 Poster: A snowHead
|
No, I'm happy to stay my old argumentative self on this matter. I was disappointed in Tim’s response since I felt it unconstructive and didn’t address the thread topic. In my initial post a couple days ago I’d confessed to a feeling that was at best uncharitable and apologised for it.
But the topic AND policy of discrimination after all this time still persists in the club and I’d love to know if there’s been any debate or decision making done in the SCGB.
They never know . . . I might join . . . 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
The question of age discrimination certainly came up at the annual general meeting a couple of weeks ago. On the basis that it's internal club business I'll keep myself out of trouble (not that I'm ever in it) by not reporting what was said, except to say that the the issue goes round and round and round like the man who invented circular skis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Or a dog licking its nuts 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
What I said was basically that Masque had been unfair to Gerry. From what i can see Gerry agreed with Masque about the age thing, yet Masuqe remained antagonistic toward him. I asked Masque if he would have done the same with anyone other than Gerry. I went on to explain that I do detect a collective grudge against the SCGB - Masque if you want to take that as an insult, then so be it. But it's just an observation. Now, I will be honest and say that all I feel now is the collective weight of some high volume poster about to come down on me. Which, I have to say, feels very intimidating! I shall join the SCGB to see what it's all about. I'll get the chance to ski with one of their guides later in the season. I just can't believe it's as bad as is made out here.
As to the disappearing posts.
That's my bad, I'm afraid. I was going to edit a little mistake in my post and clicked on the little cross by mistake! At the time I had no idea as to why my post had gone. I've now been briefed on how the system works, so the same mistake will not reoccur.
I really have nothing to add to masque's comments, so I shall return to the realm of the lurkers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Good lord man, you've nothing to fear here, I'm just an arsey old snowboarder who felt (and having re-read Gerry's posts, still feels) that he was equivocating. I didn't want to read sophistry, I wanted someone of high standing in the club to step off the fence and take a side. He didn’t, and this is a matter, that’s not something that should even be considered in today’s society. In this sport, decisions should be grounded in ability and since ability is easily measured, putting an age limit on applying to become a rep and then claiming behind a stage whisper that this is ‘flexible’ is gross hypocrisy. Gerry tried to straddle the fence and ultimately satisfied no-one. I’ve nothing against him personally, we’ve never met, but in this narrow but important topic, I strongly feel he’s way out of line.
Don’t lurk in the side-lines, debate is the cornerstone of democracy and this forum values its contributors (possibly even mouth opinionated old gits like me). Here, you just stepped into a bit of a quagmire as your induction but you’ve nowt to be concerned about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Masque wrote: |
Gerry tried to straddle the fence and ultimately satisfied no-one. I’ve nothing against him personally, we’ve never met, but in this narrow but important topic, I strongly feel he’s way out of line.
[/img] |
No he didn't. He said that if he had anything to do with it the issue would be look at again. I call that very clearly coming out again age discrimination and against SCGB policy.
My own opinion is that if you have a rule then you must stick to it. If there is a policy of not sticking to it, sometimes, when it suits, then you must remove it.
I'm told I should open with LURK MODE /off and close with <LURK MODE/on> or something. Or am I being wound-up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to take issue with you here Tim Brown, but I've never seen anything to suggest Gerry is the sort of man to come out against SCGB policy!
| Quote: |
He said that if he had anything to do with it the issue would be look at again.
|
I call that 'sitting on the fence'. He might as well have said, "I have nothing to do with it and have no opinion either way." So does he think it's wrong? He doesn't actually commit to an opinion there. Or would he have it looked at again because people keep making a fuss about it? AFAIK it already has been looked at again anyway, a number of times, but nothing gets done about it. So in fact, he could just as easily have said, "if I had anything to do with it things would carry on the same." Essentially, Gerry said what he pretty well always seems to say, "The club is fine, the council's great, nothing needs to change". (Why isn't there a yawning smiley?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Will this do? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| PG wrote: |
| PG wrote: |
| So Gerry, to redress the balance a little, what do you think could do with either a face-lift, or perhaps even more drastic surgery, amputation even, at the SCGB - both in terms of structure and attitude? |
Posted this a while back. Any thoughts? |
I Saques, On this subject I asked Gerry the above earlier in the thread - he didn't respond. When Gerry reappeared to post a few days later, I repeated the question. He hasn't posted to the forum since, as far as I am aware.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I will give him the benifit of the doubt. He also said of the age issue:
"Do you all see where I'm coming from? Or shall I draw you a picture? "
You are all coming down way too hard on one person just because his views don't match up with yours. And it looks like he has been driven away as a result.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Tim Brown, I think that's a little unfair. He was asked some very fair questions, including one about the SCGB's involvement in British ski racing, as well as the above, where I asked if he felt there was room for improvement in the Ski Club. He left both questions hanging in the air. Of course he did not need to respond to anything that he felt was aggressive, but I felt it would have been common courtesy to answer some of the queries that clearly did not fall into that category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
PG, is it not also common courtesy to give someone the benifit of the doubt?
Anyway, I'm done fighting someone elses war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that's the problem - seeing it as a war. I had no axe to grind. If you are engaged in a polite, reasonable exchange, disappearing mid-conversation is not my idea of courtesy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
come on, man, its a chat forum, people come and go for all kinds of reasons. again, you aren't giving him the benefit of the doubt, are you? But you were indeed polite and reasonable. As for it being a war, if you were in his place would you feel embattled? I know I would!
Now I really am done with SCGB matters!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Fair enough Tim. At least you announced you were departing this conversation!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Tim, Gerry is very capable of standing up for himself and I think rather enjoys a bit of a conflict, both here and on SCGB forum. But I do think too much emphasis is being placed on what he thinks and says. When it comes down to it he is 'just' a rep and a fairly new one as well I think, he doesn't sit on Council which is where the 'power' lies although he is good buddies with some Council members. In this case, I think the wrong person is being targeted (is this me putting in a good word for Gerry - blimey  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
For whatever reason, Gerry hasn't posted since 25th September. It is a shame, as good discussion relies on alternative, informed points of view. He said this on 22nd September.
| Quote: |
I'm starting to form the opinion that some peoples' hatred of the club and me are entrenched and doctrinal. So it's a waste of time coming here to debate anything.
At my age I should know better than to waste me time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
But Ray, after I responded with :
| PG wrote: |
| Quote: |
I'm starting to form the opinion that some peoples' hatred of the club and me are entrenched and doctrinal. So it's a waste of time coming here to debate anything.
At my age I should know better than to waste me time. |
Gerry, I'm sure you're aware that the majority of people here do not have an axe to grind, and as numbers grow, the disgruntled minority will become less vociferous as we go our separate ways.
No organisation is above constructive criticism, not least snowHeads itself (and I've done my share there, and received plenty of flak in return).
Hatred of the SCGB as an entity is probably inaccurate. As for Internet community likes and dislikes, often without knowing the first thing about the people concerned, well that's something all the outspoken have to live with at some stage or other.
As long as you give straight answers to straight questions, and don't come across as an apologist for all aspects of the Club, good and bad, you and the SCGB will get a fair hearing. |
Gerry answered:
| Quote: |
| ...you are quite right most people on snowheads don't have an axe to grind. Sorry if I gave the impression I thought most did. |
You have taken his earlier comment when he later revises his position completely!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
PG Yes, you're right, I missed that. Hopefully he will be back then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
PG, "he later revises his position completely!"
more like 'clarifies'. He said he was 'starting to form the opinion that some peoples' key word being 'some'. Other key words being 'entrenched' and doctrinal'! 'Hatred' may be too strong a word for you, but if that is how he has ended up feeling
Anyway, Ray is right in what he says.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Fri 17-12-04 11:20; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
AND I'VE BEEN SUCKED IN AGAIN! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Brown, Gerry also responded to another point of mine with
| Quote: |
PG, I do lurk in the other forums, occasionally chipping in. But I do see your point. You're also right that abuse is too strong a word.
|
So I stick with my original comment. He revised his position on the nature of the comments made by certain other people (he agreed that he was not being abused, as originally stated), and he retreated from his comment that people's views were entrenched (implying the majority, seeing as he originally stated that it was "a waste of time coming here to debate anything"). If he wasn't implying the majority, then his statement wouldn't make sense. It would clearly be worth participating in debate on snowHeads if only a minority had "entrenched views". He therefore completely revised his stance ref the implied majority to "you are quite right most people on snowheads don't have an axe to grind".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PG, i think you're just playing semantics now. 'here' was much likely to mean the 'scgb' forum rather than the whole site. Not sure how saying 'some peoples' can implying the majority. Again, the benefit of the doubt is not being given.
I personally would say that masque was being a little abusive in tone. I wouldn't want to be on the other end of his flaming arrows. Again, this is just an observation. Just speaking as i find.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
No, semantics is not my game. Coming "here" presumably means coming to snowHeads, as it was to that forum that Gerry was contributing when he wrote those words. And if it is "a waste of time coming here to debate anything" because of "entrenched opinions", whether qualified by *some* or not, then he was either referring to the majority (otherwise it would continue to be worth his participation according to his own logic) or his statement no longer makes sense.
Masque is not the subject of this exchange!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PG, key word being 'presumably'!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Now that is semantics! Of course, there is always the slim possibility that Gerry was making up every word he wrote, or that his rep status is fictitious and he's really admin's alter ego, or he had rather too heavy a bang on the head last time he was out repping somewhere, but we obviously don't bother to list every one of the more (extremely) unlikely eventualities, for the sake of good debating process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
It seems to me quite likely that Gerry hasn't even looked at this forum in a while (only a tiny minority of us have the time and I haven't looked on this thread for a while either).
I assume he was originally refering to those who had chosen to involve themselves in the debate. If people don't choose to take part they are effectively not part of the debate. Later he realised that it sounded like he was refering to all snowheads and modified the comment.
I imagine that at some time the critics of the ski club have outlined practical steps that the Ski Club could take to improve membership (other than the famous web-site matter) but I have only read general denunciations which don't much advance matters. I would be grateful if someone could point me towards the threads where this happened.
As to the age issue: I personally think a general age limit with a clear path to appeal on the basis of continuing ability and fitness would be perfectly reasonable, though I remember someone writing that a rule should be a rule if it exists, so obviously not everyone agrees.
As far as Ski Club Holidays are concerned, I also think an attempt to offer some cheaper holidays would help to draw in younger members, (though it might well be chiefly booked out by older members like me thus scaring off any young people who tried it).
Unfortunately it seems many younger people who, unusually, can afford these holidays try one and find themselves the only ones under 40 and don't go again.
Restricting these holidays to younger people (say under 35 or 40) might be financially risky but could be worth trying. It would have to be made very clear why the restriction was being made or poorer older members would be up in arms. (Actually they might be anyway, and they would have a point, so I'm not sure there is a path that wouldn't be contentious).
The point is that any measure would have to be stuck to for some time (and be substantial rather than a small trial) before it bore fruit and a new membership discovered that the club and its holidays could be for them.
I realise that before this bore fruit the Ski Club might have to accept some losses (on the basis of "casting their bread upon the waters") and it might finally be found not to have worked, so it would be a brave decision.
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Sat 18-12-04 0:48; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmm.. Generally, these days, I think the Club's own forum is the best place to discuss the Club. Perhaps that's what Gerry feels, too. However...
| snowball wrote: |
| I imagine that at some time the critics of the ski club have outlined practical steps that the Ski Club could take to improve membership (other than the famous web-site matter) but I have only read general denunciations which don't much advance matters. I would be grateful if someone could point me towards the threads where this happened... |
If you are a member of the club, then here is probably the best place to delve.
| snowball also wrote: |
As far as Ski Club Holidays are concerned, I also think an attempt to offer some cheaper holidays would help to draw in younger members, though it might well be chiefly booked out by older members like me thus scaring off any young people who tried it.
Restricting these holidays to younger people (say under 40) might be financially risky but could be worth trying. It would have to be made very clear why the restriction was being made or poorer older members would be up in arms. (Actually they might be anyway, and they would have a point, so I'm not sure there is a path that wouldn't be contentious). |
I don't think the club should be trying to offer cheap holidays per se. They would be competing with the TOs with no clear purpose, and without the purchasing clout. Members can of course, like snowheads, get together for a holiday if they wish, under their own steam.
But there are holidays for 20s to 30s (page 7 of the Freshtracks brochure) families (page 8 ) and the under 20s (page 18 ). And, of course, the over 50s are catered for, too (page 56) 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Nick. It's perfectly fair for the Ski Club to be discussed in the public domain, since the Club has a mission to speak for British skiers.
If we, as a Club, spoke only for our members then your point would be valid.
As for the holidays they are marketed in the public domain, so they obviously compete with any other ski holidays in the marketplace. As I understand it they are partly conceived to attract new members and can achieve this by being competitively priced.
The public domain is not a wilderness of people who the Club mustn't communicate with, or receive feedback from.
If the Club takes an isolationist position it is threatening its own future. We need fresh blood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Hi David. Of course it's fair that the Club can be discussed in public. I've just got weary of it. I know I can rely on you, as a Club member, to keep up the good work
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Nick, it would be indiscreet for me to describe the age and gender distribution at the recent annual general meeting, but I think you know where I'm coming from on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
The TOs don't offer anything like the ski club holidays that I know of. The whole point of the latter is they are (mostly) for people sure to be of the same standard who will be skiing together, led by party leaders or mountain guides.
As for the age thing, it seems (seeStuartsmith near the end of the 60 limit thread) that this is the official position, but they hide it away in the small print so not too many people take advantage of it.
Nick Zotov, if discussion of the future of the ski club is not suitable in this forum, why is there a SCGB zone, in which the policy of the SCGB is often criticised? Is only criticism suitable for this forum?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
snowball, your question is misdirected as Nick doesn't set the policy here; maybe I can help.
The intention, in setting up this forum was not to encourage criticism of the SCGB but to side-line it so the bad feeling the SCGB generated for itself didn't spoil all the other activity at snowHeads.
I honestly thought this bad feeling would melt away with the snows but the general bickering lasted all through the Summer and really only died away in late Sept/early Oct. Make of that what u will.
U are welcome to praise or criticise the SCGB here just as u are welcome to praise or criticise snowHeads elsewhere on this board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
When I started this thread it was to highlight how the SCBG has a public image (beneath the gloss) that is discriminatory towards a significantly large part of the skiing population and to find out why.
It’s been a fascinating and sometimes frustrating forum. The consensus even amongst SCGB members here seems to be that the rep’s rule is unnecessary, divisive and applied with unsupervised discretion.
It did stray into the realms of rep’s goodness, guile or greed and reality just echoed life in the obvious observation that when there’s opportunity there’s also great, good, indifferent and just plain bad-guy reps and that’s for the club to monitor and regulate.
¿Does the club have a ‘secret shopper’ program to monitor and evaluate their reps in a ‘real-time’ environment? If not, why not? Or are we looking at a self-regulated old boys network? . . . nothing claimed, just curious.
But back to the point, There’s no intent on my behalf to slag off the club, in fact this question arose through my initial interest in joining, but I kept running into (what I felt were) NSPs (negative selling points) that for all intents and purposes were utterly pointless (and in this case I thought, questionably legal – I wonder if the club’s articles have kept pace with European legislation?). Unfortunately, as any PR or marketing graduate will tell you, you need 10 good points to offset one bad one.
My little fracas with Gerry only served to illustrate an odd defensiveness about the club’s rules and what’s become evident from the lack of change in the situation arising from this years AGM an equally odd lack of progress.
As to discussing the club . . . Snowheads contains SCGB members, x-members, prospective members, the disinterested and one or two who probably now couldn’t get through the door with a stick of dynamite, and as such all have a right and a responsibility to discuss an organisation that purports to represent all of British skiers (sort of representation without taxation!). Besides, an organisation or opinion formed in isolation represents nothing of value*.
I’m saddened that such a historically rich and influential organisation seems intent on segregating its membership by age and by inference attitude, yet happy to perform a volte-face whenever convenience or influence is exploited. It’s facile and farcical and demeans both the club and its members. Who is responsible for this?
If these club rules are easily contravened, is this indicative of attitudes to other regulations? If so that would certainly place the club and its administrative body in conflict with the law. This is a can of worms for the members to discuss, but a laisser faire attitude towards one thing is rarely isolated.
(with a few brilliant caveats, Darwin etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Masque wrote: |
¿Does the club have a ‘secret shopper’ program to monitor and evaluate their reps in a ‘real-time’ environment? If not, why not? Or are we looking at a self-regulated old boys network? . . . nothing claimed, just curious.
|
I don't think they have anything formal, though if someone official skis with a rep I'm sure they put in a report. From what I hear they rely mostly on letters of praise or complaint from punters.
The best reps tend to be rewarded with the prestige resorts.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Sat 18-12-04 0:39; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[quote=Masque]...an organisation that purports to represent all of British skiers ..[/quote].
Er, does it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
©"Ski Club of Great Britain: a club for all skiers and boarders! Join here
The Ski Club of Great Britain is the leading, independent, not-for-profit snowsports club, offering excellent value to its members. Run by ski enthusiasts, the Ski Club brings 100 years of experience to enable today's recreational skiers to maximise their skiing experience. Ski Club members are offered a large range of services that make skiing more fun, more fulfilling and cheaper. All skiers and boarders of any standard are welcome to join the Ski Club and take advantage of the benefits."
We could have a small discussion about semantics, we could also have a small discussion about false representation and miss-selling. In the context of this thread that last sentence is obcene!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Masque wrote: |
| ...There’s no intent on my behalf to slag off the club... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick, the mission of the Club to act as "spokesbody for British skiers" was stated in an annual report shortly after the first chief executive was appointed - about 15 years ago. Certainly the national media turn to the Club to speak as a national representative body when a skiing issue arises, and I think the Club cultivates this status.
As long as the Club remains the largest national recreational skiers' organisation, it is natural for this situation to exist but (as I've pointed out countless times) 98% of British skiers are non-members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
