EM

You think that is a fact? It most certainly is not a fact, it is your opinion. Opinions are very different to facts and as I said earlier, this whole situation is not going to improve when people get facts and opinions mixed up. I would also say I do not share your opinion.

This is the kind of vague and baseless arm waving which continually crops up. I believe it does nothing to help reduce the bitterness. It is actually saying nothing different to "Oh you never know what might happen in the future." It doesn't cite any particular clause in the current legislation, or point to anything which might be considered to contravene the law. If anyone can highlight any aspect of the act where interpretation is not perfectly clear, and we are not fully adhering to, please let me know.

Indeed so. They do in fact already have enormous say in the way the festival is run. Their feedback afterwards is also always given the highest priority.

I really can;t work out if you are being serious here or just trying a wind up. If you are serious I just don't know what to say. I mean "It really isn't hard to put it to rest" ? I would suggest that is an extremely naive opinion. Also, your mention of "wording" makes me groan. I have stressed that one of the fundamental aspects of UHA;s governance is that it does not allow its rules to be gamed in exactly the way you are trying to do.

The Committee decides everything. It will usually put non-trivial matters to a mass meeting vote, but strictly it does not have to.

They would be female.

The issue would not be young daughters, but the presence of female guizers, and a wife would be interpreted as such. The law is absolutely clear that associations can be either gendered or non-gendered, but if non-gendered it must be total. If an association has male and female members then it is completely unlawful for it to have different rights for each. It is all or nothing.

Each of those proposals are illegal. Options 1, 2, 3 and 5 are blatantly illegal, whereas option 4 isn't sufficiently specified to judge completely. For it to be legal the number of such male and female squads would have to be identical, something I presume is not being proposed. As it is essential for the Lerwick UHA to continue to follow the law, none of those ideas are feasible.

When we established SMUHA we opted for a non-gendered format. Membership of the Lerwick UHA guizers association is restricted to males. Both of these UHA formats function very well, but I can not identify any middle ground between these which is legally feasible.

The Guizer's Committee does not have a written constitution. This is one of the aspects of its governance structure which has made it so effective over the years. Rather than have a huge number of explicit rules which can be gamed, permitted behaviour is mostly implicitly defined. I explained about the particular wording on page 80 of this thread.

I am indeed. Over the past few years I have tried many times to explain the fundamentals of UHA governance, but the attackers choose to pay no attention and continue spouting nonsense. Denying the basic facts achieves nothing other than to stir up bitterness and unpleasantness. If people refuse to recognise the most evident of facts, is there any point in discussing wider issues? I am inclined to keep explaining, but I expect it is a waste of effort.

They have been charged with crime because crime was committed, and they are suspected of being responsible. There has been strict regulation of where drones can be flown for years. It is getting tighter, and I expect, will get even tighter. The main limit which affects the various people who want to use drones on UHA day or night is the horizontal distance constraints. This includes the stipulation that drones must not fly within 150m of crowds. When this matter first came up several years ago, drone pilots seemed to think they could fly anywhere on UHA evening because they claimed to have various certificates. Hearing of the multiple plans, the Police made it clear that they were having none of this and stated they were defining all Lerwick as being banned airspace for drones for the day. After being challenged over this interpretation, they have since reduced the banned space to be closer to the dense crowds, but with the 150m rule, this still means drones flying above the procession route are clearly in breech of the regulations. I was aware of one operating from Lower Hillhead/Union Street, and another was apparently being flown from next to the flower park. My understanding is that a third was being flown legally over to the west, but seems to have been the target of a rocket. Now that is a story.

Yes. Off hand I don't remember the year, but it was certainly pre-WWII and probably pre-WWI. Very true, it could be said to have a tradition of gradual change. The key to this is the intangible “Spirit of Up-Helly-Aa.” Organisation and governance is consensually based rather than an adversarial system as familiarly used in Westminster. The Committee's remit is to the guizers and they are completely in tune with how the guizers interpret the “Spirit of Up-Helly-Aa.” Consequently, when changes do happen, they are never controversial. Exactly so. Tedious indeed. It is completely pointless and only engenders ill feeling. Something which dilettante UHA attackers really miss is the "have your cake and eat it" angle. All the UHAs are different, so taking part in two is not the same thing done twice. Many, many women like to both guize in the rurals, and also enjoy the very different Lerwick formula. When you can have two different types of event, why would you want just one?

The following is not the case: I don't think anybody would disagree that male only guizing is an accepted custom of the Lerwick festival. The instruction "it is the duty of each Guizer to conduct himself at all times in accordance with the “Spirit of Up-Helly-Aa” with goodwill and strict adherence to accepted customs." is therefore quite clear.

... or indeed those who do like the Lerwick festival. I have stated previously that I believe it would be a very good idea for yet another UHA. Not a feeble weemins Lerwick trying to fit into the already chocabloc winter season, but an annual summer event similar to the Hamefarin burnings. This is something which would positively address the desires of the tourism sector, and generally be a good thing. Seems to me to be a far more fruitful endeavour to be involved in than just seething and moaning about something which can not be won. If anyone is keen, I am ready to support with all my technology and whatever advice I can provide. You are turning me into a cracked record! The legal situation is not shaky or grey, it couldn't be any clearer. Prior to 2010 your comments would have been valid, but all the legalistic wiggle potential has been removed. Indeed that was the main point of the legal reform. Instead of having loads of different acts all dealing with discrimination differently, a single act was made law which is consistent and easy to understand. I've read everything I can on the relevant law, and discussed this material with numerous lawyers and academics. If the situation was grey there would be "On the one hand it says this, but it could also be argued that..." type comments. Wearing my most sceptical hat I can see no soft area which could be challenged legally, and neither can any of the experts I am aware of. They all say it is watertight. The act is not as daunting a read as might be expected, but even if you only read the guidance notes, a layperson should be in no doubt. Cleverly it uses Golf Clubs to illustrate what is legal and what is not. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85018/private-clubs.pdf What most people just do not grasp is that there is discrimination, and there is unfair discrimination. The law defines precisely what is deemed acceptable. Lerwick UHA ticks all the boxes.