Should we honour our heroes?

[[email protected]]

The accounts don't differentiate between donations from members and donations from groups.

I suspect there are two factors at work here:

1) Most new members (and there are lots of them, the current TRF management is doing a great job in getting in new members) are signing up to paying by DD. They don't get an annual renewal, and hence don't get asked to round up their sub by a few quid in the way that they used to. The older members on annual subs are gradually either converting to DD subs or drifting away.

2) The donations of thousands of £ at a time from the groups have clearly dried up. The groups raise this money from horse events etc. I don't know if there are fewer events where the TRF is assisting, or whether the groups have elected to keep the money themselves for local projects because I'm not involved with any local groups at present.

Hi Richard

I am sure as a former PR contractor to the TRF at the time, you will have paid close attention to communicating the instructions of the respective Finance Directors at the time particularly from the AGM's where I believe you may have recorded the minutes.

Since the Deregulation bill when we called up a generous donation of £50k when it was needed, the TRF has not needed additional funding from the groups.

I believe you may find in your notes from the time instructions from the successive Finance Directors - John Gardner and Michel Sabatier that the TRF was doing just fine and that Groups should raise local money for local projects including growing their local membership at county shows etc, and creating strong local events run by groups and supported by national TRF.

You will recall that over the past two years the resulting advice has been to hold monies in local groups and not give to national funds where we could support our increased activity in Green Roads Conservation though making the TRF run more efficiently.

As a result, membership has nearly doubled over the past few years to a record approach 5000 members with proportionate increases in total revenue for Road Conservation, Rider Events, Membership Benefits and most importantly the TRF's influence. All of this has been achieved partly as a result of eth "nosedive" in funds, which teh local groups have put to good effect.

Nevertheless, the time for additional funding on important national issues has now come and the FD's latest thinking will be announced shortly.

I am sure you were about to mention this and apologies if I have pre-empted you.

Let's speak by phone if you need a reminder of how well the TRF is doing at present - so that you can fully inform the ABR readers of the bigger picture.

Regards

Mario

[Crossrutted]

Given the number of TRF members citing thread and post deletion without receiving explanation, the comment "moderators" .." a bit slow to reply"
is akin to describing Lazarus as mildly unwell...

Hi Rob

Lazarus died once and was attended to once.

Mario

Unless you choose to argue with the bible, Lazarus died twice

Rather than poor old Dave getting hot and bothered whilst forgetting to email TRF members, wouldn't it be far easier for all if you just stopped censoring the TRF forum?

The "defamation" justification fools nobody.

[IanB]

Given the number of TRF members citing thread and post deletion without receiving explanation, the comment "moderators" .." a bit slow to reply"
is akin to describing Lazarus as mildly unwell...

Hi Rob

Lazarus died once and was attended to once.

Mario

Unless you choose to argue with the bible, Lazarus died twice

Rather than poor old Dave getting hot and bothered whilst forgetting to email TRF members, wouldn't it be far easier for all if you just stopped censoring the TRF forum?

The "defamation" justification fools nobody.

In a nutshell .........

[[email protected]]

Gents

I think you know the answer to why directors can't allow insulting, innacurate or defamatory posts on a TRF forum and given the TRF's role.

If you need examples of inappropriate posts simply review a few of the earlier posts in this thread.

Perhaps we are going to have to disagree on this one.

Please bear in mind the Directors of the TRF are unpaid volunteers who simply want to help.

We signed up to do "better things" than delete posts from those with a beef, shooting from the hip.

The results of the TRF speak for themselves. By any factual measure we are doing well and are likely to better in future.

Sure we can't please everybody despite sometimes bending over backwards to do so.

Although you may have a beef with the directors and their new pragmatic approach, the changes have been supported at the AGM by over 90% of the membership.

The directors always remain open to hearing your views, especially contrary ones and we hold meetings , consultations and email to hear you views.

Even Rob /Crossrutted has thanked the directors for changes on membership cards and bringing back Trail magazine.

Are some of your statements in this this thread about the directors really justifiable?

Remember, what we want to do is simply allow all of us to ride our bikes.

Feel free to give me, or any if the 9 TRF direcrors or even 200 Group officers, a call if you disagree with the above and I will be happy to discuss further.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Paul_C]

I totally agree with you.
However, I believe that some may feel the wholesale removal of a thread possibly delivers an inaccurate message if only a few of the posts are at issue. Unless, of course, every post is contentious.

Equally I think it is clear that the "tipping point" for what is deemed inappropriate can vary. As in life perhaps some are more sensitive than others. It should be possible for open discussion to take place between members where due mutual respect is honoured. It's just good manners and should be seen as a strength.

[Richard Simpson Mark II]

Thanks for the clarification Mario.

The Retired Greyhound Trust will get the small donation that I usually give to the TRF on renewal this year, given your assertion that any donation beyond the sub is not required by the TRF.

I'm sure the hounds will be very grateful!

[[email protected]]

I totally agree with you.
However, I believe that some may feel the wholesale removal of a thread possibly delivers an inaccurate message if only a few of the posts are at issue. Unless, of course, every post is contentious.

Equally I think it is clear that the "tipping point" for what is deemed inappropriate can vary. As in life perhaps some are more sensitive than others. It should be possible for open discussion to take place between members where due mutual respect is honoured. It's just good manners and should be seen as a strength.

Hi Paul

From previous experience, as I am no longer involved, I know that moderating a complex thread where posts mix good and bad information can be tricky & time-consuming.

My sympathy is for the volunteer moderators to have to sort this out rather than riding their bikes.

Happy to discuss this further by phone, by email, at a national conference or if you really feel strongly about the issue at an EGM/AGM.

Meanwhile, we seem to have strayed away from the original topic, honouring heroes

May I take this opportunity to wish Hugh success in the MCN poll.

[HedgeHopper]

Hello Mario, is the TRF forum being closed down in the near future?

[Pint Master]

Were there an organisation such as RSPCForums the TRF Forum would be in its care, the use of FaceBook,for goodness sakes,is encouraged.