SOG-UK-L Archives

Archiver > SOG-UK > 2002-04 > 1018005842


From: "Brian Brassett" <>
Subject: Re: [SoG] Society Resources/Subscriptions
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:24:02 +0100
References: <CGEEJOPEFPEDCMMBFHDJEEJCCKAA.simon.bull@btinternet.com>


Hear; hear Simon - succinctly put - but I question that the committee will
have the foresight to take on board what we long distance country members
feel. We are, as you quite rightly say, subsidising the SOG London town
members.

I suspect they will only come to their senses when the silent majority vote
with their 'feet' - or is it bank balance - and withdraw their direct-debit
mandates.
regards. brianb.

www.brian.brassett.btinternet.co.uk

----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Bull" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 12:04 PM
Subject: RE: [SoG] Society Resources/Subscriptions


> I am concerned by the recent increase in subscriptions, and share the
> concerns raised by other members who, like myself, do not live in London.
I
> very rarely have the time to visit the Society (indeed in something like
ten
> years of membership I think I have only ever been there twice). Although
I
> do benefit from the-of-London rates, as I joined before 1997, it is
> difficult to avoid the impression that the Society is run (inevitably,
> because one needs to live near London in order to be able to make any
> sensible time contribution, unless one is retired) by a group of people
who,
> in the main, live in the London area and are able to make much greater use
> of the resources which the society offers than those of us who do not.
> Thus, I think that those who run the society do not tend to be aware of
the
> relatively poor value which subscriptions offer to those who cannot come
to
> London very often. Indeed, that was painfully apparent when the decision
> was made to abolish the out-of-London rates.
>
> I think I would feel better disposed towards the increased subscriptions
if
> I felt that the Society was exercising its trade union functions better.
> For me a powerful reason for belonging to the Society is that, hopefully,
it
> is the best-placed organisation to represent the general interests of
> genealogists. However, in my view, it does a pretty poor job in this
> respect. For example, I have yet to see any clear and coherent complaint
> made on our behalf by the Society about the 1901 senses fiasco. I would
> have thought that the Society was in a position to put a complaint to
> government at the highest level in this regard and two demands some clear
> answers about what has gone wrong and about what penalty Qinetiq are
> suffering. Surely, the Society is the best placed organisation to register
a
> very strong and coherent complaint on our behalf. I know that members of
> the society have been represented on relevant committees. However, this
is
> no substitute for a strong and organised complaint now being made by the
> Society. I could raise other similar issues, but this is not the time to
do
> so.
>
> Like others, I shall have to think very carefully about whether I can
afford
> (and/or justify) the increased subscriptions. I have no doubt if I was
not
> in a position where I would lose the benefits of pre 1997 subscription
> systems I would undoubtedly end my subscription at the end of this year,
on
> the basis that I could rejoin later if and when I ever had the time to
make
> better use of the Society. However, the potential permanent loss of the
> out-of-London rates is, I must admit, a powerful incentive to stay.
>
> I shall consider my position carefully towards the end of this year, as, I
> suspect, will many other members living well outside London.
>
> Simon Bull.
>

This thread: