41

chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?

« Last post by stone on Yesterday at 08:09:32 am »

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.

I'd entertain the possibility that Truss herself genuinely believes that throwing money at the richest people is the best way to help society.
I think she is a believer in this sort of stuff: https://www.econlib.org/archives/2013/03/redistributing.html

PS I think it is moronic garbage myself

42

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

« Last post by Oldmanmatt on Yesterday at 07:58:29 am »

Sorry Offwidth, that’s rather patronising.
I have yet to see anything other in any BMC response.
Clearly, the BMC no longer values the views of the membership.
Change is hardly a new thing, nor is it untrusted.
The bar set at such a high number of members requesting/responding, whilst refusing to accept a petition on Change, seems clearly designed to make it as hard as possible for members to act.
Do you expect them to pick up pen and paper and write in?
It seems Simon suggested plenty of quite straight forward ways to further  verify signatures and yet…

Sham.

And shame.

43

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

« Last post by shark on Yesterday at 07:26:28 am »

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.

Not everything was done to try and validate.

I requested that the validation criteria was relaxed in recognition of Change worked such that if a name was unique on the BMC database then if it matched a signatory with a postcode within 5 or 10 miles of the BMC recorded address. I’m fairly sure this didn’t happen.

I also requested that if the thresholds weren’t met that a last ditch email was sent out by the BMC Office to the non matched names to ask if they had signed the resolution. This definitely didn’t happen.

Given the numbers submitted (512 for financial disclosure and 462 for the subsidiary) a common sense view is that there were at least 382 members in there. MC as a members representative body should have supported inclusion on the AGM agenda on that basis and are out of touch IMO

44

news / Re: The inevitable grade thread

« Last post by andy moles on Yesterday at 07:18:49 am »

The best two types of climbing right?

I'm pretty conventional myself, I quite like multiple pitches of immaculate flowing climbing up compelling features on impeccable rock (I know,  right?), but each to their own.

45

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

« Last post by spidermonkey09 on Yesterday 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.

46

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

« Last post by Offwidth on May 03, 2024, 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.

47

chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?

« Last post by mrjonathanr on May 03, 2024, 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.

48

news / Re: The inevitable grade thread

« Last post by kingholmesy on May 03, 2024, 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?

49

chuffing / Re: Does E4 for WSS make sense?

« Last post by Moo on May 03, 2024, 10:25:46 pm »

This is everything UKB should be.

50

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

« Last post by teestub on May 03, 2024, 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!