New safety rules

[alwaysinjured]

Indeed and thank you Lecky.

The fun of the Forum is to allow free rein to the utterances of the ego driven, axes to grind, cabal and long may that continue

But if I may be boring: the 2014 Safety Requirements etc were sent to the FRA lawyers over a month ago, the same people with whom I have spent 6 full days discussing these very issues over the last few weeks.

And the current position? They will apply from 1st January 2014.

But now let's get back to throwing Christians to the lions.

Glad to see you engage graham. this is not personal or show business, just genuine concern by someone who has seen how the law can shaft people in practise when unguarded statements are made.

From FRA perspective, I am sure the lawyers said the rules are fine.

Solicitors answer in respect of the interests of the parties that pay them, which is also why they are next to useless in respect of drafting business contracts because they seem unable to balance other peoples interests, instead making demands that other parties are never able to accept,

in a commercial context It guarantees a ping ping of exchanges that rack up the bills for both parties lawyers.

So Who in this exchange with solicitors represented the race Organisers interests whose duties are clearly made far more onerous?
Did they comment on the practicability of making a course "hazard free" or just express the opinion it would be safer in such a cloud cuckoo land.

I would be fascinated to see the opinion of someone scrutinizing the rules on behalf of an organiser who has to be bound by them. I expect their opinion would be far less rosy.

Would you care to share the opinion of UKA lawyer as it pertained to the recent case? I will bet they used the current rules to try to put a noose ariund the organisers neck, because that in practise is what they do. Now imagine what they would have said , with the ammunition you now give them...

I stand by what I said. Those rules are not written using the language any solicitor would use. So if they read them , they did not refine them: I suspect the primary function of FRA and lawyer interaction was in respect of the recent inquest, not the modified rules, so that sounds like a convenient half truth.