 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@laundryman, agreed but he was guilty until suspended and referred to another court. He has not been been proven he is innocent yet. I said at the time I would have suspended SB given his guilty conviction and not complying with basi guidance pending the final outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@TTT, I'm not sure what BASI guidance you mean, but since Feb 2014 he's not used non-ITSDs in France (or indeed himself, who is an ITSD). Looks like time for BASI to cut its members losses to me, and wait for a final outcome in France (or European level, if it gets that far).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| TTT wrote: |
| ... problem is when the views of the majority happen to be the law and you agree to be part of an organisation with rules. It is entirely legitimate to lobby for changes in the law and rules but if you break them then you have to accept the consequences. |
Therein lies the problem. The current interpretations are being shown to be wrong, as were BASI's view of the matter.
There is a members meeting video from last year(?) where SB shows that BASI were asking members were using a form for applying for a Carte Pro which was wrong. We were told it was fine and further advice sought, after which BASI still insisted was correct. I has since turned out to be wrong and had to be changed. BASI, I might add appear to have taken advice from their counterparts in France and subsequently indoctrinated in following the wrong method of application.
Then there is the case from last week. If that doesn't wake a few people up then nothing will.
The question is what wrong has been done, as this case is still under review. You say the views of the majority are following the law, yet a French judge says otherwise. Two parts of this have been blown away so far with one part to go.
At what point, TTT, will you accept that there has been potential wrongdoing from the other side of this case? Ultimately it could all go in SB's favour at which point he (and colleagues) would be shown to have followed the law fully, followed declaration procedure and the bit to come is proving that the qualification are acceptable, according to the French laws.
It's getting harder and harder to avoid the bleeding obvious. BASI jumping the gun has not helped their case.
Your inside connection in BASI must be squirming more than a little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I heard TTT that the decision was bought to the board in the AOB section of the meeting and the board members were pressured to agree with a proposal and had little chance to discuss it. Then one board member took it upon him self to try to exclude the newly excluded member from a soon to start AGM a few minutes later. Not exactly acting with authority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
What a mess this is. My view is that BASI were precipitate in acting against SB before the case in France was completed although prima facie it does look as if they did so because they took the view (apparently agreed by SB) that he was employing uner qualified English instructors. It would have been more circumspect on their part to have had a discussion with SB and issued a warning while supporting him, as a member, in pursuing his own situation.
Somewhere on this thread copied a statement which alluded to some negative comments from SB customers. Several years ago my husband and I skiied two years in succession with SB and his team and we thoroughly enjoyed the experience, the teaching was geared to various levels and we both felt even as relatively advanced skiiers that we learnt a lot by having our learned and well developed faults picked up with advice on what to do to improve.
I think this is all very sad.
I think in addition that to suggest that SB is doing this to "fill his coffers" is a pretty banal comment, SB is a busiessman who has likely lost hundreds of thousands of pounds through this saga, has probably seen the value of the business he has built up, over many years, through sheer hard work and commitment being brought nearly to its knees and is now incurring huge sums of money in legal costs. Think on!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@skison, the appeal court have not opined on his qualification or his staff employment. The French EU derogation and the EU statement that France are entitled to regulate ski instruction remain. No one has ever given me anything to contradict this and show me that level 2s and 3s are entitled to work in France despite an awful lot of hot air. I've always said that his qualification is grey as not equivalent to French as required by EU rules but is equivalent to some who have carte pro. My very informal advice was not to go there for exactly what has happened but I think basi went for the employment grounds for good reason given the EU publicly supports this. That is not to say that the courts will ultimately decide differently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In 2006, a French court found that there was no substantial difference between SB's L2/3s and French people allowed to do a similar job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@lonepinehill3, it was most certainly under discussion before the board meeting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@laundryman, I think they found not proven. I refer you again to the derogation and the EU statement. Ignoring them does not make them go away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TTT wrote: |
| the EU statement that France are entitled to regulate ski instruction remain. |
I don't think anyone disputes that. The question is how, and whether the law has been applied correctly. That's why the current focus is the administrative court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@TTT, what makes you so certain that
| Quote: |
it was most certainly under discussion before the board meeting!
|
Were you present?
I have not seen any such discussion in minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
If it's under AOB then surely that would mean that it was not a previously minuted topic?
And, if it was discussed then there will be minutes which show that to be the case. Let me know where they are TTT as I can't find them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@TTT don't go quiet now, this is a make or break point in the discussion. It would alter my opinion of the whole matter if you can provide/link/quote/anything on this minuted discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@laundryman, there is nothing in the EU laws, dergation or MOU to support level 2/3. The EU has said not on table at moment and will be discussed at a later date. Level 2 and 3 explicitly excluded from the EU rules at moment.
@Dunk, behave 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@skison, all discussions in any organisation are not formally minuted. In fact the vast majority are not. That does not mean it was not discussed before. SB has been the subject of discussion for many many years and I have very good reason to believe this matter was discussed before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
TTT is you're partner, wife, husband, or business partner on the BASI board? you seem to know a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| TTT wrote: |
| @skison, all discussions in any organisation are not formally minuted. In fact the vast majority are not. That does not mean it was not discussed before. SB has been the subject of discussion for many many years and I have very good reason to believe this matter was discussed before. |
Are you being serious? If you are about to expel a member on illegal activity I would sincerely hope it was minuted, the discussion noted (in detail) and minutes provided.
Are you now saying there are no minutes or traceable evidence that this discussion took place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| TTT wrote: |
| @laundryman, there is nothing in the EU laws, dergation or MOU to support level 2/3. The EU has said not on table at moment and will be discussed at a later date. Level 2 and 3 explicitly excluded from the EU rules at moment. |
Then it was woefully incompetent of the French authorities not to be able to prove in front of a French court that Level 2 and 3 can be automatically excluded. Please provide chapter and verse for a EU legal instrument that "explicitly" excludes BASI L2 and L3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@lonepinehill3, No. I would say it is an age old international way of obtaining information. No one has betrayed any confidences to me but the ski instructing world is a small world and it is not difficult to put the pieces together. So I know people associated with basi and SB as I'm sure lots of other people in the ski world do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@laundryman, it is a very specialist subject! The decision was referred. The eu rules and derogation are about the right of establishment and don't cover working for a ski school which are covered by local law. See the basi members statements for further comment.
@skison, sorry but board minutes in any organisation and invariably very banal and only record the final decisions. Nothing to see here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
So if I started BASA, the British Association for Sport Administration, how exactly would BASI do in our tests. Unconscious Incompetence at level one would be my guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@TTT, thanks for confirming that your statement that there is an "explicit" EU rule excluding L2s and L3s was, in fact, made up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@jbob, so apt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@jbob, it was certainly a concious one. How competent their lawyers were we will see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it just me or does @TTT, seem on a rather sticky wicket?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
@laundryman, it is explicitly covered by eu comments and the relevant documentation clearly covers the right of establishment not working as an employee. Clearly rather than explicitly if that makes you feel better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@under a new name, only if you have not actually read the relevant documents or understood what I have written. I think that is just a good example of cognitive bias on your part but the courts will decide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TTT wrote: |
| @laundryman, it is explicitly covered by eu comments and the relevant documentation clearly covers the right of establishment not working as an employee. Clearly rather than explicitly if that makes you feel better. |
"Clearly (to TTT)" rather than "explicitly"
- and -
"EU comment" rather than "EU rules".
Talking of sticky wicket - no need to go to the third umpire here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
I'd say SB is on a sticky wicket because he is betting that he knows the law better than the French, BASI and the EU. I understand he is not a lawyer and can't understand French so it not only a sticky wicket but a blind bet. He is relying on someone with their own personal agenda who was convicted and lost and went out of business. Is SB concious and competent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| does @TTT, seem on a rather sticky wicket? |
Perhaps those posts give a clue as how BASI managed to convince themselves that it's ok for a UK professional body to support a French closed shop. Next up, why white is the new black. I think they both lost the plot a long way back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@laundryman, clearly or explicity will not make any difference. The EU have said working for a ski school is not up for discussion. Ignoring the evidence when it does not suit you will not help SB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@philwig, and since when was basi meant to be a lobby group for grumpy old men?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@TTT, I've been trying to keep up with the thread but as you change position, statements and opinion, other than a dislike of one S Butler, (on at least a daily basis - hey maybe you're a sock for more than one person?) it's difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
The EU discussion is about the future, not the past or the present, and therefore nothing to do with any court case (and nothing is agreed anyway AIUI). As an aside, can you point us to the minutes please? Or was this another throwaway comment in a discussion among mates?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@under a new name, I take from that you don't actually have an argument to support SB. I think a lot of people are believing what they want to believe rather than actually looking at the evidence. I don't get the impression that anyone has actually read the relevant documentation so they don't even know what wicket they are playing on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@laundryman, the EU discussion is about formalising the MOU which is about rights of establishment not lower levels. Basi minutes and statements are on the basi members area. Skimarroret (?) is an excellent compilation of the relevant EU documents as it takes some googling. I appreciate you are associated with SB but my views were formed based on reading the documentation before I knew anything about SB and before his UKIP comments. The French and basi do have a case as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know enough to be "supporting" (or otherwise) SB but what I've read here, and the way the decision to expel SB was made, does make me very dubious about the part BASI played. The "deal" to get some of their senior people the right pieces of French paper, then pull up the drawbridge, sounds shady and their more recent decision to expel SB sounds hasty, ill-thought out and open to challenge on both procedural and substantive grounds.
But even if BASI was "wrong" that doesn't, obviously, make SB necessarily "right".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But, @TTT, you donstill - or maybe you've stopped, phew, change your positioning statements re BASI affiliations, being an instructor/punter/troll etc with extraordinary frequency.
I don't have a dog in the fight. I think the Et is a nonsense, although personally I would require any instructor to ski better than me. I've skied a lot, had a lot of training and do my best to emulate some truly excellent skiers. So, my demands would not be trivial.
But requiring high racing level to reach is nuts. Likewise, it's not about safety. It's only about closed shop French protectionism, in which BASI has been complicit. Bribes are bribes and don't need to be in cash.
So all strength to SB, as he's challenging a rather unsavoury status quo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@pam w, I would not believe everything from the SB propaganda machine if I was you. Most are entirely happy. SB is the only old level 1 with a problem. SB is a very stubborn and difficult person from everyone I've spoken to and chose to go legal rather than sought himself out as all the other 100s of others did. SB is the one problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TTT wrote: |
| @skison, all discussions in any organisation are not formally minuted. In fact the vast majority are not. That does not mean it was not discussed before. SB has been the subject of discussion for many many years and I have very good reason to believe this matter was discussed before. |
What good reasons do you have?
You are right to an extent. Not every conversation and word would realistically be noted. As you have stated the SB discussion has been an ongoing discussion yet there is not a single know minute about intended action or even an agenda item to discuss it further at any point? Why would that be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
