Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
« Last post by teestub on Today at 02:39:58 pm »
22
« Last post by teestub on Today at 02:33:21 pm »
Don't mind me, just gonna periodically drop in here and leave articles proving that water companies such as Yorkshire Water are polluting our waterways and getting away with paying insignificant fines whilst paying their shareholders dividends.
Hopefully you’re writing to your MP with your concerns, as well as posting here
23
« Last post by Oldmanmatt on Today at 02:08:40 pm »
BMC accounting 2022:
1: Lift corner of rug.
2: Sweep it all under.
3: Deny massive lump under rug exists.
4: Claim rug is now too heavy to lift and “anyway, we put a new sofa on it now”.
5: Attempt Jedi mind trick “This is not the lump you are looking for”…
24
They are, I'll send you a message.
25
« Last post by jwi on Today at 01:22:43 pm »
I quite like the french use of obligatory ( 7b(6c+ obl) for that. Letting you know you can frig it 😁
The obligatory grade is amazingly useful to figure out how hard it is to get up a route. It is also pretty "compressed" in the higher grades. It is really really rare to find a route where it is harder than fr 7b between the bolts.
26
« Last post by Nails on Today at 12:53:39 pm »
I appreciate that, but even the simple breakdown that HMRC require (Wages, Buildings, Travel, Admin etc) would be considerably better than what has been provided in the Finance Report. The whole idea that the costs are unknown and too difficult to find out is simply not credible.
27
« Last post by remus on Today at 12:09:06 pm »
Scenario 2. The 2022 finances are actually quite well understood. They had to be in order to file an accurate Corporation Tax return. HMRC aren't big on allowing such things to be wrong based on the argument that, "it's all too much effort". If there's any likelihood that the BMC didn't understand their finances correctly for 2022 and may have filed an incorrect Corporation Tax return then it is probably rather important that this gets investigated urgently just in case they turn out to have a massive tax liability. So assume the 2022 finances are well understood, but they're embarassing and not just to people who have left the organisation. People within the BMC are desparate not to have all this uncovered and are really hoping that it all gets forgotten about.
The things HMRC are interested in for tax returns are not necessarily the same things that are being asked for now. For example, if you have some admin costs HMRC are unlikely to be bothered about how those are split across the different areas within the business, whereas that seems like something people interested in the cost of comp climbing within the BMC would be pretty interested in. I think it is easy to imagine a situation where coming up with the latter figures would require work.
28
« Last post by Nails on Today at 11:33:14 am »
The problem here is when we apply Occam's razor to the curent BMC setup and the lack of transparency around the 2022 finances. Obviously, there are many possible explanantions for what is currently going on. Here are two scenarios to consider:
Scenario 1. The 2022 finances are poorly documented, incredibly complicated and it's just not worth the effort required to uncover them. Let's all move on. Volunteers are working phenomenally hard and constant harking on about historical finances are an insult and distraction to their sterling efforts. People who were involved in any mismanagement or misdirection of funds have now moved on. The current board,management etc have worn their fingers to the bone sorting everything out and getting the good ship BMC back on an even keel. The Council members who sit on the Board and the Finance and Audit Committee are all reliable people and just want to move on.
Scenario 2. The 2022 finances are actually quite well understood. They had to be in order to file an accurate Corporation Tax return. HMRC aren't big on allowing such things to be wrong based on the argument that, "it's all too much effort". If there's any likelihood that the BMC didn't understand their finances correctly for 2022 and may have filed an incorrect Corporation Tax return then it is probably rather important that this gets investigated urgently just in case they turn out to have a massive tax liability. So assume the 2022 finances are well understood, but they're embarassing and not just to people who have left the organisation. People within the BMC are desparate not to have all this uncovered and are really hoping that it all gets forgotten about.
Which of these would Occam choose?
29
« Last post by andy moles on Today at 11:17:20 am »
Anyway, like I said, I've not really been able to work out what is actually at stake in this thread, so who knows.
From humble beginnings as an argument over whether E4 makes any sense as a grade for a 7B+ boulder problem with a highball finish, Nemo has struck out boldly to fix the entire application of the British grading system, conveniently glossing over the small matter of the grade meaning two different things in the arcane bracket of E5 to E8. I think that more or less sums it up?
30
« Last post by Wellsy on Today at 10:52:41 am »
One thing I find very appealing about the trad grading system is how it incorporated the difficulty, the exposure, the security, the danger etc
I think that font grades are let down by only considering the physical difficulty (opinions differ on whether they consider the technical difficulty bit honestly as far as I can tell they don't).
I'd love it if we had a bouldering grade system which incorporated other elements.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
|
Recent Posts