Time to break away from England Golf ?

[federalexpress]

Mmmmm.... I guess it could well vary country-wide but most folk I talk to would have golf as, still, a fairly elitist sport with tennis a little less so, I guess, as there are places to play without cost.
I certainly don't think that lobbying by EG would have made an iota of difference to joe-public's perception & could even of worsened it as they'd be seen to wishing to be treated as a special case. Can't help but think that your grudge is rather ill-founded.

I thought we followed the science during lockdown? Isn't that what they said and the public also wanted? So the science said, certainly after lockdown 1, walking outside whether swinging a golf club or not was next to no risk (and with the understanding clubhouses would have to be kept shut if other hospitality venues were). It isn't a case of it being a special case, just basic science. At the time, I was also a keen bridge and table tennis player but those sports are obviously different, as would any contact sport be.

I don't believe the public are mostly so thick or prejudiced that they would have wanted to exclude sports that are safe regardless who they perceive play them. Maybe they are but that is for the politicians to clearly state what the science says the safety situation is and enact policy on that basis alone, not on keeping shouty people quiet. In fact that is unfortunately where the parliamentary debate ended up, a load of sports quite obviously not as risk free as golf hijacking the session trying to special plead. Many activities, some more marginal than golf, became allowed after lockdown 1.

Effective lobbying might not have worked but it was never even tried. If you want to see effective lobbying in action, look at the cycling lobby. It certainly can work...

 

[2blue]

I thought we followed the science during lockdown? Isn't that what they said and the public also wanted? So the science said, certainly after lockdown 1, walking outside whether swinging a golf club or not was next to no risk (and with the understanding clubhouses would have to be kept shut if other hospitality venues were). It isn't a case of it being a special case, just basic science. At the time, I was also a keen bridge and table tennis player but those sports are obviously different, as would any contact sport be.

I don't believe the public are mostly so thick or prejudiced that they would have wanted to exclude sports that are safe regardless who they perceive play them. Maybe they are but that is for the politicians to clearly state what the science says the safety situation is and enact policy on that basis alone, not on keeping shouty people quiet. In fact that is unfortunately where the parliamentary debate ended up, a load of sports quite obviously not as risk free as golf hijacking the session trying to special plead. Many activities, some more marginal than golf, became allowed after lockdown 1.

Effective lobbying might not have worked but it was never even tried. If you want to see effective lobbying in action, look at the cycling lobby. It certainly can work...

That's not what I see!!

 

[rulie]

Hindsight is so wonderful! In hindsight, maybe there were errors made in being cautious and protecting the public, but it was an unprecedented situation and I'm confident the "authorities" were making the best decisions they could given the information that was available at that time.
Seems silly to be criticizing specific organizations now. What harm was really done?

 

[federalexpress]

That's not what I see!!

Well that is cynical but if you are right, and you might be, it is down to those making policy to 'follow the science' not an interpretation of it to appease vested interest groups.

And it is down to effective lobbying to make sure science based decisons are made.

 

[doublebogey7]

Well that is cynical but if you are right, and you might be, it is down to those making policy to 'follow the science' not an interpretation of it to appease vested interest groups.

And it is down to effective lobbying to make sure science based decisons are made.

What do the social sciences say about this do you think?

 

[federalexpress]

Hindsight is so wonderful! In hindsight, maybe there were errors made in being cautious and protecting the public, but it was an unprecedented situation and I'm confident the "authorities" were making the best decisions they could given the information that was available at that time.
Seems silly to be criticizing specific organizations now. What harm was really done?

At the beginning, you had a point, it was panic stations, but by the time I'm talking about, much later in 2020, much, much more was known. The science had changed but the policymaking did not. Being outdoors massively reduced infection risk, especially if your activity had distancing built into it. so they were not at all making 'the best decisions' but they might have been making 'easy decisions'.

Granted losing golf for several months did not cause massive harm, except, I would argue to the older who I very much doubt ever regained the fitness that golf helped them to (use it or lose it past a certain age) but obviously Covid itself caused harm we are still struggling to get to grips with today.

 

[federalexpress]

What do the social sciences say about this do you think?

What about? Lobbying? Evidence based decisions? People potentially being thick and prejudiced?

I don't know but I suspect probably nothing terribly useful, although they might have something to say, even if not that productive, on the decline in mental health post pandemic and of course economics will tell you a fair bit about the fiscal legacy.

What's done is done but hopefully for next time, we will have learned some hard lessons, one of which would be to be less hysterical in how we handle difficult events like this. I wish I had more hope about that, but there you go...

 

[Arthur Wedge]

At the beginning, you had a point, it was panic stations, but by the time I'm talking about, much later in 2020, much, much more was known. The science had changed but the policymaking did not. Being outdoors massively reduced infection risk, especially if your activity had distancing built into it. so they were not at all making 'the best decisions' but they might have been making 'easy decisions'.

Granted losing golf for several months did not cause massive harm, except, I would argue to the older who I very much doubt ever regained the fitness that golf helped them to (use it or lose it past a certain age) but obviously Covid itself caused harm we are still struggling to get to grips with today.

There was nothing stopping people from going for a walk to keep that fitness for the older people

Golf and golfers weren’t harmed by closing for a couple of weeks

 

[federalexpress]

It wasn't a couple of weeks, it was much longer. There were two extended lockdowns after the first one.

Yes people could go for a 4 hour walk but how many, without the incentive to play golf, would have done so, regularly?

In any case, my point here is that this was all just so unnecessary, because the science had changed by the second half of 2020, the risk of catching Covid from golf was as minimal, if not more so, than walking or cycling down often busy lanes and streets and EG could have stepped up to the plate and campaigned for the sport, like the cycling lobby did, maybe even to change some misperceptions by the London elite, but they didn't.

 

[rulie]

It wasn't a couple of weeks, it was much longer. There were two extended lockdowns after the first one.

Yes people could go for a 4 hour walk but how many, without the incentive to play golf, would have done so, regularly?

In any case, my point here is that this was all just so unnecessary, because the science had changed by the second half of 2020, the risk of catching Covid from golf was as minimal, if not more so, than walking or cycling down often busy lanes and streets and EG could have stepped up to the plate and campaigned for the sport, like the cycling lobby did, maybe even to change some misperceptions by the London elite, but they didn't.

Tell me, is that a red, white or rose whine? What's done is done.

 

[2blue]

Well that is cynical but if you are right, and you might be, it is down to those making policy to 'follow the science' not an interpretation of it to appease vested interest groups.

And it is down to effective lobbying to make sure science based decisons are made.

Explained here.....

 

[federalexpress]

Tell me, is that a red, white or rose whine? What's done is done.

You are more accepting of stupidity than I am which may or may not be a good thing but as I said in a subsequent post "What's done is done but hopefully for next time, we will have learned some hard lessons, one of which would be to be less hysterical in how we handle difficult events like this."

 

[federalexpress]

Explained here.....View attachment 56008

I can't easily read and understand your post but if you are saying the media had a big part to play in the hysteria and some of the nonsense we saw, then I would wholeheartedly agree. Although that doesn't excuse the politicians or indeed other entities that might have been able to offer more balance a rational thinking..

 

[doublebogey7]

What about? Lobbying? Evidence based decisions? People potentially being thick and prejudiced?

I don't know but I suspect probably nothing terribly useful, although they might have something to say, even if not that productive, on the decline in mental health post pandemic and of course economics will tell you a fair bit about the fiscal legacy.

What's done is done but hopefully for next time, we will have learned some hard lessons, one of which would be to be less hysterical in how we handle difficult events like this. I wish I had more hope about that, but there you go...

The powers that be were without doubt consulting social scientists and were right in doing so. Withiut publc buy in then then whatever physical science said any action by government would not be effective. The physical scientists new this and was why they were reluctant to recommend lock down earlier than they did for the first lockdown.

 

[IanM]

The recent posts in this thread demonstrate two things to me:

1) "The man in the arena," speech should be compulsory in schools.

2) This forum is on danger of entering terminal decline.

 

[federalexpress]

The powers that be were without doubt consulting social scientists and were right in doing so. Withiut publc buy in then then whatever physical science said any action by government would not be effective. The physical scientists new this and was why they were reluctant to recommend lock down earlier than they did for the first lockdown.

Then one wonders how the Swedes managed. Maybe they don't have social scientists or their government and populace is mature not to need such input. Either way, it worked for them, hopefully we will remember that is and when there is a next time. But I think we are now miles off topic. This was originally about EG and their competence in representing golf clubs during this period.

 

[federalexpress]

The recent posts in this thread demonstrate two things to me:

1) "The man in the arena," speech should be compulsory in schools.

2) This forum is on danger of entering terminal decline.

They demonstrate different things to me but everyone to their own...

 

[IanM]

They demonstrate different things to me but everyone to their own...

That doesn't suprise me

 

[Radbourne2010]

Hello. I would like to ask readers if England Golf really represents your interests in golf, and if not, is it time for a new union of clubs ?

Coming from the WHS discussion, but more widely, it seems to me that the tail is wagging the dog when it comes to ordinary club golf.

WHS firstly. EG did not implement WHS as written by the R&A and USGA. And on this topic seem driven solely by a mission to increase registered playing golfers. Any inconvenience to the existing members who might have thought EG's mission was to represent them, is just collateral damage.

igolf. Clubs did not want, but were rolled over by EG who said they were doing it anyway. What ? Yes. EG driving with a passion to implement something clubs not only had no interest in developing, but positively feared.

'Respect'. Not criticising the essence of the scheme in itself, but what set EG on an implementation path to implement this in all clubs, right up to disassociating any clubs who do not compky with Respect accreditation. What? Yes. Your association is now running your club, not you running an association for your clubs.

What is going on here ? When did the poles flip ? No wonder WHS doesnt work for so many. It wasnt implemented for you in the first place. So, is it time for a new union of clubs, to, dare I say it, take back control ?

Personally sick to death being told by Administrators how to behave in my ever-decreasing free time playing golf. These DEI, social engineering obsessive officers have somehow taken control of organisations such as England Golf and in doing so forced their warped ideology down onto the golf clubs they are supposed to be representing https://www.englandgolf.org/equality-diversity-and-inclusion

By threatening affiliated clubs with withdrawal of WHS rights should they not sign up to the latest edicts is tantamount to coercion & bullying, truly Marxist in behaviour.

Not sure about replacing EG with another umbrella body, but I'm of the opinion golf clubs in this country need to stand up against this forced ideology.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Personally sick to death being told by Administrators how to behave in my ever-decreasing free time playing golf. These DEI, social engineering obsessive officers have somehow taken control of organisations such as England Golf and in doing so forced their warped ideology down onto the golf clubs they are supposed to be representing https://www.englandgolf.org/equality-diversity-and-inclusion

By threatening affiliated clubs with withdrawal of WHS rights should they not sign up to the latest edicts is tantamount to coercion & bullying, truly Marxist in behaviour.

Not sure about replacing EG with another umbrella body, but I'm of the opinion golf clubs in this country need to stand up against this forced ideology.

Don’t you think equality and inclusion is a good thing then