parkrun thread
488 watchers
Feb 2021
11:27am, 28 Feb 2021
875 posts
|
BK brighter days ahead
I recall that the Covid secure measures required by HMG for on elite group running included all participants completing and providing a health questionnaire prior to participating and that the organising club should appoint a Covid Commissioner to oversee and ensure safe practices are maintained
|
|
Feb 2021
11:28am, 28 Feb 2021
876 posts
|
BK brighter days ahead
Non elite
|
Feb 2021
11:30am, 28 Feb 2021
936 posts
|
Non-runner
So much for “just turn up and run”🙁
|
Feb 2021
11:34am, 28 Feb 2021
101 posts
|
Steven G
Cerid That's the language HQ have been using. Maybe there is a bit of shorthand involved. The original statement about the England return last year included "Williams said that parkrun has now submitted these planning documents and risk assessments to the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)" and "Following detailed conversations with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), Sport England, and Public Health England, I am delighted to announce that we intend to reopen parkrun and junior parkrun events in England toward the end of October this year" I've just went back and listened to Nick Pearson's interview in the "Free, Weekly Timed" podcast and he referred to the back-and-forths between DCMS, Sport England and Public Health England, so I suppose 'approval' actually meant ticking boxes required by all those three bodies. How come you have been communicating directly with DCMS about parkrun? You've come across in your posts before as being disgruntled and angry with HQ. Are you unhappy with the attempts to bring parkrun back? |
Feb 2021
2:30pm, 28 Feb 2021
506 posts
|
cerid
I was more unhappy with the terrible attitude that they were displaying at the time, being rude to people on Twitter and dismissive of those with concerns. I also suspected that, having looked at their declared accounts, that the real motivation may have been driven by money. I am trying not to care at the moment but I am annoyed by their being generous with the truth. Anyway, I was interested in the detail of the “detailed conversations”, so I put in an FOI request to see them. Firstly the DMCS told me that they didn’t hold any records. I felt that was odd, given the statements you quote above, so I asked them to check again given that those statements had been made. They then came back and said that they held too many records, and that they therefore couldn’t give me any. So I asked them again, this time asking specifically for anything relating to the approval of the framework, whether that be minutes of meetings, emails, etc They replied and sent me the framework. I went back and said that wasn’t what I asked for, and could I have some copies of the minutes. They then came back and said that they didn’t have anything like that because they had not had any meetings about the framework as Sport England were not required to submit it to them and had done so “by mistake”. At that point it was January I think and I gave up asking because I didn’t really care anymore. |
|
Feb 2021
3:51pm, 28 Feb 2021
102 posts
|
Steven G
Ok thanks for the reply. I can't really comment on any rudeness/dismissiveness on Twitter as I didn't see any of that. With regards to your FOI to DCMS, it sounds a bit like someone has just fobbed you off. I'm re-watching the Q&A session with Nick P and Tom W hosted by Danny Norman back in September, and around the 20 minute mark Nick P spends several minutes talking about the conversations that were had with Sport England, Public Health England and DCMS and the process they went through to get to the first milestone of being able to legally operate. I'm kind of inclined to believe the conversations happened. I'm not sure it's credible that HQ have been making stuff up. |
|
Feb 2021
4:15pm, 28 Feb 2021
507 posts
|
cerid
I was quite persistent, but I agree that something smells.
|
|
Feb 2021
4:16pm, 28 Feb 2021
508 posts
|
cerid
However, the DMCS did specifically say that they were not required to approve anything and that this is why they didn’t what I was asking for. So claims that they were heavily involved in talks do seem somewhat strange.
|
|
Feb 2021
4:55pm, 28 Feb 2021
937 posts
|
Non-runner
Conversations may have happened but if they were not formally minuted they wouldn’t be captured by an FOI. Although, if a decision has been made, there should be a clear official audit trail to show how this was arrived at (speaking as a former civil servant who occasionally had to answer these).
|
|
Feb 2021
6:42pm, 28 Feb 2021
877 posts
|
BK brighter days ahead
Subtle difference between having an 'off the record' chat or chats along the lines of ' we are keen to go for a run in a park with a few friends again and if we did this do you think you would support us ? ' and having a firm decision-making discussion.
|
Related Threads
-
parkrun Café
Apr 2024
-
parkrun pacing events
Mar 2024
-
Yorkshire parkrun gatherings
Mar 2024
-
Let's talk about inaugural parkruns after they've happened.
Mar 2024
-
Where is there a parkrun with caravan site nearby?
Jan 2024
-
New parkruns
Jan 2024
-
Parkrun Café Scone Index
Jan 2024
-
Australian parkruns
Sep 2023
-
Leamington Parkrun
Apr 2023
-
Cambridge Parkrun
Apr 2023
