Our point is though is though is that don't agree with what Al has to say and we every right to say that so please don't ever again ask people not to post, you don't have that right whilst we have every right to disagree with what we consider is blatantly way off course.Originally Posted by Fellhound
Quite. I was wondering if they're not all the same person.
Right, you've disagreed. Now, if there's nothing else..
Whilst it is clear there are some ROs that are unconcerned there are others that are very concerned.
Let's just get to some facts here.
A Review of the Safety Rules & Equipment was started via the forum some time ago by Breezy and some people contributed to that which resulted in some revision in the paperwork sent to ROs to permit their 2014 events.
(I didn't as at this point I wasn't greatly concerned as it was the old document with mainly kit revisions)
As a result of this and the ongoing inquest, some looked more closely at the paperwork and found areas of concern.
That those areas may have already been there in the past are not disputed, but the inquest and the revision triggered a greater scrutiny of the paperwork.
Issues have been found in this paperwork that even the FRA Committee feel are significant enough to review further.
I certainly feel that the debate has helped me become more aware as an RO so for that I welcome it.
These issues have now meant that I do see fit to make a submission to Graham and I have done so this morning.
So on the scaremongering claims against AI, just remember that we have some ROs here as well that are of the same or similar standpoint and the even FRA are re-looking at this.
I have followed this thread with growing concern. I was involved in the inquest as one of a small group of independent reviewers of all the witness statements and discussion at the inquest. On this thread, I speak in a personal capacity only, but with a background of over 30 years experience of fell racing as competitor, race organiser, marshal, sweeper, head counter, car park attendant and most other coal-face jobs, now including that of an independent witness and reviewer.
The fell race community is at a turning point over the potential response to this tragedy, a tragedy whose outcome was not affected in any way by errors of race management. Those who read AI’s views and disagree with him should think very carefully indeed about whether they understand the consequences they have been warned about. Whilst I have not been a member of FRA for some years, I am still deeply involved in fell racing, and we all face similar problems.
If the FRA Committee agrees to all the Coroner’s recommendations, and implements them, it will lead to experienced ROs abandoning FRA governance in droves because they will know that they are signing their own potential future guilt warrants. This is so because full compliance is impossible. The FRA Committee knows that as well. So as AI has indicated, FRA is not even absolving itself of liability because it knowingly prescribes impossible rules. I am not confident that UKA knows this. Impossible rules can have unintended consequences by diverting attention from really useful work.
You would understand how remote UKA is from fell racing if you had attended the inquest, or read the witness statement of the UKA representative, or listened to their lawyer. If you are still undecided, you should ask the Committee to give you sight of a copy of this witness statement. It is public domain material because it was read out at the inquest. I would not recommend that it be published. If the FRA Committee is correct in its views, it has no reason to withhold this evidence from those who might wish to see it. That evidence will demonstrate to race organisers whether they should be concerned about the conflicts of interest that have created this mess.
Fell racing as we know it may well be destroyed under FRA governance if it does not listen to these concerns. FRA can explain firmly to the Coroner why it cannot implement his suggestions in full. He will listen and will understand. Traditional fell racing would survive FRA’s potential mistake because enthusiasts would turn to other governance or set up a separate body altogether.
These are the issues that hang in the balance. Taped seams and such trivia are a distracting irrelevance. It’s now up to concerned race organisers to put their heads above the parapet and tell the FRA Committee what they need, as race organisers.
Abuse under anonymity does not help this important debate.
Keith Burns
You cannot dismiss as a matter of "opinion" what is a matter of fact.
The coroner really did consider it important enough (ie as a factor significant enough to impact future deaths) to relate in matter 6 the issue of what was actually an overcount.
That matter only got there because of UKA evidence citing that discrepancy under "poor practise" and as a "failure of duty" - and Khamsin - if you do not recognise, that that phrase means "evidence of negligence" you have no business commenting on it. Ask FRA if you do not believe me - get them to publish the UKA evidence document referring that discrepancy and cited under both "poor practice" and "failures of duty"
That UKA could never have said that had they
(a) been illinformed about the real practical issues of fellrunning (as stated by Norman Bates - non participant runners are a problem for runner accounting)
(b) they read our old rules 13 etc, that imply that marshal accounting and tracking can be perfect. If the rules say it, third parties are entitled to assume it. How else did it make it worthy of mention or the coroners report?
(c) been on an agenda to discredit that RO?, or reckless as to how their evidence would be used?. you have to ask why, such a fact of life of marshalling was deliberately treated as poor practise - what was the motive of UKA? I think to get marshall training , a thin end of a wedge to graded officialdom onto the agenda.
Those are all facts except only (c) is just my opinion
You cannot disagree except (c)
All I am after is a set of practical rules, that are unambiguous, can be done in all circumstances, present it warts and all, that say what we do, and then the RO just has to do what we say we do, and has the comfort and protection of knowing he did what was "reasonably practicable" and followed the code such as it is.
. The present committee did not create the problem of unreasonable expectation, some of which is in the old rules. It is up to the new one to fix it, and reset expectations to what is actually possible.
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 29-10-2013 at 11:54 AM.
Lefty certainly isn't. He's a good bloke, with lots of experience who just happens to differ on this point.
Khamsin really needs to watch when using terms like "inflammatory lies" as it could almost be a self critique.
Just remember that there is a lot of stuff flying around here behind the scenes. I don't know all that attended the inquest, or the FRA Committee, but I have accessed certain information from a variety of sources and others have acknowledged this as well.
I don't think there are an grounds to accuse AI of telling lies.
If you agree with what Al has to say fair enough I can respect you for that but you should also understand that others do not and find his posts less than constructive. If you look you will see that I have posted what you describe as constructive comments on this subject in the past and when it comes to organising ( and running ) in fell races I do know what I'm talking about. Unfortunately the same can not be said of others posting on this subject. You see I have actively followed the evolution of the rules from the day when there were no rules whatsoever but we don't live in that era any more. We elect the Fra ourselves and we entrust them to look after things on our behalf and who better to do that ? Al or the people we elected, look at the Fra and the committee, made up experienced people, race organisers and runners, not people in blazers who want to devolve all responsibility from their own shoulders to ours but people who have the safety of competitors and the security of race organisers at heart, my opinion but not just my opinion as the return of race registration forms attests to. If the final draft is subject to legal scrutiny by people who understand these matters, if those self same people have studied every single post on this forum and acted on that ( as is the case ) then that is good enough for me. I have studied the rules, some things I didn't at first agree with, some things I may not still agree with but in general I think that as a race organiser and runner in general they should be well received. I don't understand ALs motives, I don't think unlike the Fra that he fully comprehends what is needed and therefore I disagree with him and you should respect people for that.
Graham Wright Rossendale Harriers Chairman
Fell and Mountain Running Coach
Fell race and Mountain bike race organiser
Former Fra committee member.
Fell runner.
Thanks.
Khamsin would do well to note independent confirmation of my thoughts on UKA evidence from someone not just there but actively involved.
My motives are simple lefty. I watched with alarm at the inquest outcome, not just for what did happen, but also the far worse outcome that might have been, I look at the rules and see why the worst could have happened as a result of wrong expectation and unachievable mandates that arises from the rules.
The present committee did not create the problem of unreasonable expectation, much of which is in the old rules. It is up to the new one to fix it, and reset expectations to what is actually possible.
All I am after is a set of practical rules, that are unambiguous, can be done in all circumstances, that present fell running warts and all, that say what we do, and then the RO just has to do what we say we do, and has the comfort and protection of knowing he did what was "reasonably practicable" and followed the code such as it is.
Why is that a problem for you Lefty?
I have drafted the safety policies and related documents for at least five companies (that I still remember) that had to regulate some very dangerous activities.
So Like fellhound :
( who is also a safety professional, and it surprises me therefore he was not put on the rules subcomittee - he should be!!! - fellhounds safety knowledge is almost certainly more up to date than mine)
I have some useful knowledge to bring to the party : fellrunning should pool all the knowledge it has, and see all problems from several different angles , the safety legislation viewpoint being one:
Even though it is about employees the concept of what is "reasonably practicable" is transferrable, and how to draft something that is as much a defence for those who behave responsibly as it is evidence against those who do not.
Don't shoot the messenger, or question the motives, or even the standing of the messenger. Consider the message!
Last edited by alwaysinjured; 29-10-2013 at 12:41 PM.
There aren't enough bullet points being used on this thread. That's my problem with it all
Posting Permissions
