 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
Members should also note that BASI is protected by an insurance policy
|
Not good practice to make such a statement. The insured should always act as if uninsured.
If it's true and the insurer is running the show and if BASI stand a chance of losing (if you've ever been involved in a case you'll know there is always a chance of losing no matter how certain people are), I'd say 90% chance that the damages part of it will be settled out of court under strict confidentiality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Pruman wrote: |
| Quote: |
Members should also note that BASI is protected by an insurance policy
|
Not good practice to make such a statement. The insured should always act as if uninsured.
If it's true and the insurer is running the show and if BASI stand a chance of losing (if you've ever been involved in a case you'll know there is always a chance of losing no matter how certain people are), I'd say 90% chance that the damages part of it will be settled out of court under strict confidentiality. |
Yebbut remember BASI isn't a corporation it's a member's association so surely members have the right to know how much their association has spent on such a settlement? Not that it always has meant members have had full transaprency on past "dealings".
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Would the damages question come into play before the court decides on the legality of the process by which BASI made the decision to withhold/withdraw SB's MOUs? If BASI concede damages beforehand (even minimal) are they not effectively accepting that the way the decision was made was wrong. And therefore that they have to do it again (and maybe for all instructors who were subject to the same process, whether they were awarded MOUs or not)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I've never met him, but I can't see SB accepting some financial bribe to withdraw his case for judicial review.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Would the damages question come into play before the court decides on the legality of the process by which BASI made the decision to withhold/withdraw SB's MOUs? If BASI concede damages beforehand (even minimal) are they not effectively accepting that the way the decision was made was wrong. And therefore that they have to do it again (and maybe for all instructors who were subject to the same process, whether they were awarded MOUs or not)? |
I'm pretty certain the court determines the facts first and the damages (if applicable) second.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
yes, that's what seems to make sense. If BASI properly withheld the MOU the question of damages falls away? Sure, people might settle out of court first, but in this case that would presumably entail BASI's conceding their mistake and awarding the MOU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Yebbut remember BASI isn't a corporation it's a member's association so surely members have the right to know how much their association has spent on such a settlement?
|
If insurer is picking up the tab, insurer is running the show and calling the shots. It wouldn't be the association making the settlement. In my experience its kept confidential.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True. In which case the members probably need to ask how much has insurance premium increased
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@pam w, I have met simon and one of the guys who worked for him on a race course in the summerboth came across as nice blokes; I came away from meeting them thinking that if what they had told me was true then they will win all their cases, I had no reason to disbelieve them but obviously I was no expert and didn't know them well etc
Simon was very calm about the whole thing and seemed to be looking forward to the whole thing going to court which I thought told its own story.
So far it seems to be going how they thought it would, good luck to them I say.....
Pretty handy skier too, he was doing slalom and was no slouch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, It'll go up for sure from the current supplier but it wouldn't be significant enough to worry members. They may even shop around and get "as is" terms elsewhere. I know people want to see blood and guts but I have a feeling it could be anticlimactic. They bought an insurance policy and it looks like it will protect members' funds so some would congratulate them. Shock horror.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
So it boils down to why basi didn't award the MoU.
Does anyone know the basi rational for not awarding it, and the reason for the apparent discrepancy in awarding it to others who seemed to have the same claim?
I'm interested in what was the official reason rather than what people might think was their motivation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
The official reason is that sb has not passed the Euro Test.
The question then is ... So why does the CEO have an mou? Why do many of the trainers have the mou? Why does the secretary to the board have an mou? ... These people have not passed the ET either; they claim "we did the Capa" but the mou is based on having the ET ... Except if the holder of the highest qualification held that qual prior to 2009 ... Sb held grade one from 1986 (or something like that, but certainly BEFORE the current CEO gained his!) the
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm interested in what was the official reason rather than what people might think was their motivation.
|
Why? The official reason will be lies and deceit! Lets hear what real people think, it may be nearer the truth! 'The house of cards has started to fall'
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| pam w wrote: |
| I've never met him, but I can't see SB accepting some financial bribe to withdraw his case for judicial review. |
If you replace the words "financial bribe" with "satisfactory out of court settlement" then it seems less unlikely.
I guess your point is that an out of court settlement would not actually force BASI to change the way they're behaving, and assuming that's what he's trying to do then he's more likely to take that one right into the court. Time will tell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
I guess your point is that an out of court settlement would not actually force BASI to change the way they're behaving, and assuming that's what he's trying to do then he's more likely to take that one right into the court.
|
Yes, that is my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| billy not a boy wrote: |
The official reason is that sb has not passed the Euro Test.
The question then is ... So why does the CEO have an mou? Why do many of the trainers have the mou? Why does the secretary to the board have an mou? ... These people have not passed the ET either; they claim "we did the Capa" but the mou is based on having the ET ... Except if the holder of the highest qualification held that qual prior to 2009 ... Sb held grade one from 1986 (or something like that, but certainly BEFORE the current CEO gained his!) the |
BASI do seem to have done some homework to get their side of the saga straight:
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=120145
My take on their position: SB could have had his equivalance but failed to do the specified admin at the right times ergo he has only himself to blame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
My take ... He held the ISTD prior to the date stipulated in the mou documentation and therefore was correctly awarded his mou stamp. I guess the Italians might have thought that too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
BASI should back down, pay a settlement out of court, reinstate the MoU, give it to the others who should have it, then everyone is equal from the period.
Get it over and done with and we can get on with watching webcams for snow instead of waiting on the next instalment of this saga 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
BASI should have given everyone eligible their MOU's when they first came in, why the don't appear to have done so is perhaps another question that should be asked.
Last edited by You need to Login to know who's really who. on Fri 2-10-15 14:15; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
My take on their position: SB could have had his equivalance but failed to do the specified admin at the right times ergo he has only himself to blame.
|
More deceit from BASI, you didn't have to do any admin. Others who didn't have received MOU's
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| billy not a boy wrote: |
The official reason is that sb has not passed the Euro Test.
The question then is ... So why does the CEO have an mou? Why do many of the trainers have the mou? Why does the secretary to the board have an mou? ... These people have not passed the ET either; they claim "we did the Capa" but the mou is based on having the ET ... Except if the holder of the highest qualification held that qual prior to 2009 ... Sb held grade one from 1986 (or something like that, but certainly BEFORE the current CEO gained his!) |
And that is precisely where BASI will come unstuck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, I used to feel the same years ago as my then understanding was that Simon refused to do his paperwork and was stubbornly standing up as a fully qualified Brit instructor who shouldn't have to do a French test who then got caught out later.... BUT I have changed my mind as it wasn't only Simon who is a full ISTD without an MoU. there are at least 16 and some have said as many as 30 people who have ISTD's but were either not given notice by BASI of what was required to get grandfather rights or didn't do the required admin in the time scale. Depends who you talk to as to whether someones face didn't fit and they weren't sent the letter or they were refuseniks or just weren't bothered about it back then as it was only a French requirement and they didn't care about working there.. Now it is an EU requirement and of great concern...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@skimottaret, Not saying I agree with it but that surely is the core of the BASI defence here. As I identified in your thread highlighting the BASI "position paper" there are some rather obvious questions over how much effort did they put into making sure all the grandfathering candidates had a fair chance to do stuff on time, whether the "once and once only" opportunity was highlighted etc etc. And then the basis of the MoU is still confusing in their narrative - did you still need an MoU if you were granted your cert in the 1999/2000 exchange (& what is that cert if its not ISTD)? Or is MoU without ET intended to apply to something else than full ISTD?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
^ the grandfather rights agreed by BASI with the French wouldn't have allowed SB to continue employing lower level instructors ?
my guess is that this may be a factor in him not having them (for whatever reason : right or wrong).
not taking sides here by the way : just an observation....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Haggis_Trap, very plausible.
The thing is, and even I sometimes forget this, nothing agreed by BASI and a French trade union has the force of law: and may even break it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Haggis_Trap wrote: |
| ^ the grandfather rights agreed by BASI with the French wouldn't have allowed SB to continue employing lower level instructors ? |
Not quite sure the relevance of who SB employed has to whether he was issued an MoU or not? Am I missing something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@laundryman, the MoU itself doesn't have the force of law, does it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Hurtle, correct, certainly insofar as (in theory) it's not necessary to have one. Whether it's sufficient in law I'm not sure (but it seems to be in practice).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| @laundryman, the MoU itself doesn't have the force of law, does it? |
Not until/unless it becomes a Delegated Act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@Haggis_Trap, the agreements that BASI have made have been detrimental to most members in the association. The one you mention, Satolas and possibly others as yet I'm unaware of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@Dave of the Marmottes,
| Quote: |
Yebbut remember BASI isn't a corporation it's a member's association so surely members have the right to know how much their association has spent on such a settlement? Not that it always has meant members have had full transaprency on past "dealings".
|
Unfortunately, The British Association Of Snowsports Instructors Limited is incorporated. Not only that they do not like the members poking their noses into the dubious business aspects of payments, expenses etc. For that reason it has been decided, if you care to read the proposed Articles, that members of the company, for that is what BASI as you know it now is(a corporation, having been incorporated), will be entitled only to the financial information that BASI is required to provide by law, and not what you might expect of a proper members association. If the proposed Articles go through many will be disappointed, to say the least, at the practical aspects of the devil that is not that quite well hidden in the detail. All members should read it, and vote appropriately for a members association, and weep.
Furthermore, the proposed Code of Conduct that will not necessarily be subject to a vote(hidden in the proposed sweeping policy powers for the board) will ensure that many of the comments such as those in this thread and on Facebook will be subject to disciplinary action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Poleplant wrote: |
| Quote: |
I'm interested in what was the official reason rather than what people might think was their motivation.
|
Why? The official reason will be lies and deceit! Lets hear what real people think, it may be nearer the truth! 'The house of cards has started to fall' |
There isn't an official reason because it hasn't been made up yet to counter the evidence that might be presented that they think they don't know about, or would like us to think they don't know about. As rumsfeld said: The message is that there are no "knowns." There are thing we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that's basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns. BASI to a T, but unfortunately, some people know the generally accepted unknowns, and that is what is exciting about the outcome not to mention all the incorrect speculation.
The best we can is not good enough when £.5M is at stake and certain people DO know the unknowns. No good playing poker when your hand is out there waiting for the world to pick it up and look at 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?
|
JimD
| Quote: |
| There isn't an official reason because it hasn't been made up yet to counter the evidence that might be presented that they think they don't know about, or would like us to think they don't know about |
.
"They" are the board, and the volunteers that represent me and many of my friends and colleagues.
That you do not have my best interests (nor those of my colleagues) at heart is a "Rumsfeldt known known". It seems you care only about yourself, and showing off how clever you are.
I could spend pages challenging your behaviour. But I will refrain from doing so.
Every time you post a harmful anti-BASI comment, know that you are harming me and all your thousands of colleagues who, at one time maybe had some time for your words.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@SkiPresto Is there any "anti-BASI comment" that you would consider not to be harmful to BASI?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Is it 'anti-BASI' to conclude that the business regarding SB's membership is hardly the association's finest hour? I think that being a critical friend is the best way you can support the association.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
| Is it 'anti-BASI' to conclude that the business regarding SB's membership is hardly the association's finest hour? I think that being a critical friend is the best way you can support the association. |
If I have an issue with BASI I just email the person direct at BASI.
I do this on a regular basis.
I differentiate between
BASI HQ Office
BASI Board
BASI Membership and Marketing
BASI general members
These are all different entities.
I also recognise many genuine and hardworking individuals like our Membership reps and individual trainers.
Snowheads is not a good forum for BASI members.
I see many people who should know better doing nothing more than grandstanding.
It isn't enlightening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| irie wrote: |
| @SkiPresto Is there any "anti-BASI comment" that you would consider not to be harmful to BASI? |
No.
Sorry for the tautology.
Some anti-BASI comments are more harmful than others, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| rob@rar wrote: |
BASI has released a slightly fuller statement:
Given the existence of this court action it would be inappropriate to comment on matters in detail but we can
reference the following aspects of this damages claim. The claim exceeds £500,000 and is in respect of loss of income from teaching. It is asserted the member’s loss started to accrue from February 2014 onwards (ie circa 18 months ago), that his average annual income for the 3 year period prior to February 2014 was £145,000, and that this dropped to £45,000 per year following February 2014. The Association are surprised as to the level of income it is claimed was being achieved prior to February 2014 and in any event the basis of calculation is not at all clear. “ Partner. AlexGarioch. Morisons LLP
|
[/quote]
There have been a few comments on here, and FB, stating that the proceedings are sub judice? and cannot be commented upon. Now we have BASI's lawyers giving general details about SB's claim. Is this allowed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@stewart woodward, there's no jury to influence, so I would imagine it's allowed. Though possibly there is a data protection issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@SkiPresto,
I envy your rose tinted goggles of yesteryear. The board have been informed of their non compliances, but appear to refuse to address them other than to pretend all is rosy in their garden as well. They have been advised what is wrong and have chosen an approach that will solve nothing. There is probably worse to come than the Simon Butler issue as far as the company's reputation is concerned. I am sad for you that you have not paid attention to your members area content to realise that you have been well and truly shafted as a long standing and devoted member. The BASI of yesteryear that you know and love disappeared when The British Association of Snowsport Instructors Ltd became what is now known as BASI and ceased to be a true members association. Its shameful that all members, but particularly dedicated old timers like you are being led up the (rose) garden path. The rose garden path only leads to rose cottage if you know what that means. I told you before when I gave you a lift back to your abode from the Hintertux OF what the problems are. This latest negative aspect to the BASI association reputation by the BASI Ltd board decisions is only the beginning of a bad press. The BASI board "hierarchy" does not like dissent. Instead of addressing it they ignore it. You and others might like to consider some of the info at http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/ANowDetailLeadershipIssue.cfm?ItemNumber=46881
You should consider yourself lucky that you get responses to your communications - many do not. Some of the answers that are received beggar belief, however, that is another story. If you think my comments here are bad brace yourself for what may yet come from elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
