Printable View
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