Zac – ‘lied’ isn’t an emotional word it’s quite clear that it is the contrary to stating the truth.
I read para 8 of the Game Plan article you linked to. All 3 parties who have held Government posts in the relevant era have been instrumental in this sticking plaster theory that sport can address inequalities in a financial and fiscal system that, as is becoming ever more obvious, enlarges these inequalities. GB is actually quite a world leader on enlarging inequality. There’s only so much that free zumba or cheerleading can do if you are on £6.65 an hour.
Slagged off yet again without even having posted on the thread. But of course it’s me who starts this stuff isn’t it…. Always the same, been like it for years. I don’t start a damned thing but get this crap all the time from these muppets.
Maybe you should consider Zacs scenario at a club level. For EA substitute a club of your choosing and see if the logic of entering competitions and lying about membership and treating club fees as a ‘tax’ that you didn’t vote for is still acceptable.
That of course doesn’t include the element where the athlete wasn’t included in the decision making.
Why does John Bicourt think it necessary to try to (a) post guesses as to who everyone is, (b) demean those who he is guessing people are.
Simple, he is a bully who has denuded any credibility he once had in any discussion, by his complete in ability to engage with the actual points and habitual abuse of those who have previously demonstrated this.
Killed the forum, attempts to kill debate around any topic where anyone has a contrary opinion to his own, not any well evidenced points but by personal attack.
As to the poster he refers to, I remember the avatar and could probably supply the name, but since he hasn’t posted it I won’t, I don’t do trying to post up people’s identity if they choose not to.
I didn’t really put much effort into hiding my identity. I thought it wouldn’t be too difficult, but the temptation to tag me as someone else was too great I think. Not sure if that still makes me a twat though. Am I a twat for being someone I’m not or a twat for pointing out the dishonesty of zac. Maybe someone should clarify. I want to be sure I’m a twat for the right reasons. Thanks.
Another thing on this thread, that I was surprised did not get more attention was the claim by a major club, that despite only registering a small proportion of their athletes with EA to take part in competition that they felt ENTITLED to the number of London Marathon places that their true (as opposed to declared) membership would get.
An interesting point of view Dee Nile…and good to get back on the thread subject. But lets remember that athletes who are paid members of a club can choose if they wish to also pay an additional £12 to EA via their club. Its an optional fee, Its freedom of choice. Many club athletes may not wish to compete at a high level that needs an EA competition licence. Many leagues do not include it in their constitution….including ,oddly , the declining UKYDL.
And since when was the London Marathon organisation beholden to England Athletics ?
No axe to grind for myself as I always got a championship slot and if I could be bothered to run a marathon again, I am pretty sure that I would run quickly enough to get in by right anyway.
I can see the point that the LM (or at least the mass participation component) is not beholden as you put it, to EA but I think the point is that someone who has chosen not to pay the levy has consciously determined that they do not want to take part in any regulated competition. They have in almost all cases of club membership forms made an affirmation that they will not be competing.
Therefore when legitimate club runners who have declared themselves as taking part in competition (and therefore paid the levy) but are not sufficiently good to get a Championship or GFA place in the country’s most high profile race, why should they be treated on the same basis as someone who has declared themselves as not interested in running in competition?
…And yes, I am fully aware that the mass participation part of LM is effectively outside the rules of competition, it’s the original expectation of entitlement that grated
yes…I appreciate its easy to get wound up.(grated) ..certainly on this forum, haha,. I don’t know about you , but I like to read opposite views to me , when well expressed . Interesting that you call it a ‘levy’. Some call it a ‘tax’….some like it and accept it ,some don’t. Its optional.
If I am reading your post correctly I don’t with your inference that ” athletes who have declared themselves as taking part in competition (and therefore paid the levy) etc etc ”
My counter point of view is that there are actually so very few competitions and leagues that insist an athlete must have an ENGLAND ATHLETIC competition number. Club Athletes who have paid their club fees HAVE declared their intention to compete for themselves and hopefully for their club, along with their team mates. Nothing to do with payment to EA or not.