But the committee do see the need for them, even if you do not. The forthcoming inquest maybe one such reason? I don't know. I am not full position of the facts of why these changes are needed. I suspect neither are you.
A sensible question might be to ask (politely) the people who've drawn up the rules for the reasoning behind the clarifications. This could lead to a sensible debate. Which would be perfectly reasonable.
Sorry, but I get very frustrated by the attitude on this forum sometimes - I can be easily irritable, I know this - it is symptom of the fact that I have depression. But it doesn't make my last post any less valid.
I am all for free speech and for good, vigorous debate. This is healthy and good. I enjoy good, logical debates.
But, sometimes it comes across on here as though people are just whinging for the sake of whinging. This does annoy me.
Please feel to debate, but if you do so, make sensible points clearly identifying your evidence and line of reasoning. Take emotion out of it. Take "back in the day we all ran on the fells in our pants and nowt else and nobody died" out of it and think about each point in isolation, then pull it all together and think about the big picture.
BTW, I give this advice for all debates. Logic is wonderful when used properly and without being unencumbered by emotion.
I suspect this would open the RO up to all sorts of legal difficulty, and perhaps the runners as well. Maybe. Again I am not sure. I am sure the FRA committee would be willing to point out why this would be foolish and could lead to problems for all fell races?