ddycher Posted 7 October , 2020 Share Posted 7 October , 2020 Myself I wish them well. Personally I will be remaining in my comfort zone here in the GWF and watching with interest how they get on. Whilst not big on the wider media channels, which I find intrusive sometimes, I can see the merits on exploring other "social" opportunities and the attraction for younger devotee's. I believe anything that encourages interest in the subject matter with younger folks, not discounting tech savvy oldies, should be encouraged. Horses for courses I guess. Just my penny worth. For those involved. Good luck. I hope it works for you. Regards Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Tulloch-Marshall Posted 7 October , 2020 Share Posted 7 October , 2020 On 06/10/2020 at 16:33, Gareth Davies said: It does indeed have many faults (facts related to governance seem to be a particular problem). And let's not forget the BdW fiasco (not my expression, that's the word used by the new temporary chairman). But I must challenge your statement on democratic control. What evidence do you have @Hedley Malloch that the GWG isn't under democratic control? The Council of Europe defines as follows- "The word democracy comes from the Greek words "demos", meaning people, and "kratos" meaning power; so democracy can be thought of as "power of the people": a way of governing which depends on the will of the people. There are so many different models of democratic government around the world that it is sometimes easier to understand the idea of democracy in terms of what it definitely is not. Democracy, then, is not autocracy or dictatorship, where one person rules; and it is not oligarchy, where a small segment of society rules. Properly understood, democracy should not even be "rule of the majority", if that means that minorities' interests are ignored completely. A democracy, at least in theory, is government on behalf of all the people, according to their "will"." I don't think anybody has seriously suggested that the WFA or GWG is not under democratic control, but with regards to specifics Hedley may now be in possession of more information than he was previously. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 7 October , 2020 Share Posted 7 October , 2020 Shall we call them "rhetorical questions" and abandon ship on this one, with the result probably an agreed no-score draw? Blessed are the peacemakers. Spoilsports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 8 October , 2020 Share Posted 8 October , 2020 10 hours ago, Muerrisch said: Blessed are the peacemakers. Spoilsports. Why am I hearing in my head the immortal words of the boxing referee-"Break when I tell you"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bethany Moore Posted 8 October , 2020 Share Posted 8 October , 2020 (edited) In the interest of transparency, I am posting the GWG reply here for all to see. This should be the last time I post about this in this context. If there are further questions that need answering directly from the group itself, please do not hesitate to send an email to greatwargroupinfo@gmail.com Regards Bethany Hello, Thank you for contacting us. We’re happy to provide you with more details about The Great War Group and our approach to governance in particular. Please feel free to share this information. Governance The Great War Group was set up to help people learn more about and commemorate the events of the First World War. Having spoken to a lawyer who specialises in advising charities and non-profit organisations, we chose to set the Group up as a Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO). The CIO structure gives us a separate legal personality, our trustees have limited personal liability, and in theory it should be slightly less expensive for us to ‘run’ the Group than if we were operating as a company limited by guarantee. We also believe it should be slightly less time-consuming in terms of administration – we are 100% run by volunteers – but it’s certainly no less demanding in terms of having strong, clear governance in place. In addition, a CIO is not required to be registered with Companies House. CIO status During the set-up process, we sent a raft of information to the Charity Commission. This explained what we hoped to achieve in terms of income and becoming a sustainable organisation. As is the norm (perhaps even more so in light of the current Covid situation), the Charity Commission reviews all CIO applications carefully. This takes time. We’ve been told we meet the criteria for registration, that we’ll get our official ‘CIO number’ in due course, and that this delay needn’t hold us up. Trustees On the ‘Meet the Team’ page of our website, we do show who our Trustees are. There are six of us in all, sharing the responsibilities. However, we can see how this might be confusing as Alex Churchill and I take the lead in terms of admin, but the word Trustee doesn’t appear next to our names – we used the word ‘Co-founder’ instead. It’s clear that a small change would improve this for our members benefit, so thank you, your views have been helpful there. Registration with the ICO As you might expect, we take the protection of our members’ details seriously. To determine our status regarding data control, privacy and personal data, we’ve been through a rigorous process using guidance issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). We use secure transaction software to handle payments and administrate our membership but – because we are a small non-profit organisation – we are currently exempt from registration with the ICO. You can find out more about this here, on the ICO’s website. Privacy Policy In our privacy policy, you’re right, we do say, “You have the right to lodge a complaint directly with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is the regulator that makes sure we use personal data in a lawful way.” This is simply a statement of fact: that authority was set up to ensure everyone follows the law, whether or not they are registered the ICO. If you have any more queries, we hope you’ll come to us directly first but thank you again for getting in touch. We’re always pleased to hear from anyone who’d like to find out more about the work we’re doing, what we have planned for members, and how – working alongside other great organisations with similar goals – we can collaborate in commemorative work. Kind regards, Bethany Moore Co-founder of the Great War Group Edited 8 October , 2020 by Bethany Moore Grammar change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 8 October , 2020 Share Posted 8 October , 2020 13 hours ago, Tom Tulloch-Marshall said: Hello Hedley - as you are now aware my comment had nothing to do with the WFA. Clarity of communication was foiled for other reasons. Tom Tom, I completely understand. Regards, Hedley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 8 October , 2020 Share Posted 8 October , 2020 38 minutes ago, Bethany Moore said: Big snip Governance Another big snip If you have any more queries, we hope you’ll come to us directly first but thank you again for getting in touch. We’re always pleased to hear from anyone who’d like to find out more about the work we’re doing, what we have planned for members, and how – working alongside other great organisations with similar goals – we can collaborate in commemorative work. Kind regards, Bethany Moore Co-founder of the Great War Group Bethany, with respect, this does not tell us anything much. 'Subscribers' have disappeared and be replaced by 'members'. Well, what are they - subscribers or members? There is a big difference between the two. Subscribers pay for a service, members belong and participate. Specifically, what are the rights of members? Can they remove the Trustees if they don't like what they are doing? If they can't, who can? Who sets policy? It is clear from your website that the trustees also have managerial roles. Are they to be paid for these? If so, how much? These are reasonable questions - do you have the answers? More specifically, I note that the trustees are to have 'limited personal liability'. In this sense your group will be like both the GWF and the WFA, where the trustees are constantly scrutinising content and looking over their shoulders to assess whether or not their houses and pensions are at risk. These legitimate concerns drive a very conservative and non-controversial approach to what is done in its name. As far as I understand it, WFA trustees' liability was one of the reasons for the BdW fiasco. So the best of luck, but I think there are some issues of corporate governance which you need to think through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waddell Posted 8 October , 2020 Share Posted 8 October , 2020 Some more information here. I like the idea of the library with access to memoirs, battalion histories and the like mentioned in this. I wish them well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freddy1918 Posted 8 October , 2020 Share Posted 8 October , 2020 Hedley. Answers to most of your questions would be found by reading the relevant government documents outlining what a Foundation CIO is and how it operates. In due course the Charities Commission will add us to their website thus providing all of the public material required. We appreciate both the speed and the diligence with which they have dealt with our application in these unprecedented times. They have no issue with our structure, our governance, our terminology or anything else outlined in our constitution. We are our own unique group and this your comparisons to others are hardly constructive. I suggest to many on this thread that rather than expending what appear to be vast amounts of time trawling legislation in an attempt to put us down, you wait until the process is complete and read the readily available statements we have made and general legislation that covers what we are and what we are required to do. This is how we are set up, this is how we are run. If it doesn’t suit, it is really quite simple, don’t join. Many people have, and our efforts should now be spent on them and on the groups intended to benefit from our services. However, anyone is free to corresponded with us via our email addresses, postal address or telephone numbers on any point they so choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 8 October , 2020 Share Posted 8 October , 2020 A CIO is a sensible structure, and I have had presentations on that in another context, and almost became a trustee of one; had the project in question not been eventually decided to be not viable. I suspect that if the GWF were being founded today a CIO would have been the structure adopted, but that option was not then available to those who set up the company. The GWF operates as I hope you all know with no dividends, and no directors fees. I am confident that much the same is the case for the GWG, and that those setting up are doing so at their own expense. I would not expect the GWG to become a members organisation, not least because of the additional administrative burdens and costs that would apply. Like the successive owners/mods of the GWF, I am sure that the trustees will listen to comments, constructive or sometimes critical, and at least consider them, although just as here, where some suggestions or comments can't be addressed in any detail because of respect for the identities of members (small m), or sometimes for other legal reasons. Given that the GWF is the only significant place for discussion, of related organisations, other than the AGM of the WFA, I hoe that the GWF will continue to host ocasional comments/debates about them, and that we may even on occasion get statements or information from them when matters of concern arise. In the end we are all joined by a common interest and should find it possible to be constructive as well as sometimes critical. Lets give the new group a chance, and place some trust in those associated with it. I know some of them, and regard them as friends. If there were any impropriety they would cry foul and take relevant action because of the people they are. I'm not signing up, because most periodicals that I get from organisations not connected with the Great War, as well as from the WFA; end up being very quickly scanned before they move to the recycling bin. I have a home stuffed with books, more to come, and a significant number on the pending shelf,, so they get very limited attention when they drop through the letterbox. Some of the time I also try to have a life. I wish the group well, and hope it becomes a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Davies Posted 8 October , 2020 Share Posted 8 October , 2020 3 hours ago, Hedley Malloch said: Bethany, with respect, this does not tell us anything much. 'Subscribers' have disappeared and be replaced by 'members'. Well, what are they - subscribers or members? There is a big difference between the two. Subscribers pay for a service, members belong and participate. Specifically, what are the rights of members? Can they remove the Trustees if they don't like what they are doing? If they can't, who can? Who sets policy? It is clear from your website that the trustees also have managerial roles. Are they to be paid for these? If so, how much? These are reasonable questions - do you have the answers? More specifically, I note that the trustees are to have 'limited personal liability'. In this sense your group will be like both the GWF and the WFA, where the trustees are constantly scrutinising content and looking over their shoulders to assess whether or not their houses and pensions are at risk. These legitimate concerns drive a very conservative and non-controversial approach to what is done in its name. As far as I understand it, WFA trustees' liability was one of the reasons for the BdW fiasco. So the best of luck, but I think there are some issues of corporate governance which you need to think through. Nonsense Hedley. A few days ago you posted an unsubstantiated assertion. You have now heard from one of the founders who has given you quite a lot of detail. Yet you still want to throw stones at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Mackenzie Posted 8 October , 2020 Share Posted 8 October , 2020 On 06/10/2020 at 21:09, Muerrisch said: I was referring obliquely, subtly, to the locking of a GWF thread which dared to discuss the WFA The WFA has been discussed numerous times on this Forum. Just because one thread was locked (and almost certainly for a very good reason) doesn't mean that discussing the WFA is prohibited and I am sure there will be WFA topics on this Forum in the years ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 8 October , 2020 Share Posted 8 October , 2020 7 hours ago, Bethany Moore said: Hello, Thank you for contacting us. We’re happy to provide you with more details about The Great War Group and our approach to governance in particular. Please feel free to share this information. Thank you very much indeed for the information-all of which shows a thoroughly professional and sensible approach, coupled with what must have been a lot of work in setting up. Please rest assured that no "evil-eye" was intended-merely that one really does not want any of the regulators becoming boorish with such an obviously well thought out "product". May the very best of good luck reward your efforts in the future. Perhaps some enthusiastic audience members off to hear a talk by the Education Officer......... Just a thought ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Davies Posted 8 October , 2020 Share Posted 8 October , 2020 They are going to need a bigger lorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 8 October , 2020 Share Posted 8 October , 2020 9 minutes ago, Gareth Davies said: They are going to need a bigger lorry. The Education Officer's next talk on "Tanks" went down especially well................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 8 October , 2020 Share Posted 8 October , 2020 4 hours ago, Neil Mackenzie said: The WFA has been discussed numerous times on this Forum. Just because one thread was locked (and almost certainly for a very good reason) doesn't mean that discussing the WFA is prohibited and I am sure there will be WFA topics on this Forum in the years ahead. I am crestfallen by such a stern rebuke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Tulloch-Marshall Posted 8 October , 2020 Share Posted 8 October , 2020 11 hours ago, Bethany Moore said: In the interest of transparency, I am posting the GWG reply here for all to see. This should be the last time I post about this in this context. If there are further questions that need answering directly from the group itself, please do not hesitate to send an email to greatwargroupinfo@gmail.com Regards Bethany Bethany Moore Co-founder of the Great War Group On your website you have contact details > greatwargroupinfo@gmail.com <greatwargroupinfo@gmail.com>; Doesn't seem to work, as I made a bcc forward which hasn't been rec'd. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Tulloch-Marshall Posted 9 October , 2020 Share Posted 9 October , 2020 Second attempt just made > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron da Valli Posted 12 October , 2020 Share Posted 12 October , 2020 I really don't understand why so many forum members are determined to knock the GWG before it's even got going. It's not a playground competition to see who is the best. Surely we should welcome another organisation that will help promote & further interest in the Great War. ( Incidentally I have no problem with people using the terms "First World War or "World War One"). I agree with Freddy. If it's not for you then fair enough, but don't knock it for the sake of it. There is a dedicated and talented team behind the group and they at least deserve the chance to show what they can do & what they can provide. I joined a couple of weeks ago and am looking forward to the first issue of "Salient Points". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Davies Posted 12 October , 2020 Share Posted 12 October , 2020 Thanks Ron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stiletto_33853 Posted 12 October , 2020 Share Posted 12 October , 2020 (edited) Strange Tom, I just sent an e-mail on the e-mail address you highlight, the message went through fine, with Beth responding in quick time. Have to agree with Ron, there are quite a few GWF members who have joined, including myself. If this group is not for you, Fine!!!, that's your call. Looking forward to your forthcoming talk Gareth. Andy Edited 12 October , 2020 by stiletto_33853 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Davies Posted 12 October , 2020 Share Posted 12 October , 2020 It's not a talk Andy, it's a 2 way Q&A panel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stiletto_33853 Posted 12 October , 2020 Share Posted 12 October , 2020 Yes, something I tried to set up on this forum sometime ago whilst on the Admin team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Davies Posted 12 October , 2020 Share Posted 12 October , 2020 It is one of a number of ideas I offered to another organisation, they were all turned down. So I took them to the GWG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron da Valli Posted 12 October , 2020 Share Posted 12 October , 2020 1 hour ago, Gareth Davies said: Thanks Ron. It needed saying Gareth. All the best with the group. Looking forward to the 1st issue of Salient Points. Darryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now