Jump to content

TRR - new Forum Rules


Rod1883

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

15 minutes ago, BrianR said:

I

He has , but nothing confirmed to date . Time and thought is required before action.

Brian.

Thanks Brian, your totally correct if that had been done in the first place possibly wouldn't be in the position we are now.IMHO don't think they would go far wrong if they took a look at the T&c's we have here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MennoR said:

??? something I've overlooked?

Menno Hi John Morris has been asked to look at the TRR web forum rules and see if he can come ups with something more agreeable and reasonable,  that doesn't require the 'sacrifice of your fist born' to allow access 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John M is a good man and very keen to do all he can to restore the club and the forum to what it once was. He was one of the members who pushed for the AtB section to be open access again. He will definitely try his best for members, but I have my doubts as to what can be achieved. 

I just do not see how the clauses that have caused the difficulties can now be changed ... not after the board recommended voting for them, not after the chairman used his proxy in support of them, and not after a significant majority voted for them. Were those that recommended voting for these clauses totally blind to the ramifications? 

It would be nice if the other place could be run along the same lines as SW, but I cannot see that happening while the majority of those running it cannot tolerate criticism or challenge.  

Darren

Edited by TR5tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TR5tar said:

John M is a good man and very keen to do all he can to restore the club and the forum to what it once was. He was one of the members who pushed for the AtB section to be open access again. He will definitely try his best for members, but I have my doubts as to what can be achieved. 

I just do not see how the clauses that have caused the difficulties can now be changed ... not after the board recommended voting for them, not after the chairman used his proxy in support of them, and not after a significant majority voted for them. Were those that recommended voting for these clauses totally blind to the ramifications? 

It would be nice if the other place could be run along the same lines as ST, but I cannot see that happening while the majority of those running it cannot tolerate criticism or challenge.  

Darren

Darren, agreed,  on reflection, I do question the wisdom of allowing a proxy to vote 'freely' especially where that proxy is gifted to the chairman, appears to be a recipie for nothing to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2018 at 10:53 AM, Graham said:

Does anybody know if John M  has his task force  together yet ?

 

Just a quick update on Graham 's question.

John Morrison has had a preliminary discussion with the TRR chairman and four members are to revisit the rules and recommend appropriate changes.

The four will include John , Myself and two International members.

If anyone who can , would like to comment please PM me over on the dark side, as it 's not fair to take up space from our kind hosts on here.

Cheers

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, BrianR said:

Just a quick update on Graham 's question.

John Morrison has had a preliminary discussion with the TRR chairman and four members are to revisit the rules and recommend appropriate changes.

The four will include John , Myself and two International members.

If anyone who can , would like to comment please PM me over on the dark side, as it 's not fair to take up space from our kind hosts on here.

Cheers

Brian

Brian thanks for the update, unfortunately don't think I can PM you on 'the other site' without agreeing to the terms that I so strongly disagrees with! but I'm a paid up member on here so hopefully they won't mind me nicking a bit of storage space to simply say.

IMHO:

Suggest having a look at the Sideways T and C's 

Reasoned Negative feedback needs to be acceptable 

Malicious posts should clearly not be.

we need a process for reporting rogue/issue traders ( bit of thread drift there, but this area is specifically prohibited under current terms) 

Accept one persons negative feedback might be an others malicious post ...but who would be a mod :blush:

Current drafting appears to repeat the same (unreasonable) objectives multiple times. I also understand the current terms where based on another car club's that receives significant manufacture sponsorship, so could possibly understand why they would need to appear in that clubs terms as a manufacturer wouldn't want to pay for a platform for customers to criticise it. But a manufacturer isn't funding 'OUR' platform, we are,  so should be free to express ourselves on it, given my comment above about malicious posts. 

Hope this is of some use.

Graham 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Brian.

As Graham says, I cannot pm on the dark side as I cannot agree to the current rules over there.

Please refer to my letter(s) to the TRR earlier on in this thread for my comments.

(Graham - I'm probably being thick - but where can I find the T's&C's on here?)

Rod

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for being so understanding Nick

Ok if anyone wishes to PM me on here please do ,I will note your comments but my not have time to reply .

This is going to be a slow and tricky job with an uncertain outcome but we will try.

Thanks

Brian

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Rod1883 said:

 

(Graham - I'm probably being thick - but where can I find the T's&C's on here?)

Rod

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I have stopped "steaming" now, just simmering and wondering what next?

I must start by thanking all those who have given words of support/agreement and hello to all those fiends from the TRR and the TR Forum.

May I also say I hope some of the unnecessary personal comments that are so poison do not find fertile ground on this refreshingly open forum. Those of you, thankfully few, who let your passions run amok as the brain bypasses the hippocampus may learn that open debate without judgement produces far better results. Their acts and anger,sometimes understandable but never acceptable, played directly into the hands of the BoD of the TRR. If that were to happen here it would be another tragedy. It can be expected that as the realities of the TRR direction sinks in more TR'ers will wish to join. I would just wish to ask the site owners to be vigilant and circumspect about who they let in.  Given the levels of paranoia with the TRR they will be interested in what we have to say on this site and it will not be long before they quote extracts from Sideways as justification for their actions.

Now about their actions.  While I have been calming myself I have also been making enquiries and talking with GLs and ex committee members past and recent. What I have been told and have been verifying is quite unbelievable and for me the final nail in the coffin of a once great car club.

For many years ever since the website was created and a forum initiated there have been those of the Committee who have been against it and wanted it closed. In my days on committee the then chair would have closed it in a whisper. Others completely over reacted to comments and questions raised. Few had any idea how to manage the forum or to make work for them. Communication to the members is anathema to them. I fought hard to have minutes of the Committee meetings  sent to GL's to waterfall down to members. We did this for a number of years, the chair hated it. As soon as I left the committee it stopped. Imagine how it was received when Alan Forster and I put the forum on the agenda for a GL meeting and invited the GL input. Jump forward a few years and along comes Paul Hogan who not only encourages its use but allows committee to communicate via the forum, a big no no before. You could hear knives being sharpened. All this background to what I am about to share with you. 

What happened at the AGM and the reaction to the forum was planned  and had been in the planning for some time.  200-300 members were identified as trouble makers. Not what I would call them., more dedicated caring members in my book, it was decided that the TRR or at least the BoD would be better off without them. It was even costed, and decided that the TRR could afford to lose circa £12k to rid itself of this rabble i.e you and me! It was worth the try but to minimise risk proxy votes were garnered. Graham and others warned us via the TRforum of the impact of 4.1.12. This was possibly the catalyst to ensure enough members or GLs representing their groups gave the proxy to the Chair.  I find it totally disingenuous of Alan to say he was uncomfortable with the rule changes and to say just two members of the BOD wanted them or that he is now getting someone to review the rules with a possibility of changing them. Tosh complete tosh! First as chair he should have had the influence to stop the proposal going forward to the AGM, what were the other Committee members thinking?  He must have agreed to the statement in the AGM agenda that said "The BoD recommend you vote yes to these changes",, he held I am told circa 500 proxy votes, a huge number more than ever before, and chose to use them to support the changes. To now say he is thinking of rescinding them is smoke and mirrors. My understanding, and please correct me, is that under the AoA and possible Company Law, as they were voted on with the specific wording, they can only be changed by a vote at an AGM or EGM. They are staying until at least the trouble makers have been culled. Culled being the word that was used when I was told about this a few days ago.

I was so astonished by this information I have sat on it for a few days. In the meantime I have spoken to others and checked things out it appears to be true. Two names kept coming to the fore Phil Tucker and Chris Hale. If they were behind it, and I cannot prove it , they are simply the names being associated by others, I cannot conceive how they could have implemented it without the full knowledge and co operation of a number of other members of BoD and GL's even. Chris has always been a wiley character, and Phil  is a control freak who does not like to be challenged or criticised, so maybe. I was expecting an Ollie Robbins or  Tony Blair to be involved! 

I have also been informed that some elected to the BoD did so at the last minute under encouragement from BoD members to prevent others from being elected. These are not new tactics within the TRR having seen it and objected to it when I was on Committee. 

So I hope you are all sitting down to absorb the above, maybe a stiff drink will help. I am beyond anger now, I am sad. sad that a club I enjoyed for >40 years, that I have done so much for, often at personal cost , just as so many of you on this forum have done, has decided it does not value me as a member. Then I no longer value it or its BoD's. I am sad it has all come to an end. 

Still awake? Good just a few last words, there have been many, too many for me to get my head around topics and views in this particular thread, that I wish to comment on, support or add knowledge to, but I am sure I must be boring you all so will get back to individual comments within the 7 preceding pages at another time. I would love to know the answer to all this but do not have one. I have more questions that answers.

Duncan

ps lost this post for a 24 hr period and could not log back in , so perhaps now out of sink, Have also spoken with ex chair of TRR today and will post update soon.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks Duncan. I'm not surprised, many directors have/had a background in running a business, or managing a wrokforce.These are not skill sets that are approriate to running a club. Rather the opposite. The downhill progression of TRR from a  club to a service provider will doubtless continue. Volunteers will disappear, paid help will need to be bought in, subs will have to rise, or TRA turned digital. Much of TRA is written by an employee with a rare skill that wealthier, more prestigous clubs will covet.  As a business TRR will survive, but not thrive as a club. The TRR of the past decades is gone. But does it matter? SIdeways is an excellent digital home. And the plethora of local motor clubs offer social events. And tbh seeing rows of cloned TRs at the IWE has become a trifle ...yawn.  Now, a Sideways IWE, that would have more spice to it !  Peter

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all that info Duncan. I had my suspicions but was but was living in hope that it was just paranoia.

Still all four of us have committed to try and salvage something ,if we fail so what the hell ! At least we tried.

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing this with us Duncan!

Sadly, the reality is even worse than we'd anticipated. We sometimes suggested that it would be their 'modus operandi' but we always considered it to be too far fetched. I think that Peter's suggestion of a Sideways IWE or at least a GTG would be something to consider.

M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps Duncan's statement helps place my situation within a bigger picture. There is definitely a lot more to everything that has gone on than meets the eye. I've talked with several former board/committee members who have voiced concerns, but of course they have many years invested in the club and worry about speaking out.  

As I've said before, some of the board see the Reg as a business and nothing more. In response, I always said that I can accept the legal aspects of it being a business, but in terms of its ethos it should always be a club. Some could not tolerate that view ... it could be that they viewed the Reg as "their" business. Once people have that mentality, the scope for abuse increases. My view was that I was very happy to volunteer for a club and work with anyone on an equal footing, but I'd not be an unpaid employee in someone else's business that was masquerading as a club. 

I wish John, Brian, and the others trying to change the situation the best of luck. I applaud their efforts, but really the issue with the forum is a symptom of what I see as a much deeper problem. Seems to me that somewhere down the line a few people lost sight of what the club should be about. It should not be a money-making exercise or someone's business play thing. It should exist to preserve TRs, and to make certain that its member's get the most out of their cars. Directors are in place to serve all members, not just those who agree with board decisions.

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...