Adult only sites & number of dogs

Wow, enlightenment moment thanks to the above! 

I too now realise that we already have, to all intents and purposes, and for much of the season, OA's sites on the CC network. What's more this applies to every site in the country.
What is this I can hear some saying, well, the answer is weekdays during term time!
No need for trials, no need for any more deliberation, no need to alienate any of our fellow member what so ever, jobs a good'un!

It is always a bit suspicious when some people are so against testing to see if a particular opinion has any merit. -----  What are they so scared of. 

Or are they just saying "Thou Shall not open your mind to new ideas".

A trial would establish if there is any real demand among the CC customerbase for including AO sites on the network.  OR it could show that there is little demand. .

Cheers ................K

Or.....it could just be the catch all that annoys everyone! CC aren't that good at trials.....

Lets trial a "caravanner of the year" competition?

Lets trial a new website?

Be careful what you wish for, it might come back and bite you! 

I'm not against trials or experiments at all. But I would be against a trial which may have a negative or damaging effect on others. Likewise I'm not against change in the slightest, but I am against suggestions of banning certain sections of our membership using a particular site or sites. We are reminded almost daily on CT that we are a membership consisting of many diverse individuals and that each and every one of us are of equal status in importance and opinion. No member should be viewed as more important than another and no site should be excluded to some of us by another section of our membership by means of trial or otherwise. We should not be considering banning members with their children from using those sites which some consider are only good for those without! After all, we would never exclude, or even contemplate excluding mature couples from using those sites which some deem as being 'good for families' would we?
Yes, by all means, hold trials in areas which promote inclusivity and improve our enjoyment or usability of sites. Yes, actively promote certain sites as may be being 'good for families' or otherwise but the whole idea of excluding some members in doing so is ridiculous, divisive, counter productive and wrong in my opinion. After all, what some consider good for families may be very different to others.
The above is my opinion of course and all of it, I firmly believe, is supportive of and in line with the key philosophies and ethos of our club. Keep an inclusive and open mind too, and in doing so beware those suggestions which would in effect exclude.

Micky an excellent post which gets to the heart of the matter. You cannot start to exclude certain members from a club which you join voluntary and prides itself on being open to all.  I agree with it entirely.

+1

As a warden if the Club asked me to run a site with separate areas for adults, families, no dogs etc or whatever like that my resignation would be tendered sharpish.

As Micky says above, our Club and it's sites are for everyone, no exclusions, and to me that's what caravanning with the Club is all about, meeting and hey, actually talking to people with the same passion that our hobby brings. Long may it continue.

JK

Micky, I congratulate you on an excellent, well put together and well presented post. If I could find a clapping smiley I would use it! 

There you go TDA, I borrowed one of M's. . . .(clapping smiley)

My pleasure! Winking smiley!

All good posts above emphasising the basic club philosophy of inclusivity.

And of course, no-one is forced to be a member of the club; in fact to those who seem to want to remain members but have the club change certain rules to fit their individual point of view I'd just say remember how well that worked out for Dodgy Dave! Double laughing smiley!