[highrepute]

Thanks for replying Will, appreciate it.

This from Shark is probably the most concerning thing I've read about this. It's not entirely clear, but what he's written there can be interpreted as "participation should be encouraged amongst anybody who might enjoy it" (and we'll deal with the consequences after the fact - worth noting that this doesn't align with my understanding of the recommendation which should insist that sustainability concerns are integral to the policy, not an add-on), which is where my missionary analogy came from.
It could also be that he's just saying "those who might enjoy climbing should not be excluded from starting up". The latter is wholly different from the former.

He's suggesting the later -  "those who might enjoy climbing should not be excluded from starting up"

but it sounds like, from this thread, that you and others are arguing against this position. Although, you have recently added the caveat - unless they is from a socio-eco-phsyio-disadvantaged position.

Or do you agree with that statement? and would you be happy for that to be the position of the BMC?

[petejh]

...
He's suggesting the later -  "those who might enjoy climbing should not be excluded from starting up"

but it sounds like, from this thread, that you and others are arguing against this position. Although, you have recently added the caveat - unless they is from a socio-eco-phsyio-disadvantaged position.

From what I can tell nobody on this thread is against the idea that "those who might enjoy climbing should not be excluded from starting up".

What's being pointed out time and time again by different posters is that, as things already stand, for the vast majority of the population ''nothing stands in the way of anyone who might enjoy climbing from starting doing it''.

Therefore the BMC does NOT NEED to do anything to promote participation among the general public - minorities excepted (perhaps) - because there is no problem requiring action.

But BMC has stated it WOULD LIKE to increase participation as one of its core policies.

Questions are quite rightly being asked about who benefits from such a policy. I'd argue it's not climbers, but the BMC; and I'd suggest money, influence and the status of the BMC is at the heart of it.

[highrepute]

...
He's suggesting the later -  "those who might enjoy climbing should not be excluded from starting up"

but it sounds like, from this thread, that you and others are arguing against this position. Although, you have recently added the caveat - unless they is from a socio-eco-phsyio-disadvantaged position.

From what I can tell nobody on this thread is against the idea that "those who might enjoy climbing should not be excluded from starting up".

What's being pointed out time and time again by different posters is that, as things already stand, for the vast majority of the population ''nothing stands in the way of anyone who might enjoy climbing from starting doing it''.

Therefore the BMC does NOT NEED to do anything to promote participation among the general public - minorities excepted (perhaps) - because there is no problem requiring action.

But BMC has stated it WOULD LIKE to increase participation as one of its core policies.

Questions are quite rightly being asked about who benefits from such a policy. I'd argue it's not climbers, but the BMC; and I'd suggest money, influence and the status of the BMC is at the heart of it.

I'm trying to ask what policy you'd advocate as an alternative, if any?

[Will Hunt]

Sorry James, not completely following what you're asking me to confirm. My opinion has changed since starting to post here as some people involved in the BMC and the recommendation itself have come forward and offered more info. The concern is that the BMC's policy will be to encourage participation across the board with little consideration as to the impacts on crags and climbs. I now don't think it will say this, but I'll be interested to see what it does say. I would have thought that anybody can see that climbing cannot remain healthy and also support endless participation growth.

To summarise, my position is (presently; I reserve the right to change my mind!):

I would not support the BMC in encouraging increased participation across the board. I think it's growing fast enough as it is and doesn't need any further encouragement. Furthermore I think that increased participation could be very harmful to the sport.

I would support the BMC in engaging with (and getting as members) people as early as possible in their climbing "career".

I would support the BMC in improving the equality of accessibility of climbing across the board. When I first starting posting on this topic I hadn't thought about the circumstances of minority groups.

I would support the BMC in encouraging existing climbers to be as diverse in their activities and crag choices as possible.

If I were more cynical and prone to enjoy a good conspiracy theory (basically Petejh), then I would suggest that Shark currently has an undeclared conflict of interest here. It's currently his job to get private companies to give the BMC money. Private companies will want something in return for this. If Shark can say that his organisation is actively trying to increase the size of that private company's market, it makes his job a lot easier. But I'm not, so I won't.

Just so I can quote it in decades to come and say "I told you so", I'm going to wager that Kilnsey will be banned by 2030.

Therefore the BMC does NOT NEED to do anything to promote participation among the general public - minorities excepted (perhaps) - because there is no problem requiring action.

I would have thought it was plain to see that there is a problem for minorities. When I go to the crag, I barely see anybody of colour and I might only be able to name one or two (at a stretch) openly gay climbers. It can't be that these people don't like climbing, so what is it that's preventing them from climbing if not inequality of access to the sport?

[petejh]

Therefore the BMC does NOT NEED to do anything to promote participation among the general public - minorities excepted (perhaps) - because there is no problem requiring action.

I would have thought it was plain to see that there is a problem for minorities. When I go to the crag, I barely see anybody of colour and I might only be able to name one or two (at a stretch) openly gay climbers. It can't be that these people don't like climbing, so what is it that's preventing them from climbing if not inequality of access to the sport?

I agree with you except for your use of the phrase 'anybody of colour' which the sooner fucks off to the bin with other stupid PC terms the better.

I can use 'fucks off' as I'm a person of gender.

[highrepute]

Thanks Will. Makes sense. I think we're in agreement .

Regarding "harmful to the sport". I agree wholeheartedly, I can't think of another sport whose resources are so finite and so easily destroyed (see Whitehouses).

I have concern that the BMC could look like an exclusive club if it has an anti-participation policy. As such I prefer the wording "responsible growth" to we "do not encourage growth". I guess this is the lefty-liberal within me.

[Will Hunt]

Therefore the BMC does NOT NEED to do anything to promote participation among the general public - minorities excepted (perhaps) - because there is no problem requiring action.

I would have thought it was plain to see that there is a problem for minorities. When I go to the crag, I barely see anybody of colour and I might only be able to name one or two (at a stretch) openly gay climbers. It can't be that these people don't like climbing, so what is it that's preventing them from climbing if not inequality of access to the sport?

I agree with you except for your use of the phrase 'anybody of colour' which the sooner fucks off to the bin with other stupid PC terms the better.

I can use 'fucks off' as I'm a person of gender.

Off topic, but, what phrase would you prefer? If I say "coloured" I sound like my dear old grandma and presumably you view "BME" with a similar disdain?

[petejh]

Yes off topic, use whatever you want but 'people of colour' to my slightly literal mind just sounds faintly ridiculous. We're all people of colour, just like we're all people of mammalian origin (Shark excepted..).

[highrepute]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30999175/warning-why-using-the-term-coloured-is-offensive

[Will Hunt]

To clarify (can't believe I have to say this): I wasn't suggesting "coloured" as a good alternative.

[PipeSmoke]

you cant expect your average climber to get behind a policy which sole purpose is earning more money for the BMC. Climbing is enjoyable as it is, and access to climbing through schools, extra curricular clubs and similar are a good way in and also through the walls own promotion of the climbing centers. Its not a problem, and will no doubt cause more problems than it solves, which by the way is what? why is it really being proposed?? Money

It would be sad to see the governing body, which is largely run by punters who hardly even climb outdoors ruin it for everyone else through short sided/selfish ideas

[Oldmanmatt]

Well, this is nice.


Sorry, I’ve been stuck on Dartmoor since Wednesday (Eldest daughter is suddenly an “actress” and landed a part in a minor movie, so muggins played chaperone. Moorland bunkhouse, bugger-all internet, farkin freezing me nads off etc), got back Saturday evening only to get snowed into the house and then having to put up my stranded brother-in-law and family and...
You get the picture.

I tried to reply on Wednesday, but it twice disappeared into the aether.

So, it’s all moved on too far. Nothing apocalyptic about anything I wrote. I think this idea that the BMC are going to be “press ganging” unsuspecting members of the public into climbing rocks, or organising some school/college road show recruiting drive is ridiculous.
And that seems to be what some are imagining.
I rather read “pro-participation” to be more along the lines of “help those who wish to participate to participate” and would, given the inevitable growth in participation, posit that should primarily involve education (with regard to newbies, as opposed to it’s overall “primary” responsibilities).
To that end, I think it should be assertive in it’s position.

As for regulation, I don’t find that thought apocalyptic in the slightest.

I can see why people might view it so, I did in the past.

It’s been creeping up on you all for decades.

I qualified as an “instructor” in 1986. A Local Education Authority cert that was all I needed to teach school groups, outdoors (top rope) and run the wall at the local sports centre.
Of course that all changed a few years later, because of what happened about a mile out to sea of where I’m sitting (and a few other “children washed off rocks” incidents).
We’re only one high profile whoopsie away from even tougher regulation of the outdoor industry, I reckon; the end of that whole “Coach”/ “Instructor” loophole, for sure.
And where regulation of “Pro’s” begins, regulation of private punters follows. We’ve been lucky to avoid it this long.
I’ve seen it happen in Mixed gas diving (and diving in general), once a real pirate activity and bloody dangerous when I started. I was part of writing some of the rules. It didn’t kill it. It’s not the end of the world. It made it safer for everyone and helped ward off a building public relations nightmare.
Far, far, better for participant controlled, non-governmental bodies to do this; than some ministry of muppets impose their idea of what should be.
I say this because I can envision circumstances that might lead to “offical” notice and feel it’s incredibly likely given an increased number of participants (did I say I think that’s inevitable? I did didn’t I?). You know, the wrong person getting squished etc.

I think thise who are arguing against a “Pro-participation” stance by the BMC are hastening the above scenario, not avoiding it.

Yes, if the BMC start “recruitment drives” or sending missionaries into schools or churches to shanghai the masses; I’ll be manking about it too.
But that’s not what they’re proposing.
Intercepting potential climbers, before they hit the rock and bringing them into the fold in an organised fashion; seems sensible.


Everyone is busy pointing out how little wilderness we have left and how we need to protect it, but simultaneously unwilling to submit to regulation or expansion of the BMC.
The bigger the BMC, the more clout it has and the more it will be able to resist outside imposition of regulation. The better it will be able to deal with access issues etc etc etc.

Hamstring them, or belittle them and you shoot yourself in the foot in the long run.

[galpinos]

But that’s not what they’re proposing.

Matt, surely the issue is that we don't know what they are proposing, the statement could be anything from “help those who wish to participate to participate" to "sending missionaries into schools or churches to shanghai the masses". It still seems up for debate (thankfully) and I imagine it's a lot more towards the first of those statements than the second but a bit of healthy skepticism is no bad thing and will hopefully lead to a clear statement that reflects what the majority of the members want.

[abarro81]

+1 to what galpinos said.

Also +1 to what Reeve said in response to Shark

[Oldmanmatt]

But that’s not what they’re proposing.

Matt, surely the issue is that we don't know what they are proposing, the statement could be anything from “help those who wish to participate to participate" to "sending missionaries into schools or churches to shanghai the masses". It still seems up for debate (thankfully) and I imagine it's a lot more towards the first of those statements than the second but a bit of healthy skepticism is no bad thing and will hopefully lead to a clear statement that reflects what the majority of the members want.

I wouldn’t dispute that, but have you read some of this (and other) threads?
That was rhetorical, I know you have.
This one degenerated into a “how we refer to minorities” debate, amongst other things. Along with slagging off BMC staffers for not climbing outdoors enough. (My weekend manager is currently Bivi’ing in a cave at Stanage, so he can get more climbing into his week off. I wouldn’t trust him to organise the proverbial “piss-up-in-a-brewery”).
Apart from the fact, that everyone I’m familiar with in a BMC Staff capacity, is (or was the last time I looked) a keen climber; time spent climbing outdoors does not a good organiser make (necessarily) and seems a flimsy qualification to head up our national governing body.

We always suffer,regardless of the differences, from being Climbers:

Contrary
Libertine
Idiosyncratic
Miserly
Bullheaded
Erratic
Reactionaries

You rember that phrase humans have about “herding cats”?
Pretty sure cats have something similar, refering to climbers.

And the sheer, vast, breadth of our church; makes any model based on a.n.other sport’s governance, inadequate.

[Will Hunt]

I think you've overestimated the level of outrage here, Matt. It seems like most people just want to see what the policy turns out to be, and are trying to get to grips with the various arguments for a pro-participation stance. Calm yourself.

There are, like, two posts about race terminology in an 8 page thread. One of those posts was me clarifying something I said earlier, which I cringed at having to make. I re-read my original post and it sounded as though I actually considering the term "coloured" a reasonable alternative. Best to put that sort of shit beyond question when you post under your real name that is googleable by friends, family, and work colleagues.

FWIW, I don't think Pipesmoke's ill-informed slur against the BMC staff is representative of the thread, and I've puntered him/her for it. I can only think of a few people who I presume work at BMC head office: Dave Turnbull, Grimer, Shark, Dan Middleton. I think they all climb outside regularly, even if Shark is a punter...

[Oldmanmatt]

You know Will, I wasn’t actually thinking of you/Pete ( despite using your digression as an amusing illustration). I was alluding to the general habit in our world of drifting off into irrelevance.
Having sat through a few BMC area meets and read a forum thread or two...
Or a hundred, I lose track...

[tomtom]

I've been away for a few days and not able to catch up - and was about to post something along the lines of

"FFS - is this pissing argument STILL going on".....

But then I saw it was taking the piss out of Shark every now and then.

As you were

[danm]

You can take this piss out of me too if you like, I'm way more of a punter than even Shark.

I've actually found this thread really heartening. Despite strong views it's stayed pretty civil and underlying it all is that people posting really do give a shit about climbing and the places we do it in. That's really important to have both for now and in the future.

[shark]

I've actually found this thread really heartening.

I've found it dismal.

[teestub]

Dire at every level; ugly, primitive, juvenile and offensive?

[tomtom]

I've actually found this thread really heartening.

I've found it dismal.

If it’s all a bit much at the BMC I’ve heard that Cambridge Analytical are looking for some brand consultants....

[abarro81]

Why dismal?

[shark]

Why dismal?

Hardly makes for a friendly sport/community/club where new participants are not welcome. More like an exclusive, self interested and unfriendly one of the type I despise.

Maybe I’m naive or blind but they are characteristics that I don’t generally recognise when I go climbing but seem to be in abundance from the BMC 30 et al and I didn’t expect it here.

[Davo]

 Hi Shark

I don't honestly see how you can interpret what has been written about not being in favour of the BMC trying to increase participation as people being unwelcoming to new participants.

Personally I am against the BMC trying to increase participation for a range of reasons but am happy to help and welcome any new climber. Just because I don't want the BMC to promote climbing doesn't mean I am against people joining the sport. I simply think that people should find their own way into the sport naturally and that the BMC should focus its efforts on things that are for the benefit of its current members, such as access issues etc...


Dave