Athletics Weekly

Political section closed for no fair reason

This forum has been closed and continues at http://www.athleticsweekly.com/forums/forum/track/

Political section closed for no fair reason

Postby Word Warrior » Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:32 pm

Jon Said

James, everyone is clearly getting quite p'eed off with the way you seemingly hijack every thread with politically-driven messages. The creation of the political section was precisely for that reason - so that you can keep your political threads out of the way from the many people who do not wish to read them.


Jon the reasons you gave for closing the political section are not correct, it seems to me you closed it because of Mike Winch's last post, you seem to make your own rules up as and when it suits you.

So do the decent thing and open it again for those who wish to discus the politics of the sport, away from other subjects, as you quoted above!
Word Warrior
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:21 pm

Re: Political section closed for no fair reason

Postby Jon Mulkeen » Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:49 pm

Word Warrior wrote:it seems to me you closed it because of Mike Winch's last post, you seem to make your own rules up as and when it suits you.
Mike's post had nothing whatsoever to do with the politics section closing. Nothing at all. We had discussed the closure of the section a couple months ago and it was always in our plans to lock it some time after the results of the AAA vote. The fact that Mike's post was one of the last is purely coincidental. And the email instructing me to go ahead and lock the section was actually sent before Mike posted that message.
Jon Mulkeen
Site Admin
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:50 am

Postby Word Warrior » Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:53 pm

Quote:
James, everyone is clearly getting quite p'eed off with the way you seemingly hijack every thread with politically-driven messages. The creation of the political section was precisely for that reason - so that you can keep your political threads out of the way from the many people who do not wish to read them.


A convienant story, pity you did not mention that in your above quote! given the political section was working very well for the political posters, we are all very suprised you acted in this manner, rather heavy handed, and biased against those who have a political opinion to express, is it really because of your close ties with the establishement, and the embarresment it was causing them?
Last edited by Word Warrior on Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Word Warrior
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:21 pm

Postby Jon Mulkeen » Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:00 pm

Word Warrior wrote:And what about your own words then, given the political section was working very well for the politcal posters, you go back on your word.
If I had locked the politics section after claiming that it would always remain open, THEN I'd have been going back on my word. Seeing as I never said anything of the sort, then I don't see where the contradiction is.
Jon Mulkeen
Site Admin
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:50 am

Postby Stattler » Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:17 pm

Jon wrote:
Word Warrior wrote:And what about your own words then, given the political section was working very well for the politcal posters, you go back on your word.
If I had locked the politics section after claiming that it would always remain open, THEN I'd have been going back on my word. Seeing as I never said anything of the sort, then I don't see where the contradiction is.



?????????????where did Word Warrior say this in his post? why didnt you post the closure of this topic to let everyone and all know it was going to be done?? that seems the logical thing to do then there would be no cause to suspect it was down to Mike Winch posting, oops it was also anti Uka too :shock:
Stattler
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:03 pm

Postby sleady » Sun Apr 09, 2006 8:56 pm

Stattler wrote:
Jon wrote:
Word Warrior wrote:And what about your own words then, given the political section was working very well for the politcal posters, you go back on your word.
If I had locked the politics section after claiming that it would always remain open, THEN I'd have been going back on my word. Seeing as I never said anything of the sort, then I don't see where the contradiction is.



?????????????where did Word Warrior say this in his post? why didnt you post the closure of this topic to let everyone and all know it was going to be done?? that seems the logical thing to do then there would be no cause to suspect it was down to Mike Winch posting, oops it was also anti Uka too :shock:


They were concerned about Mike's post being anti-UKA, they could have removed it. They didn't.
sleady
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:59 pm

Postby bekeselassie » Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:58 am

Jon, I am so disapointed in you!

Don't you realize that these boards are not yours or AW's to control? They are not for selling magazines or in any way publicizing AW or track & field in general. These boards are for our use any way we want! :x

To lock the political section at your own discretion makes it look like politics in T&F don't play a MAJOR role in our daily living, our interaction with our families, and our influence on others around us.

Let's call it what it is, Jon. You owe it to all of us to keep that forum open, just like you owed it to all of us to have creatd it in the first place! Now dang it, do what the government obviously pays you to do. Bow down at our feet and wipe our snotty noses, wipe our tears away, and buy us that candy bar, or we won't stop throwing this tantrum! :x
bekeselassie
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Political section closed for no fair reason

Postby james montgomery » Sat May 06, 2006 8:53 am

Jon wrote:
Word Warrior wrote:it seems to me you closed it because of Mike Winch's last post, you seem to make your own rules up as and when it suits you.
Mike's post had nothing whatsoever to do with the politics section closing. Nothing at all. We had discussed the closure of the section a couple months ago and it was always in our plans to lock it some time after the results of the AAA vote. The fact that Mike's post was one of the last is purely coincidental. And the email instructing me to go ahead and lock the section was actually sent before Mike posted that message.


Then you should open it again because the politics of the sport is one of the few areas worth discussing and the only way to bring attention to the the problems and reasons why GB athletics is not succeeding as well as it can.



What is seriously relevant, for example, is the fact that whatever the misguided stalwart supporters of the establishment want to think, the sport at governance and administrative level (UKA) is mismanaged and has been for years. They are resourcefully inept, cash wasteful, totally unaccountable, uncommunative and woefully lacking in the expected level of professional expertise.

How do I justify that? Well, we have just 6 athletes in Britain in the world top 10 (after 9 years and £100 million spent.) Three are injured, two failed to medal even in the Commonwwealth and overall their prospects for the podium in Beijing look extremely doubtful and they can all forget London in 2012. And, the championships record for finalists, medals and even qualifiers over the same period must raise serious questions? But it doesn't! Because the sport is too passive and the goverment quangos too complict in the failures.

Pessimistic? no, realistic. We have no young newcomers impacting on the world stage who we could reasonable expect to podium in London in 2012 and (with great luck) only two possible medal chances for Osaka next year let alone Beijing the year after. Don't accept what I say just read what the T&F statisticians predict (but probably the gullable followers of UKA Ltd., won't believe them either!)

How can any objective view of UKA's delivery performance to date indicate they are going to deliver GB success in future global championships? Which is exactly what they were set up for and funded to do since 1997.

Dave Collins has not sacked anyone (athletes or coach) and neither has Moorcroft. Have we seen D. Collins's brave new plan for success? No, because its unlikely he has one even though he keeps telling us he has.

Why isn't there a detailed breakdown of every lottery funded athlete's provision? Not just for accountable information but also perhaps to inspire others to get on the (for some) gravy train.

England Athletics has no published detailed business plan. And no financial plan either. UKA claim 18000 coaches in the UK!! What?? The overwhelming majority of these are teachers who take a local authority sponsored level 1 or 2 purely for insurance purposes in schools. Ask UKA to provide a breakdown of coaching levels and clubs of the magnificent 18000? It's just something that looks great in glossy brochures and for Sport England.

UKA associates itself with off shore companies used for the purpose of secrecy and tax avoidance. Sportscentric the website providers for UKA is owned through a trail of companies associated with Alan Pascoe that end up in the British Virgin Islands and Trust funds in Guernsey where anonimity is paramount. They seemed to have great difficulty in presenting accounts and then reported first year losses of c£950.000 and 2nd year losses of c£450.000....for a UKA website?!!

Alan Pascoe (reportedly associated with 29 different companies) or any one his directors at Fastrack earn more than the combined salaries of the UKA directors together from that one company. (Fastrack diretors took c£366.000 each) Why does UKA engage a company to sell it's product that then makes far more money than UKA itself ? Is this good business sense? Fasttrack will reportedly also take £1m to put on a "schools Olympics" in Glasgow later this year! (how much does a League div 1 final cost?)

Mike Winch (the current and elected Vice President of UKA and seemingly well respected in the sport) has called for Dave Moorcroft to be sacked. How much more of an indictment do we need? But unfortuantely, it won't happen because failure and incompetence are clearly the measure of our national government and they're the ones keeping Moorcroft and company in place.

"if all else fails, immortality can always be achieved by a spectacular failure" -John Kenneth Galbraith
james montgomery
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:06 am
Location: Edinburgh

Postby sleady » Sat May 06, 2006 10:37 am

Why have you rehashed this dirge onto a second thread ?
sleady
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:59 pm

Postby james montgomery » Sat May 06, 2006 4:03 pm

xxxxxxx :D
Last edited by james montgomery on Sat May 06, 2006 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
james montgomery
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:06 am
Location: Edinburgh

Postby james montgomery » Sat May 06, 2006 4:18 pm

james montgomery wrote:
sleady wrote:Why have you rehashed this dirge onto a second thread ?



To get the political section open again (and annoy people like you who have nothing better to do than make snide comments)
james montgomery
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:06 am
Location: Edinburgh

Postby bekeselassie » Sat May 06, 2006 5:16 pm

james montgomery wrote:To get the political section open again (and annoy people like you who have nothing better to do than make snide comments)


So you think you're going to bully the political section back open? I'm just asking. Is that the plan?
bekeselassie
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: Atlanta

Postby james montgomery » Sat May 06, 2006 7:54 pm

bekeselassie wrote:
james montgomery wrote:To get the political section open again (and annoy people like you who have nothing better to do than make snide comments)


So you think you're going to bully the political section back open? I'm just asking. Is that the plan?



Hi Bekeselassie,

There's no question of me bullying anyone. If myself and others are going to make comment or induce discussion that is deemed political (in even it's widest sense) then to save upsetting the "non political" it would be better to open that section again.

I find it curious that any attempt by myself or others of a similar view, who question, criticise, oppose or propose on the way the sport is run whether it be administration, costs, development, performance, appointments, strategy or structure it is instantly stamped as purely political and cries of "keep politics out of it" and "let's just talk about athletics" or words to that effect. Now, that would be just great if we were vibrant and successful across all areas, but we're not so we need to argue about what is wrong and how we can improve it.

I have made, as have others, severe criticisms of the present structure, but I have also proposed what, in my view, is needed to improve things. I say what I believe, based on a fairly extensive experience in the sport. I know it upsets some people but then that is inevitable. What is going on upsets me.

The more we bring to notice, question, inform, discuss, argue, challenge, propose and investigate the more the likelihood that change for the better will eventually happen.
james montgomery
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2005 10:06 am
Location: Edinburgh

Postby Patrick » Sun Jun 11, 2006 11:49 am

I am new to the site but Jon is a legend stop giving him a hard time, you want to talk about admin using their powers incorrectly then you need to look at another popular forum, no names being mentioned :D
Patrick
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:36 pm

Postby Northern Soulster » Sun Jun 11, 2006 2:14 pm

Patrick wrote:I am new to the site but Jon is a legend stop giving him a hard time, you want to talk about admin using their powers incorrectly then you need to look at another popular forum, no names being mentioned :D


If you don't mention its name, how can we look at it?
Northern Soulster
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:54 pm

Postby daisy » Sun Jun 11, 2006 5:53 pm

Patrick wrote:I am new to the site but Jon is a legend stop giving him a hard time

Legend? Even if he was should legends be given a free ride? Having said that, I think he does a pretty good job here.

Northern Soulster wrote:If you don't mention its name, how can we look at it?

letsrun.com?
daisy
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:44 am
Location: Wisconsin

Postby Patrick » Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:02 pm

no, I am not talking about lets run
Patrick
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:36 pm

Postby daisy » Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:02 pm

Patrick wrote:no, I am not talking about lets run

The BBC one?
daisy
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 4:44 am
Location: Wisconsin

Postby Patrick » Sun Jun 11, 2006 6:05 pm

gbap :wink:, had to stop you guessing lol.
Patrick
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 11:36 pm


Return to Off track (Legacy Only)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 

Athletics Weekly Limited © 2010. Terms of use

Design by The Church of London