 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
If the accident had happened in the UK it would have immediately made the papers and TV, we'd know the names and most of the facts. Inquest and any trials would happen after all the kangeroo courts had their go (because that's the way it is here most of the time). Does all this Swiss secrecy make any difference to a court that's thoroughly examined all the facts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| snowcrazy wrote: |
Just take a minute to think about the family involved and the SCGB rep. Put yourself in there position. Would you want a debate like this to go on if you were in there position. I for one would not. Bad enough to have to live with what has happended without poeple adding to the sadness. THINK PEOPLE before you post again or do you really just not care about other peoples feelings.
|
Personally, I am aware of lemanieg's connection with the dead man and I assure you she has as much right as anyone to express herself on this matter - and furthermore, one word from her expressing discomfort at the content of this topic and it would be gone. 
However, if you read her posts, she is complaining of the silence around the case that she feels has been imposed by the SCGB. Obviously I can't say whether they have done so deliberately, unintentionally or even at all but it is clearly her impression and her desire is that the matter be brought more into the open.
| snowcrazy wrote: |
| those people including you with all respect should be posting on the clubs forum if at all, if you want to air this topic not on here. |
I'm not sure they would take too kindly to that. There was a rumour that it was similar discussion of a rep-lead accident that was the reason behind us all getting kicked out of there in the first place!
It's not unsurprising that many within the SCGB think anything that may affect the club adversely should be talked about in hushed tones behind closed doors. It's unfortunate though, when it affects people outside the club too, if those doors appear to be closed to them.
Since the SCGB is a members only forum, surely you wouldn't expect lemanieg to take out a membership of the club just to talk about the issue that affects her so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
stoatsbrother, I do not think I am out of order at all. I think you miss my point. The facts are not clear to anyone that was not there at the time including me, you and the person that restarted this thread. Unless someone here was one of that group (I think they should be clear and say they were) then all these posts are second hand at best. I have seen some of the reports referred to in this thread, but will not comment on them here.
The idea of 'free speech' is good, but where people can just gossip as many here are doing is really pointless. If this thread was started due to the changes in the SCGB policy then it should be discussed on there forum. I did note that people expressed their sympathy to both the rep and the family involved. I think now they should be left in peace, not have further debate. No doubt you and others will still disagree, pity, but then we only need to look at the British press to see just how far people will go to 'Get the story'.
David Goldsmith, I agree with you it would be better that the club does not face these problems in the future. However debating it here just does not seem the right place for me. I did not know you were banned from there forum, pity. I guess no matter what I suggest some people will want to continue this thread. I just hope anyone reading it understands that as far as I am aware, nobody on this thread really knows what happened and therefore all the posts are just opinions and not facts no matter what they may claim.
I feel I have made my point, it is up to others now, join in or let this drop until after the court case is over. Enjoy the season and stay safe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
admin,
| Quote: |
| I am aware of lemanieg's connection with the dead man and I assure you she has as much right as anyone to express herself on this matter. |
In that case, it sounds like contributory negligence to me. I'm going to guess that the death was more the fault of the victim than the rep. Anyone else want to have a stab at what the verdict will be?
| Quote: |
| and furthermore, one word from her expressing discomfort at the content of this topic and it would be gone. |
But hold on, anything that lemanieg's not happy with will be removed. Will the Rep get the same privileged? Would be only fair, imo. In fact, maybe someone could ask her if she's happy with this? But let's assume that she's not happy (who would be?). Does she get the power of veto? Or with the 'score' at 1:1 will it be up to the site owner to decide? Where's King Solomon when you need him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
snowcrazy, did you read the first para of admins post?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
stoatsbrother, It had not been posted when I repiled to yours. I was still thinking what to write. Then posted and saw what admin had written. I am now going to reply to his post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b]admin[/b], I had not intended to continue in this thread, however having just read your post, I feel I must reply before staying silent again. If lemanieg has a direct connection with the family, then my sincere condolences to her. The silence about the case is required by Swiss law, this is not a SCGB thing. But if she is close to the family then she should be party to all that is going on in the case, more so than the rest of us I would think. No, I do not think she should join the SCGB and if she wants to post here that is her choice but I do believe she should be clear about her connection to the family to avoid misunderstandings. I am not one of those that think things should be discussed behind closed doors, just in the right place. I know there is politics between the SCGB and Snowheads. I for one do not want to get involved in all that. I think Snowheads is great and I think the SCGB serves a purpose as well. I do not wish to comment more about this case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| the dead man's family have been offered nothing, not even information, due to the legal case (still on going)... |
I find this statement very strange indeed. Surely the family are being represented in court and have access to all the information that comes before that court? What information do they want from the Ski Club?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| ... I'm personally all in favour of educated skiers skiing off-piste without guides, taking mutual responsibility and responsibility to the rescue services). |
What does "responsibility to the rescue services" mean to you?
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| This is not a unique fatality of this type in the SCGB's history... |
So how many have there been in the Club's 100+ year history?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PJSki wrote: |
| Quote: |
| and furthermore, one word from her expressing discomfort at the content of this topic and it would be gone. |
But hold on, anything that lemanieg's not happy with will be removed. Will the Rep get the same privileged? Would be only fair, imo. In fact, maybe someone could ask her if she's happy with this? But let's assume that she's not happy (who would be?). Does she get the power of veto? Or with the 'score' at 1:1 will it be up to the site owner to decide? Where's King Solomon when you need him? |
Hmm, that is a very good point. I was responding specifically to snowcrazy's calls for silence on behalf of those close to the victim, given the notable irony that it was one of these very people who had bumped this topic back into life. Perhaps in the line you quote from me I am guilty of oversimplification.
Here at snowHeads we really do try our best to let things stand if we can: let people have their say and give everyone a chance to respond with their own opinion. After all, this is not like printed media: both the right and the mechanism of reply are sat at everyone's fingertips. On the whole I think it is to everyone's benefit in the end if a discussion can run its course without censure whether by the authority of a moderator or by the bullying of the propnents of one viewpoint by those of another.
We have often received requests for some kind of censorial action but have usually resolved the matter by helping the irked party understand how best to approach the matter head on and so, compared to many forums, we remove very little matter. (Of course this is also very much a credit to the respectful nature of the snowHeads community at large)
So upon consideration, I suppose I'm saying, no perhaps 'one word expressing discomfort' wouldn't do it, would it - I would expect to have a (probably difficult) discussion in the hope of finding a course of action, less destructive than the complete loss of a topic, which would be tolerable or maybe even preferable to the complainant.
I certainly would be interested to hear from the rep involved. Do you know her? Is she aware of this topic? Has she read it? Does she have a problem with it? By all means put her in touch if you're able.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| snowcrazy wrote: |
| I know there is politics between the SCGB and Snowheads. I for one do not want to get involved in all that. |
Yeah, me neither 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Levitt wrote: |
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| ... I'm personally all in favour of educated skiers skiing off-piste without guides, taking mutual responsibility and responsibility to the rescue services). |
What does "responsibility to the rescue services" mean to you?
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| This is not a unique fatality of this type in the SCGB's history... |
So how many have there been in the Club's 100+ year history? |
I've no specific knowledge of this prior to the mid-1980s. Since that time, I know of three fatalities linked to off-piste skiing with SCGB reps. Obviously there are varying attitudes to this as an acceptable risk/liability to the Club and those who ski with it. It's also true that a group of British doctors died a few years ago when skiing with a qualified guide in Val d'Isere. But because of the (arguably) unqualified nature of SCGB reps, the Club risks its reputation 'corporately' in a way that a professional guiding organisation might not ... especially since non-members (who may feel no loyalty to the organisation at all) may be the skiers involved. The Club may also be less legally secure than a professional guiding organisation if litigation results.
On the first question, one could write a book. Probably it's a good thing that it's an undefinable responsibility but I think we're all aware that mountain rescuers risk their limbs and lives in saving ours, and that sometimes they're unpaid for these magnificent services.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| admin wrote: |
| I certainly would be interested to hear from the rep involved. Do you know her? Is she aware of this topic? Has she read it? Does she have a problem with it? By all means put her in touch if you're able. |
What would the person involved have to gain from such an intriguing serenade?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Skigal wrote: |
| The sad fact is that the boarder did not put his snowboard on when instructed to by the rep. |
Admin, I'm guessing that if you want to get further involved, you should start by contacting Skigal. Beyond that, I can't really help you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| admin wrote: |
| I certainly would be interested to hear from the rep involved. Do you know her? Is she aware of this topic? Has she read it? Does she have a problem with it? By all means put her in touch if you're able. |
What would the person involved have to gain from such an intriguing serenade? |
Seems obvious to me that if she's not happy with some of the things said by the other party, then see has everything to gain and nothing to lose by complaining to admin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
As a member of the SCGB, and to some degree exposed to its insurance/legal costs and liabilities, I'm interested in how the Club's policy on repped skiing (and particularly off-piste repped skiing) evolves.
Two points are of note, as we progress into the 2008/9 season. From the Club's website:
| Quote: |
| Non-members may still ski with the rep for one day, prior to joining the Club. |
This may imply that intended membership is a pre-condition of skiing with the rep as non-member for a day, though I don't think that's the case. Obviously, from the Club's point of view, the success rate in converting non-members to members is important. I have an ongoing concern that non-members may be less understanding of the Club's policy/waiver (which follows) than members:
| 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. |
Several points spring to mind:
1. From the 1st sentence: A rep is not a mountain guide, nor an instructor. But is a rep a leader? If a rep is deciding on the day's itinerary, and skiing at the front, then the rep - as a court of law might interpret it - is presumably the leader of that group, if not its 'guide'.
2. "...the rep will not assess your skiing ability." If the rep is the leader, rather than simply accompanying the group with no superior knowledge of the terrain (which would obviously be nonsense), then self-assessment is implied as a minimum imperative. The Club's programme sets out the skiing standards for skiing groups, according to four defined categories:
| Quote: |
Early intermediate: You can expect to ski on a wide variety of blue and red runs. The pace of the day is varied but the rep will go at the pace of the slowest skier and there will be a number of pit stops at mountain restaurants.
Intermediate: You'll be primarily on red runs skiing at a good pace. If conditions are right then there may be the odd black run and, except for on-piste days, possibly a bit of gentle off piste if the snow is good. You need to be reasonably fit, but not that fit!
Strong intermediate: You will be skiing at a medium pace on red and black runs, and are likely to be skiing some off-piste runs. You need to be reasonably fit.
Advanced: You will quickly progress to black runs, moguls and off piste. If there's some good powder to be had then you may get straight into it. Expect a fast day with not much stopping so you need to be fit enough to keep up. |
If the self-assessment fails and the group is incompatible - for example, one or two members of the group are not up to that defined standard - then presumably the 'sub-standard' skiers drop out at some point or are invited to drop out. 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.
3. "You must accept that Ski Club reps ...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..."
This implies that an assessment of skiing is, in fact, made, therefore perhaps contradicting the earlier statement. Possibly that assessment takes place when the skiing is well underway (unlike a typical ski school's 'ski off' at the beginning of the day, when the instructors assess clients for specific classes.)
Overall, I've ongoing concerns about (a) the leadership role of the rep (as implied above, but seemingly denied) (b) the ability of skiers to correctly assess themselves.
Is this the way forward? It's apparently the case that reps are now more restricted as to where their groups can ski off-piste (they must be less remote from the piste). That may be a positive step in reducing liability but some reps appear to wish to stretch the rules on this and continue to explore the off-piste with minimum restrictions. I'm not convinced that the Club is out of the woods in terms of exposure to liability for off-piste repped skiing, and would prefer that the leadership of skiers beyond the piste is left exclusively to professionals - guides or suitably-qualified instructors - with the Club being careful about recommending them, if this might itself expose the SCGB to liability.
Over cautious? No. The Club can perform a multitude of functions in terms of publishing, information provision and services, which wouldn't diminish its value.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Mon 19-01-09 15:29; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
David Goldsmith, if everything about the Verbier incident that's been reported on this thread is accurate, then it looks like the Swiss authorities consider the rep to be in charge and that she has a case to answer (regardless of what waivers are published). I'd imagine that the French, Austrian, Italian etc wouldn't be much different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: |
| The Club can perform a multitude of functions in terms of publishing, information provision and services, which wouldn't diminish its value... to Dave Goldsmith. |
Value is in the eye of the beholder. I would quickly become a former member under your proposed scenario because I would perceive far less value in the "publishing, information provision and services" than the cost of my membership, even if one were to factor in a small price reduction for subs by eliminating "mountain services" and reduced insurance costs.
I'm sure the RAC would have "value" by providing information, etc. but wonder how many people would have continued with their subs if it stopped offering motorist assistance due to the risk and insurance cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
David Goldsmith,
| Quote: |
| I'm not convinced that the Club is out of the woods in terms of exposure to liability for off-piste repped skiing |
There's this thing called insurance that people take out to limit/eliminate liability. I myself have always insured my car to cover any 3rd party damage or loss I might cause while driving it.
| Quote: |
| As a member of the SCGB, and to some degree exposed to its insurance/legal costs and liabilities |
I'm told you know very well that your personal liability and that of every paid up member in the event of the company being wound up, is £1.00.
So stop sniveling about liability. The truth is that you just have it in for the reps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| PJSki wrote: |
I'm told you know very well that your personal liability and that of every paid up member in the event of the company being wound up, is £1.00.
So stop sniveling about liability. The truth is that you just have it in for the reps. |
I thing what DG is referring to is the risk of his losing the Club itself rather than direct personal financial loss. Unfortunately, if his proposals went through I would face the certainty (rather than risk) of losing that which I value most from the Club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Levitt
| Quote: |
| I thing what DG is referring to is the risk of his losing the Club itself |
As long as the Ski Club has adequate insurance David need have no fear. But reality and the truth won't stop him trying to worry other people into seeing things his way. The man is cad of the worst sort, don't cha know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that insurance would cover the liability. But somewhere in the last 29 pages (and I can't be bothered to look), doesn't it suggest that the Club were having to make provisions in the accounts to cover costs associated with the accident and that it could put them into a loss-making position. If so, some chunk of this isn't covered by insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, ok, I must have missed that bit. They may not have had their claim settled in time for the accounts, though. So hence a loss was reported.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Hmm.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
Got that. I think in fact I always was assessed by the reps - if only in the same way that friends who have not skied together have a quick look at each other's skiing (albeit with nothing said) before going somewhere really demanding; to do otherwise would be foolish. But anyway I see the policy.
| Quote: |
| You must accept that Ski Club reps................ 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........... |
Um. How can they form a reasonable opinion without making an assessment?
David Goldsmith, can you point us where you got the reference for that?
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| ........ if everything about the Verbier incident that's been reported on this thread is accurate, then it looks like the Swiss authorities consider the rep to be in charge and that she has a case to answer (regardless of what waivers are published). I'd imagine that the French, Austrian, Italian etc wouldn't be much different. |
I think so too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| I agree that insurance would cover the liability. But somewhere in the last 29 pages (and I can't be bothered to look), doesn't it suggest that the Club were having to make provisions in the accounts to cover costs associated with the accident and that it could put them into a loss-making position. If so, some chunk of this isn't covered by insurance. |
IIRC the latest information from the Club is that most of the costs will indeed be covered by insurance. The Club was not in a position to ascertain this a year ago, hence the significant costs posted to the accounts for 2006/7. Presumably eventually when this sorry tale comes to an end some of those costs may be reversed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| PJSki wrote: |
Levitt
| Quote: |
| I thing what DG is referring to is the risk of his losing the Club itself |
As long as the Ski Club has adequate insurance David need have no fear. But reality and the truth won't stop him trying to worry other people into seeing things his way. The man is cad of the worst sort, don't cha know. |
Adequate is the keyword. The (remote) risk is a catastrophic loss that exceeds the Club's cover. Eight wealthy punters killed in an avalanche where it is shown the rep was negligent could quickly run through the insurance limit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
achilles, the 'Important Notice' above is cut/pasted directly (and unedited) from the individual rep pages of the SCGB website, which is public information. You go to the reps section, choose a rep, click on the 'programme' for that rep, and then you see the Notice I've quoted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
[quote="achilles"]Hmm.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| You must accept that Ski Club reps................ 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........... |
Um. How can they form a reasonable opinion without making an assessment? |
Saying you won't do something (assess, in this case) as a way of reinforcing personal responsibility is fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Why is it responsible not to be responsible for something?
The 'Important Notice' above reads as a mass of contradictions, concerning a rather important (life/death, sued/not sued) area of responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
David Goldsmith
| Quote: |
| Why is it responsible not to be responsible for something? |
That's a stupid way of putting it...
...but, very simply because it's a wake up call for those being led. They are being told to be aware and to take some responsibility for themselves. If at the same time the rep is doing some level of assessment, then you at least have some backup in the system.
But I can see this will be a back/white and night/day issue for you, due your low intelligence and extreme bias regarding the Ski Club and its reps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| admin wrote: |
| I certainly would be interested to hear from the rep involved. Do you know her? Is she aware of this topic? Has she read it? Does she have a problem with it? By all means put her in touch if you're able. |
What would the person involved have to gain from such an intriguing serenade? |
As mentioned, if the rep is to be "put in touch" there will be something for her to gain. The question is: what is it?
Are we talking about the snowHeads Legal Hotline, or snowHeads Legal Aid?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, I've already answered this question.
| Quote: |
| Seems obvious to me that if she's not happy with some of the things said by the other party, then see has everything to gain and nothing to lose by complaining to admin. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
admin didn't say that. You're not his ventriloquist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
David Goldsmith, what's up? Not getting the answer you wanted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
PJ Ski wrote:
'But I can see this will be a back/white and night/day issue for you, due your low intelligence and extreme bias regarding the Ski Club and its reps. '
This is simply not an argument against David Goldsmith. In fact, it's an ad-honimen where you've just merely attacked David as a person.
Very poor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kevin mcclean, you can't debate/argue with David or an idiot, because they will both drag you down to their level then beat you through experience.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Mon 19-01-09 16:36; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| PJSki wrote: |
| ... David or and idiot ... |
Is that supposed to read "David or any idiot?"
I'm thinking of becoming a rep for the Typing Club of Great Britain, where we spend a day typing together, exploring the keyboard and stopping at L for lunch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
kevin mcclean, Welcome back to sHs!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personal abuse is always the refuge of someone who feels as though they are losing the argument and have run out of ideas or other effective counterpoints.
Whilst it is quite legitimate to disagree with a particular view it is nonetheless wrong to reduce your critique to elements of personal abuse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
