A Crisis in the Rambler's Association?

[.....]

Interesting, if a little long, reading...

The Debate Continues

As approved at the meeting of Concerned Ramblers on 26 September 2009

Ramblers Association: Crisis of Finance and Confidence: Summary of Concerns

Introduction

The RA is going through its most serious crisis in living memory – and some of us have been involved with the realization for well over 40 years. It is to a large extent a crisis of funding but there are also fundamental issues of strategy and purpose that both contributed to the funding issues and are affected by them. The present crisis has also exposed serious deficiencies in the democratic structure of the realization as a result of which those elected to represent the interests of the membership, namely the members of General Council, have been denied both the opportunity and the information needed to fulfill that role.

This note places on record a summary of our concerns in the hope that it will command broad agreement and the debate can move on to identifying solutions and the means to ensure that such solutions are implemented. For that reason it is quite long but we hope that is an acceptable price for being comprehensive.

Summary

The concerns are wide- ranging, complex and interrelated but are broadly as follows.

The sudden realization by Central Office in April 2009 that income was insufficient to meet planned expenditure brought the crisis to a head. That event exposed a lot of other issues – why had they not seen it coming when it was obvious to others, why were facts that ought to have been known at the time not shared with General Council 2009 and why had much money recently been spent on things that seemed a lot less vital than our loyal staff? It also allowed other issues to be seen in a new context – it was well known that the introduction of a new computer system had been very poorly handled – perhaps this was just a symptom of widespread inefficiency within Central Office. Central Office’s poor capacity for communicating with volunteers and members, which was already evident in the handling of problems with the membership system, became clear to all.

There is a widespread feeling that many of these problems are driven by a much more deep-seated problem – a lack of leadership and direction in the realization, or at least a complete incapacity for communicating that direction. Fresh Air, Firm Ground, a so called strategic plan that was anything but, had been given the benefit of the doubt on the assumption that a supporting plan would eventually emerge. But it now became clear that those running the realization thought that this vague rehash of our charitable objectives was a plan. With the apparent relegation of public rights- of- way work to a minor project among many, it was no longer obvious that the realization had a powerful unique selling point or that the marketing people understood the damaging effect that this has on recruitment and fundraising.

The final straw was the realization that neither Central Office nor the BoT was listening to members and volunteers or interested in General Council’s views as the democratically appointed representatives of the membership. Letters of concern were as approved at the meeting of Concerned Ramblers on 26 September 2009 met with bland responses that did not actually address the questions being asked. Information had to be squeezed out of the BoT and Central Office and when it came there was no attempt to make it meaningful or coherent – some wondered whether all the members of the BoT actually understood the figures on which a mass cull of staff had been based.

Finally we are concerned that Central Office has delivered so little by way of charitable benefits in the last two years in return for many millions of pounds of membership income. There has been progress with Bayham Abbey and coastal access and … that’s about it … or at least that’s pretty well everything major that has been effectively communicated to members. Even that had depended on an awful lot of work by volunteers. And there’s not much evidence of the groundwork being laid for big benefits in future. We see much activity but not a lot of delivery. It is in this context that concerned members meet in Leeds. The concerns are set out in more detail below.

Financial Management

Clearly financial monitoring and management have left something to be desired. We now know that prior to 1st. January 2009 monthly management accounts were not prepared. We are sure that no one will seek to defend that situation in an organization as large as the RA and the one positive development we can record is that this at least has been corrected although it may well have been too little, too late.

The biggest crime committed by those running the RA must surely be complacency. It is difficult to understand how the Trustees were able to say in their Financial Review for 2008, approved on 7th March 2009 when the management accounts for January 2009 must have been available, that “the financial picture does look healthy for the start of the new strategy” and at General Council in April 2009, by which time the management accounts for February 2009 must have been available, the accounts and financial review were presented without any attempt to correct this optimistic view. The Chief Executive offered a very upbeat analysis of the prospects for the future, including some healthy financial projections, with only the merest hint that income might fall a little short of expectations. Were the Trustees and the Senior Management Team still oblivious of the impending disaster or was knowledge withheld, thus denying General Council the opportunity to debate the problem. Neither answer is comforting, but more fundamentally we must ask why the financial situation was deteriorating so suddenly.

It is of course easy to blame the recession but not necessarily correct. There have been surveys quoted on the Third Sector Daily web site suggesting that fewer than half the charities surveyed had seen their income fall, clearly pushing the RA’s performance below average at best. Certainly many more charities have seen a hoped for increase in income fail to materialize, but that is another matter. Why there is a fall in income is a question that has to be asked and it has to be answered by reference to evidence, not unsubstantiated excuses. In any case it was perfectly obvious from the 2008 accounts that the RA was in a fairly poor financial position because a huge deficit was only avoided by a huge legacy that was most unlikely to be a regular occurrence.

The message that should have been approved was that put forward at the meeting of Concerned Ramblers on 26 September 2009 and should have been shouted loudly and clearly at General Council 2009 was that money needed to be raised urgently and plans for doing so formulated quickly. Instead we were encouraged to believe that things were pretty well under control. [Although these issues were already apparent to us, it is worth mentioning that in one Area a member who had been a partner in one of the 20 top firms of chartered accounts, specializing in charities, approached the Area Secretary to say how shocked he was at what he had seen in the statutory and management accounts and insisted on a meeting to make much the same points that we have covered in the previous paragraphs. He felt the situation was grave and it should have been obvious to the Trustees that it was grave before Area Council 2009].

Concerns have often been expressed at the high average age of the RA’s members. Well, if you walk a lot you are likely to live longer. But more pertinently in the present context the recession is hitting older people, especially those retired with occupational pensions, less hard than the younger members of the population. So the RA should be at least partly protected from the recession – so why are membership numbers declining? Do people perhaps not understand what the RA is striving to achieve, or perhaps they do and don’t like it?

It is worth noting that even before General Council 2009 some had been questioning whether the RA’s financial strategy and business model made any sense and, for example, Kent Area had sent a delegation to Central Office to make this point and also the point that communications with Areas and Groups were being poorly handled. Central Office did not produce a satisfactory response to either point although there have been subsequent improvements in communication involving direct contact between Areas and designated Trustees. It will be interesting to see how the regional meetings promised by Rodney Whittaker in his letter of 21 September 2009 work out – they will not be effective if they are stage managed to inhibit meaningful discussion of vital issues in the way that General Council 2009 was.

Strategic Plan: Fresh Air, Firm Ground has been a disaster. That is not to say that there is anything fundamentally wrong with it as a broad mission statement, a user-friendlier summary of our charitable objectives than our memorandum and articles. But a plan, let alone a strategic plan, it is not. The only reason that many people supported Fresh Air, Firm Ground at General Council 2008 was that it contained little that one could take objection to – because it actually contained almost no substance. We assumed another document would come along in due course that would explain what we were actually going to do but instead the BoT and Central Office did what they fancied and some outrageously argued that because it was consistent with Fresh Air, Firm Ground it had the approval of General Council. Fresh Air, Firm Ground is so vague that it is hard to think of anything consistent with our charitable objectives that are not also consistent with that document.

We need a plan with substance with clear objectives that have been debated and endorsed by General Council and we need it quickly. As approved at the meeting of Concerned Ramblers on 26 September 2009

The New Membership System (CRM)

This introduction of the CRM has been a disaster. The original business requirement and procurement were botched – and apparently it occurred to no one that Areas and Groups had an interest, a recurrent theme of recent years. Then implementation was botched. And communication of the difficulties that resulted was dire. Amongst the members are people with huge expertise in this area, including experience of building a complete CRM system from start to successful finish for another charity in a quarter of the time that Central Office has been faffing about trying to fix this one. But all offers of help were firmly rejected – it is hardly surprising that some people suspect that CO didn’t want anyone knowledgeable to see what was going on. As early as March 2008 some Groups and Areas were complaining that the fiasco was losing members and was the most urgent issue facing the organization. But urgent action was not taken and we have seen membership fall – but we are told this is due to the recession, not the membership system. This seems implausible, especially as recruitment was suspended in early 2009, as the membership department couldn’t cope with any additional membership applications that might result. We wonder what the cost of this fiasco has been. We also wonder, if one project has been handled this badly, how well other projects and activities are being run.

Re-branding

This is a controversial issue. Opinions will remain forever divided on whether it was necessary. Clearly it was costly. Some people like the new logo and some people don’t. Many of us don’t feel strongly one way or the other. Quite a few feel that even if it is an improvement it is not so much better as to justify the cost – will it bring in more members or make us more effective in seeking funding or persuading local authorities to put their footpath networks in order? There is not much evidence either way. What there is evidence for is an increased reluctance of volunteers to fundraise. Many times we have heard the comment that if we can afford £35,000 for

Re-branding, why should we be collecting fifty pence’s from people on walks or delivering by hand walking programmes that could be posted? The perception of profligacy has been created and it may not be justified but it is prevalent nonetheless and is damaging. This has been exacerbated by unsubstantiated claims that the launch of the new brand generated publicity worth nearly £40,000; perhaps it generated publicity that might otherwise have cost £40,000 but that is not the claim and it is hard to see any evidence that such a level of benefit has materialized. So whatever the merits of the re-branding, communication has been poor and the reaction of members, especially volunteers, misjudged – or more likely not even considered. Implementation was poor too, with the materials supplied to Areas and Groups being in formats poorly suited to the software and hardware used by volunteers. Much additional work was created for them that, if their time were costed at the minimum wage, would probably double the overall cost of the project and we wonder whether senior management was having fun choosing logos and horizons when they should have been monitoring cash flow.

Falling Income

We know that income from all sources is down. Membership income is covered elsewhere, why is other income down?

Income from Appeals

The income from the most recent Ramblers appeal (before Bayham Abbey) has fallen well below target. Why? We suggest that it is because the appeals are poorly focused and have failed to make clear how the money will be used. People only give if they know where the money will go. And in the case of the RA they will only give if the money goes to our traditional work. We are confident that the Bayham Abbey appeal will fare better – but it is vital that people can afterwards see precisely how the money has been used – confidence will be undermined if it disappears into an amorphous fund from which its emergence cannot be identified.

Income from Grants

Grants are down. This may be due to the economic downturn. And it may not. It may be that potential donors have been as baffled as we have by Central Office’s inability to articulate its vision and have donated instead to bodies with more clarity and focus in their work.

Legacy Income

There has been too much wishful thinking about legacy income and our present parlous state may largely be a result of that. We believe that people are unlikely to leave money in their wills to the RA until there is greater clarity about what the organization is for and how legacy money will be used. Currently even the most committed members are reluctant to leave money to the RA because of this lack of clarity.

Walk Britain

Another controversial issue is. The replacement of the members’ handbook and accommodation guide with a book of walks has bemused many. The quality of the book is not in question but the concept is puzzling. It seems to many of us that the two main qualities one looks for in a book of walks are that it is light enough to carry all day and has a lot of walks within easy reach. Instead we have a very heavy book with walks so thinly spread that few people will find more than one in the immediate neighborhood and many will find none. Despite this, there are some individuals who are very happy with the book but they seem to be a small minority and one wonders how many of its walks they have actually done. The cost seems wholly disproportionate to any benefit and we note that it will not be repeated next year. Perhaps if the members had been asked first the money could have been spent more usefully. It will be interesting to learn how many people have actually purchased the book at its cover price.

Public Rights of Way Work

Public rights of way work is the RA’s unique selling feature. The majority of our members do not walk with our Groups – many of them walk alone or with family and friends but support the RA because it looks after the footpath network and campaigns for improved access for walkers generally. Those who walk with Groups could do so much more cheaply by joining other walking clubs. We simply can’t compete with other organizations in delivering any direct personal benefit to members – it is the indirect benefit to the public at large that makes us worth joining. Unfortunately there is a perception that emphasis has been shifted away from this work. And it is the perception as much as the reality that matters. Poor communications are again an issue, in particular a memo issued in late 2008, when Central Office was being reorganized, containing some very ill considered explanations of how resources would have to be shifted away from public rights of way work. This work has certainly not stopped altogether. We, especially those of us in Kent and Sussex, are grateful for the work being done to secure rights of way over the Bayham Abbey Estate. This has generated quite a positive mood on Ramblersnet and if enough publicity can be generated it could be a valuable recruitment opportunity too. But it comes across as an isolated occurrence. We need far more cases like this and we need to publicize them more both internally and externally.

Internally communications on footpath issues seem to have been abandoned since February – sheer madness. We are aware of other cases where legal action ought to have been taken but has not been. Even the list in the letter of 21st September 2009, while better than nothing, falls a long way short of being an impressive catalogue of success. Legal costs do generate concern and differences of opinion. Views are expressed to the effect that £100,000 is a high price to pay for a footpath. But that misses the point. It is only because we are prepared to pay these expenses when necessary and it is known that we are prepared to pay them, that we are able to settle hundreds if not thousands of other cases by negotiation. If it became generally believed that we would back down when faced with such costs, our bargaining position would be gone forever. We must make sure that this perception does not gain any ground but the body language from Central Office has not been encouraging.

External Services

Get Walking, Keep Walking is no doubt a good thing. But whether it should be our good thing is less certain. What is certain is that it has been a disaster from the point of view of internal communications. While we understand that the project was intended to be self-financing, even to cover some overheads, Central Office failed to get this message across to the membership at large. The published accounts and the management accounts are drawn up in a way that obfuscates rather than elucidates – why? As a result members have felt that resources were being diverted away from traditional work to undertake new programmes of work that should really be the responsibility of government. And given the lack of clarity in the accounts, even those of us who were aware of the self-financing aim wonder whether it has been achieved in practice, whether all the costs at Central Office have been identified and As approved at the meeting of Concerned Ramblers on 26th September 2009 whether essential management time has been distracted from looking after “business as usual” and so has contributed to the financial crisis.

Communications and Openness

Here is our biggest concern of all. Even before the financial crisis the quality and clarity of communications from Central Office had taken a tumble. In particular, Central Office totally failed to articulate the programme of activities that would result from implementing Fresh Air, Firm Ground and left Areas and Groups quite baffled as to their role in the scheme of things. Memos on matters such as the membership system were largely gobbledygook. Since April communications have virtually dried up. Worst of all has been communication over the financial crisis. The apparent withholding of highly relevant information from General Council was just the start. It became really difficult to get any information about what was happening. Legalities of disputed relevance were cited as part of the reason. Most of us would have known very little but for Ramblersnet, to which we owe an enormous debt of gratitude.

Letters from Rodney and Tom have seemed grudging to say the least. The Rodney and Tom letter of 30th July 2009 has proved a particular puzzle. At first sight it seemed they were trying to be helpful in releasing the management accounts as at the end of December 2008 and all months from January to April 2009. These were presumably intended to show how information about the severity of the financial position gradually emerged and the narrative part of the letter repeated the sequence of cumulative deficits shown by the management accounts in a manner that only made sense, on the basis that they were all measuring the same thing. However, there was a glaring oddity in the accounts – the cumulative figures of grants received were much lower for the first six months of the year than for the first five. This was so strange that it cried out for explanation but none was given. Although this was raised immediately on Ramblersnet and shortly afterwards with various members of the BoT, it took until 10 September, nearly six weeks later, for an answer to be posted –namely that the management accounts up to 28 February were prepared on a cash basis and subsequent ones on an accruals basis. This explanation is interesting, but without also knowing the amount of the accrual at the date of change it remains impossible to analyze the manner in which the deficits unfolded. And it is a mystery why the explanation of the change of basis was not given on 30 July 2009 and why the amounts of the accruals have not been given at all since they are essential to the understanding of the accounts. There would appear to be only two plausible explanations – either the authors of the letter did not really want us to understand the accounts or the authors didn’t understand the significance of the change of basis of the accounts. Neither is an appealing explanation. It seems likely that the management accounts to 28th February 2009 flattered the financial position by some £200,000 and that the really big downturn had already occurred by that date but only showed up in the management accounts the following month. However, Central Office must surely have known that the February figures were only as “good” as they appeared because of a large amount of grant money received in advance and should have alerted the BoT. But this is just speculation until As approved at the meeting of Concerned Ramblers on 26th September 2009 we are told the amount of grant income received by 28th February 2009 that would not have been recognized on an accruals basis. The episode has undermined our confidence in the BoT to be open with us.

Move to Electronic Communications

We can understand the desire to move from paper to electronic communications. The cost savings are obvious and many volunteers prefer to work that way. But many do not and we feel that the migration is not being well handled from their point of view. It seems bizarre that twelve months ago those who wanted to work electronically were not allowed to do so but now those who do not are being forced to do so. That said, the migration even for those who might readily accept it is being poorly handled. There are those of us who have had responsibility for managing migration from paper to electronic working in large organizations involving staff with a wide-range of computer skills. There are some key rules that must be followed to achieve this successfully. The first is that people must have total confidence that material stored electronically is not going to disappear. So what does Central Office do? It removes all archived memos and other material from the web site! Quite astonishing ineptitude.

The second rule is that implementation must be flawless and as easy as possible for people to manage. In the present context this means, at least, sending emails alerting people to new material. The notion that people will go trawling the web site looking for new material is absurd. And the response that people can use an RSS feed betrays a complete lack of understanding of the audience that reveals Central Office’s ivory tower mentality. Emailed notifications are promised for the future but to succeed with a change like this everything has to work properly right from the start. As with almost everything that Central Office has done in the past couple of years, this project has been sloppily implemented and poorly thought through.

Customer Service

The last year or two have seen a dramatic fall in the quality of service given by Central Office to members and volunteers. Quite apart from the poor quality of membership reports and the drying up of communications, emails have gone unanswered (some being deleted without even being read!) and others answered only after long delays. This is simply not acceptable. Even if staff are overwhelmed it is not difficult to set up automatic responses to tell correspondents to expect delay or even no response at all. It is completely and totally unacceptable for members and volunteers to be allowed to believe that their correspondence is in a queue somewhere awaiting attention when in fact it has been destroyed and will never be answered. We are horrified that there should be a mindset within Central Office that thinks this a tolerable way to work in any circumstances. And then they blame falling membership numbers on the recession!

Recall of General Council

It seems beyond doubt now that crucial financial information was withheld from General Council, either deliberately or through incompetence. Even if that were not the case, the situation has changed so dramatically that the understanding given to General Council regarding the financial situation is largely irrelevant. Standing orders provide for the recall of General Council if the BoT so wishes. The presumption must be that there are circumstances in which this is appropriate. If the present circumstances don’t fit the bill, it is hard to imagine what would. Clearly General Council should be recalled and the failure of the BoT to do so further undermines our confidence in their commitment to the democratic process.

The Democratic Process

Over the last few years the Memorandum and Articles have been changed many times and the influence of General Council gradually weakened. This, we understood, was necessary in principle to achieve a level of clarity as to who runs the organization demanded by the Charity Commission. But we were led to believe that whatever the formal changes, the basic principles of the democratic process remained and the Board of Trustees was still committed to as much democracy as possible. The BoT have clearly reneged on that understanding – rather than seeking the maximum consultation and openness that can be accommodated within the constitution they are endeavoring to restrict this as far as possible. That is not the fault of the constitution, it is the fault of the Trustees and is a betrayal of the trust that the members put in them when agreeing to the changes to the Memorandum and Articles.

Leadership

In times of change, good leadership is vital. Good leadership means getting out to the troops and communicating effectively. It means articulating a vision, showing how it is virtuous and achievable and what role everyone can plan in achieving success. It requires openness, honesty and trust. It requires sharing the difficulties, the challenges and achievements.

What we have instead is a bunker mentality. Instead of getting out there to address concerns and motivate people, we find that the BoT and Central Office delay as long as possible before disclosing information. They make information as hard as possible to find and understand. They reduce the information flow. They respond to letters of concern in patronizing terms that fail to address the issues. They seem evasive and defensive. They behave more like politicians than trustees. We have had enough. Let’s have some true leadership. Let’s see hearts and minds being won over. And let’s see a full and properly informed debate at General Council.



https://www.essexarearamblers.co.uk/

[Tonka]

ROFL!!


____________________
'The core of a man's spirit comes from new experiences'
Suzuki SV650S (Clean); Yamaha XT250 Serow (Dirty)

[stinkwheel]

I was mildly coerced into going to an outdoor carol concert with the girlfriend and some friends from her walking group this weekend. As it was her Birthday, I agreed to go.

She told me "We just walk up to the abbey from the carpark.".

Now, I invisioned this to be something of a bimble from the Abbey carpark, I'll sing along with the songs I know to keep the peace, have a cup of tea, come home.

I arrived in the carpark to be confronted by 30 members of her walking group in full rambling regalia, a sea of Berghaus and North face gear, rucksacks, gaiters and spring-loaded walking sticks.

"How far is it?"

"Oh, about six miles"

"There and back or six miles there, six miles back?"

"Each way."

"Oh."

So off we progressed in indian file along a footpath. I had on my wooly jumper and army boots so I was warm enough. I had taken the liberty of bringing a tin of small cigars with me so I had a few on the way there. I was a bit hungover so I reckoned on a bimble in the fresh air doing me a bit of good.

Then it ocurred to me that I was rambling. Goddamnit!

Some of my observations include that it was a bit of a waste of a walk in the countryside given that I was essentially in a long queue of 30 people. The number of people who were obviously out of breath was quite an eye opener for someone who carefully avoids walking anywhere unless he has to. Also the number of people who were complaining about being cold despite being clad in many hundreds of pounds worth of gore-tex mountaineering gear.

Anyway. I entertained myself singing once we got there, the band were shockingly bad at holding a tempo so I just carried on regardless, I've got a decent choral tenor which carries ok so people joined in with me and the band eventually got their act together.

Heading back, it was getting slightly dark so of course, out came all the head torches. Totally unecessary but they'd clearly spent a lot of money on them so it kept them happy.

Several of them engaged me in conversation. I kept steering it to the subject of wether or not I reckoned I could get my Enfield 350 along this path and how I reckon I could have with the exception of one bit where all the walkers had trampled it into muddy soup. And that of course I wouldn't be allowed to because the ramblers assosciation managed to get most of the byeways closed to vehicles, despite this clearly having once been a vehicular track judging by the milestones and old toll house.

I don't think I'll be invited back.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.

[prawny1]

It makes me laugh how they are on about stratagies and councils to decide how much to charge people for walking, and then complaining that they haven't earnt enough this year.

[prawny1]

[cvntdude]

No bother Stinky, you always got the caravan club to fall back on ...
____________________
We all choose what to think about ...

[Hazylogic]

In a nutshell what does it say?

[Hetzer]

[colin1]

And the paid full time staff management, are a shambles, unable to manage costs.
____________________
colin1 is officially faster than god

[Hazylogic]

[silky666]

[Ste]

Please let there be a Ramblers Association civil war.

[silky666]

[cvntdude]

Links / posts - please, i'm due another troll / forum / bcf linked ban .. a bit of a moaning post about disgruntled ramblers i encounter whilst using footpaths on my scrambler shoudl suffice ..
____________________
We all choose what to think about ...

[Hetzer]

Try and think how you would feel if you were some gentle-souled old person, in love with the birds and bees, green grass and beautifully coloured flowers, enjoying peacefully walking through meadows and dales, a calm heart and joyful spirit, communing with nature, at one with god. And then some big, loud, armored cunt on a two-wheeled beast of armegeddon came bellowing up behind you, furiously blipping his throttle, spraying mud over everything while screaming "GET OUT OF THE WAY, YOU COFFIN-DODGING OLD TWAT" before practically running you down and leaving you on your knees in a muddy puddle having a heart-attack.

Would it not sucketh? Ye, and right mightily?

Do unto others.
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"

[.....]

[cvntdude]

I' am one of those souls ..ffs ... but whilst out with molly on said footpaths .. i'd love to have to move out the way for some scramblers having fun ... instead of hoodying up old ladys .. !!
____________________
We all choose what to think about ...

[Ste]

[silky666]

[Hetzer]

Could anyone have possibly thought I was actually suggesting ramblers should have the right over bikes on byways?
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"

[Tonka]

[.....]

I tell thee, the next tosser in a bobble hat and stick to hurl abuse at me is going to get more of the same back. Hopefully it will escalate to a physical confrontation where I will be forced to vigorously defend myself by beating them to death with a Ginsters pasty.

[G]

Ramblers don't like people using designated vehicle-ways in their vehicles.
Maybe we should find some of their 'meets' and organise to walk down the middle of the tarmac'd roads they use to leave .

[Tonka]

[silky666]

I can feel an uprising !

https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2000/08/07/che128.jpg
____________________
There's nothing that shouts "Poor Workmanship" more than wrinkles in the Gaffa tape.

Gaffa tape is like "the force" - it has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.