 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I'm wondering if SB has considered that if his case ends favourably in Lyon perhaps he could make a claim against the DDJS for wrongful arrest? I think that the outcome of his Scottish action will be undoubted if this case in Lyon goes in his favour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@laundryman, the Derogation just says as quickly as possible and does not comment on what happens otherwise. Personally, I always make sure I have the relevant documentation when working overseas and speak to the relevant people and go to their offices to make sure I have the relevant documentation. My instructors do the same. I suspect some game playing on both sides regarding process.
I see the case for the defence has been regurgitated ad nauseum. If passing the ET is not a substantial difference in training then I'm sure the SB team would have no problem passing and there would not be such a fuss about it. FIS points would prove equivalent professional experience .i remain unconvinced that years of snow ploughing is the same.
The directive specifically discusses professional qualifications such as doctors, nurses, architects and pharmacists. We are being asked to believe that the directive also covers someone with 3 weeks formal training. I'm not convinced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| billy not a boy wrote: |
| I'm wondering if SB has considered that if his case ends favourably in Lyon perhaps he could make a claim against the DDJS for wrongful arrest? I think that the outcome of his Scottish action will be undoubted if this case in Lyon goes in his favour. |
Barrack-room lawyer alert!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Barrack-room lawyer? ... Isn't that someone whom tells people what they should do, rather than asks questions about the implications of something?
| Gerry wrote: |
| billy not a boy wrote: |
| I'm wondering if SB has considered that if his case ends favourably in Lyon perhaps he could make a claim against the DDJS for wrongful arrest? I think that the outcome of his Scottish action will be undoubted if this case in Lyon goes in his favour. |
Barrack-room lawyer alert! |
Fool alert .. .that's someone whom says something without knowing what it means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@TTT, are you aware of BASI social media guidelines?
You have made a very good point about passing ET, I would expect then EVERY instructor (trainees excepted) that I see skiing (in France) to be able to pass their ET.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| TTT wrote: |
| If passing the ET is not a substantial difference in training |
It was not a substantial difference in his previous case circa 2006, which would lead me to the conclusion that it will not be in this case either. Of course we are just guessing, but some are applying previous rulings in drawing said conclusions, rather than relying solely on personal opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| billy not a boy wrote: |
Obviously she's not as clever as she would have us believe. |
TTT is a woman? Fact or supposition?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| maggi wrote: |
TTT is a woman? Fact or supposition? |
Too smart to be a man 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, I thought too argumentative to be a woman  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TTT wrote: |
@laundryman, the Derogation just says as quickly as possible and does not comment on what happens otherwise. Personally, I always make sure I have the relevant documentation when working overseas and speak to the relevant people and go to their offices to make sure I have the relevant documentation. My instructors do the same. I suspect some game playing on both sides regarding process.
I see the case for the defence has been regurgitated ad nauseum. If passing the ET is not a substantial difference in training then I'm sure the SB team would have no problem passing and there would not be such a fuss about it. FIS points would prove equivalent professional experience .i remain unconvinced that years of snow ploughing is the same.
The directive specifically discusses professional qualifications such as doctors, nurses, architects and pharmacists. We are being asked to believe that the directive also covers someone with 3 weeks formal training. I'm not convinced. |
Just start understanding the ET is WHAT YOU DO IF THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL DIFF ! NOT ! a substantial diff in itself.
You are talking total dribble on this and it shows you actually do not understand this issue even half has much as you say you do.
Also comparing with doctors ect is again total dribble lets look at what it has been compared with Scuba diving and sky diving Both very highly regulated sports where no beginner can go rent a boat or a plane ( from a respectable provider of boats/planes for these activity's )and gear and just go do it.
( I should add here you have to prove your level of qualification to these people prior to renting).
Yet in skiing they could go to a major French ski shop/rental chain rent the gear then to the lift pass office and buy a lift pass go to the top of a mountain say in a gondola or cablecar set of down and quite possibly kill themselves or some other person.
YET ! the French compare it to two more highly regulated sports and spurt the crap that items need to be there for safety yet are not interested in basic safety as the other two sports are.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Thu 7-05-15 17:50; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| billy not a boy wrote: |
Barrack-room lawyer? ... Isn't that someone whom tells people what they should do, rather than asks questions about the implications of something?
| Gerry wrote: |
| billy not a boy wrote: |
| I'm wondering if SB has considered that if his case ends favourably in Lyon perhaps he could make a claim against the DDJS for wrongful arrest? I think that the outcome of his Scottish action will be undoubted if this case in Lyon goes in his favour. |
Barrack-room lawyer alert! |
Fool alert .. .that's someone whom says something without knowing what it means. |
Well, look on the bright side, at least you proved that there is such a thing as a stupid question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
@speed098, it says substantial difference in training. Passing the ET requires training. Are you saying if a doctor trains but fails his exams he should be allowed to practice in another country?
The directive refers to professional qualifications. Basi makes clear that level 4 if for those who wish to follow ski instruction as a profession.
I appreciate you don't like it but putting it in capitals does not change the rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@TTT,
But you need to actually realise that what you have to do if there is a significant diff is not in itself the significant diff. If you can not understand basic's such as this there is no hope of you understanding anything.
Also the training for the ET is irrelevant I see many company's offering training for it but is this training actually compulsory? Or could someone book a ET turn up do the run and if they pass still have to do the training?
The answer to the above because you will avoid answering it like everything else is no they would need to do the training. So it is not training as in the sense of taking your BASI qualifications where the training is part and parcel of the whole course package.
Last edited by 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  on Thu 7-05-15 18:20; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| TTT wrote: |
| the Derogation just says as quickly as possible |
It says "as quickly as possible and must take into account the date on which the migrant wishes to start work in France."
IIRC, the declarations were made in the summer - plenty of time in which to process them in time for the start of the ski season (certainly by the time of the arrests in mid-Feb).
| Quote: |
| and does not comment on what happens otherwise. |
It's a derogation, which merely takes away the right of the declarer to choose between an adaptation period and an aptitude test. Nothing else changes in the directive - such as "In the absence of a reaction of the competent authority within the deadlinesset in the previous subparagraphs [2 months from declaration], the service may be provided."
| Quote: |
| Personally, I always make sure I have the relevant documentation when working overseas and speak to the relevant people and go to their offices to make sure I have the relevant documentation. My instructors do the same. I suspect some game playing on both sides regarding process. |
The Chambéry court has already determined at least part of the process was not followed by the administration. Whether they were playing a game or not I cannot say.
| Quote: |
| I see the case for the defence has been regurgitated ad nauseum. If passing the ET is not a substantial difference in training then I'm sure the SB team would have no problem passing and there would not be such a fuss about it. FIS points would prove equivalent professional experience .i remain unconvinced that years of snow ploughing is the same. |
Is failing the Eurotest by 0.1 sec a substantial difference? No substantial difference was found last time these people's cases were examined by the French courts in 2006.
| Quote: |
| The directive specifically discusses professional qualifications such as doctors, nurses, architects and pharmacists. We are being asked to believe that the directive also covers someone with 3 weeks formal training. I'm not convinced. |
If you look in the definitions of the directive you will see it covers "either a training course not forming part of a certificate or diploma within the meaning of points (b), (c), (d) or (e), or a specific examination without prior training, or full-time pursuit of the profession in a Member State for three consecutive years or for an equivalent dura- tion on a part-time basis during the previous 10 years. I thought you had read it. In any case, the very phrase you use "substantial difference", comes from the directive, which is the law referred to in the relevant courts. I don't know where you get your ideas from, but I would place my faith in the French lawyers and judges to understand these matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@TTT you do know that SB went to court circa 2006, and the judge ruled at that that there was no significant difference proven between the training that his instructors had received and that of the ESF, and having read the derogation, you are fully aware the the ET can only be applied after 1) significant difference has been proven (which it never has), and 2) working experience has been taken into consideration, so why is it that you keep insisting on the relevance of the ET in proving a significant difference?
I cannot understand your logic, could you please help by explaining it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| TTT wrote: |
| @speed098, it says substantial difference in training. |
So if you have done the 'training' do you also need to pass 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I get my ideas from the directive, derogation, MOU, EU statements and the basi statements. The MOU which is under discussion to turn the EU rules into a delgated act for skiing only talks about implementing the eu rules of the directive for those with ET and EMS. There is no mention of lower levels. If you look at the basi statements on this matter they say that the EU have made it clear that lower levels are not up for discussion at the moment. Skimarroett (?) who has a vested interest has expressed the same concerns. It could well be that at sometime in the future this is addressed as a delgated act but it is not in the current proposed implementation of the rules. I'm sorry but that is the current reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 wrote: |
| Well, look on the bright side, at least you proved that there is such a thing as a stupid question. |
Thanks for your invaluable input to the discussion @Gerry, I'm sure many are grateful for your insight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@stewart woodward, well according to some of SB supoorters you are a moron and you have been wasting your time any money
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| TTT wrote: |
| If you look at the basi statements on this matter ... |
The BASI statements can be taken with a pinch of salt. The CEO attends the MoU meetings and takes no notes, leaving that down to his fellow "representative", someone who themselves holds no position of authority within the association, and was most likely selected because of her involvement with the ET in the capacity of a FIS TD.
BASI have failed to issue a statement in a timely manner, because let's face it, they really do not have a clue about what is being discussed, and again that is left down to the CEO's fellow attendee.
BASI has a vested interest in keeping the ET in place as a barrier to market, that's how they make their money -which, I hasten to add, they are really good at wasting!
So, BASI statements is where you get your "facts" from is it? Haha, brilliant. BASI lies. They've been doing it for years, and whilst the "old boys" network are still on the Board of Directors and within the executive, it's not going to stop. I bet you believe everything the LD said in his video blogs too!
This is priceless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| TTT wrote: |
| @stewart woodward, well according to some of SB supoorters you are a moron and you have been wasting your time any money |
I never had you down as a SB supporter TTT, at least not with the vehemence and vitriol you pour out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TTT wrote: |
| @stewart woodward, well according to some of SB supoorters you are a moron and you have been wasting your time any money |
Sorry, don't understand this reply? Probably because I am an uneducated 'moron'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@billy not a boy, what is your relationship to SB and are you on a retainer. I think I have must just worked out who you are on FB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@TTT, this thread is about court cases. As far as I know, outside of a Kafka novel, no matter can be judged on a future law, which is at present ill-defined and may never be enacted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have no relationship with SB
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@stewart woodward, I've been called a moron for thinking that the ET is necessary to work in France so what does that makes anyone who has actually spent time and money training for the ET! The SB supporters think I'm thick so by implication they also think that everyone who has done the ET, the French (apolgies to pam w for not defining the term) and the EU are thick because if they were just capable of reading the EU rules they would realise the ET is not necessary. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 delegated act is to implement the current EU rules not future rules. Sorry for highlighting some inconvenient truths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Believing what one is told is not a measure of intelligence, especially if one holds the information giver to be a reliable source of knowledge. In these matters, it is most likely best to pay attention to the implementers and practitioners of law rather than BASI, whom have vested interests.
Believing all that you are told without questioning it, could be deemed a measure of gullibility however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Even SB has admitted the lower levels is a tough one as it stands. Are the faithful doubting their Idol?
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Thu 7-05-15 19:12; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
SB and his instructors and customers don't have a vested interest? Sorry I'm forgetting SB is the new chosen one who will lead the faithful do the promised land if only you believe. He does have quite a cult following I have to admit but then I've always been a little wary of cults personally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| TTT wrote: |
| @laundryman, the delegated act is to implement the current EU rules not future rules |
Which is why it's not needed. The Dutch association, for one, has said so - but then it's acting for all its members, whereas BASI would prefer "right of establishment" in Europe to be limited to a small proportion of its members.
Not relevant to current court cases at all of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@TTT, I ask again are you aware of the BASI social media guidelines?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| billy not a boy wrote: |
| @TTT you do know that SB went to court circa 2006, and the judge ruled at that that there was no significant difference proven between the training that his instructors had received and that of the ESF, |
The prosecution failed to produce any evidence that there was a difference, the judge didn't analyse the two training programmes, he judged what evidence was presented to him. We don't really know if the French can provide such evidence. The 2006 trial was also under old legislation. A new trial would be needed to form any kind of precedent, that is if the prosecution can't provide any evidence of a difference.
I refer you to Gigi Lerose's post in this thread:-
http://pistehors.com/news/forums/viewthread/126/P15/index.html
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Thu 7-05-15 19:19; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
An agreement on how the EU rules specifically apply to skiing is not relevant?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| TTT wrote: |
| SB and his instructors and customers don't have a vested interest? |
What nonsense is that?
SB and his customers are not involved in the shaping of inter-association relationships and deal brokering, and they are certainly not involved in the MoU discussions, your statement is farcical.
There is no "vested interest" for SB in his court case, he (and his French legal counsel) believe that he has obeyed the local law and that he has been treated unjustly. That is not "vested interests".
Do you understand what a vested interest is? Because from your comments, it would appear not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@davidof, thanks for that, I'll have a read of that stuff.
What you have said in your last comment does not contradict anything which I said previously; I did not say anything beyond, the fact that it was ruled that no significant difference had been proven, the onus is on the administration to prove a significant difference; they did not, the suit was ruled in favour of SB.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Dunk, I am thanks - do you think SB supporters in particular on FB are?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| TTT wrote: |
| @Dunk, I am thanks - do you think SB supporters in particular on FB are? |
Haha, aware but choose to ignore eh? I sense a theme
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| TTT wrote: |
| An agreement on how the EU rules specifically apply to skiing is not relevant? |
The applicable EU rule regarding recognition of qualifications, pertaining to events of February 2014, is 2005/36 (which you've apparently not read). Specifically to skiing, the derogation to that directive is applicable(*). The new directive, 2013/55 only came into force in January 2014, with a two-year transposition period. So it will be relevant next season. However, it doesn't mention skiing and as far as I know the derogation does not reply. That's where the Delegated Act comes in, but it's not a done deal and it's difficult to imagine it will be law for next season (whatever it may turn out to look like).
(*) I've only ever seen the derogation refer to the earliest qualifications directive 92/51, which was specifically repealed by 2005/36. Everyone, on both sides of the fence, assures me it's still applicable though. I just haven't seen anything that would appear to give it legal effect in relation to 2005/36.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To admin: Is private messaging available here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ