NDC Steering Group Statement : Tameside Motion [Archive]

Ben Field

14-03-2005, 10:55

Do we think it was wise annoucing this before a vote was taken on the motion?
Before now we have known if it was approved the council would "consider" it... now we know that if they consider it as workable it will hqappen- I think the goal posts have moved.

So in plain English- "If you vote this in and Council approve it we WILL reduce the age limit to 12 in some way."

Lets just hope council make the right choice then.... "no pressure" but whatever they choose they'll upset alot of people-wouldn't like to be in their shoes post AGM!!! :)

The National Diving Committee Steering group supports the motion from Tameside Snorkel & Octopush that Council should use its powers to reduce the age for a Junior Diving Member to 12. If the membership votes at the coming AGM to support this motion the National Diving Committee will act under Council direction, and with wide consultation, to facilitate the introduction of workable policies for the BSAC Branches that choose to enable Junior Diving Members of 12-14 yrs to enjoy scuba diving safely

Clare Peddie
BSAC National Diving Officer
On behalf of the National Diving Committee

rob higgie

14-03-2005, 11:01

The National Diving Committee Steering group supports the motion from Tameside Snorkel & Octopush that Council should use its powers to reduce the age for a Junior Diving Member to 12. If the membership votes at the coming AGM to support this motion the National Diving Committee will act under Council direction, and with wide consultation, to facilitate the introduction of workable policies for the BSAC Branches tha

Clare Peddie
BSAC National Diving Officer

On behalf of the National Diving Committee
I urge all the membership of the club to vote for this excellent proposal and help open up the benefits of being a member of BSAC to the widest possible audience. Speaking as an OWI I will be more than happy to teach 12 to 14 year olds. I do, however, think it would be a good idea if the full proposal as to how this age group is to be taught and advise for diving in branches should posted on the web site.

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

14-03-2005, 11:29

Do we think it was wise annoucing this before a vote was taken on the motion? Before now we have known if it was approved the council would "consider" it... now we know that if they consider it as workable it will hqappen- I think the goal posts have moved.

No they have not Ben, nothing has changed. Clare knows that if this motion is passed a huge workload will fall upon NDC, therefore NDC have discussed this issue and issued a statement indicative of their views.

So in plain English- "If you vote this in and Council approve it we WILL reduce the age limit to 12 in some way."

=NO=! The statement from the NDC does NOT say that in any shape or form Ben. The key phrase within the NDC statement is ?will act under Council direction?. That is exactly what the NDC should be doing, it is their job to advise Council. It is Council who actually have the final word, not the NDC.

Lets just hope council make the right choice then.... "no pressure" but whatever they choose they'll upset alot of people-wouldn't like to be in their shoes post AGM!!! :)

Goes with the territory :-)

OK, I?ll try to explain what will happen if this passes, but this is a personal view based on previous practices and I cannot speak for a future Council that I may not even be on. We?ve never actually been in this situation of an ordinary motion before but here?s the way I would personally like it played ?

1. If Council receives a clear request from the membership then I feel they would be duty bound to consider it. But Council themselves are not the experts and not the actual people who would have to ?live with it?. Therefore we would ask NDC for their advice, to advise us on the desirability and practicality and to make recommendations.
2. The NDC would work on this as Clare has stated. I suspect that this will go well outside of NDC to places such as WoV and UKSDMC and they will be talking to all kinds of people to get their views.
3. NDC will come back to Council with a report and a set of recommendations.
4. Council will either accept, reject or ask for further work as appropriate (repeat 2 and 3 until Council is satisfied that it has the information to make an informed decision).
5. Council will make the final decision.

Now, I know that sounds bureaucratic Ben but that is the way is HAS to be. This is not an easy decision, if we are asked to make it then we will not make the decision lightly and we certainly wouldn?t make it without sufficient information. If the membership ask us to look at this then one hell of a lot of work will be required.

Which is why I keep saying that this is not a foregone conclusion and why I keep telling people that they will be disappointed if they expect a quick decision. I want this done properly, if I am on the Council that has to decide this then I would personally vote AGAINST it if I thought we were going off ?half cock?.

So nothing has changed Ben. The membership may ask Council to consider this, we would pass it onto NDC, but it then comes back to full Council. I am sure that the membership would like us to make the RIGHT decision, not a half-baked or knee-jerk one.

It is nice to see NDC be proactive, to discuss this, to give an interim view. But it is still the decision of the membership initially and then of Council. It is NOT a foregone conclusion.

Regards

Keith L

David Walker

14-03-2005, 11:46

=NO=! The statement from the NDC does NOT say that in any shape or form Ben. The key phrase within the NDC statement is ?will act under Council direction?. That is exactly what the NDC should be doing, it is their job to advise Council. It is Council who actually have the final word, not the NDC.

Just one thing - if Council rely on the NDC for this kind of recommendation, then under what circumstances would Council ignore the NDC's recommendations and decide that "we know best"? Surely that defeats the point in asking them in the first place? If the NDC say yes and then Council say no, isn't that just personal opinions of Council getting in the way of reasoned research and evidence? And if the NDC say no and Council say yes, then again its just likely to be personal desired ignoring dangers highlighted through the NDCs consultations.
Obviously the process is there as part of the constitution or whatever, but seems more of a formality than anything else - kind of like the Queen signing all the stuff she gets sent from Parliament.

David

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

14-03-2005, 12:08

Just one thing - if Council rely on the NDC for this kind of recommendation, then under what circumstances would Council ignore the NDC's recommendations and decide that "we know best"?

Oh it does happen! Many a time Council have sent something back to NDC if they are not happy with it. There is also traffic in the other direction :-) NDC is the National DIVING Committee, they advise us on diving matters. It is Council, and only Council, who have the full and complete picture of the club and it is Councils job to manage ALL aspects of the club. So, when looking at the club overall, when looking at everything and how it all fits together, it is Council who /DO/ know best. That is why it is ultimately a Council decision.

HTH

Keith L

Ben Field

14-03-2005, 12:32

> =NO=! The statement from the NDC does NOT say that in any
> shape or form Ben.

No need to shout, its not necessary.

I quote-
"The National Diving Committee Steering group supports the motion from Tameside Snorkel & Octopush"

That clearly states the NDC agree with the motion- everyone agree?

"that Council should use its powers to reduce the age for a Junior Diving Member to 12."

Thats states that the NDC think council SHOULD reduce the age- therefore the NDC is saying they agree wih the motion.
Sorry- no one can argue with that its in plain English.

"If the membership votes at the coming AGM to support this motion the National Diving Committee will act under Council direction, and with wide consultation,"

Very political... If "you" vote for it, we will ask your oppinion- its direct political action- "if you do this, we'll do this but we'll ask you" It plain and clear and you cannot argue with it.

"to facilitate the introduction of workable policies for the BSAC Branches that choose to enable Junior Diving Members of 12-14 yrs to enjoy scuba diving safely"

Yet more positive statements where none is necessary and to end with "enjoy scuba diving safely".... for pity's sake how susceptible do people think we are!? :)

If this is not the NDC's way of placing some high level backing to the motion then what is it?

It DOES change the playing field on which this motion was placed and it changes in to the advantage of those for the motion- it is undeniable.

Fair enough but my question still stands- Is it right and fair for the NDC to make that statement?

> Now, I know that sounds bureaucratic Ben but that is the way > is HAS to be.

Agreed, completely agreed.... that is why I questioned the wisdom of it being backed so obviously before the vote is taken.

> It is nice to see NDC be proactive, to discuss this, to give > an interim view. But it is still the decision of the
> membership initially and then of Council. It is NOT a
> foregone conclusion.

I dearly hope it is not...

But you missed my point, when high level groups back certain things they are putting alot of weight behind it- in this case I think the NDC has just thrown alot of its respect out of the window. If it cannot be unbaised and the voice of rationality and reason what faith are we to place in it?

Just in my humble opinion.
BEN

Nigel Hewitt

14-03-2005, 12:45

I believe that the proposals include a recommended a depth limit of 15 meters. The young adult buddy should be at least a dive leader (preferably a parent) and all open water teaching to be undertaken with a national qualified instructor. Parents to be at the dive sites when diving is undertaken.

Hey Hey Hey! Stop muddying the waters. Don't promise the 'for' or 'against' parties anything yet as the advice isn't in and the people who will implement it aren't elected yet.

The question is whether we allow 12 year olds to dive in some capacity within BSAC. Once we have that sorted then, provided the legal and child protection advice is OK, the Council can rely on the NDC to cooperate in turning the idea into good safe diving practices.

Let's do one thing at a time.

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

14-03-2005, 13:11

But you missed my point, when high level groups back certain things they are putting alot of weight behind it- in this case I think the NDC has just thrown alot of its respect out of the window. If it cannot be unbaised and the voice of rationality and reason what faith are we to place in it?

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Ben. I feel that it was right and proper for NDC to make an indicative statement, that's what they are there for, to advise the club on diving matters. Wouldn't you be asking for a statement from the NDC if the motion was to reduce the age limit to zero? This is exactly the type of thing that the NDC should be commenting on IMHO.

Regards

Keith L

Gary Cameron

14-03-2005, 13:33

:==NO=! The statement from the NDC does NOT say that in any shape or form Ben. The key phrase within the NDC statement is ?will act under Council direction?. That is exactly what the NDC should be doing, it is their job to advise Council. It is Council who actually have the final word, not the NDC.

Just one thing - if Council rely on the NDC for this kind of recommendation, then under what circumstances would Council ignore the NDC's recommendations and decide that "we know best"? Surely that defeats the point in asking them in the first place? If the NDC say yes and then Council say no, isn't that just personal opinions of Council getting in the way of reasoned research and evidence? And if the NDC say no and Council say yes, then again its just likely to be personal desired ignoring dangers highlighted through the NDCs consultations.
Obviously the process is there as part of the constitution or whatever, but seems more of a formality than anything else - kind of like the Queen signing all the stuff she gets sent from Parliament.

David
The NDC is the technical expert body, they are the ones that should be approving or dis-approving. Based on current science and industry best practise.
Council is the political approval body and as such makes their judgement based on what their technical body says but also the wider political context. (including member attitude)

I can't see what the problem is myself, CMAS have alot of documenation on their website that suggests they have been looking at this issue for sometime.

Regards

Gary

Philip Smith

14-03-2005, 13:38

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Ben. I feel that it was right and proper for NDC to make an indicative statement, that's what they are there for, to advise the club on diving matters.

It is good that a clear statement has been made, but contrary to Keith's vision of the process, it does not say that the NDC will investigate impartially whether reducing the age limit is appropriate on health, safety or other grounds, or not. It says that the NDC will help to introduce a SCUBA diving scheme for under-14s (if so directed by Council), albeit with wide consultation. The statement therefore indicates that the NDC has already accepted the principle of under-14s SCUBA diving within BSAC.

Philip Smith

Ben Field

14-03-2005, 15:08

Now why didn't I say something as simply as that.... Thanks Philip :-)

It is good that a clear statement has been made, but contrary to Keith's vision of the process, it does not say that the NDC will investigate impartially whether reducing the age limit is appropriate on health, safety or other grounds, or not. It says that the NDC will help to introduce a SCUBA diving scheme for under-14s (if so directed by Council), albeit with wide consultation. The statement therefore indicates that the NDC has already accepted the principle of under-14s SCUBA diving within BSAC.

TerryH

14-03-2005, 15:30

I'm really not sure this is ethical.

While many of us would applaud a statement from the NDC that
if passed, they will formulate a structured plan etc.
That's entirely different to coming out in support of the
motion.

Is the NDC there to implement members/council policy or to
dictate it?

Next point is why NDC steering committee?
Why not the NDC itself?

Consipiratory theorists may want to take a gander at the list
of members and come up with another reason why it wasnt an
NDC statement.

Another reason why IMO this wasnt ethical.

NB: This is not a suggestion that anything untoward was done
but given the circumstances, it can be perceived (by third
parties) that there is a possibilty that it might have.

TerryH

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

14-03-2005, 16:59

I'm really not sure this is ethical.

Well? the NDO is a Jock, it?s me that?s from Ethics :-)

Consipiratory theorists may want to take a gander at the list of members and come up with another reason why it wasnt an NDC statement.

Oh I /love/ this club, first of all I?m accused of gaining some kind of covert financial advantage from posting to the forum and now we have a conspiracy theory. I can?t wait to see the reaction when Elvis stands for Chair next time around!

OK, sorry Terry, I know I?m being flippant ? but I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding why this completely OTT reaction to an NDC statement. The first question I have to ask is what your reaction would have been if the statement had been the other way. The single entity of ?The NDC? does not actually exist as far as I?m aware. Clare has restructured NDC into a series of specialist teams, the NDC Steering group is as close as you can get to ?The NDC? as that steering group is Clare herself and all of the team leaders.

It should hardly be earth shattering news that the NDC are in support of the motion, they have been for years, as has Council, as has the membership. What the statement can be seen as is the NDC telling the members (and Council for that matter) that although they may agree with the principle, there is one hell of a lot of work to be done first. So you?re NOT going to get that simple ?yeah, OK? that many feared would happen if this motion is passed.

Give us a break here folks, you complain when people don?t say anything, you complain when they do.

Keith L

TerryH

14-03-2005, 17:48

:=I'm really not sure this is ethical.

Well? the NDO is a Jock, it?s me that?s from Ethics :-)

:=Consipiratory theorists may want to take a gander at the list of members and come up with another reason why it wasnt an NDC statement.

Oh I /love/ this club, first of all I?m accused of gaining some kind of covert financial advantage from posting to the forum and now we have a conspiracy theory. I can?t wait to see the reaction when Elvis stands for Chair next time around!

OK, sorry Terry, I know I?m being flippant ? but I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding why this completely OTT reaction to an NDC statement. The first question I have to ask is what your reaction would have been if the statement had been the other way. The single entity of ?The NDC? does not actually exist as far as I?m aware. Clare has restructured NDC into a series of specialist teams, the NDC Steering group is as close as you can get to ?The NDC? as that steering group is Clare herself and all of the team leaders.

It should hardly be earth shattering news that the NDC are in support of the motion, they have been for years, as has Council, as has the membership. What the statement can be seen as is the NDC telling the members (and Council for that matter) that although they may agree with the principle, there is one hell of a lot of work to be done first. So you?re NOT going to get that simple ?yeah, OK? that many feared would happen if this motion is passed.

Give us a break here folks, you complain when people don?t say anything, you complain when they do.

Keith L

Sorry Keith. So way past the point ........

Many of us have concerns, so the ethically sound approach
would be to state what they did in the second paragraph.

"If the membership votes at the coming AGM to support this motion the National Diving Committee will act under Council direction, and with wide consultation, to facilitate the introduction of workable policies for the BSAC Branches that choose to enable Junior Diving Members of 12-14 yrs to enjoy scuba diving safely"

That is a mission statement. It says (without predjudice)
what there position is. Nobody (including those opposed)
could object to that statement.

However the initial sentence ......

"The National Diving Committee Steering group supports the motion from Tameside Snorkel & Octopush that Council should use its powers to reduce the age for a Junior Diving Member to 12."

Is IMO blatant electioneering. What possible other motive can
there be in making that statment now, prior to the vote.

The only motive is to engage the membership via the cudos
attached to its name (the NDC) and to use it's clout to sway
voters. Electioneering and unethical. No question.

Bad in itself, but you still havnt clarified why the NDCSC &
not the NDC?
Rubbish theory, yep I'll agree with that, but why suddenly
has the NDC been dropped in favor of the NDCSC?
Is it that somebody thought we (the great unwashed) might think
the word nepotism?

If that's true havnt we got another PR blunder and possibly
2x unethical threads.

Tell me, is there any department, body, individual that
BSAC puts things to before making public statements?
If not they badly need it.

TerryH

Andy Wade

14-03-2005, 17:55

alison boler

14-03-2005, 18:17

This is just very unpleasant sour grapes.

OK, let's deal with who issued the statement. The NDC is a hierarchical body of specialist teams headed up by the NDC Steering Committee of which NDO is the Chair. That's a matter of public record. There's nothing in the least sinister in the NDC Steering Committee issuing the statement - for NDC Steering Committee, read, NDC.

The role of the NDC is to advise Council and the Membership on technical matters. That's their charter. All they have done here is to make a statement clarifying what their position on this motion is - de facto advising the membership that they support the principle of extending diving to 12 and 13 year olds. Keith is right. This is not a surprise. They have been in favour of it for years as has Council. The last time the motion was put to the vote, it was put with Council's support, urging the membership to vote Yes.

So many times in the past you have asked for NDC or the UKSDMC to make a plain statement of support or otherwise for this motion. Here it is straight from the technical advisory body to the BSAC. They support the motion and if the vote is positive then they will work under the direction of Council and with widespread consultation to implement the measure safely.

Sorry that their advice is not in line with your wishes and opinion, but that's no reason to now accuse the NDO of "conspiracy" and "nepotism". There is nothing in the least unethical about the NDC advising the membership as to their opinion on a technical issue, especially when it is up for vote. Why let people vote in an atmosphere of speculation and rumour?

And all this rubbish about poor Keith taking unfair advantage of his position as part of the I.T. team on Council and administrator of some of the forums is an absolutely ludicrous insult to someone who has worked many many hours behind the scenes for the Club. Far from gaining from his role, he has given up time when he could have been paid or - my god - gone diving, to crawl around the network at HQ etc. He is also one of the most scrupulously fair and honest people I have ever met. I didn't think too much could shock me anymore about the BSAC but some of the things that have been said in the past couple of days really have.
Both Clare and Keith are owed an apology.
Alison

Neil Carter

14-03-2005, 18:19

How about, at the Council Meeting on Saturday it was felt that a general statement onto our Forum showing that the NDC, or whatever is the 2005 version thereof, is not in principle against the 12yr Motion. Many of us have complained for long enough that "they" don't communicate with "us" often enough through our chosen medium of instant enlightenment, so for pity's sake, let's at least give the benfit of the doubt when they do. It is no secret that "they" have previously been in favour of the lowering of the age barrier for those clubs who would wish to take advantage of such a lowering, and I find it entirely appropriate that as our Club NDO, Clare would wish to once again place this on record before a vote actually takes place.

It may be that the wording of the first sentence could have been put together differently, but for a matter which I presume was discussed on Saturday, (as Jo average member, I have absolutely zero knowledge of whether this was so), publishing on the Forum the day after the event is most assuredly an improvement on the bad old days mushroom technique of information dissemination. Let's just accept it at face value chaps, oooppss, and chapesses, and stop looking for a hidden agenda behind every posting.

NC

Andy Wade

14-03-2005, 18:46

This is just very unpleasant sour grapes.

Indeed.
Well said Ali.
In my occasional contacts with Keith over the years, my lasting impression is one of amazement of the time and effort he puts in. The suggestion (accusation?) that he might have gained financially from it is laughable.
Anyone who has done any volunteer work for BSAC (and claimed their expenses) will know how ridiculous the idea is that anyone can actually make any money from it.

Neil Carter

14-03-2005, 18:46

Absolutely my feelings, as expressed two or three posts lower down, but put so much more clearly by Alison.

So many times in the past you have asked for NDC or the UKSDMC to make a plain statement of support or otherwise for this motion. Here it is straight from the technical advisory body to the BSAC. They support the motion and if the vote is positive then they will work under the direction of Council and with widespread consultation to implement the measure safely.

Again, absolutely my feelings. I haven't met Clare, but I have had two or three occasions to work with Keith, and I really cannot understand why it is such a neccesity of our modern society, that although the majority neither want nor have the ability to work on behalf of others, in whatever sphere of activity, it's quite OK to rubbish those who do. This Forum, and thereby BSAC itself, would be much the poorer were it not for the tireless work Keith puts in our behalf. I sometimes cringe at the personal attacks which reign down on his head, and wonder if the protagonists could take that much flak and keep on doing the job, somehow I doubt it.

And all this rubbish about poor Keith taking unfair advantage of his position as part of the I.T. team on Council and administrator of some of the forums is an absolutely ludicrous insult to someone who has worked many many hours behind the scenes for the Club. Far from gaining from his role, he has given up time when he could have been paid or - my god - gone diving, to crawl around the network at HQ etc. He is also one of the most scrupulously fair and honest people I have ever met. I didn't think too much could shock me anymore about the BSAC but some of the things that have been said in the past couple of days really have.

Both Clare and Keith are owed an apology.
Alison

I also have very mixed feelings about the situation of Louise standing for National Chairman. I don't know Louise so I can't comment on her motives, and as I don't know her motives I can't comment on whether there is a hidden agenda, although with simultaneous announcements other than by Louise herself, and a proliferation of newsgroups and websites, it does make one tend to wonder. And while in this free and democratic society of ours we still encourage people to shall we say, "put their money where their mouth is" if all of that is OK, I simply do not see why Keith has no right to his point of view, nor why he has to be so violently castigated when he expesses his point of view.

NC

matt

14-03-2005, 18:47

Terry

I really did not think I would be agreeing with anything Keith and Alison said when it came to this motion. Amazing how we can all get it wrong occassionaly ;-)

The only motive is to engage the membership via the cudos
attached to its name (the NDC) and to use it's clout to sway
voters.

As I saw it the motive was to make sure people knew what they would be voting for. If the membership vote yes, the BSAC will approve 12YOs diving. If you do not want that vote no. That seems clear and simple to me.

I accept that some people may vote on the back of the NDC without taking the time to investigate things themselves. Equally I acknowledge that some people will make a point of voting no because they now know exactly what will happen should the vote go through. Such is life in a democracy

You appear to want it all ways, which is not possible.

I do not support 12YOs diving in branches but I do support the NDOs statement of intent. It now comes down to the vote.

TerryH

14-03-2005, 19:07

This is just very unpleasant sour grapes.

I'll ignore that

OK, let's deal with who issued the statement. The NDC is a hierarchical body of specialist teams headed up by the NDC Steering Committee of which NDO is the Chair. That's a matter of public record. There's nothing in the least sinister in the NDC Steering Committee issuing the statement - for NDC Steering Committee, read, NDC.

So that would add to the "theorists" point then.

The role of the NDC is to advise Council and the Membership on technical matters. That's their charter. All they have done here is to make a statement clarifying what their position on this motion is - de facto advising the membership that they support the principle of extending diving to 12 and 13 year olds. Keith is right. This is not a surprise. They have been in favour of it for years as has Council. The last time the motion was put to the vote, it was put with Council's support, urging the membership to vote Yes.

So they can advise council and the membership that if passed
they will implement the proposal. That was the second
paragraph, totally acceptable and well within there remit.
However the first sentence coming out in support is blatant
electioneering, whose only motive must be to gain more votes.

So many times in the past you have asked for NDC or the UKSDMC to make a plain statement of support or otherwise for this motion. Here it is straight from the technical advisory body to the BSAC. They support the motion and if the vote is positive then they will work under the direction of Council and with widespread consultation to implement the measure safely.

As above.

Sorry that their advice is not in line with your wishes and opinion, but that's no reason to now accuse the NDO of "conspiracy" and "nepotism". There is nothing in the least unethical about the NDC advising the membership as to their opinion on a technical issue, especially when it is up for vote. Why let people vote in an atmosphere of speculation and rumour?

At no point in all this debate has BSAC or the NDO ever been
queried of it's abilty to be able to put in place
safeguards/procedures to ensure the safe teaching of 12-14
year olds. What has not been clarified by BSAC or the NDO
is how BSAC would police such procedures.
In that I will agree with you that people are voting in an
atmosphere of speculation an rumour.

And all this rubbish about poor Keith taking unfair advantage of his position as part of the I.T. team on Council and administrator of some of the forums is an absolutely ludicrous insult to someone who has worked many many hours behind the scenes for the Club. Far from gaining from his role, he has given up time when he could have been paid or - my god - gone diving, to crawl around the network at HQ etc. He is also one of the most scrupulously fair and honest people I have ever met. I didn't think too much could shock me anymore about the BSAC but some of the things that have been said in the past couple of days really have.
Both Clare and Keith are owed an apology.
Alison

As I believe does Louise.

TerryH

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

14-03-2005, 19:13

And all this rubbish about poor Keith taking unfair advantage of his position as part of the I.T. team on Council and administrator of some of the forums is an absolutely ludicrous insult...

OK, but let me state that it was =NOT= terry who said that, it was another member. I was just using it as an example of some of the stuff that floats around here at times. No, I am not upset about it, I found it funny actually, hopefully my reply to that post put things straight.

Keith L

TerryH

14-03-2005, 19:21

In my occasional contacts with Keith over the years, my lasting impression is one of amazement of the time and effort he puts in. The suggestion (accusation?) that he might have gained financially from it is laughable.
Anyone who has done any volunteer work for BSAC (and claimed their expenses) will know how ridiculous the idea is that anyone can actually make any money from it.

Absolutely.

There has been one single post suggesting that Keith in
some way used his position. With that one exception it was
dismissed as nonsense, so why the continuation?

Why attach this comment to all the no camp, simply because the
lone protanganist was a no-voter?

TerryH

TerryH

14-03-2005, 19:25

:=And all this rubbish about poor Keith taking unfair advantage of his position as part of the I.T. team on Council and administrator of some of the forums is an absolutely ludicrous insult...

OK, but let me state that it was =NOT= terry who said that, it was another member. I was just using it as an example of some of the stuff that floats around here at times. No, I am not upset about it, I found it funny actually, hopefully my reply to that post put things straight.

Keith L

Thanks Keith. One thing in all this debate that is not in
doubt is your hard work and committment to BSAC.
That's why dispite our differences I will still be voting
for you.

TerryH

Keith Lawrence(BSAC)

14-03-2005, 19:27

:=In my occasional contacts with Keith over the years, my lasting impression is one of amazement of the time and effort he puts in. The suggestion (accusation?) that he might have gained financially from it is laughable.
:=Anyone who has done any volunteer work for BSAC (and claimed their expenses) will know how ridiculous the idea is that anyone can actually make any money from it.

Absolutely.

There has been one single post suggesting that Keith in
some way used his position. With that one exception it was
dismissed as nonsense, so why the continuation?

Why attach this comment to all the no camp, simply because the
lone protanganist was a no-voter?

TerryH

I'm actually agreeing with Terry here!!!! Drop it folks, Terry does not owe me an apology on this (it wasn't him who said it) or on anything else he has said recently relating to this matter.

We agree to differ, simple as that, I thought that Terry was a little OTT with the conspiracy theory which is why my reply was a little tounge in cheek - I'm happy to leave it at that.

Let's just discuss the issues.

Cheers

Keith L

john williams

14-03-2005, 20:09

:=The National Diving Committee Steering group supports the motion from Tameside Snorkel & Octopush that Council should use its powers to reduce the age for a Junior Diving Member to 12. If the membership votes at the coming AGM to support this motion the National Diving Committee will act under Council direction, and with wide consultation, to facilitate the introduction of workable policies for the BSAC Branches tha
:=
:=Clare Peddie
:=BSAC National Diving Officer

:=On behalf of the National Diving Committee
I urge all the membership of the club to vote for this excellent proposal and help open up the benefits of being a member of BSAC to the widest possible audience. Speaking as an OWI I will be more than happy to teach 12 to 14 year olds. I do, however, think it would be a good idea if the full proposal as to how this age group is to be taught and advise for diving in branches should posted on the web site.

I too would urge people to vote for this excellent motion - one which will allow Council to consider the FACTS of the matter and to take an informed decision that will possibly allow branches, instructors and individuals the CHOICE of whether or not to dive with a 12 year old.

Even if the proposal is accepted AND Council decide to reduce the age limit to 12 - all divers will still retain a personal veto and the right to say "No" - as they do now for every dive they are asked to undertake.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the NDC Steering Group for their committment to put in the time and effort required to make the decision taken by Council into one based solely on the pros and cons of the issue and not one clouded by how much work it might involve to acheive.

Thank you!

My wife and I (both BSAC ITS Staff Instructors and Area Coaches) will be voting FOR the motion and hoping that Council subsequently decide to reduce the national age limit to 12.

John
(Parent of 8yr old and 2yr old - who I WILL be giving the option to learn to dive when they reach 12...and I hope it will be a BSAC option)

Andy Wade

14-03-2005, 22:50

:=In my occasional contacts with Keith over the years, my lasting impression is one of amazement of the time and effort he puts in. The suggestion (accusation?) that he might have gained financially from it is laughable.
:=Anyone who has done any volunteer work for BSAC (and claimed their expenses) will know how ridiculous the idea is that anyone can actually make any money from it.

Absolutely.

There has been one single post suggesting that Keith in
some way used his position. With that one exception it was
dismissed as nonsense, so why the continuation?

Why attach this comment to all the no camp, simply because the
lone protanganist was a no-voter?

I'm just getting a bit fed up with all the backbiting from certain people, and I'm not aiming that at you specifically Terry, it's not my style - I'm sorry if I've caused offence to you personally. You talk a lot of sense (not all of the time of course... ;-)
Some of the backbiting on the forums recently has just clouded the issues with a lot of rather pointless rudeness without any actual factual background IMO.
I was specifally agreeing with Ali about the accusation levelled at Keith (and the inference by someone else that the IT team haven't been pulling their weight). I found it all a bit upsetting to be honest, and I lacked the eloquence to say so at the time. Something I regret.

My 'jury' is still out, I may yet vote no to the motion.
I can't say why for sure, something doesn't quite gel and I'm not sure what it is.
I may have to drag my A*** off the fence soon.
;-)

.