GWF Conference Lessons

[ianw]

Most interesting to talk through how to improve on a really successful event. I agree that the Tally Ho ticks all the boxes and I will be happy to trek up from Surrey again.

Yes, it is good to have a theme. I liked the resonances between the various speaker's subjects. And yes, main speakers may well wish to support a book launch with a talk on the same subject. There are good synergies here as we get to buy the book at a discount price and with a signature!

On the subject of speakers, I agree that ultimately we just need good entertaining ones but also think the idea of encouraging new talent from the ranks attractive. Could we consider some small scale "fringe" presentations after the final main speaker finishes and before dinner, perhaps at the side of the hall. You could wander over with a beer and observe/take part.

Alternatively, could one of the main sessions be split into a friendly but competitive debate between two presenters taking contrary views on a Great War subject associated with the main theme in say 30 minutes each with a vote at the end? Could be interesting!

On a matter of real import, I also prefer china cups.

[Pighills]

Alternatively, could one of the main sessions be split into a friendly but competitive debate between two presenters taking contrary views on a Great War subject associated with the main theme in say 30 minutes each with a vote at the end? Could be interesting!

On a matter of real import, I also prefer china cups.

I like the sound of the debate - it gets my vote!!

As do the china cups

[squirrel]

Wouldn't change the venue but would stay at a different hotel next time. £22 to park the car on top of the exhorbitant charge for breakfast was a bit much and came to nearly as much as the room charge.

On the subject of subjects for speakers, I agree that Italy would be good and would also suggest Gaza or the advance to Jerusalem as a change from the Western Front. On the other hand, an Arty "expert" to explain some of the mysteries of the science would be good.

Forget that I mentioned disposable cups.

[chrisharley9]

Squirrel

as a mere signaller myself an a presentation on the dark arts of gunnery would not go amiss

Chris

[Rockdoc]

...I've suffered some dreadful speakers - knew their stuff but couldn't deliver - and one gathered that they were regulars.

To be fair, that's not confined to people who only speak occasionally. I've suffered some truly awful lectures from academics, who ought to be ideal, being professional speakers.

Keith

[squirrel]

Squirrel

as a mere signaller myself an a presentation on the dark arts of gunnery would not go amiss

Chris

Something on the detail of Army Signallers and how they had to operate would be welcomed by me as I am sure it would some others also.

[Alan Tucker]

What a grumpy reply to me just trying to be helpful. I organise 11 speakers a year to the Birmingham branch WFA and hear other speakers at the Heart of England branch. So like others on the Forum who are involved in the WFA we get to know who are 'Premium League' speakers.I have had Bryn, Peter H and Charles Fair along before and so know their quality and Martin Brown has promised to come next year. Explain how any Forum foot soldier can get to know who might be available to speak to an audience like ours unless they live in say London or are members of something like the Centre for First World War Studies. I am rather miffed at the suggestion that this is a turf war!

If we are having the same speakers again with different topics fair enough but if we are going further then suggestions are needed unless Magic Rat is happy to do everything himself. If he is I will shut up.

I hope this is not a WFA takeover attempt - it sounds like it - if I want WFA speakers and stuff I'll go to a WFA meeting.

We have one, repeat one, GWF conference ()it isn't a WFA monthly meeting but something else. . People go to a lot of trouble to attend and they will want a guaranteed great line up of speakers - thats exactly what we got. Why so much desire to change that?

[Brian Curragh]

Here is a serious suggestion for next year - a debate on Douglas Haig. If we could get a couple of informed speakers who can make the case either way, I would hope we could be trusted to have a sensible discussion without resorting to abuse or violence.

Over on Facebook, Peter Hart has posted a well argued case for Haig being Britain's greatest C-in-C - here - I commend it to you all.

Regards

Brian

[Alan Tucker]

I am not sure if Centurion was there on Saturday but 'stuff' was alluding to Martin Brown's presentation i.e. artefacts.

I was referring to "One slot with members input is a good idea - our members night inviting contributions is very successful, particularly when orientated around 'stuff'." This may be ok for a monthly branch meeting but isn't quite right for an annual conference. I haven't been to many WFA meetings so may be being unfair but I've suffered some dreadful speakers - knew their stuff but couldn't deliver - and one gathered that they were regulars.

[Guest]

Wouldn't change the venue but would stay at a different hotel next time. £22 to park the car on top of the exhorbitant charge for breakfast was a bit much and came to nearly as much as the room charge.

Like Mr Hartley, we stayed at Premier Inn ( Bridge street ) You know what you are getting, clean bed, good shower, good breakfast and decent price. We generally use them. We had an horrendous experience in London, of an Hotel, where they had not even changed bed from last occupant, and you needed a shower after entering the shower; Disgusting, so we prefer to pay a bit more, and be sure of quality.

Can't think of anything that really needs changing. Well done to all for fantastic effort.

Cheers Mike

[Rockdoc]

Here is a serious suggestion for next year - a debate on Douglas Haig. If we could get a couple of informed speakers who can make the case either way, I would hope we could be trusted to have a sensible discussion without resorting to abuse or violence.

I think this could be tricky to organise into a format that satisfied everyone, though it would be a good thing if it could be got right. A few musings:

Giving two or more people one, one-hour slot to flesh out their views would cramp their style compared to the speakers we had last Saturday but having one-hour sessions per protagonist could easily end up being far too much of a good thing. As an alternative, it could be done as a chaired discussion so that no protagonist hogged too much limelight but do we keep it to the speakers or allow questions from the floor? That could disrupt trains of thought on the platform and make time-keeping difficult but keeping questions to the end might mean pertinent comments being missed at the time where they would have been best appreciated.

I'm not trying to be dismissive because it's an interesting idea but I don't think it's do-able without considerable thought.

Keith

[chrisharley9]

Mike

no probs with the cleanliness at my chain hotel they just would not let me have a room

Chris

[Guest]

Mike

no probs with the cleanliness at my chain hotel they just would not let me have a room

Chris

Are you taking it further?

That really isn't good enough,and if you have a receipt, you should surely be compensated, a refund would be the minimum.

cheers mike

[Martin Bennitt]

I found the timing of the talks just about right, and the mix of subjects pretty good, even though it was all basically Western Front, and I'd like to see another theatre or two included next time, though not exclusively. The five speakers were

all excellent, and I assume others of just as good a calibre can be found for the future.

The choice of venue could hardly be better -- even for me it was an easy enough trip, and my hotel, the Kensington, was adequate for a couple of nights without being brilliant.

The cost of the day, including the food, I also found very reasonable.

err, that's all really. A very sound formula which doesn't need a lot of tinkering with IMHO

cheers Martin B

[ianw]

I certainly would agree that Alan Tucker's input into possible speakers would be valuable - as indeed would be that of anyone who has had the good fortune to hear a good number of the speakers "on the circuit" at the moment. This would almost by definition be WFA members who regularly attend branch meetings. But it would be good to push the envelope a bit given the excellence of the venue and the enthusiam for the day.

[chrisharley9]

Are you taking it further?

That really isn't good enough,and if you have a receipt, you should surely be compensated, a refund would be the minimum.

cheers mike

Mike

I was denied a room due to the companys overbooking policy; it seems that they dont expect everyone to turn up. I did get a full refund however I have put in compaint to the company

Chris

the breakfast was pants by the way

[Brian Curragh]

Keith

Some interesting suggestions & comments. How about this as a model then - a moderator (small M) with 2 speakers - 15/20 minutes each - with the debate then being thrown open to the floor for 20/30 minutes. 5 minute closing speeches from each followed by a hand count on "the motion." Clear ground rules - no insults or emotions just reasoned comments & points.

No reason why that wouldn't work.

Regards

Brian

[Rockdoc]

I'd say that would be a decent starting point but I think the most difficult part would be balancing the time-slots, giving adequate time to all sides but not too much or too little. Even with the excellent speakers last weekend there were relatively few questions and if the opening speeches ended with only two or three comments from the floor it could fall very flat.

Haig is potentially ideal for this as he's a controversial subject but, taking a personal point of view, I don't know that much about him. I'd hope to be educated by the debate but probably wouldn't be able to contribute from the floor beyond asking for clarification of one or other of the speeches. How many more one-topic researchers do we have?

If, say, this was the last session of the day, it should be possible to give each side of the argument 2 x 15 minute slots and allow 15 minutes for questions/comments. Why 2 x 15 minutes slots each? So that each side can comment on the other, otherwise the second speaker will have the luxury of targeting certain aspects of the first person's talk and swinging the debate their way. We could take this to its logical conclusion and allow the protagonists to debate between themselves under the moderator for an hour so that all their points would be tested.

15 minutes for the floor at the end of the day means that the whole thing can be would up at its natural conclusion and the Conference closed if comments were few and far between without the resulting extended coffee-break making it seem unsuccessful.

Keith

[Brian Curragh]

Good points - a second bite for each speaker sounds more even-handed while positioning it at the end of the day allows it to finish naturally without disturbing the flow of the day.

The other problem might be finding a set of balanced speakers - there are several good pro-Haig speakers around, but we would need someone to stand against them. I'm sure suitable candidates could be identified.

Brian

[ianw]

As an early proponent of the idea of a debate I would say that Keith makes some good points above. Particularly the idea that the opponents in the debate should have a chance to reply to or rebut each other.

The success of this would very much rely on those involved having genuine differences of opinion that they were willing to debate vigorously but with good humour - if Bryn and Peter had any such historical difference of opinion , the resulting debate would be both entertaining and illuminating, I think.

I must say that when Haig's name was suggested as a debate subject, I groaned inwardly but have to agree on reflection that he might well be suitable for such a "contest". However, the whole idea would probably require potential protagonists to be attracted by the idea and put themselves forward for it.

I would also say that the prospect of such a debate with the right names involved might well sell the conference out and perhaps allow the resulting revenue increase to benefit the overall quality of the speakers.

[John(txic)]

Sideshows - an excellent idea for a theme for 2011!

[Alan Tucker]

Ignore themes - it might be difficult to get five good speakers. This should be quality speaker driven not find a speaker on 'x' although variety is important.

[ianw]

Yes, we have an over-arching theme in any case - namely the Great War. However, a bit of "shape" to the matters covered is no bad thing. The quality of speaker issue is the critical one, I think - given how long backsides have to nestle in unsympathetic conference centre chairs. Also important for lectures to not get too narrow in scope. My fascination with advances in field catering in Salonika may not be shared by the generality of the audience.

[Rockdoc]

As a theme "The Latter Part of the War" was a good choice on Alan's part because it was not very restrictive, which I believe would be key to large attendances in future. Having a theme is all well and good but, as Alan wrote, it's the quality of the presentation that matters not necessarily the topic.

Ian, there would be a place, IMO, for a talk on the changes in field catering through the War. The research may be restricted to a few people, like my interest in AA gunnery I suspect, but feeding and watering the troops and their animals, don't forget, was a major feat of logistics that probably deserves to be better understood.

Something we might want to consider is a non-Commonwealth and/or non-Entente topic being presented. There must be lots of interesting stuff to be heard about how our allies and opponents answered the same problems of keeping an army in fighting trim as well as how they saw various events. Speakers might be harder to find but it's worth looking into, I think.

It might also be interesting to hear talks on the post-War period. There's the fighting in Russia, the administration and demilitarisation of the former belligerents by the occupying forces and, the Treaty of Versailles and its possibility as the catalyst for WW2. The immediate pre-War period might have some interesting topics, too.

Keith

[centurion]

I am not sure if Centurion was there on Saturday but 'stuff' was alluding to Martin Brown's presentation i.e. artefacts.

Like Max Boyce "I was there" - I don't think its the same use of stuff