Thanks Thanks:  41
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 161

Thread: Why the secrecy at GAGB?

  1. #51
    StuartP Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bear and Ragged View Post
    I suspect a lot of the GAGB dealings are done by email, as the committee members aren't local to each other, and therefore can't "Have a meeting" which could be open to non-committee cacxhers to attend.
    I'd like to draw peoples attention to the following item in the constitution

    "All costs incurred by the GAGB (travelling expenses, website costs, etc.) will be covered by the Executive Committee members themselves and generous voluntary donations from third parties without return (such as advertisement or other form of benefit)."

    Until recently the GAGB has not had fund to support any expenses incurred by the committee. However thanks to the generous nature of a few individuals we are now in a position to be able to support SOME but not all of our activities. Given the cost of traveling in todays economic climate I think physical meetings of the GAGB will continue to be a rare occurrence.

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by matrix View Post
    And how about a drive to try and get people to join the GAGB at the same time ?
    There is something in hand regarding this..........

    More details later.

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Warfield, Berkshire
    Posts
    436

    Default

    (Note - a lot more posting since I started to write this, however, does not change my point)

    I think that Icenians, UKtim, StuartP and Deceangi all make valid points (as do others).

    There are committee discussions that could be held before our members and I would agree that there's a case for doing so, it could certainly provide better engagement between the committee and non-committee members and help new ideas to emerge, encourage members to get more involved.

    However, I would also agree that the committee has to be rigorous in respecting and maintaining people's privacy, so private discussions areas are indeed necessary.

    At the moment the membership of GAGB is separated form the forum membership. As it stands, it would not be possible for the committee to have discussions before our members, but only in public. GAGB is not a public body so I don't think there's a case for having the discussions in public. Thus changes to the system would be required to enable committee discussions to be shared. This thread, for example, is open to the world, no login required to read it.

    Roderick (posting as individual)

  4. #54
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sandvika View Post
    (Note - a lot more posting since I started to write this, however, does not change my point)

    I think that Icenians, UKtim, StuartP and Deceangi all make valid points (as do others).

    There are committee discussions that could be held before our members and I would agree that there's a case for doing so, it could certainly provide better engagement between the committee and non-committee members and help new ideas to emerge, encourage members to get more involved.

    However, I would also agree that the committee has to be rigorous in respecting and maintaining people's privacy, so private discussions areas are indeed necessary.

    At the moment the membership of GAGB is separated form the forum membership. As it stands, it would not be possible for the committee to have discussions before our members, but only in public. GAGB is not a public body so I don't think there's a case for having the discussions in public. Thus changes to the system would be required to enable committee discussions to be shared. This thread, for example, is open to the world, no login required to read it.

    Roderick (posting as individual)
    GAGB is indeed not a public body - but if in it's negotiations it is claiming to represent it's members, then shouldn't those members be privy to the negotiations? After all, none of this is "in the interest of national security...."

    As an aside, I think this discussion and thread would probably have disappeared and been forgotten by now if the OP's original post hadn't been responded to quite so antagonistically......
    Last edited by keehotee; 20th January 2009 at 06:10 AM.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Brizzle
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    Hi all

    It's been 2 months now since the GAGB elections. Can we please have the results posted? I'm talking here of the numbers of votes cast not just the names that won.
    I can't see an answer to Icenians original question in this thread anywhere. I'd also be really interested to see the answer. Any chance you can publish the results please?? Thanks in advance

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uktim View Post
    Thats why I suggested opening the committee forums to be read by members. It's a simple way of achieving a higher level of transparency.
    Come on, Tim, it would be silly to expect every discussion on every cache problem to be fully available in public. Remember that a discussion on a particular land manager would be available to the land manager as well. Even if you kept names out of it (which would be silly as well), you'd soon realise who was being talked about and there are bound to be moments when ideas are being thrown around. Obviously, people are going to say contentious things, or have radical ideas then back down. But it's important to have the freedom to float your mistaken and ill-thought-though opinions without having them quoted back at you by some stranger.

    This would mean that private discussions would have to be by e-mail instead, only using the forum for "news releases" once the wording had been finalised. I don't know of any other committee that is hamstrung by having to discuss absolutely everything in writing, right in front of everyone involved. You'd normally just have a get together at someone's house. Or a private forum.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ashbourne, Derbyshire
    Posts
    449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by *mouse* View Post
    I can't see an answer to Icenians original question in this thread anywhere. I'd also be really interested to see the answer. Any chance you can publish the results please?? Thanks in advance
    Post two to this thread contains that info.
    Ian
    "I Cache, therefore I am"

  8. #58

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Firstly I would like to apologise to Kev (Icenians) for my antagonistic approach. Also to thank him for his suggestion of using the terracaching wiki as a way of communicating to terracahers. An idea we have taken on board Roderick (Sandvika) has taken some time to put this in place.


    A few other things come to mind.


    I still believe that terracachers could be more active in negotiating with landowners etc. Perhaps a way forward with this is for them to get together and have a representative work with us on this?


    Some people seem to want the GAGB to go away and not exist for various reasons. I do not think it will (just being realistic here). I think it is necessary, it needs to change and become more attractive to a wider range of people for sure. I think it needs to exist for several reasons, if for nothing else but to keep a reasonable image with the public and enforcement agencies. From experience the government tends to leave alone activities that have some form of representative body.


    Do the GAGB want to dictate how caching is run in the UK, A firm no from me on this one. Do we want to be a vehicle through which people can express their views, yes.


    A few people have mentioned that we seem to be in Geocaching.com's pocket. No. I think you will find we have bitten back quietly once or twice. Do we work closely with their reviewers, yes. After all there is no point having guidelines and landowner agreements if the listing sites will just ride roughshod over them. I am sure we would like a closer relationship with the other listing sites.


    A few good comments have been made about how we can become more open and attractive to people. We are listening and actioning these things.


    Happy Humphrey mentioned somewhere about making membership more attractive. I think his comment about about benefits for joining is a good one and certainly something we had already been discussing.




    Please keep your suggestions coming.

  9. #59
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    Firstly I would like to apologise to Kev (Icenians) for my antagonistic approach.
    Absolutly no apology needed. I'm fully aware that I come across in not the best of ways on forums. I not really the Mr. Angry I come across as.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    I still believe that terracachers could be more active in negotiating with landowners etc. Perhaps a way forward with this is for them to get together and have a representative work with us on this?
    There are not that many of us and non of us, I believe, were asked to take part in the recent negociations. I'm not sure that is such an issue ow that Sandvika is a GAGB Committee member of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    Some people seem to want the GAGB to go away and not exist for various reasons. I do not think it will (just being realistic here). I think it is necessary, it needs to change and become more attractive to a wider range of people for sure. I think it needs to exist for several reasons, if for nothing else but to keep a reasonable image with the public and enforcement agencies. From experience the government tends to leave alone activities that have some form of representative body.


    Do the GAGB want to dictate how caching is run in the UK, A firm no from me on this one. Do we want to be a vehicle through which people can express their views, yes.


    A few people have mentioned that we seem to be in Geocaching.com's pocket. No. I think you will find we have bitten back quietly once or twice. Do we work closely with their reviewers, yes. After all there is no point having guidelines and landowner agreements if the listing sites will just ride roughshod over them. I am sure we would like a closer relationship with the other listing sites.


    A few good comments have been made about how we can become more open and attractive to people. We are listening and actioning these things.


    Happy Humphrey mentioned somewhere about making membership more attractive. I think his comment about about benefits for joining is a good one and certainly something we had already been discussing.




    Please keep your suggestions coming.
    I don't wish to see the GAGB fold, true, it wouldn't bother me either if it did, I simply want the GAGB to not force it's opinions and rules on those of us that choose not to be members. Nothing more really.

    I'm sorry if some out there feel that I am an opinionated minority. As I said in another post, almost eveyone has an opinion just those that agree with each other don't voice it. That doesn't mean my opinion of an organisation, that is taking a part in shaping and controlling the game I play, shouldn't be voiced.

    Kev

  10. #60

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uktim View Post
    Thats why I suggested opening the committee forums to be read by members. It's a simple way of achieving a higher level of transparency.
    Being selective again Tim it's a great technique usually used by Trolls.

    So ill rephrase it for you.

    What information would you like the GAGB commitee to provide ?
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  11. #61

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Brizzle
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by studlyone View Post
    Post two to this thread contains that info.
    Ian
    Hi Ian

    Maybe I misinterpreted Icenians original post, but I believe they were asking for the votes each individual candidate received, and not the total number of votes cast.
    I'd be really interested to know how the votes were spread - any chance you can publish them?

    thanks

  12. #62

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Hi Mouse

    the simple answer is that we have no idea. The votes were counted by someone outside the GAGB.....

    However, will se what we can do.

  13. #63

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Brizzle
    Posts
    156

    Default

    That would be great, thanks

  14. #64

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    675

    Talking

    I voted but who I voted for is confidential [don't want the others to run off sulking if they find out h34r:]

    So there is one committee member with at least one vote

    Dave
    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  15. #65
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mancunian View Post
    I voted but who I voted for is confidential [don't want the others to run off sulking if they find out h34r:]

    So there is one committee member with at least one vote

    Dave
    I'm not sure anyone would ask or expect that level of information! I'd be the first to be up in arms if that confidentiality was broken.

    Kev

  16. #66

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    To be honest I don't think I am interested in knowing who got the most votes, or least or in between.

    Some on the committee may be interested I guess. Though up till now none of us have even asked, we have jobs to do and just get on with it.

  17. #67
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    Being selective again Tim it's a great technique usually used by Trolls.

    So ill rephrase it for you.

    What information would you like the GAGB commitee to provide ?

    Rubbish

    You came over all "holier than thou" about how it's good to offer suggestions, I gave an example of a suggestion I'd made.

    How the hell do you manage to perceive that as being selective

  18. #68

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    As the prospective committee members will probably have assumed that the vote count wouldn't be released I don't think it would be fair to release it without their agreement.

    I'll call a committee vote on this. If there's a majority vote in favour then I'll obtain and publish the actual figures.

    Please be patient, as I'll be away tomorrow through til sometime Thursday afternoon or evening.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  19. #69

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    here of course
    Posts
    640

    Default

    I voted for someone who actually got elected.

    Democracy at work :cheers:


    Last edited by Matrix; 20th January 2009 at 10:47 PM. Reason: Poor speeeeelin and punctures

  20. #70

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    I'm not sure anyone would ask or expect that level of information! I'd be the first to be up in arms if that confidentiality was broken.

    Kev
    sorry I thought the use of the smilies made it clear the post was tongue in cheek. I don't mind people knowing I took the time to vote, but realised that who I actually voted for will never be revealed as I trust Erik the Returning Officer to keep that information completely confidential. If I hadn't trusted him, I wouldn't have voted.

    Dave
    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  21. #71

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mancunian View Post
    sorry I thought the use of the smilies made it clear the post was tongue in cheek. I don't mind people knowing I took the time to vote, but realised that who I actually voted for will never be revealed as I trust Erik the Returning Officer to keep that information completely confidential. If I hadn't trusted him, I wouldn't have voted.

    Dave
    Even I have no idea who voted for whom. I didn't and I don't want to know that information. Only Erik, our returning officer, has those details, and whatever our decision on publishing a breakdown of the figures, we would never release details of who voted or for whom.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  22. #72

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uktim View Post
    Rubbish

    You came over all "holier than thou" about how it's good to offer suggestions, I gave an example of a suggestion I'd made.

    How the hell do you manage to perceive that as being selective
    You selected the part of my post that suited your agenda and ignored the rest (typical of a troll)

    Again your reply seems to be trolling for a reaction rather than offering something constructive (that you have not said before)

    All im asking is what information do you want to see
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  23. #73
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    I agree with the general thrust of Kev's argument - we differ in only minor points of detail - so there's no need for me to repeat his views, merely to state my support for them. I'm not, and never have been, a member of GAGB so I don't need to resign to register my protest.

    For me, one of the most telling things about discussions of this nature is that the only counter-arguments are always presented by the GAGB committee. That's as you'd expect, but I would also expect that if the views of Kev, myself and others are so unusual then why are there not hundreds of GAGB members rallying to the support of their committee? I can see only a handful of non-committee members commenting. Does this not say everything we need to know about the relevance and mandate of GAGB?

    I do agree both that there should be committee meetings (virtual meetings are fine) and that the minutes of those meetings should be published. I have a vague recollection that committee meeting minutes used to be published some years ago. As a non-member I think it's important that I qualify my views by saying that I could understand that GAGB might not want to publish minutes to non-members. Howver, as GAGB believes that its rules apply to all GB cachers whether members or not then I can see no reason why minutes etc shouldn't be available to all, The alternative is for GAGB to make minutes available only to members but to ensure that non-members are not included in their agreements and not bound by their rules.

    The private committee forums should clearly be kept private to the committee otherwise they can't have meaningful discussions. I am concerned, however, at my inference that Groundspeak are allowed into those forums. If my inference is correct then it is wrong that anyone other than the committee be included in committee discussions. Inviting Groundspeak simply gives ammunition to those like me who believe that this cosy relationship is detrimental to GB caching.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    Do the GAGB want to dictate how caching is run in the UK
    Obviously I can't answer that since I don't know what GAGB wishes. But I can interpret its actions. GAGB has produced many rules (indeed, producing rules is GAGB's strength) and all of them dictate how caching should be run in GB.

  24. #74
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    You selected the part of my post that suited your agenda and ignored the rest (typical of a troll)

    Again your reply seems to be trolling for a reaction rather than offering something constructive (that you have not said before)

    All im asking is what information do you want to see
    (deleted) assumptions again, you seem to be rather good at them

    I made a post to highlight the fact that constructive suggestions were being made. I trimmed out the quoted text that wasn't relevant to that observation to reduce the amount of extraneous text that everyone has to scroll through whilst reading the thread. If you want to see it as trolling it just goes to show how wrong you can be!
    Last edited by jacobite; 21st January 2009 at 12:48 PM. Reason: wording

  25. #75

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uktim View Post
    I trimmed out the quoted text !

    Post 47 was trimmed ?


    and please dont call me rubbish, holier than thou or **** in your next post ive not insulted you please try to be polite this is a discussion forum
    Last edited by nobbynobbs; 21st January 2009 at 06:24 PM. Reason: please don't swear
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  26. #76
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    Post 47 was trimmed ?


    and please dont call me rubbish, holier than thou or **** in your next post ive not insulted you please try to be polite this is a discussion forum
    I'm afraid that I think that suggesting that someone making valid posts is trolling is an insult. From my perspective it was you that triggered the lowering of tone by hinting that I was trolling. I apologise if I've offended but I'm afraid you have as well. To say someone is talking rubbish is merely a disgreement with their opinions BUT to accuse someone of trolling is far graver as it strikes out at their very motivation.

    I apologise if I've offended, but you have done no better!
    Last edited by nobbynobbs; 21st January 2009 at 06:25 PM. Reason: as before

  27. #77
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    Post 47 was trimmed ?

    And you have the cheek to accuse me of being selective

  28. #78
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    Post 47 was trimmed ?


    and please dont call me rubbish, holier than thou or (deleted) in your next post ive not insulted you please try to be polite this is a discussion forum
    You're quite right it wasn't trimmed. I apologise, I misunderstood.

    So in what way do you think I'm being selective?

    I wasn't aware that any of us had to reply to whole posts point by point!

    In physical meetings it's acceptable to address individual points that concern you why is this any different?

    I'm not suggesting that there's any need for the GAGB to hold physical meetings or that anything needs adding to the agenda BUT I do believe that they need to be more transparent about whatever they are discussing.
    Last edited by jacobite; 21st January 2009 at 12:52 PM. Reason: wording

  29. #79

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uktim View Post
    I'm afraid that I think that suggesting that someone making valid posts is trolling is an insult. From my perspective it was you that triggered the lowering of tone by hinting that I was trolling. I apologise if I've offended but I'm afraid you have as well. To say someone is talking rubbish is merely a disgreement with their opinions BUT to accuse someone of trolling is far graver as it strikes out at their very motivation.

    I apologise if I've offended, but you have done no better!
    I aplogise also if ive offended you.

    I tried to carefully say that it was troll like behaviour (i felt the tone of your posts was in decline) and not that you were a troll obviously something that got lost in the translation.:socool:

    Forums can be poor places to communicate as what you mean when you type something is not always what is read by the other person and the meaning of any communication is how it is recieved.

    Still an interesting discussion (this one and the other one) its certainly moved my point of view.

    The one thing i do always go back to is that we argue because we care about the hobby and want to make it easier and more enjoyable.
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  30. #80

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uktim View Post

    I'm not suggesting that there's any need for the GAGB to hold physical meetings or that anything needs adding to the agenda BUT I do believe that they need to be more transparent about whatever they are discussing.
    ive trimmed your reply to the bit im replying to
    Yes it would be nice to see a list of landowners / organisations currently in negotiation with the GAGB

    Are they all listed / refered to in the landowner agreements section ? or are there any private discussions taking place (not sure how they tackle telling us about those)
    "If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."

  31. #81
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by markandlynn View Post
    The one thing i do always go back to is that we argue because we care about the hobby and want to make it easier and more enjoyable.
    I've trimmed because this sums it up for me. I don't waste time arguing over things I have no interest in for the sake of it, if I'm typing I care very deeply.

    Personally I wouldn't be offended if someone replied to one of my posts with "rubbish" as long as they explained why they thought this. We'd all be wiser for it, but even insinuating someone is a troll is very offensive IMO. That's why things went downhill at my end. It's pretty common on the web to see folks use "troll" as an lazy way of dismissing opinions they don't agree with, it appears that wasn't your intent

  32. #82

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uktim View Post
    You're quite right it wasn't trimmed. I apologise, I misunderstood.

    So in what way do you think I'm being selective?

    I wasn't aware that any of us had to reply to whole posts point by point!

    In physical meetings it's acceptable to address individual points that concern you why is this any different?

    I'm not suggesting that there's any need for the GAGB to hold physical meetings or that anything needs adding to the agenda BUT I do believe that they need to be more transparent about whatever they are discussing.
    I think we need to differentiate between publicising the results of discussions, where possile, and opening up the discussion to all and sundry. I'm not bothered, but agree that publicising after the event if probably a good thing, however the comittee should be allowed to carry out those discussions themselves - that is why they were voted in (and this isn't a prompt to discuss who they represent and the number of voters/members etc!

  33. #83
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Gerrie View Post
    I think we need to differentiate between publicising the results of discussions, where possile, and opening up the discussion to all and sundry. I'm not bothered, but agree that publicising after the event if probably a good thing, however the comittee should be allowed to carry out those discussions themselves - that is why they were voted in (and this isn't a prompt to discuss who they represent and the number of voters/members etc!
    In principle that sounds fine, BUT in practice even if the discussion itself isn't published some sort of equivalent of an agenda is needed. Members need to know what is being discussed so that they can pass their opinions onto the committee members who represent them before the whole thing is a "done deal".

  34. #84

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Strangely I have not noticed any members asking for this.

  35. #85
    uktim Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mongoose39uk View Post
    Strangely I have not noticed any members asking for this.
    Have you noticed anyone who isn't a member because of this lack of transparency? Does the GAGB want more mebers?

  36. #86

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    I suggest a "latest news" section on this website, either in the forum or linked to the home page.

    Not for just blowing the GAGB trumpet about agreements reached, but to give an indication about what is currently happening in the cache negotiation arena (and other relevant news).
    GAGB policy and opinions could have a mention in these news releases, but the wording could be chosen to avoid giving away sensitive information or stirring up uwarranted trouble.

    That would help transparency without being too burdensome.

  37. #87

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    I'm sorry about the delay in posting this, but I've been away, as I said I would be.

    The committee have voted on the matter of publishing the voting figures, and the vote is in favour of publishing them.

    So here are the figures for the winning candidates, in alphabetical order and exactly as provided to me by Erik van Dyck, our Returning Officer:

    > > > Dave of the Wombles 13
    > > > Jacobite 6
    > > > Mongoose39uk 17
    > > > Nobbynobbs 8
    > > > Sandvika 11
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  38. #88
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    I'm sorry about the delay in posting this, but I've been away, as I said I would be.

    The committee have voted on the matter of publishing the voting figures, and the vote is in favour of publishing them.

    So here are the figures for the winning candidates, in alphabetical order and exactly as provided to me by Erik van Dyck, our Returning Officer:

    > > > Dave of the Wombles 13
    > > > Jacobite 6
    > > > Mongoose39uk 17
    > > > Nobbynobbs 8
    > > > Sandvika 11
    Thanks for this Bill.

    I wasn't actually after this level of detail originally but it looks as if others were.

    Kev

  39. #89
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Stunning. So 55 cachers voted for 5 cachers and those 5 consider themselves empowered to take actions on behalf on an unknown, but believed to be in the several thousands, number of other cachers.

    It would be funny if it wasn't - in the context of a silly game - so sad.

  40. #90

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Perhaps you have a poor memory or have failed to read Alan, the number of people who voted as been up there fro quite some time.

  41. #91

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    5,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    Stunning. So 55 cachers voted for 5 cachers and those 5 consider themselves empowered to take actions on behalf on an unknown, but believed to be in the several thousands, number of other cachers.
    Of course they do. They were elected. The fact that so many other cachers either chose not to vote or don't know of the existence of the GAGB is neither here nor there.

    Every government of this country for over a century now has been voted in not just by a minority of the population, but by a minority of those who actually voted in that election. Even Margaret Thatcher's famous "mandate from the people" speech was nonsensical. Over fifty per cent of the people who voted in that particular election voted against her party.

    Compared to that GAGB's committee did pretty well.
    ​​Do not go gentle into that good night.
    Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)​


  42. #92

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    here of course
    Posts
    640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    Stunning. So 55 cachers voted for 5 cachers and those 5 consider themselves empowered to take actions on behalf on an unknown, but believed to be in the several thousands, number of other cachers.

    It would be funny if it wasn't - in the context of a silly game - so sad.
    Why not start a rival organisation Allan ?

    Maybe you will be able to do a better job of getting people to join and steer the silly game in a direction you think is suitable opcorn:

  43. #93
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by matrix View Post
    Why not start a rival organisation Allan ?

    Maybe you will be able to do a better job of getting people to join and steer the silly game in a direction you think is suitable opcorn:
    I think once again the point is missed.

    People like Alan and myself do not think that an association is needed. This association was thought up by 7 people years ago and was forced upon UK cachers fully formed and ready to go. It may well be democratic within itself but the essence of our complaint is that it, once again, trys to represent the rest of us that do not wish to be represented.

    We don't have an issue with anyone being a member of an association, nor that association having it's own rules and guidelines etc. Just don't ask the rest of us to be forced to use them.

    It is really to difficult a concept to grasp?

    Kev

  44. #94
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill D (wwh) View Post
    Of course they do. They were elected. The fact that so many other cachers either chose not to vote or don't know of the existence of the GAGB is neither here nor there.

    Every government of this country for over a century now has been voted in not just by a minority of the population, but by a minority of those who actually voted in that election. Even Margaret Thatcher's famous "mandate from the people" speech was nonsensical. Over fifty per cent of the people who voted in that particular election voted against her party.

    Compared to that GAGB's committee did pretty well.
    I'm sorry Bill but this is pure rubbish!

    The government is a system of government to run the country. An association is a group of like minded people getting together to set their own standards and fight their own corner. When did the GAGB move into the realm of being the UK GOVERNING body of caching?

    All the GAGB can ever and should ever claim is to represent its members.

    Yes the members and committee may well work hard and want to take caching in a direction they would like to see it go in, but it is sheer arrogance to expect that your, the GAGB, views are right and that all the rest of us must follow those same standards and direction!

  45. #95

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    here of course
    Posts
    640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    I think once again the point is missed.

    People like Alan and myself do not think that an association is needed. This association was thought up by 7 people years ago and was forced upon UK cachers fully formed and ready to go. It may well be democratic within itself but the essence of our complaint is that it, once again, trys to represent the rest of us that do not wish to be represented.

    We don't have an issue with anyone being a member of an association, nor that association having it's own rules and guidelines etc. Just don't ask the rest of us to be forced to use them.

    It is really to difficult a concept to grasp?

    Kev
    Who is forcing you to post complaints about something that even you yourself agree is Democratic.

    It appears that as you dont agree you want the GAGB shut down or has my grasp once again been misguided

    No need to answer the question by the way as I live by the moral of my signature :cheers:

  46. #96

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    here of course
    Posts
    640

    Default

    On a slightly off topic matter can you explain to me how the 2 sponsors I have on TC who have never spoken to me or had email contact with me are qualified to decide If a cache I "may" set on TC is suitable or is it only this "secret society" that you object to ? At least there are contacts available for the committee on here. opcorn:

  47. #97
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by matrix View Post
    Who is forcing you to post complaints about something that even you yourself agree is Democratic.

    It appears that as you dont agree you want the GAGB shut down or has my grasp once again been misguided

    No need to answer the question by the way as I live by the moral of my signature :cheers:
    I'll just treat your signature with the contempt it deserves in light of your comment.

    I agree that the GAGB is democratic INSIDE the GAGB. I cannot make it any more plain that it is not an associations place to force it's collective views on all the rest of us.

    Please don't call people idiots for simply having an opposing view. There is no place for that kind of thing in a public debate.

  48. #98
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by matrix View Post
    On a slightly off topic matter can you explain to me how the 2 sponsors I have on TC who have never spoken to me or had email contact with me are qualified to decide If a cache I "may" set on TC is suitable or is it only this "secret society" that you object to ? At least there are contacts available for the committee on here. opcorn:
    If you feel your sponsors are not suitable, change them! On TC it you that chooses your sponsor not the other way around!

    It was your choice so I fail to see how that is in anyway relevant to the discussion.

  49. #99

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    here of course
    Posts
    640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Icenians View Post
    I'll just treat your signature with the contempt it deserves in light of your comment.

    I agree that the GAGB is democratic INSIDE the GAGB. I cannot make it any more plain that it is not an associations place to force it's collective views on all the rest of us.

    Please don't call people idiots for simply having an opposing view. There is no place for that kind of thing in a public debate.
    Aha now you are guilty of misjudging me... my signature relates to ME and my views I wouldn't call anyone an Idiot unless I had met them face to face and they deserved such a compliment. opcorn:

    No need to apologise by the way .
    Last edited by Matrix; 24th January 2009 at 07:24 PM. Reason: Presse post to early

  50. #100
    Icenians Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by matrix View Post
    On a slightly off topic matter can you explain to me how the 2 sponsors I have on TC who have never spoken to me or had email contact with me are qualified to decide If a cache I "may" set on TC is suitable or is it only this "secret society" that you object to ? At least there are contacts available for the committee on here. opcorn:
    It is the secret society forcing it opinions and attitudes on others that bothers me.
    .

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •