 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Alastair Pink be fair - they are looking for an editor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Richard_Sideways, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Which reminds me...
| Quote: |
Dear Sirs,
Hear through the old grapevine that you're looking for an editor-in-chief or whatnot for that erstwhile organ of yours, Ski+Board Magazine, and I thought i'd toss my hat in the ring.
Picked up a copy the other day, and I must say I did find it a bit of a drag. Arnies tried his best and all that but it's just not speaking to the core membership is it? I mean some chappy whos off to the Olympics for doing all that flippy twisty nancy nonsense? Stuff from that Bell fella whos on SKi Sunday with his little chimp friend. Ruskie helicopters! If I want that I'll visit Uncle Beanos old place.
No, the Mag needs new vision. I'm planning quite a schedule, so need to be where the action is - I'll set up camp in Courchevel (five star, naturally) and send in reports from there. I propose to bring back the 3 D's which made British Skiing GREAT! Downhill Only, Drinking as much as possible, and Doing as many of the chaletmaids as I can get ahold of. And drop all this "Snowboard" nonsense - its just pandering to the unwashed masses. No-one wants it and its ruddy dangerous! I had a go once and my poor old rear end hadn't taken that much of a pounding since I was at Eton.
Now I know I don't have much track record in this, but I was having a chat to Boz the other day and he edited the Spectator for ages and he's never strung a sentence together in his life - Plus what with computers and the internet, all the tricky spelling and content stuff is all taken care of for you. I hear that sometimes people just ring up and tell you what to write about their new gear too! Any gaps we can just fill up with pictures of pretty young things in furry hats and top ten lists of the finest brandies and whats wrong with Europe.
I think we can all agree that things went a bit pear-shaped during the interview for the Communications Chief interview down at The Club, but the waitress has agreed to drop the charges after Pater had a word and cut a cheque, so lets all just move on and get cracking on the new look mag.
Off to practice my grammar,
Yours in readiness,
Timothy Runciple-Spoon
PS. Mummy wants to know ASAP if you're staying after christmas dinner this year, as the East wing is being fumigated for badgers and so we're down to 20 bedrooms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Scrumpy, still awaiting an update from you concerning your posting on p.52 ... which comes across as a full-on smear ...
| Scrumpy wrote: |
- yes DG or CG  , as the case may be, seems to spend all of his time posting here or on F ace book  - must have won the lottery  , come into an inheritance  or robbed bank  - certainly utterly unemployable and of very little value to anyone - 7 years ago or now ! |
I'm not going to demand that you reveal your true ID. You've explained that you work for a firm of London solicitors, and should therefore know better than to post such libellous trash. But we were simply asking you if you're a member of the Ski Club of Great Britain?
Your silence speaks volumes. Want to break it?
You may or may not be aware that a senior official of said organisation, exactly ten years ago (November 2003), said - in a loud voice at the AGM - that I'd left the SCGB and rejoined as a new member ... to claim a Salomon backpack. Yes, I'm afraid that's exactly what happened. I was told, in no uncertain terms, to return the backpack!
The membership had been renewed as normal, but the backpack was sent to me unsolicited (and was later returned, unopened and unused). Essentially the whole thing was a smear, with the same false allegation made in the SCGB boardroom.
On 6 Feb 2004 I received an email from Gerry Aitken (then a rep, before becoming a SCGB director) repeating the same false allegation. This essentially nailed the slander in evidential terms. Eventually the matter was settled (without any legal representation/consultation on my part) with a circulated letter of apology and payment to a skiing charity.
All this helps to illustrate where the SCGB goes wrong - a clique within a clique of British skiing - manipulating the Club's funds to benefit The Clique and its annual gravy train of expenses-paid skiing ... falsifying membership figures, inventing grossly-inflated readership figures and Ski TV viewership figures to attract magazine/video advertising, fabricating snow depth reports (for the Scottish mountains), promoting ski helmet sales by grossly exaggerating head injury data ... and so on, and so on. When these matters are reported, the messenger gets shot (in metaphorical terms) and the circus goes on.
It's time all this nonsense and unpleasantness stopped now. [/end of commentary]
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Is it libellous? AIUI your position is an unpaid one and the definiton of unemployable is:
adjective
1.
(of a person) not able or likely to get paid employment because of a lack of skills or qualifications.
Beyond that I'd say it's a matter of opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employment at Southbank Centre is paid employment, so I earn a salary. I thought I'd made that clear.
No, I don't agree that people who work on an unpaid/voluntary basis are unemployable - you might be surprised at how many people give up their time to work for causes they perceive to be worthy of it. And, in doing so, they often work to a very high standard of professionalism and dependability. It doesn't mean they're unemployable - they're probably far more employable than thousands of 'jobsworths'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't say that all volunteers are unemployable, but it is possible that an unemployable person could be a volunteer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 wrote: |
| It's time all this nonsense and unpleasantness stopped now. [/end of commentary] |
Please please don't make it stop. This is the single best example of corporate buffoonery I have encountered on SH, and it is a really valuable training tool when discussing social media engagement with companies that have not started down that road, and how to handle a disgruntled former employee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comedy Goldsmith, I have to agree with feef, offensive and probably ignorant opinion, but not libellous so would not keep stirring that pot.
And, have to say, the PJSki /Scrumpy combo are not making any friends for SCGB by their boorish attitude and words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
beequin, +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
So, I have to ask: Now that certain resorts and tour operators have arranged to have free social skiing sessions with fully qualified and local instructors in France; that the SCGB website appears dead in the water and offers no informative discussion in its forum; that the magazine is rudderless and in any case considerably outclassed by a number of freely available other resources; that our athletes are independently raising funds for their Olympic hopes; that resorts run their own green and cleanup campaigns; that the British government takes out poster adverts in foreign airports to warn us of the dangers of skiing drunk; that the Telegraph publishes a helmet scare story every week; and that you can get a discount on anything anywhere by booking independently online or simply asking for money off at the point of sale, what does the Ski Club offer to make membership worthwhile?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What did the Romans ever give us? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Just tried to explain to the girlfriend why I was reading this thread and the best justification I could think of was it's the same reason people slow down and look at a car accident whilst driving on the opposite carriage way.
As Mistress Panda says ,
| Quote: |
This is the single best example of corporate buffoonery I have encountered on SH
|
Total car crash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
geepee, a cryptic and irrelevant reply. At least it's in keeping with the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| geepee wrote: |
| What did the Romans ever give us? |
Reps in London, discounts on ski rental.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Sorry ... should read 'chariot rental'. Ask for ski racks and snow chains.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| geepee wrote: |
| What did the Romans ever give us? |
Rabbits . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Masque, no, the battery wasn't invented til 1800.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Edible doormice though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| geepee wrote: |
| What did the Romans ever give us? |
I would have said aqueducts, but wasn't that Robert Stephenson?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| geepee wrote: |
| What did the Romans ever give us? |
Out of control, with Murray Roman
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Fri 15-11-13 17:06; 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.
|
| geepee wrote: |
| What did the Romans ever give us? |
A tea tray at the Colosseum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eddiethebus, Can you elaborate - who specifically is wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| geepee wrote: |
| What did the Romans ever give us? |
The Roma lift
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| geepee wrote: |
| What did the Romans ever give us? |
The green banana, BOYS et GIRLS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banana History
Bananas are the fruit of Musa acuminata. Acuminata means long-pointed or tapering, not referring to the fruit, but to the flowers giving birth to the fruit.
Antonius Musa was the personal physician to Roman emperor Octavius Augustus, and it was he who was credited for promoting cultivation of the exotic African fruit from 63 to 14 B.C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| geepee wrote: |
| What did the Romans ever give us? |
Reproductive organs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
A posting on the SCGB forum, which I can't reply to [the scale of exclusion has recently increased from 'expelled member' to 'cancelled non-member log-in']
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/membersonly/snowtalk/discussion.aspx/The-Ski-Club?discussionID=14537#.Uodf7Cff5xU
Helen O'Brien is clearly aware of that but is presumably seeking a polite response, so here it is:
I don't think there's anything unfortunate about the proposition/prospect of winding-up (in the constitutional, rather than teasing sense) the Ski Club of Great Britain. It's the members' prerogative to decide. Quite a number of people I'm connected with in British skiing (with very long and positive track records in the sport) take the view that the SCGB performs more of a negative function than a positive function these days. Its membership accounts for around 2% of UK skiers (from 20% to 30% in the post-WW2 era). The Club appears to have no effect on expanding the number of British skiers. It ceased to be the governing body of British ski racing in the early 1960s, then took a snobbish attitude to Scottish skiing just as Cairngorm/Aviemore were under development (which meant it was not involved in founding the governing body of British ski instructors). It took an aloof attitude to the development of package holiday skiing in the 1960s/1970s boom era. The Club has pulled its magazine off the newsstands (despite great success with it in the 1980s) and will probably therefore become even more introspective in that regard. As for social media - the subject of Olivia Gordon's thread linked above - the SCGB is now essentially a non-player.
This is the 21st century - not Edwardian Britain.
With all that in mind, it's maybe better to wind it up now and distribute the proceeds to the largest number of members than to let it shrink further, for the benefit of a few eventual carpet-baggers.
As far back as two decades ago a former SCGB council member (with whom I'm intimately related) had to report something quite serious to the Met Police - suspected financial impropriety by an employee at Eaton Square. That closely followed a previous situation concerning a SCGB employee who was making "unauthorised borrowings" from SCGB funds. It should, of course, be stressed that these are things happened 20-25 years ago and I've no reason to believe that anything of that sort goes on today.
But what about the "missing money" - see previous pages of this thread - unaccounted for in the SCGB 'Respect the Mountain' fund? That's despite repeated requests for information - annual accounts. What about the mail-order retailing of ski helmets by the SCGB, based on claims that 50% of ski injuries are head injuries? And all the recent issues referred to above, concerning mis-selling of advertising, fabrication of snow depth reports etc.
Time for members to consider the future of the SCGB?
Last edited by Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name: on Sat 16-11-13 15:27; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
Time for members to consider the future of the SCGB?
|
Could it be that some of the members are doing just that, and are trying to turn things around?
Could it also be that that job is being all the more difficult due to comments about things that happened decades ago?
That is, unless, you don't actually WANT to see it turned around? Constantly bickering about stuff that's happened in the past does no one any good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
I'm not denying that, but change can't happen overnight, and there's a lot of history to turn around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Only 15% of members ski with the reps.( admittedly that figure doesnt look good) But I can see no problem with that as the service is obviously well advertised. If members don't take up the service then that is their perogative. They must see other value in being members. Regard the budget, ... Could it be looked at as an advertising budget ? ... Which on the face of it needs tweaking, but as the club membership looks stable (?) , it doesn't look as if it is a big a problem to the members as it does to detractors.
Money should be accounted for ...
Data...easily attended to.
As Feef says, maybe they are trying to change the perception of the club, and move it on
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
A posting on the SCGB forum, which I can't reply to [the scale of exclusion has recently increased from 'expelled member' to 'cancelled non-member log-in']
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/membersonly/snowtalk/discussion.aspx/The-Ski-Club?discussionID=14537#.Uodf7Cff5xU
Helen O'Brien is clearly aware of that but is presumably seeking a polite response, so here it is:
I don't think there's anything unfortunate about the proposition/prospect of winding-up (in the constitutional, rather than teasing sense) the Ski Club of Great Britain. It's the members' prerogative to decide. Quite a number of people I'm connected with in British skiing (with very long and positive track records in the sport) take the view that the SCGB performs more of a negative function than a positive function these days. Its membership accounts for around 2% of UK skiers (from 20% to 30% in the post-WW2 era). The Club appears to have no effect on expanding the number of British skiers. It ceased to be the governing body of British ski racing in the early 1960s, then took a snobbish attitude to Scottish skiing just as Cairngorm/Aviemore were under development (which meant it was not involved in founding the governing body of British ski instructors). It took an aloof attitude to the development of package holiday skiing in the 1960s/1970s boom era. The Club has pulled its magazine off the newsstands (despite great success with it in the 1980s) and will probably therefore become even more introspective in that regard. As for social media - the subject of Olivia Gordon's thread linked above - the SCGB is now essentially a non-player.
This is the 21st century - not Edwardian Britain.
With all that in mind, it's maybe better to wind it up now and distribute the proceeds to the largest number of members than to let it shrink further, for the benefit of a few eventual carpet-baggers.
As far back as two decades ago a former SCGB council member (with whom I'm intimately related) had to report something quite serious to the Met Police - suspected financial impropriety by an employee at Eaton Square. That closely followed a previous situation concerning a SCGB employee who was making "unauthorised borrowings" from SCGB funds. It should, of course, be stressed that these are things happened 20-25 years ago and I've no reason to believe that anything of that sort goes on today.
But what about the "missing money" - see previous pages of this thread - unaccounted for in the SCGB 'Respect the Mountain' fund? That's despite repeated requests for information - annual accounts. What about the mail-order retailing of ski helmets by the SCGB, based on claims that 50% of ski injuries are head injuries? And all the recent issues referred to above, concerning mis-selling of advertising, fabrication of snow depth reports etc.
Time for members to consider the future of the SCGB?
|
Ooo, that Charles Pritchard seems like a nice sensible chap!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Some of the people on that thread sound entirely reasonable. I assume some of them are some of you, although I don't know which is which.
The internal bickering and even the accounts of a club I'm not in don't bother me much, entertaining as they are.
| limegreen1 wrote: |
| ... maybe they are trying to change the perception of the club, and move it on |
I learnt on a council-funded slope in lessons organized by my comprehensive school. Many of us had no realistic prospect of ever riding on snow. My perception of the SCGB was that it didn't seem to be an organization whose interests coincided much with mine.
These days the snowboard boot is somewhat on the other foot, but I've never felt the need to even look at the SCGB despite considerable involvement in the sport. Until I read this and discovered the fisticuffs I thought it was just a rich old guys' holiday club. Isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Shimmy Alcott wrote: |
.....
Ooo, that Charles Pritchard seems like a nice sensible chap! |
Yes, he does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| geepee wrote: |
| What did the Romans ever give us? |
Speed-skiing on a Fiat 500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
