Avatars on the forum

[Lefty]

It's all very very sad, this forum is an unpleasant place to be these days although thankfully far removed from the friendliness experienced at races every weekend.

[alwaysinjured]

It's all very very sad, this forum is an unpleasant place to be these days although thankfully far removed from the friendliness experienced at races every weekend.

I agree on sad, but It is not an entire forum Lefty, only a couple of threads, and the serious issues need proper discussion as well not sweeping under the table. Nobody has to read or join in. It is a sad fact that iconic races such as Waltz and others have been caused problems by it all, some yet to be resolved. Have you seen the Waltz entry page? But In the context of this thread : what does "Norman Bates" think about it all? the multiple identities are all a very unnecessary and childish aggravation of the problem: notably all done by committee or supporters of them!

[sbrt]

It's all very very sad, this forum is an unpleasant place to be these days although thankfully far removed from the friendliness experienced at races every weekend.

True, bits of the forum get a bit out of hand. I like to think it is because people care about our sport.

Hope I am not wrong.

[Wheeze]

It's all very very sad, this forum is an unpleasant place to be these days although thankfully far removed from the friendliness experienced at races every weekend.

Chin up lefty. Its only on one or two threads.
And a disturbance in the force like a death in the family does dredge up all kinds of stuff.
And if you think this is only a recent phenomenon, just spend some time trawling through all the old fellrunners. Some of the venom spat at the committee 20 years ago makes this current spat look like a kindergarten tea party! I KNOW you,ve been around long enough to understand this.

And your last comment is the only one that matters.

[alwaysinjured]

And your last comment is the only one that matters.

Trouble is Wheezy, the "friendliness of it all" will be the LAST thing on the mind of the next RO to sit in the hot seat for a year pending an inquest (and potentially legal cases arising from and beyond that). The time to limit the impact of that is now, before it happens again, not after it already has. That is the only reason I bother to post.

It disappoints me greatly, that Pete Bland's views of it all seem to be given no greater respect, despite the fact he is the only one attending committee from time to time (disregard Sailbeck), that has actually been right there in the hot seat! "bl++dy disgrace" were the words I believe he has used of some of the documents (a rather fruitier way to express my own view of some of them).

So the camaraderie and sharing of love of hills, which is the purpose of all, is far from the "only" thing that matters.

[sbrt]

Trouble is Wheezy, the "friendliness of it all" will be the LAST thing on the mind of the next RO to sit in the hot seat for a year pending an inquest (and potentially legal cases arising from and beyond that). The time to limit the impact of that is now, before it happens again, not after it already has. That is the only reason I bother to post.

It disappoints me greatly, that Pete Bland's views of it all seem to be given no greater respect, despite the fact he is the only one attending committee from time to time (disregard Sailbeck), that has actually been right there in the hot seat! "bl++dy disgrace" were the words I believe he has used of some of the documents (a rather fruitier way to express my own view of some of them).

So the camaraderie and sharing of love of hills, which is the purpose of all, is far from the "only" thing that matters.

Pot calling kettle. You are very quick to tell folks, what they can and cant post, on here.

Its easy to be nice when things are going well. When the shit hits the fan, is when 'friendlyness/ cameradery' is most important.
I agree with much of what you post but ffs, you know how to put folks backs up.

[sbrt]

Trouble is Wheezy, the "friendliness of it all" will be the LAST thing on the mind of the next RO to sit in the hot seat for a year pending an inquest (and potentially legal cases arising from and beyond that). The time to limit the impact of that is now, before it happens again, not after it already has. That is the only reason I bother to post.

It disappoints me greatly, that Pete Bland's views of it all seem to be given no greater respect, despite the fact he is the only one attending committee from time to time (disregard Sailbeck), that has actually been right there in the hot seat! "bl++dy disgrace" were the words I believe he has used of some of the documents (a rather fruitier way to express my own view of some of them).

So the camaraderie and sharing of love of hills, which is the purpose of all, is far from the "only" thing that matters.

Pot calling kettle. You are very quick to tell folks, what they can and cant post, on here.

Its easy to be nice when things are going well. When the shit hits the fan, is when 'friendlyness/ cameradery' is most important.
I agree with much of what you post but ffs, you know how to put folks backs up.

[Fudge the Elf]

"Pot calling kettle. You are very quick to tell folks, what they can and can't post, on here."

Where does he tell people what they can and can't post? Serious question; I haven't seen that.

[Fellhound]

How did the vote at committee go then?

If I was in a room with Sir Alex Ferguson discussing the nuances of football management with 21 Scousers who disagreed with him, would that make the Scousers right?

It wasn’t even 21 against 1. I was the one, but had a measure of support from a group of others (who unfortunately weren’t saying much, with one exception), plus a further half dozen who I think were unsure. Three bullies, with entrenched (but wrong) positions were controlling everything, and the rest were just sitting on their hands and keeping mum (presumably for the sake of ‘harmony’).

Because formal votes are hardly ever taken, the true split of opinion is never properly revealed and the power of the chair carries everything forward “nem con”.

That’s not democracy and it allows the bullies to claim everything is “unanimous”.

The only time I dug my heels in firmly (on the response to Coroner), I was openly supported only by Pete Bland, with the rest just wanting to find a way around the difficulty with as little fuss (and change!) as possible.

Sometimes, just sometimes, all progress really does depend upon the ‘unreasonable’ man.

[alwaysinjured]

It wasn’t even 21 against 1. I was the one, but had a measure of support from a group of others (who unfortunately weren’t saying much, with one exception), plus a further half dozen who I think were unsure. Three bullies, with entrenched (but wrong) positions were controlling everything, and the rest were just sitting on their hands and keeping mum (presumably for the sake of ‘harmony’).

Because formal votes are hardly ever taken, the true split of opinion is never properly revealed and the power of the chair carries everything forward “nem con”.

That’s not democracy and it allows the bullies to claim everything is “unanimous”.

The only time I dug my heels in firmly (on the response to Coroner), I was openly supported only by Pete Bland, with the rest just wanting to find a way around the difficulty with as little fuss (and change!) as possible.

Sometimes, just sometimes, all progress really does depend upon the ‘unreasonable’ man.

I want to ask the other 20 how they think it is possible in any situation for "marshals to ensure the safety" of competitor or how any RO can guess at the number of marshalls needed to do that, when marshals are not even there on 99%+ of the route however many you have? So why were they not joining Andy in arguing?

The only way you can prove whether there are enough or well trained enough, is in the negative, not the positive, that is the first time something nasty happens you can conclude "not enough marshals", virtue of that stupid rule and undertaking to coroner. So that one more, much closer to wherever it happened was clearly practicable, and potentially valuable (with 20/20 hindsight, the stock in trade of claims lawyers) Our secretary is nothing if not consistent in believing he can "guarantee the safety of competitors" per the sky running rules, and (my view irresponsibly) suggesting others sign up for them. Pity he does not take their other advice, which is very sound, to create a safety plan, and appoint appropriate professionals in that capacity, instead of trying to DIY like the rules committee are. Safety now apparently has an "on/off" switch virtue of the amendment to "enable the safety" in that letter to coroner!!!

At least Andy got "ensure" out, not that enable is much better. All of it is offering a safety net that in reality is no better than an aspiration, and CAN NOT BE GUARANTEED. Just by implying it can ensure or enable safety, is objectively dangerous, in reducing the caution of runners (and increasing legal exposure for marshalls and RO as to what is negligence in respect of that duty).

And if the other 20 don't think marshalls "ensuring" or "enabling" safety is possible. Why are they signing up for it, or allowing their names to be attached as apparently voting for it? Coming to which why did they all allow their names to be attached to the july rules?

It simply proves that (as corporate safety) the need for a "competent person" to in essence draft such documents/ determine policy , certainly having a veto on all documents so produced, and that the elected majority or wishes of the chair is meaningless when it comes to technical documents. The july "rules" farce proved it all: some parts that were not laughable, were objectively dangerous. So it is not just the documents that are the problem it is the entire process of drafting/reviewing and approving that are all fatally flawed, all need changing from the ground up. Our view a qualified safety officer in charge of it all.