 Poster: A snowHead
|
A doctor, a policeman and a lawyer go into a pub.
The barman says, what is this, some kind of Joke?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
It is the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere, two cars both slightly cross over the white line in the centre of the road. They collide and a fair amount of damage is done, miraculously neither driver is hurt.
They both get out. One is a doctor, one is a lawyer. The lawyer calls the police on his cell phone and they say they will be there within 20 minutes.
It’s cold and damp, and both men are shaken up. The lawyer offers the doctor a drink of brandy from his hip flask, the doctor accepts, drinks and hands it back to the lawyer, who then puts it away.
“Aren’t you going to have a drink?” the doctor says.
“AFTER the police get here.” replies the lawyer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
DB, 
admin, that is really rather sad. I think I can guess who it was, and when. Massive over-reaction.
DG thanks then for showing some restraint. It is difficult to know what good has been served by you trailing in public a private meeting a friend had, other than showing people that sometimes your "news" came from something other than web searches and alerts. I would still have rather heard this from admin, when he wanted to tell us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
admin, nice explanication. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
stoat of the dead, I think you've expressed a genuine point of view in good faith and I respect your words on that basis. Obviously, confidentiality is a central duty of your chosen profession and the matters we're discussing here are of lesser importance (understatement of the year?) than those you deal with on a day-by-day basis - perhaps that's one reason why I have absolutely nothing on my conscience about disclosing the fact that a meeting took place.
If it was about money - which is conceivable - then it's about the respective responsibilities of the two parties about money, and who has rights to information about that money. snowHeads is, in essence, a purely private business. As far as I'm aware (but haven't asked, so this is guesswork), McAdmin is not a director of anything. McCEO is a director, and has years of experience of being a director.
One of the reasons we are where we are is that a member-owned and member-accountable body deploys confidentiality to quite a high and persistent level. I recall an old friend of mine saying they were joining the council of the SCGB because "it's the only way to find out what's going on!" Leafing through old annual reports of the SCGB is interesting in terms of the great variability of information disclosed. A highpoint was the year when Sally Cartwright OBE (then publishing director of Hello! magazine) chaired the organisation - the data was much broader and more objective.
Ultimately, journalists are here to serve a readership and disclose stuff that some people don't want disclosed. That's almost a definition of the profession, and the best example I can think of is Watergate. I'm sure there are those who still oppose what Woodward and Bernstein did. And there are probably those who are uneasy about detail-free reportage of a meeting in Pall Mall, but the meeting was about something and it was (presumably) paid for by members of the SCGB. Then again, maybe it wasn't.
My theory is that the Pall Mall meeting was all about money ... people getting to know each other, certainly (Pall Mall clubs are about that) ... but money, really.
DB, enjoyed that. Do you have a PayPal account?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Journalists are there to serve themselves, and if there's not a story, then MAKE something a story. These days.
So what if Admin or anyone else had lunch. So did I.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well you're still here, as a participant in (and reader of) the story! I must admit, rocket stories must be a hell of lot more interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Comedy Goldsmith, Conversely, I reckon the meeting was purely about bridge building, after all what is the point of the two largest groups of snowsport enthusiasts in the UK being at each others throats. It is noticeable that the main protagonist on here representing the SCGB has ceased posting his usual vitriol.
I very much doubt money was discussed apart from the relative value of the catering provided at the IoD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comedy Goldsmith, I think there are obligations and goodwill that you should feel towards Admin and snowHeads which mean that on occasion you can put your trusty sword of truth back in its scabbard. This was a lunch. Not an expose of the wrong doings of the US Executive.
Sometimes diplomacy is best carried out in the shadows. Think of Preliminary talks in Northern Ireland in the '90s. The general public needed NOT to know for them to be successful.
Please ask yourself if trailing this meeting on snowHeads did anything more than make you feel you were a "proper" journalist. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
stoat of the dead, you're obviously quite right to suggest that much reporting is overlaid and back-clothed with the type of concern you express. The "Preliminary talks in Northern Ireland" are a particularly poor example to cite, though, because they were about people being murdered in terrible acts of terrorism and major national (even international) security considerations. Even the Americans were heavily involved.
This is about a couple of tea clubs and a tea set in a dining room. Yes, the cups may have rattled slightly but let's not get carried away about the 'inappropriateness' of the reportage. It's bog standard ... a bit like the Nigella Lawson/Charles Saatchi incident, except that they chose to dine outside and a paparazzo hid behind a bush.
Incidentally, my informant (Clouseau) is not a waiter or waitress at the RAC Club. [edit: whoops - IoD - !]
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Fri 17-01-14 13:46; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
admin, great post
and then this self excusing rubbish by DG
| Quote: |
stoat of the dead, I think you've expressed a genuine point of view in good faith and I respect your words on that basis. Obviously, confidentiality is a central duty of your chosen profession and the matters we're discussing here are of lesser importance (understatement of the year?) than those you deal with on a day-by-day basis - perhaps that's one reason why I have absolutely nothing on my conscience about disclosing the fact that a meeting took place.
If it was about money - which is conceivable - then it's about the respective responsibilities of the two parties about money, and who has rights to information about that money. snowHeads is, in essence, a purely private business. As far as I'm aware (but haven't asked, so this is guesswork), McAdmin is not a director of anything. McCEO is a director, and has years of experience of being a director.
One of the reasons we are where we are is that a member-owned and member-accountable body deploys confidentiality to quite a high and persistent level. I recall an old friend of mine saying they were joining the council of the SCGB because "it's the only way to find out what's going on!" Leafing through old annual reports of the SCGB is interesting in terms of the great variability of information disclosed. A highpoint was the year when Sally Cartwright OBE (then publishing director of Hello! magazine) chaired the organisation - the data was much broader and more objective.
Ultimately, journalists are here to serve a readership and disclose stuff that some people don't want disclosed. That's almost a definition of the profession, and the best example I can think of is Watergate. I'm sure there are those who still oppose what Woodward and Bernstein did. And there are probably those who are uneasy about detail-free reportage of a meeting in Pall Mall, but the meeting was about something and it was (presumably) paid for by members of the SCGB. Then again, maybe it wasn't.
My theory is that the Pall Mall meeting was all about money ... people getting to know each other, certainly (Pall Mall clubs are about that) ... but money, really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
This is about a couple of tea clubs and a tea set in a dining room. Yes, the cups may have rattled slightly but let's not get carried away about the 'inappropriateness' of the reportage.
|
it was about two blokes meeting for lunch and it was none of your business. God knows what goes on in your head for you to think you were doing your journalistic duty by informing all of us in such a sensationalist manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Shimmy Alcott, well that's strange because admin's identified a 'third bloke'.
Don't get shirty with me, Shimmy. This was perfectly justifiable bog-standard reportage ... and could be of some significance historically (more likely in terms of the SCGB than the somewhat more global sH).
What do you mean "none of your business"? On that basis no journalism is any business of anyone's. That's the most ridiculous comment to date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Comedy Goldsmith, I'm sure you know this, which was said of Gladstone by Disraeli:
| Quote: |
| A sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
On that basis no journalism is any business of anyone's
|
sounds about right.
most journalism is about poking noses in other people's business, or poking them with a stick until they cave in, all for the purpose of a scoop.
the only scoop of importance right now is which flavour sorbet admin had for dessert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Comedy Goldsmith, not at all "shirty" DG. Its funny how often you say how "ridiculous" other peoples posts are (go do some journalistic probing in your post history - you will see I am correct) and yet have no sense of self censorship on the tonnes of tosh you produce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Quote: |
On that basis no journalism is any business of anyone's
|
The old argument isn't it, at what point does snooping in someone's private business become jounalism which is in the public interest, or is it just snooping in someone's private business.
As I can't see how this is in the public interest, I personally think Shimmy Alcott, comment is correct
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Comedy Goldsmith is extreme in his comments off other people and other views - may be he hit his head, as he does not wear a helmet. 
(he calls it "to take a stand")
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Fri 17-01-14 14:09; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
OK ... so we're discussing 'issues of privacy' now ... concerning a club with a claimed 30,000+ membership (which is entirely accountable to its members) and a club with a stated 39169 user registrations to date (where issues of accountability are underlaid by the fact that it is a private enterprise).
Well, obviously there will be differences between us as to what the 'privacy line' line comprises ... just as there were in the Lawson/Saatchi affair (which involves children), with the media defence being that they are public figures whose lives have intertwined with the publicity game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Shimmy Alcott,
| Quote: |
it was about two blokes meeting for lunch and it was none of your business. God knows what goes on in your head for you to think you were doing your journalistic duty by informing all of us in such a sensationalist manner.
|
+1 (however many blokes were or weren't involved)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I find it mildly interesting (no more than that, certainly). I don't see that there's been any breach of privacy, unless CG was given info with an expectation of confidentiality. I'm not sure why anyone would get ratty over this. Businessman A was seen meeting Businessman B at Venue C is the sort of thing you read all the time in the business press, with attendant speculation. Admin and Mr SCGB will know they've made it when they read about their next meeting in the Sunday Times.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Fri 17-01-14 14:16; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comedy Goldsmith, you just don't get it... or perhaps you just don't read what other people write... or let it enter your brain if it doesn't fit your view.
The NI peace talks happened in secrecy initially with public denials and almost no coverage in order to facilitate a rapprochement. Journalists crawling all over it would have roused the local population and prevented the process moving forwards.
Sometimes a journalist with a real conscience will understand that they have a responsibility to do something more than run around smugly shouting "I know something you don't!".
Have enough people said this yet for you to listen and change your mind? Or it this a red cord issue?
Pedantica, lovely quote
Laundyman I just feel DG should think about what his action achieves, and whether the interests of an organisation, sH, which he seems to like, are well-served by his actions.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Fri 17-01-14 14:19; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
Pedantica, lovely quote
|
indeed; my thoughts exactly (after I read it through, twice, slowly)
Seems to have gone over DG's head though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
laundryman, no - they'll know they've made it when it's on the news that they WILL be meeting later that day to discsus smarties
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Yeah well ... I think it's time for admin to hop back in on a space-hopper. Ain't it funny that we're being quoted golden examples of discretion, all relating to politicians (Gladstone, Disraeli, countless Northern Ireland secretaries etc.)?
Politicians are not necessarily the guiding lights of morality.
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Fri 17-01-14 14:24; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
stoat of the dead, fair enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good god, does anyone really give a poo-poo?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
stoat of the dead, I get the impression from both Comedy Goldsmith, and Admin that this thread and the non news of the meeting have Admins blessing.
May I suggest 'Rejoice' as PJSki appears to have been returned to his kennel. Maybe 'the' meeting was connected with that.
Either way that is good news and for the greater good imho.
AND there are buttons for the Tenth EOSB
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Fri 17-01-14 14:41; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| homers double wrote: |
| Good god, does anyone really give a poo-poo? |
Nope as with a good percentage of threads on here
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| boredsurfin wrote: |
| homers double wrote: |
| Good god, does anyone really give a poo-poo? |
Nope as with a good percentage of threads on here |
David is killing the forum.
I am sure he is upset to be a unemployed journalist ( I understand he has other employment) but as ever he seems to measure his success in column inches, both his ridiculous output and the responses to it. Oblivious to all and sundry.
I know a child with ADD who is very similar, and also best avoided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Filthyphil30k,
| Quote: |
David is killing the forum.
|
Really! he has been trying for the last ten years, and nothing has changed
PS, The current ski club thread was started by the ski club not Comedy Goldfish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
boredsurfin, when I joined it was during DGs quiet spell.
The ski club thread is one thread by a member and pages of David's take in everything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Filthyphil30k, If you have a very dull moment go back to 2005 and read some of the eye opening stuff that went on then. If you are concerned about the Ski Club have a wander through the scgb forum in the archives on here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comedy Goldsmith, I know this might feel a little like a baner coch to a tarw but I am someone seriously contemplating my first snowhead bash, and in keeping with many other snow fans (which is what we all should be) often trawl (in the good sense) through thousands of missives from hundreds of individuals who have no agenda and simply wish to enjoy their experiences with like-minded people.
I popped over here because of the footfall - blow me down - what a pile of cach
I will now apply endeavour to filter you out of my life and suggest anyone else who wishes to keep a semblance of reality in their life does likewise if humanely possible. Between this ceilliau and the eternal thread which is some ballsacheingly dull diatribe (which I acknowledge you have the right to read or not and contribute or not) http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=94856 there is a real risk that genuine people may pigeonhole all snowheads into the twp bracket and not do what this forum is meant to be all about
Why don't you set up a blog instead? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
boredsurfin, thanks for that. I am not a member of SCGB, so have no interest, but I like snowHeads, so dislike DGs input on so many threads. If he just had one thread to himself that would be fine.
But like the ADD child swearing, screaming and drawing attention to its self I find DG having his "peculiar" opinions every where. You have know ( of) him for longer than I have, bad luck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
simonmj66, being Welsh, your post made perfect sense...will be fun for others to figure out what your "typos" are supposed to mean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are other posters who post lots on many threads, which I don't always agree with, but are rational and based on a forum type mentality, his is always about DG, even when disguised as a "scoop".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
