BOF road shows

[MIE]

The agreement came into effect on 1st September 2010.

Not true. Mike was quite clear at the roadshow that this agreement has NOT been signed on our side and therefore is currently not in force. So probably wise to negotiate to get the best deal for your club...

You are correct that BOF have not signed the agreement BUT
the Forestry Commission documentation says that the agreement is valid from 01 April 2010 and that the charges will be applied for licences issued after 01 September 2010.

Mike re-iterated the fact that the "agreement" had not been signed today but suggested that this was probably as good as it will get.

[Scott]

Yes, that is also what Mike has said tonight - BOF have not signed the new agreement, to allow clubs to attempt to negotiate a better deal locally if they have a good relationship with their forest manager, although it sounds like some FC officers have decided to enforce it anyway (as they are perfectly entitled to do).

[Mrs H]

Mmm First of all it's the insurance companies who are bossing us around and now the FC - sorting these things out are two of BOF's main raisons d'etre - this is extremely disappointing

[andypat]

So much for the Outdoor Access Code then. Anyone for Urban "O"?

[greywolf]

So much for the Outdoor Access Code then. Anyone for Urban "O"?

D'oh! Which part of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code were you expecting to apply in England and Wales?

Unfortunately these days Forestry Commission England is DEFRA's bitch, so the prime directive is to chuck money at farmers, everything else, including any policies to support healthy living through recreation etc, are secondary.

[andypat]

OOPS!
Assumed since Eddie had commented that this was something that applied to us too.
Ah well - nae luck then!

[Oldman]

Mmm First of all it's the insurance companies who are bossing us around and now the FC - sorting these things out are two of BOF's main raisons d'etre - this is extremely disappointing

I agree this is disappointing but you seem to imply that BOF MUST achieve better deals, whereas they can only reasonably achieve what is available in the market with good negotiation, and where the potential partner (as with FC) has a monopoly and takes a tough stance, what else could be done?

I also believe it's a legal issue about u-16s and road-crossings (if that's what you refer to) and not primarily insurance.

[AndyC]

Was anything said about the lack of Level 2 Officials ( especially controllers) and what is being done to get more?
If not BOF be warned I'll ask on Thursday next ....

[Oldman]

Was anything said about the lack of Level 2 Officials ( especially controllers) and what is being done to get more?
If not BOF be warned I'll ask on Thursday next ....

Why not e-mail them? Questions received in advance of the roadshow I attended were listed and responded to one by one.

[Mrs H]

you seem to imply that BOF MUST achieve better deals,

no that is what you have inferred. I implied that it was extremely disappointing that they had not achieved better deals. If I thought for one moment that BOF had failed to secure the best national deal available then I would be (doing more than) implying negligence!

It is however interesting that BOF are suggesting that better deals may be available locally.

I wonder if anyone has/will be able to secure better deals and whether they will be willing to share that with us. (It would be understandable if they wanted to keep it to themselves).

Does FC land include any open access land (The stuff edged in orange on the OS maps) and what would be the situation if they did?

[AndyC]

Was anything said about the lack of Level 2 Officials ( especially controllers) and what is being done to get more?
If not BOF be warned I'll ask on Thursday next ....

Why not e-mail them? Questions received in advance of the roadshow I attended were listed and responded to one by one.

Excellent point! I will do so

[greywolf]

I also believe it's a legal issue about u-16s and road-crossings (if that's what you refer to) and not primarily insurance.

You mean it's against the law? (What law? Just in England & Wales or does it apply in Scotland?)
If that is the case, then BOF's "response" (in terms of failing to properly publicise the situation or provide the promised clarification) is not so much pathetic as criminally negligent, given the number of events that have taken place in the last few months with some element of unmarshalled road crossing for under-16s...

[DaveR]

I also believe it's a legal issue about u-16s and road-crossings (if that's what you refer to) and not primarily insurance.

You mean it's against the law? (What law? Just in England & Wales or does it apply in Scotland?) In which case, BOF's "response" (in terms of failing to properly publicise the situation or provide the promised clarification) is not so much pathetic as criminally negligent, given the number of events that have taken place in the last few months with some element of unmarshalled road crossing for under-16s...

Yes, for whatever reason, the background to the advice has not been well explained.

As Greywolf says it cannot be a straight black and white legal issue.

All we have to go on is the various statements from BOF. The latest being in the most recent FOCUS:

"Participants under 16 should not be competing on courses that tempt, or require them to run across roads that contain significant traffic. Roads with traffic management that induce low speeds (15mph as on many campuses) are acceptable but busy public roads are not."

People can interpret this in a number of ways. The definitive statements are that roads with "significant traffic" and "busy public roads" are forbidden to U16s unless marshalled, but that others may well be OK, do your own risk assessment (as you'd have to do anyway) and decide.

For some of us that means that after a huge amount of fuss and uncertainty we can carry on pretty much exactly as we did before!

(climbs off hobby horse and looks for another cause to get wound up about )

[Scott]

Was anything said about the lack of Level 2 Officials ( especially controllers) and what is being done to get more?

A suggestion: increase entry fees at Level 1 & 2 events (Levels A, B and C events) by 50p per competitor. That income goes straight to the controller. So maybe £70-£200 at Level C, £200-£400 at Level B, and £1500 for the lucky sod who gets to control a day of JK. This is in addition to the controller's expenses, which come out of the event budget as now.

The trade off is that controllers will regularly have their performance assessed. If you want the big pay that comes with a big event, you'll have to have a track record that demonstrates an exceptional level of competence - ensuring events are safe, have well-planned courses, comply with all the relevant guidelines, and have all the controls in the right place. If you frequently do a bad job, you'll be stuck with low-level (but still paid) events.

If controllers were being paid, they would probably also have to take on a bit more responsibility for ensuring that planners/controllers were doing their jobs properly.

In other words, the same way a lot of other sports manage their volunteer officials. I've not thought this through in much depth, and I'm not saying it's a particularly good idea, so feel free to criticise. I'm sure there are a lot of things that would unfair about it (eg. controllers in the SE would probably earn much more than those in the sticks, and I'm sure there would be some faffy tax issues), but I thought it might be worth throwing out there to see what people think.

[EddieH]

On Sunday I am organising for my pains - (I vowed I never would)

Now for me if anthing deserves being paid for it's that.

Controlling is the easiest of the major tasks - no it does not need paying. Co-ordinating multi-day events now maybe.