Thanks for posting it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
Printable View
Thanks for posting it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lefty
Last time i checked I was sat in an office on a computer pretending to work.Quote:
You already are liable
So no, I'm not already liable. However, when it comes to the next race I'm due to marshal at in 2014. If the new rules indicate my liability. Then I wont marshal.
I should have made that absolutely clear as to avoid people making assumptions.
I note from the letter footer that it'll be posted to the website which is clearly in the interests of transparency. There also appears to be a newer draft of the safety requirements than the one currently available on the website (I accessed the web one via the committee page and the link on the LHS). I guess the website will catch up in the next day or two.
Bugger, I need to clarify something else now.
I AM NOT LITERALLY SAT ON A COMPUTER. I am sat on a chair in front of it.
The pretending to work bit was spot on, tea break next.
it sounds as though we are wasting our time suggesting anythingQuote:
Originally Posted by jtinnion
"We do not expect to have to make significant changes as a result of the Coroner’s report and, in any case, will not be looking to reverse any of the proposed changes from the current guidance, although, as stated above we will continue to make changes where these aid clarity and we think improve the organisation of fell races.
The changes currently proposed are those the committee feels are required in the interest of fell running and have been scrutinised by the lawyer acting for UKA; crucial if we are to maintain the confidence of UKA and the insurers in future."
advice that gives them confidence they will never have to pay out that is
it is not the same as protecting me!
I AM ON THE WAY TO THE OMM
please leave it until I get back
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham Breeze
Seconded.Quote:
Originally Posted by wynn
It sounds like a cart in front of a horse!
The right decisions for fellrunning and to protect ROs of more dangerous races like Wynn are the important issue.
(rather than moorland strolls on a hot summers eve, where the nearest road is barely a mile, there are no rocks, and it is hard to avoid other people out, rather than find them!)
UKA should have no opinion in this, except in as far as some are fell runners.
The opinion that is needed is for the RO. Not to appease UKA
If UKA don't like those decisions, or do not feel they can fit into their framework, we should tell them to take a hike, not pander to them, and find other insurance instead.. SHRA and WFRA do not seem to have had problems doing that.
We're certainly wasting our time filling 93 pages of forum posts on this. If anyone has an opinion, they should send it to the FRA.Quote:
Originally Posted by wynn
I don't feel qualified to comment on the FRA's position, which seems reasonably sensible to me. So I won't be sending my views.
Out of interest. Always Injured, have you sent you suggestions? Or is this debate continuing to inform your opinion? [and I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm genuinely interested]
Without meaning to aggravate a bad situation, it is clear what some of my suggestions are.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Like the nonsense of suggesting "unnecessary hazards" or demanding race organisers act on "weather that endangers" when (almost) all weather is dangerous.
It is equally clear that
(i) None of those points has been taken seriously, and:
(ii) IMHO No competent safety professional was involved in the redraft (or if they were, they were ignored), and:
(iii) It is blindingly obvious that the document is designed to defend the FRA - which is how UKA want it, and leaves an RO wide open.
So what is the point precisely, of my saying more through "official channels" when my position is manifestly clear? If members of committee are not reading here, then more fool them. This is the year 2013 and they should be reading here!
In the background I am nudging a few, who perhaps FRA will take more seriously than me, but judging by the new and ridiculous clause 4 , amended by someone who does not apparently take seriously the need for legal precision, I doubt it somehow.
The biggest thing FRA could do for RO is to present the evidence document of UKA to them all - to show how every discrepancy however inevitable will be presented as failures of duty ( ie incompetence/ negligence)
Perhaps that would kick them into acting on this and taking an interest in what some of the words actually mean, instead of blindly walking the plank, and assuming the "Big man knows what is best for them".
I actually have sympathy for FRA committee that their should have been a far more serious interest in the rule changes than was shown by apparently only 20 responses - part of that perhaps is whether they mailshotted all concerned. I can say for a fact that Wynn did not know at the time alterations were invited, and she is clearly affected by all this. I also see the changes made as an unwise premature knee jerk reaction, where waiting would have been far better.
But sadly now they have mailshotted, they are ruling out the structural changes needed, and clearly stating they may only tweak...if at all.
This document is a chocolate fireguard for RO, and few seem to care.
I do not organise races, but marshall sometimes. So whilst I can see gaping holes in legalese, and traps deliberately laid for unwary. I am not the right one to take account of all race organisers problems: but the ones I can see that have been ignored by this document are bad enough.
Why does nobody care that the rules are defined in such a way that wynns race is no longer compliant? Beats me. Surely that is the first thing you do with a set of rules: how will this affect current races?
I have been sent this, sounds better to me, partic rule 4
what do others think?
talk after the OMM
http://www.anniversarywaltz.co.uk/newrules.pdf
Wxx
Just a tiny correction; the rules have not been altered, it's Section 4 of the Safety Requirements (Course Design) that has been re-written.Quote:
Originally Posted by wynn
I should stress, this is only a suggestion but it is under consideration within the committee.
Al, you need to get out for a run or something, you can come back to my place for a shower !
Hi Margaret,Quote:
Originally Posted by MargC
I think the point being made is that there is a difference between a limited company as loosely quoted in this thread, and a company limited by guarantee, in the case of the FRA of its members. As previously posted, I am a committee member of another company limited by guarantee. Just as in that organisation, ALL of us constitute the FRA, and the focus of the committee is on serving its members. The particular section of the Companies Act doesn't offer any other objective, e.g. profits must be retained and cannot be distributed. There have been some suggestions that the committee turned the FRA into a company limited by guarantee for their own personal protection to the exclusion of other members, which I consider unjustifiable given the above.
The main improvement is that a committee member can enter into a commercial contract on behalf of the company as an official rather than a personally liable individual. This is entirely separate to any laws regarding criminal negligence, or civil claims for damages. The insurance policy, which covers my activities is very clear; if I am found to have broken the law, I am on my own i.e. personally liable just as before. Equally I cannot put the members of the company at a disadvantage; in this context, expose RO to the law as a result of my actions. I would also suggest that any rules/requirements would be inadmissible in a criminal prosecution; it would be judged against statute. A civil claim is a different matter.
In my experience this formal arrangement under the Companies Act 2006 is far better than what went before; it focusses the decision making. The constant theme of my management committee meetings is, are we doing the best by our members as defined by the Articles of Association, are we acting within what the law requires of us? The current processes regarding the change in FRA rules and requirements seem to include all the expected steps; consultation, professional advice and so on. Add in the Cumbria Coroners legal obligations and the necessary FRA response, and it is a complex mix.
I think it's completely fair that the FRA are asking for people to email in - it's a way of formally documenting comments and concerns in one concise piece of prose, rather that spread out over many posts on a forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
It's hard to keep track of what is and isn't being suggested on here, and I don't think it's unreasonable that committee members don't check it. Even if they did, there would be the question of who's points they take as "official comments" and who's they don't - they can't possibly act upon every single opinion someone has expressed here over the past few weeks.
The easiest and clearest way to alleviate this problem is getting people to email in, and if you are not willing to do so, then please let me know so that I can email them myself, as I think the concerns you have raised definitely need addressing!
Yes, but don't forget that in the case of a fell-race accident statute is extremely unlikely to apply unless a Coroner returned a verdict of manslaughter or similar. It would almost certainly be a matter of a civil claim for negligence, in which the rules laid down by the FRA would certainly be taken into account, in fact would probably form the main basis of any litigation lawyer's arguments!Quote:
Originally Posted by FellJunior
While your points might be clear on this thread, it would take a long time for an FRA committee member to read through your various posts to then reach a consensus statement that accurately reflects your view. If they're not regular visitors, you could understand why they wouldn't want to read 95 pages to understand your view. These people have jobs and lives too.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I would seem like a missed opportunity for you not to summarise your views in one email and send it to the FRA. You are one of the most vocal on this thread, and clearly have a lot to share.
With respect,Quote:
Originally Posted by FellJunior
IMHO As far as I am aware. There is no distinction , other than the type of limit, and financial management and reporting issues.
And as an (ex) director or advisor of quite a few companies, and still a shareholder in some, I have a copy of companies acts sat full time on my desk! So unless something has changed in recent times, Companies limited by guarantee have the same limitation as those by share. Provided directors act properly and lawfully , which can sometimes break the veil of limitation, the company is a separate legal entity .
So If I want to pursue a gripe with FRA, it is against "FRA Ltd" as a separate entity.
I can no longer act jointly or severally against the managers, I can only do so against the company. So in regard to civil torts and claims the company protects to the limit.
The rules are created and distributed by FRA Ltd.
Criminal claims on the other hand can act against people or companies, depending.
I cannot speak for the detail motive, other than I copied the minute verbatim which speaks of need to protect against "liabilities", and rightly so. Since prudent financial management (not spending or committing more than the anticipated revenue) is not rocket science for a subscription business, you have to think that the essential liabilities considered included the "risks" of conducting the business of FRA. Many sports associations have ended up doing that under legal advice because of our wonderful claims mad culture, and I suspect FRA would have been advised to do the same.
What annoys me most is that the lawyers will tell you to a man to do it because things are "going that way" when the reality is those very solicitors and their profession are the ones actually "driving it that way"!
I ENTIRELY support the decision of FRA to go that way.
There is a risk.
So IMHO Grump got it wrong in trying to draw that distinction on company types. If someone can point me to part of last decade companies acts that remove part of the limitation of those limited by guarantee, I would be grateful. I have not heard of such a thing.
Hardly a big issue.
I have addressed a single point, via "official channels" and also talked to others who I think have done similar. We shall see.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
The document that Wynn has copied on here looks much better to me - it appears to accept that mistakes can occur and uses words such as 'so far as reasonably practical'. That goes along way to addressing the concerns I had which centred primarily around some of the stated requirements not being achievable on some occasions. The original version seemed to me to include some instructions that were impossible to obey but for which ROs would be blamed when they couldn't comply regardless. The new version seems to provide a degree of flexibility for ROs who make conscientious and reasonable efforts to do it right. I'm a lot happier because I was genuinely worried that some of our classic and best races might suffer - either by ROs understandably no longer being willing to put themselves forward or by being drastically altered to avoid 'hazards' or checkpoints where there are no communications.
Thanks to all concerned on the committee for their ongoing efforts. I realise this is still a draft but it does look as though some notice is being taken of comments made.
And the cantankerous side of me can live with the recommendation not to run round a cancelled race route for the sake of the sport. The instruction that we must not really raised my hackles and would have had me setting off immediately. Now I've been asked politely I'll go off and run somewhere else instead quite happily.
OK, that's good to know. It would be a shame if this whole debate was moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
Thank fellhound for that, and I entirely agree with his general treatment of "courses" which is the way modern safety is in essence tackled. But beware the status - this only has status "suggested via the official route" it is not in any sense accepted by anyone - we shall have to wait for the "official reaction"
(it is a long time now since HASWA 74 replaced the prescriptive factory acts (equivalent of "courses MUST or MUST NOT", must be 2 marshalls etc) , with legislation eg 1992 six pack that detailed instead the range of issues that an employer must consider in his management of safety, assessment, highlighting hazards, supervision and so on...)
I think it worth clarifying a few points.
There are 2 aspects to changing the FRA Safety Requirements. 1) the underlying substance of whatever you want and 2) the words to describe that to go into the document. There is probably not much point in doing 2) if the sub-group do not accept the need for 1). A lot of what has already been written on this forum has been read, discussed and rejected. Therefore, no amount of re-drafting will make any difference.
We've already said that the timing of this is not good. A draft similar to the current format has been around since July. We are not changing the deadline for Race Organisers to submit their races to the fixtures secretary. If this means that we lose a few * races for 2014, then that will be a shame, but we will continue. This is to be fair to the rest of the Race Organisers and to our members. (* When I say a few, I know of 5, so there will still be a lot left to choose from.)
Wynn's document has a number of rather sensible alterations / rewordings. I hope she has emailed it to Graham to include in the discussions.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
AI, however has decided that he can't be bothered to do this, although he can be bothered to keep writing scaremongering posts on this thread. I think it IS time to "put up or shut up" as someone else said.
Lecky - had you been reading detail you would know, thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
(a) the document wynn suggested was drafted by fellhound, and has been submitted by him, carrying my support for how for example , courses are treated.In the background I am speaking to others too.
(b) I have stated I submitted one similar issue for consideration, explaing why it is important to do. Whether it proves worthwhile to do more remains to be seen.
(c) People who are qualified to judge , confirm what I say is anything but scaremongering. Have you even considered the jeapoardy faced by wynn if someone dies on a route section judged non compliant because of poor wording , so UKA and / or insurers cut her loose? The cost of protracted defence could destroy her, let alone a successful claim.The emotional trauma is probably worse.
Mark, thanks, it's nice to get some positive feedback on the suggestions. I hope at least some of the document gets a favourable response from the "official channels". Obviously, I think it's an improvement and addresses many of the points Alwaysinjured has been (rightly, I think) banging on about on here for some time now. If a redraft, more friendly to race organisers, is eventually adopted all ROs (whether interested in this or not) will have a lot to thank AI for!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
Which "people"? What are their names and qualifications to judge? Or yours, for that matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Still haven't seen your re-written proposal.
That might become apparent in due course, I am not at liberty to divulge a number of the people I am speaking to. My identity is not nor has ever been a secret, if it is, it is very badly kept, since almost everyone knows! Mike Bate. shhh. don't tell anyone else, now the whole world knows as well. Few have met me in recent times, the clue is in my user name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
You know that the concerns are not scaremongering, from some willing to post here.
As a fellow safety qualified/ experienced person fellhound shares a lot of my concerns, and such as Witton Park mentioned informal legal advice that confirms the documents as they stand are a problem.
When the documents as they are make it non obvious whether wynns race complies, so you have to ask what they meant (rather than what they said) - it says it all.
I have done what I committed to fellhound has sent a complete draft which has some of the worse problems tackled , and in sections such as 4 I agree with his apporach. I have referred one issue per official channels, not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement.
Madeleines sweeping statement says it all: that most of the concerns expressed on the thread, will be ignored in the rules, so what precisely is the point of spending time drafting an entire document
"mark 2" Needs to be structured differently , because what is there at present is a mish mash of different objectives, purposes, and audiences, which serves none of the purposes well.
That is not the present committees fault, the origin is way wayolder than that, but it clearly has to be sorted, now we have it confirmed it will be used by hostile expert witness.
And in any event , having looked in my crystal ball, I wager whatever you like that one or more rules will form part of the coroners concerns, which demonstrates the point. These documents cannot be fudged. They are not innoccuous. They must be free from ambiguity (and more importantly - not be impossible to do)
Having drafted so many legal agreements and safety documents in my time, I know how slow it is and long it takes, to ensure clarity, and removal of ambiguity or hidden meanings. I am reluctant to invest a painful week that way, which I know will be wasted per Madeleine's comment. So fellhounds manful attempt to "get some of the worst bits out" in the present form approach is more likely to happen, but even then low chance judging by Madeleines comment.
It is so much quicker to make a pigs breakfast, that nobody knows what it means till they ask! It is also an unexploded bomb, for the next unfortunate RO: a disaster looking for somewhere to happen, and an RO for it to happen to...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madeleine
Madeleine. That is an unhelpful statement. How is anyone supposed to know what are "acceptable" areas to consider changes from those that are not? You have failed to respond to a single concern on the forum, so those suggesting changes are blind to what might be changed and might not be.
I have also tried to commence off forum dialogue a couple of times, but not even an acknowledgement so far, so communication should be done how?
I would rather the following was off forum but heh!
Your first statement is wrong. The first objective of any wording is that it has to have clear meaning. Until anyone knows what it means, you cannot judge whether it means what you want it to say.
It is patently absurd, that still have to ask for an unequivocal response to whether you are trying to say that langdale and anniversary waltz are outlawed (which is how it reads)
So are they or not?
I also think that in a number of recent exchanges all of you have failed to consider "conflict of interests". FRA is now a separate entity, that by law needs separate legal advice and representation so a recent memo from the secretary is seemingly B/S
Even if the lawyers from UKA wanted to express an opinion for and behalf of FRA, they are probably barred by professional misconduct from advising FRA now it is Ltd, because of that conflict of interests to a separate entity which clearly have interactions, unless the advice comes from a separate person, with a properly implemented chinese wall as in a larger law firm. They are advising UKA whose interests are not the same as FRA and certainly not the same as an RO.
So to hint that UKA lawyers are somehow looking after RO interests " we have checked with UKA lawyers" when their evidence tried to make one sound incompetent, is somewhat far fetched.
You need to understand the first rule of taking advice.
(painful experience here....I have books on lawyers - cheque books!)
Which is the only advice worth anything is a written opinion based on written terms of reference.
THIS IS HOW YOU TAKE ADVICE...
eg
"Dear Lawyer,
Please advise on behalf of Race organiser.
( ie any lawyer except UKA, or any advising FRA)
1/ Please confirm whether a non compliant course (eg includes rockclimbing) when the compliance demands no climbing, may possibly invalidate the insurance per clause X which says "any deliberate act" etc etc if a competitor dies on said rock climbing.
2/ Please indicate what civil and or criminal repurcussions such an event might have, if the course is non compliant.
£/ Please confirm whether you consider that is still true, even if said climbing is of relatively easy grade and on a walkers route?
4/ Do you consider section 4 as written does outlaw rockclimbing as an obvious hazard if a valid (albeit longer or even much longer route) is available for runners. ie does the word "unnecessary" have legal effect in this case
Lots more where they came from..
Not "take a squiz at these rules, are they OK for RO" - UKA lawyer says "sure" meaning (a) they are no problem for his client UKA since they are several steps removed, and (b) knowing no record exists of the conversation, it really does not matter anyway, so he could say anything.
etc etc etc
I will only trust advice if it is in a letter backed by professional indemnity.
AI there is an email address and deadline on the main page of the website. That would be the place to comment and I'm sure your comments will be acknowledged and considered. Mine were the first time round of the consultation.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
If I was you I would put my views across in an email.
Cheers
Cheers FellhoundQuote:
Originally Posted by Fellhound
I dont think any of this is 'scaremongering' as has been suggested by some - if I understand Madeleines post correctly we have 'lost' 5 races. Hopefully this just means lost as in 'wont be in the calender' but still going ahead, but I can understand ROs concerns and anything which accepts the reality that they are liable to make mistakes even with their best endeavours is welcome. .
2 questions
1) What has happened with respect to compensation etc in the recent cases of deaths in races (thinking London marathon, and the Cavalls de Vent)?
2) How dangerous does a section have to be before its non compliant? Quite a few races have at least a small section where a trip and fall would probably mean death. However this is probably no worse than driving on a motorway for risk.
I can't think of a fell race with "unnecessarily hazardous or dangerous sections" so what's all the fuss about, must be that the organisers of the 5 " lost " races believe their races have
Don't know who you are Norman hiding behind your made up name.
A few years ago the British Athletics federation was closed down as a result of the Diane Modahl court case. Diane was merely fighting an injustice and the BAF decided to take her on and in the end, both got financially wiped out and the lawyers walked away laughing all the way to the bank.
The point - the unexpected can happen and the structure now in place has more protections to avoid a similar fate in the future.
The FRA has clearly seen things in a different light by incorporating itself and now the review of the safety rules.
Where they incompetent before? No of course not. They are just responding to a significant and serious event as anyone should.
The ROs are no different. Most fell races I attend outwardly seem fairly well organised and thoroughly enjoyable experiences and that is whether I attend as an athlete, parent, coach or spectator.
Some ROs are looking at what has happened and responding.
Some are responding to the new rules now, even though some of the points they are making were in the old rules, purely because this debate has brought it to their attention.
Something I wasn't aware of Norman, until today for example.
Did you know that you could turn up at a race in the FRA calendar and it might not be a permitted race?
I just found out.
I get the feeling there will be more races merely registered in 2014 for calendar purposes.
But hopefully the matters raised can be looked at, dealt with and a satisfactory outcome can be reached.
I can think of a few. I'm not going to name them, for fear of them being stopped for safety reasons. But I would happily do some of them again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Bates
"Unnecessarily" is a interesting word. How does that work? "It was necessary to go down that gulley, as otherwise the race would be a lot longer" Or "It was necessary to go that way as it's been run like that for 60 years and we don't want to lose touch with historical records"
Yes, that's what (R) means. Races, such as those in Wales are included in the calendar, but cannot be permitted by FRA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
I can think of quite a few where people could possibly regard some long established sections as that, especially where a 'safer' alternative exists. Like Noel and for the same reasons I'm not going to ID them on a public forum but a 'safer' alternative would be to stay at home, so you could argue from a standpoint of claiming every trip on to the fells is unnecessarily dangerous because you dont have to go there in the first place. I suppose its about getting a proportionate and reasonable balance (which I thought we had - descent to Mickledore banned in OCT, choice of route off Long Top in Langdale for example)with amendments being made by ROs if and when something did approach an 'unreasonable' level (Borrowdale start). But the more tightly the rules are framed the harder it will be for ROs to argue that their races comply and the more likely we are to lose races as a result. Saying there are plenty more to choose from is a bit like saying we used the mona lisa to start a fire but not to worry, there are plenty of other paintings to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Norman Bates
"Unnecessarily" is a ridiculous word for legal drafting, as I pointed out in a very long post.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
I used simple examples ,"reductio ad absurdum" , take the race that goes through a slippy therfeore hazardous river bed rather than over an adjacent bridge. "what if questions" prove that, so why is that word still there?
I lost all respect for athletics officialdom over the Modahl affair, who I met a couple of times in local athletic circles.They were bullied into acting by IAAF , and compromised integrity in the process of allowing themselves to be used. Whilst IAAF themselves ran to monaco to escape liability after the reynolds affair, then able to excercise authority, whilst carrying no responsibility.
FRA must not allow themselves to be compromised when faced with evidence from anyone including UKA. As it was it was left to the police witness to be the voice of reason, and I for one am determined that we must not let the documents give any more scope to be used for whipping an RO by anyone.
I actually think the risk to an RO is fairly low, but only if the documentation does not screw them first.
I did know that WP, seems I'm better informed than you !Quote:
Originally Posted by Witton Park
Like those Welsh classics The Yomp, Yetholm and Boars Head?Quote:
Originally Posted by dominion
Honestly I didn't know. I can understand a Scots, Welsh or Northern Irish race being included, providing it has been permitted by the Home Nation but I'm amazed to find out that non FRA English races can be listed.
It is an artificially created problem by trying to proscribe rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark G
The RO should describe and play up the hazards, the rules should say little. If FRA do not like the route they do not need to permit, and an RO is free to ban a route choice as often done with broad stand, and s did ydt on part of arrenig fawr.
If the rules say anything at all - a form of words like "should not contain substantially more severe hazards than encountered on normal walkers routes" would be better, clearly alliwing bad step, and outlawing broad stand. Anni waltz is on walkers routes and so are the most dangerous parts of langdale.
We should not create rods for an ROs back.