Originally Posted by Lecky
You know Lecky. I absolutely hate this way of doing things.
Had I been invited in to the process, fully accepting the need to "sell the approach" for it to gain acceptance, even as far as developing it before trialling, that would have got all this crap off the forum. But nobody took it up at a time it was offered 6 months ago, until all material decisions had been taken the wrong way first, indeed the last attempt at "rapprochement" from me, the sole agenda proposed for that meeting was the chair "putting my misunderstandings right" something I will not even give time of day: it should have been about future not past so me to precis as an experienced professional the safety presentation needed to be put before committee before moving on - which would have got me there at least.
I don't accept that FRA can only involve elected people. It should use any and all skills to hand. Like Andy, but they refused to invite him into the safety sub, despite him already BEING on committee. So it doesnt make any difference being elected or not. They didn't elect the previous adviser, they paid him through the nose, for advise which was certainly not about safety - they just thought it was - which goes to prove the lack of knowledge at the top.
In the background Anni W (not me, nor my document)sent their plan in as a kind of way to get the conversation with FRA moving again to be met with the clear nonsequitur and straw man argument from the secretary "we do not accept HSE legislation applies"(does anyone on executive have a grasp of critical thinking?) - mainly an attempt to get rid of it : pretty much guaranteeing AW will not be back ,because FRA are still not off first base with safety despite all this time.
The need to use proper safety planning clearly does matter, and I will warrant all RO plan races too. They have to, as do all other event organisers, or like the secretary with his closed gate minutes before, they might just find themselves facing a negligence claim in a coroners court.. It is the formalization of that planning that was found wanting at Sailbeck. Too back of a fag packet, not enough clear instruction or understanding of what needed to be there and why, and what the purpose of a plan was. That is the void I wanted to fill.
Finishing that document needs proper process and a team of RO. To formalise that knowledge. I will not hijack the process fo what needs doing, and cannot be bothered to waste a lot of time until the need is accepted.
So all I can do is keep pushing for the right way - and in response to the idea they need an occasional safety advisor, point out that it is not the way it should be done. It needs a competent person in charge which is the accepted wisdom on how it must be. Not my way, just the right way.
None of the arguments are actually the same. There are new own goals every week. Take the AW plan above. Also this week we think it ridiculous that FRA will not entertain a totally sensible reciprocal banning with other organisations for a runner such as at the waltz. Not trotted out ad nauseam at all. They just want to be seen in charge at the top of a pyramid - handing out dictats - it is all that seemingly matters to them.
Cant speak for him, but I think Richard was more surprised they have not asked him as they should - since he did a big analysis of what was wrong with existing documents - and has pointed out the inadequacy of the junior applications - his review was more or less swept aside, since there is no understanding of what should have happened when somebody does a review like he did. A wholesale change in documentation was what was needed. And since he clearly understood the problem, they should have given him the job. But he is not a sycophant, which probably counted against him.
Reply With Quote
