www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Sorry Jack,
I just don't see the BC executive as being locked away in an 'ivory tower'. Please justify this.

The BC Executive have a job to do, and they draw a salary (rightly so) in order to do this job. Their job is being the National Executive of what has become a fairly large charity. I would be somewhat dismayed to find that they had time or resources available to engage in chatter on one of many public internet forums.

In addition, I don't find the BC Executive in any way unapproachable, I can email or telephone BCHQ whenever I wish, and being lucky enough to live on the Dorset boundary I can even visit the HQ myself.

BC has a navigable website and I would expect any policy decision to be clearly available to digest on that website, together with adequate justification for the stance taken; and if it pleases you perhaps even an unnecessary video clip of Dr. MW talking though the policy.

I would also not expect to agree with every decision that they make. I do not as it happens; but as long as I am confident that they have clearly thought through their decision, taken expert advice where necessary, and considered the ramifications I shall be happy. However, I would not, simply by dint of being a member, expect to be part of the decision making process. Why should I be, that's what the executive are paid to do..!

You are right; public companies are answerable to their shareholders, they have to be able to justify the decisions that they make and the actions that they take. However they should not be lead by their shareholders, and shareholders should not be making decisions on behalf of the CEO , that's why companies employ boards of directors at considerable expense.

I think we should also recognise the role of branch committees as a contact point for any concerns there might be. Consider this an equivalent of your local MP (I mean, would you really expect to get a response from a question sent to the Prime Minister?). They can then debate, respond and, if necessary, escalate items to BC Head Office if required.

Cheers,

- Pete

Felix and Pete make the valid point that communication should be through the local branch, but I was on a working party yesterday with two committee members and the sole comment that I got was "we'll get the money from Lotto" so does "wishy-washy " permeate up or down in butterfly conservation ? We have 'till April, many of us will be taking a holiday before the British butterfly season starts, so how do we generate some enthusiasm to oppose/ alter/ agree with the proposals in the time available ?

Should I immolate myself in front of BC headquarters? (Don't all rush to answer that )

I agree with both Pete and John.

The first port of call should be your local Branch, however, this is where it gets a little sticky. Not all Branches are the same. If you live in Hampshire or Sussex all well and good (although I would seriously question the efficiency of some 'committee heavy' branches in their decision making processes), however, if you are unfortunate enough to live in an area with an inefficiently run local branch, or one run by volunteers who have less than the optimum amount of time to devote to the branch management, then things are less straight forward.

Branches, are of course, run by volunteers, and there in lies an additional rub if those volunteers are not of the calibre that one would ideally seek in a branch management structure.

John pointed out his frustration at his experience with his local branch and I am afraid that he is not unique in his experience. Not all branch volunteers, no matter how well meaning, necessarily have the strength of character and leadership qualities that one would ultimately wish for in a holder of such a position.

I don't pretend to know the answer to this, and I am sure that a gut reaction from many would be that I should refrain from criticizing branch volunteers as they work really hard, give up their valuable time, and do their level best for their local branch. Well sadly in the real world sometimes that just isn't enough.

And if I may pre-empt the obvious question whereby someone asks why don't I do it instead of sitting in my arm chair levelling criticism at all quarters; well I have offered in the past, but not all local branches want to change if change will mean a greater degree of accountability, administrative work or an upset to the current and cosy management structure.

I would love our conservation organisations take a more pro-active approach in actually opposing the sale from an environmental perspective, rather than being rather supine and, as I said ealier, "picking up the pieces" and getting the "crumbs from the table of the master" by accepting what they are given.
And it is up to BC members to raise with local branches and for branches to raise with HQ. Of course this makes things difficult for HQ. but it IS the members' organisation, not HQ's.
So, rather than use 38 Degrees (founded by an American Democratic Party social-networking expert who worked for Obama on Facebook and other social-networking sites, who took £30K from 38 Degrees for consultancy fees in 2009, according to their accounts) how about getting our own organisations to do the work - and that means members must put pressure on all levels of organisations to get the message through.....
(So far I have had no reply to my request for a statement from the BC Forestry Commission Conservation Offficer through the BC Website...)
N

NickB wrote:And it is up to BC members to raise with local branches and for branches to raise with HQ. Of course this makes things difficult for HQ. but it IS the members' organisation, not HQ's. N

Hi Nick.

I don't know your thoughts on this Nick, but I strongly suspect that only a tiny minority of the BC membership have actually raised or attempted to raise this issue with their local branch, even if they do object on environmental grounds.

Certainly BC have not encouraged a mobilisation of it's membership in this respect; which brings us neatly back to the initial point regarding BC's stance. Why have they not encouraged their members to speak out on this important issue?

As things stand, if BC were approached by a lobbying group and asked if their membership have expressed strong feelings in either direction with regard to the forest sell off I imagine that BC could truthfully say "no".

Perhaps BC could have been more proactive from the top and attempted to rally it's members to the cause, this could have taken the form of a simple flyer sent to every membership address explaining exactly what the coalition government propose, what the time frames are, what the potential impacts could be from the perspective of 'Saving Butterflies, Moths and our Environment', what (if any) joined up approach has been considered with other conservation organisations, and what it's members can do to express their thoughts and concerns. BC, in the same simple document could have expressed precisely what action they intend to take on behalf of the membership to oppose the sell off, and why BC consider opposition to this policy important.

This has categorically not happened at either branch, or more importantly, at national level. BC has failed, and failed it's membership in this respect.

Therefore it could be argued (not necessarily by me, as always I'm just chewing fat here) that BC, when push has come to shove, has demonstrated little more than impotence in this matter and has let down it's members by failing to act strongly, decisively, and with adequate leadership.

Discuss...

Felix said:

Sorry Jack, I just don't see the BC executive as being locked away in an 'ivory tower'. Please justify this.

but in a later post, while not quite contradicting himself said:

BC, when push has come to shove, has demonstrated little more than impotence in this matter and has let down its members by failing to act strongly, decisively, and with adequate leadership.

I note there is a job vacancy for an IT Officer with BC. He/she will have a golden opportunity in organising online canvassing of members' views about the Forestry sell-off. That would be a much simpler way for us to make our views known rather than having to write individually. Closing date is 9th February so some quick action will be needed. But I am sure somebody already on the staff will have the necessary skills and can get to work straightaway.

Jack

Jack Harrison wrote:I note there is a job vacancy for an IT Officer with BC. He/she will have a golden opportunity in organising online canvassing of members' views about the Forestry sell-off. That would be a much simpler way for us to make our views known rather than having to write individually. Closing date is 9th February so some quick action will be needed. But I am sure somebody already on the staff will have the necessary skills and can get to work straightaway.

Jack

The advert reads IT Officer
Closing date: 9 February 2011
East Lulworth, Dorset.
Full-time £21,100 – £24,885 pa (dependent on experience) plus pension contribution
We require a highly motivated IT Officer to assist our IT Manager with the management and servicing of our IT network; providing support and training to staff; administration of our supporter database including interrogation and statistical analysis and updating our website.
We are keen to hear from you if you have the skills and aptitude required for you to develop in this busy new post.
Closing date: noon on Wednesday 9 February 2011
Interviews will be held on Thursday 17 February 2011 at our Head Office in East Lulworth.

I am afraid that interrogating a database has little to do with member's views. Anyway if this post has any connection with our current problem it will be too late; interviews 17 Feb. Job offer say end of Feb. Successful applicant works his month's notice, end of March, and the consultation closes mid April.
Jack, I am quite prepared to believe you because I wouldn't put it past BC not to consult its members until it's too late - or not consult them at all.

I have just now asked BC for a copy of their constitution with a view to calling an EGM to discuss the situation.

The BC Response
http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/a ... bitat.html
"Principles to inform delivery models for public benefit associated with public sector land" (snappy title!)
amply illustrates the non-confrontational nature of BC's governing council.
It is plainly not designed to criticise, uses the government's own language about "service delivery outcomes", argues that most of these "outcomes" will be completely un-funded, yet does nothing to address the wider question of whether it is necessary, possible or desirable in the first place, nor spell-out the negative impacts on existing projects should it go through. That title is also an indication that BC's council come from an academic, not political, background *.
N
...* and all of the other sponsors of that statement too

Jack Harrison wrote:Felix said:

Sorry Jack, I just don't see the BC executive as being locked away in an 'ivory tower'. Please justify this.

but in a later post, while not quite contradicting himself said:

BC, when push has come to shove, has demonstrated little more than impotence in this matter and has let down its members by failing to act strongly, decisively, and with adequate leadership.

Jack

You missed my little caveat Jack "Therefore it could be argued (not necessarily by me, as always I'm just chewing fat here)"

As always, the opinions expressed in my posts are not necessarily those of the author

F.

NickB wrote:"Principles to inform delivery models for public benefit associated with public sector land"[/u][/i] (snappy title!)

That title is meaningless tripe I'm afraid Nick, meaningless tripe.

And it does little to reassure me. It's the sort of Public Sector exclusionist 'management speak' that is adopted by those who are deeply insecure with their own capabilities and seek to envelope themselves with such phraseology in order to baffle the reader and perpetuate an illusion of intellectual high-ground. Sadly when one encounters the type of individuals who habitually use such language the reverse is most often the case. Believe me, I have the misfortune to have to do business with the clowns..!

In fact, that title would be thoroughly at home with 'webinar trialogues' discussing 'policy disbenefits'.

Give me strength...

Felix.

NickB wrote:The BC Response
http://www.butterfly-conservation.org/a ... bitat.html
"Principles to inform delivery models for public benefit associated with public sector land" (snappy title!)

As I pointed out yesterday this was published the day BEFORE BC knew what the proposals were, and the text itself is dated October 2010. Consider this, BC join in a statement in October and publish it in January, about three months from putting pen to paper to letting the membership know their thoughts. Assuming, and let's be generous here, BC decide on their position within the next week or two. If they keep to the same time scale we will remain in the dark until after the consultation is closed.

..like I said, if BC members start to send emails to BC (cc their local Branch) stating their oposition to the sell-off and demanding that BC asks their membership what BC's position should be........

info@butterfly-conservation.org

A very interesting statement by the National Trust.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12314781


Regards Gruditch

National Trust interest at first reading sounds a positive development. However, no doubt, NT will be seeking donations from members, including me. This seems perverse in that we will be asked to pay for something that we as tax payers already own. Maybe though it's the best option.

The New Forest and Forest of Dean are the high profile forests that make the headlines. But I heard an TV item that mentioned Rendlesham, Rockingham and Alice Holt as being on the government’s “for sale” short list. The latter two in particular are superb butterfly forests. However, these rumours do not seem to tie up with this document by the Forestry Commission:

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/PFE_cons ... ionmap.pdf

which is part of the consultation process:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/england-pfeconsultation

I'm not sure, but I think Tytherley Wood complex (which includes Bentley) is NOT currently owned by FC. Can anyone shed light on the ownership.

Jack

Thanks for posting the FC link because it shows that almost all of the Botany Bay/Oaken Wood complex is Heritage Woodland.

Apart from that small crumb of comfort I would rather dread any National Trust interference if their stewardship of Winkworth Arboretum is any measure of their overall management of other woodlands. I suppose that there is going to be no ideal solution to this proposal. Why do we vote these people into office to make our lives miserable?

Crown jewels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Crown jewels are jewels or artifacts of the reigning royal family of ..... The value of crowns, diadems and various jewels is valued at over €2,5 Billion. ...

No need to sell off priceless forests. Selling the jewels would probably be far less contentious.

Go for it Dave – might be a good way to guarantee re-election in 2015.

Jack (and this ISN'T said in jest)

Jack Harrison wrote:I'm not sure, but I think Tytherley Wood complex (which includes Bentley) is NOT currently owned by FC. Can anyone shed light on the ownership.

None of the Tytherley Wood complex is Forestry Commission land, The National Trust own large parts near Motisfont, Wiltshire Wildlife trust own Blackmoor Copes, Bentley Wood is owned by an independent charitable trust, all the rest is privately owed woodland.

Regards Gruditch

Jack Harrison wrote:

Crown jewels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Crown jewels are jewels or artifacts of the reigning royal family of ..... The value of crowns, diadems and various jewels is valued at over €2,5 Billion. ...

No need to sell off priceless forests. Selling the jewels would probably be far less contentious.

Go for it Dave – might be a good way to guarantee re-election in 2015.

Jack (and this ISN'T said in jest)

Treason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor... all British nationals (but not other Commonwealth citizens) owe allegiance to the Queen in right of the United Kingdom wherever they may be...

Sorry but my memory is failing me and I simply cannot recall the last time we had an election for the position of Chief Royal.

Bit of real estate there that could also raise a few quid - Balmoral, Windsor, Buck House.

Jack