HSCC

[Bodysnatcher]

No,
simple as that really

[Lord Summerisle]

?

[M Greenslade]

??

Bladders......

[Bodysnatcher]

seek and ye shall find
(locked thread)
starts to make (non) sense by page 4
but according to SG as a moderator if it must be discussed
"at least keep it in very general terms"

I just want to register my non approval in a very general way

[Alan Crook]

I think if anyone has a problem with any club the first people they should talk to or register there view with is that club.

I don`t think this kind of thread helps any situation or anybody, especially as many clubs do not post on 10 tenths so can not give there point of view.

[Bodysnatcher]

Of course I registered my disapproval with the club.

What concerns me is that it appears to be a policy applied to two couples (in the normal heterosexual definition of a couple). Possibly.

My contention is that anyone that officiates within the racing fraternity may build up a close working relationship with anyone else.
To a point that the phrase used could be applied to any of us.

eg as a Post Chief, if I do not have a given role on my post allocated, I make the decision as to who would best fill that role. If it's somebody I've known for a period of time does that then become to others “a perception of favouritism and nepotism" I substitute and for the comma that was in the original phrase.

Alan C, the reason I created this thread was not to get at the club, but to inform my fellow board members who volunteer to work on behalf of that club about the stance they seem to be taking toward 2 fellow board members (and the 2 others who are close to them) who are respected CoCs by many of us.

Tenths members are free to take their own decisions. (we've discussed that before)

Those members' decisions may affect the apparent policy. Or may not.

As far as I see it, 10/10ths has as yet no official stance on this situation. (Other than perhaps a wish by some of our members that no one should mention it?) In my book no response means you are happy with the actions other people are taking.

the moderator asked for it to be discussed in general terms, I tried to do that

[White flag man]

Personally I like marshalling for the HSCC, and will be doing this weekend at Snet. I am, however, quite shocked at this decision and do not agree with it at all. I would, though, like to hear HSCC's side of the story before I finally pass judgement as I believe that this might have something to do with dreaded office politics.

[EvilPumpkin]

The official position of Tenths is that we expect issues to be discussed rationally and fairly. I'm not sure you can have a fair discussion if at least one party to it is unable to publically respond.

On this basis, Stephen did request that the subject be kept general - it was the affected parties that said they'd be happy to close the thread, which was then done.

I don't know what is happening here - and to be honest, I don't really care. It's quite apparent that there is some political chicanery and some people are being personally targetted.

Having been on the receiving end of that kind of treatment, I can completely sympathise. But I don't see how a discussion of the specifics on Tenths is going to help matters in any way.

So the official position of Ten-Tenths is as folllows.

If you want to discuss it, that's fine - provided it's kept to the facts of the matter - and by facts, I mean statements that can be verified. I'm not much interested in spending the next couple of months having to deal with legal threats from yet another UK motorsport organisation.

But before the discussion goes any further, I have to ask the question - if the organisation you're discussing is not able to respond publically or give their side of the story - is it really a discussion?

[TFHarv]

I understand that this thread can be considered slightly controversial regarding the subject matter at hand and the club and marshals in question but I felt I had to add a point of view to this as the previous thread was locked for reasons given by the moderator. But if some clubs or a club take the view that relatives should not be on post together then is this not going against the under 18 policy trying to be enforced by other clubs? If they say you must, if under 18, be on post with your parent/guardian then does this not make the exact set of circumstances crop up in a round about way. i.e. They are responsible for their minor and therefore would not give 100% to other members of the team on post or themselves?

To me the whole subject seems in rather badly placed though as others have stated its not really for a forum like ten tenths to make policy on clubs or individuals that don't have any affiliation with the site. I would say if there is a message board on their website then directing 10/10th users to that particular thread or information would be much fairer on all parties involved.

I do think the subject has a place on 10/10ths just more generic and involving the whole subject and not just individuals. Despite me saying that I do hold a personal viewpoint on the matter that I would feel much better posting on individual club forums but would be supporting the marshals viewpoint.

Suffice to say I would never consider being on post with a family member to be detrimental to my responsibilities on that post and would feel aggrieved if that stance was pushed on me regardless of the role i had undertaken.

[Nadine J Lewis]

Originally Posted by TFHarv

Suffice to say I would never consider being on post with a family member to be detrimental to my responsibilities on that post and would feel aggrieved if that stance was pushed on me regardless of the role i had undertaken.

Having not seen the closed thread I am guessing as to what this is about - and if I've got it wrong someone will be sure to tell me!

I have been on the receiving end of such comments when I first started my marshalling. My significant other at the time had been marshalling a number of years and although we were on post together we were rarely a "team" as he was I.O. and I was teamed with another. We were advised this was not good as we would not respond well if something happened to our other half. Surely though that is for you to decide? I actually reacted worse the day something happened and I wasn't on post with him.

I certainly don't have an issue putting people on post together who are related (when I do the allocations). The only suggestion I do have is that you should not always be paired with the same person - relation or not. It is better to be with different people that way you find different ways to learn and gain experience.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by EvilPumpkin

........
- if the organisation you're discussing is not able to respond publically or give their side of the story - is it really a discussion?

I've read both threads and nowhere have I seen any reason why the organisation 'is not able to respond' (in general terms, of course)

and yes it's still a discussion, just not as open or informed as it could be.

[chezza]

The comment that the club is not able to respond comes from the fact that many clubs senior officials will not post on forums such as this, some may seem that as daft, but it would not look good if a club got into a very public squabble on a forum as you get into the realms of being dragged in front of the motorsport council for bringing the sport into disrepute.

[rbs]

The one good thing about all of this that JohnG is still involved with other clubs/organisations, he could have walked away completely!

[johngee]

I cannot thank enough, all those that have sent messages of support, both on here and privately - I really didn't know I had so many friends in motorsport.
I think it would now be better for all concerned, including the HSCC, if there was no further public debate about this matter.
Thank you again

[MartinSmith]

Originally Posted by johngee

I cannot thank enough, all those that have sent messages of support, both on here and privately - I really didn't know I had so many friends in motorsport.
I think it would now be better for all concerned, including the HSCC, if there was no further public debate about this matter.
Thank you again

I totally agree with Mr Smith, thanks again to all of you for your support

[John Turner]

Chezza's point (#12) is well made, as is EP's earlier one (#8) and there are always two sides to every coin. Only those directly involved really know the full facts, and drawing conclusions without them, is invidious. I count both John and Claire as good friends, but so do I also, of members of the HSCC Board. I think John and Claire's posts above requesting this to be taken out of the public domain is entirely sensible, and that this thread should, ideally follow the earlier one with closure, since no further discussion here will help or advance the cause of either party.

[Shelagh]

Before this thread is closed, I would just like to say that I think - in this day and age - that the very fact that this is under discussion is unbelievable. We have equality and therefore you will find members of the same family out together.

To my mind there are a number of clubs who still appear to live in the past, circa 1950's. Read some of the instructions you receive.

People laugh at "diversity and equality", but it really is important that we treat people for who they are rather than how we perceive them.

[Mark Mitchell]

Originally Posted by Shelagh

To my mind there are a number of clubs who still appear to live in the past, circa 1950's. Read some of the instructions you receive.

But we are talking about a HISTORIC racing club!

That's my contribution.......I'll start the car!

[Stephen Green]

As it has been suggested the thread be closed.....done!