This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Wisely?
Are they serving British Climbing well? All is now revealed.
Report at the news page of UKClimbing.com http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/
Are they serving British Climbing well? All is now revealed.
Report at the news page of UKClimbing.com http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
They don't.
I stopped being a member after that idiot 'No Park Tax' campaign.
G
They don't.
I stopped being a member after that idiot 'No Park Tax' campaign.
G
On a related topic did the new Stanage guide not make the news links or did I miss it?
In reply to Offwidth:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=233519
>
> On a related topic did the new Stanage guide not make the news links or did I miss it?
> On a related topic did the new Stanage guide not make the news links or did I miss it?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=233519
In reply to Offwidth:
You could even have a news post on this: announcement of new Stanage guide not news, shocker. Popular End suffers unexpected popularity decline. Boulderers abandon Plantation in disgust at overuse. Niall says "I'm gutted, all that work, I still can't believe it....by the way its my route so I can call Skidoo what I like too"
You could even have a news post on this: announcement of new Stanage guide not news, shocker. Popular End suffers unexpected popularity decline. Boulderers abandon Plantation in disgust at overuse. Niall says "I'm gutted, all that work, I still can't believe it....by the way its my route so I can call Skidoo what I like too"
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
In reply to Offwidth:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=233519
and there I thinking a news editor could tell the difference between a thread and a news item
In reply to Offwidth:
>
> On a related topic did the new Stanage guide not make the news links or did I miss it?
> On a related topic did the new Stanage guide not make the news links or did I miss it?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=233519
and there I thinking a news editor could tell the difference between a thread and a news item
In reply to Offwidth:
As Stanage is a major UK crag, there will be a news item about the latest guidebook in the future, nearer it's publication.
We have ran several news reports about BMC guidebooks.....and in this particular news report there is mention of BMC guidebooks with a link to the BMC website.
As Stanage is a major UK crag, there will be a news item about the latest guidebook in the future, nearer it's publication.
We have ran several news reports about BMC guidebooks.....and in this particular news report there is mention of BMC guidebooks with a link to the BMC website.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
They certainly are not serving the clubs well, with yet another hike in club member fees for next year, in the current issue of Summit a BMC insurance advert states "All Insurance Premiums Held for 2007" (page 39). Are we subsidising the Insurance services?
They certainly are not serving the clubs well, with yet another hike in club member fees for next year, in the current issue of Summit a BMC insurance advert states "All Insurance Premiums Held for 2007" (page 39). Are we subsidising the Insurance services?
In reply to jim jones:
By my reading of the figures the insurance service is actually subsidising club members whilst those with individual membership are adding to the coffers.
By my reading of the figures the insurance service is actually subsidising club members whilst those with individual membership are adding to the coffers.
In reply to Andy Say:
Sorry just don't see it that way, the BMC charges £8.75 per club member currently, possibly rising to £9.75 next year, they were £6.00 a short while ago. It's a huge burden to even large clubs like my own. It's hardly a suprise that clubs have a waning membership. The point I am trying to make, is the membership fee is primarily for Third Party liability insurance, surely if it's necessary to rise for the membership, the increase in Insurance Premiums by the BMC should be pro rata?
Sorry just don't see it that way, the BMC charges £8.75 per club member currently, possibly rising to £9.75 next year, they were £6.00 a short while ago. It's a huge burden to even large clubs like my own. It's hardly a suprise that clubs have a waning membership. The point I am trying to make, is the membership fee is primarily for Third Party liability insurance, surely if it's necessary to rise for the membership, the increase in Insurance Premiums by the BMC should be pro rata?
In reply to jim jones:
The club membership fee of £9.75 compares very favourably with the individual membership fee for whihc there is little discernable additional benefit.
Why not think of it as a charitable donation t the good works the BMC does?
The club membership fee of £9.75 compares very favourably with the individual membership fee for whihc there is little discernable additional benefit.
Why not think of it as a charitable donation t the good works the BMC does?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
If the BMC allowed Scottish Mountaneering/Climbing Clubs to join, then they would be serving/representing British climbing, rather than English and Welsh climbing.
>
> Are they serving British Climbing well? All is now revealed.
>
Other than not allowing Scottish Mountaneering/Climbing Clubs to join, they are a good organisation.
> Are they serving British Climbing well? All is now revealed.
>
If the BMC allowed Scottish Mountaneering/Climbing Clubs to join, then they would be serving/representing British climbing, rather than English and Welsh climbing.
In reply to Tyler:
> (In reply to jim jones)
>
> The club membership fee of £9.75 compares very favourably with the individual membership fee for whihc there is little discernable additional benefit.
>
>The point is that whilst individual club members get their limited benefits through a reduced subscription rate, the clubs have to pay that subscription for ALL of their members, whether they ever go near a mountain or not. Why should someone who's only a member of a club to receive the newsletter and keep in touch with friends have to pay the BMC for this. Taking into account how many of our club members really get any value out of our BMC membership, we're paying a very high pro rata rate for this. The value of club members to the BMC is much above £8.75 per member. I assume that anyone who bothers to join as an individual member does it to get something back.
>
> The club membership fee of £9.75 compares very favourably with the individual membership fee for whihc there is little discernable additional benefit.
>
In reply to jim jones:
Falacious assumption. Some of us are members in order to give.
Unless you assume that the work that the BMC does is being 'bought' by the members for their individual benefit?
> (In reply to Tyler)
I assume that anyone who bothers to join as an individual member does it to get something back.
Falacious assumption. Some of us are members in order to give.
Unless you assume that the work that the BMC does is being 'bought' by the members for their individual benefit?
In reply to jim jones:
How much more limited are the benefits club members get compared to individual members.
Surely this is an issue between memer and club rather than club and BMC, not unreasonable to assume someone who is a member of a climbing club has a vested interest in the outdoors.
How much direct benefit does anyone get from the BMC? It's not like they come round and do my garden to the equivalent vlaue of my membership fee, it's something people and clubs contribute to for the mutual benefit of the outdoor community.
How so? Until recently club members were actually subsidised as their fees did not cover the costs to the BMC, don't know if that's the case now but can't see how the BMC benfis "much above" the £8.75 they get.
I doubt it
There is no compunction for clubs to join the BMC so why not withdraw membership?
> The point is that whilst individual club members get their limited benefits through a reduced subscription rate,
How much more limited are the benefits club members get compared to individual members.
> Why should someone who's only a member of a club to receive the newsletter and keep in touch with friends have to pay the BMC for this.
Surely this is an issue between memer and club rather than club and BMC, not unreasonable to assume someone who is a member of a climbing club has a vested interest in the outdoors.
> Taking into account how many of our club members really get any value out of our BMC membership, we're paying a very high pro rata rate for this.
How much direct benefit does anyone get from the BMC? It's not like they come round and do my garden to the equivalent vlaue of my membership fee, it's something people and clubs contribute to for the mutual benefit of the outdoor community.
> The value of club members to the BMC is much above £8.75 per member
How so? Until recently club members were actually subsidised as their fees did not cover the costs to the BMC, don't know if that's the case now but can't see how the BMC benfis "much above" the £8.75 they get.
> I assume that anyone who bothers to join as an individual member does it to get something back.
I doubt it
There is no compunction for clubs to join the BMC so why not withdraw membership?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
So the rumours of blowing the whole of the 2006 subscriptions income on Haribo mix ands scratch cards are unfounded?
So the rumours of blowing the whole of the 2006 subscriptions income on Haribo mix ands scratch cards are unfounded?
In reply to Andy Say:
I give huge amounts more than I receive (guidebook work, route checking, local meetings, student club related work) and am very happy to continue that way out of the sheer enjoyment of climbing and helping the climbing community. It is depressing to think some expect all our time and expenses should be counted and cross charged. Next thing you know voluntary work will be banned for providing unfair competition with similar company providers.
I give huge amounts more than I receive (guidebook work, route checking, local meetings, student club related work) and am very happy to continue that way out of the sheer enjoyment of climbing and helping the climbing community. It is depressing to think some expect all our time and expenses should be counted and cross charged. Next thing you know voluntary work will be banned for providing unfair competition with similar company providers.
In reply to John Rushby:
I suspect that was a cover story to distract from much more nefarious practices. Nasty access wheedlers the lot of them
I suspect that was a cover story to distract from much more nefarious practices. Nasty access wheedlers the lot of them
In reply to Offwidth:
Yes, there are too many people who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Well done in you doing voluntary work.
> (In reply to Andy Say)
>
> I give huge amounts more than I receive (guidebook work, route checking, local meetings, student club related work) and am very happy to continue that way out of the sheer enjoyment of climbing and helping the climbing community. It is depressing to think some expect all our time and expenses should be counted and cross charged. Next thing you know voluntary work will be banned for providing unfair competition with similar company providers.
>
> I give huge amounts more than I receive (guidebook work, route checking, local meetings, student club related work) and am very happy to continue that way out of the sheer enjoyment of climbing and helping the climbing community. It is depressing to think some expect all our time and expenses should be counted and cross charged. Next thing you know voluntary work will be banned for providing unfair competition with similar company providers.
Yes, there are too many people who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Well done in you doing voluntary work.
In reply to John Rushby:
JOHN! They were waiting for a 'big news day' to sneak that snippet out. You just blew it!
JOHN! They were waiting for a 'big news day' to sneak that snippet out. You just blew it!
In reply to Offwidth:
Shurely shome mishtake?My next new route will be called 'No, seriously, I'm Spartacus!'
> Niall says "I'm gutted, all that work, I still can't believe it....by the way its my route so I can call Skidoo what I like too"
Shurely shome mishtake?My next new route will be called 'No, seriously, I'm Spartacus!'
In reply to John Rushby:
The subs all went on the hire of snow blowers for the internation winter meet!
Haribos come out of fiddling the expenses. (I made that up before anyone comes after me)
The subs all went on the hire of snow blowers for the internation winter meet!
Haribos come out of fiddling the expenses. (I made that up before anyone comes after me)
In reply to Norrie Muir: Why thanks, a nice post from Norrie is always a nugget of joy. Of course, it keeps me from wasting too much time on UKC.
In reply to jim jones:
With all respect - if a club chooses to be an affiliate of the BMC then most of its members are, by default, interested in climbing and mountaineering.
If this is not the case then perhaps the club is better off not being officially affiliated with the BMC, and leave the choice of membership to the those who ARE interested in mountaineering. However, if >50% of members are interested in joining the BMC, then they would probably vote for club BMC membership, as it saves them money.
The point is that this is a matter for each individual club, and each individual who chooses to join that club.
I think it is a bit rich to moan about affiliate membership prices when nobody is forcing anybody to join either a local club, and nobody is forcing clubs to join the BMC.
> he clubs have to pay that subscription for ALL of their members, whether they ever go near a mountain or not. Why should someone who's only a member of a club to receive the newsletter and keep in touch with friends have to pay the BMC for this
With all respect - if a club chooses to be an affiliate of the BMC then most of its members are, by default, interested in climbing and mountaineering.
If this is not the case then perhaps the club is better off not being officially affiliated with the BMC, and leave the choice of membership to the those who ARE interested in mountaineering. However, if >50% of members are interested in joining the BMC, then they would probably vote for club BMC membership, as it saves them money.
The point is that this is a matter for each individual club, and each individual who chooses to join that club.
I think it is a bit rich to moan about affiliate membership prices when nobody is forcing anybody to join either a local club, and nobody is forcing clubs to join the BMC.
In reply to Niall:
Your not the real real Niall are you? I knew that clone advert should have been taken more seriously. If only they knew just how inefficient the group of you are and how hard it is to survive on one BMC salary.
UKC news: thirty news posts in March already. Dya think you'll make a fave 50?
Your not the real real Niall are you? I knew that clone advert should have been taken more seriously. If only they knew just how inefficient the group of you are and how hard it is to survive on one BMC salary.
UKC news: thirty news posts in March already. Dya think you'll make a fave 50?
In reply to Offwidth:
People only like my posts when it suits them, otherwise, well. I am serious about your voluntary work, so well done again.
> (In reply to Norrie Muir) Why thanks, a nice post from Norrie is always a nugget of joy. Of course, it keeps me from wasting too much time on UKC.
People only like my posts when it suits them, otherwise, well. I am serious about your voluntary work, so well done again.
In reply to Norrie Muir:
I nearly always like your posts but must admit to not having the time to read all of them. I am genuinely chuffed to receive such thanks.
I nearly always like your posts but must admit to not having the time to read all of them. I am genuinely chuffed to receive such thanks.
In reply to Offwidth:
This is my last post you on this thread, as some people only like to whinge about me only posting negative comments, so I don't want to disillusion them.
> (In reply to Norrie Muir)
>
> I nearly always like your posts but must admit to not having the time to read all of them. I am genuinely chuffed to receive such thanks.
>
> I nearly always like your posts but must admit to not having the time to read all of them. I am genuinely chuffed to receive such thanks.
This is my last post you on this thread, as some people only like to whinge about me only posting negative comments, so I don't want to disillusion them.
In reply to Norrie Muir:
Too right, image is everything here. Before you go though you can depress in character me by telling me how good condition were in the week ending this monday (our club bailed from our annual glencoe pilgrimage and went to font).
Too right, image is everything here. Before you go though you can depress in character me by telling me how good condition were in the week ending this monday (our club bailed from our annual glencoe pilgrimage and went to font).
In reply to Tyler:
As almost 50% of our membership fee per member is going to the BMC from next year, I fail to see how smaller clubs will survive given the spiralling BMC rises in the future. Perhaps this is the end for the traditional clubs anyway.
> There is no compunction for clubs to join the BMC so why not withdraw membership?
As almost 50% of our membership fee per member is going to the BMC from next year, I fail to see how smaller clubs will survive given the spiralling BMC rises in the future. Perhaps this is the end for the traditional clubs anyway.
In reply to jim jones:
Is it really that big an issue? £8.50 seems like f*ck all extra to me. It seems a small price to pay for decent national representation, when clubs are on the wane for all sorts of other reasons.
Is it really that big an issue? £8.50 seems like f*ck all extra to me. It seems a small price to pay for decent national representation, when clubs are on the wane for all sorts of other reasons.
In reply to jhenryb:
Frankly yes, I agree clubs are struggling, as a club committee member we have had to justify an increase from £6.00 to £8.75 recently & now it's going up again. Club membership is £20.00 p.a.
> (In reply to jim jones)
>
> Is it really that big an issue? £8.50 seems like f*ck all extra to me. It seems a small price to pay for decent national representation, when clubs are on the wane for all sorts of other reasons.
>
> Is it really that big an issue? £8.50 seems like f*ck all extra to me. It seems a small price to pay for decent national representation, when clubs are on the wane for all sorts of other reasons.
Frankly yes, I agree clubs are struggling, as a club committee member we have had to justify an increase from £6.00 to £8.75 recently & now it's going up again. Club membership is £20.00 p.a.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
A significant part of the income of the BMC is government subsidy. This is money that would have no place to go if the BMC didn't exist. Furthermore, unlike most representative sporting bodies, most BMC expenditure benefits the broad majority of participants rather than just the elite performers. Accordingly the BMC for all its faults is a good thing.
A significant part of the income of the BMC is government subsidy. This is money that would have no place to go if the BMC didn't exist. Furthermore, unlike most representative sporting bodies, most BMC expenditure benefits the broad majority of participants rather than just the elite performers. Accordingly the BMC for all its faults is a good thing.
In reply to agp:
How much and what percentage?
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> A significant part of the income of the BMC is government subsidy.
>
> A significant part of the income of the BMC is government subsidy.
How much and what percentage?
In reply to jim jones:
Jim, is there not some way you can get round the problem of inactive members having to pay via BMC subs for insurance they don't need? I was thinking, if your club was called Colne Mountaineering Soc, say, (random name picking, I assume none such exists...) then create an organisation called Friends of Colne Mountaineering Soc, and all the non-active members could just join the 'Friends', get their newsletter, go to the socials, but not be affiliated to the BMC ... and be able to pay a much cheaper membership than full club members?
Jim, is there not some way you can get round the problem of inactive members having to pay via BMC subs for insurance they don't need? I was thinking, if your club was called Colne Mountaineering Soc, say, (random name picking, I assume none such exists...) then create an organisation called Friends of Colne Mountaineering Soc, and all the non-active members could just join the 'Friends', get their newsletter, go to the socials, but not be affiliated to the BMC ... and be able to pay a much cheaper membership than full club members?
In reply to gingerkate:
Thanks for that Kate worth considering as we have about 230 members at present. Probably 50% - 60% of whom are active.
Thanks for that Kate worth considering as we have about 230 members at present. Probably 50% - 60% of whom are active.
In reply to jhenryb:
Cheers everyone welcome you have e-mail.
Cheers everyone welcome you have e-mail.
In reply to gingerkate:
An excellent idea, and it allows you to raise the membership price for those who actually do want their club to be affiliated with the BMC. (Which, in jim jones' club's case, would still make club membership cheaper than individual membership.
On a broader note, I would again respectally point out that perhaps the waning club membership that jim jones pointed out earlier in this thread is less to do with BMC raising subs by a quid fifty, and more to do with people whinging about it, so putting new (and existing members off).
I joined a club several years ago, but didn't renew my subs after one year because there was too much politics and not enough climbing.
> Friends of Colne Mountaineering Soc, and all the non-active members could just join the 'Friends', get their newsletter, go to the socials, but not be affiliated to the BMC ... and be able to pay a much cheaper membership than full club members?
An excellent idea, and it allows you to raise the membership price for those who actually do want their club to be affiliated with the BMC. (Which, in jim jones' club's case, would still make club membership cheaper than individual membership.
On a broader note, I would again respectally point out that perhaps the waning club membership that jim jones pointed out earlier in this thread is less to do with BMC raising subs by a quid fifty, and more to do with people whinging about it, so putting new (and existing members off).
I joined a club several years ago, but didn't renew my subs after one year because there was too much politics and not enough climbing.
In reply to jim jones:
I should imagine it's a really common problem. I can't see what's to stop you having what would essentially be a two tier membership scheme. The BMC might not love you for it, but I can't see that they could possibly stop you.
I should imagine it's a really common problem. I can't see what's to stop you having what would essentially be a two tier membership scheme. The BMC might not love you for it, but I can't see that they could possibly stop you.
In reply to gingerkate:
I have to admit that I see little point in staying in a club when inactivity sets in. But your suggestion would save the annual explanations of why we are charging more.
I have to admit that I see little point in staying in a club when inactivity sets in. But your suggestion would save the annual explanations of why we are charging more.
In reply to jim jones:
I know what you mean, but any organisation I've ever been in has an active membership and an inactive one. I think it's just human nature... people make connections, friendships, and don't want to chuck them away just because their life has got too busy or whatever. And if you did go with the 'friends of...' idea, then if someone wanted to get active again maybe you could let that happen at any point in the year by getting them to pay an upgrade? Because that'll be part of why people stay members ... they want to know that the club is there for them if they ever do get time/energy/inclination again. Bit like hanging onto their gear, like people so often do when they're no longer climbing.
I know what you mean, but any organisation I've ever been in has an active membership and an inactive one. I think it's just human nature... people make connections, friendships, and don't want to chuck them away just because their life has got too busy or whatever. And if you did go with the 'friends of...' idea, then if someone wanted to get active again maybe you could let that happen at any point in the year by getting them to pay an upgrade? Because that'll be part of why people stay members ... they want to know that the club is there for them if they ever do get time/energy/inclination again. Bit like hanging onto their gear, like people so often do when they're no longer climbing.
In reply to gingerkate:
We also have a significant number of older (even than me!) members who donated a considerable amount of money & time to obtain a great hut for the club & they quite rightly stay members to see their legacy used correctly. All current & future members have a responsibility to them as benefactors. Thanks again for your sensible solution (it would take a woman!)
Jim.
We also have a significant number of older (even than me!) members who donated a considerable amount of money & time to obtain a great hut for the club & they quite rightly stay members to see their legacy used correctly. All current & future members have a responsibility to them as benefactors. Thanks again for your sensible solution (it would take a woman!)
Jim.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Have you not read the links from your News item?
>
> How much and what percentage?
> How much and what percentage?
Have you not read the links from your News item?
In reply to gingerkate:
In fact such arrangements already exist in a few clubs and I suspect that they will soon become much more commonplace.
> ... I can't see what's to stop you having what would essentially be a two tier membership scheme. The BMC might not love you for it, but I can't see that they could possibly stop you.
In fact such arrangements already exist in a few clubs and I suspect that they will soon become much more commonplace.
In reply to jim jones:
The liability insurance element is only about £3 and that is not a real "cost" since this is the apportioned "share" of the fixed insurance premium for the whole BMC organisation (total premium shared between the number of 'members').
> ... rising to £9.75 next year ...
... the membership fee is primarily for Third Party liability insurance..
The liability insurance element is only about £3 and that is not a real "cost" since this is the apportioned "share" of the fixed insurance premium for the whole BMC organisation (total premium shared between the number of 'members').
In reply to Andy Say:
Absolute rubbish.
The "cost" of a club member to the BMC is much less than the fee they pay, therefore club members are contributing to the BMC.
It's correct that Individual members contribute more, but that is NOT "subsidising club members".
> (In reply to jim jones)
> By my reading of the figures the insurance service is actually subsidising club members whilst those with individual membership are adding to the coffers.
> By my reading of the figures the insurance service is actually subsidising club members whilst those with individual membership are adding to the coffers.
Absolute rubbish.
The "cost" of a club member to the BMC is much less than the fee they pay, therefore club members are contributing to the BMC.
It's correct that Individual members contribute more, but that is NOT "subsidising club members".
In reply to Tyler:
However the BMC values those additional benefits as being worth £13.75 for a club member to upgrade to full membership
> The club membership fee of £9.75 compares very favourably with the individual membership fee for whihc there is little discernable additional benefit.
However the BMC values those additional benefits as being worth £13.75 for a club member to upgrade to full membership
In reply to Long John:
Nah ... the difference in amounts reflects what they think they can get away with asking the two groups to contribute, not an analysis of what any additional benefits are worth.
> However the BMC values those additional benefits as being worth £13.75 for a club member to upgrade to full membership
Nah ... the difference in amounts reflects what they think they can get away with asking the two groups to contribute, not an analysis of what any additional benefits are worth.
In reply to everyone moaning about an extra £1 per year: am i the only person who wonders what all the fuss is about over a £1 per year rise in the subs? i know a rise in the subs is a 'traditional' stick with which to beat the BMC as an organisation, but a sense of perspective is useful. £1 per year is less than 2p a week: if you're so easily worked up about such a piffling sum there is no hope for you.
goodnight
goodnight
Btw, having just checked out the BMC AGM link, what a good idea mixing socialising and getting out in with the essential but TAF stuff.
In reply to jim jones: Jim its actually more than 8.75 per person as you state, as you have to take into account the first 20 club memebers cost £190 thereafter its £8.75, so the first 20 cost £9.50 each.
If you are only a small club this has a mch bigger impact as the average cost paid to the BMC IS HIGHER.
Regards
The Shamen
If you are only a small club this has a mch bigger impact as the average cost paid to the BMC IS HIGHER.
Regards
The Shamen
In reply to martin k:
no, you're not.
> am i the only person who wonders what all the fuss is about over a £1 per year rise in the subs?
no, you're not.
In reply to The shamen:
This is because they are GIVING LESS (look up 'economies of scale') and yet they are also all still PAYING LESS (rather substantially so) than individual members. So I honestly can't see the justification for moaning.
> If you are only a small club this has a mch bigger impact as the average cost paid to the BMC IS HIGHER.
This is because they are GIVING LESS (look up 'economies of scale') and yet they are also all still PAYING LESS (rather substantially so) than individual members. So I honestly can't see the justification for moaning.
In reply to Norrie Muir:
Is that true Norrie, if so that is appalling. How can they possibly justify that?
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> [...]
> Other than not allowing Scottish Mountaneering/Climbing Clubs to join, they are a good organisation.
>
> If the BMC allowed Scottish Mountaneering/Climbing Clubs to join, then they would be serving/representing British climbing, rather than English and Welsh climbing.
> [...]
> Other than not allowing Scottish Mountaneering/Climbing Clubs to join, they are a good organisation.
>
> If the BMC allowed Scottish Mountaneering/Climbing Clubs to join, then they would be serving/representing British climbing, rather than English and Welsh climbing.
Is that true Norrie, if so that is appalling. How can they possibly justify that?
In reply to Al Evans:
It stops a turf war, Al.
It stops a turf war, Al.
In reply to Andy Say:
What turf war. The BMC has mountaineers/climbers interests at heart, whereas the MCofS has lost the plot.
The BMC's issues are mountain/climbing related, so Scottish mountaineering/climbing clubs have more in common with the BMC than the MCofS.
> (In reply to Al Evans)
> It stops a turf war, Al.
> It stops a turf war, Al.
What turf war. The BMC has mountaineers/climbers interests at heart, whereas the MCofS has lost the plot.
The BMC's issues are mountain/climbing related, so Scottish mountaineering/climbing clubs have more in common with the BMC than the MCofS.
In reply to Offwidth:
OK, I confess, I'm A Niall, but not THE Niall
> (In reply to Niall)
>
> Your not the real real Niall are you?
>
> Your not the real real Niall are you?
OK, I confess, I'm A Niall, but not THE Niall
In reply to Niall:
I knew it! BTW can you find out what is wrong with Martin? A pound doesnt matter??? He comes from a town where beer rising a penny to £1.40 causes near riots. Gotta go to bed now, early start for Chew tomorrow.
I knew it! BTW can you find out what is wrong with Martin? A pound doesnt matter??? He comes from a town where beer rising a penny to £1.40 causes near riots. Gotta go to bed now, early start for Chew tomorrow.
In reply to martin k:
I recall a BMC ex-president stating that the cost of Individual membership was only the price of a tank of petrol, (the implication was that everyone should pay the BMC that ... I don't think that view has gone away either)
But other organisations are worthy of our support too!
We should all join the National Trust, and the John Muir Trust, and the YHA, and the Ramblers Association, and give generously to all of the Mountain Rescue Teams who are there for us, and the Yorkshire Air Ambulance, and the Lifeboat Associantion, ...
There are so many organisations worthy of our support and the point is that the BMC is only one of them and has to justify it's increases to us.
Why is there so much reluctance to continually agree to increases? Why so much scrutiny of the BMCs finances? Maybe recent history has some bearing on this...
> (In reply to everyone moaning about an extra £1 per year) am i the only person who wonders what all the fuss is about over a £1 per year rise in the subs? i know a rise in the subs is a 'traditional' stick with which to beat the BMC as an organisation, but a sense of perspective is useful. £1 per year is less than 2p a week...
I recall a BMC ex-president stating that the cost of Individual membership was only the price of a tank of petrol, (the implication was that everyone should pay the BMC that ... I don't think that view has gone away either)
But other organisations are worthy of our support too!
We should all join the National Trust, and the John Muir Trust, and the YHA, and the Ramblers Association, and give generously to all of the Mountain Rescue Teams who are there for us, and the Yorkshire Air Ambulance, and the Lifeboat Associantion, ...
There are so many organisations worthy of our support and the point is that the BMC is only one of them and has to justify it's increases to us.
Why is there so much reluctance to continually agree to increases? Why so much scrutiny of the BMCs finances? Maybe recent history has some bearing on this...
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...