1a2bcio8

Name: Sergey Layatin Location: Russia Age: 23 Time Riding: 5 years https://vimeo.com/46550470

Name: Madis Vasser Location: Estonia Age: 24 Time Riding: 9 years https://vimeo.com/46940469

That's an important part of it but there are some people who receive minimal forms of sponsorship and their riding is at a level where, to be honest, it would be unfair to place them against the riders that have greater sponsorship and whose level of riding is clearly higher. Receiving just brake pads, a t-shirt or something along those lines doesn't really place someone in a significantly more materially rewarded position than people without anything. Ultimately though, yeah, it's about what seems fairer. I'm open to criticism, suggestions, etc. about the method and am willing to make changes if some clear problems of fairness are recognised.

It's an interesting idea but I don't think entirely practical. Individuals who have developed an eye for riding, so to speak, are preferable. The eye that allows them to pick up various subtleties that the inexperienced won't. The differing categories are not rigid. They are an initial guide to separate differing levels of riding. I did kind of imply this before although I didn't exactly make it clear. Some riders with some degree of sponsorship can still enter in the novice category and some riders without sponsorship will be placed in the sponsored category. People who are borderline I've discussed with them where we think they should go. If I'm unsure because I don't know them I've assumed their honesty and allowed them the opportunity to decide. I'd happily move someone into a different category after seeing their entry if I felt it was definitely inappropriately placed. The initial point though is that the 'best' riders whom often have sponsorship are definitely excluded from the novice category to give the latter a chance of winning prizes for their efforts. It's a difficult situation but I guess that's the nature of imposing simple concepts/categories onto a more complex reality.

One other thing. What I'm arguing isn't just belief, although that no doubt plays a role in every interpretation of events within the world, but is also about evidence and good reasoning. We live in the world where the personal and systematic (big business) desire for profit subjugates other more important considerations. That's illustrated in the basic example of tax avoidance such as with Vodafone owing tens of billions to the UK whilst in a recession and resultant austerity measures. The notion that competition creates efficiency is a myth that oversimplifies the nature of capitalism assuming it operates in some idealistic vacuum absent of corruption and the like. Your post just appeared as I finished the above paragraph. I don't think you like the fact your ideals may be being challenged but meh. I don't want to fall out about disagreeing. Expanding a debate is essential. It stimulates thought about a subject that hopefully increases possible understanding. It's the foundation for furthering a cause. It opens up people to petitions, protesting, etc. It's certainly better than doing nothing. And just because the consequences aren't all that tangible to you doesn't mean it's not having an effect. Furthermore, I'd rather do something that you consider futile than nothing at all. I've signed petitions - there's no need for me to start one given there's already plenty in circulation. I'm willing to protest if the opportunity arises. I've attended several protests over the last couple of years. It's difficult, frustrating and it often feels like you're not getting anywhere but giving a f**k and making some effort, no matter how small, is worthwhile for your sanity and well being. Also, what does it matter if I'm repeating the reasoned and evidenced arguments of others? So what? I've heard you do exactly the same, expounding certain notions or myths about this or that. That's the nature of existing as a social entity whose understanding of the world it massively dependent on their interaction with other social entities. If I reduced my understanding of the world to only my direct experience I would be f**ked given the fact of reality. Basically the main problem is our apathy, complacency and ignorance. Removing ignorance can affect the quality of apathy and complacency and vice versa. Whether you like it or not you've just absorbed some ideas that over time may change you way of thinking. Would an admin be kind enough to ban me for a week? I seriously need to get on with my studies which is why I said I won't be debating but obviously that was denial

Studies show that the NHS is one of the world's best health services. It'll never be perfect because that's the nature of large infrastructures. As it stands, it offers one of the best services and to everyone. Asking the question about whether it should be privately or nationally run is valid. Each, as we are saying, will have a different impact on the NHS (consider the railways). That's inescapable. I agree it needs to be framed within a broader questioning of how else to improve it but big business having a privatised role is only going to be damaging given its robotic like orientation toward profit. There are exceptions but they are in the minority enough to mean the likelihood of their involvement is slim.

I think perhaps you're being the idealist for once, JD People will easily enter a the market of a profession that's, idealistically, supposed to be based on compassion but do not do it for that reason. A lot of people will just see the opportunity to make money. It's as simple as that. Furthermore, those who care less about actual care are more likely to be triumphant in a bidding war because they are more willing to cut corners which obviously reduces cost. Both Google and Apple have been charged with unethical activities. The former with regard to, for example, tax avoidance and the latter with, again for example, unethical work conditions. I think the list of unethical activities doesn't end there. Both relate to profit chosen over the welfare of a greater majority. It's dangerous to understand a company by the image it presents of itself such as "don't be evil". It makes business sense to present yourself in a kindly way. Currently the various oil companies are presenting themselves in very 'green' forms despite a mass of evidence to the contrary. Even if somebody within a large company has ethical concerns they may be legally obliged to ignore them due to their shareholders interests or other factors. What I'm trying to emphasise here is that the more you get into big business the less room, due to the nature of it, for ethics over profit. I know ethical businesses but they tend to be small. For every single example of philanthropic or egalitarian business ventures there will be many more examples of unethical ones. Perhaps an ethical company could take charge of a sector of the NHS but the odds are against it. For instance, why has Virgin protected itself against Whistle Blowers with regards to its child heath care in Surrey? It seems very telling to me. Surely this kind of service requires absolute transparency? Why would they want to hide what happens in the service they are providing? I'm not saying profit, per se, is evil but it can be become so when it subjugates compassion and ethics. Which includes profiting to a degree that amounts to hoarding unneccesary wealth against a backdrop of poverty. That's another issue though I guess.

I think you can talk about 'general' or prevailing truths when referring, in particular, to big business. That general truth being profit over much else. Such a truth explains much of the economic, environmental and other problems within the world at the moment. We're talking about the mode of Capitalism that currently exists. Allowing big business with its 'general' behaviour to take charge of our health care system is therefore dangerous. Dr Phil Hammond, in the above youtube video, states that it was tried before by Labour and it made things worse and, no doubt, because of the general truth of profit as the central force. There are always exceptions to the rule but the fact remains, to my mind, that they are in a minority.

Sorry chap but you're clearly in the minority and I feel an extension would, overall, be better for the competition. I sympathise with your pains but your perfectionism isn't a property of the majority

Well, I may be willing to offer people the opportunity to withdraw their entry and add to it if they wish. Any feelings against such an idea?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/aug/07/nhs-among-most-efficient-health-services http://bengoldacre.posterous.com/what-will-the-nhsbill-do-i-dont-think-youre-w http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/mar/01/nhs-reform-bill-incoherent-doctors The last two of these links are well worth reading/watching although they are all important. Particularly the youtube video if you can only handle a few minutes of learning about it

http://eoin-clarke.b...l<br /><br />http://m.guardian.co...ty&type=article http://www.telegraph...0<br /><br />http://abetternhs.wordpress.com/faq/ http://abetternhs.wordpress.com/faq/ The final link, a FAQ, is probably the most important read but the articles give a general feel to what's happening and how interests are being served that aren't about democracy. The problem is more widespread than the NHS with the welfare state being eroded in various ways such as the reduction or removal of benefits (job, housing, etc.) for the disabled, single parents and other vulnerable groups. Our greatest social systems which reflect our better qualities (compassion) are being ruined by greedy f**k-wits that possess the wisdom of a turd.

If you're able to afford the form of private care you're referring to then, yes, you will receive better care. However, we don't live in a world where people have the means to afford the specific type of care you're referring to. If you bring private care into the mass market, so to speak, most people will inevitably suffer. It's a basic principle and, in fact, a law in the sense of obligations to share holders, that profit must take precedence over the actual care. Studies have shown the NHS to be one of the best nation health services in the world. It's not perfect in every sense but it's a balance between providing the best possible care for as many people and keeping it a free service so that we don't experience serious neglect of the most vulnerable.

I think that awareness goes a long way. The government takes notice if popular opinion, following from proper understanding, leans in a certain direction. It just has to be substantial enough. Furthermore, the ability to organise and take action inescapably follows from being informed and being interested in what's going on. There's little point in talking about what can be done until we've established what's happening. Apathy and complacency are impediments to that.

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/meningitis_victim_hits_out_at_nhs_privitisation_after_privately_run_practice_in_hackney_refuses_him_treatment_1_1464678 I don't have time to get into a debate but felt I should share something which I think gravely matters. We possess one of the greatest health services in the world and it's being sold off to benefit a minorities interest to the detriment of the rest of us. I rarely hear anyone discussing such a tragedy which, as I understand, hasn't been properly conveyed in much the mainstream media. This will affect all off you in some way, if not regarding your own health, through friends or family. Allowing big business to operate a health service invariably means profit over actual care. Just how insidious these plans are can be observed in the case of Virgin having bought a health care service for children in Surrey with measures for accountability removed. For instance, whistle-blowers are not offered protection for revealing shortcomings within the service and Virgin's decision making is allowed to happen behind closed doors, outside of the public purview. This is a disgrace and we're letting it happen through our ignorance, apathy and complacency.

The thing is those people that have already committed their videos did so with a month or so extra anyhow. If we were near the deadline and this happened I would agree that it's unfair. As things stand though they seemingly weren't interested in extra time. Hah, the self abuse of a perfectionist

So I'm thinking of extending the competition end date to the end of September rather than August. Any feelings on this? It's in consideration of the mixed weather we've had and the fact that people may be able to produce something better if they have more time. It also gives people outside of the the English speaking world more time to hear about the comp and get involved. I'm still receiving entrants but mostly from abroad. I'm assuming that it's slowly filtering further afield. Anyway, your opinions on the matter would be appreciated.

Guillermo Marin's novice entry... blog

Fortunately that's why people like Ben Swales, Adam Read (although I think I may have forgotten to ask him) will be judging. There will probably be others of a similar background also involved but I need to ask them I've also decided that I won't be judging. However, I will mostly be choosing creative (invariably street) riders to judge because this is what the competition is mostly about. It is open to more traditional styles but, as already stated, they are unlikely to do well unless they make a movement toward a more creative style. I'll reiterate it again that the comp isn't really designed to satisfy all styles of riding. Pragmatic or functional riding will not really achieve very well against creative riding. edit: also to state again that there are easy examples of more traditional or more pure forms of trials riding that are used in creative ways with riders such as Stan Shaw, Jack Meek and Rowan Johns. The judges I'm sure will be open and appreciative of this sort of creative style. At the very least I'll be specifying that they should be. I'm also choosing judges based on a trust about their character. It's never going to be perfect but then what is perfect in a system of subjective individuals?

I'm unable to figure out changing the blog to allow for links to previous posts on additional pages. For now I've just increased how many posts can appear on the front page. Not ideal but it will have to do unless somebody can instruct me on how to change it?

From now I will create separate threads for the videos of the competition because, to my mind, this should increase the likelihood of them being seen. Anyway, this is Ricardo Meyer's video... here

Another video update... blog

New video from Robert Adamson (above)... blog

New video on the blog...

If you send a link, from either a youtube or vimeo upload, to the appropriate email address - glasseyetrialscreative@gmail.com - then I can place it on the blog. Receiving them as files would be wholly impracticable and particularly so as the needs of my summer have changed and I have less time for managing the comp now. So ideally, upload your video and before you publish it on here or facebook send me the link and it can start its life on the competition blog. If we don't do that it kind of degrades the spirit. At least to my mind it does. We thought it fairer for Matty that he be placed in the novice category due to his age.