Graham.
Whatever.
This gone on far too long, and you are LAST one who should talk about insults.
On teaching grandmothers, if you knew anything about safety, you would know that safety management does not usurp the expert knowledge, it is a process to formalize it. And, you and Madders have no greater pool of hands on expertise either! So as most of your views on such as this, "teaching grandmothers" is mistaken assumption about something you know little about.
And as for others like committee, everyone in this does have something to answer for. It is impossible to say so without ruffling feathers.
Any safety or quality review, first fixes the outcome of a problem, then absolutely has to fix the process that created it. The July rules illustrate a far deeper problem, which ripples into everything else. The first principle of good practise, is you have to control the process and you cannot trust good practise unless you trust the process that creates it. And when that fails, until it is fixed nothing else that comes out can be trusted either.
The July rules were clearly not fit for purpose (and acknowledged as such, now amended), but passed unanimously. That is a greater problem than the rules themselves.
Any proper safety or quality process , having addressed the problem of rules, then absolutely has to change the mix and skills of those that created them, the review processes that should have found them but did not (this case broadcast to more RO such as Wynn), So the whole committee have something to answer - the approval process by which something faulty ever got approved, and that clearly needs addressing, since they all voted for something faulty.
So no other "unanimous" document can be trusted till those things are fixed. The elected right to decide what goes is simply not good enough for safety, and one thing about safety culture is getting rid of the hierarchy attitude. The man that has to do it (Wynn) should have a greater voice than all others, and effective right of veto, if she cannot comply.
The only one that ever owned up to a mistake in approval, for which I applaud him was Andy who admitted later, he had not looked under the hood, and until others recognise their part in that , then no greater trust can be put in any other "Unanimous document" either. All of them equally flawed. The old council and bike shed syndrome.
Actually my greatest criticism is not in respect of that, but the fact that common sense dictated Andy's views should be heard on the safety committee, however unwelcome they may have been there, (and you could still outvote him there)Democratic process demanded his right to a vote to get him there, and our pressure to achieve that was democracy in action and yet you and others decided not to let that vote, so you did not have to let him in. I think committee should have more backbone in standing up to abuse of democracy, which is how the term was coined.. Nothing to do with Andys views, all to do with his rights as committee.
Anyway, I am sure you will continue to do it your way, which is why I have little interest left.
My only real interest was something Wynn could sign up to , and you calling her "recalcitrant", Madders calling her "deluded" , instead of the pair of you actually looking at how she manages her races, to see what you could learn, were much of what put a stop to that. The horse has bolted. Rightly so.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by noel
