1

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

« Last post by spidermonkey09 on Today at 06:53:26 am »

I think that's a pisstake of a response. I could have swallowed not accepting the subsidiary motion. Not agreeing to the financial resolution is a joke and pretty hard to defend.

2

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

« Last post by Offwidth on Yesterday at 11:58:56 pm »

Following the huge damage of the Motion of no Confidence, including the withholding of ~£150k grant funding (even though that motion was lost by a very large majority at the AGM), Council set the 0.5% membership level for future membership motions to the AGM, to prevent further risks of that type.

As an alternative, motions need only 25 members to go to Council who can approve it for AGM if they agree.

The subsidiary motion was unanimously opposed on Council as they felt it had significant extra cost, significant transition costs and significant extra risks to the organisation; and because they felt it disenfranchised Competition members to an extent.

If Council had to support every motion like this there would literally be no point in such a Council decision and as such the 0.5% rule we have to follow would be equally meaningless.

Detailed financial declarations will be made in May after Audit is signed off by the Board (when we have agreed accurate 2023 accounts). As such the finance motion will pretty much be met before the AGM.

Despite this formal position it's obvious Simon has highlighted numerous issues that most of us on Council feel need looking at for future AGM motion submissions (and especially the communications of that process) to try to prevent such a mess happening again.

It would be really sad if members left or reduced their contribution, because of this result. I would encourage some careful thought on the matter, given the good work that has continued through the difficult times in the last few years, especially in Access & Conservation. The importance of the BMC is the core staff and volunteer cohorts, not the governance structure.

3

chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?

« Last post by mrjonathanr on Yesterday at 11:20:46 pm »

Exactly although with regards liz truss’s economic policy  I might be a little more like fultonius….. incredulous at the idea anyone could truly believe that it might be a good idea…

People with income north of £300k probably thought abolishing the 45p rate was a great idea.

4

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by kingholmesy on Yesterday at 11:05:09 pm »

I’ve only bothered to read half this thread, but basically JB and Northern Yob are correct.  But then maybe I only think that cos I’m squarely in this Venn overlap:

You probably are in a relatively small Venn overlap of specialties there, ankle-breaker grit soloing and seaside death choss.

The best two types of climbing right?

5

chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?

« Last post by Moo on Yesterday at 10:25:46 pm »

This is everything UKB should be.

6

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

« Last post by teestub on Yesterday at 10:19:29 pm »

Essentially saying ‘We are not going to let our members vote on this because we are afraid it might pass’ is a pretty horrible thing for a membership lead organisation to be writing!

7

news / Re: calling of the lime

« Last post by haydn jones on Yesterday at 10:12:01 pm »

Well that was this shittest grit season on record for me. I had a desperate finial last effort hail mary on my project late one night this week but it was way too warm. Don't think I managed a single boulder of significance to me this winter on the grit.

Anyway I'm glad that's over now. Absolutely frothing for kilnsey and Malham this year. went for a walk up gordale scar and around to malham and sure enough all the signs were there of a golden season. (surely it can't keep raining for ever!) anyway I'll be going to Raven Tor on Sunday for the anual pilgramage of the calling. See you there!

8

chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?

« Last post by stone on Yesterday at 10:09:15 pm »

This is totally the type of climbing I steer clear of but I think I understand the "how hard is the scary bit" E-grade logic.

The bottom of WSS only feeds into the E grade in that it is harder to do the serious second half climbing after being powered out by having just bouldered 7B+.

So if someone climbs 7B+ fine but doesn't climb bold E4, they know to steer clear. If there was an amazing resting position such that the top only felt E2, they might give it a go.

What really didn't make sense was when bouldery bolted sport routes in the UK got E grades that bizarrely just followed a physical difficulty logic -simultaneously with us having unbolted routes that didn't. So you got an E6 tick for Entrée    -But no one gives sport routes E grades anymore.

9

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

« Last post by Duma on Yesterday at 09:58:22 pm »

That is absolutely fucking shameful. I am astonished and will not be renewing my membership.

10

news / Re: significant repeats

« Last post by abarro81 on Yesterday at 09:46:07 pm »

Someone should have stuck that in a guide or something. I think I would have found it useful to know back when I climbed on grit quite a lot... Now you say it it does make some sense, but if you started climbing somewhere without many micro routes it's not obvious. I'm also not entirely sure that's how it's used round the country? I don't recall micro routes in Avon feeling like they used that system, but maybe I'm misremembering.

Handily most guides do include a few paragraphs on grades:

The system of grading for routes in this volume is the traditional British style, a combination of adjectival and technical grades, and assumes the leader has a normal rack, including standard camming devices, nuts, slings, quickdraws etc. The adjectival grade is the first part of the grade, and attempts to give an overall sense of the difficulty of a climb. This will be influenced by many aspects.

Being a massive dweeb I've gone and checked a few other guides and they all include very similar wording (Rockfax eastern grit, CC South Devon, CC Dartmoor, The Sheffield-Stanage area 1970 reprint, Peak Limestone South 1987, Moorland Gritstone Chew Valley 1988, Derwent Valley 1981).

You could be forgiven for thinking the adjectival grade is widely understood to "give an overall sense of the difficulty of a climb".

No Remus, the only explanation is that we all thought it worked like that because we want it to be like sport grades. Especially those authors of the 1970s guide