And that statement may signal the end of all races over UU land.
Read PBR rule 19 properly - we failed to comply.
Printable View
And that statement may signal the end of all races over UU land.
Read PBR rule 19 properly - we failed to comply.
This rule 19?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
19 Every single gate must be closed. Teams observed not closing gates will be instantly disqualified. Do not assume that the team behind will close the gate. Even if it means closing a gate on an approaching team......close it !
We have had complaints from farmers and United Utilities rangers in the past so please ensure you follow this rule.
Is the idea of marshalling a gate to ensure it gets closed at each pasing or that the opening does not lead to loss of livestock through it? Semantics or reality? It seems this gate was 'unoffically' marshalled by the tog nearby as he stated no livestock passed through.............
I hate this countryside arsiness..fell races cancelled for shutting of gates but a bunch of chavs dropping litter and ruining the countryside when camping and the summer and nowt. Cant wait to get out of this place after uni and move to another country with more logical mountain folk
In the races I'm involved with (and I'm sure Lefty and the PBR have the same or similar issues) we have regular pre and post race meetings with the parties involved which can involve Local Council, Parish Council, Landowner, Tenant, Local Businesses, Police, residents.... and also provides feedback from the participants and officials.
In these instances some of the parties involved come from a position of supporting the race as it brings publicity to the area, brings some business in and perhaps generally as they see a sporting event as people doing something positive and so themselves adopt a positive approach to it.
Some parties come to the table with the aim of finding a reason to block the race.
When an issue arises, there is dialogue about how an acceptable way to resolve that issue can be worked out. The resolution is put in place and carried forward with the agreement of the parties involved and if it works effectively carried forward to future events, but back to dialogue if it doesn't to see if the matter can be resolved in a more effective way.
Some matters may be beyond finding a practical resolution - but I wouldn't put the PBR gate issue in that category.
1. Action taken against teams breaching this (and other) rules would put a strong disincentive as would a ban from future events.
2. Sweepers would be a further measure that would ensure agtes were left closed after all runners had passed.
3. Marshalls - in place to ensure that the particularly sensitive areas were 100% attended to at all times.
With 1000 teams, if £5 per team was levied, I daresay that a local scout group or other voluntary group would marshall the key areas for a donation.
I would hope that Stagger has got it wrong on the UU Ranger and that UU and the landowners are just frustrated, partly at the PBR but perhaps as they have to deal with such matters 365 days a year.
They would demonstrate their integrity and sense of what is decent by engaging in dialogue and seeking a sensible and workable solution to the problem at hand.
I would imagine that it may also be a factor that Lefty has had a gutful - being a RO has many rewards, but also many frustrations and can leave you thinking "Never Again"!!
Not think your batting for the wrong side Grump? Just who do you Crusade continue against.......your fellow Fellrunners?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGrump
Read post 755.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
JD - Do you really believe being abusive and offensive on a public forum towards a UU employee helps resolve the situation in favour of fell running?
No,I agree Staggers post helps no-one,but this act by UU has angered an awful lot of Fellrunners and I think as events unfold over the next few days your constant reference to the rule book will leave you increasingly isolated.
Seems that UU were looking for an excuse to refuse future permissions. Also seems that some of the runners handed them that excuse. Still, it's over with now and in the emphasis must be on building bridges. The Hobble and The Calderdale Hike both go through that gate.
We can shout insults at each other like town drunks at closing and exaserbate the situation, or alternatively pull our pants up and move on and work out how we can best secure future events.
BTW, that gate is very much on my patch , I run and bike around there regulary and have never known the gate be left open under normal circumstances.
You are free to think what you will JD but it seems to me that The Grump's observations, along with those from Chris Knox, Margaret Chippendale, Morgan Williams,... are amongst the more sensible posted on this subject: although, when you exclude the usual rants, there is not much competition.Quote:
Originally Posted by john doe
Hey come on guys, is this a hell of a lot of upset fell runners getting things off their chest about certain companies, or Grump V's Jd, if you look at the pictures, the gate as mentioned by sportsunday was open in every picture, even the organisers team are seen leaving it open. Whats happened has happened, i'm sure the PBR 'WILL' go ahead again maybe not next year but it will happen again, just one of those things which needs to be left alone for a while whilst the dust settles then try build bridges, there seems to be a lot of intellegent views on this matter and i'm sure if we all work together (maybe a social meeting on the matter could be arranged ?!) we could get this event back on, so stop the finger pointing and bitching, sleep on it and lets move this matter forward..........,
As Dick Emery said "OOOOHHH YOu are awful! But I like you" :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
BHF !!! I can't believe what I'm reading.
OK, gate left open, but did anything untoward happen because of it, such as animals escaping??
Right.
If the gate was left open in contravention of the rules lets see the perpetrators disciplined in some way.
Also
We need to contact Mrs Williams and her employers so establish her problems towards our pastime.
Yes I made a comment from the evidence portrayed on this forum as have a lot of others.
It’s a forum, for open, frank discussion to air ones views.
We all have varying opinions and a view, which is what make’s our forum an excellent place to visit.
Two ways to proceed are to sit down and forget about the event
Or
Get discussion going and all take ownership of the complaint and broker a solution for possible future events.
Well that's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
However the only players that matter are the RO, the FRA (ie Chris Knox), and UU and associated parties.
And I rather doubt if any of the above are looking to the Forum for advice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Ha Ha!! nice one Witton.....Dennis Healey's " like being savaged by a dead sheep" springs to my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
So what are the FRA doing about it? No one has actually said. Just seems to be roll over and keep quiet!Quote:
Originally Posted by Woo hoo
The stress levels of some of the posters on this forum must be extremely high. Why don't we all calm down and let Chris, Graeme et al get on with the negotiations (if the RO wishes), instead of demanding solutions right now, this very second.Quote:
Originally Posted by maddaddy
Besides, they don't have to post what the FRA is doing about it on here. I'm sure they will post news on the FRA site as and when something is sorted/decided. Let's not forget this event doesn't take place for another 11 months (if it goes ahead).
Unfotunately I am told you cant have spring mechanisms on a bridleway gate because of horses and riders.Quote:
Originally Posted by detritus21
Not sure how many gates there are on the PBW that crosses UU land, but if I'm not running next years event I'll volunteer to man a couple of them. :thumbup:
Just wanted to check the incriminating photos (I ran leg 2 and was sure I closed the gates) - the leg 2 pictures I can see on Sportsunday do not show gates??? Where are the photos being discussed on this strand?
Trig, my understanding is that it's the gate after the res. You can see it in the background on some (not all) of the Leg Two photos. They were there the other day, but perhaps SS have took them down?.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trig
You will see from post 763 that new information has come to light ( this information was relayed to me in person before it appeared on this forum) which sheds a whole new perspective on what I was led to believe and the reasons why UU advised us they would no longer allow future access permission. I have had a recent conversation with the UU representitive and its seems now that they are willing to reconsider thier original decision. As you will appreciate this matter has caused a huge outcry and the last few days have been difficult to say the least. Perhaps I may have been premature in my announcement but I was led to believe that there was no going back and the evidence I was presented with was irrefutible.
By announcing the cancellation as I did though I think that it cetainly has generated a usefull debate on access in general and also and importantly for us the importance on this event particulary on the closing of gates.
I have given an undertaking that for future events we will marshall gates nominated by UU and they have agreed given this undertaking that future access permission will most probably be granted. This is good news for us and great news for the event.
Mapper...thanks for your offer.....please get in touch nearer to next years eventQuote:
Originally Posted by mapper
That's great news Lefty.....I know and appreciate the hard work you put in for this event,please keep us posted on further developments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
Wise words...this is being played out on this forum exactly the same as it was on the triathlon forums in 2008 when Bolton Triathlons Rivington triathlon was cancelled,Quote:
Originally Posted by fozzy
I met Chris on the FRA navigation course in Sept ,he's a top bloke and does a fantastic job for all of us.
Chris will be treading a delicate tightrope with UU and will be aware as I am that UU do read these forums!
I don't think (hope) it was my comments that he referred to as 'rubbish'! they were just a result of dealing with UU as a race organiser for 5years and were based on facts and not assumptions or 'rant'.
Excellent news Lefty and thanks to UU for listening as well! :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
storm in a teacup, then
Great work Lefty, well done for sticking at it. Hope further talks lead to a 2011 event.
Good effort Lefty, Sportsunday and the UU rep alone with anyone else who helped out.
The power of communication.
Indeed he does and it is heartening to read an informed posting on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by ironmanuk
It is because Chris negotiated the FRA/UU agreement (referred to in my post 747) that the event (and others) can even take place.
So my offer of manning a couple of gates did the trick eh ;)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
Seriously though Lefty ~ Well Done in getting the race back on the map.:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
That seems to dismiss the vast majority of posts as ill-informed. You might not agree with some of what's been written, but that doesn't mean that the opinion was ill informed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Second that; we all have reason to be concerned about access and events and we don't need self-important comment like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
There's clearly a significant strength of feeling about what's happened here and to be seen to dismiss it in this way does you no favours Graham. I realise it must be a frightful nuisance to have to lower yourself to our level but you'll just have to learn to deal with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyA
Of course there is significant strength...etc.
It is just unfortunate that these feelings were expressed via unfounded criticisms of UU (with whom the FRA has to deal-unlike the majority of people sounding off on here), the FRA, TheGrump, ignorance of the laws relating to bridleways, the rights of organisers to mount events over other people's land etc..
Do you need any more examples?
The Forum is a wonderful vehicle for the expression of opinions, but rather less good as a platform for facts.
Unfounded criticism? - I'm not sure that's a fact based on some of the facts previously posted on here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Some of the tone may be unfortunate and of course we might need their support, but they should not be beyond criticism and it seems from the post by SportSunday that there may have been some failings by UU as well.
Not sure anyone has criticised the FRA, just wondered what they were doing about the problem, as they have a right to do. People often ask 'why join the fra?', well lobbying on their behalf is one of those reasons and I think we just wanted some reassurance that lobbying was or would take place. That reassurance was given via ChrisK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
I'm unrepentant about criticising The Grump; his/her simplistic pedantic posts regarding Rule 19 have laid him/her wide open to that. I've little time for those who seek to pontificate from behind a pseudonym; their posts carry no intrinsic value above any others.
As for facts, well I've learnt quite a bit from other, more helpful, contributors about bridleway law, the rules regarding the staging of events, insurance underwriting etc.
I'm very hopeful about the future of this event and I'd second Mapper's comments about volunteering; if I ever fail to get in a team or fall injured then I'd pledge to volunteer my gate marshalling skills to Lefty. Perhaps a voluntary levy of one marshall per team might be a good idea.
Good luck Lefty, hope you sort it, for all our sakes.
How trueQuote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Wasn't going to going to reply to this thread again but I'll get a few things off me chest. When this all blew up and Lefty posted on the cancellation of this great event I was a little shocked at the speed of certain members to criticize fellow runners,I even had the feeling some the point of gloating.Fortunately others questioned the unfairness of this decision of UU and why this should be. Since then events have come to light pointing to one employee of UU who took seems to have taken a decision based on fotas illegally lifted from Sportsunday website. This person it appears wasn't at the event(certainly not where they where supposed to be) on the day.
Will the Grump be waving the rulebook on "copyright ownership" at the ranger with the same gusto as members are treated?
All the members are asking of the FRA "Illuminati" is to show a bit more well, leader-shippyness........one unfortunate comment coming from them was to call a section "out of control fellrunners", his view.
Yes, we do appreciate work done on our behalf by the FRA and in 20 odd years of fellrunning i've had no reason to fault them.....just be more diplomatic with your own people.
English Cross-country for me today.................one-love.
Dear JD What I actually wrote was:Quote:
Originally Posted by john doe
"... if there were to be a subsequent row between long standing UU tenants and some apparently uncontrollable fellrunners, where the sympathy of UU would lie."
I would have thought it was clear I was writing about UU and their perception of events.
An accurate remark in the saga of events don't you think?
GB