so have some appeal. BN is doing good things in the child protection area, and do a reasonably good job of detecting the odd dodgy character, although we're never likely to know how well because they fail to capitalise on the positive publicity that could come from this.
Now we're on the subject of capitalising on publicity, it amazes me that the WNBR, and other contentious matters aren't used to their advantage, if only to point out how well it is accepted by Joe Public, but no, the attitude is that they would rather disassociate themselves from such goings on, "because it might offend someone" but they don't take the trouble to witness the spetacle for themselves and SEE how well it's accepted.
BN pays an estimated £13,000 a year for its affiliation to the INF, and gets little or nothing in return (Yes, Mick Ayers is STILL able to profit from BN's subscribers.), although it does promote 'World Naturist Day' which BN chooses to ignore, and the same for 'Day Without Bathing Suits' and both of these events passed by in the last couple of weeks without even a whimper! Why the hell is BN paying good money, just to ignore the events the INF is promoting? As for the little INF logo on the back of the card, no longer necessary, and even if there were a club or resort that required it, you can buy it right there and then, so why bother with BN membership?
The fossils are ignoring the fact that naturism exists outside the gates of the clubs, the dwindling number of BN affiliated clubs (As many are dropping their membership.), but can't see the vast number of garden/hiking/beach/holiday naturists who wouldn't waste their money on membership of an organisation that holds them in disregard. When BN reinstates the legal fund, is in the position to fight for MORE beaches, and nude hiking rights on Forestry Commission land and common land, instead of simply attempting to save a beach, and failing, then it may just attract a great many more people.
I've all but given up on BN, I'm going to attend the annual fiasco, known to the EC as the AGM, but I don't hold out much hope of anything useful coming from that, so it's highly likely that I won't renew next year, and I know I'm not alone.
I've all but given up on BN, I'm going to attend the annual fiasco, known to the EC as the AGM, but I don't hold out much hope of anything useful coming from that, so it's highly likely that I won't renew next year, and I know I'm not alone.
Yours in despair
Pete Knight -------------------------------------------
I'll see you at the AGM, Pete. Quite why I am going when we know that Colin Gorham's block vote always wins the day, I don't know. Care also to come to the INF swim gala in the autum, to meet Mick Ayers and talk over 'old times'. I shall, as I've been selected for the CCBN team. I'm especially looking forward too to also discussing Mick's (un-elected) role in INF with some of the other INF officials who will be there. We might even touch on how INF found itself in the postion of paying its ex-secretary ?100,000 to close the office, because it had run out of money (with her running off with ?100,000 they would run out of money wouldn't they?!). Mick Ayers boasted for many years of his past as a professional Trades Union organiser, and yet INF got itself in to the situation of having to pay its secretary ?100,000 to get rid of her? Or maybe he arranged the ?100,000 for his old friend somehow? Sounds like a re-run of 2005 when Mick Ayers, as Chairman of CCBN denied to the AGM that CCBN had financial difficulties, only to have the whistle blown on him by John Paine (then RLO), who proved that it had only avoided bankruptcy by cashing in its final savings bond in order to pay the insurance premiums and wages. Yes, it will be an interesting meeting. All are welcome! -- Duncan Heenan
I've all but given up on BN, I'm going to attend the annual fiasco, known to the EC as the AGM, but I don't hold out much hope of anything useful coming from that, so it's highly likely that I won't renew next year, and I know I'm not alone.
Yours in despair
Pete Knight -------------------------------------------
I'll see you at the AGM, Pete. Quite why I am going when we know that Colin Gorham's block vote always wins the day, I don't know. Care also to come to the INF swim gala in the autum, to meet Mick Ayers and talk over 'old times'. I shall, as I've been selected for the CCBN team. I'm especially looking forward too to also discussing Mick's (un-elected) role in INF with some of the other INF officials who will be there. We might even touch on how INF found itself in the postion of paying its ex-secretary ?100,000 to close the office, because it had run out of money (with her running off with ?100,000 they would run out of money wouldn't they?!). Mick Ayers boasted for many years of his past as a professional Trades Union organiser, and yet INF got itself in to the situation of having to pay its secretary ?100,000 to get rid of her? Or maybe he arranged the ?100,000 for his old friend somehow? Sounds like a re-run of 2005 when Mick Ayers, as Chairman of CCBN denied to the AGM that CCBN had financial difficulties, only to have the whistle blown on him by John Paine (then RLO), who proved that it had only avoided bankruptcy by cashing in its final savings bond in order to pay the insurance premiums and wages. Yes, it will be an interesting meeting. All are welcome! -- Duncan Heenan
> I've all but given up on BN, I'm going to attend the annual fiasco, > known to the EC as the AGM, but I don't hold out much hope of anything > useful coming from that, so it's highly likely that I won't renew next > year, and I know I'm not alone.
> Yours in despair
> Pete Knight > -------------------------------------------
> I'll see you at the AGM, Pete. Quite why I am going when we know that Colin > Gorham's block vote always wins the day, I don't know. > Care also to come to the INF swim gala in the autum, to meet Mick Ayers and > talk over 'old times'. I shall, as I've been selected for the CCBN team. I'm > especially looking forward too to also discussing Mick's (un-elected) role > in INF with some of the other INF officials who will be there. We might even > touch on how INF found itself in the postion of paying its ex-secretary > ?100,000 to close the office, because it had run out of money (with her > running off with ?100,000 they would run out of money wouldn't they?!). Mick > Ayers boasted for many years of his past as a professional Trades Union > organiser, and yet INF got itself in to the situation of having to pay its > secretary ?100,000 to get rid of her? Or maybe he arranged the ?100,000 for > his old friend somehow? Sounds like a re-run of 2005 when Mick Ayers, as > Chairman of CCBN denied to the AGM that CCBN had financial difficulties, > only to have the whistle blown on him by John Paine (then RLO), who proved > that it had only avoided bankruptcy by cashing in its final savings bond in > order to pay the insurance premiums and wages. > Yes, it will be an interesting meeting. All are welcome! > -- > Duncan Heenan
I have plans to be there at the swimming gala (Must check that the dates don't clash with anything else i have planned.), in fact I was only thinking about this the other day.
Anyone else care to come along and confront Mr Ayers?
> I've all but given up on BN, I'm going to attend the annual fiasco, > known to the EC as the AGM, but I don't hold out much hope of anything > useful coming from that, so it's highly likely that I won't renew next > year, and I know I'm not alone.
> Yours in despair
> Pete Knight > -------------------------------------------
> I'll see you at the AGM, Pete. Quite why I am going when we know that > Colin > Gorham's block vote always wins the day, I don't know. > Care also to come to the INF swim gala in the autum, to meet Mick Ayers > and > talk over 'old times'. I shall, as I've been selected for the CCBN team. > I'm > especially looking forward too to also discussing Mick's (un-elected) role > in INF with some of the other INF officials who will be there. We might > even > touch on how INF found itself in the postion of paying its ex-secretary > ?100,000 to close the office, because it had run out of money (with her > running off with ?100,000 they would run out of money wouldn't they?!). > Mick > Ayers boasted for many years of his past as a professional Trades Union > organiser, and yet INF got itself in to the situation of having to pay its > secretary ?100,000 to get rid of her? Or maybe he arranged the ?100,000 > for > his old friend somehow? Sounds like a re-run of 2005 when Mick Ayers, as > Chairman of CCBN denied to the AGM that CCBN had financial difficulties, > only to have the whistle blown on him by John Paine (then RLO), who proved > that it had only avoided bankruptcy by cashing in its final savings bond > in > order to pay the insurance premiums and wages. > Yes, it will be an interesting meeting. All are welcome! > -- > Duncan Heenan
I have plans to be there at the swimming gala (Must check that the dates don't clash with anything else i have planned.), in fact I was only thinking about this the other day.
Anyone else care to come along and confront Mr Ayers?
Pete -------------------------------------
I would emphasize that I am not intending a 'confrontation' of the sort that can lead to violence, just a full and frank discussion on matters of mutual interest...as diplomats put it! why should Mr. Ayers object to that, after all he claims he's done nothing wrong, so maybe he'd like to disprove all the evidence to the contrary? I'm sure we'd all like to witness a miracle. -- Duncan Heenan
> BN pays an estimated 13,000 a year for its affiliation to the INF, > and gets little or nothing in return SNIP > Why the hell is BN paying good > money, just to ignore the events the INF is promoting?
SNIP
We all know the answers! First and foremostly becuase they run it for themselves rather than the members. Like long serving politicians, they have confused their likes with those of the electorate.
Secondly, there is the 'we don't want to let down our old chums'. The highest examples of this (in another sphere) was the way South Africa supported Mugabe through his years of raping Zimbabwe because he had helped them in years gone by. But they lost their moral compass and their support for him has seriously damaged South Africa - but they are not prepared to see that or, if they do, admit it in public.
On 1 July, 15:48, Simon <Not_Heysfo...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> We all know the answers! First and foremostly becuase they run it for > themselves rather than the members. Like long serving politicians, they > have confused their likes with those of the electorate.
> Simon.
Hoorah, give that man a cigar! This is how I see it, the members viewpoint from the EC isn't the one I've been getting from disaffected members, and more importantly, ex-members for a while now, but an exit poll or even the sidelined survey may reveal more than the chairman wants to know!
Just how much longer can they bury their head in the sands?
Pete Knight wrote: > Hoorah, give that man a cigar!
You are too kind. Make it a chocholate one and I'll take it!
> Just how much longer can they bury their head in the sands?
Permanently of course! When BN goes bang, it is Dunca and you and me and all the others that will get the blame. Don't forget that we 'talked BN down in public' [told the truth] and that we 'deprived BN of important funds' [were cautious with our money] and all the other things. In fact, you could start a list of the accusations now ...
On 30 June, 20:06, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> The fossils are ignoring the fact that naturism exists outside the > gates of the clubs, the dwindling number of BN affiliated clubs (As > many are dropping their membership.), but can't see the vast number of > garden/hiking/beach/holiday naturists who wouldn't waste their money > on membership of an organisation that holds them in disregard.
<snip>
Even within the gates of the clubs CCBN membership is declining. Hardly anyone at ours remains a member any more because they see the value for money as so poor.
CCBN doesn't just hold non-club naturists in disregard, it seems to do that to all naturists because it clearly thinks were simply a docile source of cash just waiting to get milked to fund EC members inflated expenses claims. They haven't seen any of my money for the last two years though and never will again (yet it could have been so, so different if a few Regional Reps and EC members had actually bothered to reply to my letters posing sensible questions about what CCBN was actually up to - I wonder how much of the postage they claim on expenses is actually real? - but there you go!).
> On 30 June, 20:06, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > The fossils are ignoring the fact that naturism exists outside the > > gates of the clubs, the dwindling number of BN affiliated clubs (As > > many are dropping their membership.), but can't see the vast number of > > garden/hiking/beach/holiday naturists who wouldn't waste their money > > on membership of an organisation that holds them in disregard.
> <snip>
> Even within the gates of the clubs CCBN membership is declining. > Hardly anyone at ours remains a member any more because they see the > value for money as so poor.
> CCBN doesn't just hold non-club naturists in disregard, it seems to do > that to all naturists because it clearly thinks were simply a docile > source of cash just waiting to get milked to fund EC members inflated > expenses claims. They haven't seen any of my money for the last two > years though and never will again (yet it could have been so, so > different if a few Regional Reps and EC members had actually bothered > to reply to my letters posing sensible questions about what CCBN was > actually up to - I wonder how much of the postage they claim on > expenses is actually real? - but there you go!).
That is just the sort of comment I hear from so many disgruntled ex- members, and just the sort of viewpoint that is ignored, so they will never understand why the membership is declining. I've called for an exit poll for a few years now, but of course they are afraid to ask the questions because the answers might conflict with their excuses.
The standard excuse for the decline is that people like us are talking BN down, but I see it as a running commentary of their actions, or should that be inaction!
Until they come to realise that the vast majority of potential members want a proper campaigning organisation, not a bunch of self serving apologists holding naturism back. I should point out that there are some good people within BN, but they are overshadowed by the apologists, although there has been an influx of new enthusiasm. I can only hope that the enthusiasm overrides the apologist viewpoint and we start to see a progressive organisation emerge, but I as I keep saying, we'll see what happens at the AGM.
> On 3 July, 05:25, uhgrad <uhg...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On 30 June, 20:06, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > The fossils are ignoring the fact that naturism exists outside the > > > gates of the clubs, the dwindling number of BN affiliated clubs (As > > > many are dropping their membership.), but can't see the vast number of > > > garden/hiking/beach/holiday naturists who wouldn't waste their money > > > on membership of an organisation that holds them in disregard.
> > <snip>
> > Even within the gates of the clubs CCBN membership is declining. > > Hardly anyone at ours remains a member any more because they see the > > value for money as so poor.
> > CCBN doesn't just hold non-club naturists in disregard, it seems to do > > that to all naturists because it clearly thinks were simply a docile > > source of cash just waiting to get milked to fund EC members inflated > > expenses claims. They haven't seen any of my money for the last two > > years though and never will again (yet it could have been so, so > > different if a few Regional Reps and EC members had actually bothered > > to reply to my letters posing sensible questions about what CCBN was > > actually up to - I wonder how much of the postage they claim on > > expenses is actually real? - but there you go!).
> That is just the sort of comment I hear from so many disgruntled ex- > members, and just the sort of viewpoint that is ignored, so they will > never understand why the membership is declining. I've called for an > exit poll for a few years now, but of course they are afraid to ask > the questions because the answers might conflict with their excuses.
> The standard excuse for the decline is that people like us are talking > BN down, but I see it as a running commentary of their actions, or > should that be inaction!
> Until they come to realise that the vast majority of potential members > want a proper campaigning organisation, not a bunch of self serving > apologists holding naturism back. I should point out that there are > some good people within BN, but they are overshadowed by the > apologists, although there has been an influx of new enthusiasm. I can > only hope that the enthusiasm overrides the apologist viewpoint and we > start to see a progressive organisation emerge, but I as I keep > saying, we'll see what happens at the AGM.
> Pete
Thanx for your supportive comments Pete. No cigar though (unlike Simon). Any reasons?
> On 3 July, 07:30, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 3 July, 05:25, uhgrad <uhg...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On 30 June, 20:06, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > The fossils are ignoring the fact that naturism exists outside the > > > > gates of the clubs, the dwindling number of BN affiliated clubs (As > > > > many are dropping their membership.), but can't see the vast number of > > > > garden/hiking/beach/holiday naturists who wouldn't waste their money > > > > on membership of an organisation that holds them in disregard.
> > > <snip>
> > > Even within the gates of the clubs CCBN membership is declining. > > > Hardly anyone at ours remains a member any more because they see the > > > value for money as so poor.
> > > CCBN doesn't just hold non-club naturists in disregard, it seems to do > > > that to all naturists because it clearly thinks were simply a docile > > > source of cash just waiting to get milked to fund EC members inflated > > > expenses claims. They haven't seen any of my money for the last two > > > years though and never will again (yet it could have been so, so > > > different if a few Regional Reps and EC members had actually bothered > > > to reply to my letters posing sensible questions about what CCBN was > > > actually up to - I wonder how much of the postage they claim on > > > expenses is actually real? - but there you go!).
> > That is just the sort of comment I hear from so many disgruntled ex- > > members, and just the sort of viewpoint that is ignored, so they will > > never understand why the membership is declining. I've called for an > > exit poll for a few years now, but of course they are afraid to ask > > the questions because the answers might conflict with their excuses.
> > The standard excuse for the decline is that people like us are talking > > BN down, but I see it as a running commentary of their actions, or > > should that be inaction!
> > Until they come to realise that the vast majority of potential members > > want a proper campaigning organisation, not a bunch of self serving > > apologists holding naturism back. I should point out that there are > > some good people within BN, but they are overshadowed by the > > apologists, although there has been an influx of new enthusiasm. I can > > only hope that the enthusiasm overrides the apologist viewpoint and we > > start to see a progressive organisation emerge, but I as I keep > > saying, we'll see what happens at the AGM.
> > Pete
> Thanx for your supportive comments Pete. No cigar though (unlike > Simon). Any reasons?
I have a virtual box full of virtual cigars, so have two if you want one!
> On 5 July, 22:47, uhgrad <uhg...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On 3 July, 07:30, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > On 3 July, 05:25, uhgrad <uhg...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On 30 June, 20:06, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > The fossils are ignoring the fact that naturism exists outside the > > > > > gates of the clubs, the dwindling number of BN affiliated clubs (As > > > > > many are dropping their membership.), but can't see the vast number of > > > > > garden/hiking/beach/holiday naturists who wouldn't waste their money > > > > > on membership of an organisation that holds them in disregard.
> > > > <snip>
> > > > Even within the gates of the clubs CCBN membership is declining. > > > > Hardly anyone at ours remains a member any more because they see the > > > > value for money as so poor.
> > > > CCBN doesn't just hold non-club naturists in disregard, it seems to do > > > > that to all naturists because it clearly thinks were simply a docile > > > > source of cash just waiting to get milked to fund EC members inflated > > > > expenses claims. They haven't seen any of my money for the last two > > > > years though and never will again (yet it could have been so, so > > > > different if a few Regional Reps and EC members had actually bothered > > > > to reply to my letters posing sensible questions about what CCBN was > > > > actually up to - I wonder how much of the postage they claim on > > > > expenses is actually real? - but there you go!).
> > > That is just the sort of comment I hear from so many disgruntled ex- > > > members, and just the sort of viewpoint that is ignored, so they will > > > never understand why the membership is declining. I've called for an > > > exit poll for a few years now, but of course they are afraid to ask > > > the questions because the answers might conflict with their excuses.
> > > The standard excuse for the decline is that people like us are talking > > > BN down, but I see it as a running commentary of their actions, or > > > should that be inaction!
> > > Until they come to realise that the vast majority of potential members > > > want a proper campaigning organisation, not a bunch of self serving > > > apologists holding naturism back. I should point out that there are > > > some good people within BN, but they are overshadowed by the > > > apologists, although there has been an influx of new enthusiasm. I can > > > only hope that the enthusiasm overrides the apologist viewpoint and we > > > start to see a progressive organisation emerge, but I as I keep > > > saying, we'll see what happens at the AGM.
> > > Pete
> > Thanx for your supportive comments Pete. No cigar though (unlike > > Simon). Any reasons?
> I have a virtual box full of virtual cigars, so have two if you want > one!
Thanx mate! I'm virtually speechless in gratitude!!
> > > > > On 30 June, 20:06, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > The fossils are ignoring the fact that naturism exists outside the > > > > > > gates of the clubs, the dwindling number of BN affiliated clubs (As > > > > > > many are dropping their membership.), but can't see the vast number of > > > > > > garden/hiking/beach/holiday naturists who wouldn't waste their money > > > > > > on membership of an organisation that holds them in disregard.
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > > Even within the gates of the clubs CCBN membership is declining. > > > > > Hardly anyone at ours remains a member any more because they see the > > > > > value for money as so poor.
> > > > > CCBN doesn't just hold non-club naturists in disregard, it seems to do > > > > > that to all naturists because it clearly thinks were simply a docile > > > > > source of cash just waiting to get milked to fund EC members inflated > > > > > expenses claims. They haven't seen any of my money for the last two > > > > > years though and never will again (yet it could have been so, so > > > > > different if a few Regional Reps and EC members had actually bothered > > > > > to reply to my letters posing sensible questions about what CCBN was > > > > > actually up to - I wonder how much of the postage they claim on > > > > > expenses is actually real? - but there you go!).
> > > > That is just the sort of comment I hear from so many disgruntled ex- > > > > members, and just the sort of viewpoint that is ignored, so they will > > > > never understand why the membership is declining. I've called for an > > > > exit poll for a few years now, but of course they are afraid to ask > > > > the questions because the answers might conflict with their excuses.
> > > > The standard excuse for the decline is that people like us are talking > > > > BN down, but I see it as a running commentary of their actions, or > > > > should that be inaction!
> > > > Until they come to realise that the vast majority of potential members > > > > want a proper campaigning organisation, not a bunch of self serving > > > > apologists holding naturism back. I should point out that there are > > > > some good people within BN, but they are overshadowed by the > > > > apologists, although there has been an influx of new enthusiasm. I can > > > > only hope that the enthusiasm overrides the apologist viewpoint and we > > > > start to see a progressive organisation emerge, but I as I keep > > > > saying, we'll see what happens at the AGM.
> > > > Pete
> > > Thanx for your supportive comments Pete. No cigar though (unlike > > > Simon). Any reasons?
> > I have a virtual box full of virtual cigars, so have two if you want > > one!
> Thanx mate! I'm virtually speechless in gratitude!!
You're welcome, just don't get the virtual smoke in my eyes!
Moving back to the topic, I'm getting more and more disaffected members/ex-members speaking to me every day, what concerns me is that the reasons they left or are leaving are the ones being stated here all the time, yet the powers that be refuse to accept it! A frank and anonymous exit poll is needed before it's too late.
From conversations with volunteers of past years I am now firmly convinced that a closed group within the EC have trampled all over anyone showing up with new ideas, well not new ideas as such, simply workable plans that might interfere with the cozy little talking shop that has been ticking over for years. The year to year running of BN, with no long term plans, not even a three year plan, in place, and the annual division of the spoils between the officers roles, a modus operandi so beloved by Mick Ayers, the guy who successfully spent all that previous EC's had managed to put aside for a rainy day.
The old thinking was of a very club oriented organisation, and anyone naked outside the gates wasn't considered a naturist as far as Mick Ayers was concerned, and that thought is still strong on the EC, yet there are a great many free range naturists who walk in the countryside, many of whom do so without being seen. Those I know of aren't interested in joining BN because of it's official attitude to them. The same goes for beach and home naturists, why would they join BN, it offers nothing for them, no legal support, the legal fund was never kept separate, so Mick Ayers no doubt spent that money too!
When BN becomes a pressure group, and I'm not talking militant here, and demands more rights and facilities for naturists, rather than fighting to keep those under threat, then maybe more will consider parting with their hard earned cash. Even the clubites are leaving BN in droves, most clubs now don't insist upon it's members being BN card holders, and quite a few clubs have withdrawn from BN in favour of ABNC.
I'm being told about disputes and issues going unresolved, how can you have confidence in an organisation that can't handle it's own affairs firmly and decisively, but I've no doubt that my revelation of such matters will be used as the reason for members leaving, yes the old scenario of blaming those who speak up, whilst they quickly stuff the problem back under the mat, out of sight whilst hoping that the fuss dies down so they can get on with talking other matters to death.
I'd like to see an EC in action, not EC inaction!
I would of course address my concerns to the chairman, but I'd die of frustration waiting for a response, or be frustrated by the response
On 6 July, 18:01, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> wrote:
<snip for brevity>
> You're welcome, just don't get the virtual smoke in my eyes!
Always careful about that one I assure you! One of the few smokers left at our club, which heightens concern for others.
<further snip for same reason>
> The old thinking was of a very club oriented organisation, and anyone > naked outside the gates wasn't considered a naturist as far as Mick > Ayers was concerned, and that thought is still strong on the EC, yet > there are a great many free range naturists who walk in the > countryside, many of whom do so without being seen. Those I know of > aren't interested in joining BN because of it's official attitude to > them. The same goes for beach and home naturists, why would they join > BN, it offers nothing for them, no legal support, the legal fund was > never kept separate, so Mick Ayers no doubt spent that money too!
Had you been on the club house lawn at Spielplatz yesterday afternoon with a pint in your hand (and maybe a virtual cigar or two in your backpack!) you'd have got a very interesting perspective on this issue. The general consensus seemed to be that ABNC could easily take on the club role without even trying. It was the free range and beach brigade who received sympathy, because they really need a strong national organisation behind them to support what they are doing and they will be the ones who are let down when CCBN goes phutt.
Getting 120+ clubs to talk to each other is less of a task than bringing possibly 25,000 to 30,000 commited naturists together. There are less people to talk to to start the process off for one thing.
> When BN becomes a pressure group, and I'm not talking militant here, > and demands more rights and facilities for naturists, rather than > fighting to keep those under threat, then maybe more will consider > parting with their hard earned cash. Even the clubites are leaving BN > in droves, most clubs now don't insist upon it's members being BN card > holders, and quite a few clubs have withdrawn from BN in favour of > ABNC.
And they have withdrawn because ABNC is far better able to represent their interests than CCBN has ever done and their record proves it. We need to return to the pre-1964 model of an organisation for clubs and another for individual naturists. The basis is there already. The social climate has changed radically since 1964, when there were no swims and no official beaches. CCBN seems to have overlooked this. As a club member I need far less protection than a beach user, for example, because I'm not at risk of potential prosecution for dropping my shorts as they are.
> I'm being told about disputes and issues going unresolved, how can you > have confidence in an organisation that can't handle it's own affairs > firmly and decisively, but I've no doubt that my revelation of such > matters will be used as the reason for members leaving, yes the old > scenario of blaming those who speak up, whilst they quickly stuff the > problem back under the mat, out of sight whilst hoping that the fuss > dies down so they can get on with talking other matters to death.
Undoubtedly we're the nasty bastards who are going to be accused of "killing" CCBN. What was it the Irish poet Louis MacNiece wrote? "Sit on your arse for fifty years and hang your hat on a pension" - which is exactly what dinosaurs like Farrar are doing at CCBN. We'll know the truth though - they destroyed it vwhile we pointed out what was going on.
> I'd like to see an EC in action, not EC inaction!
> I would of course address my concerns to the chairman, but I'd die of > frustration waiting for a response, or be frustrated by the response
If your concern was controversial enough you'd never get a reply!
On 6 July, 23:14, Simon <Not_Heysfo...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
> Pete Knight wrote:
> SNIP> A frank and anonymous exit poll is needed before it's too late.
> It is already too late. The exit poll was needed five years ago. > SNIP> When BN becomes a pressure group
> It won't it will die. Then a new group will emerge from somehere and > have a bash. That is how human beings do things. Always have, always will.
> Not getting at you Peter, just the way I see it.
> Simon.
Well Simon, the harbingers of doom were predicting BN's demise five years ago, admittedly it is still in terminal decline, but the death is long and protracted, longer than most anticipated.
A thought that came to me this morning as I woke up; Those of us who expose and keep alive the awful errors made in our name are accused of putting off new members, who leave after heir first year, but as I see it, keeping the problems quiet is an act of deceit, or cheating in other words.
Lets take the Ayersgate cock up for a start, an apology was eventually issued, but only after attempts had been made to hide the loan, and the chairman of the time refusing to discuss the matter was an obvious attempt (And a poor one at that.) to keep it under wraps, they even threw a charge of 'Bringing naturism into disrepute' at one whistle blower. So it's plain to see that acts of deceit were perpetrated upon new and prospective members, instead of dealing with the issue properly and putting it to bed.
Hiding, or trying to explain away the declining membership numbers, that's rather like a child trying to hide his school report, then making pathetic excuses, it gets found out eventually, and when it finally comes out the problem is twice as bad.
The errors should be dealt with decisively and corrected where possible, not kept quiet whilst hoping that the members don't find out. The Ayers years have nearly brought BN to it's knees, bad management decisions, unpaid loans, and acts of deceit by arrogant people who claim EC business is nothing to do with ordinary paying members. I remember being told that if I want to be involved in EC business I should stand for office, my response, and that of many others, is that if I'm excluded from knowing what is going on in my name, then I'll remove my name from the list of paying members.
Bearing in mind the track record, I don't expect any significant progress to be made in the ensuing months, so no changes to the way business is conducted, and management decisions will continue to be long and drawn out, therefore I don't expect to see any of the proposed changes by the AGM, where we'll see the usual fiasco culminating in yet more fudging. The only truly effective officer steps down at the end of his tenure, without him the organisation will lose most of its dynamism, although there are some bright new lights on the EC, I fully expect them to be dimmed by the apathy and small mindedness that dominates the EC. I understand the Dragon of the north is not standing for office, but it didn't last time, choosing to avoid negative voting and be co-opted by its chums instead, then we have the chairman.......... mmmm, yes BN is doomed!
A couple of years ago I had hoped that they might look to the future, think big and fight for the naturist cause, but no, the planning doesn't stretch beyond how they are going to spend next years subscriptions, and the fight is confined to trying to save beaches from closure, although I have to add that a lot of work has gone into representing naturism in in the drafting of the Marine Bill. It's not all doom and gloom, there have been many good points, but they have been gloss on the surface, the underlying problems remain, and get progressively worse.
So I really don't expect to be renewing my membership for next year!
Pete Knight wrote: > On 6 July, 16:46, uhgrad <uhg...@aol.com> wrote: >> On 6 July, 13:05, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>SELECTIVELY SNIPPED<< >>>>> Until they come to realise that the vast majority of potential members >>>>> want a proper campaigning organisation, not a bunch of self serving >>>>> apologists holding naturism back.
> You're welcome, just don't get the virtual smoke in my eyes!
> Moving back to the topic, I'm getting more and more disaffected > members/ex-members speaking to me every day, what concerns me is that > the reasons they left or are leaving are the ones being stated here > all the time, yet the powers that be refuse to accept it! A frank and > anonymous exit poll is needed before it's too late.
> From conversations with volunteers of past years I am now firmly > convinced that a closed group within the EC have trampled all over > anyone showing up with new ideas, well not new ideas as such, simply > workable plans that might interfere with the cozy little talking shop > that has been ticking over for years.
> When BN becomes a pressure group, and I'm not talking militant here, > and demands more rights and facilities for naturists, rather than > fighting to keep those under threat, then maybe more will consider > parting with their hard earned cash.
> I'm being told about disputes and issues going unresolved, how can you > have confidence in an organisation that can't handle it's own affairs > firmly and decisively, but I've no doubt that my revelation of such > matters will be used as the reason for members leaving, yes the old > scenario of blaming those who speak up, whilst they quickly stuff the > problem back under the mat, out of sight whilst hoping that the fuss > dies down so they can get on with talking other matters to death.
> I'd like to see an EC in action, not EC inaction! > Pete Knight
Hello Pete .. as discussed, welcome to the world of 'We Disallusioned'.
For me there's some very succinct points in this post and also in your next one. It really does feel as though the organisation is in it's last throes. Any successes seem to be cited in the campaigning arm. But as the organisation shrinks so the effectiveness of that will diminish also. When we were 25,000 and stable there was a case to be taken notice of. At 12,000 and shrinking, who's going to care about our views?
Why do we spend so much time regurgitating all the mis-management, alleged corruption, lack of direction etc etc? No matter what 'We Disallusioned' thought at the time, nothing was ever going to change because within there was no desire to change. So isn't it time to abandon this stuff and think to the future?
>>The general consensus seemed to be that ABNC could easily take on the club role without even trying. It was the free range and beach brigade who received sympathy, because they really need a strong national organisation behind them to support what they are doing and they will be the ones who are let down when CCBN goes phutt.<<
I'd be willing to put money on (as would most people) that if the mythical exit polls had been put into place then the top reason for not continuing membership would have been "I don't get anything out of the organisation" (whether real or perceived - I know, another can of worms). Thousands and thousands of opportunities missed.
For an organisation to be campaigning it's going to have to have a big chunk of people behind it. How can the 'free-range brigade' be attracted back and be switched on? What's going to convince them to part with their hard earned cash? Are there enough numbers to make it worthwhile?
If we had a blank piece of paper and wanted to design an new, campaigning, naturist organisation, what would it need to do and how would it look?
On 7 July, 06:16, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well Simon, the harbingers of doom were predicting BN's demise five > years ago, admittedly it is still in terminal decline, but the death > is long and protracted, longer than most anticipated.
<remainder snipped, not because it's not interesting but to save space>
Full marks Pete! In the past we've not always seen eye to eye on a number of things but you're so close to my line of thinking here it's uncanny.
Presumably offering you a cigar (I seem to think you're a non smoker, although I may be wrong) is a no no, but if you drink and are at Spielplatz this coming weekend for the Open Weekend there I'll gladly stand you a pint! Perhaps we can also work out how we're going to replace CCBN with something worthwhile at the same time!!
> On 7 July, 06:16, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Well Simon, the harbingers of doom were predicting BN's demise five > > years ago, admittedly it is still in terminal decline, but the death > > is long and protracted, longer than most anticipated.
> <remainder snipped, not because it's not interesting but to save > space>
> Full marks Pete! In the past we've not always seen eye to eye on a > number of things but you're so close to my line of thinking here it's > uncanny.
> Presumably offering you a cigar (I seem to think you're a non smoker, > although I may be wrong) is a no no, but if you drink and are at > Spielplatz this coming weekend for the Open Weekend there I'll gladly > stand you a pint! Perhaps we can also work out how we're going to > replace CCBN with something worthwhile at the same time!!
I'll gladly drink your beer, but sadly I'm committed to attending AHG, Splashdown and the beach day. If the rain fouls up the beach day I may try to get to Speiplatz for the Sunday, but don't hold your breath, a lot depends on how knackered I am after carting brochures around all day Saturday.
At least this seems to have opened up the debate on an alternative organisation, one that ideally encompasses all aspects of naturist lifestyle, and not exclude any. A legal fund would be very useful, with an independent campaigning section, as would a separate trading arm. Most organisations break up their operations, partly for efficiency, and partly for liability, whereas BN is only just thinking about incorporation, and even then under extreme pressure.
It will need good men to step up to the line in order to get it started, any volunteers?
> Hello Pete .. as discussed, welcome to the world of 'We Disallusioned'.
> For me there's some very succinct points in this post and also in your > next one. It really does feel as though the organisation is in it's > last throes. Any successes seem to be cited in the campaigning arm. But > as the organisation shrinks so the effectiveness of that will diminish > also. When we were 25,000 and stable there was a case to be taken notice > of. At 12,000 and shrinking, who's going to care about our views?
25,000 was actually a fiddled figure we've since found out. It was arrived at by adding the actual individual membership of CCBN to the non-CCBN membership of CCBN affiliated clubs so wasn't entirely honest (but then what is when CCBN gets involved?).
> Why do we spend so much time regurgitating all the mis-management, > alleged corruption, lack of direction etc etc? No matter what 'We > Disallusioned' thought at the time, nothing was ever going to change > because within there was no desire to change. So isn't it time to > abandon this stuff and think to the future?
The time has certainly come to abandon CCBN, but perhaps at the same time to look backwards and recreate a two association structure (one for clubs and another for individuals). Beach users and club members, for example, have very little in common apart perhaps from a desire to do what they do with no clothes on. In the clubs we're protected from capricious prosecution by the police because what we're doing is undoubtedly lawful, whereas out on the beaches it's very, very different. As I've said before, it's the beach users and swim group members who need a strong campaigning (and protective) organisation behind them. If club members choose to join it too then that'll be a bonus.
> >>The general consensus seemed to be that ABNC could easily take > on the club role without even trying. It was the free range and beach > brigade who received sympathy, because they really need a strong > national organisation behind them to support what they are doing and > they will be the ones who are let down when CCBN goes phutt.<<
Thanks for regarding me as well enough informed to actually quote me. What you've reproduced above is one of mine!
> I'd be willing to put money on (as would most people) that if the > mythical exit polls had been put into place then the top reason for not > continuing membership would have been "I don't get anything out of the > organisation" (whether real or perceived - I know, another can of > worms). Thousands and thousands of opportunities missed.
Yes, I think you've fingered the problem here. At the equivalent of about £7.50 a copy BN magazine is the only thing most CCBN members derive from the organisation, and when that's full up with really rivetting club news, like"We held a highly successful raffle and the profit was sufficient to buy a new kettle for the club house" and crap like that, what benefit is it really?
> For an organisation to be campaigning it's going to have to have a big > chunk of people behind it. How can the 'free-range brigade' be > attracted back and be switched on? What's going to convince them to part > with their hard earned cash? Are there enough numbers to make it > worthwhile?
> If we had a blank piece of paper and wanted to design an new, > campaigning, naturist organisation, what would it need to do and how > would it look?
For a start I think it would either represent clubs or individuals, but not both because naturism has become too wide in its scope for that model to work efficiently now. Next, it would make sure that the kind of daft things I've had to put up with don't happen again (known member of well respected long established sun club with international reputation applies to join another one and gets turned down without reasons being assigned, but probably simply because he just happens to be single - thanks for that Cambridge Outdoor Club!). Thirdly, it would weild a big stick against the clubs when they step out of line instead of regarding them with shock and awe (anti-singles discrimination is the issue I have in mind here). Finally, it would recognise the difference between bringing naturism into disrepute and itself being brought into disrepute (at the moment what's going on seems to be regarded as all our fault and not the organisation's and it's only a matter of time before accusations of bringing the entire naturist community into disrepute start getting flung around by CCBN, when all the time it's been bringing itself into disrepute and we're simply giving blow by blow reportage of its sleazy way of doing things).
> Discuss? Anyone?
Is there enough there for you to be getting on with?
|
