....:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Printable View
....:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Wynn did not see them , I alerted her to them, demonstrating a serious problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
One early reason not to have a debate here was "no committee come here" so how then was wynn supposed to have seen them? Graham if you want 300 RO to sign up to rules, a good suggestion is ask them first, because they unlike you carry the can.
The changes that were made were little to do with Coroner compliance, and mostly to do with a lot of problems first found by me, and later grudgingly addressed.
More importantly in absence of the agreed amendments the documents you asked Wynnto sign , for the book, were based on the july rules, so they were certainly not innocuous. Madders saying "so what, the others dont comply either but they are signing up" on the basis of things they have not seen demonstrates irresponsibility, not the best trait for an RO. The correct response was delay a month, in such a situation.
As I said earlier on, Andy is the only one who has owned to holding his hands up, he did not look under the hood, last July, demonstrating a problem with both the consultation and the validity of "so called" unanimous votes. There is clearly something badly wrong when those rules were ever accepted.
It is like a thermometer, once it reads a clearly outrageous temperature, even once, you can never trust it again: so the document acceptance and preparation is clearly a problem, since the "test" of a unanimous committee decision was proven totally fallible on those rules.
Coming to which: how can you have unanimity on things you say were never a motion, ergo were never voted, since unanimity is a vote, resulting from a motion. How then can they ever be unanimous if "motions" as you say are not allowed?? bizarre.
You put Andy in an impossible position. He tried to do it right. He got a consensus at the Preston Meeting and please don't force me to put yours, Mads and Nicks emails in Public domain, that prove even Nick thought that was agreed, but Madders decided she did not want, and you because of a "perceived insult". And yes, we will post them if you disagree again.
So having seen you do not honour consensus expressed, he did the only other thing left to him, Propose a motion, for a vote. You did not let be heard (as you noted, so you are guilty as charged). The bucket of emails proves it.
What you mean is Madders and you decides what was agreed, using just the same murmur of consent, but only the ones you actually like. You are defending the absence of proper democracy, not proving the existence of it. And thats what you are all seemingly happy with. I simply asked FRA members whether they were happy too. The facts are uncontestable. All that was said was demonstrably true.
Andys phrase - and opinion was quite clear before and after that meeting. He did not agree with the principle of that coroners letter nor should he, so the content was largely irrelevant except dangerous. Having got a couple of the worst things out, he agreed only "in the interests of harmony", but only because you said prior that if you couldn't agree you would send it anyway, or words to that effect.
The only difference in the last statement by FRA, he refused to play the game any more of being counted as support for something he could not ethically support.
It is all as I have painted it.
There are two problems you still do not get.
1/ Rules are not safety management, so the entire response was misplaced.
2/ You seem to think rules are the way RO fulfill a duty: you missed the point entirely. Whilst common law has something to say about third parties affected (eg at road crossings) or the risk to that runners knock kids for six down catbells, the duty to runners is to a large extent actually CREATED by the rules, not fulfilled by them, that's why the legal undertakers/ambulance chasers and insurers solicitors you seem to love actually focus on them. So you have created the duty the next generation of RO have to fulfill in our view unnecessarily. Which gives dear old Wynn a problem.
It is your problem.
Me and Andy have given up, at least in the context of trying to persuade you.
Wynn is going elsewhere , where common sense rather than ego reigns.
Phone calls are quite cheap on evenings and at weekends. Just think of the RSI you could be avoiding.
It's only a game!
It's only a game until the next tragedy - when a RO is in the dock and having to answer no I couldn't comply to this or that rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Welsh Harrier
You're right it's not a game. However, MR was well supported by everyone, including the insurance company. And that was under safety requirements which were not as protective of race organisers as the current set.Quote:
Originally Posted by wynn
Not sure how you come to that conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madeleine
Madeleine, With this, I give up with the ping pong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madeleine
At least you post in your own name!
You are all in hopeless denial.
But for a lucky accident (if you can call it luck : all it was was a time which could have rolled a different dice), certainly not anything you can take credit for, the outcome of that inquest would have been massively different.
And in that situation:
- The hopeless lack of any attempt on the part of FRA to control safety planning documentation or process which would have actually helped stop the horse bolting, (that because of a result of failure to consider safety process in any of the years preceeding, entirely the fault of FRA)
- The duties and expectations set by previous inadequate rules, (now made worse by a lame agreement to a coroners statement)
- The unwillingness of FRA to contest that obvious fact, in saying that tracking is nowhere near as good as the rules imply it can be
- The questionable evidence presented, such as stating overcounts as bad practise, not contested by FRA in as far as I can tell,
- The aggressive questioning by none other than the very advice on which you seem to rely!
Those would have all been nails in a coffin for an RO. If you think that is support, I would hate to see what happens if you don't support someone. We can only thank heaven it all turned out to be relative immmaterial to the outcome (that time ).
But instead of thanking your lucky stars, and making the changes really needed, you make it worse instead. You can't even see it: Instead You make life impossible for the only guy on committee who could have helped solve it - because he was not "On message"
The one you should be listening to is Pete Bland.
You should not do anything he can't sign up to.
He has been there. You have not. Sat at the sharp end.
Such as Wynn ( my concern) who have similar problems to Pete.
There is no need to give RO the duties you have created for them as tripwires.
I cannot be bothered to write more, but please READ my definition of the words hazard and risk, and correct those basic errors in documents.
Then start thinking about safety management
I can only say think hard about the value of a unanimous acceptance of a set of rules or letter. It is the same as the vote for the July rules, and everyone knows how bad they were....
Mike
Thanks for your interpretation of what happened at the inquest. You are missing a few bits of background information and context (as ever) but don't let that stop you posting! We listened to Andy Walmsley and included some of his suggestions and rejected others (even though he engaged very late in the process - eg he agreed the July document!). Pete Bland has signed up this year. Are you still wishing to meet up or have you given up on that one as well?
Madeleine
Is it fair to say that a tragedy is less likely to occur due to the tightening of the rules around safety kit? And that a incident could be prevented from developing into a tragedy due to the tightening of rules around ROs and marshals counting runners more effectively?Quote:
Originally Posted by wynn
I think these are fair statements, but I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on this.