[northern yob]

There are some well respected names on there.

Which I have now lost a lot of respect for.

Are any of them under 60?

That's no excuse. I plan to still be cool when I'm 70....

[T_B]

There are some well respected names on there.

Which I have now lost a lot of respect for.

Are any of them under 60?

And? Some of those individuals have contributed a massive amount to British climbing and mountaineering. Just dismissing their obvious concerns about the way the BMC is run by effectively describing them as out-of-touch old gits is a bit pathetic.

[Will Hunt]

Can we still keep it up Wil?

Dave Turnbull has referenced it on the ukc thread

In reply to Ian W:

Just to clarify a few things: the motion as published on UKB and in the link further up this thread is an earlier version of Bob Pettigrew's text from a few weeks ago; this version gives a flavour of the underlying issues but the motion formally submitted to the BMC on 16 Feb has been simplified to a more straightforward 'no confidence in the Executive Committee...' form of words, the accusation being that the BMC Exec (the Board of Directors) wilfuly and deliberately withheld 'future policy decisions' (presumably Climb Britain) from the AGM in April 2016. The BMC is still in correspondence with Bob Pettigrew on a few issues, in particular precisely who has formally signed up to the motion.

We should know by 9 March (the deadline for AGM submissions) exactly what is happening with this.

That's interesting if the stuff about "collusion" with the enemy has disappeared. Somebody must have mentioned to Bob that it sounded a bit nuts.
I'm happy for it to stay up but could you pop a note on that post explaining that it's a draft version? Just for the purposes of letting people know exactly what they're looking at.

I only posted it because I couldn't remember seeing it published online and it seemed unusual in this time of open letters that something had been proposed and the wording wasn't available for scrutiny. I certainly think people should be allowed to look at it before the AGM so they can be aware that they need to vote by proxy (or by post hopefully).

[northern yob]

There are some well respected names on there.

Which I have now lost a lot of respect for.

Are any of them under 60?

And? Some of those individuals have contributed a massive amount to British climbing and mountaineering. Just dismissing their obvious concerns about the way the BMC is run by effectively describing them as out-of-touch old gits is a bit pathetic.

Exactly they should know better. Age or what/who they are counts for nothing, their views are no more relevant than anyone else's.

[Oldmanmatt]

There are some well respected names on there.

Which I have now lost a lot of respect for.

Are any of them under 60?

And? Some of those individuals have contributed a massive amount to British climbing and mountaineering. Just dismissing their obvious concerns about the way the BMC is run by effectively describing them as out-of-touch old gits is a bit pathetic.

Actually, there is no reason to shy away from that argument. It is a perfectly valid position.

There is every probability that their view represents a minority view, of a reactionary nature.
Previous contributions do not confer Omniscience nor undue respect for political stances assumed in later life.

Or they may accurately represent a majority view, time will tell.

It seems unlikely, to be honest. It's not as if the views expressed here are supportive and most of the posters here would (rightly) be seen as "Old men" by the majority of practicing Climbers, Mountaineers or even Hill Walkers.

[mrjonathanr]

Regarding the likes of Molly, John Cleare, Doug Scott, Dennis Gray....

who they are counts for nothing

 

Really? Equal voting rights - one member, one vote, age and experience notwithstanding - yes, totally.

But you believe that level of experience and commitment to the sport is no more relevant than that of someone who might have started in the last 12 months? You're having a laugh. 

[Will Hunt]

Regarding the likes of Molly, John Cleare, Doug Scott, Dennis Gray....

who they are counts for nothing

 

Really? Equal voting rights - one member, one vote, age and experience notwithstanding - yes, totally.

But you believe that level of experience and commitment to the sport is no more relevant than that of someone who might have started in the last 12 months? You're having a laugh.

+1

Though I suspect people might be confusing this view with one that suggests that because these experienced old hands hold a view then it must necessarily be right.

On the face of it this seems like it boils down to the fundamental view that the people in the list don't like competition climbing, don't like climbing being in the Olympics, and don't like the BMC's involvement in these spheres. That's the debate that we should be having, if indeed we haven't already had it enough times God help us, not some reactionary challenge to the leadership.

[mrjonathanr]

Quite. Let me rephrase that...

Given the depth of experience of some of those names I wouldn't casually dismiss them as old gits. I'd pay them the respect of listening quite carefully.

And then I'd dismiss the argument if i didn't feel it stood up to scrutiny, but not before.

[JR]

A Saturday spent looking at annual reports, Sport England stats and writing about the BMC...

Is this the BMC's Corbyn moment?

https://johnroberts.me/outdoors/2017/03/is-this-the-british-mountaineering-council-bmc-corbyn-moment/

[northern yob]

Regarding the likes of Molly, John Cleare, Doug Scott, Dennis Gray....

who they are counts for nothing

 

Really? Equal voting rights - one member, one vote, age and experience notwithstanding - yes, totally.

But you believe that level of experience and commitment to the sport is no more relevant than that of someone who might have started in the last 12 months? You're having a laugh.

thats a complicated issue, of course their experience and commitment to the sport is more relevant than someone new to the sport. Is their view more relevant than mine (25 years plus climbing) or many other people on here, yourself included no doubt? I don't believe it is. Who they are or what they have done means nothing to me. Do I respect them? I respect what they've done, does that make their views more relevant? No. In the same way that what you or I have done doesn't make our personal view more relevant than the other persons

And as you said its one member one vote! Its how democracy works... the tyranny of the masses. Fortunately I'm relatively confident they are in the minority. As I've already said on here I hope this makes the BMC become more progressive and move FORWARD.
 
A split will be a disaster in my view. The BMC has to move with the times or its gonna die a slow death.

[Oldmanmatt]

I'm 46, now.
I started climbing when I was 8.
So, 1978.
I started climbing beside and with men (almost exclusively men, then) who wore big boots and Army surplus jackets. Men who thought chalk was cheating.
Some of them had fought in the war.
By the time I was a teen, I'd discovered sticky rubber (anyone remember the B4 boot?) and owned a bright pink chalk bag (Troll, still hanging by my fingerboard).

Now, most of those men knew, that their Parachute smocks, represented a break with their own parent's Tweed and knotted hemp; in much the same way my Lycra broke with their cammo. They smiled and the world moved on.

Some did not.

And, as is the way of humans, they dug in against the new. They clasped their acolytes close and said "Our's is the true way" or "Our's is the way it has always been".

A bit odd really. I mean, I knew men who would have called them upstarts and cheats, for wearing a harness...

And that's what this is.

Those figures, that show how unrepresentative of the realities of climbing in Britain today, that the BMC is; let alone that motion, are sobering.

Should the BMC fall to that motion, then it will fall to insignificance.

It must be apparent that the BMC has sod-all to do with the sport's increased participation.
That participation will continue to rise, regardless of the existence or otherwise of the BMC.
That to survive, it must represent the majority of climbers, members or not, because to recruit members it must be relevant!
That the view of the "newbie" of scant experience is every bit as important as that of the old dog; because the old dog is soon to be gone and that "newbie" might be influencing the direction of the sport for the next fifty years!

When will the old men learn, that you cannot dictate to the next generation?
When will they learn, that influence must be subtle, educational, inviting?

Answer:

As long as they are human?

Never.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Offwidth]

Several  issues need looking at here.

Firstly, the BMC is in my view healthy and functioning. I don't buy into JR's analysis as it misses out the huge volunteer efforts that don't get costed. As an example  I've spent the vast majority of 2 decades of my spare time doing things that are directly BMC work or align very much with BMC aims and feed into local area meetings: in guidebooks, crag maintenance and access, with no funding or expenses. This overlaps with club efforts who look after other guidebook areas, as I witnessed where I helped the YMC team. There are people who do more than me (hugely more say for Henry F), lots like me and large numbers with smaller but very valuable contributions; this adds up to more than the paid staff by some margin. The really important offer the BMC can continue to make is to support its current volunteers and attract new people  to volunteer, based on their local concerns and to facilitate reports and action and where neccesary apply national pressure. JR does raise areas where the BMC need to think ...but doing this led to Climb Britain. Those attached to the no confidence motion seem inward looking and so likely to be very opposed to JR's suggestions. I agree the BMC should help all climbers and hillwalkers but focus is needed on specifics and these and the balance of the membership will always change with time. Like several posters here I'm not at all convinced we should be acting as a body to encouragd new participants....we currently represent those who choose and that's where I prefer it.

Next these old people. Their age is no issue to me;  experience is important but fully negated if they sign up to the mumbo jumbo that they did. Their power is real and important but from what they signed it is malign. Remember old experienced people also gave the youth of Britain brexit. Respect people on current issues for what they say and do now, not any admirable history.

A real problem the BMC has is with some big clubs as they have lost patriachal power and some in those clubs seem resent that. The big clubs always turn out in force for the BMC AGM and so get over-represented in my view (smaller clubs and University clubs with very different views don't really get a fair hearing).  A symptom of this is at the last AGM we had a plea to poverty on club fees. If this is a real concern (likely), the clubs should simply cross subsidise based on volunteer time for fee reduction. The BMC cannot make a loss and subsidise the majority who can afford things. The club membership get their BMC membership (with some reduced benefits) pretty much at cost. When I realised this years back, I immediately joined the BMC as an individual member ( despite being in a BMC club) but knowing my fee payments were tiny compared to time and petrol I gave. It's the famous  Kennedy plea writ backwards ask what the BMC can do for me me me. The same applies to clubs .. they do good work so members should ask what they can do for the club and so on for what the clubs can do for the good that is the BMC (as most clubs do).

I urge people to use their proxy vote to oppose any no confidence motion.

[JR]

Several  issues need looking at here.

Firstly, the BMC is in my view healthy and functioning. I don't buy into JR's analysis as it misses out the huge volunteer efforts that don't get costed...

They do a huge amount of "off the balance sheet" valued work, it would be great to see more of course, but it's naive to think that increasing volunteers does not increase central costs.  Nor can all the work that needs to do be solely done that way.  Nor are volunteers always the right people for the job.

Like several posters here I'm not at all convinced we should be acting as a body to encouragd new participants....we currently represent those who choose and that's where I prefer it.

Nowhere have I said that it should actively do that and SE funding is no longer for that.  Only ignore participation trends, and don't act on it at risk of everything else.

JR does raise areas where the BMC need to think ...but doing this led to Climb Britain. Those attached to the no confidence motion seem inward looking and so likely to be very opposed to JR's suggestions.

The big clubs always turn out in force for the BMC AGM and so get over-represented in my view.

Exactly, activist capture.

I immediately joined the BMC as an individual member

Quite, you have an enormous sense of charity toward the BMC. One of the 0.1% of all climbers, hillwalkers and mountaineers, unlike the 96%.  The 96% won't accept that value proposition.

[Offwidth]

I know volunteers are not always the right people for the job but most often they are and most BMC work is done by volunteers including a good bit of its organisational functions. You can't ignore that. Fee rises will cover the finance gap for this year. The BMC is cheap and numbers are increasing and access seems to me to be becoming more threatened given austerity.

Apologies about the representation bit being in the same paragraph,  I was adding my support to the idea, not responding to you (an idea especially important in a risk activity) .

[northern yob]

Is there a non selfish reason( less people at the crags) reason that increased participation shouldn't be encouraged? Am I missing something? I can't see how it can be a bad thing?

[Johnny Brown]

There are some well respected names on there.

Which I have now lost a lot of respect for.

Are any of them under 60?

And? Some of those individuals have contributed a massive amount to British climbing and mountaineering. Just dismissing their obvious concerns about the way the BMC is run by effectively describing them as out-of-touch old gits is a bit pathetic.

It was an actual question, not a rhetorical one. I was trying to establish if the old git label was accurate - lots of names there I don't know much about.

Whether or not they are respected is a bit moot, if I wanted to put together a credible motion I'd be looking to ensure there was a range of ages and disciplines represented.

And Yob, by 60 you might find you haven't much influence over whether you are cool or not.

[JR]

Fee rises will cover the finance gap for this year.  The BMC is cheap and numbers are increasing and access seems to me to be becoming more threatened given austerity.

1) If fees are going up... then value perception is tested further
2) I think your perception of value is skewed here cf. the average climber and potential member
3) Numbers are increasing too slowly, and rate has slowed actually (82k now I'm told), relative to other measures
4) If access is threatened, then it's not a free job to tackle it
5) You get more volunteers to tackle that, by getting them as members first

Whilst I have an enormous respect for the work you do Offwidth, I think you're falling into the trap of only seeing it from the inside.

Re the other point, thanks for clarity.

Edit: SPG

[Johnny Brown]

Given that the BMC's stated aim is to represent climbers and hillwalkers (as opposed to just their members) maybe they should be paying less attention to member surveys and more to participation stats?

[JR]

Given that the BMC's stated aim is to represent climbers and hillwalkers (as opposed to just their members) maybe they should be paying less attention to member surveys and more to participation stats?

This...

[Offwidth]

Is there a non selfish reason( less people at the crags) reason that increased participation shouldn't be encouraged? Am I missing something? I can't see how it can be a bad thing?

I think the way climbing is introduced can lead to problems where the inexperienced can end up injured (or worse) without fully realising the risk that was entailed. I think people need to make a conscious decision to take part in a risk activity, to want to climb despite the risk (usually pretty small). The BMC participation statement is spot on and organisations associated with many ewually risky activities (most sport in practice) are much less honest.  As for participation I think trad is in serious decline, The climbers are hotspotting more and yet the Stanage warden is saying that hottest if hotspots is getting quieter

[Offwidth]

Fee rises will cover the finance gap for this year.  The BMC is cheap and numbers are increasing and access seems to me to be becoming more threatened given austerity.

1) If fees are going up... then value perception is tested further

>Yes, a neccesary evil this year and something that needs resolving soon.

2) I think your perception of value is skewed here cf. the average climber and potential member

> Maybe, but remember my background was with students and ordinary hillwalkers and climbers... most I know seem very happy with the BMC and most didnt care much either way about Climb Britain. The ones I know from my BMC work and/or big club members are the ones who talking about value and getting upset with names. If I add up just the monetary value of things I get including BMC shop discounts my fee has a negative cost. The same applies to many club members for club fees if regularly using huts.

3) Numbers are increasing too slowly, and rate has slowed actually (82k now I'm told), relative to other measures

>See 1

4) If access is threatened, then it's not a free job to tackle it

> Again it wont get tackled at all witout the volunteers. Even if something bizzare happens and the organisation dies, the access and guidebook work won't stop. I'd rather people help access and other climbers than join the BMC, fan that I am and as much as I would prefer them to do both..

5) You get more volunteers to tackle that, by getting them as members first

>Most I worked with from my Nottingham student background were volunteers first.

Whilst I have an enormous respect for the work you do Offwidth, I think you're falling into the trap of only seeing it from the inside.

> I dont think so for the reasons above but I could be wrong. Even so I won't be doing any harm (like those behind this motion will)

Re the other point, thanks for clarity.

Edit: SPG

[JR]

Fee rises will cover the finance gap for this year.  The BMC is cheap and numbers are increasing and access seems to me to be becoming more threatened given austerity.

>Yes, a neccesary evil this year and something that needs resolving soon.

It plugs a gap in the short term, at the detriment of potential members more than current members.  Refactoring subscriptions should have happened earlier.

2) I think your perception of value is skewed here cf. the average climber and potential member

> Maybe, but remember my background was with students and ordinary hillwalkers and climbers... most I know seem very happy with the BMC and most didnt care much either way about Climb Britain. The ones I know from my BMC work and/or big club members are the ones who talking about value and getting upset with names. If I add up just the monetary value of things I get including BMC shop discounts my fee has a negative cost. The same applies to many club members for club fees if regularly using huts.

Again, you're not looking at it from the perspective of a non-member looking in. Plus all prospective members won't see or value the same benefits as you.

3) Numbers are increasing too slowly, and rate has slowed actually (82k now I'm told), relative to other measures

>See 1

As a result of not making the offering more attractive already. So why's that happened against a potential market size rising at a greater rate?

> Again it wont get tackled at all witout the volunteers. Even if something bizzare happens and the organisation dies, the access and guidebook work won't stop. I'd rather people help access and other climbers than join the BMC, fan that I am and as much as I would prefer them to do both..

Agree not in the short term, but it would not continue in the long without a some sort of core organisation. Unrealistic otherwise.  Again, I think you're looking at from the perspective that "I would continue, and I know other volunteers I work with would", not from the outside.

5) You get more volunteers to tackle that, by getting them as members first

>Most I worked with from my Nottingham student background were volunteers first.

The core route to increasing membership is not through getting people to volunteer first.  It could be by using volunteers (supporting a membership drive), buyt as much as I'd love to see more volunteers, simply more volunteers is not the key to a financial and organisational stability in the long term.

Whilst I have an enormous respect for the work you do Offwidth, I think you're falling into the trap of only seeing it from the inside.

> I dont think so for the reasons above but I could be wrong. Even so I won't be doing any harm (like those behind this motion will)

I just don't see what your medium/long term strategy is, other than more of the same, but not what Pettigrew wants?  Do you disagree that increasing membership is a key priority? And if so, what are the priorities?  What happens in 5 - 10 years?

[JR]

As for participation I think trad is in serious decline, The climbers are hotspotting more and yet the Stanage warden is saying that hottest if hotspots is getting quieter

Maybe, maybe not, I think that needs qualifying with some actual participation stats before it provides the backbone to any strategy.

[Offwidth]

Medium term I think the BMC has significant capacity to grow within the current participant base. This thread shows why: plenty òf good hearted serious climbers don't properly realise what the BMC does and why it important. The BMC needs some improved marketing and assistance of  the membership in this. Sadly a significant proportion of climbers do know but are too bloody mean or miserable, even at discount rates. I think politics will help recruitment.. people will get worked up as cash starved NPs start to struggle.  also think initiatives like Shark's job will help... imagine companies seiged with his single minded tenacity ;-)

I came to the BMC surrounded by non BMC members and quite a few followed and volunteered before they joined (their voluntary work being worth more than the fee profit).  I talk to young climbers indoors and all ages of hillwalkers at work or on the hill/in't pub. I think I have a good insight into the outside view and have convinced quite a few people to join.  I don't believe the good work combined with insurance and shop discounts are not currently attractive enough as a combination (discounts being most obvious benefit and only not valid if people are in some other club that gives the same discount level.. in which case I don't mind...other clubs and organisations do good work).

Maybe I'm a bit of an optimist. I remember how I started in the hills and see myself in the enthusiasm of the young.

[JR]

I think we essentially agree in many respects then, except on perhaps how to alter value proposition.  It works both ways, the price can go down/stable if membership goes up enough and subscriptions re-factored correctly.  You're (rightly) arguing the corner for and from the perspective of a volunteer.