[Tony]

I kind of agree overall, but not on this point. As an org the BMC interacts with a lot of potentially vulnerable people. Having an up to date version of their safeguarding policy and contact details for their safeguarding officer publicly available is pretty low bar, and not meeting that low bar is negligent.

Except that’s not really what has occurred. A safeguarding policy can be years old but not out of date. That they named the wrong member of staff is hardly likely to impact how the organisation, in practice, deals with any notification. I’m not sure how many safeguarding notifications you have dealt with but, I can tell you most notifications that I am aware of have been passed to an organisation’s safeguarding lead via other members of staff. What is important is that all members of staff in an organisation are aware of their responsibilities and who they need to report any issues to.

[Tony]

Seriously though, the article was both concerning and an anticlimax after Simon’s intro, but I’m surprised you find so banal. I do feel you are working hard to maintain your original anchorage, in a rather stiff gale of opposing (if inconclusive) evidence. No smoke without some sort of reaction, which may or may not be fire.

Not at all. My point has always been that I’m sure that the BMC has done some stupid sh1t but I’m against sensationalist reporting and I am for giving the relatively recently installed CEO a fair crack at resolving issues.

I think “UKC Fact Check” boxes were an unnecessarily confrontational way to present information which was of limited relevance (which, in any case, UKC should have allowed the BMC to respond to before publishing).

[petejh]

‘Confrontational’ is a rational approach when trying to get information from people/organisations who after multiple opportunities refuse to be transparent.

It can’t be a good outcome for a grassroots member organisation that represents the mundane world of mountaineering hillwalking and climbing if, after reading the CEO’s replies to UKC’s questions, my overriding instinct brings to mind Jeremy Paxman’s famous sentiment on interviewing political subjects: ‘why is this lying bastard lying to me’. 


* although I didn’t think those fact checks came across as particularly confrontational 

[Tony]

‘Confrontational’ is a rational approach when trying to get information from people/organisations who after multiple opportunities refuse to be transparent.

It can’t be a good outcome for a grassroots member organisation that represents the mundane world of mountaineering hillwalking and climbing if, after reading the CEO’s replies to UKC’s questions, my overriding instinct brings to mind Jeremy Paxman’s famous sentiment on interviewing political subjects: ‘why is this lying bastard lying to me’. 


* although I didn’t think those fact checks came across as particularly confrontational

Interesting that the article to which you link, essentially, argues that the approach you reference does little to advance readers understanding.

You seem to have misunderstood what I found unnecessarily confrontational: the action of labelling the boxes “UKC Fact Check” and their tone was that they uncovered “a lie” which was not actually the case. Additionally, generally if you do uncover such things you give your correspondent a right to reply before publishing, this does not appear to have happened.

[remus]

I kind of agree overall, but not on this point. As an org the BMC interacts with a lot of potentially vulnerable people. Having an up to date version of their safeguarding policy and contact details for their safeguarding officer publicly available is pretty low bar, and not meeting that low bar is negligent.

Except that’s not really what has occurred. A safeguarding policy can be years old but not out of date. That they named the wrong member of staff is hardly likely to impact how the organisation, in practice, deals with any notification. I’m not sure how many safeguarding notifications you have dealt with but, I can tell you most notifications that I am aware of have been passed to an organisation’s safeguarding lead via other members of staff. What is important is that all members of staff in an organisation are aware of their responsibilities and who they need to report any issues to.

If the contact details are wrong then it's out of date, no? As I said it's a pretty low bar to have this contact info readily available, and if it isn't then I think it does contribute to an overall picture of poor management.

[petejh]

You seem to have misunderstood what I …..

Not really. I just don’t agree with you. Surprising as you may find it, it’s possible both to comprehend you and to still think you’re wrong.

The ‘fact checks’ don’t appear to me confrontational - it comes across to me more as unenamoured with the CEO’s attitude toward providing a members organisation’s members with information.

I mentioned ‘confrontational is a rational response to someone dodging giving answers’ because it is, and because dodging answering is what the BMC ceo appears to be doing.  I didn’t say I thought the piece *was* particularly confrontational. 
You might ask who’s the one really being confrontational in that situation by withholding information from members?

Nor do those fact checks appear to me to be designed to come across as ‘revealing lies’. They appear to be designed to flesh out the facts. In which case - as you say - why would a right of reply be required?

And what Remus said.

[shark]

I am for giving the relatively recently installed CEO a fair crack at resolving issues.

Relatively recently installed? Relative to what?

Paul’s involvement with the BMC started 3.5 years ago as Vice Chair and Performance Sport Specialist of the CCPG. He was then hired as an Interim Executive to support the Senior Management and became Interim CEO in May 2021 which then became permanent so he has been in post over 2 years and the issues being highlighted have mainly happened during his watch.

[Tony]

Not really. I just don’t agree with you. Surprising as you may find it, it’s possible both to comprehend you and to still think you’re wrong.
[/quote]

Personally, I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to say I understood you Pete. It is well known there is no limit to human stupidity … and varying opinions. Is that not what fora are for?

I can appreciate that linking to a website that actually argues against a stance you think is appropriate would makes complete sense to some. And, we do not seem to be disagreeing about whether the interview was confrontational. Simply the degree to which it was confrontational and where or not that was a good thing.

That the BMC published a policy that has the wrong “contact name” (contact details may or may not have worked) is a records management issue. There are very many organisations that do not publish any such policy (who knows if they even have one)? I don’t think it’s indicative of very much else. But that’s an opinion.

Again, an opinion, I don’t think 2 years and  3 months and a bit is that (relatively) long. Especially since there was COVID (and an Olympics).

[SA Chris]

There are very many organisations that do not publish any such policy (who knows if they even have one)?

Any group dealing with children should have a safeguarding policy in place, and contact details for the person responsible.

[Tony]

Any group dealing with children should have a safeguarding policy in place, and contact details for the person responsible.

Err, kinda. Technically, they must have such a policy if they regularly work with children (in England, probably the same in Wales, no idea about Scotland and NI).

But they are not required to publish it and unless they are providing educational services or some other specifically regulated services they will not be audited. So, as I wrote, who knows if they actually have one.

There are many things organisations are meant to do (even required to do) but many a time in court cases or ICO rulings, etc., it seems many don’t.

[Oldmanmatt]

Any group dealing with children should have a safeguarding policy in place, and contact details for the person responsible.

Err, kinda. Technically, they must have such a policy if they regularly work with children (in England, probably the same in Wales, no idea about Scotland and NI).

But they are not required to publish it and unless they are providing educational services or some other specifically regulated services they will not be audited. So, as I wrote, who knows if they actually have one.

There are many things organisations are meant to do (even required to do) but many a time in court cases or ICO rulings, etc., it seems many don’t.

Ah, that’s all right then.

No point mentioning what is or could reasonably be considered, appropriate behaviour, policy and actions of a national governing body; regarding a significant matter involving the safety and protection of minors.

I’m sorry, however, you are a tit of the lowest order and your pedantry sickening in this matter.

[Oldmanmatt]

It is true Tony, there is no limit, you have demonstrated it repeatedly in this thread; though I’m surprised you are so ready to admit your stupidity. Blind obedience and trust unquestioning or simply a desire to troll? Not sure, but you are not worth debating, are you? Intransigence is your only talking point.

[Tony]

My word Old Man, what are you referring to? The point was the BMC manifestly did and does have a safeguarding policy.

I replied to SA’s post/statement which was slightly at a tangent to my point which was in response to Remus about a document on a website that wasn’t up to date, and its importance (or not)as indicator of an organisations competence (or otherwise).

Insults are cheap. Sticks and stones and all that…

(Edited to correct typos/grammar)

[Tony]

It is true Tony, there is no limit, you have demonstrated it repeatedly in this thread; though I’m surprised you are so ready to admit your stupidity. Blind obedience and trust unquestioning or simply a desire to troll? Not sure, but you are not worth debating, are you? Intransigence is your only talking point.

Sorry you feel that way Old Man. But if you’d like to construct an actual argument rather than regurgitate tripe I’d be happy to respond.

[Oldmanmatt]

It is true Tony, there is no limit, you have demonstrated it repeatedly in this thread; though I’m surprised you are so ready to admit your stupidity. Blind obedience and trust unquestioning or simply a desire to troll? Not sure, but you are not worth debating, are you? Intransigence is your only talking point.

Sorry you feel that way Old Man. But if you’d like to construct an actual argument rather than regurgitate tripe I’d be happy to respond.

Hmm. Rather my point… Your paraphrasing is rather more succinct. I do tend to the rambling, but you have summed your position and attitude far more economically than I did. My thanks.
I believe that there are questions pertaining to safeguarding issues and events, within the broader debate, aside from the inattention to details pertaining to reporting safeguarding issues?
Further, I assume then, that there is no question of the BMC or it’s authorised representatives; having regular contact and/or responsibility for minors?
Odd.

[webbo]

Any group dealing with children should have a safeguarding policy in place, and contact details for the person responsible.

Err, kinda. Technically, they must have such a policy if they regularly work with children (in England, probably the same in Wales, no idea about Scotland and NI).

But they are not required to publish it and unless they are providing educational services or some other specifically regulated services they will not be audited. So, as I wrote, who knows if they actually have one.

There are many things organisations are meant to do (even required to do) but many a time in court cases or ICO rulings, etc., it seems many don’t.

Are you for real, or do you not read what you post.

[Tony]

Are you for real, or do you not read what you post.

Not really, but then again, please, can you tell me what is real?

[Tony]

Further, I assume then, that there is no question of the BMC or it’s authorised representatives; having regular contact and/or responsibility for minors?
Odd.

I think there is likely to be a lot of confusion all round if any organisation’s “authorised representative” is having regular contact with children. I think you may mean “staff and volunteers”?

I’m afraid your intransigence in what you think I think seems to have led you to believe that the “they” in my response to SA referred to the BMC, it did not. I rather thought the broader context and my later response to you made this clear. Clearly not clear enough. Clear?

[Wellsy]

This is not seeing the wood for the trees. Whatever technicality you want to drag up; the BMC is responsible for comps, including youth comps, and athlete development, including youth athletes

Having up to date and accurate safeguarding policies and contact information is therefore extremely important. You can say "oh it's not technically breaching what they're required to do" until you're blue in the face and I wouldn't give a shit, that stuff should be all correct and in place at all times, because safeguarding is very important in youth sport.

[Tony]

You can say "oh it's not technically breaching what they're required to do" until you're blue in the face and I wouldn't give a shit, that stuff should be all correct and in place at all times, because safeguarding is very important in youth sport.

If you’d like to read what I’ve actually written and point to anywhere where I wrote any such thing I’d be much obliged.

If you only wish to repeat others’ misreading of my comments above then there’s little for me to address.

To recap, the UKC interview has

We have recently simplified our reporting processes and we encourage anyone who has a safeguarding concern to report these to the BMC using https://bmc.vissro.com/public/bmccase.nsf/safeguarding-report.

UKC Fact Check

Until the board meeting of May 2023, the child safeguarding documentation was nine years out of date and still quoted a former staff member as the contact, despite being identified as a concern by the CCPG Review in December 2022. UKC checked internet archive history to confirm this and also found one current BMC safeguarding webpage with an old link to the previous 2014 document.

What I wrote:

A safeguarding policy can be years old but not out of date. That they named the wrong member of staff is hardly likely to impact how the organisation, in practice, deals with any notification. I’m not sure how many safeguarding notifications you have dealt with but, I can tell you most notifications that I am aware of have been passed to an organisation’s safeguarding lead via other members of staff. What is important is that all members of staff in an organisation are aware of their responsibilities and who they need to report any issues to.

The relevant safeguarding legislation (in England) was made law in, err, 2014. (The Children and Families Act 2014 in case you wondered.) What a surprise.

[Wellsy]

You said that it can be old but not out of date. It is true. But it is out of date because it has as the safeguarding contact someone who isn't at the organisation any more. What if I,or anyone else, identified a potentially serious abuse which needed reporting, and emailed that person, and nobody read it and it never got a response? That would be a huge, disastrous breach of safeguarding which is hardly a far-fetched possibility. Bandy around the legislation all you want; safeguarding of youth sport is very important, the safeguarding contact on the Web being someone not with the organisation any more has the potential (not is, but has the potential) to be a very serious problem.

[Tony]

I would have thought that laying out my quote in full would have made it simple enough for you to have read more than the first sentence but I’m guessing you’ve never had any experience of either raising or receiving a serious safeguarding complaint. Long may that continue to be the case.

For those reading who, similarly, have no idea about what you should do if you have a serious/immediate safeguarding concern:

My first piece of advice would be to use a telephone or speak to someone in person to ensure the concern has been understood and recorded.

To report a crime:
in an emergency, contact the police, call 999
if the person is not in immediate danger, contact the police, call 101

May you never have to report or receive any such issue.

[Nails]

Yes Tony, you should "use a telephone or speak to someone in person to ensure the concern has been understood and recorded". Will you not admit that this important act might be made slightly harder if the wrong person is documented as being in charge of safeguarding. So having those details correct is important. Simples!

[Tony]

Will you not admit that this important act might be made slightly harder if the wrong person is documented as being in charge of safeguarding.

You:
“Hello, I’d like to speak to Brian”

They:
“Brian no longer works for the organisation. What does your call relate to?”

You:
“I’d like to report a safeguarding concern.”

They:
“Oh, I’ll transfer you to our safeguarding officer, Briony”

Desperately more difficult, possibly a whole sentence longer. Do you actually know how a telephone works?

[Oldmanmatt]

Will you not admit that this important act might be made slightly harder if the wrong person is documented as being in charge of safeguarding.

You:
“Hello, I’d like to speak to Brian”

They:
“Brian no longer works for the organisation. What does your call relate to?”

You:
“I’d like to report a safeguarding concern.”

They:
“Oh, I’ll transfer you to our safeguarding officer, Briony”

Desperately more difficult, possibly a whole sentence longer. Do you actually know how a telephone works?

Sorry mate. It’s not a good sign. As someone above stated, it’s a pretty low bar and failing to clear it hints at a poor attitude.
All of this, everything mentioned, appears to point to a cluster fuck that has lost sight of it’s purpose.
Anyway, I’m not renewing.
I’ll still support through my club, but not take personal membership until it looks like an organisation I want to support.
Your attitude seems to reflect the attitude of the BMC in general “screw the opinions of the plebs, we’re in charge and they’re too stupid to understand “.