[tomtom]

ask about how others who aren't BMC members perceive the organisation.

https://youtu.be/uS4LLAKPwyk?t=1m30s

[Oldmanmatt]

Shark, I’m assuming you’ve seen the results of the ABC research?
It is, I think, another indication of how far out of touch people like Bob are; and to a lesser extent, the BMC.

[shark]

Shark, I’m assuming you’ve seen the results of the ABC research?
It is, I think, another indication of how far out of touch people like Bob are; and to a lesser extent, the BMC.

Yes - presented by Graham Atkins himself. Our recent poll tended to back up his findings. Yes (most) of us know where things are and the trends. Even some unlikely senior figures are cottoning on albeit viewing it through their own peculiar prism.

In the focus group meeting with the current patrons and past presidents of the BMC, Sir Chris Bonington, Doug Scott, Dr. Charles Clarke, Rehan Siddiqui, Dave Musgrove and Mick Fowler all unanimously agreed, that indoor competition climbing should be included. The young indoor climber of today, or the young fell walker of today, may become a mountaineering star of the future. The young men and women who are members ( or potential members ), of the BMC are its life blood and vital to the continued success of the organisation.

 

[danm]

, and some of my concerns were similar to those raised by Bob P. They seem pretty important, but unfortunately in disputes of this nature, it becomes partisan.

I agree Dave - one of the saddest things about this has been that Bob and friends approached this in such an awful and destructive way, that important views which include concern about the possible effects of commercialisation on climbing might become marginalised.

I heard at one area meeting that one reason some people had voted for Bobs motion was because they'd been told that when climbing goes into the Olympics and the BMC becomes a governing body, then recreational climbers would become subject to drug testing like other athletes. That level of distortion and simple lack of attachment to the real world has done lots of damage.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Hi Dan.

Cheers, I think it works both ways though, otherwise you get people responding to the sense of being attacked, too much posturing/grandstanding; the debate gets lost.

Maybe it was down to inherent structural problems, that it came to this. It certainly looked as though the BMC was going in the direction that certain people wanted.

When any organisation claims to be representative, one would expect it not to be partisan, otherwise it ends up imposing a (climbing) world view of it's choice.

As for references to the BMC becoming a "governing body", I don't think that's much different from the BMC deciding what climbing "is", and on what basis it might choose to represent it.
For some people, climbing is about turning up at the crag, putting on the ghetto blaster, and smoking a nice fat doobie; no max sets though 

There have been times when the BMC has seemed more like a personal club, which then becomes selective in what climbing values that that group of people want to protect. However anyone feels about any of the methods/tactics employed, it does look as though that's what the signatories to the motion wanted to address.

Look at the range of opinions about things like the bolting of Horseshit (sorry, that was predictive text). I've heard from so many people that they can't believe Gary wasn't one of the first to be approached. I don't know the full details, so please correct me.

Commercial partners etc, there are consequences which affect others in what they might feel is an unrepresentative way.

I think that when people talk about the BMC being out of touch, they're trying to say that the BMC doesn't include them. I think it's that lack of inclusion which BP and others are reacting to. Hopefully that can be considered before laying claim to blame over who is causing damage.

Anyone got any skins btw?

[danm]

I couldn't work there Dave if I didn't think that climbing in all it's different forms, and all the different ways that people get something from it, was valued. You misunderstand the bit about governing body, I think. That's a term used within competitive sport, where you might need to apply sanctions and have rules to determine who can and can't compete, and what they have to abide by when they do. That will have no bearing on the long history of anarchy and self determination around which climbing thrives. It's a governing body for competitions, and most definitely not one for other forms of climbing. If you want to solo at your limit, no one is going to stop you and you won't need to pass a belay test to climb at Stanage.

Regarding Horseshoe - the only fair thing to say is that since starting the work, I've become more convinced than ever that the LMG took the right decision to use a contractor for the job.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Hi Dan.

I didn't misunderstand the point about Governing body. I was making the point that some of the other decisions may inadvertently have the same effect, as if the BMC were to become a governing body, in the sense misunderstood by some.

You may feel assured in yourself that the BMC is representative across the board, but I don't think that's born out by some of the sentiment often expressed. As for Horseshoe, I do find your own comments a bit "we're happy that we've done the right thing".  Well there are a lot of people who disagree.

[dave]

Well there are a lot of people who disagree.

Those people should join and hence have some leverage on the situation and the shape and direction of the BMC as a whole, and be informed about what is going on, and turn up to area meetings to discuss it and put their point across.

[danm]

Hi Dan.
I didn't misunderstand the point about Governing body. I was making the point that some of the other decisions may inadvertently have the same effect, as if the BMC were to become a governing body, in the sense misunderstood by some.

I don't understand what you mean here Dave. Could you give a specific example of what sort of thing you are concerned about? Because the things I've heard people say so far, like the example I gave above, are not based on reality. I'm sure that there are some real potential areas of conflict, which have not been considered, so if you know of any, I'd love to hear them.

You may feel assured in yourself that the BMC is representative across the board, but I don't think that's born out by some of the sentiment often expressed. As for Horseshoe, I do find your own comments a bit "we're happy that we've done the right thing".  Well there are a lot of people who disagree.

Again, examples please! You also misunderstand me on Horseshoe. The decision to use contractors was made by the LMG, nothing to do with me. I, however, independently have come to agree with the decision, based on evidence which I've already said I don't want to go into detail in public. I guess you'll have to trust me on it unless you want to chat about it over a brew.

[mrjonathanr]

Nothing to do with the OP but this seems like a decent place to post this:

Big thanks to Jon Gartside MTE officer at the BMC for support when I dropped by to ask for SPA related advice. He couldn't have been more helpful.

[petejh]

Well there are a lot of people who disagree.

Those people should join and hence have some leverage on the situation and the shape and direction of the BMC as a whole, and be informed about what is going on, and turn up to area meetings to discuss it and put their point across.

Dave that's mildly bollocks.
'Joining the BMC' doesn't equate to having any leverage on what the BMC decides to do.

And 'going to your area meeting' seems to be the go-to answer to anyone any time they raise a concern about something the BMC has chosen to do - 'well go to your area meeting then'... Sorry, again bollocks. Area meetings are an outdated throwback and a third rate format for debating an organisation's decisions and taking the temperature of member's options. They have serious limitations as a format for raising concerns for three obvious reasons -

One that should be obvious is that a lot of people don't want to have to stand up in a room full of people and try to debate a topic coherently in the fleeting few minutes allowed for debating it. A lot of people hold valid views but might not be good at expressing them to a group of relative strangers in a meeting room. A point related to this is - a lot of climbers are often quiet folk. The sort of people who enjoy blowing off in area meeting debates aren't necessarily representative.
A second is the above mentioned understandable time constraints in area meets, this severely limits any useful lengthy debate on a particular topic.
A third is.. hardly anyone goes to area meets, relative to number of BMC members (and non-BMC members who are active in the scene and making things happen, yes I know they'd be welcome to turn up but they don't either).

There's effectively no other way to raise concerns with something the BMC has chosen to do other than wait until a few minutes window of debate opportunity opens up in a meeting weeks or months down the line; where there'll maybe be another 20 people, most of whom likely aren't directly involved in the issue being discussed.
Following this substandard method of sharing views.. the national council representative goes away with 'a consensus' from the meeting and it informs policy. It isn't really any surprise the BMC manages rubs people up the wrong way. It's a second (third?) rate format for taking the temperature of members' opinions.

Most obviously - there wasn't even a second-rate debate in area meets before the BMC decided to, you know, change it's name...?!

[shark]

Nothing to do with the OP but this seems like a decent place to post this:

Big thanks to Jon Gartside MTE officer at the BMC for support when I dropped by to ask for SPA related advice. He couldn't have been more helpful.

Ah it was you! It caused a bit of surprise in the office - we don't get many walk-ins 

[dave]

Pete, how many area meetings do you actually go to, to know all this? If you've got a genius idea about a better format then don't be shy, get in contact with the BMC to let them know. Volunteer to help set up whatever this mystery perfect platform is. Assuming you are in fact a member.

Funnily enough this situation seems to be rather reminiscent of the EU - as an organisation it's not perfect yet certain individuals would rather not be in it and be able to comfortably sit in armchairs on the sidelines chirping and moaning about stuff, pointing out all flaws, to minimal effect rather than actually be a part of the solution and taking any tangible steps to make things better or come up with an alternative. All the time undermining the status of the organization and directly or indirectly jeopardizing all the often-unseen great work that goes on. Sorry but I've got no time for those people.

[Will Hunt]

And 'going to your area meeting' seems to be the go-to answer to anyone any time they raise a concern about something the BMC has chosen to do - 'well go to your area meeting then'... Sorry, again bollocks. Area meetings are an outdated throwback and a third rate format for debating an organisation's decisions and taking the temperature of member's options. They have serious limitations as a format for raising concerns for three obvious reasons -

One that should be obvious is that a lot of people don't want to have to stand up in a room full of people and try to debate a topic coherently in the fleeting few minutes allowed for debating it. A lot of people hold valid views but might not be good at expressing them to a group of relative strangers in a meeting room. A point related to this is - a lot of climbers are often quiet folk. The sort of people who enjoy blowing off in area meeting debates aren't necessarily representative.
A second is the above mentioned understandable time constraints in area meets, this severely limits any useful lengthy debate on a particular topic.
A third is.. hardly anyone goes to area meets, relative to number of BMC members (and non-BMC members who are active in the scene and making things happen, yes I know they'd be welcome to turn up but they don't either).

There's effectively no other way to raise concerns with something the BMC has chosen to do other than wait until a few minutes window of debate opportunity opens up in a meeting weeks or months down the line; where there'll maybe be another 20 people, most of whom likely aren't directly involved in the issue being discussed.
Following this substandard method of sharing views.. the national council representative goes away with 'a consensus' from the meeting and it informs policy. It isn't really any surprise the BMC manages rubs people up the wrong way. It's a second (third?) rate format for taking the temperature of members' opinions.

Most obviously - there wasn't even a second-rate debate in area meets before the BMC decided to, you know, change it's name...?!

Now, don't get me wrong, I like to disagree with Pete as much as anybody else here, but he does have a point about the area meetings.

I don't get to all of them, but I do go when I can. The last one I went to was the Yorkshire one where Paul and I did a bit of chat about Unknown Stones. The turnout was really high and the convener thought this was down to there being a talk after the usual business of the meeting.
During the meeting there were a few things that came up. Other than the usual access updates, there was something or other about some decision that had to be made. I think it was something like reducing the number of people to sit on such and such a panel or committee from 3 to 2.
Everybody muttered their assent into their pints, longing to skip to the good bit at the end of the meeting. It occurred to me that I had no idea whether the mooted change was important (presumably it is to someone or they wouldn't have put the decision to National Council). I didn't really understand it. Who knows, perhaps in 5 years time we'll all be moaning about the decision and someone will utter the immortal words "it was agreed at the area meeting".

Having said that, the issues are listed on the agenda beforehand, so anyone with an opinion can plan to come down and raise it with the meeting. Perhaps it should be more incumbent on the chair to outline what they believe to be the possible consequences of a decision and the pros/cons either way?

For stuff like the re-brand and the Horseshoe bolting, there's clearly going to be more interest here and the area meetings are a decent forum. That said, some sort of online discussion wouldn't go amiss, for all the points that Pete raises. I would support this on a platform where people had to use their real name as their moniker, as it might avoid the sort of trolling and obtuse misinformation that the likes of gallam1 come out with.

[petejh]

Pete, how many area meetings do you actually go to, to know all this? If you've got a genius idea about a better format then don't be shy, get in contact with the BMC to let them know. Volunteer to help set up whatever this mystery perfect platform is. Assuming you are in fact a member.

I used to be an individual member, I'm now a club member through the CC. I've been to I think 4 meetings, plus one agm (to vote for area rep).
The make-up of the meetings consisted, with a few exceptions, mostly of older people. Hillwalking and 'snowdon policy' was well represented. Which is fine. Any debate was time-limited, which is understandable. Not many people spoke other than the chair, the access rep and the usual opinionated old guy who makes everyone's eyes roll..

As for suggesting a better format, I mentioned in the first meet I ever went to that the format was prohibitive to quieter people wanting to take part (standing up in front of a crowd and speaking etc..) and suggested live streaming conference meets a la investors conference calls where the CEO, CFO and CMO (thinjk Chair, access rep, other rep) usually say their parts, then open up the call to pre-arranged questions from investors. This could be done at the same time as having people who want to physically attend. This was met with blank eyes. I'm not suggesting this is a perfect format or even a viable one, but I made the effort to think about it which I think is more than anyone else has bothered to do.

Funnily enough this situation seems to be rather reminiscent of the EU - as an organisation it's not perfect yet certain individuals would rather not be in it and be able to comfortably sit in armchairs on the sidelines chirping and moaning about stuff, pointing out all flaws, to minimal effect rather than actually be a part of the solution and taking any tangible steps to make things better or come up with an alternative. All the time undermining the status of the organization and directly or indirectly jeopardizing all the often-unseen great work that goes on. Sorry but I've got no time for those people.

Rubbish. I just said that 'joining the BMC' or 'going to area meetings' is not some panacea for influencing the BMC, as you implied. I pointed out that the only way to make your opinion heard by the BMC is through an outdated quarterly area meeting, with all the limitations this format has outlined above, and that hardly anyone attends (relative to climbers in the scene).

Care to argue my points?

[dave]

Care to argue my points?

If I must.

'Joining the BMC' doesn't equate to having any leverage on what the BMC decides to do.

No but you have more chance and more clout as a member.

And 'going to your area meeting' seems to be the go-to answer to anyone any time they raise a concern about something the BMC has chosen to do

That's because they are most obvious easy grass-roots chance to be involved. To hear others talk, to stick your oar in, or just sit back and be better informed.

Area meetings are an outdated throwback and a third rate format for debating an organisation's decisions and taking the temperature of member's options. They have serious limitations as a format for raising concerns for three obvious reasons

Again, come up with a better alternative. Put up or shut up.

One that should be obvious is that a lot of people don't want to have to stand up in a room full of people and try to debate a topic coherently in the fleeting few minutes allowed for debating it.

As mentioned above, attending meetings is not about talking to the room. Sitting and hearing and being better informed is as important, and in many cases of the naysayers on here regarding the horseshoe thing would have avoided a lot of the subsequent online debate and gnashing of teeth.

There's other ways to have your voice heard at meetings should you want to - vote on issues being presented for a vote for instance. Or submit something written to be read out etc etc.

And if you think everything is only debated fleetingly then you've obviously never attended a Peak area meeting....

A third is.. hardly anyone goes to area meets, relative to number of BMC members

How you think not attending is going to improve this is beyond me. "I'm not going cos nobody goes" is self-fulfilling. Also sounding off online about how shit meetings are and generally being extremely negative at every given chance online about anything the BMC does is not likely to encourage others to get involved and turn up. Plenty of folk have, at the Peak ones, done stuff to improve attendance, like generally spreading the work on social media, changing venues, sorting out free food, giving lifts, helping out with newsletters, putting on slideshows and talks afterwards, running quizes etc. Some areas are not doing this clearly, but the precedent and example is there to be set. You know your local area best, you know the demographics and where the best venues are, make it happen.

There's effectively no other way to raise concerns with something the BMC has chosen to do other than wait until a few minutes window of debate opportunity opens up in a meeting weeks or months down the line;

Well that's quote clearly not true. As I say, nobody is saying area meets are perfect or a panacea the be all and end all, but they are better than not having them, in the absence of an alternative. They are an obvious starting point, and conveniently dismissing them just seems like a cop-out. If you have that magic alternative, still waiting to hear it. A degree of put-up-or-shut-up required here.

[Johnny Brown]

The make-up of the meetings consisted, with a few exceptions, mostly of older people. Hillwalking and 'snowdon policy' was well represented. Which is fine. Any debate was time-limited, which is understandable. Not many people spoke other than the chair, the access rep and the usual opinionated old guy who makes everyone's eyes roll..

I've only ever been to the Peak ones, which have been nothing like this in the forty or so I've attended in the last 10+ years. 40-100 people, good range of ages and interests, lively debate open to all. About the only criticism we've had in that time was when a BMC staff member cried 'elitism' over a top climber turning up to speak against his trad-lite/retro-bolt agenda.

If people can't make it questions are often emailed through to the chair. This could be more widely used and promoted.

I understand the Peak area is something of an exception, but as Dave says good or bad attendance is likely to perpetuate itself.

Personally I think forum threads can be an excellent tool for debate too, maybe official BMC threads might be an idea.

[mrjonathanr]

That's blunt

Sorry if I interrupted work Simon, I was in the area and thought face to face would be easiest to talk. And I got a hundred leaflets for school, so it worked out well

[Offwidth]

I've commented on UKB and UKC threads and got feedback from BMC officers (and sometimes debate items included on area meeting agendas throught this). I've commented  on the BMC website and had replies from the BMC and others have done so on the Facebook page. Like JB I've witnessed mainly excellent debate and fair voting at the Peak Area (with the exception of a one year decline due to poor local leadership) including where wrtitten submissions and forum items were raised when appropriate and where non members are welcome (grooming ya know). I've emailed the BMC direct and got replies; and even Bob's 'blood on vellum' dishonest privte attack letters to various Exec members apparently got replies. I've 'knobblled BMC officers during their leisure time at the crag. The AGMs I've attended (in moments of madness) were lively debates on motions submitted and issues raised in the meetings. I've talked to the BMC at Kendal and various other Festivals and at Crag Clean ups. There is Summit available in all sorts of places as well as posted to members. But apart from all that, the BMC are obviously completely shit at communication with its members on real issues (or to non members in the areas under their remit).

Its your right to hold concerns about what you regard as a precedent but its not something shared by anything like a majority and the answers to your views from people with equivalent experience seem logical to me as someone who works closely with access experts.

[shark]

That's blunt

Sorry if I interrupted work Simon, I was in the area and thought face to face would be easiest to talk. And I got a hundred leaflets for school, so it worked out well

You misunderstand. The sad face was because it would be nice if more members dropped in on spec (Tomtom excepted of course). Sorry it was ambiguous.

[shark]

I have split the recent posts about Horseshoe out and merged them with the existing topic on the subject BMC pays rope access contractor for re-equipping work.