UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => get involved: access, environment, BMC => Topic started by: shark on May 21, 2018, 02:28:19 pm
-
It’s your BMC, and we need your vote (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2018)
(Info on how to vote is here (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/how-to-vote-bmc-agm))
Climbing, hill walking and mountaineering are changing. We need your help to shape the future of your BMC.
There’s never been a better time to be a climber, hill walker or mountaineer. It’s never been easier to take part – at walls, on the rock and in the hills and mountains. We’ve got the most advanced kit ever and technology can do everything we’ve ever dreamed of.
Did you know that more people now go climbing, hill walking and mountaineering than play football? We’re now the fifth biggest participation sport in the UK: with almost 2 million hill walkers, around 100,000 outdoor climbers and 170,000 indoor climbers.
Your BMC is growing too. We’ve come a long way since 1944, when Geoffrey Winthrop Young – leading climber, mountaineer and president of the Alpine Club – had a vision: to create an organisation, open to everyone, to represent all “mountaineers”.
Nearly 75 years on, we remain true to his values, and consequently our activities are constantly developing: from owning crags to nurturing future talent; from raising over £300,000 to mend mountain footpaths to organising courses to help young people make the move outdoors.
We’re not the same organisation we were in 1944, 1984 or even 2004. As the world moves forward, the BMC needs to evolve to move with it – to stay relevant and speak for everyone with one clear voice.
The latest step in our evolution was an organisational review last year, when an independent panel looked at how well our organisation and decision-making currently worked. They came back with a whole range of recommendations on how we should adapt to continue to meet the needs of over 80,000 members.
Now it’s your turn
This year, we’re asking members to vote on some important changes to our constitution (our Articles of Association: the legal document that sets out what the BMC does and how it operates). These changes stem from the organisational review, and have been developed by the BMC’s National Council in consultation with membership as the best way forward for the organisation.
You can vote on two options: Option A (the formal recommendation of the BMC’s National Council) or Option B (developed by a group of BMC members as their alternative).
Voting for Option A
This is the version formally recommended by the BMC’s National Council and Board of Directors. Their view is that the BMC will be stronger and better by focusing on being an umbrella body for all mountaineers with transparent and clear governance that allows members, volunteers and staff to work collaboratively to ensure the best outcomes for all members. It will clarify organisational decision-making, increase transparency and ensure we comply with company law. It will put in place a high standard of organisational governance (meaning that good decisions are made by, and for, members). Together with our partners in Mountain Training and the climbing wall sector, it will ensure we remain eligible to receive government funding under the Sport England Tier 3 funding stream: the highest level of funding available to us.
READ: The full PDF version here (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/AGM/2018/Option%20A_BMC_full.pdf)
Voting for Option B
This revised version of the constitution has been developed by a group of BMC members as an alternative which would mean fewer changes to the way the BMC works and would retain a similar representational and decision-making structure to that which has operated within the BMC for the past 20-30 years or more. Under such a structure the BMC would no longer be eligible to apply for Tier 3 funding and our partners in Mountain Training and the climbing wall sector would have to apply for support individually under alternative (Tier 1) funding streams.
READ: The full PDF version here (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/AGM/2018/Option%20B_full.pdf)
It’s time to vote
This year, every vote really does count – so please take a few minutes to complete the online form.
In order for a new constitution to be formally agreed, 75% of the votes must be cast in favour of either Options A or B.
The BMC has made its formal recommendation for Option A, and the final decision is up to you – our members.
Have your say – vote today and help set your BMC on the right course for the future.
-
Voted.
What happens if neither 9a or 9b get 75% of the vote?
Thanks for posting updates on this.
-
Voted.
What happens if neither 9a or 9b get 75% of the vote?
Thanks for posting updates on this.
Consultations and machinations leading to redrafted motion(s) presented at an EGM for a further member vote I expect.
-
I'm becoming increasingly worried about the lack of public communication from the Option B folk. The BMC are facing a huge variety of questions on Option A and getting quite a bit of stick at times on their communications on that. For Option B we still don't know which of the 44 proposers are left backing it (there is an unoffical list on UKC showing those pulling out are more than those remaining, with about third left to contact). Worse still, there is no clear indication that the option is even Sport England compliant. This is easy enough to confirm if true : so why hasn't it been done? Next, all the argument from the likes of Andy Say and gallam (ie Rodney Gallagher), the only two so far still commenting on UKC as proposers in support of Option B, claim it retains the democracy of the BMC. These are emotive words but in the rules, ALL Tiers of Sport England compliance give the Board primacy (decision making responsibility) and although Option A has numerous carefully negotiated safeguards to retain as much membership input and control as possible in such circumstances, Option B appears to have none of these. Until confirmed otherwise, under Sport England rules, it looks much worse than Option B for member democratic input. How do we ask questions of those making these proposals to hold them to account before the vote closes? On UKC Andy Say just dodges the questions and obfuscates.
This is all highly reminicent of the MoNC, where dirty tricks like secret communication of misinformation mainly recruited their sizable number of proxy votes; as Bob turned down most serious possibilities for public debate (including not submitting anything for Summit when asked on at least 2 occasions). This was soundly defeated partly due to a campaign online and at climbing walls. This year there is no campaign as yet. Because of this I strongly urge people to vote, whatever your views, so that the BMC democratic position is more honest. I also think we need a rule change in the BMC such that motions need to be clear, fact checked by some independant party, have clear opportunity for debate before and AGM and be confirmed to be retaining the neccesary level of named proposers to the point that they are delivered at the AGM.
-
I've a certain amount of sympathy with anyone from 'the other' camp not wanting the online hordes of ukc (and ukb) to question their stance. From what I can tell they've set out their position and you can vote on it or not. That's democracy isn't it, nobody said you have to be held there to be questioned by those who disagree with your opinion.
Sick to death of the whole BMC politics debate, as I've no doubt most others are if they were even interested in the first place. I think I'm at the point of not caring what happens in the vote. Climbing in all its forms will continue with or without a functioning BMC. That's the good thing about climbing - it doesn't require an organising body to facilitate it. No building of tennis courts or velodromes or cycle lanes required. No sports coaches needed. No funding streams. Only access to the countryside and a keen partner for those curious enough to want to try it. Access is the number one priority. If the BMC fell apart tomorrow - which it won't, because the core of what they do has the support of most climbers - then a climber's access group would spring up out of the wreckage. The important stuff would get taken up and the rest - sport england tier one/tier three funding and ''being the official umbrella body of climbing'' etc. - can die off for all I care.
-
Quite right. It's partly knowledge of the US and Canadian system that makes me quizzical of the need for the BMC in its current and proposed form. The more I think about the BMC and some people's reactions to the last couple of years of debate the more I think it's an organisation that's become too self-important and self-interested, and I wouldn't be against it being smaller and with less remit and lower funding, not larger.
-
It's not like NA access work is in any way impressive. Most everywhere in NA climbers can barely hold on to access to public land!
-
Exactly. The US is disastrous at times for access and many major areas haven't had a guidebook in print for well over a decade. National and state parks too often completely set agendas, often anti climbing. Lack of affordable insurance alongside their health system leads to regular social media campaigns to help famous climbers afford medical bills. The major bright spots are where people work together on things like access or safety in a proto BMC format.
The BMC umbrella includes indoor walls, mountain training, clubs, land management (Craig Y Forwen next on the purchase list hopefully) mountain heritage and government funding and lobbying power. This is a fabulous set up when it works well and recent hicups have mainly been down to a small minority of old trouble makers rather than any mass dissatisfaction evident from member surveys. The biggest problem in the BMC itself is a small number of honest mistakes made by the National Council. The current Option A seems to me to strengthen both Board control and mass membership input (through a Memoramdum of Understanding negotiated with the likes of Crag Jones and Jonathon White) so future mistakes like Climb Britain become very unlikely. I think the old trouble makers are more afraid of the Olympics, Hill Walking and mass member interference in their individual influence than governance niceties.
I'm amazed some people think its democratically OK to have Option B with no clear list of who still backs it (so members can question them) and that claims are being made (mainly in private email lists like the MoNC nonsense again) seemingly in direct contradiction of the Tier 1 Board primacy required to be Sport England compliant (which they say it is with no confirmation from SE). By the time the AGM comes round and someone actually speaks formally to the option, it is very unlikely those who can afford to attend, will be able to swing anything (given how proxys are already seemingly well over average attendance). If we had live votes at the AGM that might have been possible but we don't.. electronic proxies close on June 14th.
-
No one who deem any one of the factors access, crag maintenance, competition climbing, gear safety, guidebooks, or youth development important would conclude that it is better to organise according to the US model than the French, the Japanese, or indeed the British model. All those factors are more or less catastrophic [in the US] compared to most of the rest of the advanced climbing nations. If you want to exert pressure: organise in as large groups as possible. A thousand likeminded people is a sect, hundred thousand likeminded people is a politically important pressure group.
-
True in general, but as a slight counter example the DAV is a large, wealthy & influential organisation with a hundred thousand memebers in the greater Munich area alone. And yet outside the actual Alps the access situation for rock climbing in most of the rest of Germany is a catastrophe.
Some argue that this is because the DAV is *too* large, wealthy and influential and more interested in hillwalking and running huts & trekking holidays (and climbing walls, these days) than in climbing as such; others that large, weatlhy & influential though the DAV may be, conservationists and hunters are poltiically connected and more influential.
Either way, I suppose without an effective national organisation matters could be even worse.
-
I'm surprised you think that Offwidth. Can't say I agree based on my limited knowledge but maybe I'm out of date regards the US. Canada however, nothing at all wrong with their access setup and no BMC-like entity to be seen. I think it's a can-do attitude versus a British 'lets form a committee' attitude, with all the bureaucracy-loving characters that attracts.
10 mintues from me is Craig y Forwyn. Crag of national significance 'banned' - I use the term loosely because we still climb there - since 1980-something. Yes the BMC are threatening to buy the crag, now that the landowner has finally moved on. Hope they deliver. But they certainly haven't done anything to-date that a Canada/US-style local access group couldn't have done and now that a different landowner is willing to sell the cliff, well it's just a matter of having a big wad of funding isn't it - not exactly the fine and subtle art of negotiation and government representation it's being claimed we require a BMC for.
Pen Trwyn. Illogical access restrictions in a few places on the Great Orme. The school holidays one is especially dumb. The bird restrictions on places like Castell y Gwynt and some other crags are likewise illogical and based on personality more than any evidence. As above the BMC haven't done anything that a local access group couldn't do.
I think the BMC are OK but don't actually do very much access-wise that an access group couldn't, without the BMC's political drama, bureaucracy, inertia and claiming to be 'the umbrella group of climbing'.
-
I should refrain to comment on the situation in Canada, as I am not knowledgable. But I totally fail to see how the “american model” with separate interest groups for access, safety etc. can be deemed a good model. The fact that US climbers can barely hold on to access to public land, never mind private land is a loud testament to the weakness of the model. In countries like Japan, France and the nordic countries, climbers have good access to climbing on private land despite widely different judicial, political and cultural systems & values. In France and the Nordic countries at least this is because climbing is a part of a bigger interest group of active people who wants access to public and private land for sport and recreation.
For a successful example of how to organise a strong group from people with somewhat align interest (hunters, american talibans, marksmen etc.) look no further than nra.
Don't even get me started on safety, competitions, or guidebooks, but just as an aside: you know that you are going to take a 30 meter fall on a single carabiner – new from the store, you can choose between a french or us make for the crab, which one do you use? If the carabiner is attached to a wire, also new and not inspected by you, would you choose a UK or a US make?
We can hardly blame the republicans for the state of the US comp climbing, gear quality, or the guidebook situation, can we?
-
Pete, you argue that the BMC doesn't do anything that a local access group could (I wholeheartedly disagree), but this isn't actually an argument for getting rid of the BMC, or even for wanting to see it reduced/removed. It's just a reflection of your innate distrust of any organisation larger than, say, 10 people. To characterise the BMC and its volunteers as committee-philes who just love to push paper around is a total shit-show. I'm sure there are people like that but I'm also sure that there's a lot of people doing many thankless but useful tasks because they just want to help out.
The politics is ugly and stupid but it's being caused by a very small number of old gits who will more than likely shuffle off into the great beyond before the Olympics comes around. Since the organisation keeps getting rocks lobbed at it, it unfortunately has no choice but to engage in its own defence. I'm sure there's nobody who's involved in the organisation who doesn't wish that it would just go away so they could get on with their other business.
If you think that small local interest groups don't have dramas and bureaucracy then I'd like to direct you to the Friends of Harmer's Wood. I was staggered at how heated things could get between a small group of retirees who share an interest in a small local woodland. The police had to get involved.
-
Baffled by your comment on carabiners JWI. This has nothing to do with the BMC?! In short it has everything to do with EN standards.
Also baffled by your use of the US as a poor example. We're lucky in the UK to have ancient access rights to large parts of the countryside. This doesn't exist in the US. Or for a closer example look to Ireland or NI - where public rights of access to countryside isn't an ancient right as it is in the UK. Can be much trickier dealing with landowners there. So I'd say that access for recreation has far more to do with public access laws then whether or not there exists one large overseeing representative body for all things climbing.
Will. I'm not arguing for 'getting rid of the BMC' (I'm saying I no longer care what happens in the vote), so I didn't read the rest. And I'm simply pointing out that other ways exist to defend access for recreation which are just as valid.
-
Baffled by your comment on carabiners JWI. This has nothing to do with the BMC?! In short it has everything to do with EN standards.
Also baffled by your use of the US as a poor example. We're lucky in the UK to have ancient access rights to large parts of the countryside. This doesn't exist in the US. Or for a closer example look to Ireland or NI - where public rights of access to countryside isn't an ancient right as it is in the UK. Can be much trickier dealing with landowners there. So I'd say that access for recreation has far more to do with public access laws then whether or not there exists one large overseeing representative body for all things climbing.
What are those ancient rights of access, Pete? I'm happy to be educated, but people being escorted off grouse moors at the end of a shotgun as late as the 90s doesn't seem very comprehensive to me.
Will. I'm not arguing for 'getting rid of the BMC' (I'm saying I no longer care what happens in the vote), so I didn't read the rest. And I'm simply pointing out that other ways exist to defend access for recreation which are just as valid.
I can see your point, but to be honest I think the small local initiatives that you describe are probably not too dissimilar to the BMC minus half a century of "organic" development.
-
If you'd spent much time trying to access across any farmland in Northern Ireland you'd quickly appreciate how public friendly the rest of the UK's ancient public rights of way are. NI has access laws about as progressive as its abortion laws; not one long distance path and a dearth of public rights of way.
-
If you'd spent much time trying to access across any farmland in Northern Ireland you'd quickly appreciate how public friendly the rest of the UK's ancient public rights of way are. NI has access laws about as progressive as its abortion laws; not one long distance path and a dearth of public rights of way.
Fair enough. Though as we've seen recently, a right of way enshrined in law is no right to climb (see Whitehouses).
-
Also baffled by your use of the US as a poor example. We're lucky in the UK to have ancient access rights to large parts of the countryside. This doesn't exist in the US.
This doesn't really illustrate the US picture, where a lot of climbing is in National Parks that are pro recreation and pro climbing overall, and there are only issues in places where climbers have been assholes (Hueco, and in recent years if people aren't careful, RMNP). A lot of the other climbing is on BLM land, where for a large part you seem to be able to do whatever the fuck you want.
Where there are local issues and climbing is on private land (RRG) then the local access group seems to have been successful in raising funds, but I can help thinking that a US wide body would have raised a lot more money and had more clout.
If you want to look at access to land in the UK that has changed in a positive way, then Scotland is surely the place to look at, I didn't realise that 2003 was considered ancient, I must be getting old!
-
Hi Pete
I don't know much about Canada but I do know the BMC don't cover Northern Island... maybe things would be better there if they did.
I've spent less than 1% of my BMC volunteering time in committees as a Peak Area regular for 2 decades and of that less than 5% in more political committees like the AGM. I simply don't recognise the picture you paint of most BMC volunteers, who as Will says usually just get on with it. Like Will I see most of the recent BMC grumbling being due to a small group of old troublemakers using dirty tricks. Where real issues arise (and they do) the BMC is usually pretty quick to fix things ... most impressively and quickly with reversing Climb Britain. Some organisations I know would have needed to go through the full '5 stages of grief' before being forced to act.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kübler-Ross_model
-
Baffled by your comment on carabiners JWI. This has nothing to do with the BMC?! In short it has everything to do with EN standards.
European climbing manufacturers are benefitting enormously from knowledge held by and research done by the climbing federations in the alpine countries, the pressure they are exerting on quality, and their influence in writing EU legislation.
-
Thanks will have a listen, as I have understood it, the Access Fund supports local groups who are doing the heavy lifting, so your results will vary depending on the influence and popularity of your local 'coalition'.
-
Where there are local issues and climbing is on private land (RRG) then the local access group seems to have been successful in raising funds, but I can help thinking that a US wide body would have raised a lot more money and had more clout.
http://rrgcc.org/about-us/history/
My impression was a large amount (or at least the initial outlay) came from a few wealthy, or incredibly generous (or both) people.
-
We're lucky in the UK to have ancient access rights to large parts of the countryside.
This is bollocks Pete. We do have an network of footpaths, which are in places ancient. A right of way sadly has nothing to do with a right to climb.
The CRoW Act (2001) defined and mapped 'open country' and gave us a right to access it. This included most mountain and moorland and big stretches of the coast. The right of access is not restricted to walking and allows a list of 'permitted activities' which - crucially - includes rock climbing. This inclusion was entirely and solely as a result of the BMC's existence and lobbying.
As a counter example, look at caving. Thanks to the BCA's inaction caving is not a permitted activity under CRoW. On access land cavers can walk to the entrance to the cave but need the landowners permission to proceed underground.
(Little known fact - Bob Pettigrew voted against the BMC's work on the CRoW act too).
-
Hi Pete
I don't know much about Canada but I do know the BMC don't cover Northern Island... maybe things would be better there if they did.
I've spent less than 1% of my BMC volunteering time in committees as a Peak Area regular for 2 decades and of that less than 5% in more political committees like the AGM. I simply don't recognise the picture you paint of most BMC volunteers, who as Will says usually just get on with it. Like Will I see most of the recent BMC grumbling being due to a small group of old troublemakers using dirty tricks. Where real issues arise (and they do) the BMC is usually pretty quick to fix things ... most impressively and quickly with reversing Climb Britain. Some organisations I know would have needed to go through the full '5 stages of grief' before being forced to act.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kübler-Ross_model
Good to hear you don't spend your life involved. But this has strayed off from my original point in reply to you complaining about the 'tier 1' people; which was simply:
that I'm sick of hearing about the politics of the BMC
and
some people have offered an alternative which you can a. vote for b. not vote for c. not vote at all
and
I don't think 'climbing' as I experience it actually needs the BMC, in its current format; by extension I don't really care what happens in the vote; by extension I don't really care what happens to the BMC - I'm sure they'll be just fine whatever even if they lost SE money.
-
We're lucky in the UK to have ancient access rights to large parts of the countryside.
This is bollocks Pete. We do have an network of footpaths, which are in places ancient. A right of way sadly has nothing to do with a right to climb.
The CRoW Act (2001) defined and mapped 'open country' and gave us a right to access it. This included most mountain and moorland and big stretches of the coast. The right of access is not restricted to walking and allows a list of 'permitted activities' which - crucially - includes rock climbing. This inclusion was entirely and solely as a result of the BMC's existence and lobbying.
As a counter example, look at caving. Thanks to the BCA's inaction caving is not a permitted activity under CRoW. On access land cavers can walk to the entrance to the cave but need the landowners permission to proceed underground.
(Little known fact - Bob Pettigrew voted against the BMC's work on the CRoW act too).
It's not bollocks at all JB. While a right to access isn't a right to climb, it's a massively advantageous first step (literally) in the act of going climbing to be able to walk along legally-protected rights of way to or near to a crag without having to trespass across land whose owner doesn't want you there. You only have to spend some time going climbing where extensive rights of way don't exist to appreciate the difference.
Whitestones - you could almost laugh (although it isn't funny) at the 'first world problemness' of it. What - the boulder venue with a public right of way right past it? Hardly difficult to arrange 'access' compared to, say, the local access group near where I used to live arranging vehicle access to the Ghost River Valley, including engineering a new road bridge and digging out new roads every few winters.
It's more about managing inconsiderate behavior than managing difficult access in the UK (NI excepted..)
-
We're all sick of the politics as well - please vote for option A, get this done and dusted and we can all carry on with doing the useful stuff.
A quick quiz for our readers:
1) Who specified and helped design the original DMM eco-bolt, using them to secure access to some of the finest limestone climbing in N.Wales (and incidentally kickstarting the development of modern climbing anchors)?
2) Who has loaned money to several independent guidebook producers?
3) Who has supported bolt funds country wide with training, equipment and publicity?
For those with a short memory, the answer to all of the above is a 3 letter acronym beginning with B.
-
Whitestones - you could almost laugh (although it isn't funny) at the 'first world problemness' of it. What - the boulder venue with a public right of way right past it? Hardly difficult to arrange 'access' compared to, say, the local access group near where I used to live arranging vehicle access to the Ghost River Valley, including engineering a new road bridge and digging out new roads every few winters.
It's more about managing inconsiderate behavior than managing difficult access in the UK (NI excepted..)
GB is good short for if you want to say UK but not include NI.
Whitehouses? if it proved anything it's that having a footpath makes fuck all difference to what the landowners think about climbers using their land. This does nothins to support your point.
Sounds amazing to have the opportunity to work with landowners in such a way to completely change their land just so you can drive your SUV to take part in your 1st world hobby.
-
We're all sick of the politics as well - please vote for option A, get this done and dusted and we can all carry on with doing the useful stuff.
A quick quiz for our readers:
1) Who specified and helped design the original DMM eco-bolt, using them to secure access to some of the finest limestone climbing in N.Wales (and incidentally kickstarting the development of modern climbing anchors)?
2) Who has loaned money to several independent guidebook producers?
3) Who has supported bolt funds country wide with training, equipment and publicity?
For those with a short memory, the answer to all of the above is a 3 letter acronym beginning with B.
:agree:
-
:agree:
We're all sick of the politics as well - please vote for option A, get this done and dusted and we can all carry on with doing the useful stuff.
A quick quiz for our readers:
1) Who specified and helped design the original DMM eco-bolt, using them to secure access to some of the finest limestone climbing in N.Wales (and incidentally kickstarting the development of modern climbing anchors)?
2) Who has loaned money to several independent guidebook producers?
3) Who has supported bolt funds country wide with training, equipment and publicity?
For those with a short memory, the answer to all of the above is a 3 letter acronym beginning with B.
:agree:
:agree: that :agree: with that.
-
Whitestones - you could almost laugh (although it isn't funny) at the 'first world problemness' of it. What - the boulder venue with a public right of way right past it? Hardly difficult to arrange 'access' compared to, say, the local access group near where I used to live arranging vehicle access to the Ghost River Valley, including engineering a new road bridge and digging out new roads every few winters.
To be honest, that Canadian example sounds like a piece of piss. If you've raised the money and employed the contractors it's simply a case of carrying out achievable engineering tasks. Whitehouses, Foredale, Blue (to a lesser extent) - all cases where the landowner has the right to ban or destroy climbing and no amount of cajoling will persuade them otherwise.
-
Ok.
How does this contribute to the debate?
Some people don’t care- got it.
Some people don’t need the BMC- got it.
They don’t do this in America- got it.
(But, seriously? WTF is wrong with people? The USA is a federalised continent of >300M souls, huge tracts of uninhabited land, a totally different political system and made up of highly autonomous states (way more so than our counties), some of those states could swallow our entire nation several times over and at least one has a larger economy than ours.
You’d have to compare the entirety of East and West Europe to be comparable (ish) and you’d still be trying to match Apples with Bananas.
And if you did, it would look similar in structure (local/state organisations and a lose bloc over-view group)).
Plenty of counter arguments and examples of what the BMC has achieved- got it.
Is it fair to summarise thus:
A/ Some people are “alright Jack” and don’t care?
B/ Some people want the best for as many as possible?
Because that’s how this argument comes across.
If that’s not what you mean, can you elaborate?
-
You only have to spend some time going climbing where extensive rights of way don't exist to appreciate the difference.
I've been to Spain, yes, it was an eye-opener. The ex-pat I spoke to said the local groups achieved little, and they desperately needed a body like the BMC with national clout.
-
We're lucky in the UK to have ancient access rights to large parts of the countryside.
This is bollocks Pete. We do have an network of footpaths, which are in places ancient. A right of way sadly has nothing to do with a right to climb.
The CRoW Act (2001) defined and mapped 'open country' and gave us a right to access it. This included most mountain and moorland and big stretches of the coast. The right of access is not restricted to walking and allows a list of 'permitted activities' which - crucially - includes rock climbing. This inclusion was entirely and solely as a result of the BMC's existence and lobbying.
As a counter example, look at caving. Thanks to the BCA's inaction caving is not a permitted activity under CRoW. On access land cavers can walk to the entrance to the cave but need the landowners permission to proceed underground.
(Little known fact - Bob Pettigrew voted against the BMC's work on the CRoW act too).
It's not bollocks at all JB. While a right to access isn't a right to climb, it's a massively advantageous first step (literally) in the act of going climbing to be able to walk along legally-protected rights of way to or near to a crag without having to trespass across land whose owner doesn't want you there. You only have to spend some time going climbing where extensive rights of way don't exist to appreciate the difference.
Whitestones - you could almost laugh (although it isn't funny) at the 'first world problemness' of it. What - the boulder venue with a public right of way right past it? Hardly difficult to arrange 'access' compared to, say, the local access group near where I used to live arranging vehicle access to the Ghost River Valley, including engineering a new road bridge and digging out new roads every few winters.
It's more about managing inconsiderate behavior than managing difficult access in the UK (NI excepted..)
As a caver its funny to see the parallels going on at the moment. The British Caving Association dropped a right bollock a few years ago and failed to lobby for caving to be included in the CRoW act. The politics and machinations that have ensued since make the current BMC issues look like a infant school playground argument about who's turn it is to go in goal. There is a similar small entrenched contingent that are Anti CRoW who have been causing no end of trouble and are not acting in line with the desires of the vast majority of the membership. All the voting/politics seems to be out of the way, and the future is starting to look bright (after about 15 years!!)
As with BCA, the vote just needs to happen, happen quickly and definitively, that way, it can all be put behind and people can just crack on with all the good stuff.
-
You only have to spend some time going climbing where extensive rights of way don't exist to appreciate the difference.
I've been to Spain, yes, it was an eye-opener. The ex-pat I spoke to said the local groups achieved little, and they desperately needed a body like the BMC with national clout.
You can have an access group with ‘national clout’
without having ‘a body like the BMC’ (face off crimewatch).
I don’t agree with the logic used by many (Offwidth primary suspect) that to have an access group with clout = ‘you need the BMC’.
-
So Bob Pettigrew and some cavers are or were against the CRoW Act. Can anyone explain why? I can't think why any climber or caver would want to be against these things?
With caving, provided you have access to the entrance and exit, is there anything that landowners can actually do to police who goes under their land?
-
DanM - is that true? I thought Fred Hall ‘invented’ the eco bolt?
Whatever the case, crediting ‘the BMC’ with ‘kickstarting the development of modern climbing anchors’ is a grand claim - are we supposed to believe resin bolts wouldn't have happened ‘without the BMC’? Of course not. That would be like suggesting modern guidebooks wouldn’t have happened without Cockfax.
-
Sam will no doubt have a better idea but I think there is simply resistance to change from the old caving guard. Then there are safety and conservation concerns over 'opening the flood gates' (farmers and moor owners played this card prior to CRoW too). A lot of caves have locked gates on them and access is controlled by the local club who have negotiated with the landowner.
I was told Bob believed CRoW would reduce rights he believed we already had. No one else seems to have shared his interpretation of these rights mind, and I'm not aware of any examples where access has been lost due to CRoW.
That would be like suggesting modern guidebooks wouldn’t have happened without Cockfax
Interesting argument! Modern music would have happened without The Beatles. Does that invalidate their contribution?
-
I’m more of a stones man.
-
Its complicated. Issues are wrapped up in legislation, old access agreements being displaced, liability concerns, gates and control (relatively, there are very few caves with gates on, compared to those without).
I'm at a loss as to why folks wouldn't want it.
3 years ago, members voted overwhelmingly to get BCA to lobby the powers that be to get caving added to the list of activities allowed on CRoW land.
There then followed a whole bunch of issues with the BCA constitution, raised by the anti mob, which resulted in another vote (overwhelmingly won again) to get the constitution amended to allow BCA to again. So 5 years later, the CRoW team an only truly begin the task of trying to get the act amended.
I think climbers really do have it very easy in the UK. It does come across as a bit of a first world problem when a tiny group of folks are prevented from doing a few problems on a small bunch of rocks. Just the sheer number of venues in the UK is incredible when you stand back and look at it.
But then this isnt really just what the BMC vote is all about is it.
-
DanM - is that true? I thought Fred Hall ‘invented’ the eco bolt?
Whatever the case, crediting ‘the BMC’ with ‘kickstarting the development of modern climbing anchors’ is a grand claim - are we supposed to believe resin bolts wouldn't have happened ‘without the BMC’? Of course not. That would be like suggesting modern guidebooks wouldn’t have happened without Cockfax.
The BMC Technical Committee produced the original design brief and spec's for the eco-bolt, Fred used his metal bashing knowledge to manufacture it, so it was a joint effort. I'm pretty sure it was the first commercially produced resin anchor for climbing, it certainly put certified anchors of this type on the map, before that it was home made staples. Kickstarting seems a fair term given all that.
Fair to say we've been more than just an access group for some time, that work dates back to 1992 I think. How did you do with the rest of the quiz?
-
I can’t remember the rest of it. Hang on.. let me see.. (on my phone on ferry to Ireland to develop more new routes with bolts paid for by sales of NW lime..)..
2&3 - irrelevant to the point I’m making.
(Which is: ‘you don’t need the bmc to have an effective access group. As evidenced elsewhere’.)
This debate always descends into people defensively pointing out ‘the bmc do/have done this’. Which is nothing to do with the point being made.
Slàinte
-
As with BCA, the vote just needs to happen, happen quickly and definitively, that way, it can all be put behind and people can just crack on with all the good stuff.
Said David Cameron about a referendum once...
-
2&3 - irrelevant to the point I’m making.
(Which is: ‘you don’t need the bmc to have an effective access group. As evidenced elsewhere’.)
This debate always descends into people defensively pointing out ‘the bmc do/have done this’. Which is nothing to do with the point being made.
Slàinte
I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. We don't need the BMC, we just need some other organisation that does the same stuff as the BMC?
-
I don't really understand the point you're trying to make. We don't need the BMC, we just need some other organisation that does the same stuff as the BMC?
Just to pick up on that this is generally how the BMC has developed - by taking on responsibility for things that others lack the resources or inclination to take on themselves and has morphed into some sort of hydra.
There are a few things it has let go of along the way. NICAS was originally a BMC thing as I understand it (JR may correct me) and the Climbing Wall committee was discontinued which seemed redundant with the existence of the Association of British Climbing Walls. There was also some split with Mountain Training BITD. Looks like Competition Climbing will become a subsidiary governing body as recommended by the ORG
-
..and has morphed into some sort of hydra.
More like Shield in cultural reference terms ... fighting the good fight but misrepresented and infiltrated by the secret powerful cadre that is hydra.
-
Maybe SHIELD up to Civil War, where they start over reaching themselves and trying to tell heroes what to do :geek:
-
We're all sick of the politics as well - please vote for option A, get this done and dusted and we can all carry on with doing the useful stuff.
Is there anything to stop Bob P et al starting it all over again?
-
No. And I don't think him and his mates will go away while there's still a sufficient number to whip each other up.
-
Interviews with both pres candidates up on the other channel... I was drawn to highlight these sections...
#facepalm
How can the BMC encourage more female participation in organisation and events?
When I started climbing female rock climbers were certainly a rarity, but I am pleased that there are now several women climbing both as mixed and same sex pairs.......
Women are certainly capable and I feel that it is important for their own self esteem for them to know that they have been chosen on merit, rather than to meet a quota.....
I agree that more female participation is needed to better represent their interests because there are important differences between the sexes.
-
We're all sick of the politics as well - please vote for option A, get this done and dusted and we can all carry on with doing the useful stuff.
Is there anything to stop Bob P et al starting it all over again?
Yes, they are looking at improving codes of conduct, complaint procedures, grievance etc. This stuff isn't that hard: most big organisations have protocols for dealing with offensive behaviour, evidenced dishonesty, or even just regular troublemakers and persistent rule breakers, without affecting democratic concerns and debate. The problem has never been Bob's opinions, just his behaviour, insults and dishonest, secretive anti-democratic practices. Also remember that the awkward squad could have at any point have stood for election on their independant platform, locally or for President. I dont think it was ever anything to do with the way the BMC was run... its probably never been run better... it's a few once important climbers seeing their power and influence starting to fade and stirring up trouble to halt the new generations who have different views and can better use the improving BMC democratic structures. Bob always claims to work on behalf of democracy but all the evidence is that he fears it. Option A will most probably lead to live electronic voting by plebs at the AGM and possibly local areas from 2019.
-
Interviews with both pres candidates up on the other channel... I was drawn to highlight these sections...
#facepalm
How can the BMC encourage more female participation in organisation and events?
When I started climbing female rock climbers were certainly a rarity, but I am pleased that there are now several women climbing both as mixed and same sex pairs.......
Women are certainly capable and I feel that it is important for their own self esteem for them to know that they have been chosen on merit, rather than to meet a quota.....
I agree that more female participation is needed to better represent their interests because there are important differences between the sexes.
You know what annoys me most about the “they were a rarity” line?
They weren’t.
In the ‘70s when I started climbing, there were plenty. I pulled out some photos of my “gang” of climbing kids/families (days at the Cheesewring or Kit hill, pasties for lunch and cooking sausages over a fire at night, or biving under the rocks below Cemetry gates in the pass) and it was entire families that climbed. I know my Mum and my Sister did (my sister was the first girl on a Coastguard Cliff rescue team in Devon). I don’t recall my Mum ever leading anything, but I know she would follow my Dad up HVS (possibly a Diff or two at Idwal).
There are a couple of old friends that come into the bunker to train, every Thursday lunch time;
69 and 72, very definitely female. Full of tales of climbing with their Uni club in the ‘60s (and some interesting encounters with the odd “Rock Star” (they were both fashion magazine editorial staff)).
Most of their stories seem to involve other women, bitd, having epics on long Alpine choss-fests.
In the ‘80s, when I went to work at the Southwest Adventure center, it was run by Ron and Moira (Don, Ron’s original business partner retiring a year earlier) and Moira was every bit the climber.
No, they weren’t rare, merely ignored.
-
I tried to vote yesterday (using my phone) and it just "hung" with some rotating circles when I clicked the final button until it eventually timed out
I will try again today
anyone else had problems?
-
I tried to vote yesterday (using my phone) and it just "hung" with some rotating circles when I clicked the final button until it eventually timed out
I will try again today
anyone else had problems?
Who did you vote for...
-
Worked fine for me today, using Chrome.
-
I tried to vote yesterday (using my phone) and it just "hung" with some rotating circles when I clicked the final button until it eventually timed out
I will try again today
anyone else had problems?
Who did you vote for...
I voted Alex Messenger for God.
-
Andy Syme doing a Q&A on UKC now if anyone has questions.
-
I tried to vote yesterday (using my phone) and it just "hung" with some rotating circles when I clicked the final button until it eventually timed out
I will try again today
anyone else had problems?
Who did you vote for...
Brian Blessed
-
That reminds me of a great joke on t'other channel.
"Hat Dude - on 17 May 2018
In reply to Shani:
> Blessed's onsight of London Wall in '81 remains the benchmark for all celebrity climbers.
It's little known that Brian's ascent was recorded on camera by a well known frequenter of these pages. Unfortunately, on topping out, Brian dislodged a large block which hit the photographer, who was only saved by his camera taking the brunt of the blow. Sadly the impact destroyed the camera and its pictures, however Brian's cry of relief on discovering the photographer was unharmed, has become a thing of legend."
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/ben_fogle_summits_everest-685071#x8785756
-
I don't like bullies and after being threatened with legal action for defamation and mulling over this for a few days I've decided to stick up a section from one of Bob's recent emails here, just in case anyone still really things he can't use modern electonic communications and webpages and that he has stopped interferring with his dirty tricks behind the scenes. I think it speaks for itself on why this option vote is important.
Posted UKC 10.39 today.
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/crag_access/bmc_again_sorry-685194?new=8800291
-
What an unholy mess. I realise I'm a complete outsider and I realise that deliberate wreckers have been at work for months, or even longer, but this is starting to look like an organisation in potentially serious trouble. All organisations depend on having legitimacy with "stakeholders." If I were an ordinary member who generally thought the BMC was a good thing and was broadly supportive of modernisation I think I would be starting to lose my faith. I can imagine funding bodies might be starting to feel the same. The organisation has shown little ability to mitigate what looks (from the outside) like a crisis.
-
What an unholy mess. I realise I'm a complete outsider and I realise that deliberate wreckers have been at work for months, or even longer, but this is starting to look like an organisation in potentially serious trouble. All organisations depend on having legitimacy with "stakeholders." If I were an ordinary member who generally thought the BMC was a good thing and was broadly supportive of modernisation I think I would be starting to lose my faith. I can imagine funding bodies might be starting to feel the same. The organisation has shown little ability to mitigate what looks (from the outside) like a crisis.
Wadded
-
What an unholy mess. I realise I'm a complete outsider and I realise that deliberate wreckers have been at work for months, or even longer, but this is starting to look like an organisation in potentially serious trouble. All organisations depend on having legitimacy with "stakeholders." If I were an ordinary member who generally thought the BMC was a good thing and was broadly supportive of modernisation I think I would be starting to lose my faith. I can imagine funding bodies might be starting to feel the same. The organisation has shown little ability to mitigate what looks (from the outside) like a crisis.
Hopefully the vote will do that on next Saturday. I can't see there will be much sympathy for sour grapes legal action if Option A wins the vote by a clear margin. The organisation has spent a year in pretty careful consultation with almost everyone interested and has compromised even at the last, with Jonathan and Crag, but the likes of Bob just keep plugging away in his secret emails with bullshit bile. The idea that one of our area volunteer officers is a hooligan under the full control of an evil executive in order to extract revenge on Bob (with the dregs of a shandy!) is pure tin-hatted madness (thats what one of the letters claims... others can back that up). In contrast, someone can easily do something they later regret when already annoyed and then suddenly on the recieving end of very personal and sexist insults from Bob. I'm the one mainly doing the defaming according to Bob... find me anything I've said thats not based on what we actually know about what he wrote. I can email most of the letters other than the beergate one (which is obviously probably libellous).
Does anyone seriously think government would buy this collection of misinformation, in the context of the things Bob and his mates have said on the record about the BMC being in thrall to Sport England, let alone against a strong majority membership vote (which it will be under any circumstances even if it doesn't make 75%+)? It would be like brexiters complaining to Brussels about a government bending to remainers. I'd add other people on the BMC side have good contacts in Westminster as well, and know what Bob represents is hardly going to go down well.
Having said all that, I do think members need to take this at least as seriously as they did the MoNC, as much because a good margin over the 75% vote is best this time for Option A with the legal threats. No one is claiming this is anything other than the best compromise under tricky circumstances but it enables the BMC to get on with its good work rather than spending another year navel gazing on the basic articles (that are common to any body getting any government funding). To the average member the organisation will remain pretty much unchanged.
-
I want to stress that I was talking, above all else, about perceptions (I've no doubt that the organisation has been working hard to overcome these challenges, and I've no doubt the wreckers are behaving completely egregiously). In particular, my final sentence should have read: "The organisation, from the outside, has shown little ability to mitigate what looks, from the outside, like a crisis." Perceptions do matter unfortunately, even if there is little rational underlying them and the BMC will appear to many to be unable to assert control. It goes without saying I want the BMC to survive and prosper.
-
(to Andy and Offwifth):
For what it's worth I agree with Andy. In addition, as this whole thing has gone on I have felt more and more that the internet discussion has benefited the renegade group because they have been able to nitpick and find inconsistencies between different peoples' posts far too easily, as well as accusing people of personal vendettas. It all has the effect of making the BMC team appear unprofessional.
I think serious consideration should be given after this is over to an effective ban on internet/social media posts about any significant BMC issues by people who work or volunteer for the BMC, except in a controlled and coordinated manner. I know it would be awkward to implement and people wouldn't like it, but the organisation would provide a much more coordinated and professional perception to the readers. The occasional posts written on ukc by Dave Turnbull himself are a good example of what should be out there, without everything else.
-
Interesting that you would prefer a managed message. The way things have played out on UKC has offered those outside the inside circles a real insight as to what’s actually going on. I can understand that the organisation might want to leverage greater media control but I’m surprised that individual climbers would see that as a good thing even though the truth of what is going on can be ugly. No different to Westminster.
-
There has to be a happy medium between a completely managed message and the complete shitshow that is that thread on UKC.
The way things have played out on UKC has offered those outside the inside circles a real insight as to what’s actually going on.
Really? It would take a huge amount of patience - much more than I have anyway - to glean any real insight from that thread. The overriding impression is of disarray.
-
The threads are too long and rambling for anyone who isn't already quite involved to be likely to bother to glean any sort of insight IMO. I've based my vote only on the fact that people who I think are sensible and non-dickish are advocating the same option that the BMC is advocating - I have no actual clue on the substance of what is even being debated/presented.. and I would suspect that many (the majority?) are in a similar situation.
-
^ This is it, in a nutshell.
Despite endless communications from the BMC and others in the debate I'm still unclear what difference either of the articles will make to anything. Except that one will result in sport england tier 1 and the other tier 3.
The amount of words that have been poured into this shit show by the BMC and by others without being able to make the issue clear, is proof in my mind that whatever this is about - and it seems to be about power - isn't worth my time trying to decipher.
-
What Andy and Barrows said. There's almost no meaningful discussion being had by a very small number of people. Much of it has the ring of Fake News about it i.e. Offwidth says one thing is true; Andy Say says that the complete opposite is true.
Despite endless communications from the BMC and others in the debate I'm still unclear what difference either of the articles will make to anything. Except that one will result in sport england tier 1 and the other tier 3.
To be honest, Pete, I think what you've just said is the nub of it. The mechanism for getting Tier 1 compliance is to invest responsibility in a smaller group of board/executive members - as any large organisation which wanted to have accountable decision making would do. This seems practical and manageable to me, and unlikely to result in mass corruption since there will be checks and balances in place.
My take on the Option B stuff is that a lot of the old guard do not like this shift of power because they see an organisation that they used to have a tight hold of (block vote and all that) slipping even more from their grasp (case in point - that insane article by the bloke who was bemoaning the fact that when he called the BMC office his voice wasn't instantly recognised, and he didn't personally know the person answering the phones: utter madness). Some of these people are apparently going to great and ugly lengths to try and keep things the way that they like them. There might also be some genuine concerns about corruption in there but this hasn't really been articulated.
That there is about the limit of what I have gleaned from what I've read and I don't suspect that it's too far off the mark.
-
Really? It would take a huge amount of patience - much more than I have anyway - to glean any real insight from that thread. The overriding impression is of disarray.
Hear hear
-
I think one of the issues is that it's very dull stuff and full of business speak so pretty hard to invest in without the petty squabbling, he said she said rubbish.
In my opinion, you either vote for or against Option A, depending on whether you think it is a good idea or not.
I don't see Option B as a viable alternative as it doesn't actually seem to do what it says on the tin.
Tier 1 - There are a couple of issues here for me. There doesn't seem to be any information out there to say whether it does conform to Sport England requirements for Tier 1 or not. Even if it does, what is the point? Tier 1 compliance doesn't give us access to any funding and doesn't help the funded partners. If we are going to go down the Sport England road, do it properly or not at all.
Board Led/Membership led - The pro Option B protagonists say their option maintains the membership lead nature of the BMC. However, Sport England Tier 1 compliance requires it to be board led. There also seemed to be very little in the Option B articles that made it more mebership lead than the Option 'A' set up.
-
To be honest, Pete, I think what you've just said is the nub of it. The mechanism for getting Tier 1 compliance is to invest responsibility in a smaller group of board/executive members - as any large organisation which wanted to have accountable decision making would do. This seems practical and manageable to me, and unlikely to result in mass corruption since there will be checks and balances in place.
My take on the Option B stuff is that a lot of the old guard do not like this shift of power because they see an organisation that they used to have a tight hold of (block vote and all that) slipping even more from their grasp (case in point - that insane article by the bloke who was bemoaning the fact that when he called the BMC office his voice wasn't instantly recognised, and he didn't personally know the person answering the phones: utter madness). Some of these people are apparently going to great and ugly lengths to try and keep things the way that they like them. There might also be some genuine concerns about corruption in there but this hasn't really been articulated.
That there is about the limit of what I have gleaned from what I've read and I don't suspect that it's too far off the mark.
OK. And what about the bigger picture surrounding SE funds? People are talking about SE funding being reduced, and possibly eliminated. Again, nothing has been explained in plain english how much SE funding is available now, and whether that funding is available for the long term or might disappear in a few years. Isn't that pretty important to know, if compromises have to be made to obtain it?
For what seems to be the single biggest reason for voting one way or another - to obtain or not SE funding at tier 3 - there seems to be extremely little information being offered to explain the wider picture for SE funding. It's just 'vote this way because I'm a well-known climber' type stuff. Which obvs I couldn't give a fukc about. I wouldn't put it past some well-known climbers to nail their grannies to a cross if it got them a few days' airtime. Anyway if anything I'm inclined to vote whichever way Nick Bullock isn't :)
-
I have no actual clue on the substance of what is even being debated/presented.. and I would suspect that many (the majority?) are in a similar situation.
Imagine a tank with an input pipe and output pipe...
-
Hmm, tricky. Not really worthy of a full Wad, but definitely deserves some kind of a Like.
-
To be honest, Pete, I think what you've just said is the nub of it. The mechanism for getting Tier 1 compliance is to invest responsibility in a smaller group of board/executive members - as any large organisation which wanted to have accountable decision making would do. This seems practical and manageable to me, and unlikely to result in mass corruption since there will be checks and balances in place.
My take on the Option B stuff is that a lot of the old guard do not like this shift of power because they see an organisation that they used to have a tight hold of (block vote and all that) slipping even more from their grasp (case in point - that insane article by the bloke who was bemoaning the fact that when he called the BMC office his voice wasn't instantly recognised, and he didn't personally know the person answering the phones: utter madness). Some of these people are apparently going to great and ugly lengths to try and keep things the way that they like them. There might also be some genuine concerns about corruption in there but this hasn't really been articulated.
That there is about the limit of what I have gleaned from what I've read and I don't suspect that it's too far off the mark.
OK. And what about the bigger picture surrounding SE funds? People are talking about SE funding being reduced, and possibly eliminated. Again, nothing has been explained in plain english how much SE funding is available now, and whether that funding is available for the long term or might disappear in a few years. Isn't that pretty important to know, if compromises have to be made to obtain it?
For what seems to be the single biggest reason for voting one way or another - to obtain or not SE funding at tier 3 - there seems to be extremely little information being offered to explain the wider picture for SE funding. It's just 'vote this way because I'm a well-known climber' type stuff. Which obvs I couldn't give a fukc about. I wouldn't put it past some well-known climbers to nail their grannies to a cross if it got them a few days' airtime. Anyway if anything I'm inclined to vote whichever way Nick Bullock isn't :)
The BMC have been pretty consistent from when the compromise Option A was launched. They had previously set up the independant Organisational Review Group (ORG) and consulted fully with pretty much every group interested in BMC matters, other than maybe fulmars, and made recommendations; and then the Implementation Group (IG) had looked at what could be practically done and when. The membership reps in National Council (NC, currently with the primacy the option B folk desire ) voted it in democratically as the way forward, despite the obvious effects on themselves as a committee. Option A means we have a modern business like governance arrangements, like every other sporting body eligible for grant funding (dull and formal but needed, unless you want none of the benefits below, 10% higher subs and more chaos). It means the umbrella funding set-up for mountain training and walls is retained. It means our influence with government will be retained as well as it can be. Finally, we can get back to bidding for Sport England funding, which may or may not go down a lot in the future but is important for the next two years. A lot of serious effort went into the compromise with Jonathon White and Crag Jones from the earlier group of Option B. I'm optimistic it will balance Board leadership with responsibilities to the membership.
With Option B we still don't have: a list of which proposers still support it; confirmation if SE agree its Tier 1 compliant (pretty important); an explanation of how the spin about retaining member authority can be true, given Tier 1 also requires Board primacy. Option B also lacks all the recent extra membership protections after the compromise.
BMC: what does Sport England do for us:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/11-bmc-things-funded-by-sport-england
On Andy Say, as per a post further up, I can't think of a single point he has made that doesn't distil down to an issue of trust: ie an opinion on some future that assumes the Board will go power mad and the membership will shrug 'whatever' and not kick them out. Remember all the recent problems, especially Climb Britain and the delays that led to the rush to complete the articles, were down to NC, not the Exec, as NC currently have that power. Andy Say is a member of NC and of IG and of the nominations committee, so a clear BMC insider (albeit a critic of Option A). I'm just a husband of one of the exec, who happens to be very good and careful about confidentiality. I have made my own mind up and have worked with a group of volunteers independant of the exec, and reliant on club leaks, to produce information to counter the fake news of Bob and co (now visible for what it is; and there is a lot more that needs to wait until after the election before release) . At least Andy is public on UKC and with a BMC article, as now is Rodney, at last (who's been accused of misusing his son's account on UKC). Rodney doesn't look as much like John Major in the flesh. So the BMC have two major articles on the website now on Option B. Rodney's article ignores many points of the compromise and if anyone is interested PM me and I'll go through its faults and exaggerations one by one (as I will for Andys). They operate by encouraging fear about democracy when what they fear is reduced influence and a wider climbing family: including things like competitions and hill walking and bouldering, and they hate the Olympic link (despite vote after vote in support when BMC membership is consulted). They want spanners in the works.
What will ordinary members notice afterwards if Option A succeeds... certainly more support from highly relieved staff and major volunteers, who can focus properly again on their roles, otherwise very little really at first. As time progresses, better member input, than largely self-selecting area NC reps, might lead to real improvements in communication and niche support. Electronic votes from 2019 AGM will mean we don't depend as much on a democracy of mostly retired or rich folk with lots of time and money, or those who are part of the machinery and claiming expenses, as they all vote at an AGM. Proxies saved the organisation at the 2017 AGM with the rejected MoNC (thank you all who voted) and electronic proxies need to do the same again now in my opinion with the Options (please vote).
-
I have no actual clue on the substance of what is even being debated/presented.. and I would suspect that many (the majority?) are in a similar situation.
Imagine a tank with an input pipe and output pipe...
:lol:
-
I have no actual clue on the substance of what is even being debated/presented.. and I would suspect that many (the majority?) are in a similar situation.
Imagine a tank with an input pipe and output pipe...
:lol:
:) Glad you took it the right way.
Like energy systems the issues are hard to simplify and concisely describe. My best stab was on Facebook five weeks ago and it ended up being far longer than I intended:
I thought I would set down my thoughts on the current BMC constitutional crisis in the run up to the vote on 16 June.
The most liked comment on the recent UKC thread included: “This whole long-running pantomime is the very embodiment of why I don't give a tuppenny toss about the BMC anymore...The whole shambles is like a 70s TUC Conference, bogged down in unfathomable motions and opaque counter motions understood only by the truly committed and those who really need to get out more..."..
I also “liked” this post as I entirely agree with these sentiments. However,if the BMC has any hope of putting this “shambles” behind it then it is critical that there is the required 75% majority for the “Tier 3 resolution” . However, with the last major AGM vote eliciting only 2500 (out of 80,000 members) votes this required majority is far far from a done deal especially now that an opposing motion has been tabled.
I've interacted with the BMC as a Peak Area volunteer, former National Council member and for the last 17 months worked as a contracted employee in the post of Commercial Partnerships Manager so I have viewed things from a number of angles that have shaped my views on the subject.
In terms of the broad themes and what are likely outcomes of the vote the three of the most important elements for me are:
1. One of the purposes of the BMC is to be a unifying body and whilst there have been ructions and differences over the years other climbing organisations and clubs tend to work with the BMC as we are better and stronger together than apart. Therefore Climbing in the round can represent itself via the BMC to wide ranging government and non-government organisations which include major landowners. A key way this works is that the BMC makes a unified funding bid to Sport England not only for itself but also other climbing organisations notably Mountain Training, the Association of British Climbing Walls and the ABC Training Trust. To do this now requires the most highly rated level of constitutional governance which is Tier 3. If the vote is not carried we will be letting down our partners who value the BMC’s input and that particular unifying glue which binds us will become unstuck and BMC’s power and influence as a unified force working with other organisations will be diminished.
2. Whilst the BMC is a good organisation in general in my experience it is not the best at making clear decisions or indeed any decisions let alone devising and executing strategies. This has resulted in an organisation that has evolved rather than been planned and is now complex, difficult to understand and engaged in a very wide variety of work. It wasn’t part of a grand plan that we have become what we are which is both a reflection of how varied climbing has become and deficient strategy. This complexity is OK provided it is clear to those carrying out activity (staff and volunteers) where priorities and direction lie (and dare I say it have goals and targets). I contend that the split responsibility and accountability between National Council and the Board of Directors engenders slow or avoided decision making and a consequent muddled direction for the organisation. Tier 3 governance concentrates power and decision making with the Board and in the recommended resolution National Council becomes an advisory body with board representation and some retained powers to keep the Board on track and in check. To its great credit National Council itself recommends this change to Tier 3 governance even though it has the most to lose. However, it should be pointed out that it required an independent review (The ORG) to get it there as it was unable or unwilling to put its own house in order.
The potential empowerment of the Board to make and be accountable for decisions together with the phase 2 implementation of the ORG recommendations gives me hope that the BMC can become better at decision making making and strategy and move from good to great. (Obviously we need able people on the board to realise this - it doesn't just happen by itself!)
3. On a more pragmatic level if the Tier 3 resolution isn’t voted for then this (expensive) crisis will drag on and on and continue to disrupt and delay a return to business as usual. There will continue to be an inward focus rather than the external focus of doing the job of representing hillwalkers and climbers. There is also a danger that the organisation will tear itself apart and become an unresolved shadow of its current self.
There is an Open Forum on Tues evening in Manchester city centre. There are also Area meetings to discuss the recommendations in the run up to the AGM in Kendal on 16 June. Info on how to vote will be circulated shortly on the BMC website and by email to members. This year will include an online voting option. If you care about the BMC you should vote.
Thank you for reading if you got this far!
ps I should also mention a little more about the opposing resolution advocating the lower level of Tier 1 governance. This has been devised outside democratic processes and introduced out of the blue. It wasn’t subject to public scrutiny or widespread consultation unlike the Tier 3 recommended resolution proposed by National Council. The opposing resolution primarily seeks to preserve the status quo with National Council retaining policy making power (even though National Council no longer wants that!). It would not allow us to bid substantively and in concert with our other partners for Sport England funding with the knock-on effect of limiting the potential of the BMC and its future breadth of representation, growth and its influence. For me a vote for this tier 1 resolution is a reactionary vote that would stop the most important elements of the ORG’s modernising recommendations in its tracks.
HTH
-
There’s some good points in there shark. Not as good as ‘think of it as a tank with an inflow and outflow’ but...
But it still seems as short-sighted as everything else I’ve read to do with SE funding, if that funding is indeed supposed to cease a few years from now. Why not acknowledge this, if the funding is supposedly so important? It doesn’t make sense.
-
There’s some good points in there shark. Not as good as ‘think of it as a tank with an inflow and outflow’ but...
:-[ That’s ironic as the reason I posted on FB rather than here was that I don’t want to get into an interminable wrangle with you.
But it still seems as short-sighted as everything else I’ve read to do with SE funding, if that funding is indeed supposed to cease a few years from now. Why not acknowledge this, if the funding is supposedly so important? It doesn’t make sense.
There is no doubt that the £amount of money is more important to our partners (Mountaining Training, NICAS and ABC) than it is to the BMC. Nonetheless it is still important. There will be some tough decisions to be made in SE funded programmes and posts that are currently being funded by the BMC at a deficit.
I am unclear on the future of SE funding. The growing participation stats are in our favour but their policies have changed. I am not involved so am not confident to have a view on the potential of future funding.
-
I think the idea Sport England expect self sufficiency at some point in the future is a political one. Our nation gets fatter all the time and sport is one of the few bright spots that act to keep future health bills down. We can sensibly work with other bodies to put pressure on SE if they look to reduce funding to zero, with pretty much our full membership behind us. What we can't sensibly do is divorce them now assuming they will be unfaithful at some point, after a few years. Its another of Bob's scare tactics in his project fear, that the money will go.
-
Interesting that you would prefer a managed message. The way things have played out on UKC has offered those outside the inside circles a real insight as to what’s actually going on. I can understand that the organisation might want to leverage greater media control but I’m surprised that individual climbers would see that as a good thing even though the truth of what is going on can be ugly. No different to Westminster.
It's not so much that I want it (in an ideal world I don't) but that this crisis has shown that the BMC as an organisation needs it. My reasoning is along the same lines as others have already said - the many different lines of communication, interspersed with argument from the 'other side' just create an impression of disarray rather than getting any one important message across.
-
I agree a clearer relationship between NC and Board should help. It's more about better management than a managed message though, in my opinion. NC dithered with their power when we had 3 years to meet SE compliance and so the rather rushed final stages gave rise to a lot wider concerns in the membership than just those of Bob and chums. The compromise arrangement at the open forum a month back, which led to a much improved Option A, that a much wider group of the membership could support, was very important and should have resolved things. Unfortunatey Bob and chums don't back down and they sought to manufacture appearance of continued crisis, using misinformation, mainly in secret. Only Andy Say spoke in detail in public, avoiding answering straight questions and making veiled hints of support, Tier 1 status and member's primacy, that always seemed to me highly dubious. I still think its all a red herring for Bob and co, who really want the end of the BMC as it currently is and the clock effectively turned back 40 years. They know they could never do this democratically so fake news and dirty tricks are the tools required. I don't want the BMC and this motion failing due to such undemocratic manipulation. It's analogous to me to the UK and the Brexit vote, that was probably only won thanks to the secret undemocratic manipulation, becoming more and more apparent, from UKIP leadership in cohoots with Cambridge Analytica and probably the Russians. I sometimes wonder if Bob visited the embassy as well.
I'd also say there are not really many BMC lines of communication but things are always complex in democratic organisations. The BMC as an organisation speak through Dave, Nick K, and Alex and use the webpage and Summit etc but they have to give fair access to different sides of any debate. The NC, Exec and ORG have a clear pro Option A view and Andy Syme is the IG negotiator and attempted peace maker.
I think some people are mistaking those, like me, who support the organisation as an 'offical voice', we are not. Bob and Andy certainly dishonestly painted us as BMC attack dogs and trolls. We do feel that Bob and co's communications could not just be ignored, nor the gaping holes in the logic of Option B.. We are just well informed individual members concerned about Bob's continued undermining of the BMC and we relied on leaks from clubs for our information on Bob. Decisions were made not to properly deal with 'the Bob problem' after the MoNC, probably in some fruitless attempt at reconcilliation, and some like me feel this was a mistake. The damage from these vexatious members isn't all done yet: as an example, I can see the Alpine Club threatening to separate from the BMC unless the more progressive part of the membership of that club call out this behaviour.
-
I think we all get that you're well meaning members communicating in a non-official role, the problem is just that when I see threads filling up with long posts like that, full of discussion of NCs, Boards, Tiers etc I just start skimming (at best) or stop reading all together - I guess this is where some level of centralised communication might be of use.
-
I think we all get that you're well meaning members communicating in a non-official role, the problem is just that when I see threads filling up with long posts like that, full of discussion of NCs, Boards, Tiers etc I just start skimming (at best) or stop reading all together - I guess this is where some level of centralised communication might be of use.
The centralised communication is available on BMC website for info and of course in Summit so best to go there to start with. Its not the BMC's fault that some go to discussion topics first. The threads may not be sanitised or pretty but have generated some extra awareness of governance and hopefully increased the vote even from you?
Taking a bigger picture view I'm quite heartened at the raised level of interest in the BMC and its workings and future and gives me hope that this level of engagement (hate that word) has raised expectations so that the impetus to press on with the more interesting Phase 2 modernisation proposals for the BMC will be followed through at a good pace.
My worry is that after the vote the membership and exhausted activists will largely go back to sleep again (as they seemed to be when I was on National Council) and the usual drags against change will take effect and the BMC won't realise its potential as a forward thinking (and acting) representative for body for us all. It is all we've got so we should try to make it the best it can be.
-
Hi
Yep, if we were a brand, it would be a bit random having all these informal communications on various forums, but it's not up to the BMC communications team to start telling volunteers (or Shark) what they can and can't post.
On the one hand, this is great - you can have open conversations with people - on the other, it can lead to confusing sprawling threads like that mammoth UKC one.
So, if anyone is confused and would like to vote, feel free to post their questions here and I'll attempt to give short, simple answers.
Voting closes at 1pm on Thur. The final voting email was sent this morning, so check your email / spam for an email from "Online Voting".
Alex Messenger, BMC.
-
Last Edit: Today at 08:47:12 am by shark, Reason: Changed mistake of B for A (twice) »
:lol:
-
Last Edit: Today at 08:47:12 am by shark, Reason: Changed mistake of B for A (twice) »
:lol:
Think he needs a rest..
-
There’s some good points in there shark. Not as good as ‘think of it as a tank with an inflow and outflow’ but...
:-[ That’s ironic as the reason I posted on FB rather than here was that I don’t want to get into an interminable wrangle with you.
But it still seems as short-sighted as everything else I’ve read to do with SE funding, if that funding is indeed supposed to cease a few years from now. Why not acknowledge this, if the funding is supposedly so important? It doesn’t make sense.
There is no doubt that the £amount of money is more important to our partners (Mountaining Training, NICAS and ABC) than it is to the BMC. Nonetheless it is still important. There will be some tough decisions to be made in SE funded programmes and posts that are currently being funded by the BMC at a deficit.
I am unclear on the future of SE funding. The growing participation stats are in our favour but their policies have changed. I am not involved so am not confident to have a view on the potential of future funding.
Yeah you wouldn't want anyone asking awkward questions of your opinion.
So according to the received wisdom put out by the BMC- the SE money IS crucial to the BMC. And it's also not that crucial?
And there's a possibility the SE funding may dry up.
Pardon my not really understanding wtf this is all about, if it's not just about power games.
-
The way I've understood SE funding is that it's crucial for the BMC's partners but not the BMC. Of course the SE money is very useful for the BMC but not crucial. Surely that's quite simple to understand?
-
The threads may not be sanitised or pretty but have generated some extra awareness of governance and hopefully increased the vote even from you?
Good point, it's quite possible that I wouldn't have bothered voting without the online stuff bringing it to my attention, even if I'm not entirely clear what I'm voting for.
-
Yeah you wouldn't want anyone asking awkward questions of your opinion.
Having got involved in the UKC thread I didn't particularly want to engage you on one front and Andy Say on the other. Also I saw the UKB threads as being less cluttered and more factual and was hoping they stayed that way.
So according to the received wisdom put out by the BMC- the SE money IS crucial to the BMC. And it's also not that crucial?
And there's a possibility the SE funding may dry up.
Pardon my not really understanding wtf this is all about, if it's not just about power games.
Yes it is about how power is exercised (governance) which includes the allocation of resources (which includes money) and working collectively with allied partnership organisations. If Option A gets the vote and Roberts/Robinson get voted in then there is a mandate and the tools in place to follow through on the other ORG modernising recommendations to make it a better and more representative organisation.
-
The way I've understood SE funding is that it's crucial for the BMC's partners but not the BMC. Of course the SE money is very useful for the BMC but not crucial. Surely that's quite simple to understand?
Of course that's simple to understand, if that's what was being said. But it wasn't.
The message that'd been put across in this debate or at least how I'd perceived it, was that SE funding is crucial for the BMC.
All I'm saying is the message is hardly clear about the facts of the matter. Instead it's a fuzzy 'vote for this because ummm it's the right thing'.
For some of us that isn't a satisfactory reason to vote for anything.
-
^ This is it, in a nutshell.
Despite endless communications from the BMC and others in the debate I'm still unclear what difference either of the articles will make to anything. Except that one will result in sport england tier 1 and the other tier 3.
The amount of words that have been poured into this shit show by the BMC and by others without being able to make the issue clear, is proof in my mind that whatever this is about - and it seems to be about power - isn't worth my time trying to decipher.
The message that'd been put across in this debate or at least how I'd perceived it, was that SE funding is crucial for the BMC.
All I'm saying is the message is hardly clear about the facts of the matter. Instead it's a fuzzy 'vote for this because ummm it's the right thing'.
For some of us that isn't a satisfactory reason to vote for anything.
For some it will be enough ie we want the BMC to carry in what they are doing but without putting up subs. There is a clear message and call to action there.
The other stuff that is equally if not more important tends but is less eye catching and hard edged so tends to get skim read over so taking the following paragaraph I've highlighted the other stuff.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-2018
Voting for Option A
This is the version formally recommended by the BMC’s National Council and Board of Directors. Their view is that the BMC will be stronger and better by focusing on being an umbrella body for all mountaineers with transparent and clear governance that allows members, volunteers and staff to work collaboratively to ensure the best outcomes for all members. It will clarify organisational decision-making, increase transparency and ensure we comply with company law. It will put in place a high standard of organisational governance (meaning that good decisions are made by, and for, members). Together with our partners in Mountain Training and the climbing wall sector, it will ensure we remain eligible to receive government funding under the Sport England Tier 3 funding stream: the highest level of funding available to us.
Although you might write this other stuff off it is my belief and experience that even in business (typically seen as hard nosed and just about the money) that this other cultural stuff in organisations is vital to their success and the same applies, if not more so, to a not for profit National body like the BMC.
-
I think we all get that you're well meaning members communicating in a non-official role, the problem is just that when I see threads filling up with long posts like that, full of discussion of NCs, Boards, Tiers etc I just start skimming (at best) or stop reading all together - I guess this is where some level of centralised communication might be of use.
If you want a simple message: stuff Bob and his dirty tricks and vote Option A. However, I've always been really impressed with this site's ability to mix (sometimes raucous) fun with serious and complex debate. On that subject of fun, on the muddled A and B I've always had a weird brain issue with alternatives (eg muddling left and right... a real pain for a guidebook worker) and seriously declining eyesight, where glasses give me eyestrain. I did the same A, B trick on UKC the day before. I certainly deserved it pointing out though. Some fun links on the subject:
http://www.iflscience.com/brain/why-some-people-have-trouble-telling-left-right-and-why-it-s-so-important/
https://www.chron.com/life/article/If-you-can-t-tell-your-left-from-your-right-1752863.php
I actually need a rest from the grinding paperwork of exam board result processing and course change documentation at work, not BMC stuff.
-
I think we all get that you're well meaning members communicating in a non-official role, the problem is just that when I see threads filling up with long posts like that, full of discussion of NCs, Boards, Tiers etc I just start skimming (at best) or stop reading all together - I guess this is where some level of centralised communication might be of use.
If you want a simple message: stuff Bob and his dirty tricks and vote Option A. However, I've always been really impressed with this site's ability to mix (sometimes raucous) fun with serious and complex debate. On that subject of fun, on the muddled A and B I've always had a weird brain issue with alternatives (eg muddling left and right... a real pain for a guidebook worker) and seriously declining eyesight, where glasses give me eyestrain. I did the same A, B trick on UKC the day before. I certainly deserved it pointing out though. Some fun links on the subject:
http://www.iflscience.com/brain/why-some-people-have-trouble-telling-left-right-and-why-it-s-so-important/
https://www.chron.com/life/article/If-you-can-t-tell-your-left-from-your-right-1752863.php
I actually need a rest from the grinding paperwork of exam board result processing and course change documentation at work, not BMC stuff.
I’m alright with the whole right/left thing.
It’s Arse and Elbow I struggle with...
-
I'm struggling with that as well as well: my elbow currently hurts when I strain and is full of shit. Not being able to climb makes me a bit more prickly.
-
Vote Option A, just because.
-
92% for Option A
:beer2:
-
Lynn is president :dance1:
-
Those numbers must surely be enough to shut the old farts up? For the second time, they have been squashed.
Any casualties or medical attention required when they realised their president has no penis?
-
Those numbers must surely be enough to shut the old farts up?
Optimistic.
-
Those numbers must surely be enough to shut the old farts up? For the second time, they have been squashed.
Any casualties or medical attention required when they realised their president has no penis?
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.
Much more hurtful for me was when Shark questioned my climbing commitment when I had a second slice of cheesecake.
-
Much more hurtful for me was when Shark questioned my climbing commitment when I had a second slice of cheesecake.
Classic guilt displacement Shark :D
-
This feels like a massive relief.
I hope that this is the final chapter in this saga.
-
Those numbers must surely be enough to shut the old farts up? For the second time, they have been squashed.
Any casualties or medical attention required when they realised their president has no penis?
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.
Much more hurtful for me was when Shark questioned my climbing commitment when I had a second slice of cheesecake.
Can you tell us who asked and give us a precis of the response? What a patronising question.
-
I am shark. And the response was the climber who eats the most cheesecake is the one having the most fun.
-
I am shark. And the response was the climber who eats the most cheesecake is the one having the most fun.
for future reference: another suitable answer is "I have earned this"