[shark]

The BMC is a bit too large, a bit too complicated and a bit too cumbersome; is trying to do and be too many different things;

 
In answer to this:
Not too large for its remit
Yes it's too complicated and can be simplified
Yes too cumbersome
Would benefit from clearer and consistent goals

So some common ground \o/

[petejh]

I know a few people in that world who love all the BMC committee stuff and the organisational bollocks. I'm sure you do too if you think about it.

So some common ground \o/

CROW land, you mean?

[Davo]

Personally I just want my subs to be used in the most effective way to gain the most "bang for buck" to promote things I value in climbing. More people taking part is not something I value and therefore I don't want it promoted.

Dave

Is this really what you think? If a friend said to you "can i come climbing with you?"would you tell them "no, more people taking part in climbing is not something I value".

I imagine you wouldn't say that instead you'd introduce them to climbing. So why is your friend allowed to have climbing promoted to them but not "other" people? What kind of other person starting climbing specifically do you have a problem with?

That really is a bizarre way to interpret what I have written! I don't really see the link between my not wanting one of the BMC's aims to be promotion of climbing and my willingness to take a friend out climbing.

Just so I am clear, I am on a personal level happy to introduce people to climbing and my reasons for not wishing the BMC to promote climbing have nothing to do with the crags getting busier or not wanting others to enjoy the experience. It is simply that I think the BMC should concentrate on representing the interests of the members and sorting out things like access.

If you choose to interpret that to mean I wouldn't help someone learn how to climb or begrudge others getting into climbing then so be it.

[shark]

Davo

Take one aspect of pro-participation (by default) that the BMC is actively engaged in - equality (equity) and youth. Do you think that the BMCs attempts to remove barriers for underrepresented socia-economic, age, race or gender groups to encourage those groups (particularly at a time when locally funded outdoor education is on the decline) to participate in our great sport isn't a good thing? It's not a major part of our work but it is something we currently do.

[Davo]

Hi Shark

Can't really argue against that being a good thing in general. If you don't mind me asking what exactly does the BMC do to remove barriers to under represented groups?

I suppose my issue is that I really don't care about whether more people get to climb or not. I think it is a great sport and am genuinely confused that everyone doesn't love it! However I don't see that we need to go out and promote it. Their are loads of ways for people to stay fit and healthy and in my opinion the responsibility for pushing a healthy lifestyle lies with govt organisations (which I repeat I am happy to pay more taxes to).

I just feel that the BMC should focus on its core role of representing the interests of members rather than allowing this focus to be diluted. I appreciate it is possible to interpret this as I am being selfish but it really isn't, I just think the best value for money comes with having a highly focused organisation that concentrates on the key jobs rather than worrying about the societal greater good.

[shark]

Articles here: www.thebmc.co.uk/cats/all/youth_equity

They are newish areas for the BMC paid for by Sport England funding (so not coming out of your subs) which also means that they are areas that are at at risk of being cut in the near future. Sport England is currently witholding all funding until they are satisfied with progress with the independent governance review.   

[highrepute]

Personally I just want my subs to be used in the most effective way to gain the most "bang for buck" to promote things I value in climbing. More people taking part is not something I value and therefore I don't want it promoted.

Dave

Is this really what you think? If a friend said to you "can i come climbing with you?"would you tell them "no, more people taking part in climbing is not something I value".

I imagine you wouldn't say that instead you'd introduce them to climbing. So why is your friend allowed to have climbing promoted to them but not "other" people? What kind of other person starting climbing specifically do you have a problem with?

That really is a bizarre way to interpret what I have written! I don't really see the link between my not wanting one of the BMC's aims to be promotion of climbing and my willingness to take a friend out climbing.

Just so I am clear, I am on a personal level happy to introduce people to climbing and my reasons for not wishing the BMC to promote climbing have nothing to do with the crags getting busier or not wanting others to enjoy the experience. It is simply that I think the BMC should concentrate on representing the interests of the members and sorting out things like access.

If you choose to interpret that to mean I wouldn't help someone learn how to climb or begrudge others getting into climbing then so be it.

I realise my response was a bit tetchy but I did interpret what you posted like that.

I understand your argument but perhaps we're thinking about what promoting climbing in different ways.

I'm thinking about providing support to school clubs, helping indoor climbers get outdoors, providing advice to people who are venturing out to try trad/sport/bouldering/ice/alpine/mountain/hills etc for the first time, encouraging more minorities, youth, women, deprived background to get into climbing. These are things I see value in even though I might not get any direct benefit (although if some young beast has been on and chalked up my next trad onsight I'll not complain).

Perhaps Shark is thinking on further promotion than this? You do mention an aim being to increase participation - how might this be done?

[shark]

I'm thinking about providing support to school clubs, helping indoor climbers get outdoors, providing advice to people who are venturing out to try trad/sport/bouldering/ice/alpine/mountain/hills etc for the first time, encouraging more minorities, youth, women, deprived background to get into climbing. These are things I see value in even though I might not get any direct benefit (although if some young beast has been on and chalked up my next trad onsight I'll not complain).

Perhaps Shark is thinking on further promotion than this? You do mention an aim being to increase participation - how might this be done?

Not particularly. It was more the general principle than specifics. The specific pro-participation activities you suggest are all worthy things that BMC could and maybe should lead on and the sort of thing that may continue to be supported by Sport England (once their governance concerns have been addressed) and so not even a draw on member subs potentially.   

[petejh]

Davo

Take one aspect of pro-participation (by default) that the BMC is actively engaged in - equality (equity) and youth. Do you think that the BMCs attempts to remove barriers for underrepresented socia-economic, age, race or gender groups to encourage those groups (particularly at a time when locally funded outdoor education is on the decline) to participate in our great sport isn't a good thing? It's not a major part of our work but it is something we currently do.

Sounds wonderful Shark but your question could be placed in a similar category to 'Have you stopped beating your wife?', and 'Are you still a racist?'. It's leading and doesn't address the point being discussed.

The point isn't whether or not anyone is for or against 'people participating in our great activity', or 'equity'..

The point is what number targets the BMC has in mind for increased participation in our activity - which has access issues, environmental impact and limited capacity at its popular areas.
To a lesser degree is the question of how much time, money (Sport England funds acknowledged) and effort climbing's member organisation puts into encouraging those things over other things.
I'm assuming the BMC *does* have a target number in mind and a timescale, for increased participation in climbing...? Just like I assume you, as commercial consultant, have been given a target figure and timescale for 'increased commercial revenue'. Otherwise you could turn over an extra quid and have achieved your aim of 'increased revenue'; and one extra Asian teenager from Toxteth going to Stanage in the next five yeasrs would achieve the aim of increased participation from minority-represented groups.

[shark]

The point is what number targets the BMC has in mind for increased participation in our activity - which has access issues, environmental impact and limited capacity at its popular areas.
To a lesser degree is the question of how much time, money (Sport England funds acknowledged) and effort climbing's member organisation puts into encouraging those things over other things.
I'm assuming the BMC *does* have a target number in mind and a timescale, for increased participation in climbing...? Just like I assume you, as commercial consultant, have been given a target figure and timescale for 'increased commercial revenue'. Otherwise you could turn over an extra quid and have achieved your aim of 'increased revenue'; and one extra Asian teenager from Toxteth going to Stanage in the next five yeasrs would achieve the aim of increased participation from minority-represented groups.

Whoa Pete - you are jumping the gun here. We don't have pro-participation figures/targets. Why would we? - we don't have a pro-participation agenda. Some our activities but result in increased participation but would be a by-product not an aim.

Reeling back to my blog what I was saying was that if we converted to a charity it should be something to be considered as one part of a list of charitable objectives.

[Doylo]

please no more Scousers in the Cave.

[tomtom]

If the BMC becomes a charity - does that mean I'll see you chugging at Piccadilly - waving a collection tin in the faces of passing commuters?

[shark]

If the BMC becomes a charity - does that mean I'll see you chugging at Piccadilly - waving a collection tin in the faces of passing commuters?

The liberal, hand wringing, burghers of West Didsbury will be a handier and softer target

[tomtom]

If the BMC becomes a charity - does that mean I'll see you chugging at Piccadilly - waving a collection tin in the faces of passing commuters?

The liberal, hand wringing, burghers of West Didsbury will be a handier and softer target

Never works like that... most charity comes from working class areas. In West Didsbury the shutters will close, doors will be unanswered and distant mutters of discontent heard over the quinoa...