Safety Matters

[LissaJous]

WOW! That's certainly drawing the battle lines isn't it.

Maybe I would better have said "But if you side against the current committee you will not get far". I have already talked about the limited accountability of the committee, and I am not going to repeat it.

As has been said above I didn't realise it was a 'win/lose' situation although I more on AI's "side" than the committee I thought it was all about the best result for the sport

That's what we'd all like to think. Sadly it's about politics which. Is often very slow.

[alwaysinjured]

Please don't make up things I did not say.

I said your points have been heard, by current and future committee members. I did not say they are being addressed.

Lauren you said:
"to reach a position very similar to AI's."

No they have not. To do that they would have to addressed and heed my issues, so far they have not even heard many of them. I have offered to present what I think numerous times across the last 6 months.

The only thing the chair wanted to do discuss as a result of my last and very much final request to present them, to the decision makers was and I quote : to "correct my misunderstandings on her management style" which was the only item on her agenda which had to precede anything else. I am not even going to turn up for that : let alone drive to leeds because and I quote "her time was more valuable than mine".

You saw what happened when I mistakenly believed that sending various documents to FRA was a worthwhile exercise: secretary saying "ignore them because I should not have access to committee" - and he took the time and trouble to copy me in on the email he sent the committee saying that. So no point in doing that again, clearly.

So dont imply this is a " a pointless personal vendetta" , certainly not on my side.Those are the people in charge of FRA and that is the way it is run by them.

I want it to act responsibly with all that that entails. That is all. No more and no less.


We can no longer comment on any of it of course because Andy W was made to resign removing our insight, and the first reaction of every bad management is to hide information on which it can be criticised, so no agenda , documents or minutes any more. And since there is no outside scrutiny the people who found the first set of errors (me/us) are no longer able to do so in any of the works in progress ,until they are published. So the documents will inevitably be alot worse for it - since we were the ones that at least managed to get some sanity back in some places in the old ones.

I have offered to comment on interim documents privately (pre release) to at least make people aware of what I might think were issues, were they ever published. Nobody ever took me up on that either.

I can agree with this though.

That's what we'd all like to think. Sadly it's about politics which. Is often very slow.

And it should not be!.

Anyway happy easter all.

[Graham Breeze]

[QUOTE=LissaJous;581660].

That's what we'd all like to think. /QUOTE]

Lauren
If anything you ever read on this or other threads gives you any grounds for concern about the way the committee is actually going about its work then you can get in touch by phone or email or...and I (or any of my committee colleagues) will try to put your mind at rest.

It will be a bit dull, compared with Forum fantasy, but then the real world of work often is.

Regards,

Graham

[alwaysinjured]

[QUOTE=Graham Breeze;581671]

.

That's what we'd all like to think. /QUOTE]

Lauren
If anything you ever read on this or other threads gives you any grounds for concern about the way the committee is actually going about its work then you can get in touch by phone or email or...and I (or any of my committee colleagues) will try to put your mind at rest.

It will be a bit dull, compared with Forum fantasy, but then the real world of work often is.

Regards,

Graham

So which parts exactly of what was just said are fantasy Graham

[CL]

But there is a big difference in my opinion between an RO (or spokesman for) specifying minimum kit with knowledge of a specific race, conditions on the day etc. and the FRA specifying minimum kit based on some rather arbitrary criteria based around race length / heigh gain.

There may be but that doesn't defend AI's contradictory position in regard to the AW.

[CL]

I note that you don't say mandatory by the HSE.

The FRA in the role of Fell Running are something akin to the HSE. The RO is equivalent to a business or organisation.

What the FRA have done (with kit as an example) is to say that all races of a certain spec must mandate the carrying of this kit adn must have some sort of scrutiny of that kit, in some instances with the number of inspections also mandated.

Contrast that with the HSE who would adopt a stance of "You the RO must assess what kit is appropriate for your event and then decide how you want to handle that in terms of mandating it, recommending it, kit checking....."

Let's cut through this nonsense. It doesn't matter who's prescribes the minimum kit requirements because once they file down to competitors many will just think 'that'll do.'

[CL]

Noel I have long since given up expecting other than the nitpicking above.

eg It is not me that wrote SHR rules. (or even SHR - they adopted them at a time when they thought FRA knew best and they wanted to be consistent, now they know that is not true, they are left scratching their heads as well) but until they have a new set of rules,
AW entry conditions, have to do something to protect Wynn, whilst not actually countermanding rules as they are at present. In short a diplomatic fudge trying to sidestep a few landmines on the way. And in the end, it is not the minimum kit that is the problem. It is the context of it that causes a problem.


etc

As for holistic disagreements, you will not find a competent safety advisor who will disagree with most of what I have said on a myriad of issues. Take the issue about wide disseminatio to tellrunners what to do urgently (and what not to do)if they find another fallen runner immobile unconscious.
Marshalls even if trained, are highly unlikely to get there in time to help - you have only minutes, if they stop breathing.

Yet FRA have not heeded that, fellrunner magazine refused safety articles from me because of not wanting to be seen as "partisan" (by the way I would get an A&E doctor involved in drafting that because unlike FRA I know the need to involve experts even though I am a trained first aider, ABC and all that..).

So if a fatality or paralysis happens because that common sense safety suggestion was not heeded by those in power (like most of the rest of what I have said). I will blame current FRA executive, and make sure everyone knows who had the power to make that happen, but failed to use it.

So nitpick away Noel...

So you admit the AW rules are there to protect the RO even though you know full well - and by your own admission - that having minimum requirements will produce a 'that'll do' philosophy amongst many competitors. So instead of doing the right thing - which you slate the FRA for not doing - you're sucking up to the nanny state and doing the very things you say you are against.

[wkb21]

I can’t claim to have followed this important thread round by round, but the importance of the main issue demands we shouldn’t ignore it. Unless I have missed some, I have the clear impression that all contributors with professional experience of safety management in industry tend to agree with AI’s general position, if not the way he presents it. I certainly do. FRA committee’s last and only safety professional resigned because he felt that ethically he had no alternative. I agree with him.

This debate tends to be pitched as FRA vs. anti-FRA. It isn’t. It’s about two very different ways of managing safety. Both can work. One will work far better than the other and stems from decades of industrial experience that can usefully be applied to our predicament. It will be a great pity if the sport splits on its approach, but a split now seems inevitable. So we should get on with it and leave race organisers to choose their preferred way. This is not FRA vs. anti-FRA, but safety by prescriptive rules vs. non prescriptive rules and guidance.
Any race organiser who had witnessed how close the Sailbeck inquest sailed to a miscarriage of justice would find his choice straightforward. One day the full record may go public.

The near miss was caused by the behaviour of the UK Athletics witness and their lawyer, who was doing the thorough job his client paid him for, and doing this by using FRA rules against the race organiser despite the revelation of rule breaches having no influence on the tragic outcome. At a future inquest into a tragedy under FRA rules, this lawyer and his successors will relax in the knowledge that their client need have no fear litigation against UKA. The new rules will almost guarantee that the race organiser will suffer an even more traumatic inquest than some of us witnessed at Sailbeck even if, again, the race organiser is blameless.

All the important points have been made over and over again. The non-prescriptive way (forget taped seams!!!) will make fell racing safer for all by placing ownership of safety and its detailed implementation in the best places – shared between organiser and competitors. Race organisers now need to choose their own way and get on with the next race.

Keith Burns

[Graham Breeze]

I can’t claim to have followed this important thread round by round, but the importance of the main issue demands we shouldn’t ignore it. Unless I have missed some, I have the clear impression that all contributors with professional experience of safety management in industry tend to agree with AI’s general position, if not the way he presents it. I certainly do. FRA committee’s last and only safety professional resigned because he felt that ethically he had no alternative. I agree with him.

This debate tends to be pitched as FRA vs. anti-FRA. It isn’t. It’s about two very different ways of managing safety. Both can work. One will work far better than the other and stems from decades of industrial experience that can usefully be applied to our predicament. It will be a great pity if the sport splits on its approach, but a split now seems inevitable. So we should get on with it and leave race organisers to choose their preferred way. This is not FRA vs. anti-FRA, but safety by prescriptive rules vs. non prescriptive rules and guidance.
Any race organiser who had witnessed how close the Sailbeck inquest sailed to a miscarriage of justice would find his choice straightforward. One day the full record may go public.

The near miss was caused by the behaviour of the UK Athletics witness and their lawyer, who was doing the thorough job his client paid him for, and doing this by using FRA rules against the race organiser despite the revelation of rule breaches having no influence on the tragic outcome. At a future inquest into a tragedy under FRA rules, this lawyer and his successors will relax in the knowledge that their client need have no fear litigation against UKA. The new rules will almost guarantee that the race organiser will suffer an even more traumatic inquest than some of us witnessed at Sailbeck even if, again, the race organiser is blameless.

All the important points have been made over and over again. The non-prescriptive way (forget taped seams!!!) will make fell racing safer for all by placing ownership of safety and its detailed implementation in the best places – shared between organiser and competitors. Race organisers now need to choose their own way and get on with the next race.

Keith Burns

I thought Keith would be along to recruit English RO to register their races with Scottish Hill Runners although as I understand things SHR races are still being run under a "cut and paste" version of the FRA "prescriptive" model?

I do wonder how, following a future death in an English fell race registered with SHR , the RO would explain to an English Coroner that he had registered his race with a Scottish organisation because he found the safety requirements demanded by the English FRA governing body (and amended in the light of his or a colleague's recommendations) too demanding? Particularly since the police would almost certainly ask the FRA/UKA to critique the race arrangements.

However I need to correct/clarify some assertions about the Belfield Inquest.

* Keith was present at the inquest as an "expert witness". He was not an "interested party" of which there were 3: Mrs Belfield, Mike Robinson and me (for the FRA).

* There were over 20 witnesses called (including Keith) and more witness statements were "read out in court into the record" eg that of the Pathologist. Keith was required to attend for around an hour or so of the 4 days, although he chose to be present for longer.

* His status was the same as that of John Temperton who represented UKA as the other "expert witness", whom he chooses to criticise.

* The assertion of a potential "near miss" or "miscarriage of justice" is his opinion. It is not mine. Access to the "full record" will not support his view.

* The assertions about the "UK Athletics witness and their lawyer" are wrong. The person briefing the UKA/FRA lawyer was me. I sat behind the lawyer in Court and I alone passed notes to him during the hearings (with the support of the FRA Chair who sat by me) and consulted with him before and after each session. The letter submitted to the Coroner on day 4 from the FRA was jointly written by me/the FRA Chair and our lawyer. Nobody else and certainly not UKA.

There are other wrong assertions in Keith's post, but my open question is: "Do people really think a representative of a Scottish fell organisation, which does not operate under English Law and which is independent of UKA, has the best interests of English fell runners and English race organisers at heart?"

[SMS]

Yes, and unlike you, they appear to have an open ear as well. Im guessing that's not the answer you were looking for? The FRA is currently a laughing stock, and a point of quiet anger, amongst many experienced fell runners - as I witnessed at a club meet this week. Get your act together.