david (david@cresseda.novar.co.uk)
Tue, 15 Aug 2000 21:50:22 +0100
Forwarded from Mike due to a bounce
> Hi there:
>
> Just a comment re. the insurance ref's in the original message. It would
be
> more important to establish from the onset just who was a member of XYZ
> group and when they were and were not acting under the "control" of that
> group, rather than whether or not the group "existed" in a certain shape
or
> form. No insurer worth his salt would dare try to claim that the group he
> had taken premium payments from suddenly didn't exist when it came to a
> claim. As the insurance and premiums would normally be negotiated and
paid
> by one individual on behalf of a group, it would make sense to have it
> specified that that same indivdual was the final authority on who was and
> was not covered by the policy in the event of a claim. A potential
problem,
> for example,
> would arise if a faction of the group proper went off to do its own thing
> without some sort of
> formal arrangement with the "mother group". All this relates really to
> public liability cover,
> of course. Personal accident cover for re-enactors should not tie the
> individual to a specific
> group or event.
> I quite agree that the "job" of insurers is to try and avoid paying
claims.
> But only in the same way that all members of the public are cheats who lie
> and
> attempt to defraud insurance companies at every opportunity!
> I can only assume that the author has had bad experiences with certain
> insurers. I know I have, and a couple of other re-enactor and pyro' user
> friends of mine. That's why we started out own insurance agency. We have
> negotiated some basic (but cheap!) personal accident cover for
re-enactors,
> pyro' users, firework users, and others. Feel free to check us out at
> http://www.sinserve.com
> Cheers! Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: david <david@cresseda.novar.co.uk>
> To: histrenact@mailgate.novar.co.uk <histrenact@mailgate.novar.co.uk>
> Date: 15 August 2000 10:10
> Subject: Re: [Histrenact] - Advice needed - Constitutions and Single
> 'Rulers'
>
>
> >
> >Received from Davan and forwarded due to a bounce.
> >
> >> Hello everyone!
> >>
> >> A very interesting thread here which I am sure quite a few have
concerns
> >> about.
> >>
> >> As a near 'single ruler' of a group (Yes I have been referred to as a
> >tinpot
> >> Hitler once or twice) I hope I do the best I can (I do have a committee
> >> which can and does 'regulate' me, but we are small and sometime not
> >> everything can be put to them in the timescales forced on me).
> >>
> >> I would say that I am not about to offer a defence for the situation
> these
> >> people find themselves in. It is unacceptable to treat people like this
> >and
> >> the advice given is spot on. Perhaps encouraging them to visit more
shows
> >> based on the period they are interested in would give them a chance to
> >meet
> >> other groups.
> >>
> >> We have never thrown anyone out of our group, however, not everyone and
> >> every society will fit together. I always offer contacts for other
groups
> >if
> >> they wish to move on. I have refused membership before, but again
suggest
> >> groups that may be more suitable (usually someone looking for a more
> >> infantry based group, rather than our Artillery base).
> >>
> >> Moving away from this particular case and onto the subjects of
> >constitution
> >> and running groups (which I hope most of my members feel I do a
> reasonable
> >> job at and I am sure most groups do) ...
> >>
> >> We have a constitution as we are a charity. It is a government
approved
> >> constitution - we filled in the blanks - if anyone wants a copy visit
our
> >> page and click on legal notices. I personally believe that every group
> >> should have a constitution - ours is basic and adequate, we don't
> >> incorporate 'rules' into our constitution (makes a nasty mess when
trying
> >to
> >> change them). My fear for groups without a constitution is that
insurance
> >> companies may use this as an excuse to avoid any payouts (if you are
not
> >> 'constituted' you can't exist?) perhaps I am being extreme, but anyone
> who
> >> had dealt with a claim will know that they will do all they can to
avoid
> a
> >> payout or to minimise it - afterall, that's their job.
> >>
> >> I'm sure any list member who runs a group/unit/detachment etc will have
> >been
> >> forced to take a path which will have annoyed their members (or at
least
> >> some of them), afterall you can't please everyone all the time.
However,
> I
> >> encourage my members to come and take to me and try to resolve the
> problem
> >> or at least let me explain why I take certain actions.
> >>
> >> What annoys me most are the members who bottle it up or come up to you
> >after
> >> the event has finished when I can do nothing to correct the problem. I
> >know
> >> that may be their way, but it makes it harder to resolve. I'd rather
> >someone
> >> let off steam (away from the public obviously) and then allow me to
> >explain
> >> myself or resolve the issue, afterall, once there is an undercurrent it
> >> affects everyone.
> >>
> >> I'll get off my soapbox now.
> >>
> >> Davan Winch
> >> Chairman, WW2 Display Team
> >> Registered Educational Charity No 1065760
> >>
> >> Email davan@ww2.org.uk
> >> Web http://www.ww2.org.uk
> >>
> >> UK Re-enactment Webring
> >> http://www.ww2.org.uk/ring.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue 30 Jan 2001 - 02:31:35 GMT