Would you be an IPSE member if it weren't for the insurances offered?

[SueEllen]

I've already pointed out how disgraceful it is that PCG has been erased from IPSE's history. Lazy search/replace is no excuse. That one act is utterly shameful, and someone should get a kicking for it.

However, I doubt that will happen as the PCG circle-jerk into irrelevance continues apace.

I actually agree.

Lots of organisations and businesses change their names however in their history/about pages they put they were originally called something else and why the name change occurred.

[malvolio]

I've already pointed out how disgraceful it is that PCG has been erased from IPSE's history. Lazy search/replace is no excuse. That one act is utterly shameful, and someone should get a kicking for it.

However, I doubt that will happen as the PCG circle-jerk into irrelevance continues apace.

Pointed out to whom? PCG Ltd is still alive but now trading as IPSE so they have the same history...

Then again they just updated a 400 page website with no service failures, something my current client has failed to do a few times now. A few semantic hiccups aren't exactly a threat to world peace.

[JustinTime]

Pointed out to whom?

Posts passim.

[SueEllen]

Pointed out to whom? PCG Ltd is still alive but now trading as IPSE so they have the same history...

Then why no mention of the name change in the history?

Changing a name isn't something to be ashamed off.

[TheFaQQer]

Sometimes people are just quite happy to join an organisation they feel is fighting for them without seeing the need to get too involved in the politics of running the organisation.

Just like a football supporter's club, some people join to be with like-minded people but don't care about the running of the club as long as the bus turns up on time to take them to the game.

I think that it's more to do with people now seeing IPSE as a commodity that provides insurances (or whatever word you want to ascribe to the insurance-like products and services they provide) rather than a group that is actively fighting for them and achieving.

A 2% turnout (or whatever the exact figure was) is pretty bad, whatever spin people want to put on it.

[TheFaQQer]

This makes interesting reading. Note the one about Family Business Tax; stopping stuff is sometimes as important as doing stuff.

The difference between the Family Business Tax and the Arctic win (for example) is that there is absolute evidence of the PCG influence in Arctic, but it isn't quite there in the FBT.

I'm not saying that the PCG didn't do anything towards halting the Family Busines Tax, but if you look at the website of the Federation of Small Businesses (and press articles around that time), they were the ones that were also taking credit for the win, so it's less clear-cut that this was a PCG achievement.

[malvolio]

The difference between the Family Business Tax and the Arctic win (for example) is that there is absolute evidence of the PCG influence in Arctic, but it isn't quite there in the FBT.

I'm not saying that the PCG didn't do anything towards halting the Family Busines Tax, but if you look at the website of the Federation of Small Businesses (and press articles around that time), they were the ones that were also taking credit for the win, so it's less clear-cut that this was a PCG achievement.

There were several other bodies involved to be fair: the question is who got the ball rolling? Hint- it wasn't FSB.

[Contreras]

Why is the turnout for the elections so poor - is it because people really don't care about how it is run, or is it something more basic like not understanding exactly what they are voting for? Is it because people see it as the same old faces each time? As has been shown in the IPSE fora, I have no real understanding of how the organisation is governed and what the CC do (although I vote in the elections each time) - is that a shortfall on my part, or on the part of the IPSE executive / non-executive bodies, or a bit of both?

I don't know the answer to that, but TF hits the nail squarely on the head there.

I've been in an out of PCG a few times. Originally it was for access to the forums, then because there was a 'cause' to support, and latterly (and reluctantly) purely as IR35 insurance.

When a "management decision" intentionally 'outs' its membership (including former members) by publishing real names on their forum profiles, without so much as a whimper of warning let alone consultation, something is very wrong with that management. However well intentioned, it demonstrates a lack of regard for common sense, foresight, and an inability to listen. One could argue the same qualities that have brought us disasters like the BETs.

I might rejoin PCG/IPSE one day but, for me, simply being not-for-profit is not enough. Participation in the democratic process needs to improve considerably, and by that I mean much better than the ~10% as I remember it.

The 2% figure quoted in this thread is shocking if true. Please someone post the correct figure if it's not that bad.

[malvolio]

Posts passim.

And that helps how? Do you suppose IPSE pay any attention to these forums?

[eek]

Pointed out to whom? PCG Ltd is still alive but now trading as IPSE so they have the same history...

Then again they just updated a 400 page website with no service failures, something my current client has failed to do a few times now. A few semantic hiccups aren't exactly a threat to world peace.

Updating the HTML text on of 400 page website with no service failure is not exactly rocket science....

Personally knowing how many of your members are I would have ensured it was proof read by someone or at least updated as issues were pointed out rather than just saying it ain't important..