[Nails]

One last time Tony. "These are small, but the ones out there are far away". 

[Tony]

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 “.

I certainly don’t represent the BMC. I neither argue for the BMC or against the BMC. I am for sensible arguments and reasoned perspectives (yes, Nails, would you like to make an actual point?).

It is, of course, your right to do what you think best. I would not argue against that. You could (maybe you do) lobby your club to press for greater/faster reporting/reform from the BMC.

I think people should just consider what it is they want and how they think it is best to reasonably get there.

If you want to effect useful change, perhaps it is better to be in it pissing out than out pissing on it? (Not the standard idiom but…)

[Wellsy]

If someone sends an email with safeguarding concerns to an email address that nobody uses then it could easily be missed and that's absolutely the case if the website contact details are out of date. That's a big oversight, and your defence of it merely serves to lower my already historically low opinion of you, a man on the Internet who I do not know and do not care to ever interact with again.

[andy moles]

Lads. C'mon.

[Oldmanmatt]

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 “.

I certainly don’t represent the BMC. I neither argue for the BMC or against the BMC. I am for sensible arguments and reasoned perspectives (yes, Nails, would you like to make an actual point?).

It is, of course, your right to do what you think best. I would not argue against that. You could (maybe you do) lobby your club to press for greater/faster reporting/reform from the BMC.

I think people should just consider what it is they want and how they think it is best to reasonably get there.

If you want to effect useful change, perhaps it is better to be in it pissing out than out pissing on it? (Not the standard idiom but…)

The point is, Tony, being “inside” no longer means anything.
Raising concerns simply elicits evasive and dismissive responses (much like yours here).
I don’t believe it is coincidence that F2F area meetings were sabotaged at a time when the organisation and management were facing strong criticism and membership push back. I think they tried to “mute” the debate.

The only defence of the BMC, either from them or in these discussions (both channels), amounts to “stop moaning, we know better” and a refusal to be open or honest.

If you read back over the last couple of pages here, you will note there is zero support for your position. Some of the people commenting have some experience of either drafting such safeguarding policies or running them whilst working with youth groups and other vulnerable groups. I owned and ran a climbing wall for eleven years, ran a Combined Cadet unit, helped set up and run the (then, for me) local  “Venture Scouts” (before they became Explorers, so things were different then). I’m not claiming expert status, by any measure, but not changing the name on the contact details?
Ran you reasoning passed my partner, who’s the Attendance Administrator at a local Comprehensive, who thought it just seemed whack and spoke to the Safeguarding lead, who thought it was “plain fucking stupid” (it’s summer holidays, this was over drinks) and petty (the reasoning to defend a glaring error). I mean, I’ve run my own websites for a couple of my businesses now and popping in to update the site (opening hours, prices etc) was never exactly hard. Even where the site was third party managed, an email to them would get the site changed within a couple of days at most.

Anyway, largely irrelevant, because:

The point is, either nobody noticed or nobody could be bothered.

Neither of which is indicative of anything good.

As “another nail in the coffin” it’s a straw too far for this camel’s spine.

That’s humour (ish). The entire thing is a shit show, if it wasn’t , there would have been clear, open and honest statements with unambiguous data released.

We got platitudes and obfuscation.

The only “power” left to me, are my feet, with which I shall vote, by leaving.

[spidermonkey09]

Is there any suggestion the BMC have failed at safeguarding young athletes in any way other than not listing the policy online? Because, whilst clearly suboptimal and avoidable, this is easily corrected and hardly seems worthy of the fire and brimstone on this thread.

[Oldmanmatt]

“Unspecified incidents” has a rather ominous tone. Is that your phrasing Simon, or the BMC’s?

Something to do with junior safeguarding.  taken from the resigning Director's post on the BMC Watch Facebook Group

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2241207952632038/permalink/6440203509399107/
 
More to the point, the real scandal is that there have been several significant incidents of concern since the review has been delivered including the safeguarding of junior athletes.
I cannot comment on those as they are subject to other investigations.

Also heard on the grapevine there has been recent cock ups with failing to make grant applications and entering people into the wrong competitions.

Yes, and on the BMC Watch FB page. It is how we ended up on this dead end.

[spidermonkey09]

Thanks. Noted, but these are hardly hard facts. One can't draw conclusions from 'the grapevine' or a Facebook group.

Without more information its pretty hard to make a judgement.

[Oldmanmatt]

Thanks. Noted, but these are hardly hard facts. One can't draw conclusions from 'the grapevine' or a Facebook group.

Without more information its pretty hard to make a judgement.

It’s from the statement of a resigning  BMC director. Not just rumours.

[galpinos]

I’m reluctant to wade back into this, especially with the quality of the discourse but here goes…..

General

That UKC article was frustrating from both sides. From the BMC side, Paul doesn’t help himself! Some simpler, plain language and more open answers would be much appreciated. He is straight talking in real life so I’m baffled as to why he allows stuff like this to go out, making the BMC look decidedly shifty. Seems the BMC Comms strategy still need work! Form the UKC side, the “Fact check” boxes came across as particularly snidey and like Tony said, added very little/nothing to the article. I was disappointed that is was in writing and not as an interview as I think that would have been better for both sides.

The virtual only area meetings are also a real kick in the teeth for all the reasons mentioned here and on UKC. Hopefully they will roll back on this as they seem to imply.

Safeguarding

Policy: As I understood it, the safe guarding policy was not “9 Years out of date”, it was a valid document in every sense apart from a single incorrect e-mail. It is very poor that this was not updated and the weaselly excuses as to why it wasn’t sorted even worse, but not quite worth the furore on here imho. If you google “BMC Safeguarding” the first hit is this page https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-child-protection-information which has both the correct e-mail (safeguarding@thebmc.co.uk), the link to the reporting form and all the whistleblowing info.

Issues: I have only heard rumours of issues via internet hints and the BMC watch group. This differed from the feedback from the parents of comp kids at the last NW meeting (who were critical but supportive of GB Climbing) so I am passing judgement based on hearsay from actors’ whose motivations are unknown to me.

Conclusion

Reading all these threads are pretty depressing. As someone who volunteers for the BMC and has seen improvements in organisation and financial control, as well as seeing the staff happier and with renewed vigour and focus, the BMC pictured in the posts is not the one I see on a daily (well, weekly) basis. It really feels like the BMC is actually heading in the right direction but I can see that getting derailed by another MONC style debacle.
I would also say the character assassinations levelled and Paul and to a degree Andy seems so misplaced. Knowing them both a little bit (thought he BMC), they are a long way from how they are portrayed.

Having said all the above, I have zero interaction with GB Climbing and I think there are a LOT of questions to be answered there, in both the internal GB Climbing management and processes, and the lack of control over GB Climbing exerted by the executive.

Not actually sure what I’m trying to say/add to the discourse but felt I had to post something………..

[spidermonkey09]

Agree with Galpinos; the discourse comes close to a kind of moral panic at times.

It’s from the statement of a resigning  BMC director. Not just rumours.

'Statement' is a bit much isn't it? Its a comment on a FB group. Frankly if theres stuff going on behind the scenes being investigated the responsible thing to do is say nothing, rather than stir rumours. Anyway...

[abarro81]

as well as seeing the staff happier and with renewed vigour and focus, the BMC pictured in the posts is not the one I see on a daily (well, weekly) basis.
[...]
Having said all the above, I have zero interaction with GB Climbing

I get the impression GB climbing might be much more dysfunctional than the other parts - everyone I know who has any interaction with it seems to find it very frustrating and seems to have any vigour/focus in spite of the organisation rather than because of it (that includes staff, others in the coaching world, athletes... though of course it may just be selection bias in that people at the wall/crag tend to moan about things that are annoying them but not to bring up things that are going moderately ok)

[galpinos]

I get the impression GB climbing might be much more dysfunctional than the other parts

I think you are probably right here which on one hand, at least means that the rest is potentially working ok/well but is getting caught in the crossfire, but on the other hand it is not good that the Executive have not got a grip of GB Climbing as failure and overspend in GB Climbing affects ALL of the BMCs activities.

[Tony]

.
If you read back over the last couple of pages here, you will note there is zero support for your position.

I say Old Man, you’ve changed your tone a bit since talking about my

Blind obedience and trust unquestioning

.

I’ll just have to believe your middle class stories about chatting with an unnamed safeguarding lead over a Prosecco (plebs, eh?). Though quite what it was you related to them I don’t know. This was my main point (before SA made a random, somewhat inaccurate, statement):

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. … I don’t think it’s indicative of very much else. But that’s an opinion.

[Tony]

The only “power” left to me, are my feet, with which I shall vote, by leaving.

That’s well and good but what are you actually seeking to achieve in exercising this power?

[Tony]

your defence of it merely serves to lower my already historically low opinion of you, a man on the Internet who I do not know and do not care to ever interact with again.

I defended nothing. I explained how these things [a published document ends up having the wrong name on it] come about.

I’m over the moon to have made such an impact on you that you can’t help but to interact with me despite your opinions. You’re not a stalker are you?!

[lukeyboy]

I’ll just have to believe your middle class stories about chatting with an unnamed safeguarding lead over a Prosecco (plebs, eh?).

This seems unnecessarily personal, and detracts from whatever point you're trying to make.

Appreciate that it's not been the most respectful discussion from both sides at times.

I think galpinos gave a good and balanced appraisal.

My twopence is that regardless how significant you think the various issues cited are, they certainly are not helped by the lack of acknowledgement from the BMC side or the absence of effective communication. I'm a long time BMC member and it's sad to see it in this current mire.

[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.

This Tony, and only really this, in the safeguarding issue.
Everything else is about the overall situation.
My gripe with you is that you persist in insisting there is no issue (safeguarding sideshows aside).
I leave the BMC because I can and want to.
As I said, being inside doesn’t mean anything anymore, I think the members have lost agency. I don’t like the way it is heading, I don’t believe the members have much control over that anymore and will have even less in the future.

Spidermonkey, you asked where this safeguarding discussion came from, I pointed you at the origin. It was, as I said a dead end.
I do think it significant that a resigning director cited these matters as contributing to his resignation, not at all clear on why that should be any less significant because he did so on FB? It seems unlikely that he has “made it up”. Anyway, not the main issue.

[spidermonkey09]

Spidermonkey, you asked where this safeguarding discussion came from, I pointed you at the origin. It was, as I said a dead end.
I do think it significant that a resigning director cited these matters as contributing to his resignation, not at all clear on why that should be any less significant because he did so on FB? It seems unlikely that he has “made it up”. Anyway, not the main issue.

I'm not suggesting that he made up his concerns, more that I don't think a pressure group on Facebook which is, at the least, extremely sceptical of the BMC at the best of times and downright hostile at others, is necessarily the best forum in which to air them. It was never exactly going to be critically appraised on there. Anyway, as you say it is not the main issue.

[cheque]

a pressure group on Facebook which is, at the least, extremely sceptical of the BMC at the best of times and downright hostile at others

I’m all for it in theory and the current/ recent BMC management situation seems to have elements of a shitshow to me but that group is so dominated by people who seem angry that the BMC even exists and eager to unconstructively slag it that I just couldn’t be bothered with it any more.

The final straw was when a bloke posted a picture of the current BMC office staff proudly captioned “The BMC: overstaffed, overpaid and over here”  . I just felt like I was on a Facebook group where old blokes moan about the EU or something

[Tony]

I’ll just have to believe your middle class stories about chatting with an unnamed safeguarding lead over a Prosecco (plebs, eh?).

This seems unnecessarily personal, and detracts from whatever point you're trying to make.

Don’t fear Lukewarm, I’m sure Old Man recognised the reference to his post and is not the snowflake you think he is.

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 “.

[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.

This Tony, and only really this, in the safeguarding issue.
Everything else is about the overall situation.
My gripe with you is that you persist in insisting there is no issue (safeguarding sideshows aside).
I leave the BMC because I can and want to.

For the third time Old Man, the “they” in my response to SA’s (inaccurate) statement references the “Any group” to which SA’s statement refers and which is quoted at the top of my reply.

Once again:

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?

[Tony]

Ignoring the fervent rambling, I think (it’s quite hard to tell) your response to my query

what are you actually seeking to achieve in exercising this power?

Is

I leave the BMC because I can and want to.

Which in no way sounds reminiscent of the comment a small child might make when throwing a hissy fit.

[spidermonkey09]

a pressure group on Facebook which is, at the least, extremely sceptical of the BMC at the best of times and downright hostile at others

I’m all for it in theory and the current/ recent BMC management situation seems to have elements of a shitshow to me but that group is so dominated by people who seem angry that the BMC even exists and eager to unconstructively slag it that I just couldn’t be bothered with it any more.

The final straw was when a bloke posted a picture of the current BMC office staff proudly captioned “The BMC: overstaffed, overpaid and over here”  . I just felt like I was on a Facebook group where old blokes moan about the EU or something

100% this, which is a shame as the idea behind it is sound. It makes Lancashire Rock Revival look forward thinking.

[Oldmanmatt]

Ignoring the fervent rambling, I think (it’s quite hard to tell) your response to my query

what are you actually seeking to achieve in exercising this power?

Is

I leave the BMC because I can and want to.

Which in no way sounds reminiscent of the comment a small child might make when throwing a hissy fit.

Eyeroll.