Right. Cards on the table. I'm not into being anonymous when it comes to things that matter, so here's some background. I was introduced to the sport by Mike Rose who was a good friend to his death. I married Dave Jones's daughter. Dave is a good friend, companion in the hills and excellent childminder. I've done some of my most enjoyable KIMM's with Alan Brentnall who is also a good friend. I've spent many happy hours in the company of Margaret Chippendale and Neil Goldsmith - fellow Pennine Fellrunners.
I haven't decided whether, as a sport and community, fell running is best affiliated to UKA or not. As you can imagine, I've listened to Dave's argument and the argument from some in the opposite camp - usually over a beer. But as a dim witted Yorkshireman I was looking forwards to a factual report from the appointed Sub-committee on which to make my decision. As I understood it, the sub committee were tasked with identifying the pros and cons of UKA affiliation and informing the main committee and the membership so that, rather than acting on a gut feeling, we could decide what was best for fell running armed with the facts.
Now, what have we got??
A nine page report http://fellrunner.org.uk/pdf/committ...finaldraft.pdf
but who is it written by? Why does it not carry the authors' names?
The report does not give the pros and cons. Particularly with respect to the summary, it gives the advantages of staying with UKA and the disadvantages of leaving. There must also be significant advantages to leaving UKA otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place. The sucess of WFRA and SHR is conspicious by its absence.
A Ballot Paper. Where to start?
Since when did a ballot paper have the individuals name on it? Returned to the Committee Chairman?? What is this? The dictionary definition of ballot is "secret voting; votes recorded in ballot". It should enable those that might otherwise feel awkward about upsetting friendships or other relationships or those fearful of repercussions, the opportunity to say what they really feel. It also ensures that those that have to see the ballot papers to count them, can more easily remain objective in their dealings with those that voted.
Why have a vote for or against the committee? This isn't what the membership was promised. We were supposed to be voting on the issue of staying in or leaving UKA.
The "Summay Note" is completely one-sided and subjective. It obviously reflects the opinion of the author(s?), again unknown! It attempts to brow-beat the membership into supporting the committee. We know that they are all volunteers and put in lots of their time and resources to support fell running. I am very grateful for this and will, at the right time in my life, try to put something back into the sport too. However, one sentence really gets to me: "It cannot recommend a leap in the dark to revert to being a poor relation fringe sport".
We are a fringe sport. We are a poor relation in monetary terms - so what. The richness of experience that can be had when pushing yourself over the Paps of Jura or through the bogs of Bleaklow is ours. It's nothing to do with UKA, PSTs, CMGs, rules and regulations. A major part of the appeal of fell running is its anarchic, "fringe" nature. If the FRA Committee really is "made up of fell runners who just want to run and not worry about bureaucracy" why is being a poor relation fringe sport a problem???
I still don't know whether it would really be best for fell running to stay affiliated to UKA - I don't think that the sub-committee have presented us with a balanced set of facts on which to make a decision. So, I'm back to the good old "gut reaction". My No vote goes in the post tomorrow.
Whatever you think, please make sure that you vote. An apathetic membership is the last thing we need right now.
Best wishes
Richard Topliss
Reply With Quote