TT 2022 ??

[paswt]

12 minutes ago, Declan said:

Is that the case? Was the post Nick Crowe posted the only one? That seemed to be mild and about the restructure but the CoC seemed to refer to him opposing safety measures. 

I have it on fairly good authority it was the only one and what the CoC referred to  when advising "Ann" that he had dispensed with the CSM's services . 

As I understand it the allegation in relation to safety measures , which was not specified , came later , perhaps the CoC should be more specific .......... "let the dog see the rabbit"😉

 

 

[quilp]

Storm in a tt cup. 

[joebean]

3 hours ago, paswt said:

Would I be right in  "assuming" you don't marshal?

To say that the CSM has his own 'agenda' is a bit strong he had an 'opinion' on this years MGP, That was all. It seems it is now obligatory  to adopt/laud  the opinions of  the CoC/ACU

I would like to see the evidence that   summarily sacking  a respected Mountain CSM will be helpful in the retention and  recruitment of  marshals on the mountain , I'll grant you it's , at best, an opinion ,  just not one I share.

I would venture to suggest that Mr Taubman was the most 'marshal aware' CoC . 

To claim that It's being 'stirred up by those who don't have much interest'  in TT/MGP is demonstrably  false .

Hope this helps 

 

I don’t marshal any longer, no. I used to, but stopped a while ago. Nothing to do with Gary Thompson, who many would regard as the best CoC for many years. I’m just not interested enough to devote hours to it. Having heard a bit about it, the CoC has taken a lot of flak over the Steve Mercer incident by people assuming he was at fault. He has done this to avoid criticism of the people actually to blame… a lack of loyalty being returned may be evident. 

[Gizo]

20 minutes ago, joebean said:

I don’t marshal any longer, no. I used to, but stopped a while ago. Nothing to do with Gary Thompson, who many would regard as the best CoC for many years. I’m just not interested enough to devote hours to it. Having heard a bit about it, the CoC has taken a lot of flak over the Steve Mercer incident by people assuming he was at fault. He has done this to avoid criticism of the people actually to blame… a lack of loyalty being returned may be evident. 

Seriously? 
He was coc who sent riders the wrong way round the TT course, there is no exception. And allowing boy racers to drive rediculous speed on closed roads to an incident that was already being dealt with. That is ALL on his shoulders. How he is still in charge is beyond me.  Must have some negatives of somebody.

[paswt]

32 minutes ago, joebean said:

 Having heard a bit about it, the CoC has taken a lot of flak over the Steve Mercer incident by people assuming he was at fault. He has done this to avoid criticism of the people actually to blame… a lack of loyalty being returned may be evident. 

 

7 minutes ago, Gizo said:

Seriously? 
He was coc who sent riders the wrong way round the TT course, there is no exception. And allowing boy racers to drive rediculous speed on closed roads to an incident that was already being dealt with. That is ALL on his shoulders. How he is still in charge is beyond me.  Must have some negatives of somebody.

We will not  know exactly what occurred and who said what to whom until the full report is published . 

Neither of the  above posts  have considered if the riders , at their briefing ,were instructed ,that after a red flag, they would be escorted off the course under waved yellow flags . Riders have previously exited the course anti clockwise (and clockwise)  behind a Travelling Marshal  on waved yellows without incident .

 

I have to said previously that I was unable to understand why it was necessary for a course car with two police on board to an incident which I understood had been dealt with ( it may be explained in the 'report').

 Were red flags still being displayed (if so  riders should stop) ?

I know one of the marshals at Sulby Bridge and at other posts who have offered facts and opinions but feel it would not be helpful to offer an opinion as I do not have the full facts. 

[Derek Flint]

20 minutes ago, paswt said:

 

We will not  know exactly what occurred and who said what to whom until the full report is published . 

Neither of the  above posts  have considered if the riders , at their briefing ,were instructed ,that after a red flag, they would be escorted off the course under waved yellow flags . Riders have previously exited the course anti clockwise (and clockwise)  behind a Travelling Marshal  on waved yellows without incident .

 

I have to said previously that I was unable to understand why it was necessary for a course car with two police on board to an incident which I understood had been dealt with ( it may be explained in the 'report').

 Were red flags still being displayed (if so  riders should stop) ?

I know one of the marshals at Sulby Bridge and at other posts who have offered facts and opinions but feel it would not be helpful to offer an opinion as I do not have the full facts. 

The reason the police have to go is because somebody was dead. They act as the Coroner’s Officer to gather information as to how the individual lost their life. The use of a core team to do this enabled efficiency so that the rest of the force could actually get on with policing. 

Getting there promptly is important to secure and preserve evidence, as marshals have a bit of a tendency to start clearing up, and key witnesses tend to wander off. 

The fact is that the system that should have safely got them there failed. I know that the official driving the car isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but that day he was as much a victim as anyone involved

[Max Power]

1 hour ago, Gizo said:

Seriously? 
He was coc who sent riders the wrong way round the TT course, there is no exception. And allowing boy racers to drive rediculous speed on closed roads to an incident that was already being dealt with. That is ALL on his shoulders. How he is still in charge is beyond me.  Must have some negatives of somebody.

Gizo, you don't know this, nor do you understand the reasons for the car, or the speed it was travelling or anything else involved. and are speculating. You're entitled to your opinion but it has no weight whatsoever.

26 minutes ago, paswt said:

 

We will not  know exactly what occurred and who said what to whom until the full report is published . 

Neither of the  above posts  have considered if the riders , at their briefing ,were instructed ,that after a red flag, they would be escorted off the course under waved yellow flags . Riders have previously exited the course anti clockwise (and clockwise)  behind a Travelling Marshal  on waved yellows without incident .

 

I have to said previously that I was unable to understand why it was necessary for a course car with two police on board to an incident which I understood had been dealt with ( it may be explained in the 'report').

 Were red flags still being displayed (if so  riders should stop) ?

I know one of the marshals at Sulby Bridge and at other posts who have offered facts and opinions but feel it would not be helpful to offer an opinion as I do not have the full facts. 

Have you ever considered that if the actual facts were made public, they wouldn't be at all helpful and that no useful purpose would be served in having them in the public domain? Actions were taken to prevent a repeat of the incident.

We all know the basics of what happened, would it be any use to anyone outside of those involved to know exactly who did what? I think people are making the wrong assumptions but I guess it's understandable to want to pillory someone and the CoC is the obvious target, along with the driver, who was hit by the motorcycle. 

[joebean]

2 hours ago, Gizo said:

Seriously? 
He was coc who sent riders the wrong way round the TT course, there is no exception. And allowing boy racers to drive rediculous speed on closed roads to an incident that was already being dealt with. That is ALL on his shoulders. How he is still in charge is beyond me.  Must have some negatives of somebody.

You obviously know nothing about it, do you?

[Boris Johnson]

1 hour ago, Max Power said:

Have you ever considered that if the actual facts were made public, they wouldn't be at all helpful and that no useful purpose would be served in having them in the public domain? Actions were taken to prevent a repeat of the incident.

That is a pretty bold statement Max

Care to explain?

If it was just someone making a mistake, and FFS we all make them, then I don't see an issue.

Not releasing the truth just fuels conspiracy theories and cover up stories.

I have found in life if you tell the truth, as a default setting, you get far better outcomes in the longer term and more, far more respect.

[joebean]

8 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said:

That is a pretty bold statement Max

Care to explain?

If it was just someone making a mistake, and FFS we all make them, then I don't see an issue.

Not releasing the truth just fuels conspiracy theories and cover up stories.

I have found in life if you tell the truth, as a default setting, you get far better outcomes in the longer term and more, far more respect.

I agree with that. 

[Non-Believer]

12 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said:

I have found in life if you tell the truth, as a default setting, you get far better outcomes in the longer term and more, far more respect.

Any chance of drilling that into IoMG and its civil service...?

[Max Power]

12 minutes ago, Boris Johnson said:

That is a pretty bold statement Max

Care to explain?

If it was just someone making a mistake, and FFS we all make them, then I don't see an issue.

Not releasing the truth just fuels conspiracy theories and cover up stories.

I have found in life if you tell the truth, as a default setting, you get far better outcomes in the longer term and more, far more respect.

I don't know all the details but hypothetically, if you were a marshal, or in a group of marshals, and you accidentally released riders resulting in the accident, I'm not sure that you would want to be named publicly? I believe that the organisation has behaved correctly in protecting the anonymity of those who were in error, whoever or wherever they were. The CoC has the overall responsibility but that doesn't mean it was he who made the error, and in fact it is highly unlikely that it was!

[paswt]

2 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

The reason the police have to go is because somebody was dead. They act as the Coroner’s Officer to gather information as to how the individual lost their life. The use of a core team to do this enabled efficiency so that the rest of the force could actually get on with policing. 

Getting there promptly is important to secure and preserve evidence, as marshals have a bit of a tendency to start clearing up, and key witnesses tend to wander off. 

The fact is that the system that should have safely got them there failed. I know that the official driving the car isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but that day he was as much a victim as anyone involved

Not strictly true Derek, if there was only one rider involved then I'm  told there  is no need for an immediate visit by the police.

If two or more riders were involved then I'm told a possible manslaughter charge could follow which would necessitate a police investigation.

There have been 2 fatals (where no other rider was involved) at my marshalling point , a visit was made by a police officer the following day and after confirmation that no other rider was involved  drove off .

Just saying

I made no comment on the official driving the car.

[Boris Johnson]

2 minutes ago, paswt said:

Not strictly true Derek, if there was only one rider involved then I'm  told there  is no need for an immediate visit by the police.

If two or more riders were involved then I'm told a possible manslaughter charge could follow which would necessitate a police investigation.

There have been 2 fatals (where no other rider was involved) at my marshalling point , a visit was made by a police officer the following day and after confirmation that no other rider was involved  drove off .

Just saying

I made no comment on the official driving the car.

I would guess that Derek is correct.

For example,

Say a TT rider is shagging your wife and you find out.

You decide to shoot him with a sniper rifle while he is riding the TT as cover for your murder.

That is the kind of shit I think the Police have to take into account?

[paswt]

2 hours ago, Max Power said:

Gizo, you don't know this, nor do you understand the reasons for the car, or the speed it was travelling or anything else involved. and are speculating. You're entitled to your opinion but it has no weight whatsoever.

Have you ever considered that if the actual facts were made public, they wouldn't be at all helpful and that no useful purpose would be served in having them in the public domain? Actions were taken to prevent a repeat of the incident.

We all know the basics of what happened, would it be any use to anyone outside of those involved to know exactly who did what? I think people are making the wrong assumptions but I guess it's understandable to want to pillory someone and the CoC is the obvious target, along with the driver, who was hit by the motorcycle. 

I have not tried to pillory anyone , as an ex H&S enforcing inspector I take the view that accidents are not attributed to just one failure but a series and perhaps it would be useful for all members of the team to have  all the facts and the 'teams' answer to prevent a reoccurrence .

I marshal and I'm aware that I may not be considered to be part of that team so I'll never know what happened .