>> 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?
Welllllll ........ that kind of sorts out the ethos ..... but what's it ACTUALLY going to do? Isn't that the problem?
<liberated2nos...@nospammhotmail.co.uk> wrote: > Welllllll ........ that kind of sorts out the ethos ..... but what's it > ACTUALLY going to do? Isn't that the problem?
What it will actually do I think is sweet FA (and that's nothing at all to do with the Football Association!).
What we need to do though is have a game plan ready to be implemented quickly when CCBN finally implodes, and that's why this thread seems to be becoming important because it's bringing like minded people together who realise that naturism in the UK has a future and needs a vigorous organisation to support it.
> 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?).
Fudging and obfuscation are the trade marks of BN, as it currently stands.
> 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.
I have to disagree, any replacement organisation would have to be a multi role one, if only to have the number to speak witha stronger voice, and lets face it, the world of organised naturism has been tarnished, so trying to get 20,000 naturists to part with their money would be an up hill struggle.
>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).
A proper structure, with standard operating procedures so that anyone can step into the breach and run it, rather than allowing the situation where we depend on one or two people to hold all the knowledge. A flexible enough constitution that allows smaller changes to go with the changing times, which IMHO is where BN has gone so dreadfully wrong.
> Is there enough there for you to be getting on with?
Yeah, that'll do for now, it's all pipe dreams anyway, they just isn't the will to succeed, otherwise BN would be on the straight and we wouldn't need to look at fresh possibilities.
Pete Knight wrote: > On 7 July, 10:55, uhgrad <uhg...@aol.com> wrote:
>> 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?).
> Fudging and obfuscation are the trade marks of BN, as it currently > stands.
>> 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.
> I have to disagree, any replacement organisation would have to be a > multi role one, if only to have the number to speak witha stronger > voice, and lets face it, the world of organised naturism has been > tarnished, so trying to get 20,000 naturists to part with their money > would be an up hill struggle.
>> 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).
> A proper structure, with standard operating procedures so that anyone > can step into the breach and run it, rather than allowing the > situation where we depend on one or two people to hold all the > knowledge. A flexible enough constitution that allows smaller changes > to go with the changing times, which IMHO is where BN has gone so > dreadfully wrong. >> Is there enough there for you to be getting on with?
> Yeah, that'll do for now, it's all pipe dreams anyway, they just isn't > the will to succeed, otherwise BN would be on the straight and we > wouldn't need to look at fresh possibilities.
> Pete
Hmmmm, I'm not sure we're getting it.
This isn't firstly about organisation, processes, procedures, committees, entrance exams or visions of the future. All of that stuff comes later.
What simple proposition could make all your '20,000 naturists' say "I'd get behind that!".
Then what resources would you need to deliver on it.
THEN, what kind of organisation do you need to support that.
I certainly haven't a clue! But all I'm saying is that instead of disecting who said what and where and how and why ad infinitum, why not bend our minds and talents into doing something useful for a change? Could that work?
On 7 July, 10:55, uhgrad <uhg...@aol.com> wrote: **snip**
> 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).
So Cambridge Outdoor Club have given you shit as well then? Mail me off group if you want and we can probably have a very good exchange of views about what I now find is known as the "Carnival of Carnivores" (from Billy Bragg's song "Accident Waiting to Happen") because they're so amoral they'd probably eat their grandma if they were hungry.
On 7 July, 13:05, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> I have to disagree, any replacement organisation would have to be a > multi role one, if only to have the number to speak witha stronger > voice, and lets face it, the world of organised naturism has been > tarnished, so trying to get 20,000 naturists to part with their money > would be an up hill struggle.
This beer we might, or might not, have on Sunday is starting to look as if it may last longer than I expected!
A broad base for a new organisation is certainly a good idea, but what have club members and beach users really got in common? I don't actually need a national organisation because no one's going to prosecute me for taking my shorts off at the club. It ain't like that out on the beaches though, where small minded textile people can enlist the support of aggressive police officers (did I really need to use the word aggressive there? Police officer is enough of a warning that you have a thug to deal with!) and produce capricious prosecutions.
I stand by what I said. We need an organisation for clubs (and we've already got it in the shape of ABNC) and a separate and morally clean one for individuals (which is where the gap currently lies).
> I stand by what I said. We need an organisation for clubs (and we've > already got it in the shape of ABNC) and a separate and morally clean > one for individuals (which is where the gap currently lies).
What about those individuals who are members of a club, yet still like to spend an afternoon on the beach, or do a bit of freehiking in their local woods? Such individuals would need to join two organisations, or just the one that brought them the most benefits, so one would suffer.
The larger the organisation the more it will be listened to, therefore a combined strength would be beneficial to all concerned.
On 7 July, 16:54, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 7 July, 16:21, uhgrad <uhg...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I stand by what I said. We need an organisation for clubs (and we've > > already got it in the shape of ABNC) and a separate and morally clean > > one for individuals (which is where the gap currently lies).
> What about those individuals who are members of a club, yet still like > to spend an afternoon on the beach, or do a bit of freehiking in their > local woods? Such individuals would need to join two organisations, or > just the one that brought them the most benefits, so one would suffer.
I think you've missed my point here. The clubs organisation would be just that -solely for clubs and only clubs could join it, it wouldn't have individual members. They'd have their own set up, so we're looking again at the FBSC/BSBA set up in pre-CCBN days which somehow was thought not to work but seemed to get by without too much friction.
> The larger the organisation the more it will be listened to, therefore > a combined strength would be beneficial to all concerned.
The bigger the better, but as I've already said the motives for joining will differ significantly between clubbers and beachers (with the free range variety somewhere between the two). In a club you don't need the support of a legal protection fund,for example what you're doing is enequivocally lawful. On a beach you probably do because you're going to be subject to the whims of juvenile coppers, some of whom may wish to pursue private prejudice against nudity at public expense.
On 7 July, 15:31, rebustion <rebust...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> So Cambridge Outdoor Club have given you shit as well then? Mail me > off group if you want and we can probably have a very good exchange of > views about what I now find is known as the "Carnival of > Carnivores" (from Billy Bragg's song "Accident Waiting to Happen") > because they're so amoral they'd probably eat their grandma if they > were hungry.
Can you count me in on this off group mailing? I've got unresolved issues with these people too.
A couple of years ago they pissed me about so much over trial visits (cancelling them at the drop of a hat, pretending no committee members would be on site throughout August so I couldn't visit and so on) that I eventually told them to Foxtrot Oscar - which is probably what they really wanted from the outset, they just set me off on a wild goose chase to make it look as if they had socially inclusive membership policies when they don't.
I subsequently found another club and now hold what you call "The Carnival of Carnivores" (which I think is a lovely description of these wankers) in total contempt.
>>> 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?
> Welllllll ........ that kind of sorts out the ethos ..... but what's it > ACTUALLY going to do? Isn't that the problem?
If I could butt in here?
Whilst not wanting to get into the pissing contest about qualifications, my Degree contained enough Systems Thinking to be awarded with a Dip SysPrac, and one of the systems included Checkland's Soft System Methodology. I haven't actually done the rich pictures , systems diagrams, influence diagrams , signe graphs etc... for this "mess" but I have fiddled around a bit and done a CATWOE breakdown and a root definition of the "System for Naturists within the UK" which is below:-
Customers
Naturists in the UK and those that want to become naturist or want/need information about naturism
Actors Members of the Organisation, INF organisations, police forces, LAs , non naturist beach users ,commercial concerns,Media
Transformation The creation and continuation of an organisation to represent the customers to the actors and environment, and to protect the customers from the environment, whilst trying to change the enviroment to one more conducive to the customers needs
WorldView That naturism is a legal activity
Owners CCBN ( whilst it still exists) , Members of the Organisation.*
Environment UK population, Media, Sun Clubs, “history”
Root definition of a UK naturist organisation system.
A system for the promotion of naturism within the UK, by supplying information and services to those interested in naturism and to represent the interest of naturists in the UK by having a central voice for campaigning and support.
If anyone wants to use this please feel free, and if they think they need some letters behind it at any time in the future contact me and I will stick my name and post nomimals to it.
*Customers within SSM is taken to mean someone( or thing ) that can make the system not happen
> 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.
A very sensible answer and at the same time very true
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.
Total Bull Shit peter, BN are not interested in inderviduals,, just themselves and what the EC get out of it. for Eg. free lap-tops. The EC are not interested in any indervidual just themselves and THERE views
Yours in despair
Pete Knight
If in despair Pete why remain a member, its once the members leave that the EC might, just might think they are doing thins wrong or no longer getting any support
On 30 June, 20:06, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> 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.
These events are little more than window dressing though. The fact that single blokes get let in to some of them does nothing to stem the unacceptable anti-singles bias that seems endemic in naturism in the UK.
OK, YBN for example may arrange weekends at clubs that single blokes who are 30 or under can go along to, but if one of them was to ring up the club secretary following week and ask if they could come along again on their own on Saturday they'd promptly be told to Foxtrot Oscar.
CCBN and the discriminatory small minded clubs it represents don't only need to talk the talk, they need to walk the walk as well - and they're not doing that at the moment.
> On 30 June, 20:06, Pete Knight <peteknig...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > 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.
> These events are little more than window dressing though. The fact > that single blokes get let in to some of them does nothing to stem the > unacceptable anti-singles bias that seems endemic in naturism in the > UK.
> OK, YBN for example may arrange weekends at clubs that single blokes > who are 30 or under can go along to, but if one of them was to ring up > the club secretary following week and ask if they could come along > again on their own on Saturday they'd promptly be told to Foxtrot > Oscar.
> CCBN and the discriminatory small minded clubs it represents don't > only need to talk the talk, they need to walk the walk as well - and > they're not doing that at the moment.
Yes they are window dressing, they are showcase events for BN to sell itself, but they bring enjoyment to many more besides the singles. Oddly enough the SW YBN (Allegedly) boycotted Nudefest, it seems they object to people dancing naked......... at a naturist event!!
I have no issues with social events, but they should be self financing, and all time and expenses put in by officials should be accounted for.
|
