Resignation fromCommittee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellhound

In the case of the Coroner's letter only I and Pete Bland actively opposed it and refused to agree. After a breath-taking browbeating session, I agreed to work with Graham Breeze and Jon Broxap to re-word the final paragraph only. This resulted in changes which Graham now seems keen to take credit for, though they were driven by me, and I reluctantly agreed for the letter to be sent.

---

Andy,

It is true that although 17 of the 19 members present supported the proposed response the Chair sought unanimity and it was agreed to rework the final paragraph to achieve your support and this is minuted.

However outside the meeting you then attempted to rework several other paragraphs in the main body of the letter, which the Committee had not agreed should be revisited.

In fact Jon Broxap and I did agree to further changes to two sections in the body of the letter and the full revised letter was resubmitted to gain unanimous approval of the Committee before submission to the Coroner. This was achieved. You indicated your support "in the interests of harmony within the Committee" in an email dated 11th December 2013.

The facts of the drafts and Jon Broxap will verify my account.

Graham.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toreador

I was just going by what Graham Breeze said. I'm not sure why he'd lie about it.

---

Neither am I so what were the words I actually used?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

Neither am I so what were the words I actually used?

---

"But there is not a single assertion that has been made on this Forum or facebook that cannot be truthfully and completely answered by the Committee. But there are only 22 of us and 7500 members and Officers do have other things to do in the interests of the membership and if the Committee starts responding to every point on here it will need to grow to 23 people by employing a full time media officer."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

Andy,

It is true that although 17 of the 19 members present supported the proposed response the Chair sought unanimity and it was agreed to rework the final paragraph to achieve your support and this is minuted.

However outside the meeting you then attempted to rework several other paragraphs in the main body of the letter, which the Committee had not agreed should be revisited.

In fact Jon Broxap and I did agree to further changes to two sections in the body of the letter and the full revised letter was resubmitted to gain unanimous approval of the Committee before submission to the Coroner. This was achieved. You indicated your support "in the interests of harmony within the Committee" in an email dated 11th December 2013.

The facts of the drafts and Jon Broxap will verify my account.

Graham.

---

Without meaning to stir it up, just noting a fact, the one who disagreed in principle, (agreed not to disagree in practise, as per saying "interests of harmony") was the one qualified to comment on safety matters, on a subject to do with safety.

It is a known problem on technical decisions. What do you do if the best qualified and/or experienced people don't agree? Without raising ghosts, nobody can dispute now that there were substantial issues wrong in the July rules as unanimously approved, so it clearly questions the validity of unanimous approval.

I can only hope that seeds I am sowing elsewhere on "what might be" instead, eventually percolate back into FRA, but whatever the outcome of that, the rules+ statements to coroner has created an expectation that will now be hard to alter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toreador

"But there is not a single assertion that has been made on this Forum or facebook that cannot be truthfully and completely answered by the Committee. But there are only 22 of us and 7500 members and Officers do have other things to do in the interests of the membership and if the Committee starts responding to every point on here it will need to grow to 23 people by employing a full time media officer."

---

That's OK. I stand by that. I am often misquoted on here, though oddly only by those who wish to distort my views to their own advantage.


Graham.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

That's OK. I stand by that. I am often misquoted on here, though oddly only by those who wish to distort my views to their own advantage.
Graham.

---

So you agree that a committee too busy to answer these points once on here is likely to be too busy to answer them several times by phone? Which is all I was trying to day!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

That's OK. I stand by that. I am often misquoted on here, though oddly only by those who wish to distort my views to their own advantage.


Graham.

---

Even you would struggle to deny basic facts.Having prevented a consensus being minuted on the grounds there was not vote, madders would not allow a vote on andys motion presented well before the meeting. Whats the point in arguing it.

Do we really have to put undignified emails in public domain to prove it? And that's part of the chain of events that made him resign, culminating in the statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

It is also a convenient misrepresentation. The executive try to deflect this as a criticism of committee in general whereas, The criticism has been directed at a few members of the executive, and certainly less inflammatory and rude than public statements made by them in multiple forum accounts. Would "george" for example like to identify themselves, directly criticising Andy or hide away in shame - it can only be one of three people, and I can have a shrewd guess at which!

The criticism of committee if there is one, is by now they must clearly accept that the july rules for example should not have been approved. There were a lot of basic problems. So clearly it questions the committee dynamic or the due diligence done by each member by which that document was approved, and it certainly question the lack of proactive consultation with such as Wynn, so clearly something is not right. Self reflection needed. Andy is the only one that I have seen "hold his hands up" for that ,saying he should have looked under the hood! for which I respect him enormously, others should do the same.

Secondly, Andy clearly wanted a motion voted. It is his basic right to do that if he wants it so. They should have supported his right to a hearing, not necessarily his position, against the attempts to prevent it. If they did not want it, fine, allow the vote and vote it down!.

He also won a "consensus" at a meeting in preston in as far as anyone (including the secretary) can tell which was removed from minutes. There is no justifiable reason for sitting on sidelines allowing either vote to be supressed.

When the first one in preston was discounted because it is was argued no "formal show of hands" was made (nowhere mandated in the constitution for committee) , Andy did the right thing. He then and as a consequence proposed a written motion instead then for a proper vote, to avoid the uncertainty, that was then refused a hearing or a vote! Committee should have acted to allow proper process even if voting against. For that the whole committee are guilty of standing by and letting it happen.

As far as I am aware , no actual show of hands was done on approval of the letter to coroner, nor can there have been, since some wording was not discussed till after, as far as I am aware from Andy no show of hands took place, and I doubt if a written motion was passed. Yet that is presented as UNANIMOUS! when an actual consensus at Preston meeting was ignored because the chair didnt like it! Committee - these things have to stop!

Thirdly the ad hominem attacks and misleading statements in multiple accounts on this forum by several committee are clearly not right. The rest of committee are guilty by association unless they act to prevent that, resulting in moderators resigning now.

So committee have some soul searching. Brett should not have to put up with a load of **** which is not right and not of his making, and that needs directing at those at the helm doing such things.

---

I have just received a PM thanking the Committee for all our hard work saying :

It must be galling to face trial by forum whilst making our beloved sport safer. I appreciate all you are doing.

The writer used a pseudonym but, as I have often observed, the only time people complain about pseudonyms is when they don’t like what has been posted. Otherwise they appear to be OK and part of the fun of the forum.
~~~
The committee has been criticised because it doesn’t generally address posts on here and to illustrate why I choose just one post from AI to respond to.

The “July rules”: date back to… last July, and as you note Andy Walmsley accepted them without dissent. They preceded the Inquest by 3 months so could never have been the final version which was not agreed until after the Coroner’s letter was received (in late October) and just before the Calendar went to the printers at the end of November so it could be sent out before Christmas.

Consultation: the notice about the review was placed on the FRA website. Clearly some RO saw it because they sent in their comments as did others during the second round of consultation.

The Motion: in my 12 years on the Committee I do not recall a single “motion”. It may be how other committees work (although I think you have said you cannot work with committees?) but it is not how the FRA has chosen to work despite its frequently changing membership. I suggest the 22 people on the committee should be allowed to decide how they wish to work between themselves rather than be told by one member or even a non-member.

The Preston meeting: you assert matter was “removed from the minutes”. The minutes for that meeting were unanimously approved by the committee at the following meeting in Kendal at which Andy Walmsley was present. He did not register his dissent.

Letter to Coroner: I have addressed this elsewhere. With 17 out of 19 members in support the letter could have been legitimately sent that day but instead the Chair and the committee went a long way to achieve unanimity by gaining Andy’s approval.

And so on.

The above are short responses. They are not qualified or convoluted with subordinate phrases but I believe them to be true. I was present at the meetings referred to. You were not. Fortunately all I have said can be proven by documentary evidence.

Now what?

Will you say “OK Graham I accept your points?”

Or will we see you break your declared silence yet again with another opus to which I am expected to reply...and on and on?

Life is short and then we die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

I have just received a PM thanking the Committee for all our hard work

---

Khamsin I bet :D

http://forum.fellrunner.org.uk/showt...y-rules/page44
Post 433 3/10 by GB

The new 2014 Safety Requirements (version dated 1st September 2013) were approved nemine contradicente by the full FRA Committee on 1st September 2013.

They have been circulated to all other 6 fell running bodies (ie SHR, WFRA, BOFRA, NIMRA,...)- all of whom were invited to comment on earlier drafts-, UKA and they were issued to the Coroner at the Inquest touching the death of Brian Belfield.

It's done.

RO will have to implement them for 2014 to gain FRA Registration (and thereby race insurance).

The FRA Committee is planning workshops from next month to explain those areas that require interpretation, share best practice, etc.


then after a variety of points had been made, mainly of the Forum.

http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/
22/10/13 - Statement by FRA

2014 FRA Safety Requirements For Fell Races
Tue 22nd Oct, 2013

A draft dated 1st September was issued to race organisers

You seem to have gotten a little confused when you say "They preceded the Inquest by 3 months so could never have been the final version"

Fact - it was out out that the September version was final. "DONE".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Khamsin I bet :D

---

....:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graham Breeze

I have just received a PM thanking the Committee for all our hard work saying :

It must be galling to face trial by forum whilst making our beloved sport safer. I appreciate all you are doing.

The writer used a pseudonym but, as I have often observed, the only time people complain about pseudonyms is when they don’t like what has been posted. Otherwise they appear to be OK and part of the fun of the forum.
~~~
The committee has been criticised because it doesn’t generally address posts on here and to illustrate why I choose just one post from AI to respond to.

The “July rules”: date back to… last July, and as you note Andy Walmsley accepted them without dissent. They preceded the Inquest by 3 months so could never have been the final version which was not agreed until after the Coroner’s letter was received (in late October) and just before the Calendar went to the printers at the end of November so it could be sent out before Christmas.

Consultation: the notice about the review was placed on the FRA website. Clearly some RO saw it because they sent in their comments as did others during the second round of consultation.

The Motion: in my 12 years on the Committee I do not recall a single “motion”. It may be how other committees work (although I think you have said you cannot work with committees?) but it is not how the FRA has chosen to work despite its frequently changing membership. I suggest the 22 people on the committee should be allowed to decide how they wish to work between themselves rather than be told by one member or even a non-member.

The Preston meeting: you assert matter was “removed from the minutes”. The minutes for that meeting were unanimously approved by the committee at the following meeting in Kendal at which Andy Walmsley was present. He did not register his dissent.

Letter to Coroner: I have addressed this elsewhere. With 17 out of 19 members in support the letter could have been legitimately sent that day but instead the Chair and the committee went a long way to achieve unanimity by gaining Andy’s approval.

And so on.

The above are short responses. They are not qualified or convoluted with subordinate phrases but I believe them to be true. I was present at the meetings referred to. You were not. Fortunately all I have said can be proven by documentary evidence.

Now what?

Will you say “OK Graham I accept your points?”

Or will we see you break your declared silence yet again with another opus to which I am expected to reply...and on and on?

Life is short and then we die.

---

Wynn did not see them , I alerted her to them, demonstrating a serious problem.
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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Welsh Harrier

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 wynn

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.

---

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 Madeleine

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.

---

Not sure how you come to that conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madeleine

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.

---

Madeleine, With this, I give up with the ping pong.
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wynn

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.

---

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?

I think these are fair statements, but I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madeleine

And that was under safety requirements which were not as protective of race organisers as the current set.

---

Rather than just coming out with a statement that you assert as fact, it would be good if you could expand and outline how you come to this conclusion Madeleine.

The current RO Pack has expanded extensively. I did a count of how much for my meeting a few weeks ago, but it was accepted then that many pages have been added.

What you have made me do in order to permit with the FRA is actually do things that are not really needed for my venue and were intended for much more severe and exposed events / terrain.

I will do them, I have to. But it will not make my event safer.

Many ROs may be so focussed on meeting the longer list of musts and shoulds that they miss something more relevant to them.
So a previously good RO, and let's face it Fell Running has got lots of them, could be at risk because of the over complex requirements.
They are over complicated, keeping jumping from Competitor to RO.
They are in contradiction in part with some of the Guidelines which hasn't been revised (but I wouldn't be surprised to see a newer version knocked out soon as happened with the Check List)

I would liken it to the debate over drink driving.
The argument goes if the limit is dropped from 2 pints to 1 pint it will make a real impact on the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by drink drivers.

But the people creating the problem are not those drinking in moderation, they are the ones who go out and drink way over the limit. If they do that when the limit is 2 pints, then why would they change if the limit was 1 pint?

Of course the drivers operating within the law, will continue to do so and will follow the new lower limit as that is their nature.
But every now and again, someone will get caught out who's had 1.5 pints, or maybe even stuck to the one, but it took them slightly over.

So the new regime would be most likely to penalise those that had previously been within the law whilst having no effect on those that had always broken it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

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?

I think these are fair statements, but I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on this.

---

I'm sure you have seen the debates on Safety Kit where plenty of eloquent and experienced people come down on either side of the kit debate.
That would suggest that the change from windproof to waterproof is more symbolic than anything.
You can go and get a £20 waterproof which offers a little protection, or a £150 windproof which may offer more protection.
Runners are given a checklist of what they should carry and aim to tick off that list.
I usually have more than what I am asked to carry - I'm sure others do, but others, particularly the less experiences ones may just carry what is in the rules and think job done.
I ran at Duddon around 4-5 years ago. It was 25C, clear blue skies. June. With limited space in my bumbag would I be better off carrying a water bottle, some nuuns, factor 20 and an extra couple of gels than full body cover?
People were dropping out at Three Shires Stone affected by the heat. From there to the finish I don't remember seeing any water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Madeleine

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

---

Pete Bland has stated as many times as he can, you have given him a serious problem, Scoffer is not very happy either. "signing up" is inconsequential. Also is feigned unanimity.

Safety, quality, GMP, all of them think in similar fashion.

If something goes wrong or an output is flawed, you first correct the output itself, but then you also have a duty to review and study the process that created the problem to fix that too. So look at july rules and you see a clear problem. Sure something was done to amend the flaws , but then you have to look at the process.

How was it that a set of rules, clearly not fit for purpose, containing a lot of basic problems, and indeed objectively dangerous wording ever got created or accepted in the first place? To a safety or quality person, you would look at the mix and competence of people that created it, the nature and extent of proactive consultation to try to prevent a faulty output prior to approval, and consider how to approve the output in a wholly different manner. Since in the end the approval is the backstop.

It is really important. You cannot trust good practise, unless you can trust the process creating it. And we cannot.

Now Andy has gone, it is hard to see how you can address the process internally.

So at the time we wanted involvement and discussion, we were refused an audience:
We wanted to present an alternative solution before not after the solution was chosen!
We were trying to get sufficient change made for Wynn to sign up, introduce a new way of thinking, avert just the sort of response you gave to coroner, prevent the type of statement now put out, and make value of interactions with RO, rather than make the subject "compliance to rules". All those goals are past.

My requests for urgent conversation was to avert andy's resignation already on the cards. What would be the purpose now?

So I am not convinced of the value of showing up for a football match after the result is already declared: but I will still talk about the professional fouls, that achieved an improper outcome.

Now I see how Andy has been treated, and the outrageous importance given to disciplinary threats over any proper action, the lack of democratic means to allow for change, I really don't want to get involved on that basis: am busy doing similar things for other people who actually seem to want the output! so I can spend the time creating the solution not battering endlessly at getting the right to present the need for it.

Address the issue of mix and review process in that safety subcommittee, the potential to supercede the coroners letter, proper democracy within FRA and maybe we have scope to talk: since only in that way is meaningful change possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

Pete Bland has stated as many times as he can, you have given him a serious problem, Scoffer is not very happy either. "signing up" is inconsequential. Also is feigned unanimity.

Safety, quality, GMP, all of them think in similar fashion.

If something goes wrong or an output is flawed, you first correct the output itself, but then you also have a duty to review and study the process that created the problem to fix that too. So look at july rules and you see a clear problem. Sure something was done to amend the flaws , but then you have to look at the process.

How was it that a set of rules, clearly not fit for purpose, containing a lot of basic problems, and indeed objectively dangerous wording ever got created or accepted in the first place? To a safety or quality person, you would look at the mix and competence of people that created it, the nature and extent of proactive consultation to try to prevent a faulty output prior to approval, and consider how to approve the output in a wholly different manner. Since in the end the approval is the backstop.

It is really important. You cannot trust good practise, unless you can trust the process creating it. And we cannot.

Now Andy has gone, it is hard to see how you can address the process internally.

So at the time we wanted involvement and discussion, we were refused an audience:
We wanted to present an alternative solution before not after the solution was chosen!
We were trying to get sufficient change made for Wynn to sign up, introduce a new way of thinking, avert just the sort of response you gave to coroner, prevent the type of statement now put out, and make value of interactions with RO, rather than make the subject "compliance to rules". All those goals are past.

My requests for urgent conversation was to avert andy's resignation already on the cards. What would be the purpose now?

So I am not convinced of the value of showing up for a football match after the result is already declared: but I will still talk about the professional fouls, that achieved an improper outcome.

Now I see how Andy has been treated, and the outrageous importance given to disciplinary threats over any proper action, the lack of democratic means to allow for change, I really don't want to get involved on that basis: am busy doing similar things for other people who actually seem to want the output! so I can spend the time creating the solution not battering endlessly at getting the right to present the need for it.

Address the issue of mix and review process in that safety subcommittee, the potential to supercede the coroners letter, proper democracy within FRA and maybe we have scope to talk: since only in that way is meaningful change possible.

---

Is that 'yes, meeting up Mad is a good idea'?

Go on, why not pm her

It would be best DT.
Personally I think it has to be a wider group if any such meeting where to take place.

I would look to book somewhere like Marl Pits.

Invite a variety of ROs perhaps 10 - 20 and in the interests of getting a broad church there should be a range of views represented. So some for status quo, some for change and some fence-sitters.
Also representing different types of races.
All of the committee.
Others on application (as numbers have to be limited)
Allow Andy W and AI to make a presentation with an overview of what they want the FRA to consider and they could use Anniversary Waltz as an example race of how their system would be put together in practise.

Discuss.

Half a day. No kicking, scratching or gouging :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

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?

I think these are fair statements, but I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on this.

---

A lot of these issues already addressed Noel.
Making rules "tighter" does not make them in any way more effective, but it can give more legal exposure.
Runners have to choose their own kit, see my "safety words" thread, for why. (still a minimum enforced) That is what would make it safer.

It wasn't the rules that caused a problem, it was lack of controlled procedures.
Ask them to show you the evidence.

Good RO already have procedures that second check finish count, by a variety of means, and counting them through in a multitude of ways. If it already works why fix it? And depending on how they do that, changing rules just causes problems. It may sound small, but in Wynns case demanding all retirees report to the RO makes for a problem,..she has several races hands on managed by different people, so she is not the one to call. Big races have a team tasked with different processes. The key is making sure right hands know what left hands are doing so nothing falls down a crack, not forcing one person to do the lot.

And that means in essence quality control of a race plan.

Safety is not about what happens 99.99% of the time.
It is about managing the 0.01% often lost in poor communication or tasking, or not enough thinking about "what if"

By way of example..

Chances are if there is a fatality at a road crossing, it will not be because the RO did not think of signage for it, indeed he almost certainly already does, or even the absence of a rule saying it should be done (which is obvious to anyone with an IQ of a mothball or greater). It will be the lack of a clear written task for an identified person to do it, who has signed up to say they will, and the supervision to make sure they did. The RO will think someone is doing it because of a half remembered conversation, and a resulting misunderstanding, the road has ended up unsigned. That is why many accidents happen in practise. Mushy instructions and communications. Not the absence of rules.

Witton, we should have a whip-round and send Breezy, Mads and your pal out to Wetherspoons in Burnley with a couple of hundred quid and tell them they're not coming home 'til they've spent up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derby Tup

Is that 'yes, meeting up Mad is a good idea'?

Go on, why not pm her

---

I did. Several times.
Most recently to avoid the catastrophe with Andy.
She insisted on doing that stupid thing first.

So now I cannot be bothered, in reality because of the chemistry in the exec and that subcommittee is dysfunctional and unhealthy, so there is too little chance what I say would have any effect. All the big decisions we tried to avert are already history. Me and Andy tried.

I have also suggested going out for a run, or whatever, with both at various points, in those cases just blanked. Like most of what I have sent.

It takes two to tango, and this time, tango is not the answer.
I don't believe in showing up for a football game, when told to wait till after it has finished, before I am allowed to play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

It takes two to tango, and this time, tango is not the answer.
I don't believe in showing up for a football game, when told to wait till after it has finished.

---

So what is the answer? You asked for meetings and were apparently turned away. Don't fall into the trap of rejecting belated overtures purely on the basis that they are belated. You've been asking for committee members to reply publicly for ages - no some people have started doing just that, don't reject it because their replies are incomplete, or because you disagree with them. Maybe they want you to reject the idea - so call their bluff.

What is the alternative, other than a painful descent into a break-up of the FRA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derby Tup

Witton, we should have a whip-round and send Breezy, Mads and your pal out to Wetherspoons in Burnley with a couple of hundred quid and tell them they're not coming home 'til they've spent up

---

Maybe under threat of having to weasr Rovers shirts if they are non-compliant :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

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?

I think these are fair statements, but I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on this.

---

I think the answer to both of your questions is yes - a tragedy is less likely. But one is still possible regardless and the concern I have had has always been an expectation or implication that the RO must not allow one to happen by adhering to rules some of which might not be able to be complied with in some races.
I think the later versions reflect this better - obviously not everyone shares this view and this is clearly an important debate so I feel everyone with an interest should be contributing, its just a shame its got so personal. Not being a RO myself I am still concerned if the organisers of some classic races are still worried themselves. Anyone who doesn't think it matters have a look at Amblesides website re this years Langdale - I'm optimistic it will be OK but if it isn't what a disaster for fell running.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toreador

So what is the answer? You asked for meetings and were apparently turned away. Don't fall into the trap of rejecting belated overtures purely on the basis that they are belated. You've been asking for committee members to reply publicly for ages - no some people have started doing just that, don't reject it because their replies are incomplete, or because you disagree with them. Maybe they want you to reject the idea - so call their bluff.

What is the alternative, other than a painful descent into a break-up of the FRA?

---

Don't know the answer.

The biggest battle is already lost. My main intent from early doors was to get something Wynn could sign up to: a remit no bigger than that. I had no great designs on "changing our sport". It was as much bad diplomacy as bad rules, that that situation escalated out of control.

At the time that pow wow was going on, I emailed one of the big 3, indicating some unsatisfactory conversations, saying it was clear that someone needed to sooth troubled waters: and could that person see what could be brokered. It was then I discovered the major problem - I got the answer "refuse to discuss regarding any third party or with any third party" So it was already too "them and us" not a "we" that was needed to solve it.

So the horse has bolted from my point of view. Wynn and I are on a different track now, and there is so much bad blood I doubt she will be back, at least whilst those in control are still there. The sad thing is her "planning" that is the focus of what I think needs doing is already exemplary - yet nobody thought to talk to her before july rules etc were ever enforced.

I am trying to create what I preach for a different audience, and that might percolate back one day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toreador

So what is the answer? You asked for meetings and were apparently turned away. Don't fall into the trap of rejecting belated overtures purely on the basis that they are belated. You've been asking for committee members to reply publicly for ages - no some people have started doing just that, don't reject it because their replies are incomplete, or because you disagree with them. Maybe they want you to reject the idea - so call their bluff.

What is the alternative, other than a painful descent into a break-up of the FRA?

---

I'd certainly be for sitting down away from the hullabaloo. I'm "with the FRA" in terms of races but against them in terms of their approach to the ROs pack.
I'd welcome the opportunity to have a proper discussion.

I agree with AI that a meeting between 3-4 people is not the way.

The way to do it is to have a wider audience of ROs and committee so that both sides can see a critique that isn't perhaps as entrenched.
It might help all see things with a little more clarity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

I'd certainly be for sitting down away from the hullabaloo. I'm "with the FRA" in terms of races but against them in terms of their approach to the ROs pack.
I'd welcome the opportunity to have a proper discussion.

I agree with AI that a meeting between 3-4 people is not the way.

The way to do it is to have a wider audience of ROs and committee so that both sides can see a critique that isn't perhaps as entrenched.
It might help all see things with a little more clarity.

---

I would still do a presentation of what I think needs doing (and now could bring a few pieces of documents) but it has to be promoted to interested RO and committee as an audience, to make it worthwhile or have the right chemistry.

What an unedifying spectacle this thread is. Personally I think the committee should have stuck with the strategy of not responding to internet forum discussion. All it does is feed the ego of people with nothing better to do; and in the end it really is only about seven people.

I'm just pleased it is not about anything important. What we have will either stay or go, if it goes something else will happen- personally I really couldn't care less. Choices choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Henry Porter

personally I really couldn't care less

---

Then why are you here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

She insisted on doing that stupid thing first.

So now I cannot be bothered, in reality because of the chemistry in the exec and that subcommittee is dysfunctional and unhealthy, so there is too little chance what I say would have any effect.

---

Mike,

I usually read what you write, particularly about RO. But then I talk with and listen to RO (well over 100 in the last month or so) and I am re-assured by them that the FRA is doing it right.

So you post on here that Scoffer is not happy.

Madeleine and I were with Scoffer on Monday evening at the 7th RO workshop in Keswick. We talked a lot and joked about his other race (Steel Fell). He has no problems. In the room were the RO for Borrowdale, Sedbergh Hills, Fairfield, Langdale, and others.. none of those four are just jogs round a park. Mike Robinson was there. I had a long chat with Roger Bell about Langdale. Was he happy with everything Madeleine and I and Jon Broxap and Nick Harris had said that evening? Would Langdale be on etc etc?

Of course.

I see we have yet another "final statement" from you. Is this any more credible than the last one? Credibility is a precious factor. Easy to lose particularly, if, as you have done:

- tried to teach your grandmother (ie very experienced race organisers) to suck eggs
- never managed to make your points clearly, succinctly and just once or twice
- insulted the Chair of the organisation you hope to work with
- called the members of the FRA Committee "jelly fish"
- not been familiar with key documents you try and debate publicly with the man who wrote them
- disregarded, facts,dates,quotes
- believed your own propaganda
- adopted a "only my way has any merit" tactic
- tried to convince by insinuation and anecdote and implication
- shown a general disregard for truth particularly on matters that can be readily checked by others

Enough?

The people on the FRA Committee who are dealing with "safety-legal" issues etc will be taking further expert advice.That has never been in doubt, and amongst the 7500 FRA members there are people who have offered to work with the committee and with whom the committee will be happy to work.

Much of your ranting has been about the issues, but you appear never to have stopped and thought "am I presenting myself as a person whom the volunteers on the FRA committee will wish to give up their time to work with?" I presume by now you are in a position to answer that question.

You've paraded your experience a lot on here. Well I used to practise as a Charted Engineer and I held a very senior position in an international company and much of my career was spent in the "people business". Working with Managing Directors and how they interacted and so on. MDs would come to me and ask "How do I get my proposal accepted by the Board?" and I would advise and the first thing I would say would be:

"well first, don't insult the Chair and then don't call the other 20 odd members jelly fish".

Graham

Qh5-check

[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;572326]Mike,



I see we have yet another "final statement" from you. Is this any more credible than the last one? Credibility is a precious factor. Easy to lose particularly, if, as you have done:

[/Quote/]
Graham for someone who has to post under various avatars to snipe and try to influence the forums... how's your credibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Henry Porter

What an unedifying spectacle this thread is. Personally I think the committee should have stuck with the strategy of not responding to internet forum discussion. All it does is feed the ego of people with nothing better to do; and in the end it really is only about seven people.

I'm just pleased it is not about anything important. What we have will either stay or go, if it goes something else will happen- personally I really couldn't care less. Choices choices.

---

I disagree. It's only through engagement by the committee and Graham on this debate that we can see where Mike and others have merit and where they do not. We don't have all the facts ourselves, so need the committee to refute things they believe to be untrue or unjustified.

At some point we need to reach a state of affairs where:
they agree
they agree to differ

That can only be reached by discussion. I agree that statement and counter-statement is a lot less productive than a chat. It now seems that Mike is the one who is being intransigent by refusing to have a chat about his numerous issues.