On 21 June, 19:30, "MatSav" <matthew | dot | savage | at | dsl | dot |
pipex | dot | com> wrote:
>
> >> In the light of the recent incident involving a Beaver Scout,
> >> I
> >> don't think your smiley is appropriate.
>
> > If I have caused any offence then I sincerely apologiese.
>
> I'm not offended - I'm just making an observation. Others may be
> offended.

Not offended but inappropriate? In what way?
>
> > I unreservedly withdraw all and any of my comments.
>
> WHAT??? *ALL* of them???

Yes all of them!

Isn't that what ALL means?

>
> > I apologise most sincerely to those in this thread whose safety
> > procedures I have questioned.
>
> It's good to have someone independent review other Group's
> procedures. I don't document many Risk Assessments, but when I
> do, they are reviewed by others, and suggestions for changes are
> made. (Actually, that's not entirely true. I do write risk
> assessments in my professional employment).

I wasn't reviewing, I was questioning.

>
> > I unreservedly withdraw all of my questioning posts.
>
> > I will strongly enforce that anyone reading my posts on this
> > subject
> > should ignore them with the utmost disdain.
>
> A bit like barristers, who stand up and say "Objection!" - and
> the judge says "Sustained." But anything so heard in court will
> surely influence the Jury - whether they realise it or not.

No. I said ignore them. That's what I mean.

Hence where I questioned say the use of a whistle in some contexts,
I'm now asking people to ignore any comments that I made, i.e. I do
not question the use of a whistle in any circumstance.

>
> > If my apologies are not considered strong enough then I urge
> > people to
> > take strong action against me.
>
> But 'people' don't generally know who you are!

If people want to know who I am then just ask.

>
> > It was the most insensitive and quite ridiculous comment made
> > by me
> > and I am thoroughly ashamed of myself.
>
> Your values are indeed those that we need within Scouting.

No. We cannot allow people to just make silly inappropriate comments
as you suggested.

>
> >> That's being 'Cavalier' -
> >> "We're already killing too many young people" (Copyright,
> >> November 2000 - Steve Peck, Director of Programmes and
> >> Activities, The Scout Association).
>
> > I would agree that my comment is at least equal, maybe even
> > more
> > insensitive than this one.
>
> Touché, monsieur. But all I've done is repeated someone else's
> words from the past, which seemed particularly relevant.

Relevant to my inappropriate use of a smiley and a riverbank comment.

>
>
>
> >> Although it doesn't matter now, because GAGS can say whatever
> >> he
> >> wants, without fear of being removed from the membership.
>
> > If it is a question of membership ...
>
> It is. I want to see you stay, not leave. But we needn't rehearse
> your decision again.
> Those who question the reasons behind actions are most definitely
> needed in Scouting.

There is appropriate questioning and then there is inappropriate
questioning.

As you said my comments were inappropriate. I have accepted that and
have unreservedly apologised.

>
> > ...and you feel that someone like me is
> > unworthy of it then I would urge you to contact the SA and
> > suggest
> > that I be barred from membership if I should choose to return
> > in the
> > future.
>
> Not at all.

But my comment was at least inappropriate and possibly offensive,
wasn't it?

> You've misinterpreted my original comment. I was
> intending to pass an obtuse comment on Steve Peck's words, but I
> seem to have upset you. My turn to apologise.

You haven't upset anybody. I made an inappropriate comment as you
pointed out. When that was pointed out to me, I apologised and
withdrew that comment and any others leading up to it. In the
circumstances, as you pointed out, it could have been very
inflammatory and offensive. I wish I had seen that before I made the
comment. I didn't. Penance time.

And shall I make it clear - just so we're all clear - the comment was:
'Many country parks, riverside and woodland walks, and shopping
centres are more dangerous on occasions than a MHM environment.'

Obviously quite a daft comment to make - I mean look at all the safety
and RAs, etc, one goes through on a MHM activity (hillwalk). Everyone
knows that MHM activities are much more dangerous than the other
activities, don't they? Surely the accident evidence points to that?

Er......hold on GAGS!

Actually walking down the street can be quite dangerous!

But hold on a tick. You don't (commonly) take a whistle to an activity
in the local shopping centre but you do going up a mountain? Yet there
are more accidents - simply because there are more people involved -
in your local streets, country parks, shopping centres, etc, than up a
mountain.

Now isn't that a bit quirky? Maybe if I'd have made such a comment I
might have found it a bit quirky and added a smiley to show that?

I didn't. I withdrew ALL my comments.

GAGS