# CTC : Chris Juden redundant



## PK99 (14 Jan 2015)

This arose over lunch on a CTC ride today, Chris was made redundant just before Xmas and the CTC no longer has a Technical or a Touring officer. Apparently the money freed will fund a Marketing and Communications Manager.

Redundancy terms were statutory minimum - and a card. (according to Chris on the CTC forum)

Given the very positive views I've read here about Chris in the past, I'm surprised this has not featured in a thread - or have I missed it?


----------



## Dan B (14 Jan 2015)

Boggle


----------



## Moodyman (14 Jan 2015)

Chris is a seriously knowledgeable guy and posted very good advice on the ctc forum.

my understanding is that ctc's view is that more people are online and that there is plenty on the forum archives to cover most if not all bicycle techie stuff.


----------



## swansonj (14 Jan 2015)

The main reason I joined CTC in the first place, thirty-ish years ago.

Another serious blow the CTC credibility.


----------



## Bollo (14 Jan 2015)

I never much cared for his reviews in 'Cycle' but I'm amazed that the CTC feels his role is no longer required.


----------



## neil_merseyside (14 Jan 2015)

Classic spiral of decline, get rid of good people and alienate many hundreds, then get some smooth tongued spiv and perhaps recruit a dozen or so... [1]

Best thing that could happen to 'CTC of old' is to become the touring section of British Cyling - before the new unimproved CTC charity crashes and burns the lot

[1] Remember Littlewoods Pools? they lost 15% of their market to the then 'new' Lottery - they panicked and changed the system to be similar to Lottery - result was they then lost the loyal 85% and gained very little - not around any longer - think on CTC !!


----------



## discominer (14 Jan 2015)

The thread about this on the CTC forum has been painful reading. Surely CJ could have been found a role?


----------



## Bollo (15 Jan 2015)

discominer said:


> The thread about this on the CTC forum has been painful reading. Surely CJ could have been found a role?


I've just ploughed through it, helped by a very nice Rioja that had somehow survived Christmas, like Signourney Weaver on the Nostromo.
I let my CTC membership lapse after the charity vote and reading all that does nothing to persuade me that I should rejoin.


----------



## swansonj (15 Jan 2015)

There are three reasons why this is a bad decision, none of which have anything to do with the fact that most of us think CJ personally deserves much better than the mean-spirited treatment he's apparently received.

First, technical advice was a member service, and doing away with it is a further sign that CTC is too occupied with empire building to care about its members.

Second, CJ stood for a solid, evidence-based, thoughtful approach to cycling. His departure is a sign that CTC doesn't really care about content, it's content to campaign in the basis of superficial show and spin. I bet we'll see more and more articles in Cycling, for instance, that merely reproduce manufacturers' spin and uncritically endorse the latest marketing fad.

Third, CJ's approach to cycling was all about cycling as a means of transport not cycling as sport. His departure is a sign that CTC is becoming more and more like British Cycling and leaving no-one to represent the cycling as practical transport constituency.


----------



## subaqua (15 Jan 2015)

So what do we do to resolve this then ?


----------



## Crankarm (15 Jan 2015)

Sad news for CJ after all the years of good service he must have given the CTC. What to**ers.

Years ago when I was a member of CTC his articles were very informative free of bias or preferring a product to pay his mortgage. The CTC organisation as a whole went down the tubes years ago. Their organisation was terrible. They farked up my membership renewal 2 years running after 6 years of membership so I left. No apology what so ever I was given the impression that I was the inconvenience despite my membership contributing to their coffers. They sent me a miserable water bottle to entice me to re-join. Bog off! So I sympathise completely with how CJ must feel. They have certainly carped on him from a big height. He struck me as an extremely resourceful guy so I shouldn't imagine he will find it too difficult finding a new and more rewarding role some where in the cycling world. The CTC are of no consequence to me as a cyclist. They are an irrelevance.Their main campaign and recruiting slogan Safety in Numbers was fundamentally flawed. Back in the day when road racing had first become established in France and Belgium it was trialled here and the CTC campaigned relentlessly to get club road cycle racing BANNED which is probably why there has always been such resistance to it and cycling in general in the UK compared to France and Belgium. Had I known this before I joined them for the few years I was a member, I would NEVER have given them a single penny of my hard earned. If you want to support cycling then join British Cycling and your local club.

Maybe there is a role for Chris at BC? His departure from the CTC might be a blessing in disguise.


----------



## John the Monkey (16 Jan 2015)

Moodyman said:


> my understanding is that ctc's view is that more people are online and that there is plenty on the forum archives to cover most if not all bicycle techie stuff.


I think the problem is that we retro grouches, and tourers tend to be doing stuff that's somewhat outside the norm (touring gear has always seemed, to me, to consist of bodging things intended for other purposes into the role, unless you've the cash to buy Velo Orange, or Rivendell). A lot of my "Can I get x to do y?" questions have been answered by CJ's articles.


----------



## PK99 (16 Jan 2015)

Moodyman said:


> my understanding is that ctc's view is that more people are online and that there is plenty on the forum archives to cover most if not all bicycle techie stuff.



That was indeed the gist of the reported CTC view over lunch, and there is an argument that the direct member tech support role is not as significant as it was, however that was only a part of CJ's role - technical liaison with Government and Industry was the major part (i am given to understand). CTC will now have no technical input into Policy nor technically sound lobbying position wrt Government or Industry as it has no technical section.


----------



## swansonj (16 Jan 2015)

User said:


> And the law around lighting will remain a mess for ever.


Exactly. A prime example of something that can only be sorted out by someone with the technical background and understanding of a CJ or equivalent. But also very indicative of CTC's current direction. If you are just interested in helping a few more people buy off the peg bikes (that are probably unsuited to their needs but never mind because they won't be using them enough to notice) and do some fun riding, then the mess of the lighting regs doesn't matter - they can just buy some manufacturer-hyped lights that don't meet the claimed spec but are good enough for the purpose. If you want to go beyond that starting point - which is worthwhile in itself, don't get me wrong - and promote cycling as a serious alternative functional transport mode, non-sporting leisure activity, and green contribution, it's things like the lighting regs (and toe overlap and mudguard quick releases and the expected life of ever narrower sprockets and chains and so on and so forth) that you need to tackle.


----------



## swansonj (29 Jan 2015)

So, the Feb issue of Cycle has an announcement from the Chief Exec - sneaked into the middle of a longer piece that starts in different vein altogether, and that doesn't spell out that the re prioritisation being announced involves making CJ redundant, indeed that doesn't even mention CJ or the other staff likewise sacked by name. It contains a statement that the technical content of the website and mag will be unchanged, which we know is a lie. And the only place where there is a tribute to Chris is a letter - not a single acknowledgement from the CTC. That feels really, really shoddy - an organisation that simply doesn't care about either its staff or its members.

I think CJ's statement that there is now only one relatively junior member of CTC staff who was a member before they started work for it is very revealing.


----------



## srw (29 Jan 2015)

Actually I was reasonably heartened by the CE's letter. If it's right that the focus is going to be more on member groups and on supporting cycling, that's a sensible use of very limited resources. Given the timing of various announcements and press lead-times it was never going to be easy to put anything in this issue of the mag.

The CTC has been in a bit of a mess since well before the charity debacle. It strikes me as a fundamentally good group of people (I particularly rate Roger Geffen, and not just because he's an acquaintance) struggling with a sentimental legacy which is increasingly unimportant and hamstrung by a pseudo-democratic governance process. There was a member survey carried out last year, which I suspect has strongly influenced the changes.

I'm glad it still exists because there are still some very important things for it to do. It's a much better organisation for someone like me than BC (too focussed on the mamil),


----------



## swansonj (29 Jan 2015)

srw said:


> Actually I was reasonably heartened by the CE's letter. If it's right that the focus is going to be more on member groups and on supporting cycling, that's a sensible use of very limited resources. Given the timing of various announcements and press lead-times it was never going to be easy to put anything in this issue of the mag.
> 
> The CTC has been in a bit of a mess since well before the charity debacle. It strikes me as a fundamentally good group of people (I particularly rate Roger Geffen, and not just because he's an acquaintance) struggling with a sentimental legacy which is increasingly unimportant and hamstrung by a pseudo-democratic governance process. There was a member survey carried out last year, which I suspect has strongly influenced the changes.
> 
> I'm glad it still exists because there are still some very important things for it to do. It's a much better organisation for someone like me than BC (too focussed on the mamil),


Well, I'll say this for the CTC, it must be a fairly extraordinary organisation if it can manoeuvre @User and me into the same side and on the opposite side to you....


----------



## PK99 (29 Jan 2015)

srw said:


> Actually I was reasonably heartened by the CE's letter. ,




The Chief Execs priorities are clear - he came to speak at our CTC member group AGM a few weeks ago. No mention was made of cutting technical input, but much was made of improving communications and growing the Charity from (IIRC a £4 Million charity to an £8M.Charity) Discussion since has been that his priority is his own career - Double the income of the CTC, chalk it up on his CV and move on to a bigger and better Charity job.


----------



## mjr (29 Jan 2015)

swansonj said:


> His departure is a sign that CTC is becoming more and more like British Cycling and leaving no-one to represent the cycling as practical transport constituency.


Not quite no-one: there's Cyclenation (LCC, CamCycle and siblings) but there aren't enough of them and they don't yet have national coverage. They have a collaboration agreement with CTC and there was talk of ever-closer working but I wonder if this change of direction by CTC has affected that.


swansonj said:


> I think CJ's statement that there is now only one relatively junior member of CTC staff who was a member before they started work for it is very revealing.


I'm pretty sure some were members of other cycling organisations, but I feel this is a general problem across voluntary and social enterprises: we keep hiring mercenaries and giving them too much power, while neglecting the member democracy and education so the governance ossifies and no longer governs the organisation. Classic executive capture


----------



## mickle (29 Jan 2015)

subaqua said:


> So what do we do to resolve this then ?


Give him a job?


----------



## swansonj (29 Jan 2015)

srw said:


> Actually I was reasonably heartened by the CE's letter. If it's right that the focus is going to be more on member groups and on supporting cycling, that's a sensible use of very limited resources. *Given the timing of various announcements and press lead-times it was never going to be easy to put anything in this issue of the mag.*
> 
> The CTC has been in a bit of a mess since well before the charity debacle. It strikes me as a fundamentally good group of people (I particularly rate Roger Geffen, and not just because he's an acquaintance) struggling with a sentimental legacy which is increasingly unimportant and hamstrung by a pseudo-democratic governance process. There was a member survey carried out last year, which I suspect has strongly influenced the changes.
> 
> I'm glad it still exists because there are still some very important things for it to do. It's a much better organisation for someone like me than BC (too focussed on the mamil),


I'm prepared to make allowance for press lead times, but it's a little difficult to see how the lead time is enough to announce that the job is being made redundant but not to name the person concerned, or how it's long enough for a letter writer to pay tribute to him but not for the Chief Exec....


----------



## subaqua (29 Jan 2015)

mickle said:


> Give him a job?


 nobber


----------



## subaqua (29 Jan 2015)

mjray said:


> Not quite no-one: there's Cyclenation (LCC, CamCycle and siblings) but there aren't enough of them and they don't yet have national coverage. They have a collaboration agreement with CTC and there was talk of ever-closer working but I wonder if this change of direction by CTC has affected that.
> 
> I'm pretty sure some were members of other cycling organisations, but I feel this is a general problem across voluntary and social enterprises: we keep hiring mercenaries and giving them too much power, while neglecting the member democracy and education so the governance ossifies and no longer governs the organisation. Classic executive capture


 

and they seem hell bent on segregation rather than inclusion.


----------



## mjr (29 Jan 2015)

subaqua said:


> and they seem hell bent on segregation rather than inclusion.


No, they're after protection, but so are the other two, so that's not really a difference.


----------



## subaqua (29 Jan 2015)

mjray said:


> No, they're after protection, but so are the other two, so that's not really a difference.


 via segregation generally. which is not the same as protection by inclusion /


----------



## mjr (29 Jan 2015)

subaqua said:


> via segregation generally. which is not the same as protection by inclusion /


That's not quite accurate but this isn't the place so let's not rehash old discussions where we don't agree.


----------



## subaqua (29 Jan 2015)

User13710 said:


> It is always possible for people to change their minds though .


It won't be me changing mind on this one. Segregation is not going to be the panacea LCC thinks it will be. Even the CTC realised that!


----------



## Gravity Aided (30 Jan 2015)

Bollo said:


> I've just ploughed through it, helped by a very nice Rioja that had somehow survived Christmas, like Signourney Weaver on the Nostromo.
> I let my CTC membership lapse after the charity vote and reading all that does nothing to persuade me that I should rejoin.


I have to give that a like for the_ Alien_ reference


----------



## swansonj (2 Sep 2015)

My latest CTC membership card has just arrived and on the back it still lists a number for touring and technical helpline. Does anyone know what happens if you try ringing that number now?


----------



## Bollo (2 Sep 2015)

swansonj said:


> My latest CTC membership card has just arrived and on the back it still lists a number for touring and technical helpline. Does anyone know what happens if you try ringing that number now?



He does have certain skills.......


----------



## downfader (2 Sep 2015)

User said:


> You get this


No you get this tune

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTXyXuqfBLA


----------



## Gravity Aided (3 Sep 2015)

User said:


> You get this


Coupled with this, on your picturephone.


----------

