Re Ian Sykes comment of 25th June - "Foot in Mouth Time"
I didn't think this forum was the place for political views - reference "abuse" of the benefits system.
Looks like you might be living a little in the past.
The DHSS was disbanded in 1988 and replaced by the Department of Social Security (DSS).
In 2001 the DSS was replaced by the DWP (Department of Works and Pensions).
There has always been far more unclaimed benefits than benefits lost through fraud.
Perhaps you meant to say HM Revenue and Customs (formerly Inland Revenue).
Tax evasion is a far greater cost to the taxpayer than any benefit fraud.
Just felt I could not ignore the "abuse" reference.
All this of course has nothing to do with claiming expenses.

Struth, it wasn't meant to go like this - I retain the right to delegate!

I recall the night we formed the Mid Wales group, 4 of us in the Sun Inn, St Harmon. A few beers, Carl told us he would do everything, a few more beers and then we went home. I'm not sure we even had a scrap of paper with us.

It all seemed so easy then!
Matt.

This is my first post. I love the idea of Real Ale at every CP Allan Newton and myself only managed 8 pints on this years 100, and will consider striped running pants as long as they were red and white for Sunderland and I can still grow my hair just????

Matt for Obergruppenfuhrer gets my vote

Adrian Romain Wade

YES - Matt for Obergruppenführer - heart of government in the heart of Mid Wales. Flowing locks and striped running tights for all. Real Ale at every check point. A (relatively) benevolent dictator - lets give it a go.
Ae you up for it Matt?

No, don't do committee. I tried it once and soon realised I wasn't cut out for the job - can't put up with all the faffing about and other peoples opinions, I go to sleep at meetings. I'm more of a dictatorship man myself, saves so much time.

I'm sure the national committee do a marvellous job without me, which would be in no way improved with me present. But if the ldwa wishes to scrap all committees and put me solely in charge, I'll give it a crack!

Matt.

OK It's foot in mouth time again...


Matt says "then I don't think it would be rocket science to work out a method that was fair and not too likely to be abused" I wish someone would tell the DHSS that, then maybe all us honest hard working folk may not have to pay so much tax. It also looks like that Matt is not very happy with the LDWA National Committee. Well Matt you can always put your name forward at the next AGM and get yourself on the National Committee, then maybe you can get things moving a bit faster.

I don't think there is a need to cover expenses to attract volunteers, but I believe making expenses available to those volunteers that need them may be beneficial and attract more.

If a group wanted to go down this line, then I don't think it would be rocket science to work out a method that was fair and not too likely to be abused. Or do it on national level, but I have no doubt that would take many committee meetings and several years to sort out, or not!
Matt.

The first thing I thought when I finished my first 100 this year was 'I am going to help out on a check point as soon as I can' ... This is the only way that all the care I received could ever be repaid. I understand the argument about the need to cover expenses to attract volunteers but I'm not sure that is what should be a motivation. Plus it may be a false economy - if the entry fees go up then less people on low incomes would be able to do the event.

Sorry more confused than ever.
What has CP2 got to do with this Forum issue?

Is it broke? If it isn't don't try to fix it. Simples.

CP2 on the 100, remember it well ;-)

Maybe I'm wrong in posting this, but here goes.

If the Hundred groups starts paying out expenses to people who need them. How do you distinguish between the needy from the greedy?

I accept there is an argument that those who are unable to afford to volunteer should receive some consideration. The problem is how do we quantify it? In exchange for 3 hours volunteering at the other end of the country are we willing to pay say £100 travel costs and £100 accommodation costs per person? With the best will in the world it does not make economic sense.

I think there are a number of points that need to be considered here, as I don’t believe it is just a simple issue of wishing to give back what one has taken from the LDWA. Most of us who have walked Hundreds are only too happy to work at CPs and enjoying meeting old friends with whom we may have shared hours walking together on past events.

There may well be members who would be very happy to CP if they could claim expenses, particularly for travel (I don’t think food comes into this equation as we all have to eat whether or not we are on a CP) – those who may have heavy financial commitments, be out of work or on a restricted pension. There could well be members in one or more of these situations and consequently just don’t feel able to offer their services.

I wonder how many of the 500 entrants have ever worked on a Hundred CP or Marshals’ Hundred CP? If not why not? Cost implication to get to venue or perhaps a time implication? All members give willingly of their time, which I am sure we all enjoy very much and are happy to give this back to the organization.

I am confused why those that do not wish to claim expenses should worry about those who would want/need to claim expenses. Surely it is fine if anyone feels they want and can offer their services for free as they can afford so to do but why then the attitude that no one should be able to claim expenses?

There would doubtless be a cost implication on the entry should expenses be claimed but the Hundred is still value for money (compare with the entry fee for running events). I am sure the extra entry cost would not be too onerous and certainly not anything like the cost that some of the CP staff have to find and here I draw your attention back to my second paragraph.

Just food for thought!

I do not think volunteers should be able to claim expenses from the event organisers when helping on the 100. Walkers already have to pay over £50 to enter the event, on top of their travelling and accomodation. I can see the entry fee could double if expenses were claimed.
Even if a Group chooses to volunteer to help on the event, they should not be able to claim expenses. However if a Group decides to help their members with expenses, that is a matter for them.
I have attempted several hundreds in the past and can understand the needs of the second night walkers. I have really enjoyed helping out, for the last ten years, on the Sunday night, and would never dream of asking for expenses.

It's good that the Surrey group members are not making the payment of expenses a condition of them helping.

If a group wants to claim for the full expenses of its members then it will have to list and claim them at the time of volunteering, so that the organisers can reflect the higher costs in the entry price. Then it's a policy decision for the organisers whether to pay or how much to pay. I don't think Hundred organisers are suddenly going to decide to offer expenses to all groups when they can get (just) enough helpers under the current arrangements.

Some questions then:
Why limit this to groups? In my experience individual helpers don't get a share of the "dividend" that groups get. Why shouldn't individual helpers also claim their expenses?
Why limit this to the Hundred? Expenses are lower for group organised events but helpers still have to travel to them. Perhaps the "putting something back" principle will always be very much stronger for group events.
We've had comments on this forum from helpers. How do Hundred entrants who camp out and sleep in their cars to keep their costs down feel about paying a significantly higher entry price so that the helpers can have their accommodation paid for?
Would paying expenses to groups that ask for them eventually erode the commitment of the groups that help for free?

If petrol expenses are offered by the 100 group then so be it. But I don't think if should be a condition for volunteering on any LDWA event. But saying that, it's nearly always the same old faces that you see staffing the checkpoints on events.

Sorry Simon for any embarrassment I may have coursed you. In my ham fisted way I thought it was a done deal.

Ian.

Point is very well expressed and put Matt & Jane.

I thought I'd better mention that the 2017 Hundred has not been awarded to any group yet, but it’s no secret that the North Yorkshire Group’s intention is to submit a bid for it. Should we be successful we'll definitely need lots of help from the rest of the LDWA to pull it off, including Ian and Edith’s expertise with the Baggage Handling logistics.

Also the North Yorkshire Group was proud to be part of the 2013 Hundred and we were more than happy to provide our time & support free of charge.

In these days of financial constraints and many members being pensioners, very possibly on a meagre pension, I see nothing wrong with offering or taking 'petrol money'. The cost of travelling can be prohibitive (we certainly don't travel far to events) and if the money is offered it is up to the individual to accept or decline.
If someone is quite hard up and accepts some financial help that should be fine, nor should they be stigmatised by other members of the group who may be better off and decline the offer.
Ultimately, without the volunteers there are no events, so the volunteer is king and should be looked after. Knowing they can travel a long distance to help on an event and be reimbursed some travelling expenses, if they want them, can only encourage helpers for the future.
How far the 'expenses' are taken is another thing (meals, accommodation etc.) and up to the organisers discretion. Matt.

Some groups do pay petrol money for those members who man a checkpoint on the 100. Fair enough with the price of travelling. But not everyone asks for it nor expects it. Most of us want to put something back into the Association.

I would like to state that "we" the baggage team have NEVER asked for any expenses in all the time we have done the job. My wife as helped out on every 100 from 1988 the White Peak and John and myself 1995. We have done the baggage on every 100 from 1996 and are book right up to the North Yorkshire 2017.

Yes we've had the add few pounds sent to us now and again and I spent it on a night out with those involved. But it is never ask for and never expected.

Ian Sykes, speaking for the baggage team.

I think Surrey must be in a minority in paying travel expenses. We have just marshaled on the 100. South Pennine do not organise an event (we are not large enough) so have no funds at all. We cannot pay any expenses. We do not expect any payment for our time and travel. It is given voluntarily. As said by other posters, it is our groups way of putting something back.
Personally I would like to maintain the volunteer ethic and keep the 100 within the price bracket of everyone and not just the well off.

Cleveland Group members have never claimed travelling expenses for marshalling whether it be at the 100 or our own local challenge events, any surplus given goes into the Group funds, as you say David we all do it to give back for those events we do ourselves.

Tony

I really don't understand where you get your 'accepted tradition' from. My group, BBN, has never paid travelling expenses to marshals and I know there are other groups for which this is also true. Some of our members even refuse to accept their share of any surplus that a Hundred committee may send to us.
I marshal on events as a means of giving back to those who marshal on events I do and I suspect this is true of most.

It has become an accepted tradition that expenses incurred by local groups travelling to marshal checkpoints on 100s claim their expenses from their local group. With the number of marshals now involved in 100s (eg 9 from Surrey and 6 from London at CP2 on the recent Camel-Teign 100), the distances involved coupled with the increasing cost of travel and accommodation means that expenses can incur a considerable drain on a group's funds.

We appreciate that the 'profit' from 100s is traditionally divided between participating groups but this generally amounts to only a £100 or so. We appreciate that not all marshals claim expenses but this does not detract from the principle that 100s should be self-funding, just as local group challenge walks have to be. The latter are not subsidised by other groups, nor would any group expect them to be. It is also worth pointing out that with local groups underwriting travelling expenses the true cost of running 100s is unknown.

Whilst Surrey remains very happy to provide marshals we feel that expenses should be claimed from the event itself and that the event should levy an entry fee to cover its full costs with any 'profits' accruing to the National.

What do other groups feel?