CTC forum thread on 'Charity' status

[dellzeqq]

It's a lot Third Way, except that Professor Cox has no clue about what the Third Sector is - he takes the Blair line which is to say that 'charities' are there simply as a means of privatising public services. There's no tangible difference between a Blair charity and a private company other than the absence of dividends.

The inclusion thing is, as I've said, a real weakness in the argument. You cannot buy inclusion or diversity, either by way of consultants reports or contracts aimed at hard-to-reach groups. When the contracts dry up it will be the same old CTC - not that that is a bad thing in and of itself, because it you were looking for active volunteers you'd be targetting the elderly, which we have an abundance of. The key to inclusion is asking why, acting on the answers, knowledge building, spreading best practice and opening up the imagination of the volunteers - all of which is absent from the National Office strategy.

And then we get to the Great CTC Disability Insurance Scandal. Any FNRttCers remember Graham?

 

[Flying Dodo]

Mmm - having checked my email, I've noticed that I've had a directive from Councillors Jim Brown and Martin Cockersole imploring me to vote for the conversion. Even without the grammatical errors in it, I wouldn't have done so.

There seems to be an awful lot of spin & BS in their reasons for wanting the change, which almost smacks of desperation.

 

[dellzeqq]

before we get too down on Councillors.........they were asked for text, but, foul rumour has it, some of them didn't know there was going to be a mass e-mail. Blimey!

 

[GrumpyGregry]

you don't think someone might have made use of "Send As..." functionaility do you?

 

[dellzeqq]

you don't think someone might have made use of "Send As..." functionaility do you?

perish the thort, mi dears. I suppose a chap could always ask.........

 

[robgul]

This is the header text from my message ... it shows that the CTC HQ sent the message(s) out [My own receive details in this cut and paste have been omitted for security reasons]

Rob
===========
..... receive stuff ...
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: peter.mathison@CTC.ORG.UK
X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-21.messagelabs.com!1264780899!30130711!1
X-StarScan-Version: 6.2.4; banners=ctc.org.uk,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [82.111.86.162]
Received: (qmail 4957 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2010 16:01:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO HOLLINS.CTC.ORG.UK) (82.111.86.162)
by server-4.tower-21.messagelabs.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2010 16:01:41 -0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CAA0FC.57D0026C"
Subject: NOTE TO CTC WEST MIDLANDS MEMBERS re UNIFIED MEMBER CHARITY
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:01:38 -0000
Message-ID: <8FCEAA188CCDC049A61E08F606D11E4DC9946F@HOLLINS.CTC.ORG.UK>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: NOTE TO CTC WEST MIDLANDS MEMBERS re UNIFIED MEMBER CHARITY
Thread-Index: Acqg/FbeJgjmd3SfQMq1jjeeda1Z3w==
From: "Peter Mathison" <peter.mathison@CTC.ORG.UK>
To: "Peter Mathison" <peter.mathison@CTC.ORG.UK>
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=c2beaimr01.btconnect.com
X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown,
refid=str=0001.0A0B0206.4B630668.0128:SCFSTAT6953507,ss=1,vtr=str,vl=0,fgs=0,
ip=79.170.40.144,
so=2009-07-20 21:54:04,
dmn=5.7.1/2009-08-27,
mode=multiengine (bulk only)
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
Return-Path: peter.mathison@CTC.ORG.UK
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jan 2010 16:01:47.0485 (UTC) FILETIME=[5C5668D0:01CAA0FC]




.

 

[jonesy]

I've not received any emails from anyone about this- should I feel left out???

Had my copy of Cycle though- was a bit surprised that the 'pro' article didn't address any of the concerns Simon's article raises, given that his concerns have surely been well known for some time now?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

This is the header text from my message ... it shows that the CTC HQ sent the message(s) out

[pedant] all it means is that the email was sent from an MS Exchange email server on the ctc.org.uk domain. the sender could have been sat anywhere on the planet with an internet connection [/pedant]

if I used my work account it would appear exactly the same, and somehow I doubt that every member's* email address is in the CTC's Outlook address book!

*bar mine of course; not a dicky bird from anyone, even the councillors I emailed directly.

 

[sunnyjim]

[pedant] all it means is that the email was sent from an MS Exchange email server on the ctc.org.uk domain. the sender could have been sat anywhere on the planet with an internet connection [/pedant]

Yebbut-My email from Peter Hayman was sent from the same place 82.111.86.162 =CTC Charitable Trust just 9 minutes earlier. Ctcscotland regional notices normally come from elsewhere.

 

[Flying Dodo]

The header on my email looks identical to Rob's apart from the change in sender email address, but sent 10 minutes later. So it looks like a mass emailing exercise.

 

[psmiffy]

The header on my email looks identical to Rob's apart from the change in sender email address, but sent 10 minutes later. So it looks like a mass emailing exercise.

Are you suggesting that there is collusion between the pro comittee members to influence as many people as possible to their point of view?

 

[dellzeqq]

I'm suggesting that when I was a Councillor the idea that National Office would e-mail the membership in London (or, at least, the moiety for which they had e-mail addresses) on my behalf would strike me as odd. If it were done without my prior agreement or knowledge I'd have been cranking up the V-bomber.

 

[Bollo]

I'm not sure I'd read this as a grand conspiracy, but it is clearly an organised email campaign. I didn't think for a minute that Richard Bates was acting on his own initiative or stumbled upon my email address and thought he'd be friendly. However, the emails from specific councillors seem to be different enough to make it unlikely that they've been ghost-written. It smells more of panic than stitch-up.

On that subject, I never realised that the vote needs a 75% majority to pass - I'd assumed a simple majority would be enough. I can see now why the CTC higher-ups might be getting twitchy.

Finally dell, V-bombers are terribly old fashioned, its all remote drones these days.

 

[psmiffy]

I'm suggesting that when I was a Councillor the idea that National Office would e-mail the membership in London (or, at least, the moiety for which they had e-mail addresses) on my behalf would strike me as odd. If it were done without my prior agreement or knowledge I'd have been cranking up the V-bomber.

I am sorry but I think it is wonderful - potentially its democracy at work – At the very least it is the beginnings of some sort of engagement with all members. I read somewhere that decisions at AGM are taken by considerable less than the contents of a couple of bendy buses – If this sort of thing means fewer voting forms end up in the recycling then I am for it.

However, I did also read that this form of communication had been denied to the Nay Lobby – I would suggest that in the interests of democracy the Nay Lobby make a Formal request to National Office to be availed of the same facility – there must be some sort of rule at Companies House that regulates these things.

 

[dellzeqq]

psmiffy - my point is that if councillors wanted to send out an e-mail, then they should request a list of e-mail addresses from National Office and do it themselves. That I'm all in favour of - and it would be nice if it became a habit. I'd also like to see different councillors in the same region sending out e-mails in their name - which, as far as I know hasn't happened. I hope that new Councillors have not seen their names tacked on to the bottom of e-mails.

And again, why were certain councillors invited to submit scripts and others not? And, again, did all the councillors who have nomimally sent out e-mails know what was going on. Perhaps it's time to ask.