Resignation fromCommittee

[Mark G]

Is it fair to say that a tragedy is less likely to occur due to the tightening of the rules around safety kit? And that a incident could be prevented from developing into a tragedy due to the tightening of rules around ROs and marshals counting runners more effectively?

I think these are fair statements, but I'd be interested to hear people's opinions on this.

I think the answer to both of your questions is yes - a tragedy is less likely. But one is still possible regardless and the concern I have had has always been an expectation or implication that the RO must not allow one to happen by adhering to rules some of which might not be able to be complied with in some races.
I think the later versions reflect this better - obviously not everyone shares this view and this is clearly an important debate so I feel everyone with an interest should be contributing, its just a shame its got so personal. Not being a RO myself I am still concerned if the organisers of some classic races are still worried themselves. Anyone who doesn't think it matters have a look at Amblesides website re this years Langdale - I'm optimistic it will be OK but if it isn't what a disaster for fell running.

[alwaysinjured]

So what is the answer? You asked for meetings and were apparently turned away. Don't fall into the trap of rejecting belated overtures purely on the basis that they are belated. You've been asking for committee members to reply publicly for ages - no some people have started doing just that, don't reject it because their replies are incomplete, or because you disagree with them. Maybe they want you to reject the idea - so call their bluff.

What is the alternative, other than a painful descent into a break-up of the FRA?

Don't know the answer.

The biggest battle is already lost. My main intent from early doors was to get something Wynn could sign up to: a remit no bigger than that. I had no great designs on "changing our sport". It was as much bad diplomacy as bad rules, that that situation escalated out of control.

At the time that pow wow was going on, I emailed one of the big 3, indicating some unsatisfactory conversations, saying it was clear that someone needed to sooth troubled waters: and could that person see what could be brokered. It was then I discovered the major problem - I got the answer "refuse to discuss regarding any third party or with any third party" So it was already too "them and us" not a "we" that was needed to solve it.

So the horse has bolted from my point of view. Wynn and I are on a different track now, and there is so much bad blood I doubt she will be back, at least whilst those in control are still there. The sad thing is her "planning" that is the focus of what I think needs doing is already exemplary - yet nobody thought to talk to her before july rules etc were ever enforced.

I am trying to create what I preach for a different audience, and that might percolate back one day.

[Witton Park]

So what is the answer? You asked for meetings and were apparently turned away. Don't fall into the trap of rejecting belated overtures purely on the basis that they are belated. You've been asking for committee members to reply publicly for ages - no some people have started doing just that, don't reject it because their replies are incomplete, or because you disagree with them. Maybe they want you to reject the idea - so call their bluff.

What is the alternative, other than a painful descent into a break-up of the FRA?

I'd certainly be for sitting down away from the hullabaloo. I'm "with the FRA" in terms of races but against them in terms of their approach to the ROs pack.
I'd welcome the opportunity to have a proper discussion.

I agree with AI that a meeting between 3-4 people is not the way.

The way to do it is to have a wider audience of ROs and committee so that both sides can see a critique that isn't perhaps as entrenched.
It might help all see things with a little more clarity.

[alwaysinjured]

I'd certainly be for sitting down away from the hullabaloo. I'm "with the FRA" in terms of races but against them in terms of their approach to the ROs pack.
I'd welcome the opportunity to have a proper discussion.

I agree with AI that a meeting between 3-4 people is not the way.

The way to do it is to have a wider audience of ROs and committee so that both sides can see a critique that isn't perhaps as entrenched.
It might help all see things with a little more clarity.

I would still do a presentation of what I think needs doing (and now could bring a few pieces of documents) but it has to be promoted to interested RO and committee as an audience, to make it worthwhile or have the right chemistry.

[Henry Porter]

What an unedifying spectacle this thread is. Personally I think the committee should have stuck with the strategy of not responding to internet forum discussion. All it does is feed the ego of people with nothing better to do; and in the end it really is only about seven people.

I'm just pleased it is not about anything important. What we have will either stay or go, if it goes something else will happen- personally I really couldn't care less. Choices choices.

[alwaysinjured]

personally I really couldn't care less

Then why are you here?

[Graham Breeze]

She insisted on doing that stupid thing first.

So now I cannot be bothered, in reality because of the chemistry in the exec and that subcommittee is dysfunctional and unhealthy, so there is too little chance what I say would have any effect.

Mike,

I usually read what you write, particularly about RO. But then I talk with and listen to RO (well over 100 in the last month or so) and I am re-assured by them that the FRA is doing it right.

So you post on here that Scoffer is not happy.

Madeleine and I were with Scoffer on Monday evening at the 7th RO workshop in Keswick. We talked a lot and joked about his other race (Steel Fell). He has no problems. In the room were the RO for Borrowdale, Sedbergh Hills, Fairfield, Langdale, and others.. none of those four are just jogs round a park. Mike Robinson was there. I had a long chat with Roger Bell about Langdale. Was he happy with everything Madeleine and I and Jon Broxap and Nick Harris had said that evening? Would Langdale be on etc etc?

Of course.

I see we have yet another "final statement" from you. Is this any more credible than the last one? Credibility is a precious factor. Easy to lose particularly, if, as you have done:

- tried to teach your grandmother (ie very experienced race organisers) to suck eggs
- never managed to make your points clearly, succinctly and just once or twice
- insulted the Chair of the organisation you hope to work with
- called the members of the FRA Committee "jelly fish"
- not been familiar with key documents you try and debate publicly with the man who wrote them
- disregarded, facts,dates,quotes
- believed your own propaganda
- adopted a "only my way has any merit" tactic
- tried to convince by insinuation and anecdote and implication
- shown a general disregard for truth particularly on matters that can be readily checked by others

Enough?

The people on the FRA Committee who are dealing with "safety-legal" issues etc will be taking further expert advice.That has never been in doubt, and amongst the 7500 FRA members there are people who have offered to work with the committee and with whom the committee will be happy to work.

Much of your ranting has been about the issues, but you appear never to have stopped and thought "am I presenting myself as a person whom the volunteers on the FRA committee will wish to give up their time to work with?" I presume by now you are in a position to answer that question.

You've paraded your experience a lot on here. Well I used to practise as a Charted Engineer and I held a very senior position in an international company and much of my career was spent in the "people business". Working with Managing Directors and how they interacted and so on. MDs would come to me and ask "How do I get my proposal accepted by the Board?" and I would advise and the first thing I would say would be:

"well first, don't insult the Chair and then don't call the other 20 odd members jelly fish".

Graham

[dnf]

Qh5-check

[wynn]

[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;572326]Mike,



I see we have yet another "final statement" from you. Is this any more credible than the last one? Credibility is a precious factor. Easy to lose particularly, if, as you have done:

[/Quote/]
Graham for someone who has to post under various avatars to snipe and try to influence the forums... how's your credibility.

[noel]

What an unedifying spectacle this thread is. Personally I think the committee should have stuck with the strategy of not responding to internet forum discussion. All it does is feed the ego of people with nothing better to do; and in the end it really is only about seven people.

I'm just pleased it is not about anything important. What we have will either stay or go, if it goes something else will happen- personally I really couldn't care less. Choices choices.

I disagree. It's only through engagement by the committee and Graham on this debate that we can see where Mike and others have merit and where they do not. We don't have all the facts ourselves, so need the committee to refute things they believe to be untrue or unjustified.

At some point we need to reach a state of affairs where:
they agree
they agree to differ

That can only be reached by discussion. I agree that statement and counter-statement is a lot less productive than a chat. It now seems that Mike is the one who is being intransigent by refusing to have a chat about his numerous issues.