[Offwidth]

I've replied over there but thought the issues I raise were worth sharing here as well. Apologies for a large amount of self plagiarism.

Im saddened by the lazy, at times chauvinist (on Lynn's alledged inability to deal with Governance nitty gritty, despite her professional experience in the area) and sometimes insulting characterisations of Dave, Jonny etc and a farcical view that everyone voting should share his highly positive opinion on JR (speaking as someone who broadly does).  I'm pretty sure the stuff around Gron is just plain wrong and if so so those governance concerns go from serious to trivial. The ODG being slow is plain wrong (JR as chair himself said the opposite). The subs changes this time applied equally to clubs and individuals (timing wise possibly putting some club finances at genuine risk) and the late changes due to a real-time shifting of the impact on BMC finances (and these final changes were to the detriment of clubs). There is no hard evidence of the BMC anywhere not being in control of its finances; again, there were never any changes to the finance numbers when the accounts changes to narrative were made. The accounts concerns seem bizarre to me.... silly narrative errors are not a sign of financial mismanagement: the AGM felt so too and signed off any remaining small changes in advance. This stuff about undemocratic proxies are bull given the fact they are a normal company procedure and legal requirement. Moaning publicly about the BMC response whilst in his BMC job and linking this in to these other concerns is just sad really (and unfair on the organisation as they could never respond fairly on such employment matters). The Articles ARE complicated and clunky... read them and then read British Canoeing:  having spoken to Dave on this he seemed to me to want to retain the full intent but just in better written form. As I said earlier, I thought Lynn's decision rather than being 'backtracking' was very good chairing, as it probably saved time and energy in a tight schedule ( otherwise we faced lenghty wrangling about if the meeting wanted to hear from the candidates or not.... as I though the majority of the meeting did,.... despite raising a point of order about there being some dissent). I'll lay a large bet on Lynn not going against any legal advice, so I'm not sure where that came from. Time and time again these so called concerns Simon raises simply don't stand up to any examination and nothing serious seems to have any hard evidence. If this was Bob P saying these things people would be howling him down (my big problem with Bob was never his opinions, that I disagreed with, just the secret dishonest ways he dealt with them).

So after this examination of what Simon says we are left with a few minor issues at a time of massive change and super-tight deadlines for the organisation and the start of a new Chair of the Board (what must he feel like right now?) . There is the balance of power question on Nominated Director appointments:  the President being on Nominations  Committee and also taking the normal organisational proxy votes (nothing I can see an easy way round, as although there could be a choice between President and BMC Chair on the standard voting form in future.... the BMC chair is also on Non Com and faces the same risks). The only practical solution is to get more people to vote and chose a candidate when they vote. There are concerns about the Nominated Director posts not being advertised individually (a sensible holding compromise in my view given the pace of change at that time and the then brand new Chair). There are what I see as dangerous opinions about releasing proxy numbers (which would enable a good chance of back engineering the election results and hence working out how those people voted, and the risks and potential fall out of that). There are concerns about the missed narrative errors in the accounts but in this, there are also possible concerns that the Board seemed to have be caught napping, which I feel really falls on the Board members last June, especially any Independent Directors with audit responsibility and the acting Chair. I would have ideally expected a new Board under new governance arrangements to have fully examined the accounts, planned a new approach to them and have hence have likely spotted these errors early (well before audit). In a way, the exact opposite problem to what Simon described .. the 'modernisers' he speaks up for clearly missed an opportunity here (but I see this as a much lesser problem than him, especially given the workload and amount of change). The modernisers also missed opportunities in not reserving a gender post in the Nominated Director elections (this would have been controversial),  in not reserving an ODG post (... this might have upset people as being seen as a shoe-in for JR), in pushing for stronger pro voting material for the membership.... all completely forgivable given what else was going on.

We are also left with those using proxy votes, clearly disagreeing with Simon's views... and Simon's very disappointing response to that...... welcome to elections  (something that, down to my decades of experience of bad behaviour and fall-out,  I always maintained was unwise for Nominated Directors).

In conclusion  Im glad we have a discussion paper but I wish Simon had got it checked more carefully and been more measured so we could be discussing the way forward in the BMC,  instead of the errors in this report  and the unnecessary character attacks.

[shark]

To bring the thread up to date I submitted a number of questions (quoted below) to the Board via Simon Mccalla, Senior Independent Director.

The concerns expressed by me and others was discussed at the Board Meeting last Thursday.

Afterwards Simon let me know that it was decided that the Board will respond with a piece on the BMC website. This has been left with the Chairman Gareth Pierce to draft and it is hoped it will be published this week.

The advert for the 3 Nominated Director positions was posted for about a week and the interviews took place about a week after that limiting. Why were the time scales so compressed ?

Does the Board agree the short timescales were unreasonable for three senior posts and will have limited the number of applicants and made the process look rushed? Was it in fact rushed and did this contribute to mistakes and poor process?

Was there a written procedure at the outset for how the selection of candidates, the interviews and the post interview actions? If so can this document be publicly disclosed in its original form for member scrutiny. If there wasn’t a written procedure at the outset why not? nb this was answered by Andy Symes on the UKC thread - there was no documented procedure

Can you confirm that the interview panel was comprised only of Gavin Pierce Chairman, Lynn Robinson and Mick Green of National Council and clarify how the members were decided. Was anyone else on the Nominations Committee but not on the interview panel?

Is it true that the original terms of reference for the Nominations Committee required an Independent Director to participate in the interviews yet  not only did this not happen but also that the terms of reference were changed after the interviews took place that removed the requirement for Independent Directors to participate?

In terms of deciding the specialist requirements for the three pools of candidates is it true that determining the pools were largely carried out by Lynn Robinson and Dave Turnbull and if so  was that part of any written procedure and does that mean Dave Turnbull was on the Nominations Committee?

Is it true that the candidates statements were made up of a section of the Nomination Committee comments and the candidates own comments and if so why wasn’t that made clear that was the case in the candidate statements presented to members?

Is it the case that candidates were initially asked for referees rather than a proposer or seconder? Was this a mix up or were referees not required or were both required and they did not need to be the same people? How clearly and in what way was this communicated to candidates and the mooted referees? Were any of the referees/proposers/seconders contacted or approached for validation or references?

Is it true that at least one of the successful nominated candidates was not informed the election would be contested? Was this communication just verbal or was it made in writing and by whom? Was the same manner and content of communication made to all the candidates?

Was it clarified to candidates that they would or wouldn’t be expected to present at the AGM? How was this communicated?

Overall how clear and consistent were communications with the candidates and were they up to the Boards expected standards? Where lessons not learnt from the issues arising from Amanda Parshall’s on the importance of correct procedure?

At the AGM Lynn Robinson made clear to the audience that candidates would not be speaking (unlike at previous AGM’s). When was it decided this would be the case and by whom and why wasn’t that stated in AGM papers?

At the AGM in response to audience protest Lynn Robinson used Chair discretion to change that decision and asked the candidates to speak. Was that a reasonable Chair decision? Was it fair to candidates? Was it also fair to proxy voters who had already cast their votes?

Prior to making that decision the BMC solicitor from Womble Dickenson counselled from the floor that letting candidates speak would put the elections at risk to legal challenge. Was the Chair right to overrule this counsel and how serious is the legal risk?

With regard to discretionary voting the Chair typically holds a lot of discretionary votes. Is it a conflict of interest that this person is also a member of the Nominations Committee and on the interview panel?

On reflection does the Board believe that the number of discretionary votes held by the Chair at the 2018 AGM represent an unreasonable concentration of individual power?

At the end of the AGN Phil Simister (one of the Nominated Director candidates) asked from the floor whether discretionary proxy voting numbers would be made available. Lynn Robinson replied that they would be made available at the end of the meeting and published online. This did not happen. Why?

Why was the precedent from the 2018 AGM when a proxy voting decision and the numbers was disclosed immediately after a Director vote not followed at the 2019 AGM?

Why has further member requests to the Office and the President  for disclosure of discretionary proxy votes by the Chair been refused? Was this a Board decision prior to the AGM? Is it right that this information is withheld? If so how is that balanced against openness and transparency?

Regarding the AGM report published on the BMC website - why was it delayed for so long?

Is it true that whilst the report was drafted in the Marketing department it was circulated for review for editing to Lynn Robinson and others? If so who was it circulated to and what amendments were made?

Given that a number of complaints have been levelled in person and online after the AGM why has there been no public acknowledgement of these concerns from the President, Chair or Board?

Have all or any of the candidates who participated in the process including any who withdrew been approached for feedback by the Nominations Committee? If not will they?

 

 

[user deactivated]

Has everyone paid their Coffee money this month? And can we please have more On the Edges for down the side of the bog?

[Offwidth]

Well I could add Simon, on UKC, fat shamed me, which I initially thought was funny, then he made it clear he was being serious, forcing me to serious, and then he apologised (kudos). He also again forgot to do any basic fact checking on his most recent assertion (that the BMC hadn't got any money from Sport England for hill walking... which they have had for a couple of years .... Edit...actually thinking about it it might be only a year but it sure feels like a decade).

All I ask for is for him to apply basic journalistic standards: fact check properly, contact the organisation before publishing serious accusations (like those an angry mate who lost an election says) and be clear on what is fact and what is opinion. When in a conflicted position such things are especially important.

[danm]

Yeah, whilst I'm very much in agreement with Simon about tranparency being important, I was so angry with him for what he said that I had to force myself not to respond with some equally shitty comments.

Back to the discussion, the idea that SE money has all been targeted at youth and indoors is complete bollocks. So is the idea that climbing is dangerous or has poor health outcomes.

[Will Hunt]

Please can we be linked to Overwidthgate?

[shark]

So to save others checking on UKC what I said to Steve in response to what I felt was his hyperbole on the the health benefits of climbing was a sarcastic comment that he could be a Sport England "funded BMC diet buddy ambassador" and more meanly "If you are waving a BMC banner of ‘climbing as obviously healthy’ it helps your advocacy if you look the part"

I regret making those remarks and I said sorry in my next post on UKC. It was childish thing to say.

I refute your repeated assertion that I am a liar.

I also take issue with other repeated assertion that I have conflict of interest because I am 'pals' with JR which is not even true. It may be that we might be pals in the future but we have only crossed paths because of the BMC and 99% of all dialogue between us has been BMC related where we are like-minded. I admire his commitment to the BMC as key memebr of the ORG and Chair of the ODG whiolst at the same time being Vice President of the BMC and furthermore resigned as Chair of NICAS to take up that post due to potential conflict of interest. Further more his knowledge of governance is outstanding and this is an area where despite the ORG is a weak area for the BMC. His defenestration was a loss to the BMC and how and why this happened is unclear.

Genuine conflicts of interest relate to having financial or or family connections. Your conflict of interest being married to Lynn is a genuine conflict of interest which you have not flagged up on the thread once, nor included in your BMC profile even though many readers of the thread will be entirely unaware of the fact. 

[shark]

Yeah, whilst I'm very much in agreement with Simon about tranparency being important, I was so angry with him for what he said that I had to force myself not to respond with some equally shitty comments.

And you would have been right to do so. I did say sorry.

Back to the discussion, the idea that SE money has all been targeted at youth and indoors is complete bollocks. So is the idea that climbing is dangerous or has poor health outcomes.

So what I said was this

If I was at Sport England and viewing curry eating trad climbers at one end and sport climbers pushing the limits of low body mass at the other I would be sceptical of the particular health contribution climbing makes especially when the range of activities has an obvious risk of death and hospitalisation which isn’t healthy at all.

There is a case but it isn’t as glaringly obvious as you suggest but fortunately SE’s remit isn’t just health.

The healthiest and safest activity with the highest participation covered by the BMC is probably hillwalking where we get no SE funding or ever have done to my knowledge. I am guessing that most of current and probably historical SE funding for the BMC goes on Talent Development which is mainly indoor and youth based.

The BMC participation says "the BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death". I said as much as well so not sure what you are getting at.

The SE funding towards Talent Development has been significant over the year and whilst I don't know the figures I am reasonably confident that it amounts to the most £ over the years - perhaps yoyu can check with Alan - he is good at having these sort of figures at his fingertips. Furthermore it is directed funding on training and coaching young climbers. The only hill walking funding has been the funding for Carey's job (Hillwalking Officer) which was indirect and maybe lasted 3 years? and stopped a couple of years ago but the Talent Development has recently resumed I understand. The bid to get grant funding to support the Hill Walking strategy failed.

[teestub]

If I was at Sport England and viewing curry eating trad climbers at one end and sport climbers pushing the limits of low body mass at the other I would be sceptical of the particular health contribution climbing makes especially when the range of activities has an obvious risk of death and hospitalisation which isn’t healthy at all.

All I can think is it’s probably a good job you don’t work for SE. This may make some sense if you’re comparing ‘curry eating trad climbers’ to your own climbing ability, but the average trad climber is certainly going to be healthier than the 40% of the population that are physically inactive https://www.bhf.org.uk/-/media/files/research/heart-statistics/physical-inactivity-report---mymarathon-final.pdf and as such climbing deserves support in terms of health benefits.

Bringing the ‘danger’ of climbing into it seems ridiculous too, I’m not going to look for stats but I’d think that cycling for example is far more dangerous for the participant and obviously very well funded.

[shark]

So what I was responding to was Steve's assertion:

If you can't see the impending crisis in Public Health and the fantastic way that SE funded BMC activities can really help some people, with great value for money, then I'm not really sure what to say.

As health interventions go, I dont think it is good value for money especially if my assumption is correct that more SE directed funding to the BMC has gone towards already active teens getting even better at indoor climbing rather than towards hillwalking (or possibly even outdoor trad?)

Most of the BMC funding from SE, as I understand it, is 'core market' ie already participating climbers being supported rather than funding for new participants to the sport. Therefore, comparing climbing to physically inactive people is irrelevant as the funding is not aimed at getting new participants into the sport.

I acknowledge there are some health benefits to climbing and that other sports can be risky but lets not overstate the case of the BMC playing anything but a miniscule role in combating the 'impending health crisis

[JR]

but the average trad climber is certainly going to be healthier than the 40% of the population that are physically inactive https://www.bhf.org.uk/-/media/files/research/heart-statistics/physical-inactivity-report---mymarathon-final.pdf and as such climbing deserves support in terms of health benefits.

Absolutely. For a bit of SE context, since SE's 2016-21 strategy, there's two funds that the BMC can and has applied for, core market and mass market.

The core market fund is aimed at supporting those that are already active, or have an existing affinity to sport, and whose participation may have dropped off (due to life circumstances) and could be encouraged to be more active again. Almost all BMC members (and ‘curry eating trad climbers’) are in the group this fund is aimed at. This fund also funds talent development, although the elite/olympics end is funded by UK Sport (which is another discussion point entirely).  Drop off happens traditionally during teenage years, and when people have families.

The mass market fund is aimed at getting those that are inactive, active. The ~40% quoted.

The BMC's funding from SE is currently core market only (mass market has been considered in the context of hillwalking).

Although, quoting from the 2016-21 SE strategy:

"We have already backed some initiatives that would fall into this category. This includes.... commissioning research work with the Outdoor Industry Association to encourage commercial investment in new markets."

So opportunity knocks, and so does risk (BMC organisational and environmental), but it's not a stretch to see that means looking at promotion of hillwalking (given existing multi-million people participation levels, you can affect significant numbers of people with small % increases) and indoor climbing to mass market (with or without BMC).

Given the health crisis Steve raised, and that Teestub highlights, the money is likely to move to getting the inactive, active, rather than core market. So weening NRBs/NGBs off core market funding is likely to happen (and arguably already is), hence why there's a push to make NRBs/NGBs (like the BMC) more commercial and self sustainable. Clearly there's also Politics and Government budgets involved, which is another can of worms.

Ref: https://www.sportengland.org/media/10629/sport-england-towards-an-active-nation.pdf
and: http://www.theoia.co.uk/about/

[danm]

In terms of funding, the following non-indoors/youth area jobs have been SE funded or part funded in recent times:

Hillwalking Development Officer, Equity officer, Clubs Officer.

For Talent, its 1 full-time role, job shared and of course we now have Caff back doing Youth. From my perspective, if you look at resources vs demand, the youth and indoor area of work is hugely under-resourced. I do all the climbing wall support work in 0.5 days a week as an add-on to my main job with no SE funding at all.

SE have funded a lot of club based initiatives, it was one of the main focus areas for funding in the last cycle before the one where the MONC screwed it all up. Money for club kit, for training, and for IT. Seeing as clubs have a heavy hillwalking slant, this meant that during that cycle more resources were probably available for clubs via SE funding than youth/indoors received. Next cycle, the focus changed more to youth, so more money was available for that, but of course the MONC kyboshed a lot of that (although Talent was ringfenced, thank god). Not to forget the funding focus on under-represented groups, which has included lots of marketing stuff aimed at women, stuff like funding the Women in Adventure film stuff etc. So yeah, the assertion that most if not all SE money goes to youth/indoor/already active people is simply incorrect imho.

You compared climbing and hillwalking in terms of safety and health outcomes, right? Well, the vast majority of MR callouts are not to climbers but to hillwalkers. Statistically, climbing is less dangerous than driving to the crag (for you especially, I've heard about your driving  ) and the benefits of a lifelong hobby/obsession  will vastly outweigh the very small chance of death or serious injury.

It'll be interesting to see (there are no decent stats from the UK) the injury rate for indoor climbing, but given that there were an estimated 8 million visits to walls in the UK last year, putting participation above football (yes I was gobsmacked too), if I was a public health official I'd be very interested in it for it's synergy of movement, exercise and sociability in improving health outcomes but more importantly, quality of life. Whether this is a good thing for climbing is a different conversation altogether though.

[shark]

Responding to JR..

In terms of the BMC’s strategising this is a key topic that means grasping a few nettles that has been avoided in the past and hopefully an empowered and bold enough Board would get to grips with. If ‘responsible participation’ as proposed by the ORG is endorsed then the BMC and its partner organisations can go full bore for ‘mass market’ grant funding.

However, that means dealing with Stephen Venables, Doug Scott et al writing to the Times complaining that the BMC is proselytising and more seriously Tyler complaining about queueing for routes at Malham.

[shark]

Statistically, climbing is less dangerous than driving to the crag (for you especially, I've heard about your driving  )

No injuries from driving but from climbing twice in a pot and god knows how much on physio.

I'd be interested to know the real figures on how much was spent on directed stuff with indoor climbing / Talent Development. There are lots of ways to present figures but my recollection was that Talent Development got the most grant funding - probably salaries aside.

I said there is a case for all this but also a need for proportion. My wife is involved in a health intervention programme for diabetes patients and £ for £ I reckon it is better spent in that direction than through the BMC in terms of value for money for better health outcomes.   

[teestub]

I said there is a case for all this but also a need for proportion. My wife is involved in a health intervention programme for diabetes patients and £ for £ I reckon it is better spent in that direction than through the BMC in terms of value for money for better health outcomes.   

Bit of a strawman here, I don't think anyone is suggesting taking money off diabetes programs to give to the BMC!

[shark]

Bit of a strawman here, I don't think anyone is suggesting taking money off diabetes programs to give to the BMC!

If I did then you just out-strawmanned me given that isn’t what I said 

[Offwidth]

Sorry Simon I have been clear about my conflict of interest wrt Lynn and raised it specifically where my comments relate to what she may or may not have done. I also recognised the concerns about her being on the Nominations Committee and holding institutional proxies and agreed with Andy it needs looking at, but also pointed out there is no easy solution (in particular the BMC chair is also on the Nominations Committee). I see discretionary proxies as a legal requirement and I  think it important that the President elected by the members, can vote unconstrained on behalf of those members.

By your pal I meant Gron, not JR... you have written that he claims stuff happened in the ND process that I just can't see could possibly be true (If I'm wrong I'll be making a massive apology). I'm certainly not accusing you of being a liar (just in case you think I am), nor him (I'd favour cock-up over conspiracy in most disputes)

I stand by what I say about SE on UKC, as an 'old skool' social liberal (I know others disagree)

To Andy  "If you can't see the impending crisis in Public Health and the fantastic way that SE funded BMC activities can really help some people, with great value for money, then I'm not really sure what to say. I think it is very unfair that SE seems to expect a transition to where partners (and if we cant find those, then members subscriptions) might be expected to replace what is currently funded through SE, for work that saves the government a fortune in tax expenditure on the NHS, and Social Services down the line. Mulitply that up across all SE funded sports and that to me is a huge potential political scandal in the making."   

and to you...  "On the subject, the participation within the BMC remit is already huge. The BMC just need recruit more of them to help ensure people are doing things that meet their aims (access, conservation, sustainability,  skills and safety ). What on earth has happened with you that you keep spouting all this misinformation: I though everyone interested knew the BMC get SE funding for hillwalking and given you are a climbing journalist, didn't you think to just google first. I also can't believe as a climber who's views on risk I admire is peddalling risk exaggeration in that way. I'd add that one of the great things about the BMC activities compared to most sports are the much higher improvements in mental health outcomes... something UKB is really great for highlighting and I thought you might have thought about.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/11-bmc-things-funded-by-sport-england 8 / "

[JR]

I also recognised the concerns about her being on the Nominations Committee and holding institutional proxies and agreed with Andy it needs looking at, but also pointed out there is no easy solution (in particular the BMC chair is also on the Nominations Committee). I see discretionary proxies as a legal requirement and I  think it important that the President elected by the members, can vote unconstrained on behalf of those members.

The ICSA guidance, on the UK Corporate Governance Code, is very clear in relation to its recommendations on dealing with discretionary proxy votes, AGM chair obligations in relation to these (and polls) and transparency around such procedures. Obviously there's an interpretation that might be perceived differently for members' orgs rather than PLCs, but the overall differences in intent will be very minor.

With respect to Nominations Committee that's why the independents are in a majority in membership on the committee and this should be the case for it to be quorate in its activities (I think Simon did point this out from in the Feb minutes from the Board with respect to this on here or UKC).

If the operations of NomCom, and the transparency regarding voting work in partnership (driving openness and accountability), in line with the recognised good practice guidance and intent, I actually don't see it as as thorny a problem to solve as might be perceived. It's not like the BMC is the only organisation facing such issues!

[shark]

Sorry Simon I have been clear about my conflict of interest wrt Lynn

Far from clear in my opinion but let's leave that there for the time being

By your pal I meant Gron, not JR

Given that you said "who's 'pals' lost the election" that is not correct

... you have written that he claims stuff happened in the ND process that I just can't see could possibly be true.....I'm certainly not accusing you of being a liar (just in case you think I am), nor him

What you say reads that way.

When you say Gron's statement isn't believable or you cant see things as possibly being true then you are calling out the veracity of his statement bearing in mind he is a qualified chartered accountant and former PLC Director who wouldn't put his name to something lightly. If you don't think he is a liar what are you saying? 

And what exactly do you think is unbelievable Gron's statement especially now it has been disclosed there wasn’t a written recruitment procedure and so things will have been made up as the process went along:

"My experience of putting myself forward as a candidate for the post of Director, Finance was not of the professional standard I would have expected in comparison to my past experience of being appointed a Director of public companies. The communication about the process was particularly poor. I was asked to provide two referees and provided Simon and Rehan Siddiqui having first cleared it with them. At no point was it made clear to me, or them, that in fact a proposer and seconder was required. Furthermore, when I was informed that I had been successful after interview it was not explained that it was a contested election. I only found out because Simon and Rehan told me.
In a public company a single candidate is nominated by the Nominations Committee and that is then ratified by vote at an AGM. I suggest that this process of single nominations is one that should be considered by the BMC going forward. I am similarly concerned by the lack of transparency about the discretionary voting.
As a member of the Finance Committee, my primary motivation to join the Board was to properly understand the financial workings of the BMC as the information provided to me whilst on the BMC Finance and Audit Committee was not clear and insightful, which I found frustrating.
My experience has left me with a poor opinion of the current workings of the BMC and led me to tender my resignation from the Finance and Audit Committee the day after the AGM."

[Will Hunt]

Is this actually going anywhere? Maybe just settle it in the street like gentlemen?

[danm]

Or go climbing together and chat civilly about all this afterwards over a pint. You could short rope Si on the Oak and get called a cunt, then he could belay you on some gruesome wide crack where you complain that the guidebook grade is wrong, and if you can jam it's only Mild Hard Severe 4a.

[SA Chris]

Roshambo

[shark]

Even though I am pretty battle hardened with flame wars I have been taken aback with the repeatedly provocative, confrontational posts by Steve to what was a largely well received article that was hard to write.

I could just leave the accusations and slights unrefuted which leant them credibility or answer them in a boring exchange.

Damned if you respond, damned if you don’t

[Offwidth]

It's not a flame war from my perspective. I'm simply challenging the factual grounds on which a lengthy and serious complaint is being made about an organisation I care deeply about.  People receiving the article well is irrelevant to me unless they are well informed on why I'm concerned about it. Currently the polls say 34% of the population receive well what Nigel Farage says; I'm proud of my climbing community that seem to care an awful lot more about facts and evidence..

I have no idea what happened with Gron and did the exact opposite of challenge his veracity: until the facts are known I'll suspect some combination of cock up(s). In my decades of casework I've been involved in many disputes where accusations of not being informed turned out to be due to an address error or an accidentally overlooked communication. l do think you should have contacted the BMC first before you put this in the public domain in writing.

My favourite UKB post on Lynn about us being married:

"One of the election questions from the floor was about how she would ensure her notorious troll husband did not unduly influence BMC matters. Lynn's answer was magnificent ... just hoping someone filmed it. Uxurious interlude ends."

[Offwidth]

Or go climbing together and chat civilly about all this afterwards over a pint. You could short rope Si on the Oak and get called a cunt, then he could belay you on some gruesome wide crack where you complain that the guidebook grade is wrong, and if you can jam it's only Mild Hard Severe 4a.

I tried to talk but Simon wanted to do that with official BMC folk instead. The irony in this is I share much of his more general views. I certainly hold no grudge about this. I even think that he is right to be concerned but think public attack before proper information validation and an initial private right to reply on serious issues is bad journalism. I will happily buy Simon as much beer as he can drink if he will still talk to me at meetings in the future. The route is mildly hard but serious 3c.