[dave]

I stand corrected, you said "good" and "naturally strong", not "great".

There's nothing wrong per se in a system that allows a naturally strong politician - Trump, despite being a cunt is evidently a good politician - to flourish.

[petejh]

Hehe, I'm pretty certain I was using 'good politican' in the pejorative there Dave! In other words - he's 'good' in the context of that rat race, because he was able to convince a lot of people. Do I think that's a good thing, or that he's anything other than bad news,  fuck no!

[Will Hunt]

Also. Pete has strong opinions about the Horseshoe stuff because he believes that it will have an implication on his own bolting work. I disagree with him on this point, but I don't think there was an appropriate forum for him to raise this until after the decision was taken - he wouldn't have attended the Peak meet and he wouldn't have had the agenda.

On other side of the coin: I really don't want to see the BMC get into a situation where every decision has to go to the membership - even ones that could potentially be controversial such as the attempted rebrand. If they choose to consult the membership that's fine, but I think with the rebrand the organisation has found itself hamstrung by a membership who don't live and breathe the issues and who can't see the need to change.

 

[petejh]

Will, my concerns aren't anything about my own re-bolting work in the sense of feeling that I should have been paid. It'ss to do with precedent and landowner concerns. I've said clearly that the horsehoe work sets a very dodgy precedent and it's amazing that the BMC should be the ones to set it. It has virtually nothing to do with my own bolting, and everything ot do with access to sport crags in the future. If you think this is unlikely, it's because you aren't developing new sport crags. I am, and the underlying theme is landowner liability for the bolts. The BMC widely advertising the fact that professional re-bolters are its preferred choice sends a terrible message to anyone, like me, who's trying to convince a land-owner that the bolts I've put in on his land are trustworthy and that he should have no worries.

Of course it sets the landscape up for the BMC to ride in and save the day by buying the crag, or making access negotiations 'necessary', thus justifying it's existence. But A better scenario would be to work to preserve indicidual responsibility, individual activism, individual choice. Climbing and mountaineering are, after all, individual pursuits removed from overseeing bodies. At least my take on it is. 

As usual, it's the people actually making things happen (new routing, new crags) that aren't represented while the desires of a large organisation to promote itself and justify its existence that are placed forefront. Frankly it's bullshit. If the BMC stuck to practicing what they preach - chiefly protecting and promoting individual responsibility then I'd be happy enough. As it is the BMC increasing comes across as a bunch of people who want to grow for the sake of growth, get more powerful for the sake of power, more prosperous for the sake of money, and sod all who disagree.

I'll add that I'm far from the only person who thinks this about the precedent horseshoe has set - including people very close to the contractors.

[Will Hunt]

Will, my concerns aren't anything about my own re-bolting work in the sense of feeling that I should have been paid. ...

I know that, that's why I didn't suggest that it was. I know exactly what your concerns are (but thanks for reiterating them) because I read what you said in the other thread. I still think you've got it wrong because in my opinion a precedent has not been set, as I said in the other thread.

Let's not go over this again. I was simply illustrating the point that there are some policy discussions on the area meets agenda that are either of no interest to anybody or are poorly understood; while at the same time there are issues which are of national interest but which are only discussed at an area level - the point being that the area meetings do have flaws.

[danm]

Pete, you make a lot of statements as though they are facts, which in fact are just your misguided opinion. You've concocted a description of doers vs bureucrats which bears no relation to reality. If the BMC does what it does for fame, glory and riches, then it's not working out too well, not for me at least. Let's have a look at what we've done for activities close to your heart (all out of naked self interest, of course):

Financially supported independent guidebooks including a certain guide for N.Wales.

Pumped thousands of pounds into the N.Wales bolt fund - you didn't complain too much when we chose them as our contractor for UPT inspections I noticed.

Donated thousands of pounds of free bolts to said bolt fund and others around the country.

Got our combined liability cover extended to cover bolting work by members.

Ran bolting workshops around the country to promote good practice.

Did research to help guide bolters choose the best bolts possible.

Produced leaflets for landowners to assuage liability fears.


I could go on but I need to catch the bank before it closes to pay in a humungous stash of notes and then meet my army of adoring followers.

[petejh]

Pete, you make a lot of statements as though they are facts, which in fact are just your misguided opinion. You've concocted a description of doers vs bureucrats which bears no relation to reality. If the BMC does what it does for fame, glory and riches, then it's not working out too well, not for me at least. Let's have a look at what we've done for activities close to your heart (all out of naked self interest, of course):

Financially supported independent guidebooks including a certain guide for N.Wales.

Pumped thousands of pounds into the N.Wales bolt fund - you didn't complain too much when we chose them as our contractor for UPT inspections I noticed.

Donated thousands of pounds of free bolts to said bolt fund and others around the country.

Got our combined liability cover extended to cover bolting work by members.

Ran bolting workshops around the country to promote good practice.

Did research to help guide bolters choose the best bolts possible.

Produced leaflets for landowners to assuage liability fears.


I could go on but I need to catch the bank before it closes to pay in a humungous stash of notes and then meet my army of adoring followers.

How is any of that an answer to the points I was making? I wasn't questioning why the BMC didn't support guidebook publishing (thanks) nor donating to bolt funds.
The list above are all great things to do.. but the bmc SHOULD be doing them and lots more, nobody should expect anything less of an organisation that exists to support climbing/mountaineering and is funded by its members to do so. I'm pleased about those things


But your answer is not at all about the 2 points I brought up which were:
1. a slightly nuanced point about landowner concerns regarding liability around equipping sport crags; and future access concerns. Which understandably many people have no direct experience of being involved with.
2. and the downsides of having 'area meets' as virtually the sole means of members debating issues to do with the BMC - see points above about national council reps etc.


Your last point about leaflets to landowners to address concerns about liability.. I think the organisation would more effectively promote what it preaches by practicing what it preaches to others. Horseshoe stands out as a glaring example of say one thing, do another. There are differnet ways to skin a cat, it could have been done better.. did it really need a national campaign, tee-shirts, a McClure video and fanfare? - strikes me as about more than just the re-equipping of a grotty BMC-owned quarry and more about trumpeting 'The BMC', increasing awareness of all things BMC and increasing membership numbers. In other words a drive for more power and revenue, with the re-equipping of a sport crag as just another piece of marketing to be played with.
The underlying question seems to be 'for what purpose?'. It seems to me - and apparently others - about more than just trying to replace Sport England dosh.

I'm all for a healthy organisation that can stand on its own feet financially. But BMC marketing wonks using potentially sensitive things like re-equipping sport crags as a tool for marketing the organisation doesn't sit well with me. I'm not the only person.


''Pumped thousands of pounds into the N.Wales bolt fund - you didn't complain too much when we chose them as our contractor for UPT inspections I noticed. ''
BTW - chose who as a contractor? As far as I'm aware no-one has ever been paid to re-equip anything in n.Wales. The BMC donated money, including money to 'cover expenses'. Except no-one claims expenses - the money remaoins in the bolt fund to be used for purchasing equipment. Or at least I don't.. maybe there's a small army of volunteers who are claiming... fuck 

Now I think about it I think the BMC should be pumping more money my way - for developing the Manod drytooling crag. And sport crags 'elsewhere' (it's all 'Celtic'..). Of course I did this using bolts from the NWBF, which were partly paid for by the BMC paying 'expenses money' for people to re-equip the ormes, except I didn't take those expenses..

[Neil F]

Your last point about leaflets to landowners to address concerns about liability.. I think the organisation would more effectively promote what it preaches by practicing what it preaches to others. Horseshoe stands out as a glaring example of say one thing, do another. There are differnet ways to skin a cat, it could have been done better.. did it really need a national campaign, tee-shirts, a McClure video and fanfare? - strikes me as about more than just the re-equipping of a grotty BMC-owned quarry and more about trumpeting 'The BMC', increasing awareness of all things BMC and increasing membership numbers.

Blimey Pete, that’s a conspiracy theory worthy of gallam1!

In fact, petejh - you are gallam1. And I claim my £5...

Neil

[petejh]

No idea who you're referring to? If it's a ukc thread I haven't read it.
And I'm not sure which part of what you quote is supposed to be outlandish. Are you trying to say that the BMC weren't marketing the idea of re-equipping horseshoe? I must have dreamt the campaign, tee-shirts, video and crowdfunder..

[shark]

Your last point about leaflets to landowners to address concerns about liability.. I think the organisation would more effectively promote what it preaches by practicing what it preaches to others. Horseshoe stands out as a glaring example of say one thing, do another. There are differnet ways to skin a cat, it could have been done better.. did it really need a national campaign, tee-shirts, a McClure video and fanfare? - strikes me as about more than just the re-equipping of a grotty BMC-owned quarry and more about trumpeting 'The BMC', increasing awareness of all things BMC and increasing membership numbers.

Blimey Pete, that’s a conspiracy theory worthy of gallam1!

In fact, petejh - you are gallam1. And I claim my £5...

Neil

Let's call it Gallam's Razor. In matters pertaining to any initiative by the BMC the worst possible motivations must be assumed to be true

[petejh]

Your last point about leaflets to landowners to address concerns about liability.. I think the organisation would more effectively promote what it preaches by practicing what it preaches to others. Horseshoe stands out as a glaring example of say one thing, do another. There are differnet ways to skin a cat, it could have been done better.. did it really need a national campaign, tee-shirts, a McClure video and fanfare? - strikes me as about more than just the re-equipping of a grotty BMC-owned quarry and more about trumpeting 'The BMC', increasing awareness of all things BMC and increasing membership numbers.

Blimey Pete, that’s a conspiracy theory worthy of gallam1!

In fact, petejh - you are gallam1. And I claim my £5...

Neil

Let's call it Gallam's Razor. In matters pertaining to any initiative by the BMC the worst possible motivations must be assumed to be true

Or how about some acknowledgment of valid criticism?

Look, I get that the BMC does a load of good things, I've been a direct beneficiary of some of it's good work (if beneficiary's the right word for slogging guts out). Dan I think you'd find I agree with you over much more than I disagree.
I'm perhaps unusual in that I do/have done some things around n.Wales but nothing I've done has ever been in the name of the BMC, despite some background support in the form of using bolt fund bolts partially funded by BMC, or support for publishing costs. So I don't feel any loyalty as a 'BMC volunteer' because I'm not one. I believe in individual responsibility for taking action, , for re-equipping, for developing crags, arranging access, and the BMC should be supporting that in the background. Which is how it's often worked out.

But I've raised two specific points, one about accountability to/feedback from its members via area meetings being a poor method, in 2017, to have as a main method of communicating and receiving feedback from members; which other posters agree is a valid criticism (note to Dan and Dave - criticism isn't a reason to automatically assume a whirling handbags def-con3 missile defense posture).

And one about the re-equipping of horseshoe which I believe 'could' (not will) prove to set a troublesome precedent for others who are developing new sport crags - something I'm in the middle of doing in NI and Ireland, where there's already a more difficult situation with landowners and where, unfortunately, a precedent for landowners having liability for bolts on their land already exists in one instance through a strict interpretation of the occupiers liability law. Because of that, the BMC paying contractors to do the bolting on its sport crag rings alarm bells to me, big time. I'll point out, again, that even people close to the contractors doing the re-bolting hold concerns about setting precedents.
So I just don't get what I think is a valid criticism being met with blanket refusal to acknowledge it.

Other than that, yeah I think generally the BMC does good things.

[kelvin]

Its your right to hold concerns about what you regard as a precedent but its not something shared by anything like a majority

Since when has 'the majority' meant that they hold anything other than a position of power? It doesn't mean the majority are correct.

I have exactly the same concerns as Pete if I'm honest - I don't bolt or develop but I have good friends who do. Pete's words don't need repeating but they do need answering, I've not personally read one good or reasonable reply defending the BMC with regards to possibly setting a precedent that will leave other crag developers high and dry because they just get on with bolting themselves. There's a refusal to acknowledge it might set a precedent or the question is ignored.  Take your reply - how many lines of prose telling Pete how he could have interacted with the BMC ? And just two lines about the issue he's concerned about. He's not the only one and just because the majority seem to think it's not worth worrying about doesn't mean the subject should be ignored. I dare say the majority have never even put their hands in their pockets and contributed to a bolt fund either.

I cancelled my BMC membership when it came for renewal in September, mainly down to this subject (and some shocking advice offered to our club) and yet I've not bothered to post about why, manly because the one time I criticised the BMC on line, I had so many people rushing in to defend their friends (my friends too) who work for them. No one cared about the issue, it was all taken far too personally and in the heat of the debate, conveniently/sadly the issue was lost.

Surely it would have been better, if paying professionals to rebolt was deemed necessary by the BMC, to get Horseshoe rebolted and just keep quite about paying for it. No fanfare.

[petejh]

Surely it would have been better, if paying professionals to rebolt was deemed necessary by the BMC, to get Horseshoe rebolted and just keep quite about paying for it. No fanfare.

Precisely this. There are lots of ways to go about getting the work done. I haven't heard any good reason to justify publicising it in the way it was.

As per my earlier post, you'd be forgiven for thinking the re-bolting of horseshoe by professional contractors was being used by the BMC for marketing purposes.

[danm]

In your previous post Pete you
 slagged off many peoples work and motivations in an unfair and unwarranted way, in my opinion. I'm away working without my laptop so I can't write a long detailed reply but I agree with you that the issues of liability and precedent are important. I'm not going to deny that people make mistakes or bad decisions but it was the accusations of malignment of intention that got me rilled up. I'll try and respond in detail when I can to your concerns as they totally deserve answering, as do yours Kelvin.

[kelvin]

Appreciated.

[dave]

Surely it would have been better, if paying professionals to rebolt was deemed necessary by the BMC, to get Horseshoe rebolted and just keep quite about paying for it. No fanfare.

Precisely this. There are lots of ways to go about getting the work done. I haven't heard any good reason to justify publicising it in the way it was.

As per my earlier post, you'd be forgiven for thinking the re-bolting of horseshoe by professional contractors was being used by the BMC for marketing purposes.

If the BMC had done it on the quiet you could be sure that certain people would then moan that it was done cloak and dagger style, something to hide, moaning about transparency etc.

[kelvin]

More than probable Dave and obviously it would still be in the public domain by means of the accounts, the minutes etc. People will moan whatever you do, I've been on committees and it can be dispiriting.
If the crag needs sorting, it needs sorting and safety is paramount. It's the fanfare surrounding what could potentially be a game changer for liability in the climbing world that's the issue for me.

[dave]

Remind me what the worry about liability is, other than the obvious issue thats already been dealt with umpteen times (that the BMC can reasonably be assumed to have a greater duty of care to climbers than any other random landowner, what with it being a national representative body who bought the crag specifically for climbing).

[shark]

Also does it really need stating that a successful crowdfunding requires a decent amount of publicity

[Johnny Brown]

What Shark said - the publicity was about the crowdfunding.

Crowdfunding means the people who support the work pay for the work, and you don't get endless complaints about subs being spent on things people disagree with.

I can understand the concerns about precedents but I'd defy anyone in full possession of the facts to come up with an alternative.

[jwi]

This is by far the most bizarre thing I've read all week. So: a climbing federation buys a crag, crowdfund money for bolts and hire professionals to do the bolting, and people are complaining about the whole thing? I must have missed the first act, when said federation put babies on spikes or what?

(Well, I wrote  "read", but should have written "cursorily glanced at", since my interest in naturally very close to zilch).

[cheque]

This is by far the most bizarre thing I've read all week.

You must have missed the bit about the “drug testing for recreational climbers” conspiracy theory then.

[jwi]

I guess I did, please don't fill me in.

[highrepute]

Surely it would have been better, if paying professionals to rebolt was deemed necessary by the BMC, to get Horseshoe rebolted and just keep quite about paying for it. No fanfare.

... accountability to/feedback from its members via area meetings being a poor method, in 2017, to have as a main method of communicating and receiving feedback from members; which other posters agree is a valid criticism (note to Dan and Dave - criticism isn't a reason to automatically assume a whirling handbags def-con3 missile defense posture).

There's something a little ironic about criticising the BMC publicising something too well while simultaneously criticising them for not communicating effectively. 

Perhaps Dan could respond to this. Assuming the area meets are a poor method of communicating with the membership, which I'm not convinced of. Are the area meets really the main method of communicating with the membership? The BMC staff actively read and respond to threads on UKC and UKB. They have telephones that have always been quickly answered when rang (regarding insurance) and emails also. They have the update emails and summit magazine (does that have a letters section anymore).

What would be a good alternative or improvement?

Regarding area meets. If i had a concern i wanted raising I'd contact the BMC/chair and ask them to raise it. It wouldn't matter that I was too shy to standup in the meeting and shout down all others. Is the issue here Pete that you know that raising the points at your area meet wouldn't get you much recognition - by which I mean they would be dismissed as they are being in this thread (in the main).

[slackline]

What would be a good alternative or improvement?

https://forum.thebmc.co.uk/