UKBouldering.com

BMC No Confidence Motion (split from the Why aren't you a BMC member? thread) (Read 72246 times)

DAVETHOMAS90

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Dave Thomas is an annual climber to 1.7m, with strongly fragrant flowers
  • Posts: 1726
  • Karma: +166/-6
  • Don't die with your music still inside you ;)

Quote
The BMC is a large group of other climbers, but I stop short of saying it represents me in any way.
I'm happy to remain sceptical.

It is healthy to have reservations about institutions. Climbers are perhaps more individualistic than most and perhaps more likely to have more reservations.

Institutions tend to acquire a life of their own. Some are great, some were once great and some have the potential to be great. I believe the BMC is a good institution and has the potential to be great one.

When you say the BMC doesn't represent you, what do you really mean by that? Off the top of my head in terms of your local patch the BMC Peak Area volunteers are doggedly representing climbers interests with crag access, wildlife initiatives, crag clean ups, mending footpaths, petitioning against quarrying and working with other landowning bodies, environmental groups and other sporting bodies (ie mountain bikers) to keep the climbers and hillwalkers agenda and interests up there. At a National level we influence government on similar issues.

I'd say that the BMC probably supports it's members (with the er, obvious caveat) but I see it as a separate and private institution in that regard. Regarding things like crag access, there are many people that fight for access - well, there were. My own views on that are probably very often not in alignment with many others.. I like the idea of some crags having restricted access for instance.. but that's drifting way off topic. I find the way that the BMC get involved in some area disputes (for instance) is often not democratic. I could add other points.

My climbing is a very individualistic thing.
People come together to support their collective causes all the time, and in that way, they are self defined. When they are large enough, they often add monikers like "British" or "Britain".

I try to get involved with many issues, some of which may be related (in a very, very small way) to things like improving the crag environment, but I see that as an incidental part of trying to be more aware of my impact on the world around me. A lot of what gets done by the BMC will be a product of a large group of people sharing largely similar interests coming together. Whether it is "of" the BMC or not is an interesting claim.

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
I'd say that the BMC probably supports it's members (with the er, obvious caveat) but I see it as a separate and private institution in that regard......A lot of what gets done by the BMC will be a product of a large group of people sharing largely similar interests coming together. Whether it is "of" the BMC or not is an interesting claim.

Dave, It is not a claim it is a fact that the BMC is primarily a volunteering organisation where the paid staff support the BMC volunteers who are intrinsically a part of the organisation. The volunteers do the work in the name of the BMC and generally find it carries weight and is helpful to say they are representing the BMC when negotiating with Landowners, Derbyshire Wildlife etc and have backing (legal advice, literature etc) from head office. Maybe you perceive a bigger divide between the 'them' (paid staff) and 'us' (volunteers) than there actually is. I also contend that in the absence of an alternative it also represents all climbers and hillwalkers nationally when in contact with other national bodies such as the NT or with politicians working with other volunteering organisations on the all parliamentary committee

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
Going back to the solicitor's report / background information leaflet that's been sent out to inform the debate.. There are still a few things that don't add up.

Martin states in his conclusion: ''at the time of the (2016) AGM ideas about brand were being discussed but no concrete proposals had been received and no decisions made.''

Further back in his report, in the timeline he says: ''Thinkfarm initially worked up ideas around a brand of ClimbGB in February/March 2016 with the involvement of several BMC staff, but this proved unworkable due to trademark issues [that URL is registered to Tom Hopper, a private individual] and the alternative of Climb Britain was proposed. ...''

and then:

''The first meeting of the Exec committee since January took place on 18 May when the brand proposal was discussed. The briefing paper for that meeting indicated there was still 3 name options for consideration, the first of which was no change i.e. remain as 'BMC'. ...''

So...
The Nominet record shows that the following domain names were registered by the BMC on 3rd March 2016:
'ClimbBritain.co.uk'
'ClimbBritain.uk'

(And on 6th July 2016: 'ClimbBritain.org.uk' was registered)

To get a clearer idea of how 'concrete' or not the ClimbBritain proposal was by the time of the AGM in April 2016 - which is what Bob Pettigrew's motion is all about - it would help to know what the third name option was. Remember Martin states in his report that there were still 3 name options for consideration at the Exec meeting in May: 'remain the same', 'ClimbBritain', and 'a.n. other', unnamed in Martin's report.

Did the 'other' brand name also have its URL registered by the BMC in March or early April before the AGM? If so this would support the BMC's position. Or was only ClimbBritain registered?

If you're going to give background information in an attempt to support a decision, then it would be helpful to give *all* the information to make an informed decision.


Two other points - Martin's report states Sport England offered a grant totaling £75,420 for the rebrand.
Why does all the information coming from the BMC state that the rebrand cost £25,000 of Sport England's money? Is this a mistake, where did the other £50,000 go?

He also states there was no connection between the rebrand and the olympics. Without a record of someone at BMC towers explicitly stating 'this rebrand is linked to the olympics becasue xyz', it seems to me impossible to prove or disprove this point. But I think people will use their own judgment on it.


« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 10:56:52 am by petejh »

highrepute

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1288
  • Karma: +109/-0
  • Blah
Two other points - Martin's report states Sport England offered a grant totaling £75,420 for the rebrand.
Why does all the information coming from the BMC state that the rebrand cost £25,000 of Sport England's money? Is this a mistake, where did the other £50,000 go?

The report actually says the £75k was to "pay consultancy fees with the objective of investigating methods of increasing commercial revenue and reducing dependence on public funding" and "B-focused was engaged to advise on increasing commercial revenue whilst Thinkfarm was contracted to provide advice on branding".

I would infer that B-fucused got 50k and thinkfarm 25k - the bastards.

GraemeA

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1875
  • Karma: +80/-6
  • FTM
    • The Works, it's the Bollocks
It appears that the BMC have been busy registering domains for a few years

britishclimbing.co.uk was registered in 2013

https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=britishclimbing.co.uk#whois-results

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
The report actually says the £75k was to "pay consultancy fees with the objective of investigating methods of increasing commercial revenue and reducing dependence on public funding" and "B-focused was engaged to advise on increasing commercial revenue whilst Thinkfarm was contracted to provide advice on branding".

I would infer that B-fucused got 50k and thinkfarm 25k - the bastards.

That would explain it. It would be good if it were made clear.


It appears that the BMC have been busy registering domains for a few years

britishclimbing.co.uk was registered in 2013

https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=britishclimbing.co.uk#whois-results

Useful info. Was this the 'third option'? It would be good if it were made clear for the avoidance of doubt.

Offwidth

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1767
  • Karma: +57/-13
    • Offwidth
I think you are being very kind to Bob and co with all this BMC doubt avoidance. What about doubts about their behaviour and scutiny of their facts? Why such a serious take on detail on a politically motivated rhetorical cloak and dagger campaign with so much misinformation, no concrete facts beyond the rebrand mess and all at least 6 months late, given when things happened and its importance.

dave

  • Guest
With regard to the domain name whois records, for all we know they could have been registered by the rebranding consultants as a precautionary measure then transferred to the BMC or something like that? Or possibly just someone at the BMC had a bright idea, given domain reg costs fuck all, to cover all possibilities in future. It's hardly unusual for companies to register domains they don't end up using.

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
I think you are being very kind to Bob and co with all this BMC doubt avoidance. What about doubts about their behaviour and scutiny of their facts? Why such a serious take on detail on a politically motivated rhetorical cloak and dagger campaign with so much misinformation, no concrete facts beyond the rebrand mess and all at least 6 months late, given when things happened and its importance.

Why such a serious take - Because I'm being asked whether I have confidence or no confidence in something. I'd like to know the facts as best as possible before making a decision.

Dave - I agree. But it isn't helpful to have incomplete info - i.e. we've been told ClimbBritain was one of the names being considered and that it was registered as a domain name the month before the AGM. We've also been told another name was being considered, but we haven't been told what that name was, so can't know if that name was also registered as a domain name before the AGM.

Whether you agree with Pettigrew's motion or not it's information like that which would support or help refute his accusation of decisions being made/information being withheld from the membership at the AGM.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
Quote
I would infer that B-fucused got 50k and thinkfarm 25k - the bastards.

This has been confirmed on the UKC thread by DT himself. Also:

Quote
The actual cost (i.e. over and above this and not including staff time) to the BMC was around £7k which covered trademarking and purchase of 28 relevant URLs (note: the URL purchases were made in three phases between 3 March - 6 July)

When I started our company I registered every domain name I could think of, including misspellings of my favourites. Given the response so far I can understand why you wouldn't release a full list, there'll be all kinds of shite in there.

GraemeA

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1875
  • Karma: +80/-6
  • FTM
    • The Works, it's the Bollocks
Quote
I would infer that B-fucused got 50k and thinkfarm 25k - the bastards.

This has been confirmed on the UKC thread by DT himself. Also:

Quote
The actual cost (i.e. over and above this and not including staff time) to the BMC was around £7k which covered trademarking and purchase of 28 relevant URLs (note: the URL purchases were made in three phases between 3 March - 6 July)

When I started our company I registered every domain name I could think of, including misspellings of my favourites. Given the response so far I can understand why you wouldn't release a full list, there'll be all kinds of shite in there.

I am pretty certain that Alex has been registering domains for years, partly for future proofing and partly defensive.

lemony

Offline
  • **
  • player
  • Posts: 81
  • Karma: +0/-0
I believe our company owns nearly a hundred domain names and uses... four.

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
Hadn't read the UKC thread; just had a look and that clears up the £75k.

The domain names - Dave Turnbull has said 28 domain names were registered between 3rd March - 6th July 2016, in three phases.

3 of these were versions of 'climbbritain' - .org/.co.uk / .uk

Martin Wragg's (solicitor) report states that the notes from the Executive meeting on May 2016 stated that '3 options for rebrand were being considered: 'no change'; 'ClimbBritain' (URL registered on March 3rd) and 'a.n.other'.

So what was the other name up for consideration in May?
And what were the other 23 registered domain names, and when were they registered?

Knowing this would give a fairly good picture of what the thought process was and when, in relation to the AGM. Rather than just take one person's claim over another.

 

Offwidth

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1767
  • Karma: +57/-13
    • Offwidth
I think you are being very kind to Bob and co with all this BMC doubt avoidance. What about doubts about their behaviour and scutiny of their facts? Why such a serious take on detail on a politically motivated rhetorical cloak and dagger campaign with so much misinformation, no concrete facts beyond the rebrand mess and all at least 6 months late, given when things happened and its importance.

Why such a serious take - Because I'm being asked whether I have confidence or no confidence in something. I'd like to know the facts as best as possible before making a decision.


Maybe I'm old fashioned. It seems to me to run something as incredibly serious as a no-confidence vote Bob has to prove his case first, not those he accuses. The BMC information, since the rebrand problem,  has been timely, public and consistent. Bob has been late (why not an EGM last year?) , mainly hidden, inconsistent, and often factually wrong. I'm speaking as one of a minority in Peak area meets who had sympathy for some of his concerns over the years, as he lost democratic vote after democratic vote on subjects like tte BMC link with the Olympics. So where is your scrutiny of Bob whilst you nit pick on domain names (that I'd rather the BMC dont talk about for commercial reasons).
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 02:33:19 pm by Offwidth »

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
I'd never heard of him a couple of weeks ago, but by God if I've learned something since it's that I've got no confidence in Bob Pettigrew. And Doug Scott, if it's him who's pulling the strings. Sad times.

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
I'd vaguely heard his name from somewhere, probably a guidebook or news piece in some dusty corner of my mind. And Doug Scott - all I know is that a long time ago he crawled off a mountain and on to a speaking tour.


Offwidth - I don't disagree with you that Bob's facts need scrutiny and they're receiving exactly that from a lot of people.
But I'd like to know as much as possible about both sides of the story before deciding; and I don't get the sense that I've had as much information as I want from the BMC about who did and knew what and when. That report by Martin Wragg is incomplete.

And 'for commercial reasons'. Why?
« Last Edit: March 23, 2017, 03:13:25 pm by petejh »

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
and I don't get the sense that I've had as much information as I want from the BMC about who did and knew what and when. That report by Martin Wragg is incomplete.

 :wall:

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
I'd never heard of him a couple of weeks ago, but by God if I've learned something since it's that I've got no confidence in Bob Pettigrew. And Doug Scott, if it's him who's pulling the strings. Sad times.

Yes, I have difficulty squaring Doug Scott backing this motion and his current role of BMC Patron which is for people who have provided exceptional support and assistance to the BMC :blink:
« Last Edit: March 24, 2017, 03:23:50 pm by shark, Reason: changed link »

duncan

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2951
  • Karma: +332/-2
I don't see any significant governance issue here but that's not the point is it? As I said elsewhere, this is climbing's little Culture War.

The BMC is not above criticism but in my experience they can be sensitive to and act on suggestions without being threatened with the procedural equivalent of a sawn-off shot-gun.

Vote now!

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
and I don't get the sense that I've had as much information as I want from the BMC about who did and knew what and when. That report by Martin Wragg is incomplete.

 :wall:


Is that a subtle reference to the importance of the BMC appealing to all segments of the climbing and hillwalking community, including the indoor wall segment?

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
Well, no support for the motion at the SW area meet, tonight.
Interesting that one of the supposed proposers at the meeting this evening, had in fact been shocked to discover his name on the list and had Bob remove it p.d.q.
I don't know how much of the conversation at that end of the table you could hear Simon, but there is no support for Bob from the Alpine Club. The analysis someone had knocked up of how the names had come and gone from the various draft versions and that those names remaining had an average of 44 years membership (making them almost all over 70), was quite interesting...

slab_happy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1088
  • Karma: +141/-1
Interesting that one of the supposed proposers at the meeting this evening, had in fact been shocked to discover his name on the list and had Bob remove it p.d.q.

Out of interest -- one of the supposed proposers from the final version of the motion, as circulated by the BMC? Or from one of the draft versions? I know there's previously been mention of the latter.

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
Interesting that one of the supposed proposers at the meeting this evening, had in fact been shocked to discover his name on the list and had Bob remove it p.d.q.

Out of interest -- one of the supposed proposers from the final version of the motion, as circulated by the BMC? Or from one of the draft versions? I know there's previously been mention of the latter.
He was clear his name did not make it to the final.

My impression from the conversation we had prior to the meeting is one of a group of old men, somewhat embarrassed by one of their own.
The Alpine Club are holding an EGM on the first, so that's going to be worth watching.
It is, officially, on a separate matter; that seems rather similar, but I'm told that's coincidence. Or something equally cryptic...



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

match

Offline
  • *
  • regular
  • Posts: 31
  • Karma: +1/-0
AC President's statement in response to this motion, for info:

"President’s statement regarding Bob Pettigrew’s post on UK Climbing on 19th March and his Motion of No Confidence in the BMC Executive

There has been considerable speculation about the intentions of the Alpine Club on both the UK Climbing and UK Bouldering websites following a post of words by AC Member Bob Pettigrew which appeared on UKC on the 19th of March. In that post, Bob Pettigrew sets out a case that the AC should lead an ‘independent review’ of the BMC. This led to many defamatory statements against the Alpine Club, which are damaging to both our reputation and integrity. These threads continue, so I am therefore putting the record straight regarding the AC’s position.

The AC Committee has never considered that the AC should lead a review. Quite the contrary. We fully support the recent call by the BMC Executive for an independent review of governance, policy, and operations. The AC is not independent of the BMC. Like all Clubs affiliated to the BMC, we are a Member Club of the BMC and like all Clubs are deeply involved with the BMC, with many AC Members working as volunteers on shared initiatives. The AC, if requested, will offer appropriate support to any formal review, as other Clubs and individual members will hopefully also offer to do.

Turning to the Motion of No Confidence in the BMC Executive now lodged for discussion at the BMC AGM on 22nd April, the AC Committee respects everyone’s right to their own opinion and understand the intentions of AC members to seek a BMC fit for purpose for the coming years, which will inevitably be full of new challenges. However, in my opinion, should the Motion succeed it would mean a year of chaos before a new Executive could take over and bring some stability. In the meantime, opportunities such as the BMC acting as moderator between the IFSC and UIAA to sort out their governance roles and the joint AC/BMC initiative to provide advice and information to young alpinists would be lost. I also suspect that Competition Climbing would establish its own governing body. Whatever you think about Competition Climbing, it is better to keep it inside the broad remit of the BMC than to risk a fracture.

If you have not done so already, I strongly encourage all AC Members to vote in favour of the AC SGM motion in support of the BMC review. If you cannot attend the AC SGM on 1st April at 55 Charlotte Road, I attach herewith a proxy voting form. The deadline is 5pm today. If you agree with the Committee, please vote both in favour of the motion and ensure that the proxy for a vote on any amendments is with the AC President.

By voting in favour of the AC Committee’s Motion, you will help your Club to distance itself from the rumours circulating that the Club is trying to take over the BMC and is supporting the Motion of No Confidence. In the meantime, we will carry on without pause with a number of important joint AC/BMC initiatives and the excellent work AC volunteers are doing in partnership with the BMC.

John Porter

President"

GraemeA

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1875
  • Karma: +80/-6
  • FTM
    • The Works, it's the Bollocks
It is a shame that haven't gone as far as to say 'Vote No' but I could see that to do this would be pretty hard as it would effectively being censuring many of their most prominent members. I would hope that there are some wrist being slapped behind the scenes.

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal