Some activists in the Ramblers' Association are critical of other access groups. Are they on the moral high ground?
The Ramblers' Association (RA) trustees are socialists, some with communist origins. This would be no problem for a pressure group, except that the RA is supposed to be a charity, and therefore unbiased. All the major and many smaller conservation and recreation organisations, whether charities or pressure groups, should be wary of the example set by the Ramblers' Association, which has gained huge financial and political advantages, due to its advantagous links with the Labour Party. This puts pressure on other groups to either do the same, or accept huge disadvantage in terms of income and influence. The time has come to challenge the RA to be honest with itself and other organisations, particularly those which it criticises.
The main point is that the RA and the affiliated the Open Spaces Society (OSS - which is the self-proclaimed oldest conservation charity in Britain) as the two branches of the walkers movement, should set an example to the sector. Instead, they resist progress initiated by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and its leading associates. This is because their boards are politically controlled and compromised by Labour figures like Lord Chris Smith, Andrew Bennett MP, Paddy Tipping and others in the background. If they continue in this disreputable manner, Labour and the RA will bring the entire voluntary sector into disrepute. These politicians are now trying to interfere with the Charity Commission's official investigation. I have called for the RA to restore the independence of the OSS. However, this is impossible as long as the OSS General Secretary is a trustee and chairman of the RA. Even the NCVO declared that resignations should be tendered in this situation. I have been wrongly accused of personally attacking individuals. However, it would be impossible to urge reform without referring to the roles of individual leaders. I have nothing in particular against the Labour Party, though I have to admit I was a Green Party member and parish councillor for six years (I have been politically independent for 10 years). Indeed, the RA would probably not exist if not for socialists and communists who founded key branches in the 1930's. However, if the RA wants to be a socialist pressure group, it should do so honestly, and not bend charity rules. The RA shouldn't rely on scant resources which are needed elsewhere. The OSS is in origin a land and ecology conservation body, and its access campaigns now virtually duplicate the RA's.
There is no information on the OSS site concerning its trustees' interests, and no information at all on the RA site about its trustees, not even their names. The Charity Commission's site gives the names of their trustees, but not their interests. The OSS constitution states that there should be a maximum of 17 trustees, so it is rather peculiar that the committee has been kept trimmed to a maximum of 9, with no President elected since 1989. Committees and trustee boards should be as inclusive as possible, to generate maximum interest.
As the OSS and RA policy is to ask their members to pose difficult questions to MPs and councils etc, I believe it would be in order to require the society's General Secretary and committee to answer a few simple questions.
1. Was the General Secretary a trustee for 5 years immediately before she unlawfully appointed herself to that well paid post?
2. Was her boyfriend on the selection committee, and did he resign immediately after appointing her?
3. Is it a fact that the consent of the Charity Commission is required for payments to trustees, of any nature?
3. If 1-3 are correct, why did the then Chairman David Clark MP ignore the rules?
Brian Wright
Former Assistant Secretary Open Spaces Society
The Ramblers' Association (RA) trustees are socialists, some with communist origins. This would be no problem for a pressure group, except that the RA is supposed to be a charity, and therefore unbiased. All the major and many smaller conservation and recreation organisations, whether charities or pressure groups, should be wary of the example set by the Ramblers' Association, which has gained huge financial and political advantages, due to its advantagous links with the Labour Party. This puts pressure on other groups to either do the same, or accept huge disadvantage in terms of income and influence. The time has come to challenge the RA to be honest with itself and other organisations, particularly those which it criticises.
The main point is that the RA and the affiliated the Open Spaces Society (OSS - which is the self-proclaimed oldest conservation charity in Britain) as the two branches of the walkers movement, should set an example to the sector. Instead, they resist progress initiated by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and its leading associates. This is because their boards are politically controlled and compromised by Labour figures like Lord Chris Smith, Andrew Bennett MP, Paddy Tipping and others in the background. If they continue in this disreputable manner, Labour and the RA will bring the entire voluntary sector into disrepute. These politicians are now trying to interfere with the Charity Commission's official investigation. I have called for the RA to restore the independence of the OSS. However, this is impossible as long as the OSS General Secretary is a trustee and chairman of the RA. Even the NCVO declared that resignations should be tendered in this situation. I have been wrongly accused of personally attacking individuals. However, it would be impossible to urge reform without referring to the roles of individual leaders. I have nothing in particular against the Labour Party, though I have to admit I was a Green Party member and parish councillor for six years (I have been politically independent for 10 years). Indeed, the RA would probably not exist if not for socialists and communists who founded key branches in the 1930's. However, if the RA wants to be a socialist pressure group, it should do so honestly, and not bend charity rules. The RA shouldn't rely on scant resources which are needed elsewhere. The OSS is in origin a land and ecology conservation body, and its access campaigns now virtually duplicate the RA's.
There is no information on the OSS site concerning its trustees' interests, and no information at all on the RA site about its trustees, not even their names. The Charity Commission's site gives the names of their trustees, but not their interests. The OSS constitution states that there should be a maximum of 17 trustees, so it is rather peculiar that the committee has been kept trimmed to a maximum of 9, with no President elected since 1989. Committees and trustee boards should be as inclusive as possible, to generate maximum interest.
As the OSS and RA policy is to ask their members to pose difficult questions to MPs and councils etc, I believe it would be in order to require the society's General Secretary and committee to answer a few simple questions.
1. Was the General Secretary a trustee for 5 years immediately before she unlawfully appointed herself to that well paid post?
2. Was her boyfriend on the selection committee, and did he resign immediately after appointing her?
3. Is it a fact that the consent of the Charity Commission is required for payments to trustees, of any nature?
3. If 1-3 are correct, why did the then Chairman David Clark MP ignore the rules?
Brian Wright
Former Assistant Secretary Open Spaces Society
