 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Last time I checked there are 12 months in 2018, so if it has been announced that the venue is due to open in 2018 that includes the autumn.
Just to reiterate, I was until recently a member of SCGB staff, and I can assure you that the venue opening has always been scheduled for autumn 2018. I no longer work there, so have no idea if that’s still the case, but as far as I know it was still on schedule when I left. It’s not uncommon for food and drink venue openings to slip behind schedule. If it does, I’m sure everyone will survive the horror of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Just for side interest ...
ALQ's post above is the 5000th posting to this thread - 'New Ski Club of Great Britain chat forum' - since it began on 18 December 2012
Over 6+ years and 125 pages, this thread has generated an average of 75 views per post. That's an almost identical hit count to another more recent thread - 'Next Season is going to be lot more Expensive!' [39 pages]
For further comparison ...
'Taking children out of school....' [17 pages] runs at 51 views per post.
'Easter Drive Down - chit chat' [13 pages] achieved 42 views per post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Meh
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
TBF, a lot of those views were posters triple n quadruple checking their grammar. We run a tight ship ‘ere.
Must say, it’s a pretty good turn-out, but I encourage more folks to not be shy and get stuck in with posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
75 views per post certainly stands well in comparison with this thread in the Apres Zone ...
Brexit
Now 602 boring pages, which generate an average of only 12 views per post (against the 75 who are likely to view this one). What is the point of perpetuating threads on snowHeads that can reach so few people and achieve zero influence over Britain's exit from the EU?
---------------------------
Anyway ... back to business ...
The Ski Club of Great Britain's claimed membership numbers are always worth a ponder at this time of year. This is the current (June 2018) claim ...
| Quote: |
| The Ski Club of Great Britain is the largest skiing and snowboarding membership organisation in the UK, with around 28,000 members ... |
Source: SCGB 2018/19 Media Pack
https://issuu.com/skiclub/docs/ski_club_of_great_britain_media_pac
That word "around" is interesting, because the word "over" is also used in other places ...
| Quote: |
| The Ski Club is the largest and oldest snowsports membership organisation in the UK, with over 28,000 members. |
Source: SCGB website 'About the Ski Club'
https://www.skiclub.co.uk/about-the-ski-club
Does the Ski Club of GB really have "over 28,000 members", or "about 28,000 members"?
According to the most recent (Jan-Dec) data of the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC), an average of 16,048 copies of the SCGB magazine 'Ski+Board' were circulated to members last year.
The SCGB's most recent annual report (2017) quotes a gross membership figure of 27,789.
Historically (back in the 20th century) the SCGB consistently quoted a gross membership of around 1.5 times its number of subscribers or 'paying units', so one would expect a gross membership of about 24,000 from a paying units figure of 16,048 (if that's the number of subscribers). Have family units within the SCGB membership grown in recent times?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Just for reference, back in 2011-12 very variable membership numbers were being quoted by the Club ... which were reported to the Winterhighland forum on 2 Julay 2012 ...
http://www.winterhighland.info/forum/read.php?2,148384,page=1
... thus ...
| Quote: |
| The following numbers have been published by the SCGB since last autumn [2011]: 32,000 (29 Nov 2011), 30,000+ (21 Feb 2012) 31,000+ (22 Feb 2012), 33,000 (1 Mar 2012) and currently (2 July 2012) "around 34,000". |
Those figures were extracted from varous SCGB press releases etc. of that time. The quoted membership number in paying units (taken from the 2011 annual report) was 17,114.
One question to pose to the Club is: "How many membership cards have been issued, and how many members are entitled to vote?"
If any SCGB spokespersons or former spokespersons are reading this, they're welcome to comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it’s about 28,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Rosey44 wrote: |
| Yeah, it’s about 28,000 |
Yep, David Goldsmith, around and about, circa, in the region of, roughly, something like, near too 28k.
I hope that's of no help at all to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rosey 44 + Gerry ... plus the regular studio audience ...
If you're saying (presumably without counting them or looking at any independent audit) that the SCGB has "around 28,000 members" ... because you feel obliged to fly that particular flag on behalf of the Club ... then I'd just politely point out ...
1. The SCGB has been claiming the "over 28,000" figure for 3 years.
May 2016:
| Quote: |
| The Ski Club of Great Britain has over 28,000 members |
https://www.skiclub.co.uk/about-the-ski-club/press-centre/press-releases/2016/05/the-ski-club-of-great-britain-looks-back-on-a-snow-season-of-ups-and-downs
Oct 2017:
| Quote: |
| The Ski Club of Great Britain has over 28,000 members |
https://www.skiclub.co.uk/about-the-ski-club/press-centre/press-releases/2017/10/chemmy-alcott-announced-as-ski-club-of-great-britain-president
June 2018:
| Quote: |
| The Ski Club is the largest and oldest snowsports membership organisation in the UK, with over 28,000 members. |
https://www.skiclub.co.uk/about-the-ski-club
2. The Club is currently running another 'half price subscription offer', online, via a code. When I joined the SCGB, not only did you absolutely have to pay the full subscription fee ... you had to pay a joining fee on top. Is the Club really holding that 28,000 figure, or is it made up with 1/2 price members, non-paying members (journalists etc., who've been given freebies in the past) etc.? The Club will surely be challenged to retain its loyal full-subscription-paying members if it's dishing out much cheaper subs to newcomers.
3. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations/ABC (which has independently audited the SCGB's data for 40+ years) ...
| Quote: |
| Ski Club of Great Britain is no longer registered with ABC |
https://www.abc.org.uk/product/15785-ski-club-of-great-britain
This, coupled with the SCGB's decision to no longer have its AGM voting verified by Electoral Reform Ballot Services, must raise questions as to whether the Club is trying to hide something or make up numbers. A national organisation of the SCGB's pedigree really should not be scuttling away from independent auditors/monitors in this way.
4. The Club claims, in relation to its 'Line-S' student membership body (is it really a club?) ...
https://www.line-s.co.uk/
| Quote: |
| With over 20,000 members, we are the the largest student snowsports club in the UK. |
As with the SCGB's "28,000 members" figure ... the same question arises: do these 20,000 students hold membership cards?
The Line-S 'About us' page is worth a gander ...
https://www.line-s.co.uk/about-us/
There's also the 'Society Support' page ...
https://www.line-s.co.uk/support/
And ... 'What we do' ...
https://www.line-s.co.uk/what-we-do/
Good lunchtime reading.
[A meaty sandwich of baloney, if you ask me!]
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/baloney
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
In point 3 above, I highlighted the SCGB's apparent withdrawal - after 40+ years - from the Audit Bureau of Circulations (according to ABC).
Auditing is, of course, a vital function of any accountable enterprise (especially one which is responsible to its members/owners).
A significant SCGB financial matter which has been raised from time to time, over the past decade and more, is ...
The SCGB's 'Respect the Mountain' fund ... and the missing £10,000s
Since 2004-5, the Ski Club of Great Britain has levied 50p per subscription from each of its membership fees for environmental projects. At a rough estimate, over the past c.13 years, the Club will have raised a cumulative sum of around £120,000 from this source, and also the branded merchandise sold. In its first winter the campaign also kicked off, merchandise-wise, with the the manufacture of 35,000 green wristbands, sold at £2 each, plus t-shirts and hoodies etc, ashtrays and other items.
The key purpose of the fund, as originally announced, was to support the Woodland Trust with what was described by the SCGB as a "long-term tree-planting project". SCGB members were told that the Woodland Trust would receive approximately 50% of the funds.
The fund-raising continues, each year:
See 'Green Award'
https://www.skiclub.co.uk/news-and-events/inspire-awards/ski-club-inspire-awards
| Ski Club of Great Britain wrote: |
Green Award
Applications available throughout the year for funding up to £1,000
In recent years, attitudes to preserving and protecting the environment have become more and more important. None more so than the issues around the sustainability of snowsports and the mountain environment. The Green Award will offer funding of up to £1,000 towards environmental-led snowsport projects undertaken by anyone who is a member of the Ski Club of Great Britain. Whether you are raising funds to clean your local mountain, investigating changing snowfall across the seasons or filming a documentary on melting Alpine glaciers, this award could be one to consider. The money raised from the 50p membership levy will now go towards the Green Award, opening out the previous Respect the Mountain funding initiative to include green charities or projects that skiers and snowboarders are actively involved in. |
But most recent summary of how these funds have been allocated is now ancient. The latest official account I can find (the data now seems to have vanished from the SCGB's website) dates back to 2014, and the figures were extremely old even then ...
| Quote: |
INCOME
£6,816.22 was raised from the sale of Respect the Mountain wristbands
£27,538 was raised from the Club's membership environmental levy of 50p per subscription |
| Quote: |
DONATIONS
- Woodland Trust tree planting scheme - £7500 donation to plant 600 indigenous forest trees in Britain. A further £1500 donated this year.
- Research project by James Lewis, entitled "Sustainable Alpine Tourism: the British Ski Industry's Role in Developing Sustainability in the French Alps" - £4250 download the full report as a pdf
- Eco-boxes through Summit foundation in Verbier, Switzerland - £816.22
- Makesnowsportsgreener campaign and snowsports sustainability and resort makeover - £4000
- "The Big Spring Clean" - Scottish resort clean up day. This year's cost was £2600
- The Eco-guide to Mountain Gear - £1788
- Ski Club Leaders Train Travel subsidy of £100 each to encourage travel by train has been popular. 23 Leaders took it up this year. Cost £2300.
- Freshtracks is including train travel options to Les Arcs for members in this year's holiday programme. The EWG is allocating £1600 to help keep the travel costs comparable with plane travel.
- Disposable ashtrays have been handed out in resorts by Club Leaders - £1500
- The Chamonix Lac Blanc Refuge hydroelectric project has been approved in principle. This project is to replace an aging and polluting diesel generator. Cost £7500.
- The historic Britannia Hut near Saas Fee was built many years ago with the help of the Club. Solar panels have been installed to help save fuel, water supplies and environmentally intrusive heli lifts - £3000
- Researchers at Bristol University are looking into the role of micro-organisms in snow, and how snow longevity and possibly snowfall is affected. The Club has given a grant of £4000.
- We have commissioned snowcarbon to provide the Club with ongoing information on 'green travel'. This will be included in the Green Travel section and help members to plan journeys by rail. Cost £850
- Contribution of £4000 towards the University of Bristol's research into the biogeochemistry of snow in the Alps and the potential impacts on the snowsports industry and ski resorts. |
So, the expenditure the SCGB has publicly accounted for - £34,354.22 (with the £4000 figure above possibly declared twice) - compares with that total raised of over £120,000 (with the money accruing at a rate of £8000 to £9000 per annum based on the Club's claimed subscriber numbers of around 16,500 households).
The SCGB Environmental Working Group, established at the outset (in 2004-5) to advise its Council on the distribution of the funds, advised that approximately half the fund should go to The Woodland Trust - a distinguished national tree-planting charity - to finance a "long-term tree-planting project". As The Independent newspaper pointed out in 2007 ....
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/skiing/ski-club-of-great-britain-ace-of-clubs-398722.html
| Quote: |
I saw that the Ski Club's Respect the Mountain campaign was taking a multi-pronged approach to tackling the receding snowline. Changing consumer behaviour was only the tip of the sinking iceberg; more impressive was the club's best-practice guide for resorts themselves, as well as its ever-growing resort-ratings database, which details every step taken on a resort's path to greenness.
By the next ski show, it was getting harder to hold on to my preconceptions. The Ski Club booth was covered in green wristbands. Respect the Mountain T-shirts were everywhere. Gone were the garish blue-and-yellow ski jackets of old; in their place were smart green Gore-Tex numbers.
"As a ski club, we're acutely aware of climate change issues," said Caroline Stuart-Taylor, the club's chief executive. "How long until there's not enough snow for us to do the thing that we love? But we feel that our responsibility is to raise awareness; we're not a major campaigner." |
However, according to its own accounts, the Club says it has only ever paid £9000 to The Woodland Trust - well under 10% of the funds raised. They were allotted the £7500 in the first two years of the project (to 2007), and then merely an odd amount of £1500 in 2013. Where has the rest of the Woodland Trust's money gone, exactly?
That information was, by the way, requested from the Club's then treasurer in 2012 ... but an up-to-date financial summary has still not appeared ... 6 years later.
----------------------------------------------
Additional links on this:
August 2015:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/SKI.HUB/permalink/1674410129512419/
[With comments below from British ski journalists Patrick Thorne and Neil English.]
October 2015:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/SKI.HUB/permalink/1698311653788933/
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
I think it would be obvious to even the most dim witted that the kind of expenditure they list could easily exceed the @ £9,000 per year you suggest the scheme is bringing in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| olderscot wrote: |
I think it would be obvious to even the most dim witted that the kind of expenditure they list could easily exceed the @ £9,000 per year you suggest the scheme is bringing in.
|
No one could disagree with a theoretical point like that, but we are not here to apply our dreams and imaginations. It's an accounting procedure.
The money is/was quasi-charitable, and some of it was raised from the general public. It all has to be accounted for.
This has dragged on for over 10 years, with only about 30% of the funds accounted for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
No one could disagree with a theoretical point like that, but we are not here to apply our dreams and imaginations. It's an accounting procedure.
|
If only this were true David. Almost everything you post comes from your weird and overly fertile imagination with hints of darkness and suspicions and rum goings on within the innermost and mysterious corridors of the SCGB.
As far as accounting procedures go. The SCGB prepare their full accounts internally and these are then formalised, audited and presented to the AGM in it's annual report. If you're questioning this then all I can really say is there goes that imagination of yours again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I generally lurk in the background on this exchange but as a point of principle I believe it should be noted that "money from the public" for charitable purposes only has to be accounted for separately if the collector is a registered charity and its charitable funds are therefore subject to the submission and scrutiny of the Charities Commission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I think that although not required if you are raising funds via a voluntary contribution for a specific purpose thrn you should account for its use no matter the legal or statutory requirement.
Its a fair point to raise and to expect an answer.
There are a lot of things that were/are legal that arent what should be done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@FFIRMIN, you are surely not suggesting that 'quasi-charitable' isn't a real thing 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Besides, why let mere facts stand in the way of dutiful outrage? Inform the Daily Mail!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| ster wrote: |
I think that although not required if you are raising funds via a voluntary contribution for a specific purpose thrn you should account for its use no matter the legal or statutory requirement.
Its a fair point to raise and to expect an answer.
There are a lot of things that were/are legal that arent what should be done. |
Goldfish knows full well that the levy stopped in about 2012 and I'm pretty sure it wasn't restarted. He also knows that some of the money went to alpine-related scientific research. As always he knows more than he lets on but only lets you have the facts he wants you to know. Basically, he is lying by omission...again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| ster wrote: |
I think that although not required if you are raising funds via a voluntary contribution for a specific purpose thrn you should account for its use no matter the legal or statutory requirement.
Its a fair point to raise and to expect an answer.
There are a lot of things that were/are legal that arent what should be done. |
Goldfish knows full well that the levy stopped in about 2012 and I'm pretty sure it wasn't restarted. He also knows that some of the money went to alpine-related scientific research. As always he knows more than he lets on but only lets you have the facts he wants you to know. Basically, he is lying by omission...again. |
That's interesting, as DG specifically referred to the money being raised in 13 years since 2004/2005 , so one of you two is definitely telling misleading porkies. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| eblunt wrote: |
| Gerry wrote: |
| ster wrote: |
I think that although not required if you are raising funds via a voluntary contribution for a specific purpose thrn you should account for its use no matter the legal or statutory requirement.
Its a fair point to raise and to expect an answer.
There are a lot of things that were/are legal that arent what should be done. |
Goldfish knows full well that the levy stopped in about 2012 and I'm pretty sure it wasn't restarted. He also knows that some of the money went to alpine-related scientific research. As always he knows more than he lets on but only lets you have the facts he wants you to know. Basically, he is lying by omission...again. |
That's interesting, as DG specifically referred to the money being raised in 13 years since 2004/2005 , so one of you two is definitely telling misleading porkies. |
I'm 99% sure it stopped around then. Essentially people couldn't agree on what to do with the money. I'm 99% sure the last of the money went to a research project, something to do with microfauna living in the snowpack, if my memory is correct. The Environmental Working Group, which had the job of finding worthy causes to spent the money on, was also wound up about the same time.
Now, I swear on my life and the lives of my nearest and dearest that what i'm saying is, to the best of my knowledge, correct.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Tue 26-06-18 15:48; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gerry wrote: |
Goldfish knows full well that the levy stopped in about 2012 and I'm pretty sure it wasn't restarted. He also knows that some of the money went to alpine-related scientific research. As always he knows more than he lets on but only lets you have the facts he wants you to know. Basically, he is lying by omission...again. |
"Some of the money" isn't exactly what people giving to charitable causes want to know, usually they want a figure. Like a real figure in pounds and pence, or an exact percentage, not "some". See, lying by omission Where is the rest of the money that isn't in the "some" then? Does DG know where that is? Or does SCGB???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Digger the dinosaur wrote: |
| Gerry wrote: |
Goldfish knows full well that the levy stopped in about 2012 and I'm pretty sure it wasn't restarted. He also knows that some of the money went to alpine-related scientific research. As always he knows more than he lets on but only lets you have the facts he wants you to know. Basically, he is lying by omission...again. |
"Some of the money" isn't exactly what people giving to charitable causes want to know, usually they want a figure. Like a real figure in pounds and pence, or an exact percentage, not "some". See, lying by omission Where is the rest of the money that isn't in the "some" then? Does DG know where that is? Or does SCGB??? |
Sorry, I don't have those figures or access to them. Money went to the Woodland Trust, then to cleaning up the Scottish mountains, likely as not other things I've forgotten about, and then, finally, to the research project I mentioned. If it concerns you so much, you could contact the Club.
Let me also swear on my life and the lives of my nearest and dearest that I'm not 'lying by omission'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Gerry, you have no idea what you have omitted, so how can you possibly declare that???
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
In my experience those who swear on the lives of others are usually lying. Or guilty through omission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| Digger the dinosaur wrote: |
| @Gerry, you have no idea what you have omitted, so how can you possibly declare that??? |
That's everything I can remember. Not good enough for you? Want to meet up so I can convince you I'm being sincere?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Digger the dinosaur, I was more concerned about the 99% sure swearing on the lives of nearest and dearest. Personally I'd never take even a 1% chance with the lives of my N&D
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| esaw1 wrote: |
| In my experience those who swear on the lives of others are usually lying. Or guilty through omission. |
By 'experience', you mean it's what you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| eblunt wrote: |
| @Digger the dinosaur, I was more concerned about the 99% sure swearing on the lives of nearest and dearest. Personally I'd never take even a 1% chance with the lives of my N&D |
I didn't swear that I remember where every penny went.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@Gerry, Swearing that you're 99% sure you're not omitting anything doesn't quite have the same ring of certainty ....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| eblunt wrote: |
| @Gerry, Swearing that you're 99% sure you're not omitting anything doesn't quite have the same ring of certainty .... |
And what I actually said:
| Quote: |
| Now, I swear on my life and the lives of my nearest and dearest that what i'm saying is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| esaw1 wrote: |
| In my experience those who swear on the lives of others are usually lying. Or guilty through omission. |
By 'experience', you mean it's what you do. |
.
Basic English; I mean that from past experiences I have come to believe.
Come on Gerry you can do better than that. You usually come up with sensible arguements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@Gerry, You mean someone had their snout in the trough, and is now asking what happened to the contents of the trough ? Surely not , as they would have mentioned in their post 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@eblunt, well, there was talk at about that time of the need for ‘fact finding missions’ and ‘green articles for the magazine’. All paid for out of the fund as legitimate expenses of course and compensation for one’s time obviously. I really enjoyed killing off any ideas along those lines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| Goldfish knows full well that the [SCGB Environmental] levy stopped in about 2012 |
I've proven - above, last Friday - http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=94856&start=5000#3245455 - that the 50p levy and Environmental Fund is active and current.
This live link was posted last Friday: https://www.skiclub.co.uk/news-and-events/inspire-awards/ski-club-inspire-awards
He knows the levy didn't stop "in about 2012" because he (Gerry Aitken) was a director of the Ski Club of Great Britain from 2005 (for 3 years) and from 2011 (for 4 years).
During those 7 years he obviously had full access to any financial information concerning the SCGB Environmental Levy and its funding activities.
Where is the £85,000+ of the c.£120,000 raised to date?
As I've said, time and time again, only £34,354.22 of this fund has ever been publicly accounted for, since it began in 2005
Why does he say, about me personally ...
| Gerry wrote: |
| Basically, he is lying by omission...again. |
It's not generally a good idea to libel people, but the sad and pathetic thing is that Gerry Aitken is part of a whole network of old-school people at the Ski Club of Great Britain who (over the past 20 years and much more) have devoted their energies to calling me a liar, kicking me out of the Club in 2013 (unconstitutionally and illegally!), calling me "a Jew" (somewhat antisemitic, one might say, and not entirely in keeping with the fact that I'm not a Jew anyway) ... as a cover for evading their responsibilities to the future of the organisation. I guess if I couldn't prove (in terms of published print) that I'd been a journalist and editor for the SCGB, since 1976, for six successive editors of its magazine (all fair-minded professional people) I'd be in some difficulty here. It's maybe arguable that those six editors didn't publish my stuff on the strength of me being a liar.
Anyway, let's return to the general banter ...
| Gerry wrote: |
| I'm 99% sure it [the 50p levy] stopped around then [2012] |
And everyone else is 100% sure that this can't be true, and 100% sure that since Gerry was a SCGB director until 2015 he must know the facts.
| Gerry wrote: |
| Essentially people couldn't agree on what to do with the money. |
Eh? There's was a sub-committee of the Club specifically to deal with this. It had been agreed at the outset that approximately 50% of the fund was to go to the Woodland Trust for a long-term tree-planting project. As far as I can see, this organisation is due another £40,000 to £50,000 from the fund, since (according to the SCGB) the Woodland Trust has only received £9000.
| eblunt wrote: |
| DG specifically referred to the money being raised in 13 years since 2004/2005 , so one of you two is definitely telling misleading porkies. |
Yes indeed, and hopefully the data above is sufficient to convince you that it ain't me.
Let's flash (decently) back to 4 February 2015 [page 96 of this thread, if you're having any difficulty] and the following ...
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=94856&start=3800#2673511
This was quickly followed by ...
TEN QUESTIONS FOR GERRY AITKEN
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=94856&start=3800#2673652
Any sensible person (British skier) might see the validity of having a national member-owned non-profit ski club, dedicated to serving British skiers. And so it came about in 1903, and did massive things for the sport. It was a transparent and highly progressive organisation for the first 50+ years of its life (1903 to early 1960s) until the advent of charter flights, packaged ski holidays, Scottish mechanised skiing, artificial ski slopes etc. etc.
Why did Gerry - self-proclaimed champion of the working classes, supposed 'man of the people', SCGB 'Rep of the Year' etc. - choose to prop up the ruling classes of the Skeeb, rather than lead a great renaissance from new blood?
Why did he not recruit and revive?
Was he only really concerned about jumping on the next ski-freebie?
Where will Gerry be leading next season (2018-9)? Watch this space!
https://www.skiclub.co.uk/ski-club-leaders/gerry-aitken-1
And given his leadership qualities, could he be the next Hannibal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@Davina Goldballs, this current 50p seems to be a reboot of the previous Respect the Mountain 50p levy. Where’s your proof that the levy has been continuous? I don’t why you always assume everyone else is being dishonest. Well, I do know actually, it’s because you are so conniving and dishonest yourself.
There’s no old boys network in operation at the Ski Club, it’s just stupid of you to keep claiming this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Davina Goldballs wrote: |
.... self-proclaimed champion of the working classes, supposed 'man of the people'... 'Rep of the Year' etc. - choose to prop up the ruling classes ... rather than lead a great renaissance from new blood?
Why did he not recruit and revive?
Was he only really concerned about jumping on the next ... |
...hooker?
Are you sure you're not thinking of Donald Trump?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
