But once the 'authorities' are sufficiently distant, they're fair game.
The same could be said for the spending of monetary reserves.....
Chris Crossland once gave me a discount on the Three Coasts for supplying some of the surplus food from LEL 2009, which we'd accounted for. These aren't people who waste money. The usual complaint has been that they're too parsimonious, and lack vision.
Hmm, perhaps my previous comment was wrong. I apologise for implying they were lavishly spending the memberships dues. I'm not implying that they were frittering it away on coffe and cigars purposely. What I meant was in the same way it is easy to criticise from afar, it is easier to make decisions when it is not solely your liability. Again, I'm not implying it was an easy decision either.
As people, I have no doubt that all involved are wonderful, decent people who share a love of cycling an who's intentions have never been anything other than for what is in the best interest of AUK. I question whether or not they have, or indeed still are the right decisions.
No amount of debate, persuasion, argument or hindsight will move me on this one.
The situation, the terms of the situation and the fact that what was voted on some time ago has ended being many times more expensive, so much so that it could have brought the organisation to its knees, a situation that we still don't, and still won't know for some time if we now have a paddlle to navigate us out of Shit Creek. And even if all works out fine it still should not have been decided behind closed doors. It should have been a decision that the membership, collectively, made.
I cannot be standing alone from this viewpoint.