 Poster: A snowHead
|
kevin mcclean, are you going to give us any of your opinions on the issues and arguments?
By the way, it's possible to be right and rude at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
kevin, after a while you get used to rudeness and abuse. One of the most senior and respected figures in British skiing, who was upset with the way I was carrying on about something, told me I was "a Jew". I think he was trying to rationalise what I was saying by stereotyping my argument into something that Jews might believe, perhaps thinking that I was part of a Zionist conspiracy in skiing. Had I been a Jew I would doubtless have been offended at his anti-Semitic tone.
I told him I was not a Jew.
He insisted I was a Jew, despite my demonstrating that my mother was a non-Jew (from a Methodist family, in fact).
Sometimes the SCGB repping thing, and the belief in it, seems to attain a slightly religious quality. Past chairmen have said that the reps are the "lifeblood of the Club" or the "heart of the Club" - statements conveying an almost anatomical fundamentalism. Of course, the truth is that the Club's members are the lifeblood of the Club (because they pay the subscriptions!)
People insist that the SCGB will face apocalpyse should the reps face extinction (which I've never argued). Darwinists would certainly argue otherwise. Reps could evolve and cross-breed in many promising and sustainable ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
kevin mcclean, normally I would agree with you on ad hominem attacks. But David has a long track record of appearing to be anti-rep, and I feel he has been... shall we say... selective... about the way he interprets evidence and history... in the past on this issue and a few others.
David Goldsmith, strong smell of burning martyr wafting in this direction.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| PJSki wrote: |
kevin mcclean, are you going to give us any of your opinions on the issues and arguments?
By the way, it's possible to be right and rude at the same time. |
it is, but most people don't feel the necessity for the second in most cases.
Your attacks on David are rude and pointless, and "right" or "wrong" don't really enter into it since they are also irrelevant to the points being discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| ... strong smell of burning martyr wafting in this direction.... |
Not me. Possibly the 17 Protestant martyrs of Lewes, or the local kebab shop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
| What worries me as a member is that the dropping out might occur at a point where the skier can't necessarily get back to a suitable piste etc. unaided, or gets into trouble or injury at that point. |
This is a totally ridiculous thing to say. Even peer groups are unlikely to leave a group member in a dangerous position, let alone a trained leader. Obviously reps will drop people off at a safe place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PJSki, two opportunities arise:
The first is to delete the last sentence, without the mods having to go to the trouble. I'll then delete this line.
The second is to attend one of snowHeads' new 'sock puppet evenings'. These new events enable you to 'come out' and thrill to the revelation of your true personality, in an atmosphere of mutual support and encouragement. Trained counsellors will be available.
In the meantime, get knitted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, the last sentence represents my honest opinion. It is, I believe, a fair and accurate appraisal of your modus operandi. It is also a view shared by others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
On a more constructive note, I agree with PJSki that there's a discussion to be had, if it's free of personal abuse. There seems to be little support for the 'Important Notice' regarding SCGB reps, and some need for re-drafting it in less ambiguous and contradictory terms. As it stands:
| Quote: |
| Important Notice: Ski Club reps are not professional mountain guides, nor ski instructors. They are Club members who have attended a training course with us and who volunteer their services. If you wish to ski with a Ski Club rep you do so in full knowledge that the rep will not assess your skiing ability.You are responsible for your own safety, and we expect you to participate in the safety of the whole group. Skiing is an inherently risky sport and you must be physically fit and have sufficient skill and experience to enable you to participate without risk to yourself or the safety of others.You must ensure that your equipment is in good working order and that you are suitably clothed and equipped for a day of mountain activity on snow. When venturing off piste it is advisable to wear an avalanche transceiver. Unless you are accompanied by a professional mountain guide or ski instructor, you must use your own judgement when deciding which route to follow. When you are skiing under the guidance of a professional mountain guide or ski instructor organised through the Ski Club you should follow their reasonable instructions. In the event that you feel that any route is beyond your capability to ski safely, you must inform the Ski Club rep, mountain guide or ski instructor immediately. You must accept that Ski Club reps, mountain guides and ski instructors have the right to prevent you from participating in any programme organised by the Ski Club if, in their reasonable opinion, you cannot participate safely because of your standard of skiing or fitness is inadequate, or your conduct may present a danger to others. Neither the Ski Club of Great Britain nor the Ski Club Winter Arrangements Limited have any liability to you in these circumstances. If you wish to ski with a Ski Club rep, you must have insurance cover which is no less comprehensive than that provided by the policy of insurance currently arranged by the Ski Club of Great Britain. |
A shorter and more effective alternative might be as follows.
| Quote: |
Please note: Ski Club reps are not professional mountain guides or ski instructors. They are Club members who have been trained by us as volunteer group leaders. The skiing will be confined to controlled pistes unless a professional guide or suitably qualified instructor leads the group.
To ensure compatibility and maximum enjoyment, we ask you to assess your ability according to our definitions and to choose a suitable group. The rep will ski a progression of runs to help everyone assess their compatibility and enable the rep to make a judgement. You may be asked to join a different group on a different day, and we request your cooperation in these circumstances.
When venturing off piste, please follow any instructions of your guide or instructor regarding equipment and other precautions. In the event that you feel that any route is beyond your capability to ski safely, you must inform the guide or instructor immediately. You must accept that Ski Club reps, mountain guides and ski instructors have the right to prevent you from participating in any programme organised by the Ski Club if, in their reasonable opinion, you cannot participate safely because of your standard of skiing or fitness is inadequate, or your conduct may present a danger to others. Neither the Ski Club of Great Britain nor the Ski Club Winter Arrangements Limited have any liability to you in these circumstances. Your statutory rights are not affected. You must hold insurance cover suitable for any activity undertaken (including off-piste cover, where appropriate) |
The above text obviously pre-supposes that the Club discontinues off-piste repped skiing without a guide or qualified instructor, but it therefore greatly simplifies the assessment issue. I personally see no other way to indemnify the Club from further litigation, though it is technically correct that the Club's insurers essentially call the shots (while billing for the premiums).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, link to the original notice, pleeeeeeeease?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
David Goldsmith, I don't think potential litigation costs are a major problem. Avoiding potential criminal charges (such as manslaughter) is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presumably you mean corporate manslaughter, which is rarely prosecuted in Britain.
Are you saying that it arises more regularly in the major skiing countries, in relation to skiing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
David Goldsmith, I was thinking of protecting the reps from criminal charges associated with injury or death in reps' parties. Death in a rep's party is fortunately extremely rare - but has arisen in Verbier - and the outcome of that will send a message one way or the other to other reps, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Never mind
| Quote: |
protecting the reps
|
, surely the crux of the matter is how you protect those who ski/board with reps. Insurance is merely a financial instrument that helps tidy up the mess after a tragedy. The existance of insurance doesn't make something the right thing to be doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
achilles, so do you believe the Club can keep its reps free of that nightmare if it is encouraging them to lead groups off-piste with training which does not match internationally-recognised qualifications?
What boundaries and safeguards for the Club's reps and members would you advocate if you were wearing the Chairman's boots?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
David Goldsmith, surely the answer is - and will be - a traditional British fudge.
But that won't appeal to those who have such a black and white view of things - be it you or the Val d'Isere four.
Why don't you tell us if there is any measure - short of reps having the IAFGM (or whatever it is) - which would make you happy about them leading members off-piste?
Bode Swiller, consenting adults and all that.If the risks are explained and reasonable attempts made to mitigate them etc etc. Of course no one has ever died in the company of a mountain guide...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| achilles, so do you believe the Club can keep its reps free of that nightmare if it is encouraging them to lead groups off-piste with training which does not match internationally-recognised qualifications? |
the reps' training sounds quite similar to the "mountain safety" module which BASI requires for its instructors to take people off piste
(we did all this about 25 pages ago)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| Bode Swiller, consenting adults and all that.If the risks are explained and reasonable attempts made to mitigate them etc etc. Of course no one has ever died in the company of a mountain guide... |
I assume you're joking there (for the benefit of others who'll take you at your word). And that is surely a big consideration... even properly qualified guides (who will have probably taken 7-8 years to get qualified and who probably actually live permanently in the area where they guide) still die and so do some of their customers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Arno wrote: |
| (we did all this about 25 pages ago) |
and it'll be gone through again on page 84 no doubt
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Bode Swiller, better not ski off-piste in that case. If people like that are getting killed....
Arno, thanks for that. The fact reps are trained to similar standard as BASI totally destroys Goldsmith's point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, I think I see what you are getting at. I was writing in the context of DG's remarks that the Club faced the risk of litigation. I think it is possible for the club to take a view on that, and protect itself against reasonably foreseeable risk. But protecting against the effects of criminal; prosecution is another matter altogether. I have seen a lot of correspondence on litigation - but the real worry - in terms of defence of the Club and the reps, is criminal prosecution, IMV. I fully accept that the welfare of party members also has to be addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| ... consenting adults and all that.If the risks are explained and reasonable attempts made to mitigate them etc etc. |
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| I assume you're joking there (for the benefit of others who'll take you at your word). |
Indeed. We're not talking about adults consenting to play sex games or nude ping-pong. We're talking about people who have typically paid £55 per annum for services including (as advertised) off-piste skiing with reps, from an organisation which increasingly promotes itself in a quasi-commercial fashion. A Club whose first half-century of solid decision-making enabled it to occupy one of the most prominent and prestigious sites in London.
stoatsbrother, 'traditional British fudge' was recommended to members at the 2007 AGM (as explained in the early pages of this thread). We were told that its was better in defending litigation to have a slightly vague policy on off-piste skiing - not to be too definite about the definition of 'remoteness from the piste'. I'm not convinced, because gung-ho reps may blow raspberries to the policy.
There's every reason to bow to the inevitable, instead of doing a King Canute on slopes that might or might not slide.
There's a scenario that ought to keep you awake at night: 3 British skiers die in avalanche (1 non-member) on slope chosen by SCGB rep. What do you think Fleet Street reporters would make of this the next morning?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| ......... A Club whose first half-century of solid decision-making enabled it to occupy one of the most prominent and prestigious sites in London..... |
Are you seriously suggesting that having premises in Eaton Square would be good value for the club's members in these days when skiing belongs more to the masses that to tweed-clothed gents with avalanche cords tied around their waists?
| Quote: |
| There's a scenario that ought to keep you awake at night: 3 British skiers die in avalanche (1 non-member) on slope chosen by SCGB rep. What do you think Fleet Street reporters would make of this the next morning? |
Well, the news of the Verbier incident was publicly released by the Club at the time. Looks to me that the Press ('Fleet Street' is so very C20, don't you think?) took a reasonable view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith
| Quote: |
| There's a scenario that ought to keep you awake at night: 3 British skiers die in avalanche (1 non-member) on slope chosen by SCGB rep. What do you think Fleet Street reporters would make of this the next morning? |
Fear of the press? Oh dear, has it come down to that? But maybe the press would do a better job than you and mention all that facts and not just the ones they like best. Maybe they'd mention the reps are trained to BASI standard?
If the Ski Club think they can operate off-piste within reasonable limits based on ability and risk, then they should carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| achilles wrote: |
Well, the news of the Verbier incident was publicly released by the Club at the time. |
I'm not aware of a press release, not that I would receive it. Where and when was it published?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
David Goldsmith, it was published very prominently on the news section of the Club's site. IIRC, it was also published in the Club's snail-mail newsletter. It was made crystal clear that the deceased had been art of a rep's party. I find it hard to imagine that any UK journalist interested in skiing (other than yourself if you still are a journalist) could have been unaware of the incident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, a summery of your points as I see them:
1. Reps not trained to a high enough standard to lead off-piste.
In fact they are trained to BASI standard.
2. Fear of what the press might say.
Rather flimsy reason.
3. Fear of cost of litigation.
Covered by insurance.
Is there anything more? Because all your points have been blown out of the water.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| PJSki wrote: |
David Goldsmith, a summery of your points as I see them:
1. Reps not trained to a high enough standard to lead off-piste.
In fact they are trained to BASI standard.
|
Not at all. According to Arno their training "looks similar" to one module required by BASI before instructors (not the same as guides) can take their students off-piste.
That is not paticularly close to them being "trained to BASI standard".
| Quote: |
2. Fear of what the press might say.
Rather flimsy reason.
|
It may seem "flimsy" to you, but then from what you suggest above, you have an incredibly rose-tinted view of the press. Suggesting "maybe the press would do a better job than you and mention all that facts and not just the ones they like best." is exceedingly naive at best.
| Quote: |
3. Fear of cost of litigation.
Covered by insurance.
|
Not just the financial cost of litigation, but the possibility of criminal prosecution (which cannot be covered by insurance).
| Quote: |
Is there anything more? Because all your points have been blown out of the water. |
I don;t think any of his points have been "blown out of the water".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
PJSki, I requested that a comment you posted at 10.05am today be changed to make it non-libellous.
You have the advantage over me that you are posting anonymously, whereas I prefer to use a real name.
Your comment could disadvantage me, since I research factual material and try to present argument (where appropriate) truthfully. I'm more than willing to correct factual errors, should they occur.
Now, please do the honorable thing, and deal with it.
Are you the person who used to post as 'Tim Brown'? Are you connected with a former Ski Club director (or directors)? (Something you wrote recently disclosed that you had obtained an email held by a SCGB director, or that you were that person)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
alex_heney,
1. ok more clarification needed.
2. fear of the press is still a pathetic reason for not doing something if you believe you can do it at all well and safely
3." Not just the financial cost of litigation, but the possibility of criminal prosecution (which cannot be covered by insurance)."
Do you have proof of that? The Ski Club directors are bound to have cover in the event of corporate manslaughter charges. It will be part of their corporate liability cover. Any claim for compensation will almost certainly be civil and therefore covered. Criminal defence costs appear to be being met in this instance by the Ski Club's insurers.
So I think you need to do some more work on point 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
David Goldsmith, your off topic questions will be ignored. Your request for removal of my sentence is denied by me and the decision on whether or not to remove it is therefore in the hands of the moderators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
PJSki, I'm in central London 3-4 times per week. You're cordially invited to meet me in a public place, where you'll receive a drink and an invitation to explain who you are, who you know, and what your agenda may be.
I can't see that the Ski Club of Great Britain benefits from agents (if that's how you see your role) behaving the way you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
David Goldsmith, my agenda is to get to the truth. Your request for a meeting is denied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| PJSki wrote: |
alex_heney,
1. ok more clarification needed.
2. fear of the press is still a pathetic reason for not doing something if you believe you can do it at all well and safely
3." Not just the financial cost of litigation, but the possibility of criminal prosecution (which cannot be covered by insurance)."
Do you have proof of that? The Ski Club directors are bound to have cover in the event of corporate manslaughter charges. It will be part of their corporate liability cover. Any claim for compensation will almost certainly be civil and therefore covered. Criminal defence costs appear to be being met in this instance by the Ski Club's insurers.
So I think you need to do some more work on point 3. |
Criminal defence costs can be met by insurance, but any criminal penalties imposed cannot be.
I accept I wasn't clear above, when I said that criminal prosecution cannot be covered by insurance. I only meant that any penalties could not be covered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
PJSki, I requested that a comment you posted at 10.05am today be changed to make it non-libellous.
|
Regardless of who he may be, that comment can't be libellous, because it is a statement of his feelings and opinion, not any sort of statement of fact.
You may feel his opinions don't have much to back them up, but he is entitled to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alex_heney, PJSki, re criminal defence costs... to give you an example, on my business policy, only £100k is there to cover criminal defence costs. I'd suggest that, in general, some but not all of a criminal defence for say manslaughter, would get covered in full.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alex_heney, ok, as in a fine. I see what you mean. But traditionally fines of this nature tend to be quite small. Any fine being imposed against this individual will be within an upper and lower limit as it would in a UK court, with repayment periods means-tested. No point fining people more than they can afford to pay back.
Liability seems to be very limited in terms of criminal proceedings and fines. So that line of reasoning falls rather short, in my opinion.
So we are left with the question of training and ability. Where we await clarification. Although the Ski Club's insurers are clearly happy.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Tue 20-01-09 18:15; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Bode Swiller, irony was indeed intended. My point is that David seems to imply that a death happening with a rep is automatically a death which would not have happened with a guide present - given their undoubted superior skills. I am less convinced that we know this, and think there is a middle-way with reps trained to know their limits and to limit where they go accordingly. I am not, btw, commenting on whether this applies in the Verbier incident.
David Goldsmith, why don't you answer my question?
| Quote: |
| Why don't you tell us if there is any measure - short of reps having the IAFGM (or whatever it is) - which would make you happy about them leading members off-piste? |
Then we might know where you stand!
I too am not convinced that PJski is wrong in his assessment of some of your posts about the club and safety issues - particularly on the SCGB forum - so I think you should deal with the issues rather than exude that whiff of burning martyr. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PJSki wrote: |
| ... my agenda is to get to the truth. |
... which can only be done by going to primary sources and presenting the observations as fact/quotes/documentary evidence. Since you've done nothing of the sort, one can only assume that your agenda is 'pointless provocateur'.
When we strip away your silly antics, we're left with something that is actually quite important: a man's loss of life, after two other lost lives, connected by some common factors.
There may be ways of avoiding future catastrophes of this type, and securing the future of a Club that in its heyday published some of the most important information in the ski world, supported by some of the most distinguished skiers in the world, with objectives that were admired internationally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
