Having read the recent article by George Monbiot (www.monbiot.com/.../) I am shocked that someone like Ben Caldecott, who so obviously is not for nature, should be a trustee.
We as members should have the power to demand he be removed. By liking this post you can indicate your agreement that he should be removed.
Unknown said:I’ve been trying to find the details of the RSPB’s Royal Charter and Constitution as I’ve posted before. Guess what that is not now available at present.
Just because you couldn't find it doesn't mean it's not there. And you can download a pdf of it should you so wish.
https://www.rspb.org.uk/about-us/how-we-are-run/charter-and-statutes
____________________________________________________________________
Tony
My Flickr Photostream
I anticipate criticism for my reply, and I will respect constructive criticism, because my response will probably be naive.
First, some not so nice lessons I've learned from the last decade, and further back if I look deeper, this country is more evolved around the following two themes:
and the two are becoming (scarily) increasingly prevalent in my eyes.
Should Ben Caldecott be a trustee?
Two things that came out when I did a search on Ben Caldecott::
I'm on the fence, because the world today is so different from world I once knew, but I do know that often, you need opposing arguments to form a constructive solution to move forward.
You need the negatives to create a balance, and if you have someone sitting on a committee with opposing arguments, then listen and evaluate the argument(s) provided, that way you will get a better view of what opposing arguments that need to be fought. That does not mean everything has to be taken at face value, it will entail research, but more importantly, it will give an idea of how the world out there is progressing.
My view, the world is not progressing in a very nice way, and thank ? (yes, I'm being very polite), I'm old, because no matter what my views are, the current trend will continue irrespective.
This doesn't mean I agree with Ben Caldecott as a trustee, because I do not know enough about the other trustees, and would need to do the research first to get the full details of all involved, and to be honest, I currently have more than enough problems closer to home to get too involved, particularly when support from those who should support, aren't interested, unless, there's money in it. And I'm not looking for something for nothing, I'm looking for something that has disappeared from the world today:
I am interested to read the replies, not just to my comments, but others, because this is a valuable debate.
regards
John
Unknown said:
You need the negatives to create a balance, and if you have someone sitting on a committee with opposing arguments
I agree with nearly all of that, but disagree with the above. Not even sure you'd agree with it if you re-read it. You don't have "opposing arguments" leading organisations. You have policies etc and can discuss and debate how to achieve them. You don't try the opposite.
One thing I should say even when the RSPB were financially more successful as far as the financial was at one time and since I became an RSPB member in 1973 I’ve never seen any members motions take place at any RSPB’s AGM in any year, Compare that to the National Trust’s AGM and I’ve also been a member of that organisation from about the same time. Members motions have taken place every year since I became a member of the National Trust since the early 1970’s when I became a member of that organisation, and the numbers of members motions every year have varied from 2-6 during that period every year.! Has no one else thought what the reason could be in all these years and decades between those two large organisations and why the difference and what the reason could be why the National Trust have had members motions every year in all those decades and at all those RSPB’s AGM during those same decades and not one RSPB members motion ever happening or taken place in all those years and decades.. I noticed that difference decades ago and I found out the reason why, by simply asking why and I got a reply to that. Plus there have been at least 2 Extraordinary General Meetings called by members of the National Trust, which is not easy to call as a very large number of adult members signatures are needed to call for such a Meeting to take place. Although any motions that gets passed, are not mandatory to be accepted by the National Trusts management as I did mention as I mentioned earlier. My local county wildlife trust does allow at their AGM for members motions and if passed have to be accepted. But that varies between the different county wildlife trusts. This has been one of my biggest criticisms of the RSPB that I have had since I became an RSPB member in 1973. The way the RSPB’s AGM may have been run differently before I became a member in 1973. But since I became a member in 1973, this is how the RSPB’s AGM has been run!
Regards,
Ian.
stealthybutnotthatstealthy said:
Cheshire Lad said:
I think the old saying goes something like “Keep Your Friends Close, And Your Enemies Closer”.
I hope that helps clarify, if not, I’ll shut up before I dig my hole too deep.
Unknown said:If everyone on a committee agrees with one another, you end up with groupthink. So long as it’s civilised and based on reason, you need debate and challenge - otherwise you end up with a flabby organisation, In the interests of democracy and keeping members up to speed, the RSPB should publish online the transcripts of Council meetings - or at least a thorough record of the meeting minutes.
Agreed. As per what I wrote. You have policies that are discussed and debated…..but you don’t start with a group of opposing views.