Its all clear now Ian why you batted to support the committee and why you were disappointed by honest constructive posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
BECAUSE YOUR NOW A COMMITTEE MEMBER.
Printable View
Its all clear now Ian why you batted to support the committee and why you were disappointed by honest constructive posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
BECAUSE YOUR NOW A COMMITTEE MEMBER.
I'm nobody in this outfit but I'm proud of it and it is so dispiriting to witness this embarrassing public row! This is the FRA website, I simply don't understand why people are facilitated in publicly rubbishing the committee of the organisation.
AI et al's position is clear, it is time for us and them to move on. If they haven't got the integrity to resign their membership of this forum and the FRA it should be removed.
No one will give a monkey's in a month or two; as we all know the graveyard is full of indispensable people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Porter
Good one. If you don't like someone's veiws or disagree with them the throw then out of the Association - democracy at it's best!
They are at loggerheads and opinions have been very well aired.- time to go separate ways. The whole thing has become a disgraceful pantomime.
Henry lad, if anyone wants to resign from the FRA that's one thing but this is a forum open to anyone, FRA member or not. Anyway as a non FRA member who doesn't race that's my only contribution to this thread, been on our club run tonight, no health & safety or risk assessments needed, someone decided on a route and off we went, it's got a lot to be said for itQuote:
Originally Posted by Henry Porter
So why call on only one 'side' to resign or be slung out of the Association?Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Porter
Sorry Richard I have nothing more to add to this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Porter
No, me neither. Oh. .. wait a minute I just have... . . damn it!! :D:D
Which Richard?Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Porter
:D...Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Head
Oh no it hasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Porter
Have I Trev? didn't realise my opinion is so well documented. TBH I don't mind Constructive comments at all it's all the destructive ones and the generalisations being thrown around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagger
I think you will find my comment was more about what people are saying about other people.
Both groups have concerned views and I believe both groups want the best for the sport I love. but some of the comments fill me with despair. what ever your View and note I don't say Side because I really believe we all ultimately want the same thing. we all hold genuine beliefs that we want the best for our sport.
I will attending my first committee meeting soon, For those who have asked via email or PM If I've been coerced into supporting one view or the other, I've not even been asked or told to hold an opinion or view.
I'm out of this thread now because it's no longer a discussion and it truly saddens me.
Right boot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Porter
Wrong foot.
Those involved rubbished themselves making serious mistakes doing jobs they were not qualified to do. If there were any integrity they would have long ago resigned. If they were in any corporate role they would have been sacked or sanctioned because no responsible organization can afford such a liability in compliance roles.
Just because I choose to campaign against a british government or a policy of the day does not mean I wish to cease to be british. It means I want responsible behaviour by officials.. Governments come and go and are pushed. The state and institutions and my nationality , and wish to retain it remain.
The functioning of democracy demands free press, and dissemination of all that is done in the name of the electorate. Indeed the knee jerk reaction of every weak government and every totalitarian state is to try to hide what is done and to censor media. like making agendas , minutes and other papers confidential. like FRA has now decided in erosion of proper democracy.
That has serious consequences. It was only dissemination of documents that allowed those outside the process ( us) to identify the serious flaws that those who were in the process and those charged with approving such documents had failed to find. Now dissemination no longer takes place the resulting output will inevitably be poorer because of the lack of scrutiny and accountability.
It is true that graham seems to think that he is indispensible, so your comment on that at least is apt.
You know henry - I find all this seriously dispiriting too.
That the key people have done all they can to resist input from help freely offered by people clearly well qualified to do that , and knowing they have made bad mistakes themselves, is way beyond me, or that graham can now blithely express disdain at those concerned about insurance when it was him who stated there was reason to worry - so much so he put it in rules. All The criticism he brought on himself.
If help had been accepted when first offered long before bad blood we would never have got here. But you will have to ask them why they did not aacept. It is still a mystery to me - other than " not invented here" is a Well known problem and syndrome in corporate dynamics.
Like all committee you have a choice , to speak up for what you believe, or stay silent in the interests of illusory harmony.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
If you think For example it is patently ridiculous that fellrunner editor refuses to take articles on safety from those clearly competent to write them, to avoid " being seen to take sides" , then say so pesistently until the wrong is righted. If you believe it is wrong and say nothing or little you become part of the problem, not part of the solution.
If you think it is patently ridiculous that Andy W was refused a placeon the safety committee as the only safety qualified person, or that his motion on such issues should have been heard and voted, you have to say so as many times as it takes to change it. Or again you are part of the problem not part of the solution.
If you think it is wrong in any democracy for agendas and minutes to be secreted away, so that members can decide whether issues merit attention, say so and do not let go until sense prevails. If you disagree with how it is done and say nothing, again you are part of the problem.
If you think it is wrong that a presentation is refused on how safety should be managed, by people clearly competent To present it. Then say so, whatever the chair or others may think - find support for the view and outvote them, making sure you are not refused a vote.
Even if you are not on the safety committee it is your job to challenge anything you see that they do that you think has problems , or documents you do not think are right. Do not pass anything without proper scrutiny, and vote against unless you actually agree. You are the backstop in a properly functioning committee that stops wrong things getting out of the door. That has clearly failed in the past.
Destiny is in your own hands and we outside the committee are reliant on you to stand up forcibly for what you think is right, not what is expedient, or what is demanded by the chair.
And lastly, when it comes to compliance there are right and wrong ways, not just matters of opinion, Do not get bullied into collegiate responsibility for decisions that are not right.
Like the rest of committee you have a choice.
Are you part of the solution or part of the problem by staying silent?
Stand up forwhat you believe. That is all we ask.
BBB FFS :confused:
It's like Stepford wives. The real IDP is no more. He now only follows the committee's decisions. The few who left the committee did so before they were replaced.Quote:
Originally Posted by IanDarkpeak
But seriously, people actually asked you if you have been coerced??!! I quite like a conspiracy theory but that is just silly.
[Edit]; having just skimmed AI's post, I think that might count as coercion!!
Hahaha.Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
(Jesus effing wept!)
Good luck Ian and when you've sorted out the Fell Runners Association commitee's safety policy, moving on to easier things like sorting out peace in the Middle East, the Syrian civil war, the annexation of Crimea by Russia, the hand gun ownership problem in the USA, the South American drug cartels, finding that missing Malaysian plane, bringing true democracy to China, quashing Scottish independence and making sure everybody in the UK eats 7 portions of fruit and veg a day will all seem a complete doddle :)
This thread is so annoying because you just want to ignore it, on the basis that it long ago failed to serve any truly useful purpose, but then someone makes a comment that you just cannot let pass without comment, and you're drawn in all over again!Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
Now I confess that I have spent a day out on the hill with IDP and, maybe, I am therefore biased, but I find him to be extremely knowledgeable and competent on the fells and, if I'm not mistaken, one of the really good things I think the FRA has done over recent times, is to include some articles and literature written by IDP which will do more to help safety in fellrunning than all of the talk in the world.
As for his integrity, what a ridiculous suggestion to call it into question at this stage and say that because he has joined the committee, he now, obviously, sides with them 100%. I can only think that that sort of suggestion says more about the nature of the person making it than the one it's directed at,
I don't know the circumstances of IDP's appointment to the committee but, yet again, I'd like to see the positive in it by thinking that the rest of the committee realised that, as an experienced runner and experienced outdoor professional (who will be concerned with health & safety on every course he works), IDP would have a lot to add in terms of knowledge and opinion. A cracking appointment, someone with integrity and, if the processes are as flawed and undemocratic as some on here would have us believe, someone who I feel sure would stand up and be counted, if necessary (no pressure Ian!).
As for the rest of it, completely pointless now. Two entrenched positions, mudslinging, name-calling, it gets us nowhere. Until I see some evidence of mass dissent from within the committee, then I trust our unpaid, hard-working volunteer committee to move the process forward, albeit with a few hiccups along the way, and I thank them for their considerable efforts, in their "spare" time, on our behalf.
I don't know Mike (Always Injured) but I do know Ian and I've run with him. I cannot think of anyone I know (except maybe likes of Bob and Yiannis) that I'd rather be out with. Ian's forgot more about hill-craft than most people on here (me included) have ever known. He's also just the right kind of lively, youthful guy to liven up the commitee. He takes safety very seriously; safety in the outdoors, on mountains, wild places
It agree with every word of that..... apart from "youthful"!!!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
Well said :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr1470
I am not a safety professional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
I organise a race and as such, have been watching all this with interest.
To the best of my ability, I try to anticipate risks and take reasonable measures to mitigate them. I shall continue to do so, taking on board the guidance of those on the FRA committee and those around me who have useful suggestions to make.
I have kept my trap shut on all this, in part because I have no great weight of authority or expertise, but also I do not to add to an inflamed public row.
Ian, you have my respect and support.
Andrew.... I couldn't out it better myself.
I hope we see an end to all this before long.
He is exactly the kind of guy the committee needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
I wonder why he has yet to go to a meeting yet though - important ones have happened in recent times.
That was the point of the post. It needs people to engage with the issues, not stay silent on them.
But then Andy W was the right kind of guy too from a different perspective
Noel, they are called Requirements. It's not a matter of how you, or Graham Breeze, or anyone on this forum interprets them. The question you have to ask is "how would an aggressive prosecution lawyer interpret them?"Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Ask him. A short pm is one way of doing itQuote:
Originally Posted by alwaysinjured
I suspect he was told to stay away while they discussed secret stuff :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
And all of this is about everybody being able to suitably cover their arses for what is such a very remote possibility? Death in a fell rare is firstly extremely race and, when it does happen, is most likely to be from falling and banging your head and/or getting lost in poor weather and dying from hypothermia. The direct cause in both circumstances just could not be proven against the race organiser in a month of Sundays, regardless of how well the RO organised things. Its all about ensuring everyone gets the appropriate pre-race warnings and agrees to the obvious risks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellhound
I still think that the real issue here is the Race Organisers liability insurance for that very remote possibility - if extra responsibility is put on race organisers, the insurance will cost less and if less responsibility is put on race organisers it will cost a bit more. The cost a bit more option has to be the way to go.
The risk of death in sport is not unique to fell racing by the way - reading all the myriad of threads on this, you'd be forgiven for thinking that we were all base jumping into shark infested seas!!
Getting out of bed every day and going out the back door is full of peril too :)
Quite, a pm would have been much better than leaving a remark that apparently questions, (inadvertently I hope), his dedication to doing the committee jobQuote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stolly
Not convinced of the causality implied between extra responsibility and cost of insurance.
What I am sure of is:
The more an RO undertakes to do, the more organisation there is to go wrong , the more targets there are for blamers to shoot at, so the more chance of a claim if something does go wrong. And equally: the bigger the safety net offered, the less care will be taken by those who enter, making adverse consequences more likely, and at the very same time the less an organiser is able to hide behind "on your own head be it" because they have implied it is safer than it is.
It is not just about runners. So far we have not had third party claims but the risk is certainly there, it has happened in other contexts , and sooner or later bad things will happen, in proportion to the scale of event, so constant vigilance is needed there too.
This is not just about whether it happens either. It is about what happens when it does.
The marshalls at Sailbeck were unfairly made to look like fools because of inadequate instruction and planning. We owe it to them, to give them a paddle when sent up the creek.
One of the reasons I am vociferous on all of this people are missing, though I said it before a couple of times. Nobody picked up on it. I , like Pete Bland, and Mike R am a full member of the "somebody died as a result of something I organised" club in a completely different context. Even though no possible blame can attach to me over that matter, it scars you. You are left wondering what else you could have done. You do not wish anyone else to be in that position: certainly not if an ounce of the blame finger can point there way , or to leave them feeling that there was something more they could have done, which is why everything needs doing to prevent even one casualty, for the peace of mind of the next RO in the hot seat, that they could have done no more. And there will be one. The only question is when and where,not whether.
That is why I find the chairs statement to coroner "all reasonably practical things" so abhorrent, because it is so manifestly not true and a political statement not a factual one. This is too serious to play power games, which seems to be the main focus of some. But then neither she nor graham have been there, Pete Bland has but they don't seem listen to him - preferring to question whether he is a full commitee member or not, as if that had any bearing on the matter. He is one of the most important peoples views to take into account, as someone who has got the T shirt.
And I guess that is a fitting place for me to disappear into the ether.
Just spare a thought for the next poor sod , sat in the hot seat. However unlikely it is. That seat is not a nice place to be.
Let us put my thoughts this way. I would certainly not want this executive or UKA on the other end of the rope, if I were climbing something hard.
It's a good point. As someone who organises a short fell race for which it's reasonable to consider that some of the 'should's are not required, I would be confident to defend my decisions based on the nature of the race and supported if needed by experts on the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellhound
It would depend on what race you organise.
People can get a bit carried away with thinking what might happen if the worst sort of prosecution lawyer were assigned to things. There is a general principle of reasonableness in UK law.
Having said that, I applaud the efforts of those who engaged to move the requirements away from the previous versions that contained too many 'must's in my opinion. As the committee have openly stated, this is a work in progress, and will continue to be.
So, after 1000s more words AI bows out of the debate without producing an alternative document to the FRA's version.
Don't worry he'll be back soon enough. He's already had more come-backs than Sinatra and Take That combined. He won't let us down this timeQuote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
The trick is to post something that he can't resist responding to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Derby Tup
It seems clear that AI has come round to the committee's way of thinking. His post stating that he will bow out of the debate seems like an acknowledgement that they have reached a happy middle ground.
. . . you've possibly misread his post noelQuote:
Originally Posted by noel
Which will be treated with the contempt it deserves.Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
I have given up on them Noel. And they have come round a little and very slowly to our way of thinking not the reverse.
On that subject please give the credit to the right people in your last post..
The credit regarding removal of musts, and getting documents back under review belongs to such as Andy W and me against massive intransigence of those in power, using almost any means to prevent it. It would have helped us then if you had joined in more forcibly with us on those issues. But then that is the problem. Too many people sat on the sidelines trying to be everyone's friend instead of arguing for what is right.
On current rate of progress, FRA will get there in about 3 years time.
Quote churchill "you can always rely on the americans to do the right thing, but only after they have tried everying else"
They had a choice of three SQEP people (that is SQEP for this task) but what they actually want is someone to agree with them and be dictated to by Graham and ruled over imperiously by Madeleine , to bow and curtsy in the right places, not someone to lead safety in FRA with the responsible experience to do what is needed, and the authority to make sure it happens, which is the job that actually needs doing. For as long as that is the attitude, and people like you sit on the sidelines despite having similar reservations on musts and work in progress. "getting there" will be a very long time if ever.
I have produced the framework, offered to present it. Even sent it to a few elsewhere. I have discussed many of the core parts on these threads several times. If you were not reading, more fool you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecky
Next step is a couple of RO involved to produce sample plans, since my approach is not to impose anything it is to create in conjunction with RO. Different mindset.
But it is not an alternative to FRA documents like for like. A different structure all together.
and less than half an hour later...Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
I'd rather be out on the fells than reading tiresome posts on this thread:D
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3766/...735f227b_z.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Quote:
Originally Posted by noel
Yes, it worked but was probably unnecessary.;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Toreador
I'm now moving to stop Noel posting on this thread as he causes AI to post.
Join the ban Noel campaign now!