 Poster: A snowHead
|
George Jones, I think you'd have to ask yourself what DG had to do to get expelled? I suspect the legal advice they surely must have taken, cost more than all his 50 years of subs added together. I suspect also that the legal advice would have said that the club should not talk in an open forum about their reasons and advice, so we will only ever get one side of the story here.
I really don't have any skin in this game - I just hate to see one side of things only presented, and some fairly interesting interpretations of data and events by DG, just as we used to back in the day when David used to start 80-90% of the threads about the club on their forum, almost all seeming to me to be critical and nostalgic.
Anyway - Groundhog day. Time for work. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| stoat of the dead wrote: |
George Jones, I just hate to see one side of things only presented, and some fairly interesting interpretations of data and events by DG, just as we used to back in the day when David used to start 80-90% of the threads about the club on their forum, almost all seeming to me to be critical and nostalgic.
: |
and here I was applauding DG for giving it for 62 pages ... hats off for 10 years  (plus) of the same.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Thu 28-11-13 11:06; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| stoat of the dead wrote: |
George Jones, I think you'd have to ask yourself what DG had to do to get expelled? I suspect the legal advice they surely must have taken, cost more than all his 50 years of subs added together. I suspect also that the legal advice would have said that the club should not talk in an open forum about their reasons and advice, so we will only ever get one side of the story here.
I really don't have any skin in this game - I just hate to see one side of things only presented, and some fairly interesting interpretations of data and events by DG, just as we used to back in the day when David used to start 80-90% of the threads about the club on their forum, almost all seeming to me to be critical and nostalgic.
Anyway - Groundhog day. Time for work. |
I think you are being generous to the club to assume they must have good cause to expel. If you had ever been at an AGM with CG versus The Rest you might take a different view. I do not have 'any skin in this game' either, just a sense of fair play. I know CG can be irritating - but even so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| George Jones wrote: |
How a club gets to a situation where it expels one of its most enthusiastic (obsessive) members rather than harnessing that enthusiasm, or simply responding to a few questions is beyond me.
....... |
I used to belong to the Club, and it's then MO forum. It was pretty clear that it wasn't just a 'few' questions. The club's PR here has not been good - but then snowHeads began because it's founding members had been chucked out of the SCGB forum. From then on it was going to be difficult to establish a harmonious relationship with us. The steady stream of critical posts from DG in sHs can't have helped.
Personally, I think the SCGB way of doing things is so structurally flawed in what it provides to modern skiers, that it can't be saved from slow decline. Everything has it's time. But I can't see that that should be of absorbing, sometimes malicious interest here. So far, sHs has done well because it adapts organically to what its members want to do and is welcoming to newcomers -which is also why the bashes are huge fun. We also kinda like the guy who runs it. But one day there may well be something else. If that happens, I hope the next generation will not be sanctimonious and try to diminish what to us has been so good.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Thu 28-11-13 10:51; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| davidof wrote: |
I've heard Snowheads described on more than one occasion (not by me I add) as UKIP on Skis. Although TGR clams the forums are a "Middle England Gaper Fest" (something to do with Gap year skiing? ). So there is obviously a perception out there. Ski Club are Toffs and Braying Hoorays, Snowheads are the not so squeezed Middle.
|
Is there a Snowheads Nigel Farage equivalent or Geoffrey Bloom?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| George Jones wrote: |
| ....I think you are being generous to the club to assume they must have good cause to expel. If you had ever been at an AGM with CG versus The Rest you might take a different view. |
I have. I don't.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Thu 28-11-13 10:54; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the outside, it looks like DG has repeatedly asked a tricky question or two (you know, like the one about the environmental levy) and the answers have never been forthcoming. All they had/have to do is answer. Expulsion has made their position far worse IMV. He's not just outside the tent pi55ing in now, he's hosing down everywhere via social media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| From the outside, it looks like DG has repeatedly asked a tricky question or two (you know, like the one about the environmental levy) and the answers have never been forthcoming. All they had/have to do is answer. Expulsion has made their position far worse IMV. He's not just outside the tent pi55ing in now, he's hosing down everywhere via social media. |
A fair synopsis IMO.
AGMs were interesting. Harrumph Corner v CG. Then once proceedings were over everything was back to normal. Those who accuse SCGB members of braying would have a field day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I know CG can be irritating - but even so.
|
Theres irritating and then there's someone with their finger hovering over the big red destruct button because his "mates" wont play ball. Im undecided as to which he is. He may have a point about the accounts of the SKGB - but there must be a better way of addressing that issue than just slinging whatever bit of mud he can find.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| ... he's hosing down everywhere via social media. |
A slight flush of melodrama there, Swiller - not like you at all. Not sure what I'm hosing down - the garden tap needs a new washer but I've called a plumber. I'd prefer this likened to a gentle air-freshening, confined to this cubicle.
achilles etc., ... all this stuff about SCGB AGMs ... my impact on them (now extinguished) really amounted to no more than a whoopee cushion in a cathedral ... as is proven by the outcome.
stoat club of great britain is correct that there's a legal overtone to my expulsion, since there's reference to the law (of libel) in the official letter concerned. There's no writ, and the allegations are denied ... since I don't publish untruths.
What I may explain in due course is the process by which the expulsion took place, because this may be more significant than the allegations made. SCGB members can look for themselves at the relevant paragraphs of the recently concocted 'Memorandum and Articles of Association' [available on the SCGB website], which apparently now determine the expulsion process ... and compare them with the superior clauses 21a to 21d of the Rules of the Ski Club of Great Britain, Amended 1988:
| Quote: |
21a The Council shall have power to expel a member for breach of the Club rules or for conduct on or off the Club premises which in the opinion of the Council is of a nature likely to prove injurious to the character, reputation or interests of the Club.
21b The question of the expulsion of a member must appear on the agenda of the Council Meeting at which it is to be considered. At least fourteen days' notice shall be required for such a meeting.
21c At least eight members of the Council must be present when the expulsion of a member is considered and a majority of two-thirds of those present and voting shall be necessary to carry a motion for explusion. The Council shall not delegate the power of expulsion to any Committee.
21d The member concerned shall be notified in writing that the question is to be considered and shall be given the opportunity to appear before the meeting either in person or by proxy to state his case or to make a written statement. |
I'm not sure whether the SCGB Council were obliged to apply themselves to the above (i.e. whether the recent M&As superseded the Rules, refined over 8 decades of SCGB evolution), but 21d was not followed. 21b and 21c, if applicable, would be minuted.
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Thu 28-11-13 12:50; 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
George Jones, I think you were watching the endgame of a long long saga, which took up huge amounts of SCGB time, to the point where everyone just says enough...
Comedy Goldsmith, David - hmmm... no untruths.... well you did - last week - appear to accuse the Helmet Manufacturers of being less than truthful in the way they promoted their goods. You appeared to impugn the motives of Braehead. In this thread you appeared to imply that Neil Britten acted in ways for which you have not given evidence.
You have also failed to appreciate that correlation is not causality. You have seemed to ignore evidence or posts which disagree with your idea of "the truth". And some of your interpretations of events, people, motives and numbers in this thread and many others here and on the SCGB forum back in the day is, at best, rather subjective...
Have you thought of applying to work at the Daily Mail? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Swiller,
Funnily enough, I thought of entering the SCGB AGM as half of a pantomime horse, to avoid identification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| stoat of the dead wrote: |
Comedy Goldsmith, David - hmmm... no untruths.... well you did - last week - appear to accuse the Helmet Manufacturers of being less than truthful in the way they promoted their goods. You appeared to impugn the motives of Braehead. In this thread you appeared to imply that Neil Britten acted in ways for which you have not given evidence.
You have also failed to appreciate that correlation is not causality. You have seemed to ignore evidence or posts which disagree with your idea of "the truth". And some of your interpretations of events, people, motives and numbers in this thread and many others here and on the SCGB forum back in the day is, at best, rather subjective...
Have you thought of applying to work at the Daily Mail? |
A hosed stream of ... mainly ... rambling crap. Please be specific and cite/quote your references, so we can deal with things in an orderly fashion. I'll be back shortly concerning helmets, and some shocking evidence concerning the Ski Club of Great Britain's promotion/retailing of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
Swiller,
Funnily enough, I thought of entering the SCGB AGM as half of a pantomime horse, to avoid identification. |
If you went as the rear they would have guessed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Helmets and the SCGB: Part One
This is the first and worst helmet promotion I can recall from the Ski Club.
It appeared in the 'Spring News 2000' edition of 'Clubtalk', a 16-page mini-magazine/bulletin-type SCGB publication which - I guess - heralded the new millennium. It set off a chain of propaganda-type promotions of helmets, conveyed to SCGB members via editorial-type material like this. Remember that ski helmets were scarcely sold in the UK at the turn of the century - 13 years ago.
This was an early attempt to get the helmet bandwagon going, following the much-publicised deaths of Michael Kennedy and Sonny Bono, close to New Year 1998. Both skied into trees in US ski areas (Heavenly, Aspen, respectively).
Check the claims made here, by an organisation - the Ski Club of Great Britain - which once published world-leading technical information on skiing.
I won't quote selectively from the text - it warrants reading in full.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Oh dear, both CG's bêtes noires in one. Scraping the barrel to go back 10 years though.
Or, was SCGB ahead of its time - who would have thought it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Is that it all? An ugly typeset and poorly worded pamplet? Dave, this ain't exactly Woodward and Bernstein is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
beequin, I think you mean nearly 14 years but I'm going to wait for parts 2, 3, 4 etc before stirring... sorry, I mean commenting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK chaps, let's leap forwards to the SCGB's current advice on helmets (this is Part Four, by the way), since you're so bloody impatient.
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/infoandadvice/article.aspx?articleID=119#.UpdIRiff5xU
Part Four
You'll see the text here is toned down somewhat, after firstly claiming in 2000 that head injuries are "50% of reported accidents", with the scaremongering overture above.
This current advice is also toned down because of a Press Complaints Commission investigation, after the SCGB (in partnership with the ski rental discount chain Ski Republic) gave the Daily Telegraph misleading information about head injuries a few years later.
But hark this quote:
"... at present with no clear research results ..."
There is, of course, and as we know from countless helmet threads, plenty of research into the causes and effects of head injuries in skiing, correlated with the sale/use of helmets. We don't need to go there yet again (!) but just ask ... why doesn't the SCGB simply link to one of the best sources of information on the subject - right here in the UK (Aviemore ski injury specialist Dr Mike Langran):
http://ski-injury.com/specific-injuries/head
http://ski-injury.com/prevention/helmet
http://ski-injury.com/about
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ooooo. The UK's leading independent organization in snow sports? Hmm. Well I suppose it is stretching it a bit to say sHs is an 'organization'. But perhaps we are the leading anarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
How DARE they moderate their tone and become all reasonable about it. Its this LACK OF CONVICTION in a lost cause that really separates the tea club from the Goldsmiths of this world...
Unless Parts 2 and 3 come up with some kind of meth-fuelled orgy at the White House, that would make Rob Ford, Paul Flowers, Silvio Berlusconi and Nigella Lawson blush crimson, I'll be sorely disappointed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Comedy Goldsmith, Is the suggestion that a stance or opinion should never be changed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
I can't really see what's wrong with Part 4 although a more informed piece should be expected. They are just saying "wear one, don't wear one, it's up to you". Can we have 2 and 3 please. And don't go out of sequence again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| feef wrote: |
| Comedy Goldsmith, Is the suggestion that a stance or opinion should never be changed? |
No, that isn't the suggestion. The suggestion is that the SCGB is so wedded and bedded with commercialism that it's lost all touch with the reasons it was established.
Without getting puritanical and silly, it's worth noting that the Club was so strictly non-commercial in its early years that it banned the Lunn family - Henry Lunn was a pioneering tour operator in skiing - from membership. Thus, Arnold Lunn (who eventually became its president) was banned too, despite the fact that he was merely the 'son of the owner' and I think kept himself free of commercial skiing, as such.
Obviously it's welcome that the Club has gone from scaremongering about head injuries and pimping lids, to a position that starts to inform skiers without a commercial motive ... but this reluctant acceptance that 'we can't go on flogging helmets like this' is the unstated message of the 2013 text above.
I see that the Skeeb is currently running a Rossignol/Salomon ski test. Wonderful (Salomon again!) ... but admin's got umpteen brands engaged in his ski tests.
The SCGB, with a subscription-based membership of a claimed 30,000, is surely powerful enough to call the shots ... isn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| I can't really see what's wrong with Part 4 although a more informed piece should be expected. They are just saying "wear one, don't wear one, it's up to you". |
That's right ... but the way it should be approached is "Wear a helmet if you think this scientific evidence supports the decision ... or ....Don't wear a helmet if you think this scientific evidence supports the decision". It's no good saying, effectively, "there's no evidence".
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| Can we have 2 and 3 please. |
Not for the moment. Stoat got me onto helmets with his cheap jibes, and it wasn't planned.
Back to plan A - I would say that the SCGB's expenditures warrant a closer look ... since that's where members' money goes, and may explain the 'value for money' issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I went to a ski test at Tamworth (or maybe it was Milton Keynes cant remember) where the SCGB were involved and were giving out goody bags in return for written reviews. There were loads of different manufacturers there. There was a group of SH there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
Back to plan A - I would say that the SCGB's expenditures warrant a closer look ... since that's where members' money goes, and may explain the 'value for money' issue.
|
judging by the tiny % of members that turned up at the AGM I dont think many of them are bothered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I had forgotten how boring some of this could be. Then again I do not have to read it and if boring people was a banning offence then lots of clubs would lose members.
Plan A promises more
Kim's words on the demographic issues are well crafted. Even if former members see the club as innevitably doomed. Code for a clash with the old guard? CG's vested interests -reps/leaders?
"The Ski Club is fantastic, but in today’s competitive world it is not
alone in facing financial, strategic and operational challenges.
However, unlike other organisations, the Club must meet these
challenges while protecting and nurturing the club culture that is so
rightly highly valued by its membership."
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
George Jones, well, yes, an excellent point.
But no Council member of the SCGB should represent vested interests. The only interests that matter are those of the general membership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Comedy Goldsmith, please go and read your "Braehead are killing the spirit of skiing" thread again - and see if you think all your comments and implications are valid.
You took cheap shots at the manufacturers and the slope, and didn't really comment on the evidence which suggested you might be wrong about 1) the increasing evidence of effectiveness of lids, 2) that there are lots of other places/resorts where lids are compulsory, 3) the motivation of Braehead.
Do you remember you posting over 100 posts on the safety value of red string in avalanches, continuing even after someone had pointed out that the book which appeared to be your source of evidence, was actually changed in a subsequent edition to say there was no evidence?
What I cannot recall is you ever changing your mind or saying you might be wrong about anything. Which means this isn't debate, it is polemic. And I think that lack of willingness to move your view means that the SCGB were right to disengage from conversation with you, even though there were some diamonds of genuine issues hidden in the steaming pile of bitterness.
Anyway, I'm off to work. It's time to do so. And the last time I really crossed swords with you, by making a joke relating to you that yourself had previously made, you threatened to tell my employers ( I am self-employed) and my colleagues (who really wouldn't give a toss) that I might be posting here in working time- when I wasn't!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry to butt in but
| Quote: |
1) the increasing evidence of effectiveness of lids
|
Incidence of serious head injuries basically hasn't changed. Whilst use of helmets has sharply risen. I really really don't want a helmet debate but I'd question the "increasing evidence" aspect of what you say.
| Quote: |
2) that there are lots of other places/resorts where lids are compulsory
|
Very very few in fact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With regard to lids, in WW1 we sent our soldiers to the trenches initially with no helmets and many died from head injuries due to shrapnel etc ,later they were issued helmets and shortly there after one general or similar august personage was horrified by the number of head wounds when he visited a hospital, he was told they had had a significant increase in head wounds since helmets had been introduced, based on this they were about to withdraw helmets from the front line until one bright spark pointed out that the reason head wounds were now more prevalent was because they were no longer taking the injured straight to be buried.
Now a helmet is not likely to save you if you ski into a tree or rock at high speed, but it might make a difference between life and death at a slightly lower speed and save numerous minor injuries such as being hit in the head by skis on someone elses shoulder.
With regard to CG ... give it up David, I'm sorry but I realised all those years ago that it was an impossible battle, multiple people complained (at the time) about Gerry's posts and agreed with my comment that it was bullying and yet nothing was done save that my posts were deleted along with those who agreed, when a bully has the full support of those in charge and can get to a position of authority himself within an organisation it's time to leave them to it, as far as I was concerned that whole incident was very unpleasant, when I cancelled my membership I was asked why and gave the above reason it sounded like the person at the other end of the phone was embarrassed, I know in their position I would have been.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
stoat of the club [I think you still are, really], Braehead snowdome is obviously disrespecting the freedom of skiers to make decisions about whether to wear helmets - they've made them compulsory, for god's sake. It's absurd. You don't seriously support this ... in a snowdome ... do you?
The SCGB could win some welcome publicity on behalf of skiers - including Scottish skiers - by opposing this sort of authoritarian management of playgrounds. The SCGB is the self-styled "spokesbody of British skiers".
I've never said anything about "red string" [as pointed out on numerous occasions]. You're a condescending quote-twister who seeks to ridicule an opponent's argument by monkeying about with his words. Go into politics - the House of Monkeys awaits you.
As for your last para., let's leave that alone - you stop maligning my honesty as a journalist and I'll keep taking the pills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D G Orf, thanks for your friendly concern. I think you've been a gem to snowHeads over the years.
The purpose of this ongoing nonsense is simply to deconstruct the less authentic aspects of the SCGB and maybe let the fresh air in - I agree that it's hopeless trying to change the Club. Journalism is generally a dirty word in this parish (understandably, to a large extent) but it's a valid concept that's been around for a while. And tablets have finally been turned from stone!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
