 Poster: A snowHead
|
David Goldsmith, achilles, Very early on in my 'posting on t'internet' life, it was suggested that I should 'get a room' with someone. Not realising that this was a term of art on t'internet, I thought unsuitable hanky-panky was being suggested. Would you two like to carry on your love affair in the other place? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
David Goldsmith, and understandably so.
I suspect there will end up being a typically British Compromise here...
Bode Swiller, I think if you jump a rope you are on your own. If you jump a rope inbounds you are often likely to meet a cliff.
The difference - and this one has been done to death here before - is that North American resorts (and I can only claim 16 to your 25) tend to take responsibility for everything inside the area. So you don't get the "off-piste" bits inside the area. You tend to be in or out. And lots of more difficult stuff is inbounds, given names and patrolled. Just a personal impression mind you, but it does stop the "can we ski on this inteneraire with a rep" kind of thing. Definitions are a bit clearer. Would you agree?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Hurtle, the other place is also sadly in need of a pedant, perhaps you might help out on a part-time basis? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
stoatsbrother, part-time? What proportion of bank holidays would you allow her off?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| David Goldsmith, you would be at full liberty to resign. |
Thank you for that generous courtesy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, not at all - it's no effort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahhh - it's just like the good old days...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
stoatsbrother, innit? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Achilles, I guess that's the difference, isn't it? The cause of populism creates a club of great influence (see SCGB yearbooks and books up to the 1950s+1960s), great financial strength (enough to acquire a landmark building in London's Belgravia) and substantial camaraderie (the community of ordinary skiers, reps, racers, instructors and all the UK's leading experts on skiing) which can evolve when a club stays close to its roots.
Remember that we're talking about a club which accounted for about one in three UK skiers when I became a member in the early 1960s.
I'm not quite sure what cause you're promoting - broadcasting to the general public that you'd like a fellow member to resign - but would you care to define the future of the Ski Club of Great Britain for us all?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Is there any chance that Snowheads could acquire a bar in Belgravia ?
I would be happy to pay £50 a year for the privilege of drinking there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
would you care to define the future of the Ski Club of Great Britain for us all?!
|
With all due respect this is not the topic of this thread and IMO is in itself a sufficiently weighty topic that the conversation would become so far diverted from the original point that we might never see it again.
If you wish to have this particular discussion, it would be approriate to start a new topic to do so and those who choose to, can join in there..
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Latchigo, I think the Ski Club's former building at 118 Eaton Square was recently valued at about £25 million. I'll see if I can purchase one of its lightbulbs for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| ..........I'm not quite sure what cause you're promoting - broadcasting to the general public that you'd like a fellow member to resign - but would you care to define the future of the Ski Club of Great Britain for us all?! |
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. You are putting words into my mouth - un keyboard - er whatever.
I wrote that I would like a poll of the membership if the suggestion was followed through to bin Ski and Board so that guiding could be taken up. I would have thought it was obvious I thought that the poll should rule - ie majority not in favour? Don't do it. So if you did not like the outcome of a result following from a poll, it seems reasonable you might wish to consider resigning.
I do not care whether you stay in the Club or not.
As to the Club's future, I may soon not care about that, either. I am in the Club primarily because of the rep system. Although I hope not, it may have to go - or not survive in a recognisable form. In which case I am out. I can (and have) organized guiding for myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| Definitions are a bit clearer. Would you agree? |
yes, very much so.
only 16 eh? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| Latchigo, I think the Ski Club's former building at 118 Eaton Square was recently valued at about £25 million. I'll see if I can purchase one of its lightbulbs for you. |
Perhaps they could seek cheaper alternatives, along the lines of The Winchester Club ? You could have the Arthur Daley role to Admin's Dave the Barman.
I'll have a large V.A.T.
Put it on my tab.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Time Gentlemen please... Haven't you all got homes to go to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| David Goldsmith, you would be at full liberty to resign. |
3.17pm
| achilles wrote: |
| I do not care whether you stay in the Club or not. |
4.41pm
A softening of position. Thank you. Seriously, I'm sure you'd remain a member if it was the greatest information, publishing and communications resource in British skiing (irrespective of whether there were any reps). That, to my mind, is the only future because it touches every common denominator and rings every bell. The Club started as a bunch of people discussing stuff (interestingly that's how snowHeads started) and broadened that role with influential publishing, so the beacon is lit by history ... which can be fused with modern or futuristic technology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
David Goldsmith, Time for a little pedantry, I think: there is no relationship at all, let alone a softening of position, between the two statements made by achilles which you have just quoted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
I think you forget that I have a life membership (joke).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David , I don't think that is the Clubs USP any more, certainly isn't why I am a member - too many competitors (mags, snowHeads, google) although with your involvement in that aspect many years ago it is natural that you see it in that light. The club does a bunch of other stuff reasonably well, including bits (eg the reps) which the membership as a whole seems to appreciate but you don't. Having said which I think James Cove is doing a grand job with updating the club site.
Anyway - as admin pointed out - this is thread drift - so shall we get back on topic? Or shall we even wait for some facts (I agree with you there) about either the result of the Verbier case, or what the reps actually do do this winter?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| Time Gentlemen please... Haven't you all got homes to go to? |
I could tell you a lot
But you gotta to be true to your code
So make it one for the Goldfish
And one more for the road
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
This is not a time for illusions and diversions. |
Then stop doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| achilles wrote: |
| The TO argument offered by you and BS is spurious, I think. It would be far harder for a TO to ensure a rep was of a reasonable standard than it is for the SCGB. Moreover, my understanding is that the TOs have been barred by the resorts from taking parties off-piste - and sometimes on it. AFIK, such restrictions have not been applied by the resorts to the SCGB (except at St Anton and LDA) hence the SCGB has been able to operate in the way it does, whereas the TOs have not. |
The club IS basically a TO with a travel agency element thrown in and a few extra "clubby" benefits. In fact it is more of a TO than it is a club if you look at the numbers. As a TO it has exactly the same duty of care to it's paying punters. Period.
By the way... just took a look at your club in Lincoln. Now, that's a proper club. Keep them pesky women out mind. Don't want them messing the place up
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Bode Swiller, not a very good TO if it only manages to get 7-8% of its members to pay for holidays, and only another 14% to come along for free....
Discounts, Insurance, website, Mag, reps and a few more things than that are part of the package...
after all - why else would someone as astute as DG be a member? (btw I think he goes with Megamum to resort X for weeks of passion. Must be a reason why they are the only 2 snowHeads who keep their resort destinations and plans secret!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| ........By the way... just took a look at your club in Lincoln. Now, that's a proper club. Keep them pesky women out mind. Don't want them messing the place up |
Glad you like it - it is in a bit of a time warp - and that what gives it its charm. Will women ever become members? Well, I suspect it would help the coffers. Psychologically, though, I think many members see the club as a sort of comfy version of the garden shed - kind of a haven they can retreat to. Yet, bizarrely, there are two no-go areas only for women guests , the men's toilets, and the snooker room. So I suppose one day things will change - and I would not oppose that. When? Well, things move slowly in Lincoln. If you read the history page, folk have been able to drink pints at the place for an awfully long time - and it's been a club for 84 years. The view of Castle Square and the cathedral as you leave the place is breathtaking. I love it.
Aren't we drifting a little OT?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| It would be normal, in the interim, for an inquest to take place. Are you saying that there has been no inquest yet? Surely the key evidence was collected in the first 24 hours of this very sad death? |
I don't know anything about this case (I haven't googled for it  but you may both be correct. Given that there was a death the cantonal police would be involved (if they wern't involved in the rescue) they and possibly experts such as guides would investigate the scene immediately after the incident, they would work with a magistrate (judge) who would decide if he thinks there is a case to answer and would report to the prosecution service who would decide who to prosecute and with what charge. We are in stage 3 I believe (there is a court case in 2008)... however there has not been the court case and then subesequent appeals so no-one can say what the outcome will be at this stage.
I spoke to the vice prosecutor for the Hautes-Alpes recently and he told me that the authorities only very rarely went to court. For example in 2005/6 with 13 avalanche accidents (+ other incidents) involving death or injury there was only one prosecution. Obviously the Swiss may be more or less robust than the French. However one can assume the investigating judge and prosecutor are not happy, whether the court judge will take the same view is a known unknown.
If there is a civil prosecution it is most likely that the ski club of Great Britain and not the rep will be liable assuming the rep was on duty, even if the rep was acting outside of the strict scope of his guidelines. In general the scgb's insurers would then cover for any liability. It is unlikely that either the rep will be held responsible alone or that the insurers won't cover the ski club of Great Britain.
disclaimer
I'm not a lawyer but have run this by a lawyer but feel free to post with any more precise details about the process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
achilles,
| Quote: |
there are two no-go areas only for women guests , the men's toilets, and the snooker room. So I suppose one day things will change - and I would not oppose that.
|
So you mean that women will be able to enter the no-go areas? Great. I am against discrimination of any kind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
achilles, my tongue wasn't in my cheek, it had gone clean through and into the cheek of the person next to me!
davidof, so, if I understand correctly, a civil case would be against the club and not the rep (most likely). But, the criminal case would be against the rep? If so, and if the court decides the rep is criminally responsible, I think the insurer will not be feeling inclined to pick up the tab. Excellent stuff by the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Hurtle, if I was a woman (and one day I hope to be ) I don't think I'd be too excited about going into the men's toilets (even if it was passed by the committee) nor their stuffy old snooker room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
x7, 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Hurtle, Bode Swiller, I was at a dinner in the Jockey Club the other week, and it was a bit awkard taking a pee afterwards as there was a constant stream of women coming through on the grand tour of the gentlemen's loos, which were quite stupendous. Significantly better than the ladies', I am led to believe (I think they lost out on acreage and the number of Chesterfields).
(Needless to say things were a bit relaxed that evening, as there were no "members" present. And no, "Fnaar, fnaar" comments not required).
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
GrahamN, The Ladies' at the Garrick is a lot finer than the Gents'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
GrahamN, The Ladies' at the Garrick is a lot finer than the Gents'.
|
It appears we have a lavatorial connoissoeur in our midst.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
x7, connoissewer, more like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
| Hurtle, Bode Swiller, I was at a dinner in the Jockey Club the other week, and it was a bit awkard taking a pee afterwards .... |
Well of course it would be. Jockeys are low-sized, little chaps so the urinals have to be attached to the wall at child height.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latchigo, that's a bit low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
