Ballot Paper Arrives

[Baggins]

Why do you want olympic recognition?

CLimbers are always on about this too.

The climbers who go on about this are those in power or who want to make money out of the sport, most climbers couldn't care less

Bill

[wycoller]

Wycoller do you think the 'top' runners who do different disciplines favour fell, for instance does Alistair Brownlee favour fell over triathlon or Josh Moody fell over 800m/1500m? I know lots of youngsters do lots of disciplines but I'm not sure we need to be financing them doing fell, I mean all they need is a hill isn't it, no warm weather training for the hardy youngsters ;-)

Apologies for the delay in replying but I had to do a bit of work and then went to a very well organised race with my three kids and lots of other juniors - thanks go to Brett.

I didn't refer to all juniors and my comments were nothing to do with funding or the current vote.

[Chris K]

OK my one post on this subject.
FRA Future Options
I (was) volunteered to chair the sub-committee, Alan Brentnall, Neil Goldsmith, Paul Sanderson and Sue Becconsall were the other members. Anonymous? I didn't think so. We had to put our personal views to one side and try to just look at facts. About a dozen pages were trimmed down to nine, your committee all agreed to the summary note as seen on the ballot paper.
Your names are on the ballot paper, no apologies - it was the easiest way to waste as little members money as possible.
Incoherent, biased and patronising are some of the words used to describe the form, and there was me thinking it was just right in explaining what we thought and giving you the chance to clearly vote!
Right back to marking - keep up the colourful debate.
Chris Knox

[Wheeze]

Thanks for your candid summary Chris. I appreciate the effort that went into the report and the ballot form but I think with respect to the ballot form it is a classic case of someone too close to the issues drawing up what they honestly thought was a fair document. Believe me, it reads as anything but. Sorry, but there it is.

[Graham Breeze]

I think with respect to the ballot form it is a classic case of someone too close to the issues drawing up what they honestly thought was a fair document. Believe me, it reads as anything but. Sorry, but there it is.

Simon,

I'll balance the above comment against your unchanging, blinkered antagonism to UKA.

OK?

The Summary Note was deliberately produced by someone NOT on the Sub Committee and therefore NOT "too close to the issues".

It was then modified and finally approved by the full FRA Committee.

Of course 16 + people with a range of backgrounds, experience, individual perspectives, views of UKA & etc could all be wrong...or it may be you just don't like the facts presented.

The ballot paper I received helpfully made it quite clear what the FRA Committee thinks and invited me to vote Yes or No. There was no loaded revolver coercing me to vote in any particular direction. Was there with yours?

Regards,

Graham

[Swoop]

OK my one post on this subject.
FRA Future Options
I (was) volunteered to chair the sub-committee, Alan Brentnall, Neil Goldsmith, Paul Sanderson and Sue Becconsall were the other members. Anonymous? I didn't think so. We had to put our personal views to one side and try to just look at facts. About a dozen pages were trimmed down to nine, your committee all agreed to the summary note as seen on the ballot paper.
Your names are on the ballot paper, no apologies - it was the easiest way to waste as little members money as possible.
Incoherent, biased and patronising are some of the words used to describe the form, and there was me thinking it was just right in explaining what we thought and giving you the chance to clearly vote!
Right back to marking - keep up the colourful debate.
Chris Knox

Thanks Chris. Your hard work is much appreciated.

[daz h]

Thanks Chris. Your hard work is much appreciated.

i will second that colin
a bit more appreciation on here i think !!!

[Wheeze]

Simon,

I'll balance the above comment against your unchanging, blinkered antagonism to UKA.

OK?

The Summary Note was deliberately produced by someone NOT on the Sub Committee and therefore NOT "too close to the issues".

It was then modified and finally approved by the full FRA Committee.

Of course 16 + people with a range of backgrounds, experience, individual perspectives, views of UKA & etc could all be wrong...or it may be you just don't like the facts presented.

The ballot paper I received helpfully made it quite clear what the FRA Committee thinks and invited me to vote Yes or No. There was no loaded revolver coercing me to vote in any particular direction. Was there with yours?

Regards,

Graham

OK, so I'm unchanging but that is because I have yet to be convinced by any of the arguments put forward in favour of staying affiliated. I have been willing to listen to and debate those arguments...hardly a blinkered approach!

If you cannot see the coercive element in the way the ballot paper was worded then that is your problem, not mine. Did you write it?

[Yorkshire Thug]

OK, so I'm unchanging but that is because I have yet to be convinced by any of the arguments put forward in favour of staying affiliated. I have been willing to listen to and debate those arguments...hardly a blinkered approach!

If you cannot see the coercive element in the way the ballot paper was worded then that is your problem, not mine. Did you write it?

Wheeze, the dictionary definition of coerce is:-

EITHER to restrain or dominate by force
OR to compel to an act or choice
OR to achieve by force or threat.

None of these apply to the summary on my ballot form.

If I disagree with what the Committee think, I don’t believe that they are coercing me simply by honestly writing their beliefs down for me to see.

To think along those lines certainly is blinkered.

[Werdna Swilnik]

If you cannot see the coercive element in the way the ballot paper was worded then that is your problem, not mine.

I agree. For example, the use of loaded phrases like "your elected committee" when simply saying "the elected committee" would have sufficed.

AndyW.