Stuck with affiliation?Originally Posted by Fellhound
Postal Ballot of Full Membership 2007 (2853 replies)
In favour of affiliation with UKA. 86 %
In favour of disaffiliation from UKA 14%
Stuck with affiliation?
Postal Ballot of Full Membership 2007 (2853 replies)
In favour of affiliation with UKA. 86 %
In favour of disaffiliation from UKA 14%
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8011535...57604637599232
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8011535...57604637599232
Fond memories as this was my first Lakes race.
and where does this fit in?
http://www.petercull.com/p741706182/h565ee30#h565ee30
Did you vote to get us in to the Common Market as well?
Interesting to read this alongside SMOTS, page 68 onwards...
Yes, indeed, I dipped into that last weekend. Also Chapter 21 "Risk and Responsibility" of FiTC.
That was then. This is now.
Times and voting changes the colour of governance just like any other election.
Anyone who reads UKA testimony , particularly race organisers , will probably come to the conclusion that with friends like that we probably do not need any other enemies.
It is reasonable to consider or conclude in reading it , that UKA are trying to steer a conclusion of marshall and RO "training" so the natural progression to " certification " hence "accreditation" and from that comes " control" and "domination" to bring this unruly FRA into doing what it is told without question, like other parts of athletics. Ask Kate Reed what happens when people who do not understand a sport are allowed authority over it, completely destroying her olympic 10k chances, and those who did know and did object, such as her coaches ( and her) were not only rendered powerless to prevent it, but also were largely silenced by the accreditation. " do it our way, say nothing, or we will not let you do it at all"
For the most part I stayed out of that debate first time round despite having seen a lot of "barking" decisions within athletics, except to express the impossibility of demanding graded officials, which in my view is still impossible. I am no longer silent now I have seen the true colours flown.
That for the present is a secondary issue: here and now is to stop the rules from hanging out ROs to dry - to protect them from impossible warranties and assumptions such as that counting and communications can be made error free, or the impossibility that a course in any part can be made or warranted hazard free.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 22-10-2013 at 12:34 AM.
Wkb21, sorry, what part of my post was speculation?. I have read the inquest summary. It is quite clear. Mr Belfield tragically slipped and fell into a stream. No electronic aid would have helped him survive. But the summary also states that it was his poor wife who raised the alarm that he was missing. An electronic ident would have pinpointed him before this.
Grass is greener re your earlier point Wheeze.. we can leave the UKA/GBA umbrella but these issues will still surface. This split and form new bodies at every disagreement cannot be the best way to approach this. We will always have the risk of death when running in the mountains and alongwith that comes the threat of legal action.
Do agree re your last point though. These changes have come about because of many things, no doubt Brian's death has led to the FRA taking a serious look at safety as well. However any changes arising don't mean they would have saved Brian and I do think its been done well and I can certainly understand no statement until they have officially heard from the coroner.
But when any death occurs in a sport you take a closer look at see what could be done to improve its safety. You ask the 'what ifs' and not just surrounding this one case, that's just reactive and no way to improve general safety, so this is a more proactive general response.
I don't think it is perfect but tbf it has been set out that these can be changed year on year if a good case is made. I for one do think a rating of waterproof or approved jackets would be helpful, but it seems thats a 'no.. for now.. but will reconsider in the future'.
You can certainly see the need for RO's to cover themselves, maybe there is a way they can form a limited company as a group.
Limitation cannot help with criminal liability.
The rules need modification not only to avoid reinforcing false expectations of how far it is possible to marshall or control with certainty, but indeed to deliberately squash such expectations, because those expectations are what the ill informed use as a yardstick to measure duty of care, from which stem negligence claims.
I have urged in the background: Because time is of the essence it needs a caucus of four or five RO outside committee because of conflict of interesrs, to represent RO interests in a panel with onhand legal support, to batter out a workable compromise with FRA. Wynn? witton? You need a couple of others, perhaps one more dangerous race RO to represent the spread of races on such a panel.Any takers?
Okay I'm officially bored stupid by this thread now
Posting Permissions
