Re: walks, hikes
- From: Toni Neobard <tonineobard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 00:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
On 20 June, 22:53, GAGS <gags...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 20 June, 20:27, John Russell <jruss...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Good grief!
I think your problem is that you're hearing what you're expecting to hear,
not what I'm saying.
Large group => difficult to control = not safe.
Okay.
Small party => easy to control = safer.
Oh right.
So split large group into small parties.
I get it now!
But we still want to be able to come together as a group sometimes.
So you just come together? Ah right, it's: 'We'll meet at the large
field at 10.30'. Yes?
So the parties need to be able to communicate with each other.
When?
The whistle is not for control - you keep reading 'control' into this.
You're fixated on control.
Oh crikey! Okay I won't mention control! Promise!
Control of the small party is done by the leader of the party - by speaking
quietly to the lad walking next to him.
I never thought of that.
The whistle is for communication between parties. Communication, not
control. One of the parties needs to stop. Blow the whistle - the parties
ahead stop, look round and maybe come back.
Eh? Why?
Small, safer, parties, but coming together as a group when needed. Job
done.
But I thought they were meeting at the large field at 10.30?
There is control where control is needed - at the small party level - but no
need to impose a hierarchy above that.
Hold on a tick, I thought we weren't mentioning control. Oopps, this
is at the small party level.
I've got this now. At the large party level it's communication not
control. Yes?
One of the parties needs to stop. Blow the whistle - the parties
ahead stop, look round and maybe come back.
So if I blow the whistle I communicating to them to stop. But what
happens if they don't stop? They don't have to stop do they? I thought
they were independent, yes?
If I blow the whistle and they stop then I am effecting control over
them. But we're not talking about control, are we? We're just talking
about communicating, yes? So why does the one ahead or behind have to
listen and react? Whistle all you want mate!
You know what I'd do? Shove the whistle in my pocket and keep on
whistling (with my lips) as I walk with my easily controllable
party.....
:-)
GAGS
seen all the arguments here. More than ever, I think we're looking at
the right thing. Boss is at back watching what happens. Simple single
whistle means to adult at front "stop; look round and wait". It's
clear and allows control. If they get too far apart for talking comms,
it works. If something untoward happens it works.
Will also implement at patrol level- until now have told them to have
APL at back
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: walks, hikes
- From: GAGS
- Re: walks, hikes
- References:
- Re: walks, hikes
- From: GAGS
- Re: walks, hikes
- From: Toni Neobard
- Re: walks, hikes
- From: GAGS
- Re: walks, hikes
- From: John Russell
- Re: walks, hikes
- From: GAGS
- Re: walks, hikes
- From: John Russell
- Re: walks, hikes
- From: GAGS
- Re: walks, hikes
- From: John Russell
- Re: walks, hikes
- From: GAGS
- Re: walks, hikes
- Prev by Date: Re: Modern Kit
- Next by Date: Re: walks, hikes
- Previous by thread: Re: walks, hikes
- Next by thread: Re: walks, hikes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|