Legal advice..FRA Website

Legal advice and help with drafting a document for juniors.
Wed 23rd Apr, 2014

The FRA Committee have been building up a reference group of members with specific expertise and who can help and advise us from time to time. To date we have input in relation to insurance; safety, both mountain rescue and health and safety; juniors/coaching and from some race organisers.

1. Could you offer legal advice to the FRA Committee on draft documents etc?

2. We are putting together a leaflet for juniors and have text that would look very uninviting to any junior member. Could you offer help with an improved layout e.g. cartoons/photos? (Junior members putting themselves forward would be welcomed.)

Suitable payments will be made to those appointed, if required.

If you like to put yourself forward you are welcome to send me a brief resume to [email protected] or phone me on 07956344174

Nick Harris, Secretary

I'm just a little flummoxed by this.

Could we have a bit of flesh put on this?

Seems clear enough. They just want a legal expert who's also good at drawing cartoons.

FRA still does not get it.

A competent person has to lead the safety process, as a safety officer and be given authority to do it, who cannot therefore be outvoted by a lay majority or executive, as it is in corporate safety.. Not give advice to people who do not understand, then be roundly ignored, and told to sign up to the corporate spin. There is a heap of stuff that needs to be done, on a continuous basis not just documents once in a while.

Anyway, I hope they state who their safety advice is, until they do I will assume it is just a spin.

I am happy to have a discussion with such a person. And that would be the sensible thing, since it was me that found most of the "howlers" in what was done previously, and knows what needs doing from here on in. I only hope he is better than the last one! It would be a change to speak to someone still in FRA who knows what the words mean, and the issues are.

I'd like to see them publish the people that are giving them this advise and what category of expertise they fall in to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

FRA still does not get it.

A competent person has to lead the safety process, as a safety officer and be given authority to do it, who cannot therefore be outvoted by a lay majority or executive, as it is in corporate safety.. Not give advice to people who do not understand, then be roundly ignored, and told to sign up to the corporate spin. There is a heap of stuff that needs to be done, on a continuous basis not just documents once in a while.

Anyway, I hope they state who their safety advice is, until they do I will assume it is just a spin.

I am happy to have a discussion with such a person. And that would be the sensible thing, since it was me that found most of the "howlers" in what was done previously, and knows what needs doing from here on in. I only hope he is better than the last one! It would be a change to speak to someone still in FRA who knows what the words mean, and the issues are.

---

Really what is the point of this thread except to try and stir up more of the same anti FRA nonsense that is going on

And Always you come across as very arrogant when you say "I am happy to have a discussion with such a person. And that would be the sensible thing, since it was me that found most of the "howlers" in what was done previously, and knows what needs doing from here on in. "

Why would they need to speak to you?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by luxinterior

Really what is the point of this thread except to try and stir up more of the same anti FRA nonsense that is going on

And Always you come across as very arrogant when you say "I am happy to have a discussion with such a person. And that would be the sensible thing, since it was me that found most of the "howlers" in what was done previously, and knows what needs doing from here on in. "

Why would they need to speak to you?????

---

I am not anti FRA at all- I am pro FRA which is why I care. Just like being anti David Cameron (if I am - an example - not a statement) does not make me anti UK. It means I think the government needs to be changed or strengthened because of having made a cods of it all.

It was me that found a lot of the problems as a minor part of AW organisation - the rules as they were made it impossible for AW (and every other RO) and Wynn as one of the most directly affected by the sailbeck tragedy had to protest. That is why we got involved. I get the worrying impression that to begin with at least she was one of the few RO actually reading the documents at all, but only when alerted. It is a problem she was not asked before they voted them in and so we found the problems by accident.

My objective is getting FRA to act properly on safety - my comment on safety officer spot on.

Unlike the present executive, It is not about me at all. I would be happy for any other competent person to do the job, indeed I would prefer it - I just want someone to do the job that needs doing properly as understood by a qualified person, so that people like Wynn are given a proper framework.

So far me and Andy W are the only safety qualified and experienced people who have been involved in this at all. A few others operating in hazardous occupations have commented that they too agree with the approach we have stated.

Those tasked in FRA were not even using the words correctly, let alone putting them together properly. But they have consistently refused to listen - the wrong people are doing the job.(still) - and to them it is ALL about them - which is the problem. The demand to have authority and stay in charge, come what may, rather than having seen it is not as easy as they thought , then to delegate the doing of documents and safety, to someone qualified and expereinced to do it, saving themselves a whole lot of grief and work in the process.

Because I have been looking at this a very long time, (and as one of the only qualified and suitably expereinced people to comment )I have a lot I could pass on to the current incumbent unfortunate enough to have picked up the mantle -. They behaved despicably with Andy W, so I hope they treat this one a little better.

I'm not anti FRA either - perhaps anti a few FRA Committee initiatives, but certainly not anti FRA.

Competitor, Member, RO, Champs RO and coach of quite a few juniors passed and present.

I am genuinely interested in what this is about. Particularly the junior initiatives and who are the people guiding them.
England Athletics publish their similarly utilised experts here.
I think it would be useful for the FRA to publish who they are using to advise them from outside of the committee - it helps add weight and credibility to whatever it is that they do as a result.

I suspect that Richard started this thread just to publicise something important that is being done by the FRA. It is a shame that it has been hijacked to trot out the same complaints that have been made repeatedly (ad nauseam) on other threads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

My objective is getting FRA to act properly on safety - my comment on safety officer spot on.

---

It seems to me that you want the FRA to act the way you want them to act.

You have an option there: get nominated for the committee and get elected, all the executive posts are elected. Oh, but you are not a committee person, I remember.

You could also finish the documents you have been working on and publish them here. If they are as good as you say they would be, then I would happily endorse them, and I suspect others might too. If they aren't any good, then we can tell you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lecky

I suspect that Richard started this thread just to publicise something important that is being done by the FRA.

---

I don't know if it's something important or not. That's part of the point Lecky. So you could say I'm fishing perhaps - interested party, would like to know more.

We've both been around the junior scene for a few years now and I'm just interested in what's cooking, particularly in view of a few recent exchanges behind the scenes on junior issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lecky

I suspect that Richard started this thread just to publicise something important that is being done by the FRA. It is a shame that it has been hijacked to trot out the same complaints that have been made repeatedly (ad nauseam) on other threads.



It seems to me that you want the FRA to act the way you want them to act.

You have an option there: get nominated for the committee and get elected, all the executive posts are elected. Oh, but you are not a committee person, I remember.

You could also finish the documents you have been working on and publish them here. If they are as good as you say they would be, then I would happily endorse them, and I suspect others might too. If they aren't any good, then we can tell you.

---

You know Lecky. I absolutely hate this way of doing things.

Had I been invited in to the process, fully accepting the need to "sell the approach" for it to gain acceptance, even as far as developing it before trialling, that would have got all this crap off the forum. But nobody took it up at a time it was offered 6 months ago, until all material decisions had been taken the wrong way first, indeed the last attempt at "rapprochement" from me, the sole agenda proposed for that meeting was the chair "putting my misunderstandings right" something I will not even give time of day: it should have been about future not past so me to precis as an experienced professional the safety presentation needed to be put before committee before moving on - which would have got me there at least.

I don't accept that FRA can only involve elected people. It should use any and all skills to hand. Like Andy, but they refused to invite him into the safety sub, despite him already BEING on committee. So it doesnt make any difference being elected or not. They didn't elect the previous adviser, they paid him through the nose, for advise which was certainly not about safety - they just thought it was - which goes to prove the lack of knowledge at the top.

In the background Anni W (not me, nor my document)sent their plan in as a kind of way to get the conversation with FRA moving again to be met with the clear nonsequitur and straw man argument from the secretary "we do not accept HSE legislation applies"(does anyone on executive have a grasp of critical thinking?) - mainly an attempt to get rid of it : pretty much guaranteeing AW will not be back ,because FRA are still not off first base with safety despite all this time.

The need to use proper safety planning clearly does matter, and I will warrant all RO plan races too. They have to, as do all other event organisers, or like the secretary with his closed gate minutes before, they might just find themselves facing a negligence claim in a coroners court.. It is the formalization of that planning that was found wanting at Sailbeck. Too back of a fag packet, not enough clear instruction or understanding of what needed to be there and why, and what the purpose of a plan was. That is the void I wanted to fill.

Finishing that document needs proper process and a team of RO. To formalise that knowledge. I will not hijack the process fo what needs doing, and cannot be bothered to waste a lot of time until the need is accepted.

So all I can do is keep pushing for the right way - and in response to the idea they need an occasional safety advisor, point out that it is not the way it should be done. It needs a competent person in charge which is the accepted wisdom on how it must be. Not my way, just the right way.

None of the arguments are actually the same. There are new own goals every week. Take the AW plan above. Also this week we think it ridiculous that FRA will not entertain a totally sensible reciprocal banning with other organisations for a runner such as at the waltz. Not trotted out ad nauseam at all. They just want to be seen in charge at the top of a pyramid - handing out dictats - it is all that seemingly matters to them.

Cant speak for him, but I think Richard was more surprised they have not asked him as they should - since he did a big analysis of what was wrong with existing documents - and has pointed out the inadequacy of the junior applications - his review was more or less swept aside, since there is no understanding of what should have happened when somebody does a review like he did. A wholesale change in documentation was what was needed. And since he clearly understood the problem, they should have given him the job. But he is not a sycophant, which probably counted against him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

Finishing that document needs proper process and a team of RO. To formalise that knowledge. I will not hijack the process fo what needs doing, and cannot be bothered to waste a lot of time until the need is accepted.

---

Lots of ROs on the forum, let us help you with your document.

Why such negativity? This looks like the type of thing we should be encouraging the FRA to do. You criticise them for not seeking advice from members, then have a go at them when they do just that.

I would like to applaud the FRA committee for this initiative to engage, over something that is key to the development of the sport.

Unfortunately, I'm not skilled in any of these ways. Otherwise I'd be keen to get involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Why such negativity? This looks like the type of thing we should be encouraging the FRA to do. You criticise them for not seeking advice from members, then have a go at them when they do just that.

I would like to applaud the FRA committee for this initiative to engage, over something that is key to the development of the sport.

Unfortunately, I'm not skilled in any of these ways. Otherwise I'd be keen to get involved.

---

So were we skilled and keen. But Considering they have completely ignored the skilled advice already willingly offered by people keen to help, kept Andy off the safety subcom, then pushed Him off the committee completely for expressing a professional view that he could not condone their methods, did their level best to stop me even seeing documents,

So excuse me for being cynical, and believing that they don't want proper advice - they just want somebody to agree with doing it their way.

As an ex professional consultant to many of britains biggest industrials at senior level, I am skilled and have seen it too many times.

They don't need advice, What they need and have rebelled against, still are trying to avoid like the plague, is giving a competent person authority to lead: and getting that person to dictate the agenda based on professional experience. That is proper safety practice speaking, not just an opinion of mine. And that is what they want to avoid at all costs. I am sure they will find a safety yes man, particularly if they pay for one, but it will not fix the underlying problems. Consultants who charge to borrow your watch to tell you the time are legion, something I refused to do whilst in that business years ago, and so has Andy refused.

Anyway, I am happy to speak to whoever volunteered as safety person, and put my suggestions there, and if I am comfortable with the approach being taken, it might just stop the need to post here, but I doubt that person will be given the freedom to do what is needed, and indeed any safety professional will not do.

There are not many who have substantial experience and have acted as responsible person over the planning of complex custom hazardous tasks involving interactions between large teams, and that experience is what is needed for this. The directing mind over major hazardous projects in hazardous industrial setting: not many do such things. It is all about planning what people do, the communications and interactions, and backup processes that seek to prevent a single error becoming a catastrophe. They were lucky to have three of us commenting including Keith, and yet ignored the lot of us.

Are you a gambling man? If three qualified professionals line up with one opinion on something, and twenty unqualified lay people have the opposite view, which would you back as the right way if you wanted a better than even chance? If I have a medical problem, I will back the opinion of just one qualified doctor every time against a nem con vote of a lay committee.

PS tried to call a couple of times...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

I'm just a little flummoxed by this.

Could we have a bit of flesh put on this?

---

I think that you are the ideal person to help with this Richard. I know you are a busy man with lots of other things but I would like to see you involved.

AI, just talked to two ROs at a wedding about all this. One, who is a safety professional, said that he really couldn't make head nor tail of your posts and that they were so long he often couldn't get past the first couple of paragraphs.

The general feeling was that the best thing you could do was actually present a coherent set of documentation and if not, then stop posting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lecky

The general feeling was that the best thing you could do was actually present a coherent set of documentation and if not, then stop posting.

---

General feeling amongst a sample of what, you and two others?

LOL! Yes, but be fair Richard, an generalisation of 3 people, 2 un-named and one of whom is supposedly an 'expert', apparently none of whom can be bothered to read or take the time to understand what Mike, and others, are saying, is how the FRA committee operates now so it's obvious Mike should take the verdict of the gang of 3 and stfu. Classic post Lecky :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

PS tried to call a couple of times...

---

Sorry to miss you. Hope to chat soon. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stick

LOL! Yes, but be fair Richard, an generalisation of 3 people, 2 un-named and one of whom is supposedly an 'expert', apparently none of whom can be bothered to read or take the time to understand what Mike, and others, are saying, is how the FRA committee operates now so it's obvious Mike should take the verdict of the gang of 3 and stfu. Classic post Lecky :D

---

I think, if you read what I said, is that Mike should post a set of coherent documents for discussion OR stop posting, and that others agreed with that.

My post was quite short, perhaps you could have read it all? I haven't changed my view from some time ago that I would be very interested to see a set of documents from Mike and his safety experts.

The problem is Lecky, you can write what you want in to a document but at the lowest level, as an event organiser, you are tied to the requirements of the body that sanctions the event, unless you take out private event insurance.
So any new pack, would have to be a top to bottom job and involved re-writing the rules for competition which are at the top of the pyramid and then making sure that all things below fall in to place, compliment each other and when future amendments take place, all elements of the paper trail are amended to ensure contradictions, conflicts or confusion don't arise.
It also has to be achievable.

I think as much as anything there is where the whole UKA Fell Running structure is a mess.

We can see from all the threads and posts that there are many issues.

The just published UKA Rulebook for 2014-2016 which refers to documents that don't even exist and yet races must follow these documents.
This is UKA Rules - that's what we all act under.

This isn't an isolated error. I've had a quick glance and found several errors / conflicts.

So are we acting under UKA Rules or FRA Rules? They are supposed to be one and the same, and clearly they aren't.

(Now I've just hijacked my own thread :D )

You can also say what you like on a forum, and complain as much as you like about current structures.

But, nothing will change unless you either get elected on to the committee and work within the organisation to turn things around OR produce a set of regulations (documents) that are much better than what is already there AND sell these to the committee and the fellrunning public.

Mike keeps telling us how much better the race regulations could be, but without actually producing an alternative. Given the length of time that has passed. one might think that he has tried to write a decent set of documents and found it rather hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lecky

I think, if you read what I said, is that Mike should post a set of coherent documents for discussion OR stop posting, and that others agreed with that.

My post was quite short, perhaps you could have read it all? I haven't changed my view from some time ago that I would be very interested to see a set of documents from Mike and his safety experts.

---

I keep on reading it Lecky and it keeps on not having an 'or' in it.

It's got an 'and' in it.

Maybe you should edit it to make it say what you wanted it to say. :p

Btw...out of interest, who was the safety professional you were talking to...?

Quote:

---

(Now I've just hijacked my own thread )

---

Outrageous behaviour, you'd never catch me doing such a thing....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stick

I keep on reading it Lecky and it keeps on not having an 'or' in it.

It's got an 'and' in it.

Maybe you should edit it to make it say what you wanted it to say. :p

Btw...out of interest, who was the safety professional you were talking to...?

---

"and if not, stop posting"

And don't be nosy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

There are not many who have substantial experience and have acted as responsible person over the planning of complex custom hazardous tasks involving interactions between large teams, and that experience is what is needed for this. The directing mind over major hazardous projects in hazardous industrial setting: not many do such things.

---

I can imagine you were very good at it. I thought this was about organising fell races which are different! :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lecky

AI, just talked to two ROs at a wedding about all this. One, who is a safety professional, said that he really couldn't make head nor tail of your posts and that they were so long he often couldn't get past the first couple of paragraphs.

The general feeling was that the best thing you could do was actually present a coherent set of documentation and if not, then stop posting.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lecky

"and if not, stop posting"

And don't be nosy.

---

Hahaha...It t'was you who raised your friends existence Lecky! The so called safety professional who's words to you apparently discredit Mike's arguments. I'd have said such an expert's identity was rather germane and of wide interest. Still no matter, you feel otherwise and I don't think any of us are going to lose sleep on it.

But it's always dangerous to quote sources you can't substantiate though isn't it Lecky. Makes you look...well, I'll let others decide.

At least people know who I am!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lecky

At least people know who I am!

---

And regular forumites will know I've published my name - Neil Taylor - on here many times before Richard.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stick

And regular forumites will know I've published my name - Neil Taylor - on here many times before Richard.:)

---

Plus the picture of yourself on your Avatar.
(Lecky thinks I'm joking :D )

Lecky seems to think that the way to address the current issues is to get onto the committee and “sell” the alternative to the FRA. I have to remind everyone that I was on the committee and did try to GIVE the FRA a better way.

The problem is not AI’s long posts. The problem is that the FRA (by which I mean the current committee leadership) is so entrenched in its old-fashioned, out-moded and impractical approach to safety that is doesn’t want to listen to anyone who puts forward a different view.

As I’ve said before, you cannot achieve safety through rules. It’s achieved through planning: If an RO makes and delivers a proper plan, almost all rules are obsolete, unnecessary, not required.

What makes me think I'm right on this? I do it every day, professionally, and I demonstrate it to auditing bodies such as Lloyds Register, who see it as the leading edge of safety management. It’s not about industry or whether H&S legislation applies, it’s about sound safety practice which is applicable to ANY event or project.

The posting on the front page of the website about seeking advice is just so much propaganda. Advice has been offered and rejected months ago, last week, and numerous times in between. The aim is to appear open and receptive to new ideas simply by broadcasting that that is the case, when all the actions (which ought to speak louder than words) are demonstrating the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fellhound

Lecky seems to think that the way to address the current issues is to get onto the committee and “sell” the alternative to the FRA. I have to remind everyone that I was on the committee and did try to GIVE the FRA a better way.

The problem is not AI’s long posts. The problem is that the FRA (by which I mean the current committee leadership) is so entrenched in its old-fashioned, out-moded and impractical approach to safety that is doesn’t want to listen to anyone who puts forward a different view.

As I’ve said before, you cannot achieve safety through rules. It’s achieved through planning: If an RO makes and delivers a proper plan, almost all rules are obsolete, unnecessary, not required.

What makes me think I'm right on this? I do it every day, professionally, and I demonstrate it to auditing bodies such as Lloyds Register, who see it as the leading edge of safety management. It’s not about industry or whether H&S legislation applies, it’s about sound safety practice which is applicable to ANY event or project.

The posting on the front page of the website about seeking advice is just so much propaganda. Advice has been offered and rejected months ago, last week, and numerous times in between. The aim is to appear open and receptive to new ideas simply by broadcasting that that is the case, when all the actions (which ought to speak louder than words) are demonstrating the opposite.

---

Well said Andy!

As I have previously stated my heightened interest in these matters started in November last year when I became aware that the FRA Chair had refused to allow Andy to present his proposals for management of safety at fell races to the committee at their meeting in early December. Andy is professionally employed as a safety manager and was then a member of the FRA committee. If he had been allowed to present his proposals the committee would have been free to accept or reject them. It is beyond my comprehension why anyone would want to refuse to even listen in this situation.

I was so surprised that I (and others) decided to attend the December committee meeting to hear what if anything was said about this refusal. In the event there was some discussion at which some spurious reasons for not listening to Andy were given or implied such as H&S legislation not being applicable and that safety management experience in industry not being relevant to fellrunning ............. What did not seem to be appreciated by some of the committee was that experience in the methodology of managing safety is equally applicable and transferable across the board!

So I'm afraid that Lecky's suggestion of getting on the committee to influence safety management seems to be a non-starter. We've already been there and have been ignored.

compare and contrast:

Quote:

---

if you side against the current committee you will lose.

---

Quote:

---

I have already talked about the limited accountability of the committee, and I am not going to repeat it.

---

with

Quote:

---

nothing will change unless you either get elected on to the committee and work within the organisation to turn things around

---

Quote:

---

f anything you ever read on this or other threads gives you any grounds for concern about the way the committee is actually going about its work then you can get in touch by phone or email or...and I (or any of my committee colleagues) will try to put your mind at rest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MargC

So I'm afraid that Lecky's suggestion of getting on the committee to influence safety management seems to be a non-starter. We've already been there and have been ignored.

---

In which case, the other alternative was, you have to produce a set of coherent documents and "sell" them to the FRA's ROs. I am a RO, sell them to me! Oh, but these need more time to be considered by the "right" people.

BTW, I hope you have remembered to include Junior Races in your discussions.

seems to me that they've been pretty convincingly "sold" at the AW......
didn't seem to require the permission of any committees, either.

Well, they did need to register with someone else for insurance purposes and they chose Scottish Hill Runners, who seem to be using an edited version of earlier FRA rules, which have in them some of the problems that AI has been complaining about. They are, however, much briefer than the current FRA rules, which is a good thing.

For example:

Quote:

---

You, as organiser, have the responsibility to make your race as safe as it can possibly be by ensuring that the nature of the race and the rules relating to safety have been drawn up and formally communicated to each runner.

---

or

Quote:

---

Size of field
This must be limited to numbers that your race organisation can completely monitor and control, and will not create a risk of accidents to runners because of overcrowding.

---

Have a look at the insurance sign-off document, it is here.

And there is a more comprehensive race pack document here.

Quote:

---

they did need to register with someone else for insurance purposes

---

obviously

Quote:

---

some of the problems that AI has been complaining about

---

and has talked about elsewhere on this forum if you care to look

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lecky

In which case, the other alternative was, you have to produce a set of coherent documents and "sell" them to the FRA's ROs. I am a RO, sell them to me! Oh, but these need more time to be considered by the "right" people.

BTW, I hope you have remembered to include Junior Races in your discussions.

---

Lecky - firstly this has nothing to do with FRA or FRA ROs unless they are considering using another body going forward in to 2015.
This is not an FRA review.

The FRA has had 18 months to react - I think we should give SHR and WFRA at least time to review their situation and decide which way they go, which may be to adopt the FRA method, or one of their own, or they may opt for a joint approach.