I'm talking about process, not about people. If the ideas that the UK decides to push on a global scale are seen as being the ideas of a single person they would lose weight and be far easier to belittle.
Perhaps. Saying "The UK think this..." without good awareness of the origins/past debates of our rules will come across as woefully naive/irritating to the "powers that be"... enjoy doing all the research.
The problem was down to the way the rules are written
Our rules are not just written badly, they have massive grey/subjective areas and "everyone is an expert" (far too many people have input).
The NAH rules committee is the best we currently have, but they seem pretty unengaged currently (the NAH rules forum gets a new post every month or so and is not a very inspiring/concise read). I'm fairly confident they'll pull it out of the bag for this season though, they have the most experience, etc.
Perhaps. Saying "The UK think this..." without good awareness of the origins/past debates of our rules will come across as woefully naive/irritating to the "powers that be"... enjoy doing all the research.
Our rules are not just written badly, they have massive grey/subjective areas and "everyone is an expert" (far too many people have input).
The NAH rules committee is the best we currently have, but they seem pretty unengaged currently (the NAH rules forum gets a new post every month or so and is not a very inspiring/concise read). I'm fairly confident they'll pull it out of the bag for this season though, they have the most experience, etc.