 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
borne, sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
the thing that irks me most is the inner sanctums of BASI airing its dirty laundry, here, in public.
"it is normal to lose a licence when your convicted"
yeah, it's also "normal" to allow a defendant to put their case in a disciplinary hearing. it's also "normal" to suspend a licence or membership or whatever pending an inquiry, investigation or whatever. that is regardless of how much you dislike them, what they are doing, or the way they are doing it.
better resign from his local skittles club and stamp collecting club for bringing them in to disrepute and/or not being a member of good standing.
from what I've seen here, and I hope I'm wrong, but BASI could be finished over this. and licences for ski instruction being dished out by Sport England or SnowSportsSclotland or whatever.
have been in this exact same position with another (nothing to do with skiing) club, and it really was trying to bend as much evidence as possible to get rid of a thorn in the side. he could have sued any one of us, and we'd have no leg to stand on.
possible outcomes... the defendant has certification accepted by another organisation and flicks V's at BASI/ESF, or the defendant sets up such an organisation, or the defendant infiltrates the inner circle with people on his side (very easy with low voting member counts) and the core BASI split and create a separate club.
I've certainly seen on here what I call a disgrace, and the PlanetSki article seems to back that up. At least one contributor to this thread will be on the receiving end of legal action. Either for abuse of power, or defamation/slander/the other one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I'm not aware that anyone from of the inner sanctums of BASI are posting on here or that anyone has claimed to be.
I have to have a clean CRB to keep my licence so it does not surprise that having a ski instruction related conviction would result in losing licence.
The matter was not covered by the disciplinary hearings process and therefore it did not apply . You can argue whether AofA and disciplinary process are correct but I see no grounds that there were not followed. However, SB has had more than a disciplinary hearing he has had a court case in which he was found guilty.
I see no evidence that BASI is finished over this: SB is one anomaly. There is absolutely no grounds for any legal action. There is no one posting on here in a position of power as far as I'm aware. There is no libel from anyone, just different points of view. SB being convicted and losing his license are matter of facts Some people disagree with that and they are just different points of view. I personally have never advocated SB losing his license and have said so in conversations. I've always said that I wanted a solution found and negotiated be it CH or working in Fr on agreed terms and I have reason to believe that is still possible. I suspect that if SB agreed to stop taking legal action, accept the penalties and abide by agreements then he could at least continue to instruct himself while BASI continue to lobby for extending rights. I say that because that is how the original agreement was reached and is the nature of politics and business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@TTT,
But BASI have no right to request he stop taking legal action in a French court or taking it to the EU and to say or hint he can keep is license if he did stop is totally out of order.
Sorry to say but if an organisation hinted/said that to me I would view it as potentially blackmail. He has removed himself from teaching in France if his company employs staff that BASI and ESF are saying are the only ones qualified to work then where is there any further breach of a BASI ESF agreement.
If the higher French court or the EU side in favour of SB this is a total disaster for the board at BASI and could potentially see them suspended for a period of time. As many have said no one knows what the final outcome will be so would it not be best for BASI to show restraint but with a firm hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| TTT wrote: |
| @AndAnotherThing.., your statutory accounts may but not normal. It is normally dealt with in the internal mgmt accounts. |
Purely regarding the accounts comments. Normal practice is that there is a full detailed breakdown of expenditure provided to the company directors by the accountants who have been employed to either audit or prepare financial statements. This would be within the full version of the financial statements.
The directors can choose to distribute the abbreviated accounts or a redacted copy to whomever it chooses.
Largely, people (private companies) do not want to show the breakdown of their expenditure and so a set of accounts without the detailed profit and loss account is produced.
If BASI are showing accounts that do not include a detailed P&L, they are choosing to withhold information, which they are perfectly within their rights to do so. This is a presumption as there may be some regulation that accounts are disclosed to members or those who hold a certificate or whatever. Beyond my knowledge.
The question of why they would is up for grabs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@speed098, totally agree - they don't but it happens in reality all the time in business and life that people agree to an out of court settlement as being in the best interests of all concerned and was the basis of the original agreement with the French. It's a standard negotiation tactic on both sides. I understand the problem is that SB has repeatedly not followed guidance in the past so to quote the French he is seen as a serial offender.
I don't see it as a total disaster for BASI as they are just following the current guidance in respect of one individual. The board rotates anyway so many will be gone by the time the case runs it's course. We don't know the outcomes and I advocated the same as you for the reasons you gave but my impression is that the French and BASI are very confident in their position and are so fed up with SB that they have run out of patience with keep giving him chances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Legend., Normal practice is that the company produces the accounts and they are audited by the auditors and normally these statutory accounts do not include detailed expenses. They are not choosing to withhold information. They are just following normal practice. However, given it is a member's organisation then the members are perfectly entitled to request additional information to that which is normally provided and if that is what is agreed as it will cost a bit more then that is what should be done in the future. But suggestions of skulduggery when standard practice are being followed is nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is SB a convicted criminal ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| TTT wrote: |
| @Dunk, as stated before SB does not have the capa, ET and did not apply for his grandfather rights with the French on time so should have not have been given his MoU previously which was issued in error. |
Please show us any document which says BASI has to apply to a French authority to issue an MoU stamp to one of its ISTDs. If you have such a document, please comment on its legal status.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Mon 3-11-14 16:00; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anyone else run out of popcorn yet? best thread for years 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Obviously the French Judge is sure that he/she have made the correct and legal decision and that is why there is an appeal process.
What I think has concerned a lot of people is how, why and when the Board of BASI chose to inform SB that they had revoked his license.
Taking a balanced view on this as I understand it;
1) Probably SB knew/suspected that his BASI licence were at risk.
2) In light of the current Court rulings in France SB has changed his plans in Europe so that he is not breaking any French, BASI or Swiss Laws this winter in line with the French Judges recommendation.
3) The Board of BASI, two of whom possible have a slight conflict of interest, have taken a decision based on their personal opinions of SB.
4) The Board of BASI chose to informally tell SB of their decision in a whispered conversation as Members gathered for the AGM.
5) The NEW CEO of BASI chose not to stay for the full meeting as he had a plane to catch, and wishes to say that they are a professional organisation!! When was the last time you heard of a CEO (new or existing) leaving an AGM because he had to be somewhere more important to be. An AGM happens once a year; the clue is in the name ANNUAL, it is the one time a year when Members get the opportunity to formally be told by the Board what they have done this year and plan to do in future.!
Of course SB will fight as with 4/6 weeks until the start of the season the Board of BASI have single handedly make it illegal for him to work in Switzerland.
Even if you agree with the Board of BASI course of action put yourself in his shoes; 4 weeks before you are abou tot implement your plans someone has a "quiet word" in your ear to say that actually you will earn no money in the next 6 months how woudl you react?
As for the accounts question; a board will present the accounts in the way that they think the members will wish to recieve then, usually they will be abbreviated to some degree the key thing is that they present them in the same manner each year otherwise members will suspect ulterior motives such as why have they lost £100k yet paid directors £120k? (they shoudl have explicitly covered that off in any covering commentary to members)
To my mind items 3, 4, 5 and not pre-empting the £100/£120k question questions the judgement and possibly the professional competency of the Board of BASI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| TTT wrote: |
| I suspect that if SB agreed to stop taking legal action |
What legal action has SB initiated?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
This thread MUST warrant a poll... I DEMAND CLICKABLES!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@laundryman, you need your carte pro to work in France as I'm sure you know by now. If he had applied to the French on time he could have had his exemption. SB is planning to appeal against the case.
@marcellus, I agree with a lot of that .However: it is not clear that he was planning to work legally in CH as he needs a work permit and a Swiss Patente which is very difficult to get unless he is working for a ski school which is not clear. Perhaps laundryman can clear this point.
The persons in Megeve will be on the board but were not on the board prior to the AGM so were not party to the decision.
The CEO was only appointed end of last week and had prior arrangements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
So he takes a back seat as director of a TO and hires a load of legal instructors to give lessons to the clients. Is that not possible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@albinomountainbadger, yes and I what he is planning to do in France to be fair. This was suggested to him along time ago but understandably he wants to continue to be able to instruct and dare I say he wants the right to employ cheaper lower qualified instructors. I think this is the crux of the matter as the was the old British model which the French objected to. They thought the ET would address the matter although arguably not harder than previous test and I suspect that the addition of a proper language test would have been more effective for the French and is also what the Swiss use as part of Swiss Patente which by the sounds of it SB would not be able to pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
"Simon Butler Skiing Ltd" appears to be the legal entity running holidays and courses in Megeve.
The limited company also, presumably, is the legal entity which hires instructors.
Thus, it would appear that BASI have removed a licence from an individual when it is a company which appears to have been at fault.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Its a long term ago but you have to look through the "vail of incorporation"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
It's right next door to the Beaver Creek of incorporation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| TTT wrote: |
| @albinomountainbadger, yes and I what he is planning to do in France to be fair. This was suggested to him along time ago but understandably he wants to continue to be able to instruct and dare I say he wants the right to employ cheaper lower qualified instructors. I think this is the crux of the matter as the was the old British model which the French objected to. They thought the ET would address the matter although arguably not harder than previous test and I suspect that the addition of a proper language test would have been more effective for the French and is also what the Swiss use as part of Swiss Patente which by the sounds of it SB would not be able to pass. |
So the French ESF are to be the only ones allowed to employ cheap lower qualified instructors ????
BASI get of your proverbial ar2e and defend the rights of members is the only reply suitable to be addressed to BASI.
That is protectionism and would not be allowed here in the UK so why is it fine in France ?
Simple answer is it is not should not and can not be allowed.
If the French object stand up and accuse them of protectionism of discriminating against every other EU member
Lastly ask them why they think they are above every other member nation WHILE EVERY OTHER MEMBER NATION IS LISTENING !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no veil as such here - the business is a good size and employs people in many capacities. It is not one guy incorporating himself - it is a business which uses the founder's name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| It's right next door to the Beaver Creek of incorporation. |
there is some quality wikilaw going on in this thread 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
BASI do want to open up training centres to others as I already said so there is no substance to that claim.
As I said before the UK has exactly the same professional training centre concept so exactly the same sort of thing is allowed in the UK.
There is no discrimination as the same rules apply for everyone.
Austria, Italy (which are also the main skiing countries) as well as Germany also have the same derogation as the French.
You know all this @speed098, as it has been stated many times but chose to ignore these facts as it does not suit your agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Scrumpy, it's an owner managed business. I studied corporate law long before wiki I'm afraid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| TTT wrote: |
| @Legend., Normal practice is that the company produces the accounts and they are audited by the auditors and normally these statutory accounts do not include detailed expenses. They are not choosing to withhold information. They are just following normal practice. However, given it is a member's organisation then the members are perfectly entitled to request additional information to that which is normally provided and if that is what is agreed as it will cost a bit more then that is what should be done in the future. But suggestions of skulduggery when standard practice are being followed is nonsense. |
Of course it's a choice. You can choose to follow normal practice. You could choose to not. Many members societies choose not to. Many companies with external stakeholders choose not to.
Most companies choose to minimum disclosure as they don't want information for competitors, suppliers and customers to see. Members societies, clubs charities etc often choose full disclosure even when regulations they abide by (which are often different) say they do not have to dependant on things like their size and level of public interest.
The additional cost should be negligible if anything at all. If the auditors are saying there is a cost then change auditors. Someone else will always do it cheaper.
From a personal perspective, If I am a involved in something, like a sports league or a club, I like to see what's going on, where my money is being spent. There are too many cases of bad and negligent spending.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
i may go and start a helmet/no helmet thread, we haven't done that for a while.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@TTT, Austria, Italy (which are also the main skiing countries) as well as Germany also have the same derogation as the French.
I would have thought the French enforce rather than derogate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| speed098 wrote: |
| TTT wrote: |
| @albinomountainbadger, yes and I what he is planning to do in France to be fair. This was suggested to him along time ago but understandably he wants to continue to be able to instruct and dare I say he wants the right to employ cheaper lower qualified instructors. I think this is the crux of the matter as the was the old British model which the French objected to. They thought the ET would address the matter although arguably not harder than previous test and I suspect that the addition of a proper language test would have been more effective for the French and is also what the Swiss use as part of Swiss Patente which by the sounds of it SB would not be able to pass. |
So the French ESF are to be the only ones allowed to employ cheap lower qualified instructors ????
|
A local ESF is a co-operative and a stagiere keeps about 63% of the cost of the lesson, hardly cheap. How much do BASI L4 ISTDs get to keep when working for a commercial ski school?
| speed098 wrote: |
BASI get of your proverbial ar2e and defend the rights of members is the only reply suitable to be addressed to BASI.
That is protectionism and would not be allowed here in the UK so why is it fine in France ?
Simple answer is it is not should not and can not be allowed.
If the French object stand up and accuse them of protectionism of discriminating against every other EU member
Lastly ask them why they think they are above every other member nation WHILE EVERY OTHER MEMBER NATION IS LISTENING ! |
You couldn't just turn up in Harley Street and set up your own private practice. The GMC would take a dim view of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@Legend., I'm fine with requesting more detailed accounts just the silly suggestion that just because they are not more detailed there must be some kind of scandal going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@TTT
"it's an owner managed business. I studied corporate law long before wiki I'm afraid."
Be that as it may, but you evidently do not understand the legal rights, obligations, and protections provided by incorporation as a Limited Liability Company.
@Speed098
"So the French ESF are to be the only ones allowed to employ cheap lower qualified instructors????"
That's really what it's all about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
BASI statement:
http://www.basi.org.uk/article/basi-statement-cessation-of-membership-simon-butler.aspx
| Quote: |
Simon Butler’s position as a continuing member of BASI was discussed as an Agenda item at the Board Meeting held in London on Saturday 1st November 2014. Where the Board took the decision to remove Mr Butler’s membership status of the Association with immediate effect.
The matter was tabled by the Legal Director, Stephen Burke, under Article 9 of the BASI Articles of the Association, Cessation of Membership (note 1).
Mr Butler has confirmed in writing to the Association and verbally that he has recruited Level 2 and Level 3 Members to deliver lessons for his ski school operation in France. Most recently he has employed Members as independent contractors on the basis of advice from his accountants. Under current French law it is unlawful for Level 2 and Level 3 instructors to deliver lessons unless they are employed by a ski school established and recognised under French law as a Centre de Formation and meet the criteria for working in France under this arrangement. Mr Butler’s ski school does not have Centre de Formation status. Mr Butler has knowingly and continually placed other Level 2 and Level 3 Members of the Association in danger of prosecution for working illegally most recently this has culminated in the arrest and prosecution of some Members contracted by Mr Butler’s business to deliver snowsports instruction in France.
On this basis the Board exercised its discretion to remove Mr Butler with immediate effect as a Member of BASI.
Mr Butler may seek to appeal this decision to the BASI Ombudsman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
"Under current French law it is unlawful for Level 2 and Level 3 instructors to deliver lessons unless they are employed by a ski school established and recognised under French law as a Centre de Formation and meet the criteria for working in France under this arrangement."
That's it in a nutshell. A nice neat restrictive practice aka. a closed shop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@irie, of course I do its a professional requirement of my job. Furthermore, SB was convicted under French law not UK law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Oh well at least the statement is professional enough.
Couple of points - States under current French law (no mention of TTT's beloved EU law) - should we open a book on what happens if that law gets overturned in Europe?
Secondly none of this is new why the timing especially as there seems to be unanimity on the fact that the Sbs business model no longer operates like this? Retrospective punishment? Vindictiveness?
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Mon 3-11-14 18:37; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| irie wrote: |
"Under current French law it is unlawful for Level 2 and Level 3 instructors to deliver lessons unless they are employed by a ski school established and recognised under French law as a Centre de Formation and meet the criteria for working in France under this arrangement."
That's it in a nutshell. A nice neat restrictive practice aka. a closed shop. |
UCPA, ESF and others operate 'Centres de Formation' and the same requirements are made of trainee French instructors as well as those from any other country. In France there isn't a level 1,2,3 and 4. Just the Brevet d'Etat a 'degree' in ski instruction if you will, which everyone who wants to work as an instructor must do in France, irrespective of nationality.
If you have a level4 ISTD from BASI, then that's deemed to be the equivalent.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Mon 3-11-14 18:28; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TTT wrote: |
| @albinomountainbadger, yes and I what he is planning to do in France to be fair. This was suggested to him along time ago but understandably he wants to continue to be able to instruct and dare I say he wants the right to employ cheaper lower qualified instructors. |
Fair comment! Yes, he wants those things and yes he has given up that model until such time as the legal background may change.
| Quote: |
| I think this is the crux of the matter as the was the old British model which the French objected to. |
Yet you said before it was all about missing some deadline for something called "French grandfather rights" and have not responded to any request to explain or prove why BASI cannot grant a MOU stamp to its ISTDs (some of whom will never have practised in France or have plans to do so) without reference to the French authorities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Edit 3 Nov: the title of this thread has been shortened, removing the wording " ... reports [unconfirmed]" ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Obviously more pop corn required - Yes French law which is not inconsistent with EU law. @laundryman, not clear to me exactly what you are saying but of course there are political and commercial reasons as well as legal reasons. I've never said otherwise. That is why I said the French are following the EU rules but you may validly not agree with the EU rules. Welcome to the real world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| feef wrote: |
| irie wrote: |
"Under current French law it is unlawful for Level 2 and Level 3 instructors to deliver lessons unless they are employed by a ski school established and recognised under French law as a Centre de Formation and meet the criteria for working in France under this arrangement."
That's it in a nutshell. A nice neat restrictive practice aka. a closed shop. |
UCPA, ESF and others operate 'Centres de Formation' and the same requirements are made of trainee French instructors as well as those from any other country. In France there isn't a level 1,2,3 and 4. Just the Brevet d'Etat a 'degree' in ski instruction if you will, which everyone who wants to work as an instructor must do in France, irrespective of nationality.
If you have a level4 ISTD from BASI, then that's deemed to be the equivalent. |
That's not the point.
The point is that 10 fully qualified (in the British system) ISTD instructors with full French equivalence/Catre Pro, etc etc, are not allowed to open a training centre in France and emply those lower qualified instrsctors as trainees, even if they've passed the TT and meet the standards to be considered stagieres or wahtever the term is.
Neither are 10 Austrian, Swiss, Italian, etc fully qualified instructors.
ONLY people who have qualified in the French system are allowed to do so. Even when the French apparently recognise the other qualifications as equivalent to theirs. I guess the French are just more equivalent...
This is the bit that CLEARLY breaches EU rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
