1994 - 19.769 (from BN128, Summer 1996)
1995 - 19.905 (from BN128, Summer 1996)
1997 - 19,511 (from BN137, Autumn 1998)
2000 - 18,524 (from BN 165, Autumn 2005)
2001 - 18,631 (from BN 165, Autumn 2005)
2002 - 18,070 (from BN 165, Autumn 2005)
2003 - 17,534 (from BN 159, Spring 2004 - but see note 1 below)
2004 - 15,329 (from BN 161, Autumn 2004 - but see note 2 below)
2005 - 15,898 (from EC Minutes 25 February 2006 - but see note 3 below)
2006 - 14,955 (from EC Minutes 17 February 2007)
2007 - 12,315 (from EC Minutes 15 April 2007)
2008 - 12,627 (from "Naturist Life" briefing on 2008 AGM - but see
note 4 below)
2009 - 11,586 (from EC Minutes 17.8.09) [ "about 11,700" announced by Andrew
Welch at the AGM on 18.8.09]
2010 - 9,974 (at May 2010 , from EC report in BN185)
NOTES:
1 - The 2003 figure given in BN 159 conflicts with one published later
in BN 165 claiming 16,611 members
2 - The 2004 figure given in BN 161 conflicts with one published later
in BN165 claiming 16,138 members
3 -The 2005 figure from the EC minutes conflicts with one published
later in BN165 claiming 16,256 members (later revised in BN166 to
15,856 members
4 - I believe a somewhat different figure for 2008 membership appeared
in H&E's report of the AGM but cannot find the relevant copy at the
moment
Figures quoted by Mick Ayers at 2005 AGM:
"The BN Annual Report was then presented by BN Chairman Mick Ayers. He
admitted that the membership figures quoted in the report were not
wholly accurate, and that recent database figures showed that new
memberships in 2005 were actually some 400 below the previously
reported level. He maintained that the figures up to 2004 were accurate
however. These showed in graphical form the numbers he had quoted in
his BN 164 article a couple of months ago.
Date Total Membership
31.12.00 18,524
31.12.01 18,631
31.12.02 18,070
31.12.03 16,611
31.12.04 16,138
He went on to say that a further examination of the records showed that
at 7.9.05 BN membership was made up of:
12,080 people in couples
3,145 people as singles
196 non-paying 'phantom members' - i.e. free magazine
recipients etc
67 non-paying honorary members
15,488 total membership
He could not explain this 650 drop in membership during 2005, nor why
he had claimed it as a sign of success. He said they had had trouble
with getting statistics out of the database. On the suggestion of Colin
Gorham, the Report was withdrawn due to the admitted inaccuracies in
it. "
If there is any truth in these figures, the overwhelming trend over the past
16 years appears to be an acceleration in the reduction in membership.
I used to be a member. I ceased to be a member when I felt that BN's ideals
and objectives to not meet my expectations and they did not support the
things I thought that they ought to support. That in no way is a criticism
of BN, it just that BN was not the type of organisation that I felt I wanted
to be part of.
There will of course be a natural turnover of membership. Sadly people die
and people move on to other things. This means that any member organisation
needs new members to just replace the ones leaving and to keep going with
the same membership numbers. I also know plenty of other people who "used to
be members of BN" but left for various reasons. The question is, why is it
that new members are not joining BN?
Anyone care to speculate why?
Aren't they getting worried?
> Who are 'they'?
Those who are involved with BN.
> The EC and activists within BN still get what they want from it -
> subsidised fun & games type events.
That's fine then, if that's what they want, and that's what they get, then
everything is just fine.
The others just leave and get on with their lives,
> To those who enjoy "hobbyist ghetto naturism" BN is fine.
Again, all is fine with the hobbyist naturist.
Those who expect
> BN to push back the boundaries of naturist acceptance, so people can be
> naked when and how they wish, are giving up on BN as the vehicle to do
> that.
As far as I can tell, BN never has seen itself as an organisation which
pushes the boundaries, those that expect it to be that will be disappointed
as they are expecting too much.
> BN will tell you that it is an international trend, which is true (though
> more pronounced in the UK). However that's because all the National
> Naturist Associations have the same mindset, and the same things which are
> happening here (or not happening) are happening elsewhere.
People come and go. Organisations come and go. BN had it's hey-day when
naturists wanted to belong to it and they supported it in their masses.
Those days are over now and BN exists to support those who have fond
memories of how things were in yesteryear. BN is in it's autumn days. Either
they will follow that natural process of all things and die, or they will
evolve into something that naturists of the 21st century will want to be
part of. Time will tell, but unless they actually take a good long look at
themselves, they will fade away wondering where all the members have gone.
"AndyC" <web-...@andycrawford.net> wrote in message
news:i85eok$v0b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yes I can agree with what you say, but it does annoy me that BN does claim
to be something that it's not in that it claims to be the National
Representative Body for naturists, which it is not. It represents its
members (and not even al of them IMHO). It claims to be a campaigning
organisation, but really only pays lip service to that. And it claims to be
changing, but in fact it's not.
--
Duncan Heenan
> (CC)BN Membership figures as published
>
> 1994 - 19.769 (from BN128, Summer 1996)
> 1995 - 19.905 (from BN128, Summer 1996)
> 1997 - 19,511 (from BN137, Autumn 1998)
> 2000 - 18,524 (from BN 165, Autumn 2005)
> 2001 - 18,631 (from BN 165, Autumn 2005)
> 2002 - 18,070 (from BN 165, Autumn 2005)
> 2003 - 17,534 (from BN 159, Spring 2004 - but see note 1 below)
> 2004 - 15,329 (from BN 161, Autumn 2004 - but see note 2 below)
> 2005 - 15,898 (from EC Minutes 25 February 2006 - but see note 3 below)
> 2006 - 14,955 (from EC Minutes 17 February 2007)
> 2007 - 12,315 (from EC Minutes 15 April 2007)
> 2008 - 12,627 (from "Naturist Life" briefing on 2008 AGM - but see
> note 4 below)
> 2009 - 11,586 (from EC Minutes 17.8.09) [ "about 11,700" announced by
> Andrew Welch at the AGM on 18.8.09]
> 2010 - 9,974 (at May 2010 , from EC report in BN185)
2011- 10,700 (budget estimate)
--
Steve
Pandering to the "hobbyist ghetto naturist" is probably the only
viable business model for BN, there is no money nor members in
just free beaches or INF cards, surely even you will accept that
opportunities such as Alton Towers and the Eden Project have been
largely a success (even if they have had to go into partnership
with commercial companies)?
Those who expect
: BN to push back the boundaries of naturist acceptance, so
people can be
: naked when and how they wish, are giving up on BN as the
vehicle to do that.
<snip>
Oh come off it Duncan, if all these ex-members were the "In your
face" *non* ghetto naturists you appear to be suggesting they are
had they remained members of BN then BN would be pushing for what
you want, the fact is the majority of people who have left BN are
either dead or simply do not need or are not bothered in being
members - as "Les" pointed out, the need for being a member of BN
to get into naturists clubs or resorts has long past (especially
in Europe), these clubs and resorts being far more commercial in
their outlook these days, if someone wants to visit and are
prepared to hand over hard cash then only a fool would demand
prior membership of some (inter)national club whose membership
card proves nothing about the motives of the member and might not
even prove the members name or abode!
--
Regards, Jerry.
Err, as it has a nationwide membership it is the national body
for naturists [1] (it was also recognised as such by Parliament
at the time of the SOA/SOB), just because you personally do not
agree with how it is run doesn't change that fact!
[1] just as both the AA and RAC (clubs) are both recognised as
national motorist clubs/organisations even though there are other
(local and/or specialist) motoring clubs in the UK.
It represents its
: members (and not even al of them IMHO). It claims to be a
campaigning
: organisation, but really only pays lip service to that. And it
claims to be
: changing, but in fact it's not.
IYO, but the truth of the matter is, if the membership actually
wanted BN to do things differently then the membership would have
made the changes happen, and when they do elect people onto the
EC with a promise of 'change' what happens, these people just
engage in personal grudges and/or resign half way through their
tenure of office, yes I know you (Duncan) had family issues to
deal with but your fellow 'Vote for Change' gang of three didn't,
the kitchen just seemed to get to hot for them...
--
Regards, Jerry.
Can we cut straight to the bit where, you say "Fuck off and die!" and
then flounce out vowing never to return? It would save so much time and
would save having to read all those sentences that everyone else in the
world are misreading (Apart from you).
I do not think that Andy wrote the last paragraph.
Why have you implied, by incorrect attribution/quotation that he did?
--
Misha
Free on-line, off-site backups?
<https://mozy.com/?ref=UK45Y5>
> 2011- 10,700 (budget estimate)
Duncan. H&E report on 2008 AGM gave figures for 2007 as drop of nearly
1000 to 14,032. As against your figure of 12,315. Report on 2009 AGM
gave no figures for 2008 membership.
So, Steve. I'm quite into market analysis and Elliott Wave stuff, and
against a 16 year history of a 50% decline, in the present climate, a
predicted upswing next year of some 7% is pretty dramatic. Do you
think AW could flesh that out a bit before I invest? Or will the
flying pigs gobble up that pie in the sky before I can get my cheque
book out?
Bob
Sorry, Bob, you've lost me there: where's the upswing? (10,700 is *lower*
than either of the figures you quote there.)
--
Steve
Thanks Bob. Spot on as usual.
AW? Oh yes, Andrew Welch! He'd be the chap who, six years ago said his aim
was to increase membership by 20% and thereby pay for the cost of employing
him, since which membership has actually declined by approaching 40% and AW
has trousered about £300,000 of members' money.
His regular cry of .."but it's not my fault", fails to distinguish between
something being his fault, and something being his responsibility. His
acolytes say, ..."but without AW it could have been worse". Could it?
Really? At least without AW, BN would have £300,000 more in the bank to do
something about it, or even better to do something about naturist
acceptance. As it is, the EC this year considered and then refused to employ
a paid campaigns manager to help the hard pressed, unpaid, Malcolm Boura to
do something on that front. The reason? They say they don't have the money.
Now let me think, where could all that money have gone? Anyone have any
idea?
--
Duncan Heenan
> So, Steve. I'm quite into market analysis and Elliott Wave stuff,
I know nothing of Elliot Wave, whatever it may be - all I can see are
the figures that Steve presented. From these, I can see that, since
2000, membership numbers have increased in only 3 years. In 2001, they
increased by 107 on the previous year, in 2005 they increased by 569 and
in 2008 they increased by 312.
(Do any of these years coincide with the "new people at the top" period,
which briefly flowered and then died? Just wondering....I rejoined at
that point, then left again.)
Anyway - given the historical evidence, how is it expected that
membership numbers will rise by 726 in 2011?
Susan
> I know nothing of Elliot Wave, whatever it may be - all I can see are the
> figures that Steve presented.
I've only presented one figure, which was the budget projection for 2011.
--
Steve
The drop in membership does seem to tally with infighting or
significant change in how CCBN is run/managed, as much as Duncan
dislikes the "hobbyist ghetto naturist" (or indeed the club
affiliated member) since BN has attempted to panda to 'free
ranging' naturist interests rather than be a central council for
UK naturist clubs the membership has seen steady decline - from
the "Central Council for British Naturism" changing it's trading
name to "BN [British Naturism]" through the 'one member, one
vote' revolution to the attempted take over by the 'Gang of Four'
(that petered out with a secession of resignations from the three
that got elected) [CC]BN has been haemorrhaging members...
Are there any figures for individual naturist club membership
figures, or at least verified trends *at a per club level* [1],
this might give a clearer idea if the problem is with BN or with
UK 'organised' naturism.
[1] not the total UK club membership figure or at least adjusted
figures, IYSWIM, as we all know that some clubs have closed in
the last 15 years for reasons beyond ordinary members control and
thus is not relevant to members voluntarily not renewing.
--
Regards, Jerry.
Snip
>
> The drop in membership does seem to tally with infighting or
> significant change in how CCBN is run/managed, as much as Duncan
> dislikes the "hobbyist ghetto naturist" (or indeed the club
> affiliated member) since BN has attempted to panda to 'free
> ranging' naturist interests rather than be a central council for
> UK naturist clubs the membership has seen steady decline - from
> the "Central Council for British Naturism" changing it's trading
> name to "BN [British Naturism]" through the 'one member, one
> vote' revolution to the attempted take over by the 'Gang of Four'
> (that petered out with a secession of resignations from the three
> that got elected) [CC]BN has been haemorrhaging members...
>
> Are there any figures for individual naturist club membership
> figures, or at least verified trends *at a per club level* [1],
> this might give a clearer idea if the problem is with BN or with
> UK 'organised' naturism.
>
> [1] not the total UK club membership figure or at least adjusted
> figures, IYSWIM, as we all know that some clubs have closed in
> the last 15 years for reasons beyond ordinary members control and
> thus is not relevant to members voluntarily not renewing.
> --
> Regards, Jerry.
>
>To me, some of the decline in membership statistics is down to the
>following.
A. You get very little out of BN in return for your hard earned cash
B. At one time you needed a BN card to visit clubs, this in the most case is
not needed now as those clubs left just need your cash
C. No longer abroad are you asked for an INF or BN card.
D. As the older generation fade away and younger generation people come into
play, many now use beaches or go abroad and are naked whilst on holiday but
do not feel the need to pursue this in the UK plus the newer generation do
not want to shiver in some woodland grove with rules and regulations round
there necks
In other words unless BN start to offer things worthwhile to a new
generation, the membership will continue to decline more and more each year.
Just my own thoughts and opinion on this
Regards
Les
I think you are mixing up cause and effect. I, together with many others,
interpret the loss of members and the various bits of infighting to be a
result of BN being out of touch with social trends in naturism, rather than
pandering to them. It is the very fact that BN claims to be changing, but
doesn't actually which annoys many people and makes them leave.
How long is it since you were a member Jerry, and how long were you a member
before you left?
--
Duncan Heenan
> Sorry, Bob, you've lost me there: where's the upswing? (10,700 is *lower*
> than either of the figures you quote there.
I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse, although as I believe you
once held office at BN perhaps not.
The EC's figure for 2010 is 9,974. You say the prediction for 2011 is
10,700. That's a year on year increase of 7% against an historical
decline since 1994 of 50%. Is that not an upswing?
It's not going to happen of course, but I just wondered what was AW's
rationale in predicting such a dead cat bounce?
Bob
Not at all, I was attempting to point out (in the bit you snipped
out [1]) that no one appears to have done any real spade work on
such "cause and effect", thus far each of the in-fighting
factions are simply banding about what ever collection of figures
best fit their own argument.
[1] <quote>
Are there any figures for individual naturist club membership
figures, or at least verified trends *at a per club level* [1],
this might give a clearer idea if the problem is with BN or with
UK 'organised' naturism.
</quote>
: I, together with many others,
: interpret the loss of members and the various bits of
infighting to be a
: result of BN being out of touch with social trends in naturism,
rather than
: pandering to them.
Indeed, in some respect I to believe that the problem has been
that BN stopped pandering to social naturism and attempted to
embrace - what can probably be best called - the "free range
naturist", is it the job of the Central Council for British
Naturism to actually campaign, or should it act more as an
facilitator, bringing the various sides either within or outside
of naturism together?
: How long is it since you were a member Jerry, and how long were
you a member
: before you left?
Is that relevant to the problems faced by BN, if so, how?
--
Regards, Jerry.
<snip>
:
: The EC's figure for 2010 is 9,974. You say the prediction for
2011 is
: 10,700. That's a year on year increase of 7% against an
historical
: decline since 1994 of 50%. Is that not an upswing?
:
: It's not going to happen of course, but I just wondered what
was AW's
: rationale in predicting such a dead cat bounce?
:
You slag off SW for making a prediction but then make your own
unsubstantiated prediction...
--
Regards, Jerry.
> : How long is it since you were a member Jerry, and how long were
> you a member
> : before you left?
>
> Is that relevant to the problems faced by BN, if so, how?
> --
> Regards, Jerry.
>
It is relevant to know what experience your comments and speculation are
based on. That is relevant to the problems, as, if your comments are based
on little recent experience of being a BN member, they are less likely to
have validity than if they were - IMHO.
--
Duncan Heenan
So it's not relivant at all other than as a possible brick-bat...
That is relevant to the problems, as, if your comments are based
: on little recent experience of being a BN member, they are less
likely to
: have validity than if they were - IMHO.
You don't need be trapped in the fire to know how it started, in
fact being some what remote to a problem can often allow a much
wider view of the issues. After all, prior to your - eventual -
election to the EC you considered that you knew were the EC was
going wrong, by your own logic the only people who should have
been allowed to have a view/voice would have been existing or
past EC members!
--
Regards, Jerry.
Oops, typo should read AW
> You slag off SW for making a prediction but then make your own
> unsubstantiated prediction...
I think I'm a bit lost in your metaphysics. You can't make a
substantiated prediction surely?
My personal view is based on observing the trend over the last 16
years, and more-or-less drawing a straight line graph through the
figures.
I was asking on what basis AW predicts that straight line becoming a
hockey stick.
Any ideas?
Bob
It's clearly not a straight line. If you interpolate the missing years
(assuming those years were between the years on each side) the graph
appears to be exponential decline - an accelerating rate of decline,
with some random variation.
RB
>
> BN's strategy is set out in their 3 year plan, available to members only athttp://members.british-naturism.org.uk/index.php?automodule=downloads...-
> but as some readers might be considering joining to witness this miracle up
> close, here it is in full (I hope you're sitting comfortably).
> Don't hold your breath though. the plan does not include any actual
> implementation, resourcing or budgetary plans, so how it is to come about is
> still a mystery to me.
> -- Duncan Heenan
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> THREE-YEAR PLAN
> Published May 2010
> SUMMARY
> This document sets out the aims of British Naturism (BN) and the action that
Spot the difference since 2006:
http://clothesareoptional.wordpress.com/historical-documents/bn-memories/bn-memories-8/
RB
> BN's strategy is set out in their 3 year plan, available to members
> only at
> http://members.british-naturism.org.uk/index.php?automodule=downloads&showfile=334 -
> but as some readers might be considering joining to witness this
> miracle up close, here it is in full (I hope you're sitting
> comfortably).
> Don't hold your breath though. the plan does not include any actual
> implementation, resourcing or budgetary plans, so how it is to come
> about is still a mystery to me.
> -- Duncan Heenan
<huge snip>
> 1.2 Campaigns Manager
> We will recruit and pay a professional campaigns officer who will be
> expected to concentrate
> on national issues and to provide support to the regions and local
> groups over local issues.
<another huge snip>
Is this person in addition to Andrew Welch, or a shoo-in for him? If
the former, how is h/she to be paid? The projected rise in membership
numbers is hardly likely to pay his/her salary.
Susan
AW has been making the same prediction each year for the last 6 years, and
has been wrong every time so far, but I don't think the EC can have noticed
as they've done nothing about it.
--
Duncan Heenan
RB
------------------------------
I read this with interest, and an all too familar feeling of deja vu. It's
true, you told them so; but they weren't listening then, and they aren't
listeneing now.
--
Duncan Heenan
> The EC's figure for 2010 is 9,974. You say the prediction for 2011 is
> 10,700. That's a year on year increase of 7% against an historical
> decline since 1994 of 50%. Is that not an upswing?
Apples and pears, Bob. Whatever the date of that 2010 figure, it is clearly
not a final figure (as 2010 is not over). So you can't compare that with an
estimate of how many people will join or renew in the whole of 2011 and call
it an 'upswing'.
Remember, BN paid-up membership starts at close to zero every January 1st
and rises throughout the year to its eventual figure for that year. So
anytime you compare (say) a February figure against a December figure, you
will see a dramatic difference.
--
Steve
Here's what I believe is a rather better series of figures from 2000 on:
Dec 2000 18524Dec
2001 18631Dec
2002 18070Dec
2003 16611Dec
2004 16138Dec
2005 15711Dec
2006 14768Dec
2007 13899Dec
2008 12753Dec
2009 11677Dec
2010 11000 (budget estimate)
Dec 2011 10700 (budget estimate)
This should not be taken as implying that I think the last two figures will
be met!
--
Steve
I don't know what went wrong with the formatting in the previous note. I'll
try again...
Did you need to be a ocean liner captain to know what a sailing
boat looked like?...
: I'm afraid I don't agree with your assertion that it is better
to have no
: experience of the subject you are pontificating on. But, of
course, being a
: constant contrarian, you'd have said it wasn't I I had said it
was!
You logic is utterly flawed, according to your logic you should
not have pontificated on how BN should be run as you had no prior
experience of running BN prior to your - oh so short - time on
the EC, but then again your motto seems to be some where along
the lines of "Do as I say, not as I do".
--
Regards, Jerry.
"Oh Vincent, perhaps they never will"?
Waves...
Not that I have a clue what your on about... or why you are trying to
reason with an amoeba.
<snip>
> Can we cut straight to the bit where, you say "Fuck off and die!" and
> then flounce out vowing never to return? It would save so much time and
> would save having to read all those sentences that everyone else in the
> world are misreading (Apart from you).
It would deprive us though of an outing for two famous clichés -
"<snip rubbish> fuck all left to reply to" and "X talking about
himself again" which "Jerry" is very fond of using in advance of
"FOAD" followed by a dramatic exit.