Is anyone using the British Cycling LFGSS Club for any purpose?

As in... do you race under the banner and do you need this to exist?

I ask because British Cycling seem to desire to extend their code of conduct for cycling clubs (a reasonable thing) to the forum (an unreasonable thing), which is giving them an idea that they have an editorial power over the forum.

This creates different issues for me, in that the terms and conditions that we have are not wholly compatible with another third party wishing to assert their code of conduct onto the forum.

So with this in mind I wish to consider removing affiliation with British Cycling.

If there are major objections, please voice them soon.

@dbr

@dbr is the only person I'm aware of as well but just had a look on the BC site and the club has 350 members, so it's pretty big!

I don't actually agree that BC wanting to extend their code of conduct for cycling clubs to LFGSS CC is unreasonable - the code of conduct is a good thing and LFGSS CC is registered as a club with BC.

So I think you're right and the question is whether LFGSS CC should be BC affiliated.

From what I know of running a BC-affiliated club (I'm on the committee of mine) I don't think LFGSS currently has the infrastructure in place to properly function as a BC-affiliated club. We could put that in place if people step up to run it, but don't underestimate how much work running a club properly can be!

Does @dbr do BC events, or just CTT?

don't underestimate how much work running a club properly can be!

this. I've been on the organising committee of my club for two years and there's a lot we do to make sure we're covered WRT insurance, safeguarding etc.

@Hub-Velo will be happy to take you @dbr :)

I don't actually agree that BC wanting to extend their code of conduct for cycling clubs to LFGSS CC is unreasonable - the code of conduct is a good thing and LFGSS CC is registered as a club with BC.

So I think you're right and the question is whether LFGSS CC should be BC affiliated.

Yeah, for me the club is a subset of LFGSS, just one small part.

It came after the forum, and only covers a very small populace of the forum.

So the question for me is whether the external policies of BC should cover the superset of the forum.

What triggered this is talk in the doping thread that makes reference to BC and UKAD, and BC would like some mentions of that to be deleted. I don't agree with some of the opinions given or language used by people (I haven't seen what they want deleted but what they'd asked me to do to date felt like overreach), but the terms and conditions of the forum permit a full discourse.

So there's a tension here... either I push to have all conversation moderated, or I find a way to isolate the BC affiliated function of the forum (delete it from here and put it elsewhere and just police that), or I consider dropping the BC affiliation.

The middle option seems pointless as the club part of the forum is relatively tiny and as a separate entity it wouldn't be offering anything more than any of the other cycle clubs in and around London and the UK.

The point of the LFGSS cycle club is to give people a very low friction way to participate in events without the formality of joining a larger club, and to act as a springboard for them to join another club. So all of this seems disproportionate to what we are doing today.

I have and do 'race' under the LFGSS CC banner, but it would be no biggie for me just to enter as a privateer (or sign up to my local club, which I probably ought to anyway).

I race for the good of the forum, but only CTT events, no BC. Please don’t close it down!

CTT is fine :) Very happy to keep that affiliation. This is just about the BC one.

Just affiliated myself, although I'll be doing 'cross races for the most part

Can you please share links to this extension (or dm me for an email address)? Helping set up a new forum for our club and Google didn't get me far.

FFS - British Cycling have got so many other things they should be concentrating on.

For what it’s worth, I think anybody who races should try and be part of a local club that supports racing or events, even if it’s only a club 10. Or volunteers to help another club out.

That doesn’t mean you can’t race under another banner, however.

I think @Fox is probably right. If BC are extending their remit and are demanding some Code of Conduct or editorial oversight on affiliated clubs (whether or not BC oversight is a positive thing on local clubs is another conversation) then a huge, amorphous and mostly digital "organisation" like LFGSS / LFGSS.CC is no long appropriate to be a BC member. This place already treads - or is forced to tread, however you want to see it - a very fine line of free expression vs safe-guarding certain "riders" or user groups. If, as one example, BC wanted information or oversight on the lack of women riders / that the ladies forum has been nearly empty for two years should give pause to the idea that putting in place any sort of external moderation structure is a good idea.

I have entered some cross races and did a bit of track league as an LFGSS.CC which was fun and I appreciated "feeling like I was part of something larger", but it looks to me as if the time has come for people to join proper club like VCL, or simply go the independent route.

By the way I should say I don't support BC's actions, it seems like they're trying to censor the forum and shut down free speech from what you've said @Velocio? Out of interest, what role does the person who contacted you at BC have?

Also if BC are extending their remit and demanding editorial oversight on affiliated clubs this is news to me and (as the communications officer for my club and a professional communicator with about 15 years comms experience) I don't think it will work very well - how many clubs do they have again?!

It sounds like in practice LFGSS CC is being singled out, so pushing back may be a better option than jumping straight to removing the affiliation. I can't help thinking there's an important principle at stake.

I've done a few cross races last year under LFGSS banner. Not really a deal breaker for me.

Does seem like a matter of principle that's worth pushung back on. Especially since forum members don't necessarily represent the club, and vice versa.

what role does the person who contacted you at BC have

"Ethics and Compliance Officer".

It came to their attention when a person reported LFGSS to BC over comments made in the doping thread. The person in question had a vested interest, but the comments that were shown to me, whilst critical of BC, were not against our T&Cs.

Fuck BC as a staff, record label and as a motherfucking crew!

Wow tell them to get fucked. I'd drop BC affiliation in an instant if they think they have the remit to censor forum content.

It's not as.of they contribute anything financially, in fact I thought it was the opposite, don't you have to pay them for affiliation?

Genuinely shocked at the fucking cheek of it....

What a ridiculous request! Asking you to stop having control over the forum is a bit like them asking Ineos to stop fracking.
Giving an external party a right of censorship over the forum has to be a red line.
I'd certainly suggest to them that their request is unreasonable, that we won't comply with it and would prefer to stop the affiliation. Obviously if they then didn't back down, we'd have to unaffiliate, which sounds like it wouldn't be a major problem for anyone.

Send sausages.

them asking Ineos to stop fracking.

Yes, go for this

In a jiffy bag.

Not a member of lfgss cc or any other cc so maybe no membership*, no chat applies but I say fuck em.

*I am a BC member but only because I have to be in order to be insured to ride the dernies at work. Might see if Cycling UK membership would cover me for this. My employer covers my membership of BC but I’d rather not be involved in sending any money the way of these rancid cunts if I could avoid it.

You can do BC events as ‘unattached’ right so killing the affiliation wouldn’t stop anyone racing. Might mean they can’t race in lfgss cc kit but I don’t believe that’s a rule that enforced all that often?

Hah... interesting that you'd reply... they have just sent over the comment that they would like removed.

Yours, from the doping thread.

1 Attachment