Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [War Of 1812] who bells the cat?

Expand Messages
  • Rick Peterson
    Well put Mark. That is the position that we have taken at Stoney Creek as well. It seems that if we are to aproach an individual or unit based on unsafe
    Message 1 of 8 , Oct 30, 2007
      Well put Mark.
      That is the position that we have taken at Stoney Creek as well. It
      seems that if we are to aproach an individual or unit based on unsafe
      actions, we best have it documented. If it happens repeatedly, we
      then have a compelling case for remedial action. If not, acting on
      heresay and 2nd hand verbage just doesn't cut it. Furthermore, if we
      had chosen not to do anything about it, we could then be proven as
      negligent. Not a bad check in balance, but our first step is to have
      the help of the reenactors themselves.

      Rick Peterson

      --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Dickerson" <mdickerson1@...>
      > Speaking as somebody who has helped organize two different re-
      > (Longwoods and the Thames) for the past several years, I have had
      to deal
      > directly with these issues. Each incident was dealt with as the
      host site
      > organizer and not as a member of the re-enactment circles, which
      can be hard
      > to do sometimes.
      > In the past, I had people complain that a unit/person/
      > was unsafe and needed to be corrected. In certain situations I had
      to take
      > 'word of mouth' to rectify an immediate problem. But over the past
      4 years
      > I have asked the offended group/ person to give me a WRITTEN report
      of the
      > problem. That way, there is no miscommunication, or
      misinterpretation of
      > the events. It is on record for future reference and can be sent
      to other
      > sites, the Crown Forces groups, US groups. It can also be used to
      set down
      > safety regulations. The offending person/ group can then be
      consulted and
      > allowed to explain their side of the situation. To condemn somebody
      > otherwise infringes on their innocence.
      > I refuse to take "word of mouth" as evidence of wrong-doing, unless
      > situation requires an immediate response. As a re-enactment
      > I refuse to let oral complaints determine who is not allowed on the
      > battlefield. "no report= no foul"
      > Over those years, I have only ever received 1
      > report. I sent the information onto the appropriate parties and
      > when proposed safety regulations are put forth, the situation will
      > addressed.
      > I believe the SITE has first responsibility to
      enforce their
      > own rules. They are likely the first ones to be on the liability
      line. If
      > they won't enforce the rules or deal with it, then we must do it
      > and do it properly and openly, without any gossip and slander. So
      at this
      > point, if somebody comes up to me and says , "We aren't going on
      the field
      > because XXXXXX is here." Then my response is likely to be "Well
      have fun in
      > camp unless you have documentation to give me"
      > Any thoughts or comments?
      > Mark Dickerson
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.