Andrew,Originally Posted by studmarks
Well thank you for admitting you might be wrong!
As you know I was completely involved with the Belfield tragedy from before his body was even found up to and including the 4-day Inquest 17 months later (and since) and I have never had the slightest doubt about the FRA/UKA Insurance cover and have stated this publicly over and over again.
I and Morgan Williams (a lawyer), when he was FRA Secretary, met with the Insurance Company shortly after Brian died. I/we dealt with UKA and the lawyers being paid in full by the Insurance Co. I know the background to the separate lawyer plus a barrister representing Mike: again all paid for by the Insurance Company.
Some members having read some documents raised some questions which the FRA was obliged to explore, despite its experience of what had actually happened in the real -world case of a death of a runner in a fell race where procedures were not as good as they might have been.
I have now seen the full response from UKA etc. and it confirms what I have maintained all along to anyone prepared to listen to me i.e. no RO registering his race with the FRA need have any concerns whatsoever about the insurance cover he receives via UKA by registering his race with the FRA.
This response will now be issued in detail by the sub-group dealing with this which, as you know, includes Graham Wadsworth to whom I have talked at length in the past about what actually happened following the death of Brian Belfield.
When they were needed the Insurance Company did what we hoped and expected they would; which was just as well because if the FRA, and not the Insurance Company, had had to fund the legal costs for the Inquest the FRA might now be bankrupt.
In some circles it is glibly fashionable to criticise the FRA and its relationship with UKA but, as in other walks of life, sometimes having a big brother standing behind you can be very reassuring.
Regards,
Graham
Reply With Quote