1

for sale / wanted / Re: Pair of Black Pad - Knee Pads

« Last post by Nike Air on Today at 05:30:24 pm »

These are a size medium

2

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by northern yob on Today at 05:09:09 pm »

With sport routes and boulders, typically significant downgrades only happen when people find better beta.
The vast majority of people (at least those who travel to at least some extent) climbing at that level tend to roughly agree about grades when they've used the same beta (with obvious exceptions for height dependent stuff etc).

With UK trad routes people can climb exactly the same sequence and yet come up with a completely different grade as they are using a completely different grading system.  That's not sensible.  Sure sponsors, public opinion, beta and all the rest of it are always going to play a part, but sorting out what the numbers are actually meant to represent is a pre requisite to even bothering trying to assign something a number.

Have you got some examples of these vastly differing grades given to things in uk trad at the top end, or the bottom end for that matter??

Beyond james Pearson who has himself admitted he got it extremely wrong, I can’t come up with anything that’s been savagely downgraded/up graded you talked of E8-E11 up thread…. From my knowledge just like bouldering and sport climbing, there aren’t many huge variations, even taking into account the ease of getting extra publicity by over inflating trad grades (due to less likelihood of repeats) this is normal with any system.. like I said it’s not science.

3

new problems / Re: [Peak][Opencast Arch][>30 Problems]

« Last post by Andy B on Today at 04:56:47 pm »

Finally got over here this eve, good spot. Second Chris' comments on Peterloo, quality problem and nice to do some burly moves. Worth taking a kneepad or two for anyone who's thinking of going.

Do you think it'll be ok to add to UKC or is the access a bit too sensitive?

Hiya Remus, yeah, go for it. Just make sure you include all the access stuff.
Glad you enjoyed it.

4

get involved: access, environment, BMC / Re: BMC Resolutions shout out 📣

« Last post by shark on Today at 04:53:32 pm »

Thank you everyone who voted and gave other support. I don’t have anything else to say at this point

5

get involved: access, environment, BMC / Re: BMC Resolutions shout out 📣

« Last post by shark on Today at 04:50:02 pm »

It’s all over.


Dear Simon

The BMC Staff have now validated the member votes in support for your 2 resolutions as detailed below. Validation of membership is an important part of the integrity of this process; Article 11.11 allows the board to verify that all signatories are valid voting members. To ensure this the BMC have spent a considerable amount of staff hours and resource ensuring the validation is accurate. 

 Resolution 1

Validated Members 320

Validated not Members 42

Unvalidated 146 

 Resolution 2

 Validated Members 279

 Validated not Members 39

 Unvalidated 140

In both cases the resolutions failed to reach the threshold defined in Article 11.8.1 that would require them to be raised at the AGM.

The Members’ Council understand that the subject areas are important to you and others and appreciate the effort made to go through this process.   I also thank you for taking the time to present your proposal to Council on 28 April, having written formally to the Council on 26 April 2024, to review your proposal under Article 11.8.2.  

The Council have considered your resolutions at the Council meeting on 28 April and reached the following conclusions:

Resolution 1

Council fully supports the principle of transparency of accounts both in line with our legal obligations and to ensure members understand where money they contribute, or the organisation receives, is used.

The 2023 accounts and 2024 budget will be published before the AGM and the Board has already committed to providing a clear explanation to members of the GBC and wider financial position as part of the AGM paperwork.  In addition, the members will have opportunities to discuss any concerns further at the Open Forum in May or at the post AGM ‘Drop-In’ Discussions already advertised.

The 2022 accounts have already been finalised and posted in the 2022 financial audit.  The Council accepts the opinion of the CEO and Chair of the Board that it would be an unacceptable cost in staff and volunteer time to re-open and restate the accounts to provide the information required, and such effort would not move the BMC forward or be a use of BMC resources that would benefit Members. 

The Council therefore rejected the proposed resolution.

Resolution 2

The Council recognise the need to discuss the future of GB Climbing within the wider BMC structure.  This has already started, is being facilitated at the current round of Area Meetings, as well as in the Open Forum in May and will be discussed with staff and stakeholders and at the post AGM ‘Drop-In’, which we encourage you to be part of. 

The proposal made would, in the opinion of Council, be very detrimental to a significant section of our membership.  Holding a vote at this time could also significantly damage the BMCs reputation with partners and potentially further jeopardise the funding we receive.  This would not be in the interests of the BMC or its members.  As is detailed in the implications paper.

The Council fully supports the proposals and process of consultation outlined by the Chair and President in the statement published on 28 April https://thebmc.co.uk/bmc-member-update .

The Council therefore rejected the proposed resolution.

In line with Article 11.8.2 (b) “The decision of the Council is final in this regard and the proposed resolution, or materially similar resolutions, may not be raised again under Article 11.8.2 until at least 12 months have elapsed since the date of the submission of the first resolution to the Council under this Article 11.8.2.” The date of submission is recorded as 26 April 2024; i.e. the date you sent the email requesting Council review.

Whilst recognising you may be disappointed with these decisions Council hopes that you can agree that we have followed the processes defined in the Articles and made our decisions based on what we collectively believe are the needs of the whole of our diverse community of Members and participants across our range of activities.

kind regards

Andy

Andy Syme ‑ President​​​​

Email: President@thebmc.co.uk

Web: https://thebmc.co.uk

Working for Climbers, Hill
​Walkers
​& Mountaineers since 1944

Manchester

M20 2BB

6

diet, training and injuries / Re: One for the runners

« Last post by steveri on Today at 04:12:08 pm »

I take an entirely flippant view based on if it works for me. Graeme Obree penalised by the UCI for backroom mods, new positions, setting the hour record on a sawn off child's bicycle seat. Legend. Routes being tamed by a sneaky kneebar. Kudos to you for cunning. Sticky rubber, I'm in. High heelhooks, envious of anyone under 30 for whom this comes naturally.

Billion pound megacorp finding 4% from carbon implants. You could see it coming when para athletes started going super fast based on the best R&D backup. Not happy now that every club event is dominated by £240 foootwear, 'Cheat Shoes' in my club Whatsapp. I almost needed therapy the first time I paid a hundred pounds for shoes. And then again when the same shoes finally made it into Sportsshoes 'last year's model listing'.

The genie's out of the box now and there's too much vested interest in keeping them there.

7

chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?

« Last post by Johnny Brown on Today at 04:12:00 pm »

But truth is, the only way what JB is saying actually hangs together is if you take the two halfs of WSS completely separately and pretend there was a ledge in the middle.  So you have a Font 7B+ pitch and then an E4 pitch.
I assume that conceptually at least, that's what he's talking about.

Presumably you’ve already worked out that, no, that’s not what I mean. Obviously a ledge in the middle would make it easier!

The reason we don’t use these grades any more is because a) font grades offer finer gradations and, b) people pad them out. But if you look through the old guides to Burbage and Caley etc, they make perfect sense to me.

8

music, art and culture / Re: Games, games, games

« Last post by Durbs on Today at 04:07:26 pm »

Been enjoying Manor Lord or Game Pass (PC).

Beautiful game, and given it's pretty much a one-man team it's insane how full of a pre-release it is. It also runs incredibly well.

It's not finished yet, and I think it'll be interesting to see if they get the ultimate micro/macro management level right - but for me it's a Civilisation levels "shit, where did the time go? it's 2am and I've got work tomorrow" addiction.

9

chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?

« Last post by Johnny Brown on Today at 03:59:50 pm »

As I said earlier, it feels 6a. If it was really easy to climb up the bottom, and there was a better rest, but without impacting the landing, I could see it being E2. If you traversed in from the left for example, which is about 5b, I think you’d be into borderline E2. So you do get something for the start being 7a.

10

chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?

« Last post by Fultonius on Today at 03:33:05 pm »

7B+/E4 5c (or whatever the fucking top half of fucking WSS is as I have no fucking idea...) would convey things much better for the soloist.

However, I'd maybe argue by the sounds of things, that the top alone is maybe only E3? So F7B+/E35c?

Can someone now please go out and find a new boulder/micro route and call it:

Weathering the Bell Curve? And grade it E4 Jellyfish?