This class thing comes up a lot on here. It's irrelevant and it just annoys me.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
I'm sorry, maggi, but having skied with you, I have no doubt that you are aristocracy. And don't you deny it!
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?
This is all "bollix"! I have friends that ski! They dont have a job, have no money to speak of, deserving of small sums of money! But they ski! They have to get to school somehow!
maggi, People get having money earned by hard work/business accumen confused with being middle class.
The moronic quote by Pjski started this. The only reason I started to ski as a kid when I was at school was because my Dad was building his business up and he was working constantly and we never got time for a proper family holiday. He was a wagon driver, then he bought his own wagon, then another and another and if I remember right He had about 6 wagons before He quit driving around Europe himself and started to run the back office full time. As a kid I had to wash the wagons whenever they came into the yard, that's what I did for pocket money and other fringe benefits such as going on the school ski trip.
Yes we had money but how the hell could He/Me ever be considered middle class, coming from such working class roots.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Ray did get what I was saying though.
The defence of the free trips is to write risk assessments of the resort.
Pistes are hazardous and you cannot reduce the hazard presented by a certain piste, by writing a risk assessment on using it. You can write that you will use qualified instructors and guides, all with local knowledge, but you don't need to visit the resort to write that.
That is the point I was making.
Kevin, the point that you specifically missed was that the hotel used near a rugby game, or even on a rugby tour, will offer the same potential hazards that one in Val d'Isere will offer.
In you all trying to ridicule my point, you all proved my point.
......Kevin, the point that you specifically missed was that the hotel used near a rugby game, or even on a rugby tour, will offer the same potential hazards that one in Val d'Isere will offer....
Strewth. Nearby a river in which you can freeze to death?
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
bar shaker, I had been going to retire from this repetitive and tedious thread but since you invited me to comment:
Quote:
Pistes are hazardous and you cannot reduce the hazard presented by a certain piste
Clearly you have your beliefs, based no doubt on extensive experience of ski leading, educational regulations, managing groups of teenagers and risk assesment so I shall defer to your greater knowledge
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Wed 1-06-11 6:39; edited 2 times in total
After all it is free
After all it is free
I am just waiting for Sepp Blatter to join us and tells all that FIFA also carry out inspection trips to all potential world cup venues and they are most certainly not "bribes"
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.
Chris Bish wrote:
I'm sorry, maggi, but having skied with you, I have no doubt that you are aristocracy.
I think it was E M Forster (that's the second time today I have mentioned him! Extraordinary.) who said he thought that the new aristocracy consisted of the "thoughtful, the plucky and the considerate" (Abinger Harvest, I think, but it might be from Two Cheers for Democracy). There is no reason why being from Yorkshire should disqualify you.
We all (most of us anyway) find working class roots not very far off. My grandfathers were gas-works stoker and park keeper. Bev's father was a miner. Going to college made us posh!
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
maggi
Excellent! You're a class act!
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 today we have the Anti - Bribery laws introduced and having listened to a very competent lawyer specialising in bribery (not committing it) for 30 years on BBC News this morning it made inetresting viewing, when asked what constituted a bribe for example in corporate entertaining he stated:
"Taking clients to Wimbledon or other sporting events is fine and would be deemed acceptable however if you where to take people abroad to see a sporting event and also include wives accommodation and all food and drinks just as a contract is about to be awarded then you would be very silly and open to scrutiny"
So if we substitute sport for skiing and include heli - skiing at a time you are just about to place an order for the value of a lot of other peoples money i think on the lawyers interpretation of the new law it is a bribe.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
leedsunited, If you are making widgets in Manchester offer a Birmingham customer a trip to the Swiss Alps that would probably be a bribe. If you are a ski tour operator, and offer a teacher a trip (which the LEA requires he make) to an inspection trip, I can't imagine that a court would consider it a bribe.
As a side comment, I think politicians are getting to hung up on what is a bribe - as was commented in the programme, a major corporate is having to spend millions making sure that it is compliant with legislation.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
achilles,
Quote:
If you are a ski tour operator, and offer a teacher a trip (which the LEA requires he make) to an inspection trip
But throw in the wife and all the extras and i think you may be crossing the line of deemed neccesary and acceptable.
leedsunited, If you are making widgets in Manchester offer a Birmingham customer a trip to the Swiss Alps that would probably be a bribe. If you are a ski tour operator, and offer a teacher a trip (which the LEA requires he make) to an inspection trip, I can't imagine that a court would consider it a bribe.
CR T/A SE was not offering inspection trips, they were 'free teacher' ski weeks, very very different
This is what was on offer, and if viewed in accordance with current legislation then imho it can only be described as a bribe
Quote:
Party Leader Concessions
In order to make it as easy as possible for party leaders' families to accompany them, we offer them the chance to bring their children and partners at a 25% reduction on the normal holiday price. The partner would need to pay the adult lift supplement
We also run special teachers' weeks to some of our top resorts and this gives a chance for teachers and their friends to be able to ski with some of our top instructors in world famous resorts away from the responsibilities of taking care of their groups. The cost of such weeks are from as little as £395 and further details are available on application.
Free Teacher Preview Weeks
In order to enable our party leaders to plan for the future we do encourage them to come on our special ski preview weeks, in order to preview on behalf of the school a different resort perhaps, which the school might enjoy in a subsequent year.
To this end we make the following offer: That for groups of only 20 Paying places the Leader is invited to come on our Preview Week, where all travel and accommodation on a Dinner, Bed and Breakfast basis and guiding, if required, is completely free. Ski lessons at just £70 per week (beginners only). Partners are most welcome at a cost of just £195 on the same basis.
It follows that for parties of 40 there are 2 Free places on the same basis, and for parties of 60 There are three, etc.
Again, the Party Leader's partner has only to pay a nominal £195.
As stated above, where there is a party in excess of 90, the Party Leader is offered the possibility to come on one of our heli-skiing preview weeks, subject to certain conditions, which we will be happy to notify you of in this situation.
Teacher / Family & Friends weeks
These special weeks are an opportunity for teachers and their families and/or friends to be able to enjoy a week of skiing without the responsibility of looking after young people.
It is also a great opportunity for us to have the pleasure of meeting you in a relaxed and informal ski setting, and a chance for us to introduce you, perhaps, to some of the greatest ski resorts in the world.
It is also a chance to welcome back some of our old friends who have been skiing with us for many years.
We do not attempt in these weeks to take you to any unrealistic locations. We invite you to come to the same pensions or hotels where we will be welcoming the groups in other weeks.
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?
Stephen101, Wimbledon hospitality packages were discussed on the program - and as I understood it, depending on circumstances they could now be considered as bribes. My own view is that what CR was offering could well now be considered as bribes, too.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
achilles, I do not see the difference myself, a day at Wimbledon, please use my product. A few days on the lash skiiing, please use my product. A Mont Blanc pen at Christmas, please buy my product. the list goes on.
achilles, rayscoops, are think you are both labouring under the rather brave assumption that Reynard actaully delivered what he offered in the brochure. I have also looked through the MofJ Guidance on the Bribery Act here http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/bribery-act-2010-guidance.pdf - and in all honesty even if Reynard's offers were real I think any prosecution would struggle to demonstrate the linkage required for a succesful prosecution. You should also notice that the burden of proof is at a considerably higher level than has been used by some on this bulletin board before making their allegations of illegal behaviour - which is the point I have made repeatedly.
Anyway all this is a little academic since the Act has only just come into force.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
From the Guidance - para 20
By way of illustration, in order to proceed with a case under section 1 based on an allegation that hospitality was intended as a bribe, the prosecution would need to show that the hospitality was intended to induce conduct that amounts to a breach of an expectation that a person will act in good faith, impartially, or in accordance with a position of trust. This would be judged by what a reasonable person in the UK thought. So, for example, an invitation to foreign clients to attend a Six Nations match at Twickenham as part of a public relations exercise designed to cement good relations or enhance knowledge in the organisation’s field is extremely unlikely to engage section 1 as there is unlikely to be evidence of an intention to induce improper performance of a relevant function.
Of course the last sentence could be replaced by the following:
So for example, an invitation to undertake a ski inspection trip, as strongly encouraged by guidelines issued by the Department of Education and in many cases required by the Local Authority as well as being a public relations exercise by the Tour Operator designed to cement good relations or enhance knowledge of the Tour operator's operations is extremely unlikely to engage section 1 as there is unlikely to be evidence of an intention to induce improper performance of a relevant function.
I rather doubt that TOs will be stopping inspection trips as a result of the Bribery Act
After all it is free
After all it is free
Stephen101 wrote:
I rather doubt that TOs will be stopping inspection trips as a result of the Bribery Act
I agree but I suspect that they may be more circumspect in offering the benefit to spouse and kids, or to completely different locations as Reynard appeared to be at least soliciting to do. No doubt he lived up to his wiley name and very rarely delivered on the grander promised freebies but there's a line.
Will be interesting to see what actually gets prosecuted under the Bribery Act. I have no doubt that it will be a whistleblowers' paradise for disgruntled employees looking to gain revenge on individuals within their former place of work but probably far harder to nail the really egregious cases which of course will be hidden from the books.
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.
fatbob, I agree - personally, I think the Act/guidance placed some monetary limits on the value of awards since "a public relations exercise designed to cement good relations or enhance knowledge in the organisation’s field" sounds like a very moveable feast to me. I think most people will be very surprised by the size of the Corporate Hospitality industry within the UK.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Stephen101, as I said above, there is a distinction between an inspection trip (details of which I had previously posted) and what CR T/A SE had on offer.
Most would agree on here with you that an inspection trip of a day or two whereby only the accommodation was free and those attending paid their own flights etc, would not really be a bribe and could be defined as necessary, but what CR offered was way over and above this in content, intent, method and financial value. Have you tested what CR specifically had on offer (rather than a typical inspection trip to which you refer) against the new act ?
What is interesting is that the offer of a bribe is actually a breach of this act - even if it is has not actually been accepted by anyone - and in this regard the words of CR 'offer' were still live on the SE website the last time I checked.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
rayscoops,
Quote:
What is interesting is that the offer of a bribe is actually a breach of this act
Yes but if you wanted to prosecute the recipent of a bribe under the Act I suspect, for obvious reasons, you would have to look at what they actually received. So perhaps you and others need quite a lot more explanation before your accusations about the recipients have any justification.
I very much doubt that paid for flights on inspection trips will be considered a bribe as you indicate - and I suspect that most TOs will be able to justify slightly more than a day or two. You forget that some will have little problem in justifying Olympic corporate hospitality packages which are being sold for amounts well in excess of £5000.
I also think that would struggle to infer CR's intent from the marketing pitch in his brochure alone. I suspect that Mr Reynard was something of a master in disguising his intent from all of his customers, and it is for that reason I think that CR would have little difficulty in avoiding prosecution under the Act, even in the unlikely case that it would be of relevance in his particular case. I suspect that the authorities may well be able to identify more substantive cases against CR before they start thinking of a prosecution for bribery (under the pre Act laws).
I think if you actually look at the Guidance on the Act you will see that your original contention about the impact of the Bribery Act really doesn't stand up to much examination - you may not like this but that is my honest reading of what its says. I do agree with fatbob, that TOs may well be more circumspect about what they offer on inspection trips, especially given that current margins are tight, but they will not go away as a result of the Act.
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.
Stephen101, I made no mention of prosecuting the recipient of a bribe I was simply pointing out that to merely offer a bribe in isolation of any acceptance is now illegal and that SE website may well be doing just that - normally you jump all over the slightest bit of dirt on CR with a recommendation to forward such details to the relevant authority or fraud squad or whatever, but in this case you seem reticent to even entertain the idea that something fishy may have gone on in the past with these trips - I wonder why , but of course you are correct on all accounts, as usual
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Stephen101 wrote:
...... You forget that some will have little problem in justifying Olympic corporate hospitality packages which are being sold for amounts well in excess of £5000. ......
Oh, I don't. It's one of the really slimey aspects of the Games.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
rayscoops, I just don't think that an investigation of CR for bribery on the previous law will get very far (eventhough it looks stronger than one against the recipients) - and I would rather the authorities would concentrate on those areas where the evidence is more substantive. As you have noticed there progress on such matters is at the usual glacial level.
I don't think I would be unfair in saying that all of your allegations in the past have been aimed at the recipients. Of course something may have been fishy with these trips in the past - there was one account of CR offering a holiday in the West Indies - but that aside there is very little that indicates that a case against any teacher for taking a bribe would actually stack up in court.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Stephen101, it seems most perverse reading you supporting the dodgy marketing and hospitality tactics of Chris Reynard, especially considering that they have in all probablity sustained his entire business model and structure, but there again I am not really surprised considering you ongoing stance in protecting your school against any criticism.
ccl, Stephen101, actually what this has shown is your inability to see the other side of an argument due to vested interests, you Stephen101 doing anything to protect Tonbridge/Reading school and you ccl protecting what has been a nice little earner for you in the past
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Fri 8-07-11 11:02; edited 1 time in total
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
rayscoops wrote:
ccl, Stephen101, actually what this has shown is your inability to see the other side of an argument due to vested interests, you Stephen101 doing anything to protect Reading school and you [b]ccl protecting what has been a nice little earner for you in the past [/b]
That is more than insulting: it is downright slanderous and I trust a moderator will be along shortly to deal with it. Putting a smiley after such an outrageous libel makes no difference.
rayscoops, Clearly libellous I have no connection whatsoever with Reading School - I look forward to your apology.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
rayscoops, I would have also thought that in the case in point - my view that certain claims against Reynard are less likley to be sucessful than others actually demonstrates the ability to see his side of the argument - you on the other hand seem to revel in your role of playing the "devils advocate" (your claim not mine) and just arguing for the sake of it in a matter in which you have little or no interest with the aim of just provoking a reaction.
But if you are in any doubt, just think 'Is this reasonable and proportionate?' That is the golden rule."
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.
Stephen101,
Quote:
I very much doubt
Quote:
I also think
Quote:
I think if you
I think ill go with the lawyer with 30 years experience in the field who stated
Quote:
"Taking clients to Wimbledon or other sporting events is fine and would be deemed acceptable however if you where to take people abroad to see a sporting event and also include wives accommodation and all food and drinks just as a contract is about to be awarded then you would be very silly and open to scrutiny"
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Stephen101 wrote:
achilles, rayscoops, are think you are both labouring under the rather brave assumption that Reynard actaully delivered what he offered in the brochure. I have also looked through the MofJ Guidance on the Bribery Act here http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/bribery-act-2010-guidance.pdf - and in all honesty even if Reynard's offers were real I think any prosecution would struggle to demonstrate the linkage required for a succesful prosecution
Stephen101 wrote:
From the Guidance - para 20 .. By way of illustration, in order to proceed with a case under section 1 based on an allegation that hospitality was intended as a bribe, the prosecution would need to show that the hospitality was intended to induce conduct that amounts to a breach of an expectation that a person will act in good faith, impartially, or in accordance with a position of trust. This would be judged by what a reasonable person in the UK thought.
pitchski wrote:
I organised a ski trip for my school in 2009 with SE, we looked at a range of companies and had a whole series of reps/info come in ... The preview organised by SE was excellent, I visited the area, skied the region and was in an excellent position to complete a thorough risk assessment on return.The weird thing is, in spite of all the reassurance given, the information received, the excellent preview, the fact the LA approved them, none of what has happened surprises me. I am just grateful that my party had an excellent ski trip and we were not as unfortunate as the many on this forum. If I had followed my gut instinct and not gone along with all the reassuring voices, I would not have booked with SE.
Looks like the weeks free skiing apparently did the trick in this case
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads on Fri 8-07-11 8:12; edited 1 time in total
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
I was simply pointing out that to merely offer a bribe in isolation of any acceptance is now illegal and that SE website may well be doing just that - normally you jump all over the slightest bit of dirt on CR with a recommendation to forward such details to the relevant authority or fraud squad or whatever, but in this case you seem reticent to even entertain the idea that something fishy may have gone on in the past with these trips - I wonder why 
, but of course you are correct on all accounts, as usual 
