Safety Matters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

LJ - you've confused me with your participation in this debate. I haven't really known which side of the debate you are on.
So your use of "completely" would perhaps be better replaced with "partially".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OB1

Aye, me too (you've confused me too, ever so slightly).
Again, I started to elaborate, then just deleted several paragraphs as its probably been said already on here before.

---

1. I'm not on either side.
2. We don't need a rift.
3. If you want to improve the way hundreds of ROs do the job then the FRA is the best way to go about it.
4. The important points have been heard by the people who need to know.
5. All that's left is a pointless personal vendetta.
6. The committee took a very circuitous journey to reach a position very similar to AI's.
7. Along the way they upset a few people and caused many more to lose confidence in them.
8. This does not mean the outcome is dangerous or completely misguided.
9. As they have said, a further, less hurried review is already underway.
10. If the outcome is still not good enough then a future committee will look at it again.
11. But if you side against the current committee you will lose.

We now realise that AI's reappearance was due to a strange interpretation of the £15 leggings discussion. I do not believe anyone was suggesting that these would protect you from hypothermia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

[*]But if you side against the current committee you will lose.[/LIST]

---

It shouldn't be about winning and losing, but interesting terminology and incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

1. I'm not on either side.
2. We don't need a rift.
3. If you want to improve the way hundreds of ROs do the job then the FRA is the best way to go about it.
4. The important points have been heard by the people who need to know.
5. All that's left is a pointless personal vendetta.
6. The committee took a very circuitous journey to reach a point very similar to AI's.
7. Along the way they upset a few people and caused many more to lose confidence in them.
8. This does not mean the outcome is dangerous or completely misguided.
9. As they have said, a further, less hurried review is already underway.
10. If the outcome is still not satisfactory then a future committee will look at it again.
11. But if you side against the current committee you will lose.

We now realise that AI's reappearance was due to a strange interpretation of the £15 leggings discussion. I do not believe anyone was suggesting that these would protect you from hypothermia.

---

Which are the important points Lauren?
Bet my list would be different from yours and the committees!

It has taken so much emotional energy just to get the woods considered, that so far we have not even got to discuss the trees that make up the woods - some of which are very important points. Take the need for emergency planning, as part of any event plan - what needs considering in that context?

There is still no suitably tasked and qualified permanent safety officer on committee. So that "point" has not been addressed at all.

Wheeze and I were having a discussion on sat phones for his race. Yet it is clear that nobody in FRA can contribute much about them, (except disinformation from one commitee member) which they should have researched and be actively investigating as part of the watching brief of any safety officer- and they should also have trialled them to provide the anwsers to any who ask.

Communication technology was a clear problem at the last incident, yet obvious alternatives are not being tried. How is that a personal "vendetta" rather than a need for FRA to take safety seriously now?

If those in charge of Fra safety do not do things like evaluate technology instinctively, they have the wrong mindset for the job and they need to give way to people who do that/ are trained to do that.

The job is not being done. By anyone.

And as for "strange interpretation of leggings" - you are wrong. Read the context of why I think what I do.

There is a lot you never see Lauren. Like the documents I took the trouble to write many months ago, but our secretary decided "should be ignored, because I should not have access to committee" - he even took the trouble to copy me in on an email saying just that. Go on. Ask him, if you do not believe me. So I never got a response on them. How pathetic is that? They may have been utter codswallop (but were not)- they still deserved the time to read and understand them to determine whether anything of value was there, and some kind of response.

That is why I vent frustrations here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

I will return to my self imposed exile.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Oh no you won't.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

Noel I have long since given up expecting other than the nitpicking above...

---

3 minutes! :)

But seriously AI, if you re-read my post you'll see it was more focused on your style than the points you are making. I do understand your points on AW - that makes sense to me.

To your style: You clearly want an argument and people are giving you one.

I share some of your concerns but am exasperated that you are polarising the debate by your constant attacks on those you should be talking to. For example in your last post

Quote:

---

you will not find a competent safety advisor who will disagree with most of what I have said

---

implies anyone who disagrees with you is incompetent.

Think about what you are trying to achieve here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

3 minutes! :)

But seriously AI, if you re-read my post you'll see it was more focused on your style than the points you are making. I do understand your points on AW - that makes sense to me.

To your style: You clearly want an argument and people are giving you one.

I share some of your concerns but am exasperated that you are polarising the debate by your constant attacks on those you should be talking to. For example in your last post implies anyone who disagrees with you is incompetent.

Think about what you are trying to achieve here.

---

Actually no Noel. I don't want an argument.

For months I tried to get sense to prevail by reasoned argument (and documents never made public). That is why I write long posts. To argue the case for doing what I think is needed. (or needs to be avoided)
Does not work with these guys.

Now I just highlight B/S -

Take Lauren's assertion that "points are being adressed" Not so.
Or that mandating leggings is all you have to do to get runners to equip properly. Not so.
Or that it is sensible to promote marshalls roles as critical to safety. Really bad on so many fronts.
Or that FRA should be able to tell us as prospective RO more about satphones than we can tell them. Not so.
Or the refusal of Fellrunner editor to accept articles on safety because he worries about how it will be percieved as partisan!. Really REALLY bad.
Or that a prerequisite for writing documents is knowing what legal and safety words mean...That seems to have escaped us too..

In the hope that there will be less B/S and more proper action.

I have long since given up hope of being asked to present what I actually think to the people who have to decide on it all. So lauren has no idea what my "main points" are, I have never been given a chance to list them in any proper context. We don't seem to be able to get past a few of the basics - so what is the point in talking detail but no less critical points?

So what am I trying to achieve? Just awareness.

And I am off...got to be somewhere else.

Without wishing to muddy waters further and certainly not wanting to increase the word count!! anyone interested please look at url steambunnybluff.co.uk. The site is not officially live yet but summarises my approach to all this.


There are only 4 RULES. There is no kit or other 'requirements'. Marshals will man pre-publicised low level retirement points, not freeze their nuts off, isolated from contact with HQ on barren hilltops.....we just have to decide on VHF or Sat for comms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

I have never been given a chance to list them in any proper context.

---

I'm intrigued by this assertion.

A few people have repeatedly asked you to provide your list and you have written over 100,000 words on the subject. Haven't you also attended a committee meeting to put across your points? What do you want - an evening with AI?

It sound to me like you'd rather criticise than provide leadership. If that's not the case, then I suggest you take a day off writing 5000 words a day on the forum and spend a few days putting down your proposals. It's easy to throw stones, it's much harder to lead.

Call it your manifesto, or an open letter, or whatever you want. But until you do this, your arguments will be perceived as sniping from the sidelines. And it doesn't have to be a finalised set of new guidelines, it can be a process toward that goal.

If you do this (and it's not just a list of criticisms) I promise to read it in full even if it is 10 pages long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LissaJous

1. But if you side against the current committee you will lose.

.

---

WOW! That's certainly drawing the battle lines isn't it. As has been said above I didn't realise it was a 'win/lose' situation although I more on AI's "side" than the committee I thought it was all about the best result for the sport

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard123

WOW! That's certainly drawing the battle lines isn't it. As has been said above I didn't realise it was a 'win/lose' situation although I more on AI's "side" than the committee I thought it was all about the best result for the sport

---

I think I'm in the same position as you Richard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

Take Lauren's assertion that "points are being adressed"

---

Please don't make up things I did not say.

I said your points have been heard, by current and future committee members. I did not say they are being addressed.