 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| Norrin Radd wrote: |
| Quote: |
| @sugardaddy, the turning point for me was the appointment of Junckers. In no way a reformer is he. I work with Eastern Europeans pretty much all the time now and do you know what their latest hobby is? Well, I'll tell you, it's using the NHS. Worried that they might have to return to the shitholes from whence they came, they are determined to be screened and treated for anything they can think off, all for free at the point of delivery, before that day comes. |
Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant in the above post. |
I'd be doing the same if I was them. Where's this racism directed at Poles? You're a liar. |
Eastern European/ Poles ? You defense is you did not use the word "Poles"? Well yes I am a liar then, I can live with that.
You are still racist and xenophobic, just back tracking. Not that I blame you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Norrin Radd wrote: |
| Your views not mine, by all means use the Farage, I am not a racist line. |
You're a liar and a coward, but this is snowHeads after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Norrin Radd wrote: |
| Gerry wrote: |
| Norrin Radd wrote: |
| Quote: |
| @sugardaddy, the turning point for me was the appointment of Junckers. In no way a reformer is he. I work with Eastern Europeans pretty much all the time now and do you know what their latest hobby is? Well, I'll tell you, it's using the NHS. Worried that they might have to return to the shitholes from whence they came, they are determined to be screened and treated for anything they can think off, all for free at the point of delivery, before that day comes. |
Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant in the above post. |
I'd be doing the same if I was them. Where's this racism directed at Poles? You're a liar. |
Eastern European/ Poles ? You defense is you did not use the word "Poles"? Well yes I am a liar then, I can live with that.
You are still racist and xenophobic, just back tracking. Not that I blame you. |
Conservative manifesto contains pledge on immigration. They've got my vote then. Is the PM a racist according to you as well. Did I mention that you're a coward and a liar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| Norrin Radd wrote: |
| achilles, Why would they accept lower wages ? In our area there is a real shortage of engineers, although JLR have an impact. In the building industry the European migrants will typically accept lower wages because they are still much higher than they'd get at home. From what I heard talking to many of them they also seem happy to live in cheap digs. It's hard to compete with people who have such low expectations and indeed their presence had driven prices down in certain areas. Of course the developers are happy to cry 'skills shortage' and encourage a flooding of the labour market. I had a contract in Uxbridge last year and was one of the very few English trades working there. ^ A good case can be made that the UK economy benefits from hard working eastern europeans doing less glamorous jobs the locals don't want to do. If you want to sort low wages then bring in a minimum living wage rather than blame EU migrants ? UK unemployment is below the long term average. Or the other way to stop this unneeded influx of migrant building worker is to vote to leave the EU. When it comes to the building industry, we aren't talking about 'low paid jobs that the local don't want to do' or a traditionally low paid industry. An awful lot of people will look at the way the building industry has been ruined for them personally and will then vote accordingly. |
I'm not blaming the migrants, you cretin, I'm blaming the system that drags huge numbers of working man away from their homelands and families.
Next. |
Oh, I don't know how I missed your true feelings on this.
Vote leave to get rid of these unneeded migrants?
Ruined?
To coin your own phrase, you protest to much. You are an obnoxious bully with a chip on their shoulder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| Norrin Radd wrote: |
| Your views not mine, by all means use the Farage, I am not a racist line. |
You're a liar and a coward, but this is snowHeads after all. |
You know what to do then.
I don't represent SH, my views are my own.
You are allowed yours for what they are worth, not much in my opinion, you are many things which represent what is wrong with society in general, rude, ignorant , self opinionated and a whiff of hard done by.
No point looking for a fight then acting like a pansy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Glad you are voting conservative, we can agree on that , UKIP a wasted vote I assume? EDL? Thought a shallow bully with racist views would be nailed on.
Anyway got to take the dog out, catch up soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| George Jones wrote: |
The potential member will no longer have reps to guide them around the slopes. Admittedly the club can employ others to do this, but members will pay an extra cost for this. Temptation may be to cut out the middleman. |
The 'middleman' in this case is subsidising the cost and arranging for other people of similar ability to join. Cutting out the 'middleman' in your example will actually add cost and that cost could be big if you struggle to get others to go.
. |
What is a 'club'? People say SCGB offers good insurance. Others say it offers good discounts. All very nice, but not in themselves enough to constitute what I regard as a club.
Snowheads is not really a club. It is an Internet forum with a subset of posters who go on holidays together. However, Snowheads seems a bit more lively than SCGB - although they are really chalk and cheese. Snowheads has no membership fees of course. No AGMs. Less formality.
Another point I notice on SCGB announcements is a tendency for Wee Frank to use the terms 'members' and 'customers' as if they are interchangeable. Rather in the way the railways started referring to passengers as 'customers'. That usually did not turn out well for those formerly called passengers.
It also makes me think SCGB is more likely to become a travel company in due course. Those same SCGB announcements are usually filled with vague sentences and platitudes rather than clarity
For example :-
"I believe our winter programme ideally complements Ski Club Freshtracks’s and gives us the opportunity to offer our customers new adventures both in summer and winter.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Norrin Radd wrote: |
| @Davina Goldballs, have you thought about setting up a ski club, you seem to have the skills. |
Thanks. That's a sweet compliment.
As inferred in an earlier posting, the German state appears to be legally obliged to grant me a German+EU passport (owing to its actions in 1938-9) and therefore I'll certainly consider founding the 'Ski Club of Germany' or maybe 'Ski Club of East+West Germany' for nostalgics and lovers of unification. Obviously it'll need a Belgravia or Berlin clubhouse.
| George Jones wrote: |
The theory that the club was run for the benefit of the reps, who got paid holidays out of it, does not seem to hold water now either - if it ever did. Not much good being in a ski resort if you are not free to ski. 'Ambassadors' or whatever they are called now seem to have other duties that impinge on skiing time. |
You maybe need to look into this George. I think you'll find that the SCGB is certainly run by the reps (leaders/ambassadors) and other officials for mutual great benefits of expenses-paid all-day skiing ... with very little attention to any cost-benefit analysis of this expenditure. I'm not sure what other duties you imagine the reps perform nowadays. When the SCGB cared about its relevance to the British skiing public it focused on recruiting new members in ski resorts and organising ski proficiency tests for children and adults. It was highly valued by resorts for generating custom, goodwill, positive use of the ski slopes and general value to skiing. And all these services were run on a very tight cost-controlled basis.
Essentially the proof is always in the yearly membership statistics, so long as they are the genuine figures of paid subscriptions. I don't think we've seen this data for about 5 years. More about this later.
To employ a very expensive executive team to 'manage decline' would be - and is - outrageous. 60 years ago the SCGB engaged a very efficient and cost-effective team to manage success and growth. It's all there in the annual reports and membership growth statistics from the post-WW2 period.
As for the Freshtracks (and now Mountain Tracks) programmes, these are fine if they represent great value and quality. How many of the (stated) 29,000 SCGB members took these holidays last winter?
| boredsurfin wrote: |
| The SCGB insurance is still good value .... |
As I understand it, the key to this is the insurance sold as an inclusive package with membership: 'Platinum' membership'. I had a quick check with the SCGB website. Inputting various ages it seems the price is £75 for age 18-34, £130 for age 35-69 and £190 for age 70-75. Anyone care to comment?
| Alastair Pink wrote: |
... as I understand it, a few years ago the SCGB threatened snowHeads with legal action over trademark infringement for their use of the phrase "Ski Club" (in spite of the fact that the SCGB trademark itself explicitly said that they did not hold any rights to the phrase "Ski Club"  ) |
On 'expelling' me in 2013 (without reference to the SCGB rules on a two-thirds quorum of Council and the requirement that I be allowed to represent myself at the Council meeting) the SCGB also threatened me with legal action. The Club later offered me a half-price membership, and then a free backpack with membership, so naturally I rejoined. But no subscription has been collected, despite requesting my full bank details etc. It all makes perfect sense.
| andy wrote: |
Clubs in the traditional sense are history. |
Not sure that's true. The real stayers - some of them established in the early 19th century or earlier - are there forever and flourishing. I think the Royal Society (which intriguingly occupies the one-time German embassy on Carlton Terrace) is a wonderful example. Established 1660. Members have included Hooke, Newton, Darwin, Babbage, Einstein. Current members include Stephen Hawking and Tim Berners-Lee.
Check out all the other landmark clubs: RAC, Athenaeum, Reform, Brook's, White's, In&Out, Garrick etc. Believe it or not, the Ski Club of Great Britain was well classy and rock-solid, until it decided to elevate itself above skiers going on package holidays or sliding near Aviemore.
https://royalsociety.org/
| davidof wrote: |
Clearly they lack a digital strategy |
Surely not. The SCGB has spent a huge amount of money on this. The former chairman of the Club's 'new media task force' would know lots about this.
| George Jones wrote: |
What is a 'club'? |
Apparently it's something that primitive men use to knock others into senselessness, as in British Airways' adoption of the term. Click:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/history-club_class-cavemen-airports-airlines-traveller-rmun71_low.jpg
| George Jones wrote: |
What is a 'club'? People say SCGB offers good insurance. Others say it offers good discounts. All very nice, but not in themselves enough to constitute what I regard as a club. |
How very true. It begins and ends with open communication, trust, goodwill and common endeavour. Unfortunately, an awful long time ago (we're probably talking a good 40-50 years ago) the Ski Club of Great Britain got taken over by a 'club within a club' !
Where do we reckon the SCGB AGM will be hosted this autumn? The plan was for the Club to be out of Church Road this summer ... but are we now looking at a 2018 move?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Davina Goldballs wrote: |
| ...The real stayers - some of them established in the early 19th century or earlier - are there forever and flourishing. I think the Royal Society (which intriguingly occupies the one-time German embassy on Carlton Terrace) is a wonderful example. Established 1660. Members have included Hooke, Newton, Darwin, Babbage, Einstein. Current members include Stephen Hawking and Tim Berners-Lee. |
Certainly long-lasting, but membership is not something that is open to any and all! Perhaps the secret of long-lasting clubs is to be deeply exclusive...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Davina Goldballs wrote: |
| George Jones wrote: |
The theory that the club was run for the benefit of the reps, who got paid holidays out of it, does not seem to hold water now either - if it ever did. Not much good being in a ski resort if you are not free to ski. 'Ambassadors' or whatever they are called now seem to have other duties that impinge on skiing time. |
You maybe need to look into this George. I think you'll find that the SCGB is certainly run by the reps (leaders/ambassadors) and other officials for mutual great benefits of expenses-paid all-day skiing ... with very little attention to any cost-benefit analysis of this expenditure. I'm not sure what other duties you imagine the reps perform nowadays. When the SCGB cared about its relevance to the British skiing public it focused on recruiting new members in ski resorts and organising ski proficiency tests for children and adults. It was highly valued by resorts for generating custom, goodwill, positive use of the ski slopes and general value to skiing. And all these services were run on a very tight cost-controlled ba
Essentially the proof is always in the yearly membership statistics, so long as they are the genuine figures of paid subscriptions. I don't think we've seen this data for about 5 years. More about this later.
To employ a very expensive executive team to 'manage decline' would be - and is - outrageous. 60 years ago the SCGB engaged a very efficient and cost-effective team to manage success and growth. It's all there in the annual reports and membership growth statistics from the post-WW2 period.
As for the Freshtracks (and now Mountain Tracks) programmes, these are fine if they represent great value and quality. How many of the (stated) 29,000 SCGB members took these holidays last winter?
|
I have a Tesco clubcard; but I do not regard Tesco as a club.
I certainly remember ski club reps actively trying to recruit new members. However, I have not seen that happening in many a year. I know people who have joined, but not people who have been recruited by a club rep. So I will give you that point.
I will also give you the point about detailed cost benefit analysis. However, the cost of becoming a rep and attending a reps course is several thousand pounds. Was this always the case? I don't know. Maybe the club offsets recruitment losses with benefits from what it takes in on reps course fees. I don't know. Of course, if there is nobody asking awkward questions we will never know. We never knew even when the questions were being asked!
Certainly with reps no longer leading groups in France there is less of a hands on involvement than in previous years. Tour operator guides used to offer guiding for free in previous years. In Wengen the tour operator groups met up with the ski club rep and Downhill Only rep and there were at least recruitment opportunities via this.
Snow reports are completely irrelevant now. We can get them more quickly and often with video cameras via the internet. A local can now tell us 'the best snow is on the upper slopes.'
SCGB certainly seems less of an active club to me. Maybe that is the big defining element that I feel is missing.
As regards decline, sixty years ago skier profiles were very different. I just feel there is a lot of movement between the club and the travel industry.
Wee Frank had a travel industry background before he became CEO and Caroline Double-Barrel stated that she was looking for work within the snowsports industry when she left. Were CEOs before these enthusiastic amateurs or did they too have travel, snowsports backgrounds?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@George Jones,
I see you have reverted to your "wee Frank" nastiness again the last couple of days.
Cheap comments like that devalue anything intelligent that you might have to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Davina Goldballs wrote: |
| George Jones wrote: |
What is a 'club'? People say SCGB offers good insurance. Others say it offers good discounts. All very nice, but not in themselves enough to constitute what I regard as a club. |
How very true. It begins and ends with open communication, trust, goodwill and common endeavour. Unfortunately, an awful long time ago (we're probably talking a good 40-50 years ago) the Ski Club of Great Britain got taken over by a 'club within a club' !
|
Maybe there is a claque in operation, as in some 19th century opera houses?
Failure to pay up or mollify the claque results in "harrumph', 'boo!' Etc.
Pay up and you get 'bravo!', 'bravo'', 'splendid chap!' Etc.
Maybe you missed a trick?
I take your points about what makes a club. 'Common endeavour' seems an obvious one. If you are paying for professional guides it seems to me you are more of a customer than anything else.
I cannot see how one can claim traditional clubs are history though. Most amateur sports clubs are, by nature, traditional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@richjp, McCusker is certainly not 'the big yin'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@George Jones,
| Quote: |
| If you are paying for professional guides it seems to me you are more of a customer than anything else |
.
You are a customer of that guide and a member of the club that arranged it all for you on a not for profit basis. Are you really so stupid as to think otherwise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@Gerry, Your attitude really isn't a very good advertisement for the club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| esaw1 wrote: |
| @Gerry, Your attitude really isn't a very good advertisement for the club. |
Yeah because people are so stupid as to think that every single member of the club is exactly the same. So let's swing that around: am I also a not very good advertisement for snowHeads?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Gerry, you're not a great advert for free speech, but to be honest I think the sheer number of people pointing out your aggressive and at times wilfully stupid remarks says quite a lot about snowheads, that this isn't a place where that sort of behaviour is welcomed.
Can you remind us of your past and present position in the scgb? I can't condemn the organisation for having someone who behaves like that as a member, but I have some vague recollection of you being in some kind of leadership role. That, to me at least, would reflect badly on the club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
@Digger the dinosaur, remind me again what your issue with the ski club is? Oh yeah, I remember, they sent you an email once and you wet the bed over it. You couldn't just mark it as spam, filter it and move on. No, you had to make a big fuss over it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@Davina Goldballs, I can't be bothered to counter most of the lies you've been telling but I will on this one.
| Quote: |
| On 'expelling' me in 2013 (without reference to the SCGB rules on a two-thirds quorum of Council and the requirement that I be allowed to represent myself at the Council meeting) the SCGB also threatened me with legal action. The Club later offered me a half-price membership, and then a free backpack with membership, so naturally I rejoined. But no subscription has been collected, despite requesting my full bank details etc. It all makes perfect sense. |
It was all handled in accordance with the latest Club Memorandum and Articles. Of course you refused to accept these M&As and demanded that things be handled under the old rules, which did indeed allow you to represent yourself in person. Your request/childish demand was, of course, rejected. The Club made sure that the whole procedure was handle to the letter of the law and legal advice was even taken so you would have no hope of going to court over it, which you were making veiled threats about as per usual.
Anyway, out you went. The Exec. then decided to ignore best advice and thought it would be a spiffingly wonderful idea to keep you on as a registered user. Due to this incompetence you, along with all other registered users, were sent an email inviting you to join. You applied but your application was rejected by the membership department. Lesson learned by the Club? No and they kept you on as a registered user only for another invite to be emailed to you a year later.
You next attempted to rejoin via the Ski Club stand at one of the ski shows. Of course you failed to mention that you'd been excluded and your application was rejected again a few days later when you were red flagged by the membership department, but you were told to keep the free rucksack. At another ski show you tried the same trick with the same result and were told to keep the second rucksack.
All through that you had also been attempting to gain entry to AGMs by claiming to be a print journalist on an assignment. Obsessed much?
You're an oddball, David, that's your problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Please believe me. Gerry is not your average scgb member/type. Most of them are quite rational human beings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The SCGB: how many members does it have?
As with other aspects of the Ski Club of GB, the membership numbers are an ongoing cause of wonder and intrigue.
Let's take the most recent numbers: the latest ABC certificate for the Club's magazine Ski+Board states that an average of 15,663 copies went to members during 2016 (Jan-Dec).
Source: https://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates/48099321.pdf
However, the last (2016) annual report of the SCGB gave a membership figure of 27,822 (there are, of course, a lot more members than subscription units, due to family members collectively paying one sub).
The 2015 figure was 28,597, so the Club recorded a fall of around 800 members last year.
Where it gets weird and puzzling is that - between those two reports - the Club had announced (23 March 2016) that it had "secured 15,000 new student members after entering into an arrangement with group ski specialist Wasteland Ski."
So, why were these "15,000 new student members" not counted in the 2016 figure?
See Travel Mole report: http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2021339&c=setreg®ion=2
Moving forward to the SCGB's 2016 annual report last autumn, chief executive Frank McCusker then reported:
"A partnership has been established with Mainstage Travel, who take more than 5,000 24-35 year olds to Avoriaz in March for the Snowboxx music festival. We’ll be helping to organise and run skiing/boarding lessons in the resort alongside our partner EVO2. Those booking lessons will have standard Ski Club membership offered as part of the lesson price."
'Under 24' standard membership of the SCGB is £25, so that's lots of (how many?) SCGB memberships given away. A standard membership of the Club includes a share of the organisation and a vote in its control - something that loyal members of the Club pay plenty of money for!
Youth membership is a serious concern. The 2016 SCGB report gave a figure of 503 members on 'under 24' subscriptions. The figure for 2012 had been 845. So 40% of those 'under 24' members had been lost since Frank McCusker was appointed in summer 2012.
What has the Club been doing to counteract this ageing demographic? In 2015 the SCGB launched a new student website 'Line-S' ... as described by the Club's chairman in the 2015 annual report: "We have created a new brand “Line-S” and are working in the first year exclusively with Wasteland Ski to roll this out to their circa 15,000 clients. In future years we will refine the offering and work with other tour operators also specialising in the university market. Our challenge in subsequent years will be to maintain engagement with this new and younger market, in order to have a life-time offering and relationship with them."
Indeed, the "challenge" is essentially to convert these student members to fully subscribing members above the age of 24. How many have made that move? Perhaps the 2017 annual report will include some good news, after two years' work and expense on Line-S.
More about Line-S: https://www.line-s.co.uk/
--------------------------------------------------------
SCGB membership figures (from annual reports). 'Paying units' have been omitted from SCGB annual reports since 2011.
2016: 27,822
2015: 28,597
2014: 28,990
2013: 30,110
2012: 30,457
2011: 31,448 (17,114 paying units)
2010: 32,963 (17,893 paying units)
2009: 33,108 (18,084 paying units)
2008: 33,761 (19,114 paying units)
2007: 33,566 (19,139 paying units)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Davina Goldballs wrote: |
| The SCGB: how many members does it have? |
This comes back to what you previously said is a feature of a (good?) club - openness and transparency.
However attempts by you to get a breakdown of these figures have been countered with the suggestion that such questions are either impertinent and somehow disloyal, or that those numbers are commercially sensitive. So I don't see the SCGB being more forthcoming in future.
It does make me see SCGB more as a commercial enterprise rather than a club. The management-speak in the club announcements does not help.
There are other ski clubs that are more hands-on and seem to do things, rather than offer discounts or niche package holidays.
The BBC had a ski club that used to visit various dry slopes in and around the capital and organise informal ski trips as well. I went along to some of the dry slope events as we had friends at the BBC. It seemed more like a traditional club to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| George Jones wrote: |
| Davina Goldballs wrote: |
| The SCGB: how many members does it have? |
This comes back to what you previously said is a feature of a (good?) club - openness and transparency.
However attempts by you to get a breakdown of these figures have been countered with the suggestion that such questions are either impertinent and somehow disloyal, or that those numbers are commercially sensitive. So I don't see the SCGB being more forthcoming in future. |
That's just laughable. Goldsmith has been claiming for years that the SCGB's membership figures are fraudulent. A serious charge, given that these figures are used to secure advertising revenue. Goldsmith has no proof of fraud because there is no fraud going on. David Goldsmith is a liar and a coward. A liar because he knows what he claims is untrue and a coward because of the way he conducts his various campaigns of harassment.
Admin's opinion of David Goldsmith, just for reference:
| Quote: |
Really though - the closest to a positive comment that this topic has garnered is, "It's David's right to say it, just ignore him".
Yet, David's response appears to suggest that he thinks he has a balanced discussion going on here.
Perhaps David's skin really is too thick for reality to penetrate.
David, at best people are ignoring you, at worst they are infuriated by you.
I'm sorry, but whilst anyone is welcome to bring up any relevant topic on snowHeads, your 'sustained campaign' has gone beyond reasonable and beyond tiresome.
You and I have had a great many lengthy conversations, in person and by phone, about the internet, advertising, forums and snowHeads itself. IMO your view of these things when we first met lay somewhere between the crazy notions of the Nineties net-boom and a fantasy purely of your own design. We disagreed on many points some of which have since been proven. In every case, you have been proved wrong. However, instead of modifying your opinion to a 'more informed perspective', you have become entrenched in trying to prove, via what amounts to little more than bullying of the forum, a hypothesis which looks more and more ridiculous as time goes on.
As a result, you appear to have lost much of and are rapidly losing what remains of the great respect that this community once had for you.
You cling to the (oxymoronic?) principal of 'journalistic integrity' as if it were some form of idealistic panacea. You tell yourself that the flack you get is just the price you have to pay for having the courage to tell 'difficult truths' but I think it's time for you to try to stop kidding yourself: what you are doing at snowHeads is not journalism and is largely unwelcome, this is not the fall out that results from 'tough journalism' but the reaction of a community of people that just want you to 'lay off' and you are not 'courageously representing the minority interest' but simply your own.
To put it mildy, you have become the forum bore - which is very sad indeed when considering what you could be.
For (at least) the 20th time, snowHeads is not for sale. Not to the highest bidder, not to you, not to a 'consortium lead by you'. Furthermore, your consistent lack of understanding about the mechanisms at work within the forum and your dogged refusal to accept even the most obvious messages conveyed to you by its members would place you a very long way down the list indeed if I were looking for safe hands into which to place the forum.
I once recieved a polite offer from someone who wanted to buy snowHeads, he even gave me a figure. I politely declined and he politely accepted my decision with a typical "Get in touch if you change your mind" kind of message. He has not since pestered me or tried to sway public opinion against my wishes (because that wouldn't be very nice would it?).
Barring that occassion, you are the only one to ask for a share snowHeads' ownership; you are also the only person to have asked to be paid for posting on snowHeads; you are the only person to obsessively keep re-referancing the same 2 subjects of ownership and T+C's. I have been forced to the conclusion that these things must basically boil down to one subject, which is your desire to assert control over snowHeads and, failing the opportunity to dictate policy, you are instead attempting to dictate mood via sabotage.
I don't expect you to agree with my conclusion - after all, I don't think for a minute that you would do such a thing consciously but nevertheless this is perhaps the inevitable result of your determination not to face up to your own uncomfortable truths. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@Gerry, like anyone cares what you think.
Vulgar
Rude
Slightly stupid
Class issues
Bully racist whose best defense is to high light issues with DG.
You are the sole reason I would not consider using the scgb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Norrin Radd wrote: |
@Gerry
You are the sole reason I would not consider using the scgb. |
Unlikely that you would need to be in contact with any one individual if you were an SCGB member.
I would be more concerned with the diminished role of the reps/leaders/ambassadors myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| George Jones wrote: |
| Davina Goldballs wrote: |
| The SCGB: how many members does it have? |
This comes back to what you previously said is a feature of a (good?) club - openness and transparency.
However attempts by you to get a breakdown of these figures have been countered with the suggestion that such questions are either impertinent and somehow disloyal, or that those numbers are commercially sensitive. So I don't see the SCGB being more forthcoming in future. |
That's just laughable. Goldsmith has been claiming for years that the SCGB's membership figures are fraudulent. A serious charge, given that these figures are used to secure advertising revenue.
|
Hmmm. I think it was more a question of DG looking to drill down into the headline membership figures and see what they revealed. Of course if the figures are used to secure advertising revenue SCGB may be reluctant to 'undermine' them. For example splitting out members who pay no fee and members who pay a reduced free from standard full price memberships.
They seem to me to be appropriate questions for an AGM. Ad hominem attacks are not really a satisfactory answer.
DG is clearly one of the awkward squad and I don't think he would deny that. However, good clubs should be able to handle that and not just close someone down if they venture off script. More proof that such questions are seen as impertinent, bad form, disloyal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I've been struggling to get off to sleep recently.
Job sorted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| George Jones wrote: |
| Gerry wrote: |
| George Jones wrote: |
| Davina Goldballs wrote: |
| The SCGB: how many members does it have? |
This comes back to what you previously said is a feature of a (good?) club - openness and transparency.
However attempts by you to get a breakdown of these figures have been countered with the suggestion that such questions are either impertinent and somehow disloyal, or that those numbers are commercially sensitive. So I don't see the SCGB being more forthcoming in future. |
That's just laughable. Goldsmith has been claiming for years that the SCGB's membership figures are fraudulent. A serious charge, given that these figures are used to secure advertising revenue.
|
Hmmm. I think it was more a question of DG looking to drill down into the headline membership figures and see what they revealed. Of course if the figures are used to secure advertising revenue SCGB may be reluctant to 'undermine' them. For example splitting out members who pay no fee and members who pay a reduced free from standard full price memberships.
They seem to me to be appropriate questions for an AGM. Ad hominem attacks are not really a satisfactory answer.
DG is clearly one of the awkward squad and I don't think he would deny that. However, good clubs should be able to handle that and not just close someone down if they venture off script. More proof that such questions are seen as impertinent, bad form, disloyal. |
He wasn't kicked out for that, he was kicked out for making libellous comments on another site, which he has never repeated since being threatened with legal action. He was banned from the chat forum because he kept bring up the same rubbish and annoying other members. Of course everything he said is still their so he can't claim censorship.
He's also had sanctions taken against him here after his accusations of tax dodging were removed and he can only post once in 24hrs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| Yeah, but you're just yet another cowardly, worthless nonentity. A typical example of the lesser snotted snowhead. |
I think, at this point, I've pretty much given up on the thread Gerry. You have, quite astonishingly, managed to turn a PR disaster for the SCGB which evolved into the ramblings of DG (which almost everybody was quite happily ignoring TBH) back into a PR disaster for the SCGB.
You've also not answered my question about your role in the SCGB, straight question, why no straight answer? What is your role in the SCGB now, and what roles have you had in the SCGB in the past? Just to give us some guidance really on whether this is one member and their personal opinion, or if somebody who behaves this way could have been put into a position of responsibility within the club?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@Digger the dinosaur, typical snowHeads arrogance to think that more than a handful of people bother with this antiquated, clique ridden forum. You want to find out about me, then do your own research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
@Gerry, You're right little charmer aren't you who seems determined to make this into a them v. us of the SCGB v snowheads? Why? We're all just skiers or snowboarders. Most of us probably enjoy an adult beverage after a good day on the slopes with friends. Most of us who function as semi adequate human beings have some sort of social skills to ski with others who aren't identical to us in fun and companionship.
Now personally I've never been much of a clubbie type and I don't really understand what the SCGB is now beyond a glorified holiday company with some staff who happen to be paid only in perks but those who find that's the best way of skiing the places they like to ski with the sort of people they like to ski with then why on earth would I want to pick fights with that. [/hippycantweallgetalong mode]
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Gerry wrote: |
| @Digger the dinosaur, typical snowHeads arrogance to think that more than a handful of people bother with this antiquated, clique ridden forum. You want to find out about me, then do your own research. |
A few more than the SCGB forum I believe 
And you clearly think it's jolly useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
@Gerry, can't answer a straightforward question. Pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Gerry
| Quote: |
| You want to find out about me, then do your own research |
I did once. It's perfectly clear you are also PJski and Tim Brown - who was banned from sHs many years back. I chose not to make it public at that time and left it to the Mods & Admin to decide what action, if any, to take. But here you are stirring things again and since you invited us to find out about you, now is the time to make it known.
Both you and DG have a long history of disruptive posting here. Usually on the subject of the SCGB. Neither of you do yourselves or SCGB any favours prolonging this.
When the SCGB forum re-opened to non-members, I made a couple of fairly simple suggestions as to how to make it more visible. One of which you kindly agreed with. But it never was implemented by the IT folk...... And as it is now as dead as the proverbial Norwegian Blue, I gave up on it.
sH might well be a bit past it's 'best before' date. But it's still a good source of information, debate and humour. DG did at least contribute a lot that was not nasty or suspect - especially in the early days of the site. Not something I can recall you ever bringing to the forums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| I don't really understand what the SCGB is now beyond a glorified holiday company with some staff who happen to be paid only in perks |
An interesting take. Those staff have to spend thousands to get the role where they are 'only paid in perks" though.
I wonder how long this business model will continue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a properly-run club, managed by its members for its members ... established 1857 ... that describes itself thus ...
| Quote: |
The Alpine Club, the world’s first mountaineering club, was founded in 1857. For over 150 years, members have been at the leading edge of worldwide mountaineering development and exploration.
With membership, experienced and aspiring alpinists benefit from a varied meets programme, regional lectures with notable guest speakers, reduced rates at many alpine huts, opportunity to apply for grants to support expeditions, significant discounts at many UK retailers, extensive networking contacts, access to the AC Library and maps - and more! |
[Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_Club_(UK)
"In 1991 the Alpine Club acquired the freehold of a five-storey Victorian warehouse at 55, Charlotte Road, on the edge of the City of London, and this building remains its current headquarters. The club's lecture room, bunk-house, library, and archives are all housed there."[/quote]
"The Club provides comfortable bunkroom accommodation in central London. Members can stay in our bunkroom when travelllng on behalf of the Club or on mountaineering business for free.
Four bunk beds are waiting to be used by members. Please bring a sleeping bag and towel."
Alpine Club website: http://www.alpine-club.org.uk/
Looking at that website, it appears that there's a huge amount to be learned from that organisation and the way it operates.
Maybe go further and hand the SCGB over to the Alpine Club to operate, and/or merge with it ...
... or ruthlessly inject their expertise at understanding the purpose of a members-owned members-operated organisation ... and finally put a stop to all the SCGB waste/pointlessness/freeloading/membership loss. Enough is enough. A club that operates for 2% of British skiers is not a national ski club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Poor Gerry seems to become more embittered as he grows older. Perhaps he slowly begins to feel that the guilt that some would consider belongs to him and a few others for the damage inflicted on scgb when they were running it is entirely justified. This thread started with news of another attempt by the scgb to try undoing that damage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Ski Club of Great Britain ... Line-S ... and the 'butt crack' photos
If you've been following The Guardian's exclusive revelations about Facebook's moderation standards/rules this week - leaked by an insider - you'll know that there's a specific ban of 'butt crack' photos. In fact The Guardian first revealed this ban as far back as 2012:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/feb/21/facebook-nudity-violence-censorship-guidelines
[paragraph 4]
| Quote: |
| ... banned items include "breastfeeding photos showing other nudity, or nipple clearly exposed". It also bans "naked private parts" including "female nipple bulges and naked butt cracks" - though "male nipples are OK". |
No such rules apparently apply to the Ski Club of GB and its 'Line-S' student "brand" initiative, launched in 2015. It's not that the SCGB/Line-S bans 'butt crack' photos from third parties or members of the general public - the Club has only published such photos on its own account:
WARNING: THESE LINKS CONTAIN REAR-VIEW IMAGES OF NAKED SKIERS
Uncensored: http://cdn.uploadlibrary.com/SkiclubofGB/Hero-Image.jpg
Censored image/report by SKI.HUB: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153865791065761&set=gm.1746628005623964&type=3&theater
Line-S Instagram posting: https://www.instagram.com/p/BBh9SNQMRqF/
The SCGB's enthusiasm for 'getting down and credible' with students has been clear for several years now. This is the Line-S site:
https://www.line-s.co.uk/
SCGB chairman Rob Crowder commented on the launch of Line-S, in the Club's 2015 annual report:
| Quote: |
| "We have created a new brand “Line-S” and are working in the first year exclusively with Wasteland Ski to roll this out to their circa 15,000 clients. In future years we will refine the offering and work with other tour operators also specialising in the university market. Our challenge in subsequent years will be to maintain engagement with this new and younger market, in order to have a life-time offering and relationship with them." |
This Line-S article appeared on 8 February 2016 [extracts here]:
[quote]
THE TRUTH ABOUT BRITS ABROAD
By Hannah Goddard
When hearing the term ‘Brits abroad’, one’s mind flashes to an image of rowdy Brits wearing little clothing and causing havoc in foreign towns like Ibiza or ‘Shagaluf’ ...
... Us Brits like to leave our mark wherever we go ...
... ‘Freddie got absolutely s**tfaced last night - we found him passed out on the hotel balcony’
Classic. A word which Brits use to appreciate any kind of unacceptable behaviour, a way in which we laugh off all kinds of wrong-doing and, most importantly, a sign of a British mutual understanding ...
... This new terrain for young Brits has now become the hot topic of the ‘Brits abroad’ phenomenon. Images have emerged of drunken youths sprawled out in the snow clutching at plastic cups filled with beer while being carried off home by friends ..."
Full article here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/1497116883908412/SCGB%20ARTICLE%20[LINE-S]%20%22THE%20TRUTH%20ABOUT%20BRITS%20ABROAD%22/1746640072289424/
The article appears to have been subsequently deleted by the SCGB from its Line-S site. The original url:
https://www.line-s.co.uk/hannahs-content/the-truth-about-brits-abroad
What Line-S actually contributes to the SCGB's membership numbers and revenues is not (yet) clear. As previously reported, paid-up SCGB membership numbers for 18-24-year-olds have fallen 40% since 2011.
However, the Club reported in March 2016 that it had "secured 15,000 new student members" ...
http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2021339&c=setreg®ion=2
... but these 15,000 new members were seemingly not counted in the overall SCGB membership figure for 2016, when the annual report appeared. So, what is their status?
Perhaps a student skiing expert could comment on how to genuinely empathise with genuine student skiers, in the interests of building a future for British skiing, respecting the cultural interests of Alpine nations and their ski resorts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
