Crystal clear

[a_mckenzie]

Out of all bodies he mentioned, he picked the cpsa to "analyse" further. he starts of by saying that it has a few ex police men and any information he tried to gather was hindered by this.

The writer then goes on to talk about how the board is full of old white men. 

OK he's just speaking the facts. But i would have like to have read more about the other organisations rather than reading a few snipe comments about one particular body.

 

[Michael]

Out of all bodies he mentioned, he picked the cpsa to "analyse" further. he starts of by saying that it has a few ex police men and any information he tried to gather was hindered by this.

The writer then goes on to talk about how the board is full of old white men. 

OK he's just speaking the facts. But i would have like to have read more about the other organisations rather than reading a few snipe comments about one particular body.

In part that was my point in posting, are our heated but well meaning debates, the seed for this particular article?

 

[** Pending Removal **]

Out of all bodies he mentioned, he picked the cpsa to "analyse" further. he starts of by saying that it has a few ex police men and any information he tried to gather was hindered by this.

The writer then goes on to talk about how the board is full of old white men.

OK he's just speaking the facts. But i would have like to have read more about the other organisations rather than reading a few snipe comments about one particular body.

Oh deary deary meeeeee.I always find it interesting how people interprete things on here. :smile:

In reality the Cpsa is the biggest body. 24,500 members as opposed to the Welsh, Irish and Scottish which would be lucky to total ...what....help me out here peeps ........8000 between them. Southern Ireland has been losing members like mad according to the Times article..and could be down to their last 500??

If there is no ethic and diversity (business term) on a board....any board..... then what are you left with....? L. O. L.

As for the rest.....well that is not a surprise is it......common knowledge.

Actually the Police have a very good shooting structure with many members and operates just like an NGB as several on here could confirm.

What I do not get is why you are interpreting facts and putting a slant on it that possibly is not there. Have you not been around shooting very long?

P.s. Forgot to say, in my opinion there are only really 4 real bodies and those are the ones with the members (England , Scotland, N Ireland and Wales).

P.p.s. Mck. I would love to hear how you could analyse the others.......?

 

[ExSCA]

You can't beat a bit of anonymous, unaccountable op-ed... how is the average reader supposed to judge the credibility of an unattributed article like that.

It all sounds true...

 

[** Pending Removal **]

Anyone who has been in shooting a long time will know all those details....it is common knowledge.....nothing surprising at all if you know the sport. One just has to look at the Cpsa website.....where you will easily find pen portraits of the Directors.....links to the other organisations.....!

Sometimes I think that no one actually looks at the Cpsa website.....if they did...... :smile: things would be obvious.

Nothing wrong with anonymous L. O. L. as several on this site have pointed out as the reason for not putting their real names on their profiles. L. O. L.

 

[** Pending Removal **]

Out of interest......

Which bits are not true?????? Comments like 'sounds true' casts a doubt on the subject matter .... L. O. L.

Which bits are 'snipes' according to McK?? ..... L. O. L.

:smile:

I am looking hard at it......and cannot see it......but then I only look at facts....without emotion....after all it is only the written word. I always find it amusing to see how 10 different people interpret differently the exact same thing.

Request to anonymous ........... Please will you do one on Shooting Forums.......or Keyboard Warriors........ L. O. L.

 

[johnyT]

On the subject of ethnic diversity:

We have no end of people on here spouting on about how their board should be representative - well on this point it is representative; there is very little ethnic diversity in shooting with a huge percentage being white, middle class, middle aged and above and male - seems to me the board profile fits the membership profile pretty much.  Unless Nicola is suggesting they co-opt a non representative lesbian asian in order to fulfil some kind of quota????

 

[** Pending Removal **]

On the subject of ethnic diversity:

We have no end of people on here spouting on about how their board should be representative - well on this point it is representative; there is very little ethnic diversity in shooting with a huge percentage being white, middle class, middle aged and above and male - seems to me the board profile fits the membership profile pretty much.  Unless Nicola is suggesting they co-opt a non representative lesbian asian in order to fulfil some kind of quota????

Silly boy Pike.... Don't try to turn this around to me in your usual fashion. We are discussing an article.

If you had been at the AGM you will have heard the E&D discussion about the make up of the Board.

I believe it was first mentioned by the Ex Chair Bobbett in the Board minutes for Jan.......as you obvious do not read them I have pasted it here......

"2:2 Governance NF and TRB had attended the Sport and Recreation Alliance Leadership Convention held at Stratford-upon-Avon over two days in November. NF reported that when the question is asked regarding independent directors in national governing bodies, this Association is one of only a very few who do not have any on their Board. Both he and TRB realised that the CPSA is now well behind so many of the other NGBs in terms of corporate governance, and in order to secure future funding the matter will need to be addressed together with skills-based Board appointments. TRB commented that although some of the other organisations rely almost entirely on public funding, we are not in that position and 2012 had been the first year when we had received any public monies. He personally considered that there should be a female Director on the Board. RK highlighted the need to factor in succession planning as the current system of electing a Chairman for a one year period falls short in this area. Various aspects of how the AGM is currently conducted in relation to the Articles were discussed, and various suggestions made."

So stop being a chippy ducker with me. You will not put me off replying to any post by your comments containing emotional comment from you who obviously has a problem with me posting anything. it is a free world and i only write 'my' opinion. can i suggest that you do the same....and keep my name out if the content of your posts.

 

[ExSCA]

My point was, I'd prefer to see the same article written by someone who is respected in the sport, and NOT anonymous. 

The piece is factual - I don't question the validity - but if there is going to be a debate about the governance, or a debate about the make-up of the board - then I'd prefer that it was done in the open.

 

[** Pending Removal **]

Hahaha......unbelievable. Sorry ......if I am laughing..... But what difference does it make. It is either fact or not..... L. O. L.

The magazine goes out to lots of shooters....most of whom do not know who is who in shooting..!

(Don't forget Matt......you were lucky enough to get 'fast tracked' into meeting people and being introduced to several so that you could network. For most shooters they never get to hear or understand about the governance of the sport unless they read all about it. You got special treatment with many long discussions on the background of the sport.)

As you know.....most say....'not interested in the politics'.......hence why these articles come as a surprise. When to everyone else who are really informed in their sport.....it is common knowledge.

Anyway....no more time to comment on this at the minute.....got to get out of bed and feed my intern......then.....off to shoot......might check in later.

 

[Clanchief]

My point was, I'd prefer to see the same article written by someone who is respected in the sport, and NOT anonymous. 

The piece is factual - I don't question the validity - but if there is going to be a debate about the governance, or a debate about the make-up of the board - then I'd prefer that it was done in the open.

Ok it was me,,,,,,,,,, I am Spartacus !

 

[Clanchief]

I did not need someone to put pen to paper to know any of this goes on in any Sport let alone shooting.

One reason that the writer never looked at the SCTA is that is kaput at the present, as it has been hugely mismanaged to the point that it was closed down. We all know who and why.

Just saying

 

[ExSCA]

On the subject of ethnic diversity:

We have no end of people on here spouting on about how their board should be representative - well on this point it is representative; there is very little ethnic diversity in shooting with a huge percentage being white, middle class, middle aged and above and male - seems to me the board profile fits the membership profile pretty much.  Unless Nicola is suggesting they co-opt a non representative lesbian asian in order to fulfil some kind of quota????

Dude - I don't understand the quota comment - no-one is suggesting that, but diversity in teams and organisations is really important. The old position that the 'board' reflects the membership has to be smashed, if the sport is to grow and encourage new people in, the board should be reflective of the 'ideals' of what we want the governing body to be.

[EDIT]  Incidentally, that does not mean quotas - it means building an inclusive team from a wide range of backgrounds.

So - if the vision is of a popular sport with a diverse range of participants - then my feeling is that the board should be ready for that.  I feel the same about the skill mix, if the governing body needs skills - then let the board reflect that - in advance of them being needed.

Of course - if our vision of the sport is that only white men, aged 45-60 participate - then the board should reflect that, but personally - that is not a strategy for longevity.

 

[Les53]

Well if I may chip in here!!! I've been around this sport for a bloody long time and I've seen all this sort of thing before! There will always be people who want to snipe at the CPSA, it's always been like that, there will always be issues which divide people, you will never please all the people, all the time...FACT! At the end of the day we must still support all the regional people who run the CPSA at grass roots, local level, it is their influence and efforts that keep the CPSA from going off the rails, as has nearly happened on many occaisions over the years! Just saying...(as Nic would say). 

 

[Fuzrat]

I would like to see a lady on the board and also a junior representative. Ok not a 15yr old but a bright 19 or 20. This would give some perspective from someone who still remembers what juniors would like from the sport and where they want it to go, after all they are the future and should have some say in the future governance.

 

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

My point was, I'd prefer to see the same article written by someone who is respected in the sport, and NOT anonymous. 

The piece is factual - I don't question the validity - but if there is going to be a debate about the governance, or a debate about the make-up of the board - then I'd prefer that it was done in the open.

I'm not going to comment in any great way on 'quotas' and other such aspects here, as any board can only be representative of the membership it represents and by which it was voted in; and if the vast majority of the membership fits only a limited demographic (in terms of age group and ethnicity), then there you have it - your board.

Should that change? Yes. But, realistically and practically, only as and when other demographics begin making up more sizeable chunks of the membership, which would be no bad thing. Diversity ensures longevity, as you're drawing on wider shooting DNA pool, so to speak. Simple maths. Or, put another way, can you imagine what turns this debate would take were they too introduce 'positive discrimination' and enforce quotas on the board? Talk about a bun-fight royale which would detract so wildly from the sport itself as to be comical.

I do, wholeheartedly, though, agree with Matt's points above - it's easy for anonymous agitators [in this case the article's author] to throw unguarded and consequence-free f**ks in from the sidelines, but it doesn't really generate or add to the needed debate on this topic, all it does is stir the pot and create more heat than light.

6/10 for raising what is an important issue

1/10 for anonymous agitation.

 

[johnyT]

Dude - I don't understand the quota comment - no-one is suggesting that, but diversity in teams and organisations is really important. The old position that the 'board' reflects the membership has to be smashed, if the sport is to grow and encourage new people in, the board should be reflective of the 'ideals' of what we want the governing body to be.

[EDIT]  Incidentally, that does not mean quotas - it means building an inclusive team from a wide range of backgrounds.

So - if the vision is of a popular sport with a diverse range of participants - then my feeling is that the board should be ready for that.  I feel the same about the skill mix, if the governing body needs skills - then let the board reflect that - in advance of them being needed.

Of course - if our vision of the sport is that only white men, aged 45-60 participate - then the board should reflect that, but personally - that is not a strategy for longevity.

The quota comment was serious and leads to a further point - shooting does not really have people from diverse backgrounds - the vast majority are, white, middle aged and male - I don't think that many would argue this point.  It is my belief that the board attempted to do something about the make up of the directors by attempting to bring in people from outside the shooting community - I also seem to remember that this caused something of a stink on here about unelected directors,  As usual the board is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't

Just to be clear here go to the following thread:

Silly boy Pike.... Don't try to turn this around to me in your usual fashion. We are discussing an article.  .........

.........So stop being a chippy ducker with me. You will not put me off replying to any post by your comments containing emotional comment from you who obviously has a problem with me posting anything. it is a free world and i only write 'my' opinion. can i suggest that you do the same....and keep my name out if the content of your posts.

So here we go again anybody is allowed to express an opinion as long is it is Nicola! and only she is allowed to be personal.

OK Nicola - in my opinion you are a pain in the ar-se who could start an argument in an empty room!

 

[Salopian]

Calm down, Calm down.

I read the article and thought " I don't remember writing this."

 I didn't but then I got to thinking who did?

Wes Stanton owns Blaze Publications  and used to work for the CPSA was it him using it as an editorial? Who knows and does it really matter?

Now let us try and get things into a little bit of perspective.

I know I moan, my wife tells me every day, and then says, calm down, let it go, you are far too passionate about your sport, others are not bothered so why are you?

The CPSA used to have far more input and governance from regions, but HQ & the Board put a stop to that, and over the years since that happened I have seen it spiral out of control, finances up and organisational ability down.

Sadly I sincerely do believe we need a good clear out of the Board and start with a clean slate. We have a home HQ which we didn't used to have, we have some really good staff working at HQ doing a very good job, but it does appear from some of the major financial, legal and disciplinary cock ups that we have had to ride through over the last few years, the association is not being managed.

 Until we sort out our association ( the CPSA ) we have not a hope in hell of furthering our sport by debate with the other players. We need to lead by example, not be brow beaten into compliance by trumped up Quangos. 

For those of you who are sick and tired of hearing me moaning and deride everything that Nicola Heron and a few others have to say, I say this, fine you are entitled to your views and opinions, so let's hear them, and you try and improve our sport, rather than sitting on the fence and saying I can't be bothered, I just want to go shooting.

If you don't help to improve our sport we may not have one left to improve. 

 

[** Pending Removal **]

Dude - I don't understand the quota comment - no-one is suggesting that, but diversity in teams and organisations is really important. The old position that the 'board' reflects the membership has to be smashed, if the sport is to grow and encourage new people in, the board should be reflective of the 'ideals' of what we want the governing body to be.

[EDIT] Incidentally, that does not mean quotas - it means building an inclusive team from a wide range of backgrounds.

So - if the vision is of a popular sport with a diverse range of participants - then my feeling is that the board should be ready for that. I feel the same about the skill mix, if the governing body needs skills - then let the board reflect that - in advance of them being needed.

Of course - if our vision of the sport is that only white men, aged 45-60 participate - then the board should reflect that, but personally - that is not a strategy for longevity.

Exactly. Well said Matt. I could not have put it better myself. The UK Sport and Sport England funding relies on interventions being met in the governance of the sport before more tranches of money can be drawn down from the awards. In particular one of the interventions is a good E&D policy / attitude of the governing boards.

The 'Asian lesbian' comment whilst sounding particularly funny to the one who wrote it......will not help the tick boxes of good governance.

.........just saying...!

 

[** Pending Removal **]

Johnny T .....you are the one who has been hell bent on deriding anything I say ....right from the old C la ySporting days.

I do not remember you ever saying anything positive. Although I remember that face to face at a previous AGM you were a totally different person to your behind a keyboard persona.

Please do not reply to me or use my name in anything you post. I have no interest in communicating with you. I fear you are not really very pleasant. I will continue to have my own opinion based on years of experience and facts....and you will not change it.... :smile: