NEWS: BMC to Be Re-named 'Climb Britain'

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC News 28 Jul 2016
Climb Britain logo, 3 kbApologies. Our system auto archived the old thread and we are unable to un-archive it. This has probably got something to do with the length the thread reached. We'll have to look into why this is happening.

Old thread: http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=646409

Read more
21
 Franco Cookson 28 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Is there a procedure for the membership to reverse this?

I can't believe that this can just be announced one day and that's that.
1
 whenry 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Franco Cookson:

You can, through an EGM, but realistically, how many people are going sign the requisition you need, and even more importantly, actually turn up to vote or nominate a proxy?
 Mr. Lee 28 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Maybe time for a UKC poll?
 whenry 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Mr. Lee:

The original thread got several hundred dislikes vs 9 likes for the first post... that's not a bad indicator of how people feel.
 duchessofmalfi 28 Jul 2016
In reply to whenry:

I think it needs 100 signatures (of members) to spark an EGM - AFAIK this has never happened before.

All it needs is for one member to collect 100 signatures (I don't think they have to be real, wet ink, digital would probably do) and send it in to the BMC and it is triggered. I think (gauging from the opinions expressed here) getting the signatures will be easy.

I guess potential EGM organisers are simply waiting a bit to see if there is any compromise forthcoming before hitting the big red button.
 toad 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Mr. Lee:

I did one a couple of days ago - it was around 40 likes to 450 dislikes, but here it is

http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=646414
1
 Mr. Lee 28 Jul 2016
In reply to toad:

I was thinking of something more formal than 'like' / 'dislike' which would actually carry some weight with the BMC.
 whenry 28 Jul 2016
In reply to duchessofmalfi:

Quite. There's no point in doing it if they decide to go with the eminently sensible suggestions on here of using the Climb Britain brand for indoor climbing and comps only. There's also no point if the ire that people are expressing on here is only hot air, and they're not prepared to do any more.
 toad 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Mr. Lee:
then there's probably the change.org petition, although I'm not signing it ...yet as I'm waiting for a clearer response from the BMC
 Bulls Crack 28 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC News:

I vote that we change UKC to UKCC: The UK Climbing Council
2
 Offwidth 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Franco Cookson:
For those who want to reverse the change an EGM is the most efficient method. It is costly but nothing like as much as a few hundred extra people driving to their September local area meetings and calling an EGM later if the BMC doesn't listen.

There is no rush... people should carefully read what Dave Turnbull said on the locked thread (it was a democratic decision and almost unanimous, the £25k spent wasn't BMC money, the BMC still exists behind the new brand and can still be used etc) and keep an eye on developments here and on the BMC website.
Post edited at 11:07
 Chris the Tall 28 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Can you make Dave Turnball's response a new story - it's too important to be lost in a long thread
1
HStudierende 28 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Dear Mr Turnbull

Thank you for your thoughts. However, as a regular attendee of local area meetings the rebranding has come as a surprise and has made me question the democratic structure of the BMC that is set out in its Mission Statement: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-mission-statements . Below is a list of minutes of the local area meetings from 2016 that can be found on the BMC website:

Lakes:
08/06/2016: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2301
REBRAND NOT MENTIONED

27/01/2016: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2240
3. National Council Report: “Dave Turnbull (CEO) gave a report to the meeting, the main theme of which was ‘a time for change. ’ We are likely to see areas and committees changing with amalgamations of a few”.
NO SPECIFICS GIVEN IE REBRAND, NAME, LOGO ETC NOT MENTIONED

North East
16/06/2016: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2311
f) National Council: Unfortunately Mark Anstiss tendered his apologies so no club report was available.
REBRAND NOT MENTIONED

25/02/2016: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2272
f) National Council: Nothing controversial came out of the meeting in Manchester.
The second meeting was held recently in Bristol which I was unable to attend (I don't know if Alan went).
REBRAND NOT MENTIONED

Yorkshire
1/02/2016 http://community.thebmc.co.uk/Event.aspx?view=report&id=3681
10. AOB BMC branding exercise. Dave Turnbull reported that using funding from Sport England the BMC was undertaking a branding exercise looking at the BMC as a brand & its fitness for purpose. Likely outcomes would probably be a new logo & also possibly a name change.
REBRAND MENTIONED - NO SPECIFICS GIVEN

North West
No 2016 Minutes available

Peak
13/04/2016: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2274
REBRAND NOT MENTIONED (DT in attendance)

20/01/2016: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2237
5. National Council Report: […] There was a short presentation from Dave Turnbull (Chief Exec) about the next 12 months, being more adaptable to a new set of climbers and hillwalkers, and the Sport England funded “rebranding”.
REBRAND MENTIONED - NO SPECIFICS GIVEN

Midlands
08/06/2016: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2305
6. Any Other Business. News from HQ: […]
A start has been made on the bid to be submitted to Sport England for the next 4 years of funding which is due to start next April. She mentioned that they already have funding from this body for ‘research support’ and that several consultants are looking at what the BMC does and how this might be improved, including branding and maybe a more user-friendly name.
REBRAND MENTIONED - NO SPECIFICS GIVEN

27/01/2016: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2222
REBRAND NOT MENTIONED

South East:
01/06/2016: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2294
REBRAND NOT MENTIONED

03/02/2016: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2235
REBRAND NOT MENTIONED (but mentioned: 'three surveys/consultations that Sport England are undertaking').

South West
26/03/2016: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2268
REBRAND NOT MENTIONED

09/01/2016: (incl. National Council report): http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2236
REBRAND NOT MENTIONED

Wales
09/06/2016: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2310
REBRAND NOT MENTIONED

06/04/2016: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2278
REBRAND NOT MENTIONED

17/02/2016: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2266
REBRAND NOT MENTIONED

28/01/2016: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2231
REBRAND NOT MENTIONED

26/01/2016: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2220
REBRAND NOT MENTIONED

Looking at the minutes there appears to be two leitmotivs: either the rebrand has not been mentioned or that something has been mooted opaquely with no details given. In your thoughts on the previous thread you state:

“4. Decision making / consultation. […]. The BMC has an effective democratic structure and we used this in reaching the decision. Complex or commercially sensitive issues can be extremely difficult or impossible to agree via widespread membership consultation and there are times when we rely on our (your) elected Area reps to make judgement calls on big issues. That’s why they’re there, that why they give up their time to be involved.”

The renaming of an organisation for the first time in 70 years is a major decision. While I understand that complex decisions are difficult or impossible to agree impossible to agree via widespread membership consultation, I cannot reconcile the total absence of either detail (or in many cases mention of a rebrand) over the last 9 months to all local meetings with your assertion that the democratic structure is “effective”.

I am under 35 and have been an active BMC member since my teens. I am not calling for a referendum of all members on the name, however, as someone who bothers to take the time turn up to local area meetings, I feel totally disenfranchised. Why should I bother turning up to my local meetings again when it is apparent that they carry no importance?

Kind regards

HS
2
 Chris the Tall 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Apart from you and I - how many of the peak area attendees use this forum regularly ? Alan and Rob obviously, and Simon pops over from the other channel occasionally, but beyond that....

Which is why I think demanding an EGM before the area meetings have had chance to discuss it is very premature and undemocratic
2
 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

does it matter where the 100 names come from or who they are? does it matter that regular peak meeting members arent part of the 100?
3
 Offwidth 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I asked the same question on the locked thread and got mainly tumble weed. One posted had previously admitted his BMC membership had lapsed. I remember the last EGM and the defeat of the clubs trying to lever special influence on subs. I'm pretty happy with the democracy of the organisation and this issue looks way more like more cock up than conspiracy (the opposite to the subs argument where you contributed so well). I'm not saying most BMC members are not upset; just that as we have both witnessed the level of upset on UKC rarely matches the level at the area meets (where astonishingly sometimes no one turns up and I've been left once raising an issue from UKC that I and no one else supported).
Post edited at 11:37
 Chris the Tall 28 Jul 2016
In reply to La benya:

It matters to me that I get chance to hear the opinions of the access reps(both local and national, paid and volunteers) on the rebranding.
And it matters to me that the people who put most effort into the BMC get their say, and yes in the Peak area that is generally people who go to area meetings but (mostly) don't post on UKC.
3
 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

i understand your reasons, but you mention democratic process. its hardly democratic to suggest some peoples views are more important is it?
1
 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

I think that was me, who said my membership had lapsed, when i actually i received an email today saying it lapses in 3 days. Not sure whether to renew or not.
1
 Chris the Tall 28 Jul 2016
In reply to La benya:
You're confusing views with votes
Good democracy comes from a well-informed electorate.
I want to hear the views of those who will be most affected by the change before I cast my vote.
Post edited at 12:15
 spiritwalker 28 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Fwiw, I am a member, but rarely if ever get to area meetings either due to their location or work commitments. I do, however, follow what goes on! I also don't usually spend much time here, but right now this is the place that most of the news and discussion seems to be happening. In particular, if there is an EGM, I would go out of my way to sign for one and attend.
In reply to UKC News:

Having been busy with work over the past few days I haven't had a great deal of time to pass comment on the BMC's re-branding, so here's my thoughts as someone who came into climbing from a hillwalking background, is Chair of the BMC Peak Area, sits on the BMC's National Council (thus someone who voted IN FAVOUR of the change), and someone who genuinely believes in individuals, and the organisation, making efforts to give something back to the environment they love so much:

1) The name: it's a grower... When I first heard the proposed name my jaw hit the floor, I hated it. 'Climb' didn't seem inclusive, the whole thing sounded like a charity event, and most of all it seemed to lack the heritage and gravitas that the BMC had. However, after mulling it over for a day or two, as well as discussing it at length with Carey Davies (the BMC's Hillwalking Officer) and Peter Judd (BMC Peak Area Hillwalking Working Group Representative), I actually became quite fond of it (and suspect others will too...in time...). We do, as suggested within the press release + Dave Turnbull's comments, all 'climb stuff', be that mountains, rock, plastic, or whatever... We should be unified by that.

2) The BMC - or should I say Climb Britain's - commitment to access work will continue as strong as ever. The new name will, as suggested above, make things MORE inclusive for those getting into the outdoors (FYI, nobody in the real-world has the first idea what the BMC is or what it stands for), not represent an organisation turning it's back on its traditional values.

3) Whilst I admire the passion of the many that complain (it's a testament of the strong feelings people have for the organisation) I must say that if people directed half of this effort into their local climbing community then the world would be a better place for it. Clean a crag, re-bolt a route, help out with a youth day for your local club, attend a BMC area meeting and get involved, whatever it is the significance of this action will be far more than the name change from the BMC to Climb Britain.

Onwards and upwards...
35
 toad 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

An awful lot of the criticism has been directed at the BMCs handling of this as much as the name change itself. We've yet to see any comment from ANYBODY directly involved on this aspect of the whole sorry tale. What do you think?

FWIW, the "climb stuff" idea seems to have come from the media people and the "mood boards" (I don't know if that's the right term) linked to in the original press release, not Dave Turnbull/ BMC. Though I'd be happy to be corrected on that.
 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

yet again a representative of the BMC has ignored most peoples main gripes!

the way this was decided, and explained to the BMC members.

and the fact that the logo itself is truly, resoundingly hated for being ugly AF
 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

AND... comments like onwards and upwards clearly show the dismissive attitude of the criticism levelled at the BMC. i think Dave said the same thing. was that a tag line the agency told you to repeat to dismiss peoples feedback?
1
 Marek 28 Jul 2016
In reply to La benya:
> does it matter where the 100 names come from or who they are? does it matter that regular peak meeting members arent part of the 100?

One thing to bear in mind (I didn't realise this till I read the BMC Articles of Association) is that the BMC purports to represent ALL climbers/hillwalkers IRRESPECTIVE of whether they are members or not. In fact 'members' get very little mention in the Articles. That implies that the BMC cannot (should not?) ignore opinions expresses on forums outside of the BMC meetings. If someone is not a member, then it's unfortunate for the BMC (less subs), but that person's needs/want/opinions are just as relevant as those of any member.

The point being that UKC, for all its faults as a serious opinion gathering medium, is by headcount quite comparable and just as relevant as all the area meetings put together.
Post edited at 12:50
In reply to toad:

> An awful lot of the criticism has been directed at the BMCs handling of this as much as the name change itself. We've yet to see any comment from ANYBODY directly involved on this aspect of the whole sorry tale. What do you think?

I'm inclined to agree on that front, the delivery did seem somewhat blunt. In fact, I think the shock factor has a lot to do with the severity of a response, but I'm not sure exactly how it could have been any other way.

As a point of interest, we are going to get a more comprehensive piece on the re-branding (written by Dan Bailey) which will be ready in the next few days. It will feature an interview with Dave Turnbull (CEO) and Carey Davies (Hillwalking Officer), so if you have any (reasonable) questions post them up here and we'll see what we can do.

Watch this space...
8
 Simon Caldwell 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

> The name: it's a grower... When I first heard the proposed name my jaw hit the floor, I hated it.

That doesn't bode well for attracting new members does it? Yet this was supposedly the main reason for the change?
2
 Simon Caldwell 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

> I think the shock factor has a lot to do with the severity of a response, but I'm not sure exactly how it could have been any other way.

I agree with the first part.
But MCofS/Mountaineering Scotland seem to have managed to involve their membership throughout the whole process. I've yet to hear any real reasons that the BMC couldn't have done the same.
In reply to Chris the Tall:

I'm a current BMC member, and have been for... hmmm... 12 years?

The one time I tried to attend a BMC meeting, having left work early, and travelled from Reading to London, I got to the venue to find I was locked out, and could not raise any response to get in. I went home.
 Franco Cookson 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

Whatever this piece is, can it please be honest. It seems fairly blatant that the main reason for the font, the colours, the name is to appeal more (and perhaps appear relevant at all) to indoor/competition climbers. There's not anything necessarily wrong with that, but that's quite a big choice of direction that should be discussed.

Surely ALL parts of the BMC can be celebrated, without one facet of climbing so obviously being pushed above all others.
 Bootrock 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

> Having been busy with work over the past few days I haven't had a great deal of time to pass comment on the BMC's re-branding, so here's my thoughts as someone who came into climbing from a hillwalking background, is Chair of the BMC Peak Area, sits on the BMC's National Council (thus someone who voted IN FAVOUR of the change), and someone who genuinely believes in individuals, and the organisation, making efforts to give something back to the environment they love so much:

> 1) The name: it's a grower... When I first heard the proposed name my jaw hit the floor, I hated it. 'Climb' didn't seem inclusive, the whole thing sounded like a charity event, and most of all it seemed to lack the heritage and gravitas that the BMC had. However, after mulling it over for a day or two, as well as discussing it at length with Carey Davies (the BMC's Hillwalking Officer) and Peter Judd (BMC Peak Area Hillwalking Working Group Representative), I actually became quite fond of it (and suspect others will too...in time...). We do, as suggested within the press release + Dave Turnbull's comments, all 'climb stuff', be that mountains, rock, plastic, or whatever... We should be unified by that.

That's just a pink and fluffy way of admitting the name is shit but your all tied up in bureaucracy that you can't (or don't want) do anything about it. And no, it's not a grower. It's just shit.
And we are all "unified" before the change, people aren't suddenly going to feel more inclusive with a "rebranding" and there's members already stating that they felt under represented before, and this change alienates them even more.

And quite frankly, you have all been taken for mugs if it took 25k and 9 months to realise "we all climb stuff". Pay me a tenner and give me 10 minutes, and I would come up with better.

> 2) The BMC - or should I say Climb Britain's - commitment to access work will continue as strong as ever. The new name will, as suggested above, make things MORE inclusive for those getting into the outdoors (FYI, nobody in the real-world has the first idea what the BMC is or what it stands for), not represent an organisation turning it's back on its traditional values.

Surely 25k would have been better spent on traditional values and content, rather than a shit name.
And people already felt left out or under represented under BMC, and feel that the new name is even less inclusive.

> 3) Whilst I admire the passion of the many that complain (it's a testament of the strong feelings people have for the organisation) I must say that if people directed half of this effort into their local climbing community then the world would be a better place for it. Clean a crag, re-bolt a route, help out with a youth day for your local club, attend a BMC area meeting and get involved, whatever it is the significance of this action will be far more than the name change from the BMC to Climb Britain.

How do you know people don't get involved? You can't preach about lack of inclusion, membership and reach, then waste 25k and time on this crap. Maybe if that time money and effort was spent on the examples you have given?

> Onwards and upwards...

Yep, upwards, the upper echelons forgetting about those at the bottom who were counting on them to do a decent job.

All this mention of focus groups, yet the membership didn't have a say, in this day an age there is no excuse.
Surely somewhere in that 25k you could have clubbed together even a small you Internet poll/some.


Literally all I am reading is people too tied up in bureaucracy and politics and trying to save face, still avoiding answers. Someone admitted they were struggling to find sponsorship, well, that 25k could have gone somewhere productive and done a lot of good, such a shame it was tied up with bureaucracy and no one had any spine to stand against it or for the greater good of the members and the "traditional values."

Said it before, and will say it again.

You can polish a turd and roll it in glitter, it looks nice, but it's still a turd.
2
 Tyler 28 Jul 2016
In reply to La benya:
> I think that was me, who said my membership had lapsed, when i actually i received an email today saying it lapses in 3 days. Not sure whether to renew or not.

Why did you join in the first place? What's changed (apart from the obvious)?
Post edited at 12:57
1
 Chris the Tall 28 Jul 2016
In reply to La benya:

> yet again a representative of the BMC has ignored most peoples main gripes!

Unlike some of us, Rob can't spend all day posting on UKC forums without his employer noticing !
7
 toad 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

any chance you could also get the people who actually did the work (thinkfarm or whoever) involved? I'd like to know about their methodology
In reply to toad:

Good question.

I'm aware that they called round 'x' number of members to get their thoughts/feelings throughout a telephone interview, but I'm not sure of exactly how many people 'x' was - I'll see if we can find out.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I'm somewhat snowed under on the work front too currently, so this couldn't have happened at a worse time.

For those who's questions I have not answered individually please accept my apologies, it is not my intention to be evasive - it's just that I have a lot on currently!!
 Bootrock 28 Jul 2016
In reply to toad:

I think their methodology involved quoting a ridiculous price tag and gobbing off about some pretentious bollocks, with some occasional words like "identity" "focus groups" and "market".

Then putting a bet on with everyone in the office who could come up with the biggest load of shit that some mug would pay for.

Then proceeding to have an awesome piss up down the local pub with a 25k tab.
1
Lusk 28 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC News:

I've just been trying to find an old ME fleece jacket and I found this place ...
http://www.climbgb.com/about.asp

This new name isn't even original, OK, they've dropped 'Great' off it!

£25k to turn GB to Britain. PMSL.
1
 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

well hes managed to read the threads and respond to some of the lesser pressing questions, including responding to a comment after mine. so, i dont really see your point.
also, hes employed by a climbing magazine and the BMC, at the moment theres not much more relevent than this debate.
4
 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Tyler:

I joined so i could legitimately climb at cheddar gorge.
Tyler, you seem (on this thread and the last) to be wantonly avoiding acknowledging peoples issue with the change in direction that the name change is PERCEIVED to signal. Due to the terrible communication and the evasive nature of the very limited comment from BMC reps, whether or not this perception is correct or not cannot be judged. But that IS what people are worried about, whether you care to admit it or not, whether correctly or not.

So, to answer your question, what has changed is that i joined a organisation whose focus was squarely on access and conservation. I am debating whether i wish to be associated with an organisation that is investing money in promotion of a subset of climbing i don't necessarily agree they should be servicing (not that it shouldnt be supported by someone).
1
 Bobling 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Bootrock:

I know you are massively pi**ed off about this but can you please tone down your replies a little? It's coming across as needlessly aggressive and shouty and I would think make the folks from the BMC side of things who are coming on here to discuss this far less keen to do so which is not a good thing. I'm not saying don't say it but please can you do it politely?
1
 SenzuBean 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

> 1) The name: it's a grower... When I first heard the proposed name my jaw hit the floor, I hated it. 'Climb' didn't seem inclusive, the whole thing sounded like a charity event, and most of all it seemed to lack the heritage and gravitas that the BMC had.

With all due respect - when you're forced into close proximity with something you intensely dislike but then begin to like, that's called Stockholm Syndrome. [ ] Personally I still recoil each day I happen to see the logo or name.

Anyway, why was it not an option to keep the BMC intact, but develop a 'Climb Britain' chapter, as seems to be the case with Mountaineering Scotland and ClimbScotland? Then everyone would be happy, as far as I can tell - unless the name change was a mandate for funding?
 Marek 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood

> As a point of interest, we are going to get a more comprehensive piece on the re-branding (written by Dan Bailey) which will be ready in the next few days. It will feature an interview with Dave Turnbull (CEO) and Carey Davies (Hillwalking Officer), so if you have any (reasonable) questions post them up here and we'll see what we can do.

This sounds awfully like a "telling you how it's going to be, like it or not" session rather than anything "we're listening and learning".
Correct?
1
 Offwidth 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

I know some people interviewed by phone and they say the a potential name change wasn't explicitly mentioned. There could have been more than one BMC survey of course.
 Bootrock 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Bobling:
Will do mate. Just seen it too many times, and seen people and issues get ignored for corporate/bureaucracy/egos. Then when people stand up and speak out, get it rammed down their throat and told to accept it. I get incredibly annoyed at it
Post edited at 13:49
 Tyler 28 Jul 2016
In reply to La benya:
> I joined so i could legitimately climb at cheddar gorge.

> Tyler, you seem (on this thread and the last) to be wantonly avoiding acknowledging peoples issue with the change in direction that the name change is PERCEIVED to signal. Due to the terrible communication and the evasive nature of the very limited comment from BMC reps, whether or not this perception is correct or not cannot be judged. But that IS what people are worried about, whether you care to admit it or not, whether correctly or not.
I acknowledge them just pointing out that these PERCEPTIONS by people not directly involved with the BMC are, to the best of our knowledge (I.e. Based on what those closest to the decision have told us), groundless. There are only two options, either the CEO is telling the truth and the focus remains largely the same and this is an attempt to do it better by attracting sponsorship etc. or he's a big liar and this is the first step on the way to doing away with what most people hold dear about the BMC in favour of, well, what? More importantly, why? Have you seen the list of officers at the BMC or that are on the various committes? They're not exactly dyed in the wool comp climbers. I expect Dave Turnbull has long ago given up any idea of pulling on a GB vest or landing a personal Red Bull sponsorship deal so I expect his motivations for this are genuine.

> So, to answer your question, what has changed is that i joined a organisation whose focus was squarely on access and conservation. I am debating whether i wish to be associated with an organisation that is investing money in promotion of a subset of climbing i don't necessarily agree they should be servicing (not that it shouldnt be supported by someone).
The BMC will always have invested money in a subset of climbing you don't agree with, it's a broad church but, name aside, nothing has changed.
Post edited at 13:57
2
 Ramblin dave 28 Jul 2016
In reply to La benya:

> I joined so i could legitimately climb at cheddar gorge.

> Tyler, you seem (on this thread and the last) to be wantonly avoiding acknowledging peoples issue with the change in direction that the name change is PERCEIVED to signal. Due to the terrible communication and the evasive nature of the very limited comment from BMC reps, whether or not this perception is correct or not cannot be judged. But that IS what people are worried about, whether you care to admit it or not, whether correctly or not.

There's plenty of information on their website about what their sources of income are and what they spend money on and so on. Why not go and read it and make an informed decision and judge them on what they actually do rather than making up some arbitrary idea about what you perceive them to be signalling and then getting outraged that no-one's immediately come and disproved it for you?

And I'm no longer addressing the previous post specifically but jays, from some of the responses on here you'd think that they'd just announced a plan to grid bolt Cloggy, dynamite Napes Needle and carve a giant Red Bull logo on Bwlch y Moch, not start using a slightly clunky name and an underwhelming logo. Some sense of perspective required maybe?
5
 Offwidth 28 Jul 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:
Frankly I think anyone who cares a lot about logos is bit wrong in the head.

As for Rob he is a serial offender in areas that look like Stockholm opportunities if you believe all the rumours here: BMC area chair; NC Rep; ex BMC employee and current UKC employee. Despite this he seems to me to be doing a good 'job' honestly and as a significant volunteer effort. He is also delightful and unelitist to talk to and very friendly and inclusive to new visitors to area meets.
Post edited at 13:54
 whenry 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:
It's been 48 hours since the news broke, and it's yet to grow on me. Talking to a couple of non-members yesterday who climb and go hill walking, both felt that the new name didn't represent walking at all, whereas the name "British Mountaineering Council" did. The fact that the name covered hill 'climbing' needed explanation is a complete marketing/branding fail.

There's often an element of groupthink around these decisions - you voted for it, but would you have if you had come from outside the BMC hierarchy and not been subject to the inevitable hype that organisations build up internally about these types of decision?

Edit: And many of us do, in a very low key, help with our local climbing communities by cleaning up crags etc. We simply don't feel the need to do more than just get on with it.
Post edited at 13:57
 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Tyler:

Perhaps if something is executed so badly as to impart this concern on a fair amount of people, regardless of their intentions, some form of acknowledgement should be forthcoming. or some realisation that they might have judged it wrong (in the eyes of their members).

As for everyone involved in the BMC having noble and pure motives, i hope that's the case. Hasn't stopped plenty of others in similar positions getting lost along the way (greenpeace, in fact most charities for eg). To suggest the lure of an easier way to get funding at the cost of ignoring your membership isn't there is naive, in my opinion.
1
 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:

im hardly looking for an immediate response am i? 48 hours, several evasive comments from reps and not one has actually touched on peoples concerns. theyve simply stated 'this is it, deal with it'

and im aware of the information on the website thanks. there seems to be a distinct lack of information about this, and future changes driven by sport englands involvement, however.

increasing grassroots participation is hardly going to include a sunday league of outdoor climbing is it? more likely a drive to get kids into climbing walls, and therefore a refocus of efforts and resources to that end.
2
 Chris the Tall 28 Jul 2016
In reply to La benya:

> also, hes employed by a climbing magazine and the BMC, at the moment theres not much more relevent than this debate.

Rob is employed by a website - this one - and does voluntary work for the BMC in two capacities - Peak Area chair and national council rep - both of which are pretty onerous

Given the amount of vitriol being generated on these threads I do hope that some of you are prepared to put your heads above the parapet and volunteer to take over some of the roles that will become vacant when people get sick of the abuse they receive.
4
 Marek 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

> As a point of interest, we are going to get a more comprehensive piece on the re-branding (written by Dan Bailey) which will be ready in the next few days. It will feature an interview with Dave Turnbull (CEO) and Carey Davies (Hillwalking Officer), so if you have any (reasonable) questions post them up here and we'll see what we can do.

So here's a couple of questions and I'll make them multiple choice to make it easier:

The BMC Articles mandate the BMC to "act as representative body for the sport and recreation of Climbing,
Mountaineering (which shall include ski-mountaineering) and Hillwalking". So, what does 'representation' mean to the executive of the BMC?
1. Telling climbers/mountaineers/hillwalkers what's best for them,
2. Canvassing their opinion as best as possible and acting on those opinions, or
3. Educating climbers/mountaineers/hillwalkers about the realities of the world around them, canvassing their opinion as best as possible and ultimately acting on those opinions, even if we think otherwise.

If 2 or 3 above, how have you ensure that your canvassing of opinion is a broad as reasonably possible?
1. Talked amoungst yourselves (and a few friends),
2. Canvassed informed opinions from BMC activists,
3. Canvassed informed opinion from all members of the BMC,
4. Canvassed informed opinion from all the people you purport to represent - i.e., include non-BMC people.




1
 whenry 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:
> Frankly I think anyone who cares a lot about logos is bit wrong in the head.

If the logo isn't going to have an impact on the work of the organisation fine; but as I and others have said, it doesn't carry with it the gravitas of the BMC when talking to landowners.

As someone who has worked to get sponsorship in the past, businesses that give out sponsorship often expect it to go in a particular direction, and to increase their brand awareness. I can't imagine that we're suddenly going to start seeing the Rab logo all over Horseshoe Quarry: the obvious destinations are indoor climbing and comps. If part of that increased sponsorship is diverted to the wider cause, then no harm is done, but if the principal focus of the BMC switches to driving that part of climbing and building revenue at the expense of the rest, then there is a problem - it might not be intentional, but it is a strong possibility.

The previous thread was locked before I could reply to the last comments, but although Sport England's primary focus is on mass participation, its other purpose is to identify, nurture, and develop elite talent. Sounds like the Olympics and comps to me.

Edited for spelling.
Post edited at 14:23
 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Yes, magazine can be used in this capacity to describe a website that publishes articles and he stated his capacity at the BMC, also a type of employment. I'm not sure what that point was?

They f*cked up, they can acknowledge they have done so and aim to correct it in some way, or they can not. the 'flak' they receive is in direct relation to this.
1
 tim carruthers 28 Jul 2016
In reply:

Geography alert:

The term "Britain" refers to England, Scotland and Wales. So we now have "Climb Britain" (for England, Scotland and Wales, I assume), "Climb Cymru" (for Wales) and the Mountaineering Council of Scotland (for Scotland).
"Climb Cymru" is only half Welsh, however, so perhaps this only refers to half of Wales.
 whenry 28 Jul 2016
In reply to tim carruthers:

Perhaps it's to reflect the Landsker Line?
 Dave Garnett 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> Apart from you and I - how many of the peak area attendees use this forum regularly ? Alan and Rob obviously, and Simon pops over from the other channel occasionally, but beyond that....

I couldn't attend the June meeting (I was in Munich) but I have just had the Minutes and it seems this wasn't mentioned.

I was pleased to see my question about sheep grazing at the Roaches was addressed though...
 Chris the Tall 28 Jul 2016
In reply to whenry:

Sport England spends £200m on participation, £75m on facilities and just £15m on elite development ( https://www.sportengland.org )
 Ian W 28 Jul 2016
In reply to La benya:

Almost but not quite; the drive is not to get kids into walls, the walls do that admirably. The drive is to appeal to those kids(and others) in walls so they can expand their experience of climbing into other areas - the BMC had excellent courses / training / participation opportunities for people to do these things, but imho was pretty poor at reaching that audience. So many people climb indoors now that it is the growth area, and if the BMC did not change its approach - and rebranding is part of that, for good of for bad - then it would be failing in its duties to ALL climbers, past, present and future. This is where ADDITIONAL climbers and BMC / Climb Britain members will come from, but as stated so many times its boring, funds are not being diverted, but hopefully added to. Indeed I suspect that more funds will be diverted to access / training etc ib order to accommodate the increased participation!

And if anyone thinks this is being an apologist for DT and those responsible, just find a National Council member who was at Plas y Brenin and ask them about my rant when discussing Olympic involvement / GB Climbing funding.

Ian Walton
Chair - BMC / Climb Britain Comp Commitee
1
 Chris the Tall 28 Jul 2016
In reply to La benya:

> Yes, magazine can be used in this capacity to describe a website that publishes articles and he stated his capacity at the BMC, also a type of employment. I'm not sure what that point was?

Seriously - you can't see the difference between an employee and a volunteer ?
2
 whenry 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Fair enough - I'd not dug into the website enough to get the figures. On the old thread, though, there were several saying that Sport England has nothing to do with elite sport, which is incorrect, even if it it only represents a small proportion of its total spend.
 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Ian W:

Thanks Ian,

Would you care to stick your neck out and say that the current level of funding for conservation, access etc will not reduce? and only additional funds available will be used for the work stated in your comment? if so, then fantastic, this is the answer ive been looking for, and its great that its come from a BMC rep.

im not sure why you seem annoyed at having to repeat yourself about funding not being diverted, as far as i can see this has only been mentioned two times (by you), in total by anyone from the BMC, in two comments buried in an internet forum which apologists are decrying as not representative of the wider climbing community and therefore cant be seen as a good outlet for this kind of information.

Now, onto the really shitty design work.... its really, really terrible
1
 Chris the Tall 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Hi Dave, sorry I'd forgotten about you !!

So, in your experience as an access rep, did you find that the name "BMC" was an issue ?
Graham Willis 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Just goes to show 'first impressions count'
In reply to La benya:
> Would you care to stick your neck out and say that the current level of funding for conservation, access etc will not reduce? and only additional funds available will be used for the work stated in your comment? if so, then fantastic, this is the answer ive been looking for, and its great that its come from a BMC rep.

That sounds like a good question for the article.

I can answer your first question regarding the levels of funding, as this was a topic raised at the last National Council Meeting and answered by BMC President Rehan Siddiqui: the level of investment to the core areas of BMC work (i.e. access and conservation) will continue as normal and not suffer.
Post edited at 15:02
 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

Perfect!

Another question for the article is; Who thought the logo and font for the new name were good? why? How can they be at odds with so many other people.

It honestly is appauling
1
 tony 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Marek:

> So here's a couple of questions and I'll make them multiple choice to make it easier:

> The BMC Articles mandate the BMC to "act as representative body for the sport and recreation of Climbing,

> Mountaineering (which shall include ski-mountaineering) and Hillwalking". So, what does 'representation' mean to the executive of the BMC?

> 1. Telling climbers/mountaineers/hillwalkers what's best for them,

> 2. Canvassing their opinion as best as possible and acting on those opinions, or

> 3. Educating climbers/mountaineers/hillwalkers about the realities of the world around them, canvassing their opinion as best as possible and ultimately acting on those opinions, even if we think otherwise.

I hope you don't think that's an exhaustive list of options. To me, acting as a representative body is about working with other bodies whose remit overlaps with that of the BMC, so for example, I would expect the BMC to represent walkers and climbers in discussion with the National Trust and other landowners with regard to access issues. Similarly, the BMC could well act as representative in national discussions regarding legal issues relating to volunteering. Your list seems to be loaded with a bunch of preconditions which don't seem to reflect the real range of representation that the BMC participates in.
In reply to La benya:

I can't promise this question will make the shortlist, but I'll see what we can do.
 Si Litchfield 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

Dear Rob,

Sorry for conflating a number of issues, however, the day before the renaming debacle / story broke, I drafted the following for the BMC:

Dear Mr Turnbull

It is 16 years since I began my mountaineering journey by joining a university mountaineering club and a university fell walking society as a teenager in 2000. Throughout this period I have been a member of the BMC - either as an affiliate student member, or as a full member. During this period I have:

• Held numerous positions on climbing club committees and as President of a university mountaineering club I helped to introduce hundreds of new participants to the sport.
• Attended local BMC meetings and local BMC crag clean-ups.
• Unilaterally cleaned (and promoted) routes in Northumberland http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=617554 and the Lakes http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=552379&v=1#x7409480
• Developed significant new crags for climbers: http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=56539
• Produced free mini-guides for neglected crags: http://geoquest-verlag.de/?q=en/node/503 so as to promote traffic (away from the increasingly damaged South facing crags) and opportunities for all.
• Participated in international expeditions abroad, helping to promote and establish climbing (communities and equip crags) in places where mountaineering is in an embryonic form and where it is economically challenging to do so: http://geoquest-verlag.de/?q=node/465
• Collected and donated second-hand but useable and safe climbing equipment to developing countries.
• Provided free translations for guidebooks in Albania, Germany, India, Iran, Montenegro and Romania.

All this has largely been achieved while working full time in a non-outdoor related field. I would hope that I am the kind of member that the BMC would wish to engage with and retain.

On 11/4/16 and 20/4/16 having experienced an access issue at a crag in Northumberland I wrote emails to the BCM Access & Conservation Officer (see attachments). In these emails I explained in great detail:

• the previous access arrangements;
• what has been requested by the owners;
• the legal status under CRoW;
• and what needs looking into further.
• Plus I provided a map to show the issues.

While others in the local climbing community replied to these emails, after two attempts the BMC did not and the RAD has not been updated. I cannot reconcile the lack of response with the BMCs stated aims of: ‘Negotiat[ing] access improvements and promote cliff and mountain conservation […and] Providing services and information for members’. I have always encouraged others to become members of the BMC and actively contribute to the climbing community, thus it is with great sadness that I am reconsidering my membership in future because of BMC inactivity. I trust you can help in the matter.

Kind regards

Simon

In truth I would probably have continued being a member, albeit a slightly disgruntled one. In trying to encourage new members (as this is one of the stated aims of the rebrand) on reading the comments in this forum I would urge the BMC not to alienate existing members around three key issues:

1) Delivery of the core work of the BMC
2) Attitudes towards members
3) Democracy

Taking each in turn:

1) Rob, you state that ‘the BMC - or should I say Climb Britain's - commitment to access work will continue as strong as ever’. I note that I am not the only person frustrated by lack of responses to emails sent to the BMC. On the other thread:

Simon Caldwell - on 12:46 Tue, I email them occasionally, generally about access or their broken website, and haven't had any reply to anything since 2012.

We appreciate the work that the BMC has done to widen its appeal through things like BMC TV, a social media presence etc, however, failure to deliver on basics (such as answering emails about access) will not engender support for name changes and may impact on long term membership.

2) Attitudes towards members. I would urge BMC representatives and others not to use a holier-than-thou approach in responding to criticism. Please consider how your statement:

'Whilst I admire the passion of the many that complain (it's a testament of the strong feelings people have for the organisation) I must say that if people directed half of this effort into their local climbing community then the world would be a better place for it. Clean a crag, re-bolt a route, help out with a youth day for your local club, attend a BMC area meeting and get involved, whatever it is the significance of this action will be far more than the name change from the BMC to Climb Britain'

makes people (both members and non-members) who are actively engaged in developing the mountaineering community feel and how that may affect their engagement with the BMC. Similarly those who pay their membership subscriptions but do not actively go out and bolt routes etc should also be entitled to a view in a self-proclaimed democratic organisation.

3) Democracy. We are told by the CEO that ‘The BMC has an effective democratic structure’ but in going through all the local area minutes in 2016 HStudierende (above) has raised valid questions with regards to the effectiveness. I concede that I have missed a few local area meetings owing to commitments that I could not re-arrange, however, I have read the minutes and a) the North East reps have also missed a few NC meetings (so I am not alone in missing meetings) and b) the reband was not mentioned anywhere in NE meeting agendas or minutes. Therefore, I too am left wondering why I should bother to attend in future, as it now indeed appears apparent that they carry no importance. I would suggest that simply consulting in a meaningful way with local area meetings may have saved much of the outrage here.

(If it had been discussed at the local meetings I might have suggested the retention of the general BMC banner but under it running specific campaigns like: Climb Britain, Walk Britain, Hike Britain, Ski-tour Britain).

Aside from what I actually think of the name and logo, the way in which I feel the BMC has treated me with regards to its core role representing climbers in specific access issues, combined with the way in which organisation has treated all members and handled the process of rebranding has, in my view, created a real risk of isolating and even losing existing members. I would urge the BMC to take a good, hard and honest look at itself and its relationship to the membership.

Kind regards

Simon
 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

I understand your position.

Its just curious as to why this glaring issue isn't being addressed. Genuine question, out of all the feedback, specific to the design only (and not the name, and perceived negatives around that), how much has been in any way positive? I haven't seen a single comment in support of the font (which is the worst part) and only a handful that like the derivative union jack logo. (aren't logos meant to be unique identifiers for companies, not, you know, generic).

Its been stated that the design was passed unanimously, I find that incredible as even masterpieces of design are divisive.
1
 SenzuBean 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> Frankly I think anyone who cares a lot about logos is bit wrong in the head.

That could be accurately leveled at both sides.

> As for Rob he is a serial offender in areas that look like Stockholm opportunities if you believe all the rumours here: BMC area chair; NC Rep; ex BMC employee and current UKC employee. Despite this he seems to me to be doing a good 'job' honestly and as a significant volunteer effort. He is also delightful and unelitist to talk to and very friendly and inclusive to new visitors to area meets.

I did not intend to insult Rob (the winky face was what I used to show that). I have nothing but respect for him. Hope that clears things up.
 Dave Garnett 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> So, in your experience as an access rep, did you find that the name "BMC" was an issue ?

No, you're thinking of the legendary Dave Bishop in whose vast access shadow I edited the guidebook...

I did run into landowners fairly regularly in the course of guidebook work though and I always felt that being able to say I was doing it on behalf of the British Mountaineering Council had a certain heft to it.

I still think that BMC logo on the spines of our guidebooks is a respected symbol of quality and authority. It's a publishing brand with a high degree of recognition. From a graphic design point of view it also works in monochrome whatever the design of the cover. I'm not sure how the Climb Britain logo would work without colour.
 whenry 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

I'm not entirely sure how to best phrase this as a question, but something that has been repeatedly raised is why "Climb Britain" isn't just used to promote indoor climbing/comps (where most sponsorship will be attracted) and the British Mountaineering Council used for the rest of the BMC's work. Dave Turnbull mentioned yesterday that 'the "BMC" will no doubt continue to be used where its useful'. Could there be some clarification?

Henry
 Offwidth 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

The new name might help with a certain Biddulph venue
 Chris the Tall 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Garnett:

You're right I was getting you confused with the other Staffordshire Dave ! Nonetheless it's good to get your opinion
1
 RupertD 28 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC News:

I'm on the exec of the BMC and I will try and answer some points as best I can from a personal point of view. Like Rob Greenwood I voted in favour, but also like Rob (and the rest of the exec) I am a volunteer and a full subs paying member of the BMC. I will try and address some issues but I'm doing this at the same time as working in my day job in which I have some deadlines this afternoon. If my replies appear terse its because I'm trying to type fast.

Firstly, there's no conspiracy or ulterior motives. We're not getting paid for the rebrand, we were not put up to it by Sport England.

This is not intended to be a move away from core values. The BMC is failing to reach a tranche of climbers, we thought the name change would assist. Many climbers, hill walkers, boulderers, etc have never been anywhere near a mountain. The BMC as an acronym is not well known. The rebrand is not intended to be a catch all solution to any problem. We think the rebrand will help make the organisation more effective in the future at remaining relevant to all hillwalkers, climbers and mountaineers of all disciplines and therefore better placed to be influential in the wider world for the purposes of representing the needs of all members, climbers, mountaineers, and hillwalkers.

The exec and the national council are all volunteer members elected to represent and act on behalf of the members. We are not corporate stooges intent on the commercialisation of the BMC. We are not doing this for reward unless you count the priceless enjoyment to be had from being insulted (joke).

Nor are we on a power trip. The suggestion vastly overestimates the enjoyment received from sitting in a small room in manchester on a Tuesday night at half ten going through last quarter's finance reports whilst trying to persuade Dave Turnbull to turn the aircon down. We sometimes get a chocolate biscuit though.

We were not swayed by fancy marketing hype. At least I wasn't. I rolled my eyes at the name b-focussed like the rest of you. But their primary aim was not to change the BMC, instead to prepare it for the future.

We (the exec) are not in thrall to the Olympics. But the Olympics will happen. Climbing will be in the Olympics in 2020. A team will be entered. As a country we stand a decent chance at a medal (no pressure Shauna). Any Olympic climbing organisation will be asked by the press and government to comment on climbing. It will be asked for its opinion. The press and the government don’t see the tensions in the climbing community. They see it as a whole. If the BMC is not the go-to organisation for all things climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering, including the Olympics, it will lose influence. That will damage its ability to campaign in all aspects including access. This is my opinion, not that of the BMC.

In hindsight we should have consulted more widely. There was some concern that widespread public knowledge would prejudice any ability to rebrand due to trademark and domain name sniping. We are currently discussing the best way forwards which will involve some further consultation with the National Council (necessary as they voted for the change) and the National Council with the members. This is necessarily being done by email when most people are at work. I was answering emails on Tuesday as I went into and came out of court, then later on from a hospital. It's not super fast. We are not a team sat behind a desk in BMC HQ drinking coffee and gloating about our coup.

The Climb Britain name is inevitably a compromise. Some names were not available for various commercial reasons such as having been previously registered. Lets face it, it probably had to be some combination of climb/climbing/mountaineer(ing) etc along with a geographical denominator. Climb Britain was considered the best option.

Pretty much every point raised in social media has been considered over the months. The rebrand was our considered conclusion.

It took 9 months from start to finish to agree to the rebrand because that's how long it takes to get 30 volunteers to discuss and agree. It didn't take 9 months to rearrange the word "britain" and the word "climb" into "Climb Britain.”

I will try and answer any other points when possible.

Rupert Davies
6
 somethingelse 28 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC News:

From the old thread, with 150 likes, posted by C Witter. The cost of the consultancy point has been addressed, but I think Chris' points below go some way to explaining why the name change has been met with hostility

In reply to UKC/UKH News:
This is what happens when you listen to companies called 'b-focused' and 'Thinkfarm' for f-sake...

But, I guess this is reflecting a wider shift: in these neoliberal times, it doesn't fit that the BMC is conceived of as a "council" - i.e. a collective forum through which mountaineers can engage in dialogue with each other and be represented in issues effecting them. I mean, that's almost like having a union! No... now it's a "brand", and its brand image must be rigorously "consumer tested" to improve "reach"... ...how much of our dues, by the by, went on that "9 month long independent study", ending in the lame conclusion "well, you climb, duh!?"

And what's in a name? Personally, I don't see how 'climb' is more representative of, e.g. hikers, alpinists, etc., than 'mountaineering'. But, 'mountaineering' is a noun, whilst 'climb' is a verb - in this context, an imperative: "CLIMB!" And, 'British' is an adjective, whilst 'Britain' is noun: what was mere description, easily abbreviated (BMC), is brought into focus as an assertive presence - for nothing sells like a good bit of jingoism. Especially when the elegant red mountain logo and text is reworked in the colours of Team GB.

Support your troops! Eat British! Climb Britain! Rah!

So, the Council - as forum for debate and representative committee - is now reworked as a nationalistic command, more in line with the general authoritarian tenor of our times.
 somethingelse 28 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Like Chris above I think a lot of the hostility towards the name change results from the worry that the change is symptomatic of a shift in focus and organisation for the BMC. I don't want to argue about whether this is true, but the name change, and particularly the dropping of 'council', speaks of a shift from a more democratic association to a brand. Again, I'm not arguing that this is what is happening to the BMC, time will tell, but people have experienced this kind of disenfranchisement in many areas of their life, in they're workplaces and political institutions for instance, and so this is why the perception that the BMC is going the same way has been met with hostility I think. This is why I oppose the name change, and have tried to circulate the petition opposing it on social media. It's a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, but also feels like it's part of a broader tendency too, which is why it grates
 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to RupertD:

The design..... is.... terrible.

Appreciate the post, though. It solidifies a lot of points that have come out after the abortive launch.

just the matter of the ugly typeface to go then!
2
 IanHarrison 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

1. If the name has to "grow on you" then that may be an indication that it's not the correct name, it certainly has not grown on me over the last few days. Most people I know who fellwalk say they're going or have been for a walk or something similar... they don't say I'm going or have been for a climb... Fell runners say I'm going for or have been for a run... They don't say I'm going for or have been climbing. Climbers on the other hand do say I'm going or have been for a climbing, are you really sure that Climb Britain sounds inclusive because it certainly doesn't to me.
2. BMC are the initials of our organisations name... And I see no reason why you would think that this will not continue with the name Climb Britain... Or as it will be known to all of us CB (which I remember meaning citizens band) Can I ask how does that inform none members of what it means? And can I also suggest that if you decide to change it again please don't pick British Climb or anything similar as BC was taken over 2000 years ago. By the way is there an organisation called Walk Britain as a lot of people will be looking to join it very soon if the BMC continues down its present path.... Or is that the BMC's cunning plan... Break us all up into seperate specific offshoots of the overall legal entity of BMC?
3. I 'm not sure criticising people's commitment because they have dared to disagree with the BMC is a positive comment to make given that the majority of responses seem to be critical of the name change.


1
 Marek 28 Jul 2016
In reply to RupertD:

Thanks for taking time to reply. Just a couple of points...



> ... We think the rebrand will help make the organisation more effective in the future ...

This is OK as a belief statement, but how exactly do you think this will happen?

> ... But their primary aim was not to change the BMC, instead to prepare it for the future.

So how does changing just the name and the logo 'prepare it for the future'. Surely you have to do something more substantial? Yet you claim that the BMC is not changing at its core. Sorry, there's a bit of a disconnect there.

> We (the exec) are not in thrall to the Olympics. But the Olympics will happen. <SNIP> This is my opinion, not that of the BMC.

On a personal note - I consider the IOC to be one of the most corrupt global business today and I'd rather that the BMC had nothing to do with it. A chance of a medal is really no excuse to 'sup with the devil'. It even rhymes! A bit.

> In hindsight we should have consulted more widely. There was some concern that widespread public knowledge would prejudice any ability to rebrand due to trademark and domain name sniping.

That excuse has already been debunked in numerous posts. Of course, that may have been your honest reason at the time, but did anyone think to consult with an expert?

> The Climb Britain name is inevitably a compromise.

Just out of curiosity - was no change considered an option? Or was it a case of we've decided to change and this was the best of the alternatives offered?

Again, thanks for a less 'canned' response than some others.


 whenry 28 Jul 2016
In reply to RupertD:

Rupert - thanks for your considered post. Whilst some of what you say is going to relieve some of the concerns around the change:

1) Changing a brand will not change the organisation unless you make wider changes. What changes are going to happen in order to effect greater outreach and engage more climbers and walkers? Names don't make organisations relevant; it's the activity they undertake that makes them so.

2) How on earth is "Climb Britain" going to appeal to walkers?

3) I don't understand your comment about the Olympics and relevancy. There is no other national body representing climbers, unless you count 'senior' clubs such as the CC - and so how can the BMC not be the go-to organisation?

4) It's good to see that some soul-searching may be going in retrospect - hopefully the outcome of this will be better publicised and discussed than the initial announcement - and the views of the membership taken into account. It is, quite frankly, extraordinary that this was discussed so little at area meetings.

5) It doesn't change the fact that the new name lacks gravitas and sounds like a name for a marketing agency. Was no consideration given to remaining the BMC if there were no better alternatives?
 Andy Say 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

> Having been busy with work over the past few days I haven't had a great deal of time to pass comment on the BMC's re-branding, so here's my thoughts as someone who came into climbing from a hillwalking background, is Chair of the BMC Peak Area, sits on the BMC's National Council (thus someone who voted IN FAVOUR of the change), and someone who genuinely believes in individuals, and the organisation, making efforts to give something back to the environment they love so much:

> 1) The name: it's a grower...

No. It's an attempt to create a trendy National Governing Body title. 'Squash Britain'; 'Tennis Scotland'.

> 2) The BMC - or should I say Climb Britain's - commitment to access work will continue as strong as ever. The new name will, as suggested above, make things MORE inclusive for those getting into the outdoors (FYI, nobody in the real-world has the first idea what the BMC is or what it stands for)

Actually it is the British Mountaineering Council rather than 'BMC', unless the articles of association have been changed as well? I'd have thought that was relatively descriptive.

> 3) Whilst I admire the passion of the many that complain

No. You obviously don't.

1
 lithos 28 Jul 2016
questions for Rob's interview

a) did you expect this level reaction
b) do you feel you are painted into a corner and defending yourself as feel under attack
c) fait accompli ? is there room for reconsideration - short of an EGM - should that ever happen (eg a sub name ala Scotland)
d) is it a resigning issue for anyone ?
1
 Andy Say 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> Hi Dave, sorry I'd forgotten about you !!

> So, in your experience as an access rep, did you find that the name "BMC" was an issue ?

Chris, the 'name' is British Mountaineering Council. Now that actually DOES have an element of gravitas when dealing with landowners etc.
 Ian W 28 Jul 2016
In reply to La benya:

I'm not on the finance committee so cant guarantee that. I'm not sure i could if I was..........
Anyway, that has been the mantra of the BMC types all along. Access / conservation etc is one of the main areas of work, and ill need to be continued at at least current levels to accommodate increased usage of outdoor resources. We comp types like real rock as well, you know.......
And there were certainly more than two mentions of diverting funding - I didn't mean by bmc / cb types, I meant by those attacking the policy / rebranding etc, so apologies if I caused any confusion. Some people do however, appear to be very reluctant to allow facts to spoil there chances of getting a dig in..........

 Chris the Tall 28 Jul 2016
In reply to somethingelse:

Genuinely surprised that people are so attached to the "Council" bit of the name and feel that it represents democracy.

The BMC was originally created as a council of mountaineering clubs - and this was back in the day when mountaineering was very much for the elite and there was a definite whiff of empire and glory about it.

I suppose that my antipathy to the "council" bit is that I have sat in many meetings where people from certain clubs have wanted to the BMC to revert back to it's original form, to step away from being a democratic pressure group and simply be an organisation for the mutual benefit of clubs.

You may be right that it's "symptomatic of a shift in focus and organisation for the BMC", but that shift in focus has already happened and has lead to a body who's primary focus in on access.

(Unfortunately not convinced about the new name. BMC was easily confused with BNP, but Climb Britain sounds a bit like Fern Britton!)
 toad 28 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC News:

a final thought for the UKC article. There have been repeated assurances that existing funding for access and conservation is safe. Can we have some reassurances that this will be prioritised in future fundraising and budget priorities? As climbers we can survive without a gold medal, we cannot survive if access to the mountains is compromised.
1
 whenry 28 Jul 2016
In reply to toad:

And saying that funding will be maintained at it's current level is one thing; if the BMC succeeds in getting more indoor climbers outside there will be greater pressure on resources, likely leading to more access and conservation issues - at which point the current level of funding is likely to be insufficient.
 RupertD 28 Jul 2016
In reply to whenry:

> Rupert - thanks for your considered post. Whilst some of what you say is going to relieve some of the concerns around the change:

> 1) Changing a brand will not change the organisation unless you make wider changes. What changes are going to happen in order to effect greater outreach and engage more climbers and walkers? Names don't make organisations relevant; it's the activity they undertake that makes them so.

The BMC is trying hard to do this via events, BMC TV, training, coaching, running campaigns such as Mend Our Mountains and so on. The name change is designed to reach people we are failing to reach whilst being inclusive for everyone else.

> 2) How on earth is "Climb Britain" going to appeal to walkers?

I can only reiterate what the thinking is. The BMC's remit is to hill walkers and it was felt that they "climb" hills as much as a rock climber "climbs" rocks. Neither "mountaineer" nor "climb" captures what we do in its entirety. It was thought that "climb" captured much more than "mountaineer."

> 3) I don't understand your comment about the Olympics and relevancy. There is no other national body representing climbers, unless you count 'senior' clubs such as the CC - and so how can the BMC not be the go-to organisation?

This is my opinion, not that of the BMC. Yes, if the BMC supports the Olympic team. If we don't, some other body will fill the gap. That gap is not necessarily just the Olympic team but the whole of the olympic support structure - youth, comps, health, training etc. Then the youth will grow up.

> 4) It's good to see that some soul-searching may be going in retrospect - hopefully the outcome of this will be better publicised and discussed than the initial announcement - and the views of the membership taken into account. It is, quite frankly, extraordinary that this was discussed so little at area meetings.

> 5) It doesn't change the fact that the new name lacks gravitas and sounds like a name for a marketing agency. Was no consideration given to remaining the BMC if there were no better alternatives?

Yes, but we opted to change and leave the BMC as the legal name to be used when appropriate.

1
 SteveM 28 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Unfortunately I can't reply to the original questions that I raised on the archived thread but I'd like to give my considered reaction here instead.

In reply to myself at http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=646409#x8354130

FWIW, I've gone on to read most of what's been posted on the BMC, UKB and UKC sites on this. I have concluded that the extra detail and background has showed how the BMC has taken advantage of available funding (from Sport England). However, I would have liked to consultation with the area meetings, with an approach recommended by the BMC national council and the subject explicitly on the area agendas for a more open process. But in the meantime, let's go climb (britain).
1
 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> I'm not on the finance committee so cant guarantee that. I'm not sure i could if I was..........

Rob has been along to commit to this, so no worries there.

> And there were certainly more than two mentions of diverting funding - I didn't mean by bmc / cb types, I meant by those attacking the policy / rebranding etc, so apologies if I caused any confusion. Some people do however, appear to be very reluctant to allow facts to spoil there chances of getting a dig in..........

There were indeed more mentions, however your two were the only ones from the BMC, that was my point. untill you and robs recent comments, there was a complete lack of information, so peoples concerns werent being aleiviated. From my persective mine has somewhat, with Robs assertion that the BMC's original work will continue to get at least as much funding as it currently does.

 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to RupertD:

> This is my opinion, not that of the BMC. Yes, if the BMC supports the Olympic team. If we don't, some other body will fill the gap. That gap is not necessarily just the Olympic team but the whole of the olympic support structure - youth, comps, health, training etc. Then the youth will grow up.

This could have been served without the need for a name change, or indeed as countless people have pointed out, using the Climb Britain brand as a trading name under the BMC umbrella, without having to mess with the BMC name.

Nobody has cared to even comment in passing on the terrible design work. The lack of any kind of comment is become conspicuous in its absence.

Seriously, its horrendous and you simply ignoring that the vast majority of people hate it purely on aesthetics alone doesnt reduce the problem it in any way



2
In reply to RupertD:

Just posted on the BMC website:

Climb Britain – Update from the BMC

Ok, so its been a rocky ride this last few days, and its probably fair to say we didn’t quite anticipate the level of interest there would be in our Climb Britain announcement, but fair do’s, we have been listening very carefully and this is what we’re proposing to do:

• We remain firmly behind Climb Britain and believe it is the right choice for the future of the organisation; the BMC has to keep moving on and stay relevant to new people as times change.

• We accept the need for wider debate so we’re proposing a period of active engagement in which we will get people together to discuss the issues; this will be done through the next set of Area meetings together with some specific gatherings of groups such as clubs and the GB Climbing Team if there is interest or demand. I will personally attend as many of these as I can, alongside the President and / or other senior BMC officials as and when they’re available.

• Climb Britain and the rebranding issue will then go back to the next National Council meeting (17 September) for further discussion and a decision on the way forward.

• In the meantime we will keep the Climb Britain logo out there and will monitor feedback from members so that by September we should have a much better feel for how its all working.

With thanks to everyone who has contributed on this so far, the BMC does listen.

Dave Turnbull
CEO
2
 Chris the Tall 28 Jul 2016
In reply to toad:

How can a democratic organisation bind itself as to what it does in the future ?

Actually the best defense against the BMC being overrun by people wishing to change where the money goes is a form of democracy that can withstand the pitchfork wielding mob. (And seriously, this was something that we considered 10 years ago)

I agree entirely with your priorities but getting Dave, Rehan or "the BMC" to make assurances about future funding is a nonsense.
 RupertD 28 Jul 2016
In reply to La benya:
> This could have been served without the need for a name change, or indeed as countless people have pointed out, using the Climb Britain brand as a trading name under the BMC umbrella, without having to mess with the BMC name.

No, I was quite clear that the bit about the Olympics was my view. The rebrand was not for that reason. The Climb Britain brand IS a trading name under the BMC. The BMC remains the legal name.

> Nobody has cared to even comment in passing on the terrible design work. The lack of any kind of comment is become conspicuous in its absence.

I'm sure that it will be discussed further in the coming discussions - see Dave Turnbull's post.

> Seriously, its horrendous and you simply ignoring that the vast majority of people hate it purely on aesthetics alone doesnt reduce the problem it in any way.
Post edited at 17:36
In reply to RupertD:
We do appreciate the efforts of volunteers to represent us (at least I do), and your replies through all these channels, but to maintain the members' confidence your post really needed to end with something like:
"...and we now realise it's not what you want so we won't go ahead with it."

Ploughing on is starting to look silly. Letting it come to an EGM would be really daft.
2
 RupertD 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

> We do appreciate the efforts of volunteers to represent us (at least I do), and your replies through all these channels, but to maintain the members' confidence your post really needed to end with something like:

> "...and we now realise it's not what you want so we won't go ahead with it."

> Ploughing on is starting to look silly. Letting it come to an EGM would be really daft.

See Dave Turnbull's post above.
 toad 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

That's good to hear, but will you be engaging with the wider membership as well? The nature of area meetings is that they only suit a relatively small (though vociferous) subset of your members
3
 Trangia 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

>
> • We remain firmly behind Climb Britain and believe it is the right choice for the future of the organisation; the BMC has to keep moving on and stay relevant to new people as times change.

"We" is not the Membership. This statement doesn't acknowledge the depth of anti feeling there is amongst the Membership, and reads a though you are still trying to force the proposal onto the Memberhip before the issue has been fully debated.

> • We accept the need for wider debate so we’re proposing a period of active engagement in which we will get people together to discuss the issues; this will be done through the next set of Area meetings together with some specific gatherings of groups such as clubs and the GB Climbing Team if there is interest or demand. I will personally attend as many of these as I can, alongside the President and / or other senior BMC officials as and when they’re available.

Good

> • Climb Britain and the rebranding issue will then go back to the next National Council meeting (17 September) for further discussion and a decision on the way forward.

Good, but you are forcing a quick timetable here bearing in mind that August is a holiday month.

> • In the meantime we will keep the Climb Britain logo out there and will monitor feedback from members so that by September we should have a much better feel for how its all working.

No, in view of the depth of feeling I believe the Logo should be temporarily shelved until such time that a majority consensus is arrived at in the Membership, if there is no majority consensus it should scraped completely

> With thanks to everyone who has contributed on this so far, the BMC does listen.

I suggest that you are "hearing", but not "listening" and the intention is to continue trying to bulldoze this issue through against the wishes of the Membership.

>

1
 Andy Say 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> Genuinely surprised that people are so attached to the "Council" bit of the name and feel that it represents democracy.

> The BMC was originally created as a council of mountaineering clubs - and this was back in the day when mountaineering was very much for the elite and there was a definite whiff of empire and glory about it.

Well maybe, Chris, if there had been any element of genuine consultation you would be less surprised. 'Council' infers a meeting of opinions and constituencies. It sounds OK to me.

The British Mountaineering Council was originally created as a forum for the existing mountaineering clubs to feed expertise into the training of mountain troops during the second world war. Surprised you didn't know that.

And if you want to extirpate the 'definite whiff of empire and glory' you are just going to have to get rid of the 'Britain' bit?





 Andy Say 28 Jul 2016
In reply to RupertD:

> The BMC is trying hard to do this via events, BMC TV, training, coaching, running campaigns such as Mend Our Mountains and so on. The name change is designed to reach people we are failing to reach whilst being inclusive for everyone else.

Presumably BMC TV will be rebranded 'CBTV'? I welcome ensuing confusion with CBeebies.
1
 RupertD 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

> Presumably BMC TV will be rebranded 'CBTV'? I welcome ensuing confusion with CBeebies.

Me too. I'm telling my kids that climbing films are replacing all cartoon content. I'm reclaiming Friday nights.
 Andy Say 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

> Ok, so its been a rocky ride this last few days, and its probably fair to say we didn’t quite anticipate the level of interest there would be in our Climb Britain announcement, but fair do’s, we have been listening very carefully and this is what we’re proposing to do:

> • We accept the need for wider debate so we’re proposing a period of active engagement

> • Climb Britain and the rebranding issue will then go back to the next National Council meeting (17 September) for further discussion and a decision on the way forward.

'The level of interest' in your first para sounds a bit management speak If you don't talk to anyone you can't gauge interest.

But I really welcome 'active engagement from your membership'. Not too sure where the GB Climbing Team fit into that democratic process? They'll just be members surely?

And lets stop focusing on the limitations of a TWA! You are NOT the 'BMC'; you are the 'British Mountaineering Council' with all the weight, authority and kudos that entails.
 Chris the Tall 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

> Well maybe, Chris, if there had been any element of genuine consultation you would be less surprised. 'Council' infers a meeting of opinions and constituencies. It sounds OK to me.

I'm not actively involved these days - don't know if you still are - but I do remember the issue being discussed at some of the meetings we attended (or maybe in the bar) and there was a consensus that the name was a problem, but no one could come up with a better one.

> The British Mountaineering Council was originally created as a forum for the existing mountaineering clubs to feed expertise into the training of mountain troops during the second world war. Surprised you didn't know that.

No, didn't know that. I did start reading "The first 50 years" but never finished it !!
 La benya 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

> • We remain firmly behind Climb Britain and believe it is the right choice for the future of the organisation; the BMC has to keep moving on and stay relevant to new people as times change.

so youve identified its not what the memebr ship wants, but youre going to do it anyway. as trangia says above the 'We' here, is you, not the BMC membership (ie the BMC)

> • We accept the need for wider debate so we’re proposing a period of active engagement in which we will get people together to discuss the issues; this will be done through the next set of Area meetings together with some specific gatherings of groups such as clubs and the GB Climbing Team if there is interest or demand. I will personally attend as many of these as I can, alongside the President and / or other senior BMC officials as and when they’re available.

Should have been done before hand, can be done remotely via email, doesnt need to wait for the area meetings, theyve already failed as a method for getting a feel for the membership (ie. you didnt mention it in the last ones)

> • Climb Britain and the rebranding issue will then go back to the next National Council meeting (17 September) for further discussion and a decision on the way forward.

At the very least you need to come up with BETTER DESIGNS, because the current one is shite. if the rebrand is inevitable, at least make it aesthetic. i think your consultants owe you a freebie after this clusterf*ck, so they should oblige with an alternative.

> • In the meantime we will keep the Climb Britain logo out there and will monitor feedback from members so that by September we should have a much better feel for how its all working.

id rather not look at it, but ok (fyi i think the logo as it currently is BMC> climb britian actually works ok...)

> With thanks to everyone who has contributed on this so far, the BMC does listen.

we shall see if this is true


3
 Andy Say 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> I'm not actively involved these days - don't know if you still are - but I do remember the issue being discussed at some of the meetings we attended (or maybe in the bar) and there was a consensus that the name was a problem, but no one could come up with a better one.

No-one offered us a £25k bar tab. If they had we'ed have sorted it!

 Andy Say 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> No, didn't know that. I did start reading "The first 50 years" but never finished it !!

Very selective. Omitted the grant for the Brazil Expedition and neglected to talk about the Bolton Mothers Club bank account. Some interesting bits nonetheless....
 Marek 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Taking a step back...
We all seem to be arguing about 'solutions', but do we really have any consensus about what the 'problem' is?
After all if we can't agree on a clear definition of the problem we are trying to solve how can we hope to agree/implement a solution with any chance to success.

So Dave, what precisely is the problem you (the exec) are trying to solve?

Is it that you need/want but can't attract commercial sponsors?
Is it that you need/want but can't attract Sport England (mainly grass-roots support) funding?
Is it that you need/want but can't attract UK Sport (elite competition) funding?
Is it that you think you need to attract more youth/indoor climbers to the BMC?
Is it that you think you need to attract more climbers in general?
Is it because you think the BMC gets confused with BMC the bike manufacturer (as someone suggested!)
Something else... ?

Be precise about what you are trying to achieve - avoiding phrases like "preparing for the future", please - and any discussions about possible solutions may just become more fruitful.

In reply to RupertD:

> We're not getting paid for the rebrand, we were not put up to it by Sport England.

My understanding from the few BMC replies is that Sport England provided funding for a 'brand awareness' study, performed by their pet consultants.

If you ask any specialist for an opinion on the best way to improve or treat something, they are very likely to suggest a 'solution' that falls within their experience, something they are expert in. For example, in the different branches of medicine if you ask a surgeon for the treatment for a problem, and they are very likely to suggest a surgical intervention for a symptom, whereas if you put the same problem to a psychologist, they are likely to suggest a psychological treatment for the underlying cause of the problem.

You ask a rebranding consultant for a solution, and they'll give you a rebranding solution. It is very unlikely that they will turn around and say 'no: your name and logo are just fine; we have nothing more to recommend'. That would be seen as a failure on their part.

I have a couple of months to consider my continued membership.
In reply to Marek:
> We all seem to be arguing about 'solutions', but do we really have any consensus about what the 'problem' is?

I was thinking something similar, coming up with a list of issues that a decent market awareness consultant might ask, and study.


What is the problem we are trying to address?
Who are we trying to aim our new identity/awareness at? What is our target market? And WHY are they our target? What are we trying to achieve?
What is the BMC currently doing wrong/not doing that means we're not achieving?
What might the BMC do better to achieve those aims?

Having decided to make changes, we need to make sure they're SMART

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria

I'd suggest 'measurable' is the key here; I've seen far too many 'initiatives' that are not measurable, either in the outcome, or the cost of implementation. I'd rather not see another one...
Post edited at 18:59
 FreshSlate 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

> 3) Whilst I admire the passion of the many that complain (it's a testament of the strong feelings people have for the organisation) I must say that if people directed half of this effort into their local climbing community then the world would be a better place for it. Clean a crag, re-bolt a route, help out with a youth day for your local club, attend a BMC area meeting and get involved, whatever it is the significance of this action will be far more than the name change from the BMC to Climb Britain.

What is this? 'Don't worry about our name and do something productive you bunch of lazy bastards'.

Very mature Rob, that'll get people to renew their membership.
6
 whenry 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

That's a contradictory statement and a half: "we remain firmly behind Climb Britain" and "the BMC does listen"!

It's a step in the right direction, but we'll have to see whether the BMC does listen, and clearly I'd encourage everyone to attend their next local area meeting (when is the next SW meeting, btw - there's no date on the website yet?). Like Trangia, I'm of the view that there is a hope in the BMC leadership that this will be forgotten, and they can carry on regardless. I'm thoroughly in favour of a moratorium on the use of the new brand until the consultation is complete.
1
 Offwidth 28 Jul 2016
In reply to FreshSlate:

Doesn't stop it often being true. UKC armchair whingers are common and regular volunteers few and far between. Cynical as I am about UKC posters I've been amazed how previous UKC 'storms' relating to BMC business shrank into a teacup by the time they got to an area meeting and how some even disappeared. I actually hope the same happens again, as a Nottingham- Glossup round trip isn't appealing to see the full area meeting used up by people browbeating the BMC about a consultation error we all know about and retaining a name which isn't going.

NW Peak has some of the most chronic access issues with a pain of a farmer regularly blocking parking (or worse) and the profusion of new fencing.... it was good to get a focus on that.
5
 Andy Say 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Well I'm on the verge of a relocation to Colne. As a potential member of an area that seems to have last met in January how do I express an opinion?

And I speak as someone in real need of a shower as I've spent much of today scrubbing up a bouldering venue that was becoming overgrown.
In reply to Offwidth:

> to see the full area meeting used up by people browbeating the BMC about a consultation error we all know about and retaining a name which isn't going.

So you're saying it's all a misunderstanding, than? A simple failure of communication?

What's needed is some consultants to help tell the message...
1
 remus Global Crag Moderator 28 Jul 2016
In reply to FreshSlate:

> What is this? 'Don't worry about our name and do something productive you bunch of lazy bastards'.

> Very mature Rob, that'll get people to renew their membership.

I can sympathise with Rob here. It's got to be a bit galling receiving this level of vitriol over the cosmetic issues, then when it comes time to put in the hours those big crowds who are so keen to express an opinion somehow dissipate and become just the same old handful of volunteers who have always kept things ticking over.
2
 FreshSlate 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

I refer you to Simon's post at 15.07.
 Marek 28 Jul 2016
In reply to remus:

> I can sympathise with Rob here. It's got to be a bit galling receiving this level of vitriol over the cosmetic issues, then when it comes time to put in the hours those big crowds who are so keen to express an opinion somehow dissipate and become just the same old handful of volunteers who have always kept things ticking over.

Except that most of the recent 'interest' (as DT calls it on the BMC website) is in the matter of governance rather than the cosmetic issue. You never know, perhaps this whole episode will encourage more people to take an active role in the BMC!
Frogger 28 Jul 2016
In reply to captain paranoia: and Marek:

Absolutely spot on. The problem needs to be clearly defined before you can start to fix it, and to stop any scope-creep.

And when you do try to fix it, you need measurable objectives. Otherwise you'll never know when you've achieved what you wanted.

I haven't read anything that suggested the BMC needed a name change, although I have read about some perceived problems that could be solved by a marketing campaign, which could include a sub-brand and/or some kind of dedicated working group.

F


 FreshSlate 28 Jul 2016
In reply to remus:

> I can sympathise with Rob here. It's got to be a bit galling receiving this level of vitriol over the cosmetic issues, then when it comes time to put in the hours those big crowds who are so keen to express an opinion somehow dissipate and become just the same old handful of volunteers who have always kept things ticking over.

I don't buy this excuse. The 'same old volunteers' were also kept in the dark. The name of the BMC is an issue affecting all the members of the BMC i.e. 80,000 people. They're all within their rights to express dissatisfaction at the change of name, and the lack of consultation with the membership. I'm not sure how we construct an argument where that's not the case. I don't think 'you should volunteer more' or 'donate to the bolt fund' cut it.

Rob said that people should rebolt routes, what if you're a walker and pay the BMC to maintain access and advocate for permissive legislation?

Don't understand this argument at all.

 remus Global Crag Moderator 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Marek:

Whatever you want to call it, it's a shame more people don't get involved with the real work of the BMC.
Ian Carey 28 Jul 2016
In reply to RupertD:

I'm in favour of the re-brand and confident that it will work well.

The governance of the BMC appears to be very good and certainly much better when I was an activist in the 90s (it wasn't that bad, just full of mainly old white blokes).

Although branding is important, the key thing is that Climb Britain continues to represent and encourage the diverse nature of climbing nowadays, from bumblers like me who struggle up VSs, to dedicated athletes who train hard and win medals.

Cycling UK re-branded from CTC (Cyclist Touring Club) this year. There was a big fuss, despite good governance in reaching the decision, and a petition for a members vote (at significant cost) - the result was in support of the re-brand.

I shall be continuing with my membership of Climb Britain - I may even attend the next Peak Area meeting to watch the fireworks.

Cheers,

Ian
6
 remus Global Crag Moderator 28 Jul 2016
In reply to FreshSlate:

It's not an excuse. Im just saying that from the point of view of the people doing the leg work, it must be quite frustrating that the membership can work up such a lather around formalities/governance but can't gather the same enthusiasm for the real work.

> Rob said that people should rebolt routes, what if you're a walker and pay the BMC to maintain access and advocate for permissive legislation?

Help maintain paths. Get involved in local wildlife conservation efforts. Get involved with local access efforts. There's no shortage of work.
3
 Marek 28 Jul 2016
In reply to FreshSlate:

> I don't buy this excuse. The 'same old volunteers' were also kept in the dark. The name of the BMC is an issue affecting all the members of the BMC i.e. 80,000 people. They're all within their rights to express dissatisfaction at the change of name, and the lack of consultation with the membership...

We shouldn't forget that the BMC does not exist for the benefit of just its members, but for ALL climber/hill walkers (according to the Articles). Non-BMC members have just as much right to be heard. The BMC is not a 'club'.


 Marek 28 Jul 2016
In reply to remus:

> Whatever you want to call it, it's a shame more people don't get involved with the real work of the BMC.

True, but let's not let Rob's comment distract us for the issue at hand.

 Mick Ward 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Trangia:

> I suggest that you are "hearing", but not "listening" and the intention is to continue trying to bulldoze this issue through against the wishes of the Membership.

Very well put indeed.

Mick

 toad 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

I remember some years ago having a discussion here with you about how difficult it was to engage with the BMC if you were unable to get to the meetings and, more pertinently, how difficult it was to get any sense of what happened at meetings because of the vague nature of the minutes. I seem to remember you were of the opinion it was a fuss about nothing. Perhaps now is the time to re-visit the clarity of meeting reporting and how best to engage with the membership, eh?

(I've just spent 2 hours at a meeting of a similar sized organisation safe in the knowledge that the previous meeting that I'd missed had detailed, relevant minutes I could rely on to get me up to speed. and it wasn't held in the backroom of a pub in the arse end of nowhere)
 Ian W 28 Jul 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:

> I was thinking something similar, coming up with a list of issues that a decent market awareness consultant might ask, and study.

> What is the problem we are trying to address?

> Who are we trying to aim our new identity/awareness at? What is our target market? And WHY are they our target? What are we trying to achieve?

> What is the BMC currently doing wrong/not doing that means we're not achieving?

> What might the BMC do better to achieve those aims?

> Having decided to make changes, we need to make sure they're SMART

All that is in the document(s) the BMC got from the consultants. Whilst we northerners all share the same suspicion of every designer specs wearing creative type, they produced a "shit load" of reports. I'm sure Dave T would be more than willing to let people read through them...........



Removed User 28 Jul 2016
Dear All,

I can't figure out whether this abhorrent unilateral action on the part of the BMC executive correlates with the up and coming Olympics or the recent passing of Ken Wilson? Either way it indicates a regrettable further slide into commercialism/consumerism. Could someone clarify?

Ironically I got my renewal letter through today on BMC letter headed paper...
1
In reply to remus:
> Whatever you want to call it, it's a shame more people don't get involved with the real work of the BMC.

Remus, I think you've got what I was trying to say accurately summarised within a single sentence.

I wasn't pointing the finger, apportioning blame, or criticising hillwalkers for the lack of bolts they are placing (joke...) - just an open invitation for all to get involved, should they wish to (and have the time).

If people wish to misconstrue that as something negative, then I'm not sure what else I can say!
Post edited at 22:12
6
In reply to FreshSlate:
> Rob said that people should rebolt routes, what if you're a walker and pay the BMC to maintain access and advocate for permissive legislation?

To be fair, that's not exactly what 'Rob said'. In fact, re-reading what I've written you seem to have gleaned the most negative conclusion from a statement that was very much meant to say something positive.

As suggested within my reply to Remus above, it was most certainly not meant in that way.
Post edited at 22:06
2
 toad 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

I get involved by giving them £55.53 every year (well, up until now, maybe)
1
 Ian W 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Removed User:

> Dear All,

> I can't figure out whether this abhorrent unilateral action on the part of the BMC executive correlates with the up and coming Olympics or the recent passing of Ken Wilson? Either way it indicates a regrettable further slide into commercialism/consumerism. Could someone clarify?

> Ironically I got my renewal letter through today on BMC letter headed paper...

Read the threads, BMC website etc.

The BMC have nothing to do with the olympics; thats the IOC and IFSC. We would hope to be able to send a couple of competitors to a comp taking place every 4 years. Hardly a reason for a change such as this......
And i sincerely hope it has nothing to do with Ken. The idea predated his passing by some months. I cant tell whether you are trying to be funny with this, but on the evidence of your post, dont give up the day job.
2
 toad 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Ian W:

I don't know if you're being serious about the olympics. It's a Very Big Deal at a national political level, and pretty much anyone involved in any kind of fundraising/ profile raising knows this
 FreshSlate 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Marek:
> We shouldn't forget that the BMC does not exist for the benefit of just its members, but for ALL climber/hill walkers (according to the Articles). Non-BMC members have just as much right to be heard. The BMC is not a 'club'.

Agree absolutely. But we're seeing a rhetorical divide from Rob et al on this thread between 'those people who do all the work' and the 'average armchair member'. Clearly the 'non-member's' opinion would be categorised even lower. However as everyone seems largely united in their criticism of the whole debacle so I'm not sure what the point is.
Post edited at 22:38
 Marek 28 Jul 2016
In reply to FreshSlate:
> Agree absolutely. But we're seeing a rhetorical divide from Rob et al on this thread between 'those people who do all the work' and the 'average armchair member', clearly the 'non-member' would be categorised even lower. Oddly enough, everyone seems largely united in criticism of the whole debacle so I'm not sure what the point is.

Only that in there have been plenty of posts saying that "the members must have a say" whereas I'm just pointing out that non-member have just as much right to a say since the BMC claims to represent them too.
Post edited at 22:47
 FreshSlate 28 Jul 2016
In reply to Marek:

> Only that in there have been plenty of posts saying that "the members must have a say" whereas I'm just pointing out that non-member have just as much right to a say since the BMC claims to represent them too.

Agreed. I'm not seeing a particular split between active BMC members and the rest of the outdoor community is my point.
In reply to Ian W:

> The BMC have nothing to do with the olympics; thats the IOC and IFSC

I take it you're being deliberately obtuse...

The IFSC may be the ones who regulate competitive sport climbing, and are involved in the push for Olympic sport status, but UK Sport ("Inspiring the nation through Olympic and Paralympic success") and Sport England ("Previously known as the English Sports Council, Sport England provides services and funding to sport in England") are responsible for developing, supporting and promoting Olympic sport participation in the UK. Sport England support only three non-olympic sports (as of 2013).

https://www.sportengland.org/news-and-features/news/2013/january/25/histori...

"Netball is one of the three non-Olympic sports to receive Sport England funding"

As I've stated earlier, I think there's a much stronger argument for netball's inclusion in the Olympics; it's a team-based, competitive sport, with a long-established, well-regulated set of rules and a high level of participation from grass roots level, all over the world.
In reply to Ian W:

> I'm sure Dave T would be more than willing to let people read through them...........

Maybe they could be published, so we all know what problems the BMC faces, and how we can help 'spread the message'.
 remus Global Crag Moderator 28 Jul 2016
In reply to FreshSlate:

> Agree absolutely. But we're seeing a rhetorical divide from Rob et al on this thread between 'those people who do all the work' and the 'average armchair member'.

I think you're making that up. As has been pointed out several times before, there is a dichotomy between the large number of people getting het up about this name change (along with associated governance/political issues) and the small number of people who get stuck in at crag clean ups etc. As far as I can see, the only point being made is that it's a shame it's not the other way round.
1
 Wicamoi 28 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Before proceeding regardless with the name change, and dismissing the >90% of UKC voters who disagree with it, I wonder if the BMC execs, reps and in-crowd should google "groupthink"
 FreshSlate 29 Jul 2016
In reply to remus:

> I think you're making that up. As has been pointed out several times before, there is a dichotomy between the large number of people getting het up about this name change (along with associated governance/political issues) and the small number of people who get stuck in at crag clean ups etc. As far as I can see, the only point being made is that it's a shame it's not the other way round.

...

A large number of people have posted on the forums.

A small amount of people do extensive voluntary work.

What's your point?

The few hundred words a person has written on a internet forum (often during work hours) prevented them from volunteering to maintain a path?
1
 remus Global Crag Moderator 29 Jul 2016
In reply to FreshSlate:

It's not so much the hours put in but the vigor with which each issue is discussed. Again, the only point im trying to make is that it's a shame people don't get as enthusiastic around the core work of the BMC i.e. the stuff we know definitely does make a substantial difference to the quality of our climbing lives.
1
 pebbles 29 Jul 2016
"Whilst I admire the passion of the many that complain (it's a testament of the strong feelings people have for the organisation) I must say that if people directed half of this effort into their local climbing community then the world would be a better place for it. ......Clean a crag, re-bolt a route, help out with a youth day for your local club, attend a BMC area meeting and get involved"

cheap shot - you have absolutely no idea how many of the people posting on this thread have or have not done any of those things. lets all discuss the argument, not take pot shots at the people on either side!
1
 Ian W 29 Jul 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:

> I take it you're being deliberately obtuse...

> The IFSC may be the ones who regulate competitive sport climbing, and are involved in the push for Olympic sport status, but UK Sport ("Inspiring the nation through Olympic and Paralympic success") and Sport England ("Previously known as the English Sports Council, Sport England provides services and funding to sport in England") are responsible for developing, supporting and promoting Olympic sport participation in the UK. Sport England support only three non-olympic sports (as of 2013).

No, not being obtuse. Sport England fund sports development / participation increase etc up to National level. UK Sport then take over, but will not fund any sport that doesn't have a chance of Olympic success. Hence the bmc receive significant funding for training / development etc, including comps such as the YCS, but receive zero funding for national team, as that is beyond Sport Englands remit, and there is no qualification for UK Sport funding as we are not an olympic sport.


> "Netball is one of the three non-Olympic sports to receive Sport England funding"

Although this link you have given and the associated article does contradict that. I wasn't aware of this, and will certainly follow it up (bids for next round of funding are currently being prepared)....the only possible reconciling factor would be that this article is from 2013 and the rules may have changed (they certainly have for the next funding round). It would be so much easier if there was only the one funding body, operating as in the netball example. Or at least treating all sports equally........

> As I've stated earlier, I think there's a much stronger argument for netball's inclusion in the Olympics; it's a team-based, competitive sport, with a long-established, well-regulated set of rules and a high level of participation from grass roots level, all over the world.

Agree that there is no reason for Netballs non inclusion. Except that they may fall foul of the worldwide participation rule (but its in the commonwealth games), although even that appears to have been circumvented by the baseball lot! It is also possible that they are considering applying for inclusion, but dont feel ready yet (on the global organisation front).

 Ian W 29 Jul 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:
Email him and ask for them to be published! (the reports etc)..
Post edited at 08:40
 james mann 29 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC News:

I haven't posted up until now, largely due to the unpleasant nature of many of the posts. As far as Rob or any of the other NC members are concerned, they are volunteers, working for free for the good of all and any decision was made with the best interests of the BMC at its' heart. Aggresively vilifying them won't help. In fact, it is likely to have the opposite effect of non-engagement. As someone who has done a little volunteer work and will do more and someone who has been a member for over twenty years I feel that I have a right to comment on the direction of the organisation. You may be think you're about to hear an argument for rebranding; not so.

I think that the main issues around this are the lack of transparency surrounding the decision, thus angering the members who clearly care strongly for what they have felt until now was their organisation. I feel a lack of respect for the long history and heritage of what has been a very successful democratic organisation which has achieved much in the interests of the greater good for all. The logo and the name which will date badly, seem to describe the activities of members less well than before. If we have to explain to hill walkers or fell runners (never mind skiers and others) that they climb 'stuff' and that's why the word climb is appropriate then it doesn't work nearly well enough.

When the British Mountaineering Council was conceived by Winthrop-Young in 1944 it had a very modern set of values which still in many ways, stand strong today. This was the original mission:

·Protection of climbing areas; climbers to be consulted in any “new planning” for the countryside.
· Provision of accommodation, huts, hostels etc. in these areas, and raising funds towards this end.
· Collection of climbing information from "here and abroad" and to investigate scientifically the value of new equipment and how to procure it.
· Provision of instructors by clubs to assist with training, and to put interested individuals and associations seeking help in touch with their nearest club.
· To assist the Mountain Rescue Committee.
· To establish a system of regional committees.
· To collate and circulate relevant news and information in the form of a journal, the first one published in June 1947 called "Mountaineering".

Since this origin, the BMC has generally addressed the issues of the times and moved forwards, supporting the users of our wild places with their activities. We should remember why the organisation was born and celebrate its' heritage and future. This change in branding just seems to me, undemocratic and unthinking of the wider wishes and interests of the membership. I think that this smells strongly of Olympics and organised competitive sport which for me climbing, in all of its' many and unique forms, has always been the antithesis of.

A workable compromise would probably to have Climb Britain as a long term project and brand within the BMC, working for those aspects that some feel are not adequately addressed. Climbing walls and competitions are important to some of the membership, but the BMC must not turn its' back on the heritage of the core principles upon which it was founded.

James
 Franco Cookson 29 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Does 'Climb Briton!' as a brand well represent any of our fantastic history? For example:

youtube.com/watch?v=urX7x68jCh8&
 Offwidth 29 Jul 2016
In reply to toad:
I remember such discussions. I said then and say now I drive from Nottingham and often have space in the car. Others post in other locations and often have space in their cars. The meetings accept written submissions. In the past where written submissions were said to be coming but didn't arrive I've reported 'great concerns' on UKC, as I'd read them in detail (even though I disagreed) and no one else with such concerns was in the room of 30 keen area volunteers. There are exceptions... this is one I'm sure and the club vs individual subs issue EGM a decade back was another.

The Peak area pub in the most part (the exception being the annual Staffs meet) is walking distance from a train station to ease public transport access problems. Venues for such large geographical areas are always a compromise but the area welcomes constructive advice on how they can improve. As for the minutes they seem to me to be like most volunteer meeting minutes and no so different from minutes at work (except they have professional admin support): a summary of issues discussed with clear reporting on any decisions, votes etc. My partner Moff had to write them up in the evenings after work for 6 years and one of my more unusual BMC volunteer roles was to help decifer email addresses from bad handwriting.

Over recent years other volunteers (mainly Martin Wass but more recently Shark) produced a local area newsletter (downloadable from the BMC website) as access issues were escalating in volume and complexity and getting to read the main concerns in advance improved efficiency and focussed discusion at the meetings... this had the benefit of those who could not attend having more detail than would normally reasonably be available in the minutes. There are also (very quiet) local area community pages on the BMC website.

I expected better from you.
Post edited at 10:10
3
 La benya 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

the meeting for london and the south east is in the west end at 7pm. what hope in hell do you have of getting to that if you live anywhere other than london?
the minutes of the meeting are terrible and dont describe anything in detail.
the actual discussion points hold little of no interest to most people
there is no sign of what will be discussed at the next meeting
why should people wish to engage with this?
maybe people already feel they engage by paying their membership, and you know, funding the organisation.
maybe people dont need to go to an organised crag clean up to clean up a crag...?
all these arguments about people not engaging unless its on the internet are invalid. or rather they are totally valid in that they show maybe the area meets arent a great way of going about things and the internet is a far better tool to get a greater level of participation.
3
 Offwidth 29 Jul 2016
In reply to FreshSlate:

Simon is atypical he doesnt post so much and, like a small minority of UKC regulars, does a lot of voluntary work and turns up to meetings and he is not using the issue to take 'pot shots' at the BMC in other respects. I thought it was pretty clear the vast majority seem to have concerns around the way this has been handled. The issue is how is that concern focussed to a useful outcome... I support the idea of limiting the scope of Climb Britain to the areas where it may benefit most and use the BMC brand in parallel where it works best.
 Offwidth 29 Jul 2016
In reply to La benya:
London has much better transport than most areas. Living in Nottingham it's not much different for me to get to London pubs near rail stations than the Peak area pubs (albeit much more expensive).

I don't have any experience of your area minutes but I suspect 'terrible' is probably plain rude. Agendas should all be on the community pages of the BMC website in advance and are usually notified on UKC.

People engage (even despite faults) because the issues are important and they want to help.

All members are engaged just by paying membership, its just nice if they do more.

The vast majority of my crag cleaning isn't at organised events but the benefit of such events is efficiency and you get to play with better kit in the company of like minded caring people.

I'm a busy guy and don't volunteer to go to things again and again that waste my time. Area meets have been useful for me for 2 decades and other key local activists seem to feel the same way; to meet and focus what we do and influence the organisation that coordinates it. Not everything we do comes from the area meet. Other people do useful stuff thats nothing to do with their area meet or even the BMC. All fine and dandy.
Post edited at 10:43
 GrahamD 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Marek:

> We shouldn't forget that the BMC does not exist for the benefit of just its members, but for ALL climber/hill walkers (according to the Articles). Non-BMC members have just as much right to be heard.

Trying to be of benefit to all walkers / climbers is NOT the same as giving non members the same rights (in terms of its governance) as members. If you want voting rights in the BMC, join the BMC.
2
 GrahamD 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Wicamoi:

> Before proceeding regardless with the name change, and dismissing the >90% of UKC voters who disagree with it, I wonder if the BMC execs, reps and in-crowd should google "groupthink"

It is the way of things that people with some axe to grind run to sign the nearest online petition and those that don't just get on with life (me for one).

Whereas a an online vote from a self selected group is compelling evidence enough for tabloids, in a mature organisation trying to make decisions for the good of the whole, it should only be taken as one source of input.
1
 Marek 29 Jul 2016
In reply to GrahamD:



Marek said:
>> We shouldn't forget that the BMC does not exist for the benefit of just its members, but for ALL climber/hill walkers (according to the Articles). Non-BMC members have just as much right to be heard.

> Trying to be of benefit to all walkers / climbers is NOT the same as giving non members the same rights (in terms of its governance) as members. If you want voting rights in the BMC, join the BMC.

I said "right to be heard" not "right to vote".
 FreshSlate 29 Jul 2016
In reply to remus:
> It's not so much the hours put in but the vigor with which each issue is discussed. Again, the only point im trying to make is that it's a shame people don't get as enthusiastic around the core work of the BMC i.e. the stuff we know definitely does make a substantial difference to the quality of our climbing lives.

All we're doing is stating the obvious, wouldn't it be nice if people cared more about... donating to charity, blood donors, the homeless etc. Sure there's something in that, but you can't use that as a stick to beat people with if they care about their membership body's name for example, or it becomes a race to find the 'most important thing we should be vigorously taking about' - which in the grand scheme of things won't be climbing.
Post edited at 11:30
1
 Marek 29 Jul 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> Whereas a an online vote from a self selected group is compelling evidence enough for tabloids, in a mature organisation trying to make decisions for the good of the whole, it should only be taken as one source of input.

Most attendees at area meeting are also a "self selected group" - it's just a characteristic of a (relatively) free society. There's nothing wrong with that. All you can do as an organisation is to ensure that the sum of the self selected groups is as big and representative of the whole as possible.

It's funny really - the BMC claims to want to be 'ready for the future' but still seems to consider personal attendance in backrooms of pubs to be the only legitimate source of input. I said 'seems' - hopefully it's not true, but that's the impression.



 GrahamD 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Marek:

> Marek said:



> I said "right to be heard" not "right to vote".

You also said had "just as much right to be heard", which I disagree with.

1
 remus Global Crag Moderator 29 Jul 2016
In reply to FreshSlate:

> All we're doing is stating the obvious, wouldn't it be nice if people cared more about... donating to charity, blood donors, the homeless etc. Sure there's something in that, but you can't use that as a stick to beat people with if they care about their membership body's name for example, or it becomes a race to find the 'most important thing we should be vigorously taking about' - which in the grand scheme of things won't be climbing.

Yep, that's all I was trying to say. Shame it took so long to get there!
 Offwidth 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Marek:
More cheap shots in the face of numerous communication mechanisms the organisation uses. Area meets are hardly unusual in organisations as one way (in parallel with others) to deal with engagement with membership, especially practical issues like the ongoing democratic input of members (between more expensive ballots and AGMs) and in the BMC case have even allowed non-members to self select and attend, speak and vote, for some time now. Too many people these days want all their rights with none of their responsibilities; climbing seems to suffer less of that and my BMC area meets are refeshing for the volunteer efforts on show, whilst some on UKC do their bit to make us look more normal.
Post edited at 12:42
3
 Chris the Tall 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Marek:

> It's funny really - the BMC claims to want to be 'ready for the future' but still seems to consider personal attendance in backrooms of pubs to be the only legitimate source of input. I said 'seems' - hopefully it's not true, but that's the impression.

I was involved in revising the Articles of Association 12 or so years ago. What that effectively did was take the power away from the clubs and transfer to the area meetings, through the national council reps. I still believe what I said back then - this is a good form of representative democracy for a organisation such as the BMC.

Every so often we get a contentious issue (bolts, olympics, now the name change) and people start calling for online voting. That would be more democratic right ? Maybe, but would it be a good thing ?

First of all it would undermine the area meetings. Why bother driving over to Glossop on a rainy night when you can stay at home and click a button ? But you wouldn't hear the debate, which because of the group of people that attend area meetings could well be take a different course. You wouldn't hear the views of the activists and volunteers who don't post online (and there are plenty of them). But most importantly you would hear the rest of the meeting, when those access volunteers tell you what they've been doing on your behalf.

Secondly it would undermine the national council. I did this for 5 years - attending 5 meetings a year in places as diverse as Dorset, Devon, Northumberland and Wales. And this is where there the difference between representative and direct democracy comes in. As the NC rep you get a lot of papers to read before every meeting, you get accounts and committee reports to check. Take away the policy making role from that council and not only would you get less informed decisions, you would also make it much harder to find anyone willing to do the job.

In my time I frequently raised NC matters at area meeting, but it was pretty clear that (apart from the Olympic debate) people were far more interested in local issues that national ones.

So the real irony is that people who don't want the BMC to change, want to change it in a way that would fundamentally undermine the things that the they most value about the BMC !
 Marek 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> I was involved in revising the Articles of Association 12 or so years ago ...

Thanks. A good and illuminating response.
 Marek 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> More cheap shots in the face of numerous communication mechanisms the organisation uses. Area meets are hardly unusual in organisations as one way (in parallel with others) to deal with engagement with membership, especially practical issues like the ongoing democratic input of members (between more expensive ballots and AGMs) and in the BMC case have even allowed non-members to self select and attend, speak and vote, for some time now. Too many people these days want all their rights with none of their responsibilities; climbing seems to suffer less of that and my BMC area meets are refeshing for the volunteer efforts on show, whilst some on UKC do their bit to make us look more normal.

Sorry it came over as a "cheap shot" but that was not the intention. I'm well aware that the BMC has "numerous communication mechanisms" but they are mainly for disseminating information, not for getting input, which was my point. As for rights, it seems the BMC has claimed the right to speak on my behalf yet seems disinterested in hearing my opinions unless I pay it money (subs). I must admit I wasn't aware I could attend and speak at area meetings if I'm not a member. If that's the case, then I applaud the BMC for its openness.

 Simon Caldwell 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> First of all it would undermine the area meetings. Why bother driving over to Glossop on a rainy night when you can stay at home and click a button ? But you wouldn't hear the debate, which because of the group of people that attend area meetings could well be take a different course. You wouldn't hear the views of the activists and volunteers who don't post online (and there are plenty of them). But most importantly you would hear the rest of the meeting, when those access volunteers tell you what they've been doing on your behalf.

That all makes sense, but requires that important issues are advertised in advance. The name change wasn't included on the agenda (at least for my area, I've not checked any others), and by all accounts wasn't really discussed at the meeting either.
This contrasts with the MCofS who were very open about their plans and asked for input from all members, whether at local meetings or via email.

It sounds like the BMC have realised they got this one wrong (not necessarily the decision, but the way it was handled) and are in damage limitation mode. Hopefully they'll learn from this with any future major changes.
 james mann 29 Jul 2016
In reply to Marek:

Area meetings do far more than discuss the work of the bmc. They are a source of cohesion within the climbing community (usually). They are also a place where important local issues are shared and solutions to problems are found. In my experience a friendly and inclusive way of meeting with all the main protagonists in a vibrant climbing community represented. More informal, friendly and fun in a pub anyway.

James
 Jasonic 30 Jul 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Rebrand lacks gravitas & style- clearly it does not represent either the role or membership of the BMC;

Good design- which is entirely lacking here would function well if the BMC wants to reach a wider audience.

Cannot imagine when asked in an Alpine hut if I am a BMC member instead to say no- "Climb Britain"- simply embarrassing!

Similar organisations manage this better;

http://www.alpenverein.de/

https://americanalpineclub.org/


 andrewmc 31 Jul 2016
In reply to Jasonic:

> Cannot imagine when asked in an Alpine hut if I am a BMC member instead to say no- "Climb Britain"- simply embarrassing!

a) I thought BMC membership was of no benefit/significance in Alpine huts,
b) you can continue to tell anyone you care to do so that you are a BMC member since the legal name will remain the same (and what I have read suggested the BMC name will still be around albeit possibly only rarely used)?
 Andy Say 31 Jul 2016
In reply to andrewmcleod:

> a) I thought BMC membership was of no benefit/significance in Alpine huts,

It can be. Sometimes a membership card has been accepted as a reciprocal rights card. So I am told.

And there are a few places where you are 'required' to be a member of your national organisation; some of the Belgian crags spring to mind as well as in the Slovak Tatra.* Rules more honoured in the breach than the observance, however.


*somewhere I have a wonderful BMC 'passport'. A letter signed by Roger Payne explaining that I was a member of the British Mountaineering Council and asking that I be given support by fellow national organisations.
 GrahamD 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Jasonic:

> Rebrand lacks gravitas & style- clearly it does not represent either the role or membership of the BMC;

Personally I agree it lacks a degree of old school gravitas, if that is important these days, but its not obvious to me that "clearly it does not represent either the role or membership of the BMC" is true. To me and others I climb with, for instance, it makes absolutely no difference.
 Mick Ward 01 Aug 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

Do you not feel deeply uneasy, Graham? 'Climb Britain' sounds like a pert, pre-packaged, wanky adjunct to commercialism - at least it does to me. There's a sense of 'getting ready for the Olympics', the Dawn Wall coverage has shown us all that the market for climbing is exploding, blah, blah. To me, 'Climb Britain' suggests an image of endless queues of people waiting to get into a climbing wall competition.

For me, commercialism in climbing - absolutely fine. Commercialism dictating climbing - absolutely not fine. And I get a really, really bad feeling about 'Climb Britain'.

Anyway I don't get this about BMC - British Mountaineering Council - 'not cutting it' in this day and age. As a brand, I think it's great - like, err, The Post Office.

And, to be utterly boring, 'if it ain't broke, don't sodding well try to fix it'.

Rant over. Had better do some work now!

Mick
 GrahamD 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Mick Ward:

Yes I feel uneasy, but not about the name. My uneasiness is far more down to whether the BMC is extending its remit towards being more active in recruiting and basically ending up being an organisation which needs to continue to grow in order to survive andwhether it lets itself get run over by an olympics bandwaggon.

I accept some people view the name change as part of scope creep but I don't think I do - fighting a name change is the wrong place to be directing energies it seems to me. Fighting to keep the BMC focussed is more important, I think.
 Andy Say 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Mick Ward:

> Do you not feel deeply uneasy, Graham? 'Climb Britain' sounds like a pert, pre-packaged, wanky adjunct to commercialism - at least it does to me.

I have to admit that the statement that the organisation 'has been trading as the BMC' for 50 years stuck in my craw. I know what they mean - but I wouldn't have thought that the primary objective was 'trading'.
 Ian W 01 Aug 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

Yes I feel uneasy, but not about the name. My uneasiness is far more down to whether the BMC is extending its remit towards being more active in recruiting and basically ending up being an organisation which needs to continue to grow in order to survive andwhether it lets itself get run over by an olympics bandwaggon.

Maybe there are better posts for this reply, but its close to hand;

The whole BMC / Climb Britain debate would be much better served by ignoring the Olympics; it has nothing to do with the Olympics, which will itself have very little effect in the short term. It is one comp every 4 years (albeit a big one of major importance), the first one potentially being in 2020. Before then, we have a further 2 world championships, 4 world cup seasons, etc etc etc, which need to be approached properly and professionally,or we wont be in a position to compete at said Olympic Games.
For me, the competitions issue is about giving our athletes the best possible chance at ALL comps; something we do not currently do. And in answer to the OP of another thread, a number of options are being explored for the future structure of GB team management. Its a fluid situation, and we are doing our best to keep, hopefully, slightly ahead of the curve!

Ian Walton
Chair
BMC / Climb Britain Comp committee.
 Chris Sansum 01 Aug 2016
In reply to andrewmcleod:

Yep, I have always found that the BMC Membership card gets a discount in European club huts (probably more the local alpine club huts more that the privately owned ones).
 1poundSOCKS 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> For me, the competitions issue is about giving our athletes the best possible chance at ALL comps; something we do not currently do.

That does seem to imply that competition athletes will receive more funding?
Ann65 01 Aug 2016
In reply to RupertD:

There is an interesting comment in 'grough' today:

"Could this have anything to do with Sport England's first 'Payment for Results' review, which looked at the performance of the governing bodies it funds to increase the number of people playing sport? Those failing to achieve annual targets risk losing up to 20 per cent of their future funding.

In 2014 Sport England threatened to withdraw some funding from six NGBs including British Mountaineering Council (which receives £97,000). Apparently the number of people who take part their sport has seen a regular fall and those NGBs needed to make significant changes to their approach to growing their sport.

Sport England is the brand name for the English Sports Council and is a non-departmental public body under the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Sport Scotland is an executive non-departmental public body of the Scottish Government, advises ministers and implements government policy for sport and physical recreation, government grants and lottery funds.

Perhaps the BMC and MCofS should remove themselves from the Government pocket or are they tied in by a threat that Sport England/Scotland would create their own Mountaineering NGB?"
 Ramblin dave 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Ann65:
The impression that was given by the explanation around the original announcement was basically that Sports England wanted them to generate more cash from sponsorship so that they could give them less in handouts, and that reviewing and updating their branding was a way to help them to do that.

However, it certainly seems legitimate to ask the question - and I don't to know the details of their operations well enough to answer it - of whether the hoops that they have to jump through in order to get either sponsorship from private companies or funding from Sports England are worth the extra work they can do on access, conservation, safety, guidebooks and so on with the money. In other words, would the BMC be able to do more good for their members by telling Sports England to do one and existing entirely on subscriptions?

Edit: I mean, it's presumably not the "threat" of another NGB being created that they have to worry about, but the loss of a fairly substantial source of income and the consequent hamstringing of their ability to do Good Things.
Post edited at 15:54
 Ian W 01 Aug 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

That does seem to imply that competition athletes will receive more funding?

That's what I am constantly pushing for, in addition to the structure to be able to use the money wisely. Any fool can spend unlimited amounts for no effect, but we need to spend wisely. The team structure is ever evolving and ever improving, and for 2017 we have a really good chance to make some serious strides forward. Yes it takes more funding in the short term, but can also generate a return in terms of publicity and greater participation in mountaineering / climbing (delete your non-preferred activity....) from the comp / indoor scene.

Also note that there is no reason why this additional funding should come at the expense of any other area of Climb Britains sphere of operations. We are trying to grow the size of the pie, not steal others slices.
2
 whenry 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:
> Edit: I mean, it's presumably not the "threat" of another NGB being created that they have to worry about, but the loss of a fairly substantial source of income and the consequent hamstringing of their ability to do Good Things.

On a very simplistic level, looking at the 2014 Annual Report, losing the Sport England funding would mean that we would be forking out just over £2m on an insurance company and a quarterly magazine, with some minor spend on BMC-owned huts and crags.
Post edited at 16:15
 1poundSOCKS 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> That's what I am constantly pushing for

Is that the reason for the name change? To get Sport England funding, to allow the team to improve it's results? Not sure if that's been said already, sorry, losing track.
 Andy Say 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> Sports England wanted them to generate more cash from sponsorship so that they could give them less in handouts, and that reviewing and updating their branding was a way to help them to do that.

To be honest I think that sponsorship can be a double edged sword. Sure, an altruistic benefactor who just wants to help mountaineering cold be cool for the BMC. But how about if a major equipment manufacturer sponsors them. Or a big outdoor centre. Or a first aid kit retailer. There would surely be cries of 'foul'.

It is quite a fine line between financial support because it is 'a good thing' and paying for promotion.

 Ian W 01 Aug 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
> Is that the reason for the name change? To get Sport England funding, to allow the team to improve it's results? Not sure if that's been said already, sorry, losing track.

No, it isn't.
we already receive sport England funding, just not for the GB Climbing Team. It goes towards various parts of the BMC that will enhance / improve participation. Training / some comps / guidance / inclusion etc etc The name change will not have any effect on Sport England / UK Sport funding.
Post edited at 17:30
 Ian W 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:

The impression that was given by the explanation around the original announcement was basically that Sports England wanted them to generate more cash from sponsorship so that they could give them less in handouts, and that reviewing and updating their branding was a way to help them to do that.


Sport England want NGB's / organisations to be self sufficient, in that if they pulled funding for whatever reason, the organisation would continue. Sport England funding is something that is supposed to enhance and improve things, rather than being the basic source of funds. They dont really want to increase private sponsorship or other forms of income in order to be able to withdraw funding; they just want bodies receiving funding to not rely on it for their very existence.
 munro90 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> The issue is how is that concern focussed to a useful outcome... I support the idea of limiting the scope of Climb Britain to the areas where it may benefit most and use the BMC brand in parallel where it works best.

If the National Council members on here are truly listening, then they should take the above point on board. It seems to have universal support, it addresses many of the criticisms (CB not relatable to hillwalkers, logo that will date, appeal limited to 'growth' area of sport).

Notably the key motivation stated in the various NC rep posts appears to be 'preparing for the future' which is elaborated as appealing to young and/or predominantly indoor climbers. This has merit, but does not necessitate a change to the entire organisation's identity, especially when that change comes with little-to-no consultation of the wider membership who have funded and supported the organisation.

So pause this rebrand, listen to members and non-members with an open mind and an unbiased heart, then make the decision again from scratch.
1
 1poundSOCKS 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> The name change will not have any effect on Sport England / UK Sport funding.

So when the BMC applies for Sport England funding, the number of BMC members is not a factor in the amount of funding requested?
Ann65 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

"Sport England want NGB's / organisations to be self sufficient,"

The BMC was self sufficient during the years before the Sports Council entangled it in its governmental affairs.

 Ian W 01 Aug 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Correct. The number of members per se is not the overriding factor in the level of funding, but the level of participation, and the movement in that level of participation.
 Ian W 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Ann65:
And the BMC / Climb Britain is still "self sufficient", and would be if Sport England pulled its funding. We could still perform all almost all current functions, just maybe not to the level that is possible with SE funding. So we fulfil all those requirements in that we are self sufficient, but can carry out more work in various area with SE money added to the existing income.
Also dont forget the BMC / Climb England also have significant reserves to allow for fluctuations in income to be absorbed without having to resort to panic measures. You can see this, and the level of SE funding compared to other income on the website.
And the sports council didnt "entangle it in its governmental affairs". The BMC applied for SE funding and was successful in obtaining it, and put it to the use(s) intended. Apart from being required to deliver the outcomes agreed to, and provide metrics to prove or otherwise the achievement of the objectives, there is no obligation to SE. Please put your silly conspiracy theories to bed.
Post edited at 20:11
4
 humptydumpty 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> Also dont forget the BMC / Climb England also have significant reserves to allow for fluctuations in income...

Surely you mean "EMC / Climb Britain"
 Ian W 01 Aug 2016
In reply to humptydumpty:

Might have done..........
1
 Bobling 01 Aug 2016
In reply to UKC News:

OK so one week later the initial outrage has died down, as is the wont of internet outrage. What next? Dave T as says:

“We accept the need for wider debate so we’re proposing a period of active engagement in which we will get people together to discuss the issues. This will be done via the next set of area meetings together with some specific gatherings of groups such as clubs and the GB climbing team if there is interest or demand...Climb Britain and the rebranding issue will then go back to the next national council meeting on 17 September for further discussion and a decision on the way forward."

Does this mean the decision is paused pending reconfirmation from the next national council meeting? So the best thing for concerned parties to do is to turn up at the next Area Meeting?
 toad 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Bobling:
I'm waiting for the ukc article hopefully a few incisive questions, not a glossing over.
 1poundSOCKS 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> Correct. The number of members per se is not the overriding factor in the level of funding, but the level of participation, and the movement in that level of participation.

But increased participation could lead to more members, which could lead to more funding. And the name change could promote increased participation? I guess Sport England think that or they wouldn't fund a name change.
 Ian W 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Laramadness:

its a model that does have its attractions..........
Ann65 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

I had a look in Sport England website (March 2014) where it states:

"Today’s announcement means that Sport England is withdrawing a total of £2.8 million of funding from six NGBs (the Football Association, England Golf Partnership, England Netball, England Hockey, British Mountaineering Council and British Rowing) all of which have seen the number of people who play their sport regularly fall. These NGBs need to make significant changes to their approach to growing their sport. Sport England will reinvest funds in the same sports, but outside the NGB."

This sounds a more significant engagement than your comment alludes, "Apart from being required to deliver the outcomes agreed to, and provide metrics to prove or otherwise the achievement of the objectives, there is no obligation to SE."

 Ian W 01 Aug 2016
In reply to Ann65:
Yup, we failed to maintain participation levels according to SE's measurements,despite strongly increasing membership numbers. Some funding was withdrawn. It was all in the relevant NC minutes etc at the time. We didnt lose much though.
There is no "engagement" beyond that. Please stop looking for a back story that isnt there. See the article mentioned above regarding the JMA. Are they now controlled by "Sport Japan"? Or is it that they are trying to find a better way of serving the massive increase in interest and participstion in sport climbing?
Post edited at 21:38
1
 Bobling 01 Aug 2016
In reply to toad:

Oh right, I'd lost track of that - thanks for reminding me.
 1poundSOCKS 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> Yup, we failed to maintain participation levels according to SE's measurements,despite strongly increasing membership numbers. Some funding was withdrawn

But that does seem to contradict this...

> The name change will not have any effect on Sport England / UK Sport funding.
 RupertD 02 Aug 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> But that does seem to contradict this...

No it doesn't. Sport England funding is dependent on national participation levels as measured by Sport England themselves via ongoing rolling telephone polling, it's not dependent on the number of BMC members. In Ian's example the membership went up (i.e the BMC attracted more existing climbers and hillwalkers to join), but the total number of regularly participating climbers and hill walkers in the UK (as measured by Sport England) went down. So the funding was cut.

This is why the rebranding does not result in more funding. Changing the name of the BMC will not make a non-climber get up and go climbing/hill walking or an existing one go more often.
 1poundSOCKS 02 Aug 2016
In reply to RupertD:

> Changing the name of the BMC will not make a non-climber get up and go climbing/hill walking or an existing one go more often.

But surely Sport England spend money to increase national participation levels? Like the £25,000 on the name change. Isn't that their remit?
 Ian W 02 Aug 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> But that does seem to contradict this...

Why does it contradict it?
 1poundSOCKS 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> Why does it contradict it?

Sorry to bang on, really. Just give us our old beloved BMC name back and we'll all shut up!

But to explain. If Sport England fund a name change, won't they hope it will increase national participation levels? And if that happens, and if funding is at least partly based on national participation levels, couldn't the name change lead to more funding?
Ann65 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

OK Ian I'll shut up - my faith in Non-Departmental Public Bodies is less robust than yours.

Final historical comment, showing how times change. The Mountaineering Council of Scotland, back in the 1970s/1980s, asserted in its constitution that, "it was not in the business of promoting mountaineering".
 pebbles 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ann65:

umm...how the hell have they measured this? its a serious question, since climbing isnt a ticketed event...nobodys yet been along to a crag with a clipboard that I'v met , and if they measure it by BMC membership they clearly dont understand the nature of the activity
 Ian Edwards 02 Aug 2016
In reply to UKC News:
The rebranding of the BMC to Climb might well prove to be toxic. A brand name is a corporate name or product we can all identify with. £Climb£ to me does not include walkers, of which over 50% of the BMC membership are. One of the BMC£s own surveys states that 62% of our membership listed hill walking as their main activity£..maybe they should re-brand as Walk Britain! Why on earth they'd want to lump us all under a Climb banner is beyond me. By all means re-brand, and refresh but at least choose something sensible, like Mountaineering England or whatever. This has obviously caused a stir judging by the amount of posts on your websites and other sites£ mostly objecting. If they don£t listen to the membership (and it doesn£t even appear to have even been considered at local area BMC level either) maybe the walkers and mountaineers amongst us will vote with our feet and go elsewhere. Unless someone can give me a good reason not to, I will be lobbying my club to re-consider our £BMC£ membership, which has often been debated over the years!
Post edited at 12:07
 Simon Caldwell 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian Edwards:

> Unless someone can give me a good reason not to, I will be lobbying my club to re-consider our “BMC” membership, which has often been debated over the years!

1. Insurance
2. Access to an extensive hut network
3. Contributing to access work
notyetamunroist 02 Aug 2016
In reply to UKC News:

I was a member of the Austrian AC for many years as it was cheaper but eventually joined BMC - primarily to put a few quid in to an activity I have enjoyed for much of my adult life (I'm 61 btw)

My view fwiw would be to retain BMC as the primary identity and use 'climb britain' as a brand for those interested in indoor and competition climbing. A compromise that hopefully

1. Keeps us oldies happy
2. preserves 'face' for the officers
3. SE think public money well used.
4 ..and it might well work with the plastic & competition audience

Finally, if there ever were to be a legal change in name (I'm not advocating this, there's enough of a row going on) how about 'The Mountaineering Council" Seems suitably august for a serious members-based organisation with mountaineering interests both in these islands and far beyond these shores. Many other UK bodies never bother with the British/English bit eg The FA, The RFU,The LTA etc - and of course the Alpine Club. A mate of mine was asked in a hut which alpine club he was a member of and grandly replied "THE Alpine Club" He's a quiet modest bloke but he did enjoy that.


 FactorXXX 02 Aug 2016
In reply to notyetamunroist:

Many other UK bodies never bother with the British/English bit eg The FA, The RFU,The LTA etc

The FA and RFU are the governing bodies for England only...
1
 Ian W 02 Aug 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> Sorry to bang on, really. Just give us our old beloved BMC name back and we'll all shut up!

> But to explain. If Sport England fund a name change, won't they hope it will increase national participation levels? And if that happens, and if funding is at least partly based on national participation levels, couldn't the name change lead to more funding?

They didn't fund a name change. The name change came as part of the recommendations of the work they did.
2
 Ian W 02 Aug 2016
In reply to pebbles:

> umm...how the hell have they measured this? its a serious question, since climbing isnt a ticketed event...nobodys yet been along to a crag with a clipboard that I'v met , and if they measure it by BMC membership they clearly dont understand the nature of the activity

Sport England conduct research into participation, based on phone surveys....not exactly scientific, but thats their methodology.
2
MooseMouse 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Bobling:

> Does this mean the decision is paused pending reconfirmation from the next national council meeting? So the best thing for concerned parties to do is to turn up at the next Area Meeting?

There is another choice.

It is clear that many people are not happy about the BMC's lack of consultation.

I've read glibe, dismissive comments from several national council representatives on social media. Therefore, the latest commitment to revisit the decision at the next Management committee does not really fill me with confidence.
The statement even starts deceptively as it states that the BMC 'didn’t quite anticipate the level of interest there would be in our Climb Britain announcement.' Clearly they did anticipate the backlash, otherwise they would not have tried to preempt the announcement with the 'Climb Britain: the facts' news item.

As Dave wrote, 'We remain firmly behind Climb Britain and believe it is the right choice for the future of the organisation;'

Even now, after the backlash, this statement is hardly in the spirit of openness and consultation.

One option to restore the confidence of the membership is to put the choice of changes to the vote at the AGM in April.
e.g. stick with the BMC, change to Climb Britain, partially change to climb Britain, or change to some other idea discovered during the consultation.

I think a vote at AGM is now the only option. Unlike other decisions the BMC has previously been bounced into, the rebranding is not at all time critical. There is plenty of time before April within which to consult, and maybe also for those in the Climb Britain camp to convince the skeptical that change is really required.
After the AGM, the BMC, or Climb Britain, could then move forward without the acrimony associated with a forced rebranding. Everyone will have had their say and we can move on.

How about we call for an EGM motion that refers the rebranding decision to an AGM?
e.g. stop all rebranding plans for November. Vote on the options for change(or no change) at the AGM in april?

There are easily hundreds of unhappy members who commented on the BMC facebook page, so I think that getting 100 signitures required and a quorum for the EGM would not be a problem.
Such a motion would win an EGM ballot because who would vote against giving the membership their chance to have a say!

If we wait until the national council decision in September it will not be possible to call for an EGM before the November launch and the change will be a done deal and hard to reverse.
If we act now with an EGM, this will represent the lowest cost to the membership, despite the costs associated with an EGM.




 Ian W 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ann65:

> OK Ian I'll shut up - my faith in Non-Departmental Public Bodies is less robust than yours.

Ann, I suspect you significantly overestimate my faith in NDPB's!........I've had many dealings with this type of organisation over the years, and it usually involves a lot of gritted teeth on my part.

> Final historical comment, showing how times change. The Mountaineering Council of Scotland, back in the 1970s/1980s, asserted in its constitution that, "it was not in the business of promoting mountaineering".

Indeed. The MCofS are now ahead of the BMC / CB in promoting mountaineering and sport / competition climbing. They have even employed a sports development officer for a number of years. We live in interesting times........

3
 1poundSOCKS 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> The name change came as part of the recommendations of the work they did.

Not sure what that means?

But whether they funded a name change or not, that doesn't change my main point. Now I'm not sure if you don't understand or you're deliberately avoiding the question?
 Tyler 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian Edwards:

> Unless someone can give me a good reason not to, I will be lobbying my club to re-consider our £BMC£ membership, which has often been debated over the years!

Because access issues are the single biggest threat to climbing and walking and we need a strong representative body to tackle these issues. The BMC is such a body, it has organised itself into a professional outfit with clout that govt bodies appear to be prepared to deal with. Obviously if you think funding for this should be cut as punishment for changing the name then go ahead and persuade your club to leave.
2
 lithos 02 Aug 2016
In reply to notyetamunroist:

thats cos we invented those games - The Open is another example (golf if you are not aware Was The BMC the first national body - doubt it.

Many other UK bodies never bother with the British/English bit eg The FA, The RFU,The LTA etc - and of course the Alpine Club. A mate of mine was asked in a hut which alpine club he was a member of and grandly replied "THE Alpine Club" He's a quiet modest bloke but he did enjoy that.

 GrahamD 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

My worry in all this is that by actively chasind SE funding you have to actively encourage increased participation in order to secure the funding. Which is not something I think should be part of the BMC remit.
 climbwhenready 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> Sport England conduct research into participation, based on phone surveys....not exactly scientific, but thats their methodology.

Oh, I thought they were going off BMC membership. So they did phone surveys and concluded that no-one participates in climbing nowadays? There was me thinking you can't go into a city pub any more without someone loudly talking about their "bouldering".
 Ian W 02 Aug 2016
In reply to climbwhenready:

Yes, we couldnt really understand why phone surveys would be good, as a lot of people were at work or , er, out climbing / walking etc.......but that was their preferred method....
1
 Ian W 02 Aug 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

Indeed, Graham, its a strange one. What the rebrand is really part of is trying to make the BMC more appealing to those already participating, but who are not aware of / dont think the BMC is for them. There has been a massive take up by climbing walls of new climbers, so I agree its not for the BMC / CB to chase non climbers and hope to get them to take it up, but the organisation does need overhauling in order to get those newbies to understand more about climbing in general, and give them something beyond the walls.......
2
 Howard J 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> What the rebrand is really part of is trying to make the BMC more appealing to those already participating, but who are not aware of / dont think the BMC is for them. There has been a massive take up by climbing walls of new climbers...

Fine, use Climb Britain as an identity within the BMC umbrella if you think it will attract them. Don't rebrand the entire organisation and risk alienating the majority of hill users who don't consider themselves to be "climbers".

 Andy Say 02 Aug 2016
In reply to notyetamunroist:

> if there ever were to be a legal change in name (I'm not advocating this, there's enough of a row going on) how about 'The Mountaineering Council"

The problem with 'THE Mountaineering Council' is that sort of puts Scotland and Ireland in the second rank.
 Ian W 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Howard J:

Not a bad idea - as per a previous post of mine, there have been several structures considered for the GB Team and how it fits into the BMC / CB.
1
Ann65 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

Interesting times indeed, but “…there is a different tradition from those ideas with which we are presented every day.”
 Ian W 02 Aug 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

I think I've forgotten what the question was?

I'm not trying to be evasive; rather as direct as possible. But i'm also trying to encourage people to do a bit of research rather than rely on some convenient hearsay.........

1
 1poundSOCKS 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> I think I've forgotten what the question was?

You're not the only one.

The question is hopefully simple. Is it possible the change of name from BMC to Climb Britain will increase participation in climbing? I would think Sport England are hoping this will happen.

And is it possible that a increase in participation will result in more funding from Sport England?
 leon 1 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:
If Sport England did a phone survey just who the hell did they call ?
Has ANYONE on this forum, outside of the BMC/Climb offices, been contacted ? and if so what questions/suggestions were put to them ?
Post edited at 17:07
 whenry 02 Aug 2016
In reply to leon 1:

No, but I don't want random phone calls from a government quango interrupting my day.
 leon 1 02 Aug 2016
In reply to whenry:
Quite. Why would most people even pick up the phone from an unknown number to do a 'Survey ' ?
But where did Sport England get the numbers to call from ? did they just call random numbers in the hope of getting a climber/mountaineer /walker on the other end ?
Or slightly more seriously did the BMC provide them with members details ?

This may all be irrelevant since so far on these posts, no one seems to have actually admitted to having been contacted by Sport England. All very strange .
Post edited at 17:28
 Ian W 02 Aug 2016
In reply to leon 1:

I have no idea who they called, but they seemed to give very random results; i.e at one point they recorded a reduction in paricipation in mountaineering / walking / climbing just as the weather improved in the springtime. Personally i would have thought there would be greater participation in better weather. Survey results will be no doubt available from the bmc / cb, or sport england themselves.
 Andy Say 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian Edwards:
> I will be lobbying my club to re-consider our £BMC£ membership, which has often been debated over the years!

Now, as a regular attendee of BMC AGM's, why am I not surprised that a club might seek to disaffiliate from the BMC whilst still getting the benefits of it's work.

I'll be contentious now. Climbing/Mountaineering Clubs need to realise that they are very 'last century'. It's walls that are the new 'Clubs'. Unless there is a radical shift in mindset by many clubs they will become simply a version of the YHA taking bookings from geriatrics for 'the hut'.



Rant over.
Post edited at 17:49
1
 GrahamD 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Andy Say:


> I'll be contentious now. Climbing/Mountaineering Clubs need to realise that they are very 'last century'. It's walls that are the new clubs.

You certainly are that. I don't notice climbing walls taking beginners to the crags or organising lift shares. And as far as I can see its the crags that need the BMC. As self financeing commercial enterprises the walls don't need the BMC

 Ian W 02 Aug 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

a-ha! yup, simple enough.
No, of course a name change wont increase participation itself. It is part of a strategy to make the bmc more relevant to tomorrow, and to allow for the increase in participation that is ongoing now to not adversely affect the mountain environment.
The increase in participation is being seen in climbing walls; a relatively safe and controlled environment. Where the bmc / cb expertise comes in is in offering a way to retain these new participants in the "outdoor acrtivities" arena. Sport England are probably disappointed that participation in sport has declined post 2012 Olympics, despite massive publicity and investment in facilities. They are i suspect, keen that future investment is not wasted. And this will apply to all sports.
And yes, its a virtuous circle - if participation increases, and the bmc / cb can be seen to be helping these new participants to access all branches of the sport / hobby / pastime in a safe manner while protecting the environment, then yes, further funding is a possibility. With the proviso that the rules for each funding round change........
right, now i've answered loads of questions, I'm off to claim my rightful position as Climb Britain PR person.

And dont forget its olympic announcement day tomorrow. Fingers crossed!!


1
 Ian W 02 Aug 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

Many, many, climbing walls take people outdoors, and do it very well. And you are right that walls dont need the bmc, and the bmc doesnt need walls, but it is much better when they work together. Which is happening via the ABC.
1
 Andy Say 02 Aug 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
> You certainly are that. I don't notice climbing walls taking beginners to the crags or organising lift shares.

Then you are not looking. Many walls take beginners to the crags. We are now living in an age, I'm afraid, where people 'buy a course' rather than serving a 'club apprenticeship'.

> And as far as I can see its the crags that need the BMC.

? Do you mean 'Climbers who want to climb on the crags need the BMC'? If so why would any self-respecting club withdraw from the BMC?

And if the walls isolate themselves from the BMC how do we get future generations introduced into climbing in an 'understanding' way?

Edit. Changed my mind. Rant continues.

Just how many Clubs have a membership with an average age below 50?

Just how many clubs have established relationships with local walls and offered support and development?

Just how many 'beginner's meets' are widely advertised (I exclude Uni 'Fresher's Week' cattle markets from that).

Climbing Clubs were the traditional bedrock of British climbing but times have changed. If Clubs wish to remain relevant to modern British climbing then they need to change as well.

And how do we progress if every now and again Clubs decide they 'don't need' the BMC whilst still reaping the benefit of the work the BMC does?


My rant might just be over now.....
Post edited at 18:10
 pebbles 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> I have no idea who they called, but they seemed to give very random results; i.e at one point they recorded a reduction in paricipation in mountaineering / walking / climbing just as the weather improved in the springtime.

well theres the answer...all the climbers werent hanging around to answer phone calls, they were out climbing or walking!

seriously, I really suspect the telephone survey is an outdated tool simply because many people, myself included, are so fed up with cold callers we put the phone down as soon as we realise its not a call we are expecting.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> But to explain. If Sport England fund a name change, won't they hope it will increase national participation levels?

Otherwise, WTF are they playing at...? Other than just making all sporting bodies have monolithic names.
 Andy Say 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

Here you go. http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=646986&new=8360166#x8360166

If you want to talk about clubs rather than the BMC
In reply to Ian W:

> They didn't fund a name change.

So we get to fund it?

No thanks.
1
 GrahamD 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

Firstly, I don't know why a club would go as far as leaving the BMC. Ours won't. We hold beginners meets and our average age is under 50.

If commercial operations like walls are taking beginners to crags and benefiting from BMC access work / crag volunteers etc, then surely they should be the source of extra funding for the BMC ?
 Andy Say 02 Aug 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
Sorry. I could have sworn that you had posted that your club might leave the BMC.

It was in fact - 'Unless someone can give me a good reason not to, I will be lobbying my club to re-consider our £BMC£ membership, which has often been debated over the years!' posted by Ian Edwards.
Post edited at 19:25
 kevin stephens 02 Aug 2016
In reply to UKC News:
I'm concerned that the proposed name change to Climb Britain will greatly diminish the authority of the British Mountaineering Council in the very good work done in negotiating and maintaining access agreements

It's all gone quiet from the BMC recently, maybe waiting for the area meetings? However in the meantime some response on specific concerns like mine above would be very helpful
 Ian W 02 Aug 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:

> So we get to fund it?

> No thanks.

I actually laughed out loud when I read this post.
1
 Ian W 02 Aug 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

The ABC work alongside the BMC / CB, the 2 organisations submit a "joint bid" to Sport England.
In reply to Ian W:

Would you care to explain why?
 Ian W 02 Aug 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:

Hint; i'm in severe danger of repeating myself. But here goes.

Nobody was asked to come up with a new name for the BMC.

B-focussed (or be-fuddled in your case.......) were asked to come up with a strategy to make the bmc more "relevant" for the future. The amount of money paid to them was agreed in advance, to be funded by Sport England, no matter what the outcome. i.e whether or not a name change was part of the outcome. As Dave T explained at the NC meeting , he was a bit taken aback when a name change was suggested, as it had not been something he was expecting.

No BMC funds were used for this exercise. It was funded by Sport England (just in case it wasnt clear enough in the previous paragraph).

Please read through the article on the BMC website, and all the prededing threads before asking any more questions, or I shall have to ask Andy Say to have another rant, and it will undoubtedly see the swift demise of my fledgling PR career.
3
 toad 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:
The BMC didn't pay for the exercise, but the actual physical costs of implementing the changeover - stationery, printing, web rebuild etc. I'm guessing we're paying for that.

In reply to Ian W:

I've read all that, and understand who paid for what and why. But, as toad says, if you are going to change our name, it will have A FUTURE COST.

> and it will undoubtedly see the swift demise of my fledgling PR career.

Frankly, that would probably be for the best, I think. Laughing at people is not 'winning friends and influencing people'.
In reply to Ian W:

In reply to Ian W:

Okay, maybe it's time I took some time to make my point as cogently as I can.

Rebranding is a dangerous exercise. You take an existing, established and recognised brand and throw it away, and replace it with something new. You hope that this rebranding will somehow magically improve your brand awareness, possibly because that's what a rebranding consultant told you.

The problem is that magic doesn't happen. You have to work very hard to establish the new name amongst those who already know your brand. And you have to advertise/publicise your new brand to those who you are trying to reach for the first time. Marathon/Snickers. Opal Fruits/Err... Royal Mail/Consignia.

So, how does a new name mean that you will suddenly reach a new audience? Does the new name better reflect the activities you engage in? From the responses I've seen here, on the BMC's facebook page and elsewhere, it seems the majority of members who have commented don't feel that the new identity represents them.

Replacing a brand has simple costs; yes, all promotional material have to be redesigned, even if you rely on natural wastage to simply use up exising stock before you order new. Design isn't free.

If you want to improve the awareness of your organisation, and what it does, then why not simply promote what your organisation does, using the established identity? Really, how does a new identity help increase recognition? If you want to engage with wall climbers and competitive climbers, engage with them. At the wall. If your existing engagement campaigns aren't working, find out why, and improve those campaigns.

My fear is that this will be an entirely pointless exercise, that will not improve awareness, or, more likely, reduce and dilute awareness by discarding an existing identity. And the rebranding exercise will consume time and money that could be better spent promoting the existing identity.

If you want to create a brand to promote competitve climbing (which is, after all, what Sport England are really about: remember, they really only support grass roots engagement in Olympic sports, to serve as a feeder to UK Sport), then maybe 'Climb Britain' is an appropriate brand under which to do it. But please, don't rebrand the entire British Mountaineering Council to do it. Babies and bathwater comes to mind.

It's a shame that genuine concerns such as mine have been laughed at and derided by officers of the BMC.
 leon 1 02 Aug 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:
Thank you for that post I think it sums up what so many of us feel
Post edited at 20:59
Frogger 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

A strategy to make the BMC more "relevant" in the future? Relevant to whom? The question assumes it isn't already relevant to its key audiences - those being hillwalkers, mountaineers, climbers, clubs, and the general membership. No meaningful consultation took place, so I can't see how anyone can have any evidence that the BMC has lost its relevance.

And what do they mean by "in the future"? That's a bit vague, isn't it? What exactly does this future bring that requires the BMC to try to become more relevant? Has it even been defined?

One other point - if this marketing firm was asked to come up with a strategy, where is it? Has it been published? Can we see it? Please don't tell me that the depth of the strategy is just a superficial logo change....
 Ian W 02 Aug 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:

Its the fixation with the name that is the main concern; its a very very small part of a much larger "project".
I dont necessarily agree with you, but can see where you are coming from with all of your post except for the last paragraph, which is just plain wrong.
sport England are not about competition per se, although climbing / mountaineering is different to a lot of sports in that it can be practiced at a good level that requires fitness and training without having competitions where there is a winner , runner up etc. Team sports, for eg, are not much without the objective of winning.
they dont serve grass roots engagement in olympic sports, and if they were a feeder to UK sport, surely there would be a link between the two. There is no such link at the moment, sadly, hence we get some decent funding for coaching / athlete development up to national team level, at which point Sport England say bye bye, and UK sport say sorry, you arent an olympic sport. So the team is funded partly by the BMC (with some small, gratefully received outside sponsorship), but mainly by the competitors themselves. Far too much by the competitors themselves.
The genuine concerns have not been laughed at and derided by the officers of the BMC (show me an example if i'm wrong, i can only see replies from Rupert Davies (officer) and Andy Say and I (volunteer activists, i suppose), who only got exasperated at having to repeat the same things over and over again. Look back at some of the posts on this forum and then tell me who has been laughed at and derided. A lot of these concerns were considered before deciding to go with the Climb Britain thing, and they are more than aware that this is going to be difficult. This has been a drawn out 9 month process, and involved somewhat more than, as has been suggested, paying £25k to be told that climbers climb things. It wasnt even £25k, where did that number come from?
Whatever the eventual outcome, i am convinced of one thing; the status quo was not an option. Just look at the UIAA / IFSC if you want an example of what happens to an organisation that wont evolve and try to stay ahead of the curve.
And no, none of this will stop me from trying to get a better deal for the GB Climbing Team, or from criticising the BMC officers for their (in my view) lack of resources allocated to the team and comps in general, as I feel the contribution to the BMC is undervalued.
Regards,
Ian walton (Chair, BMC / CB comps committee).

6
Frogger 02 Aug 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Incidentally, the phrase "become more relevant in the future" sounds to me like marketing speak for "you need to look a bit more modern/trendy"
 lithos 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

>. It wasnt even £25k, where did that number come from?

from a Mr D Turnbull of Manchester in his post 26 July

 1poundSOCKS 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> now i've answered loads of questions

You've said a lot...
 JJ Spooner 02 Aug 2016
In reply to UKC News:

https://www.change.org/p/british-mountaineering-council-stop-the-bmc-from-r...

As the creator of the above petition I have notified the BMC and as a result have engaged in a series of emails with the CEO Dave Turnbull.

As this petition was signed by a community of people i intend to share these emails or a summary of them in the near future.

Thanks, Jon
 whenry 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Jonathan Spooner:

Thanks Jon, it would be good to have more detail about his thoughts on the process and whether he's been receptive to the depth of feeling on this.
 kevin stephens 02 Aug 2016
In reply to Jonathan Spooner:

I'm with you on opposing the BMC changing its name but see no point in signing a petition. It is incredibly bad form to publish emails without the third party's explicit consent. PLEASE DON'T DO THIS. However if Dave agrees with sharing the emails it would be good to read his views. It would be far better if Dave were to post an update of his views and answers to specific points directly on here.
 kevin stephens 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:



> And no, none of this will stop me from trying to get a better deal for the GB Climbing Team, or from criticising the BMC officers for their (in my view) lack of resources allocated to the team and comps in general, as I feel the contribution to the BMC is undervalued.

The overwhelming membership of the BMC will be diametrically opposed to you on this. Your support of the rebranding in this context smacks of a very small tail trying to wag a very large dog

1
In reply to Ian W:

> Its the fixation with the name that is the main concern; its a very very small part of a much larger "project".

If it's such a small part, why has it been the focus of the messages sent to members?

Don't you think the members ought be be informed and consulted on this larger project? I've not seen a great deal of detail to date.

> who only got exasperated at having to repeat the same things over and over again.

You're not the only one who is exasperated.

> And no, none of this will stop me from trying to get a better deal for the GB Climbing Team, or from criticising the BMC officers for their (in my view) lack of resources allocated to the team and comps in general, as I feel the contribution to the BMC is undervalued.

Is that what members want their subs to fund, though?

I was treasurer for the film society at university. We showed films, and members paid their subs for that. One of my friends and fellow committee member put forward a proposal to spend a large part of our budget to buy equipment to make films, because that's what he wanted to do. We took a vote. I voted against it, not because i didn't like the idea of making films, but because it wasn't what the members had paid their subscriptions for.
Post edited at 01:08
In reply to Ian W:

> It wasnt even £25k, where did that number come from?

And you suggested we weren't reading and taking in what was being said...

> At the start of the process we secured some addition money (around £25k) for a branding agency to take a detailed look at how people perceive the BMC and how we might be able to improve our image to connect with new people and stay relevant in the modern age.
 Ian W 03 Aug 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:

> And you suggested we weren't reading and taking in what was being said...

Ah, my bad. I'd forgotten about the split between the different parts of it - i had in my head the total amount.

If it's such a small part, why has it been the focus of the messages sent to members?

I suspect because its the headline, its been picked up on by the outrage brigade without looking behind that headline. Mind you, there is a lot to take in, and i think its accepted that the message could have been communicated better.
4
MooseMouse 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Jonathan Spooner:

HI Jonathan, why not use your list of contacts to organise an EGM as I suggested above.

http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=646638&v=1#x8359804

I suggest that the motion for the EGM vote would be on a cessation of rebranding until the AGM has voted on the rebrand choices in April, e.g. remain as the BMC, change to Climb Britain, or change to something else.

I think such a vote is easy to win at EGM, given the strength of feeling about the lack of consultation.
Unlike your petition, a vote at EGM would be binding on the BMC and all members would then get their say, with plenty of time for all members to lobby or be lobbied.

The EGM would need 100 signitures, should be no problem with the 550 on your petition. I think it needs 60 days notice, so that would see a binding decision placed on the BMC by October, before the 'Climb Britain' launch in November.

If we wait until the National council meeting in September, then an EGM is not possible until after the launch date, and by then it will be too late to back track.

The national council had 9 months to consult and did not. Based on the flippant and dismissive social media posts I have see from national council reps, I have no confidence that the reps will take into account the feelings of the members.

If you choose this route, I can help you with secure bulk emailing, please don't share your email list online.
I'm sure new media can also be used to engage all those who have commented negatively on facebook and twitter.

There are several ex national council(and the former man com) and former executive committee representatives(folks who have inside knowledge of how the process is supposed to work) who are upset by the continued attitude of the BMC.

I'm sure an EGM campaign is an easy win and the best way to make sure the membership has its rightful say.
1
 toad 03 Aug 2016
In reply to MooseMouse:
I'm still to be convinced about inflicting the cost of an egm on the BMC. However dismissive terms like "outrage brigade" are making me reconsider.
 Andy Say 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> Please read through the article on the BMC website, and all the prededing threads before asking any more questions, or I shall have to ask Andy Say to have another rant, and it will undoubtedly see the swift demise of my fledgling PR career.

Moi????? I've ranted?



MooseMouse 03 Aug 2016
In reply to toad:

There is train of thought that says the BMC will see that it is so likely to lose an EGM vote that it would first commit to putting the rebranding to a vote at the April AGM itself, in order to stave off the threat of no confidence that losing the EGM would bring.

After 72 years it is hardly the case that they can claim the decision is time critical and needs to be made by September, which is the usual form for bouncing the BMC into these type of decisions.

A commitment for a vote at AGM would save us all the cost of an EGM and is the right thing to do.
It is not the membership that would be wasting the cost of an EGM. The blame lies firmly at the door of the the executive and national council for inexplicably failing to consult the membership.

When you look at the BMC facebook pages, the comments are overwhelmingly negative, and there are many.
In those circumstances, when those who have governed have clearly got it so wrong, I think the only thing to do is to allow and membership a proper vote.
 Andy Say 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> And no, none of this will stop me from trying to get a better deal for the GB Climbing Team, or from criticising the BMC officers for their (in my view) lack of resources allocated to the team and comps in general, as I feel the contribution to the BMC is undervalued.

Well, that's what you volunteered to do so good luck with that; National Council and the Exec. will always have the final say on resource allocation.

 Ollie Keynes 03 Aug 2016
In reply to MooseMouse:

It's not that hard to ask people these days. Eg. here's an online poll referendum: http://goo.gl/v4f82G
Should the BMC rebrand to Climb Britain?
Yes/No
1
MooseMouse 03 Aug 2016
In reply to olliebristol:
Easy yes, binding, no, and rightly so! With an external online poll how do you even ascertain if those voting have the right to vote, e.g. are members?

The governance documents of the BMC set out how democracy works and if we want to be effective then those are the procedures we must follow. Anything else is just hot air and a distraction from what must be done to achieve anything.
Post edited at 09:54
 Offwidth 03 Aug 2016
In reply to olliebristol:
Please no more online polls we have 2 on UKC and two elsewhere already. The democratic process for dealing with BMC decisions is described ad nausium in this thread: call an EGM (expensive) or get rapid agreement for a delay of the rebrand and discussion at the AGM (relies on the exec being proactive on this very soon) or trust the BMC will listen to area meets in September (some would say risky).

As an old fogie trad climber I will be reluctantly supporting the rebrand but will seek to reduce the areas covered under the Climb Britain name. I don't give a shit about logos. I am depressed that in such a 'traditional' minded organisation, membership resistance to change in identity has come as such a big surprise to the exec. I do think more of the vast majority of climbers who are not currently members might be better encouraged to join with the new name (partly as the BMC name can be still used to recruit where more appropriate). In the end if we want to fund the good work the organisation does in the face of worsening issues (especially an increasingly cash strapped national park structure) and ensure the new generation of wall bred climbers understand access, conservation and safety issues outdoors, growth is important (if we don't pickup competition climbers someone else surely will).

People need to wake up to realities and look at the portfolio of crags we already own (to retain access) and the partnerships we have entered into to ensure best practice with conservation minded landowners like the NT and RSPB. This work needs funds despite the fabulous extensive voluntary efforts made across the country. Yet, I bet if we did a different poll here, less than one in ten UKC posters are BMC individual members (club members get their fees at barely above cost so are not really adding significantly to the organisations finances). I'm glad to be an individual member, but more importantly to have volunteered thousands of hours to the organisation and driven tens of thousands of miles expenses free and am angry some would threaten to leave the BMC because branding is above this vital work we do. I took my ethos from JFK... support an organisation I beleive in and ask what I can do for it (not what it can do for me).
Post edited at 10:24
1
MooseMouse 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> As an old fogie trad climber I will be reluctantly supporting the rebrand but will seek to reduce the areas covered under the Climb Britain name.

As somebody with a number of year's experience of these things, IMHO, this is the game of brinkmanship that the BMC have been playing. The outcome you will 'reluctantly' support was likely their originally intended outcome. The BMC have pushed an extreme outcome(e.g. Climb Britain across the organisation), and then will back peddle to their desired position(Climb Britain sub brand), with the subservient membership 'reluctantly' agreeing to the compromise position.

This is hardly good form for a democratic membership organisation and is the reason an EGM is required to restore the primacy of the membership.

There is an easy way to avoid the cost of the EGM, and that is for the BMC to commit to putting the decision to the April AGM now. It they are fully committed to hearing the voice of the membership then a vote at AGM is a no brainier. Yes, it would require some work to lobby the membership in the interim about the need for change. However, this would be less work than fighting the accusation of lack of democracy that certain members, or ex members, will accuse them of for the next 10 years.

Can anyone explain why they would be opposed to the idea of a vote on the rebranding at AGM?

 Ramblin dave 03 Aug 2016
In reply to MooseMouse:

> As somebody with a number of year's experience of these things, IMHO, this is the game of brinkmanship that the BMC have been playing. The outcome you will 'reluctantly' support was likely their originally intended outcome. The BMC have pushed an extreme outcome(e.g. Climb Britain across the organisation), and then will back peddle to their desired position(Climb Britain sub brand), with the subservient membership 'reluctantly' agreeing to the compromise position.

Or possibly they got shown a wizzy presentation by the branding consultancy and got caught up in the excitement. They're a bunch of climbers, not the Bavarian bloody Illuminati.
MooseMouse 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:
> Or possibly they got shown a wizzy presentation by the branding consultancy and got caught up in the excitement. They're a bunch of climbers, not the Bavarian bloody Illuminati.

Bunch of climbers, yes, but I think you underestimate at least some of the executive. I am not implying that the process I described has ever been discussed, just the way things are done.
Post edited at 10:43
 fred99 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

Yes they do - for a price.
As for actually teaching newbies to lead - that is only done after a lot of money has been handed over. Remember once someone can lead outside the wall isn't going to extricate any more instruction money from them.
As for actually educating them on how to behave in the countryside !!

Why is it that pretty well all the problem areas I read about on UKC involve sport climbing venues - parking across gates/access, changing in view of houses, urinating (and defecating !) in view as well, rubbish left strewn about.

The above bad behaviour is one of the first things newbies are told about at clubs - probably because with clubs the idea is to get out into the countryside first, and climb second; whereas wall instructors go to climb, and it just happens to be in the countryside.

Maybe I'm being cynical, and I do know wall instructors who do educate regarding the countryside, but the wall-bred climber seems less caring regarding the countryside and others compared to the persons who went out to enjoy the countryside and then became a walker/climber.
 Chris the Tall 03 Aug 2016
In reply to MooseMouse:

> There is an easy way to avoid the cost of the EGM, and that is for the BMC to commit to putting the decision to the April AGM now.

First of all, wait until the next round of area meetings. Go along, have your say, but also listen to what others have to say. Give the Exec and National Council chance to meet and discuss the situation based on the feedback.

And if you still feel aggrieved then get a motion together for the AGM (50 signature required IIRC).

But in the meantime, chill out, go climbing and enjoy the summer !
MooseMouse 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:
> Or possibly they got shown a wizzy presentation by the branding consultancy and got caught up in the excitement. They're a bunch of climbers, not the Bavarian bloody Illuminati.

If they were just 'caught up in the excitement' then the exec;

i) would not have felt the need to publish the 'Climb Britain: the facts' news item.
ii) would have quickly been brought back down to earth by the strength of feeling expressed online.

Additionally, I think it is obvious that the calibre of consultant at B-focussed(b-fuddled) and Thinkfarm(Thinkfart) precludes them from any kind of convincing whizzy presentations.

The BMC have demonstrated a level of intransigence that goes way beyond a 'bunch of climbers' 'caught up in the excitement'.

One could be excused from thinking that there is a motive for the rebranding to which the membership(and possibly the national council) have not been privy.

There is a simple way to stop this accusation and griping from afflicting the BMC for the foreseeable future.

Simply put the decision to the AGM in April. If the BMC will not agree to this, then we need to ask why and demand a vote via an expensive, but necessary, EGM
Post edited at 11:25
MooseMouse 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:
> First of all, wait until the next round of area meetings. Go along, have your say, but also listen to what others have to say. Give the Exec and National Council chance to meet and discuss the situation based on the feedback.

> And if you still feel aggrieved then get a motion together for the AGM (50 signature required IIRC).

> But in the meantime, chill out, go climbing and enjoy the summer !

By the time of the AGM, the new brand will have been in place for 5 months and it will be too late to do anything about it as too many resources will have already been wasted to revert, and so the vote would not a fair competition between the existing name and any proposed new brands.

I don't think you ever served on the executive committee, so you will not have been privy to the goings on therein, but, from your experience with national council, can you suggest why the BMC are reluctant to put the decision to the AGM, given the strength of feeling? After all there is no time constraint, the name of the BMC has been fine for 72 years and a couple more months will not hurt. This short wait seems like a small price to pay to be sure the membership are on board and are not being disenfranchised.

So what is your objection to a vote at AGM, seems like a win-win.
Post edited at 11:34
 toad 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

If the timetable for the rebrand was also paused until the AGM, I think a lot of people could chill out and enjoy the summer rather more
In reply to Ian W:

BMC used to have a Sports Development Officer for the South West. Funded by the SW section of whatever the Sports Council was called in the 1990's. Ian Parnell was his name
In reply to GrahamD:

Actually we (The Climbing Works) work with the BMC and Thornbridge Outdoor to take people to th crags. It is called Indoors Out.
 Chris the Tall 03 Aug 2016
In reply to MooseMouse:

> can you suggest why the BMC are reluctant to put the decision to the AGM, given the strength of feeling?

You are right I didn't serve on Exec, just NC and a couple of working groups - enough experience of BMC meetings to know these things can be difficult to arrange at short notice.

Yes it does seem like a fait accompli, and with hindsight it might have been better handled by making it a proposal that could have been ratified by the AGM. But CTC changed to CyclingUK in the same manner so perhaps that was used as a template, plus issues such as registration of domain names etc.

I'm pretty sure that one way or another there will be a vote at the AGM, I have no objection to that. When you say the "BMC are relunctant" who do you mean exactly - Dave T, the Exec, the NC ? You haven't given them the chance to consider the feedback from the UKC forum, nor (far more importantly) the feedback from the area meetings. In fact you are making demands for action before the area meetings have even had chance to discuss the issue.

> So what is your objection to a vote at AGM, seems like a win-win.

So what is you objection to this being discussed at area meetings before calling an EGM ?
In reply to fred99:

Don't forget that Craig y Forwen was banned for some of the reasons you list well before climbing walls existed in the modern form.
Sutt 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Stuff area meetings
one member one vote
it's called DEMOCRACY
 Xharlie 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> ...or from criticising the BMC officers for their (in my view) lack of resources allocated to the team and comps in general...

I think that's my biggest gripe about this whole affair. Personally, I couldn't care less about the name or the brand or the logo or the colours but the change signifies something very worrying: that the BMC is accepting a mandate to govern competitive climbing.

Why should it?

If you asked members the real question, whether they want their subs and membership fees to pay for "resources" allocated to teams and competitions for the benefit of a vanishingly small number of competitive climbers, I expect that the overwhelming majority would say no.

Those people may not be opposed to competitive climbing and may even support the BMC's cooperation with some governing body for competitive climbing.
 Xharlie 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> You are right I didn't serve on Exec, just NC and a couple of working groups - enough experience of BMC meetings to know these things can be difficult to arrange at short notice.

Why was it done at short notice? The organisation is 72 years old. Was there some sort of impending doom?

> Yes it does seem like a fait accompli, and with hindsight it might have been better handled by making it a proposal that could have been ratified by the AGM. But CTC changed to CyclingUK in the same manner so perhaps that was used as a template, plus issues such as registration of domain names etc.

This domain name excuse is absolute bollocks. Domain names are more or less free at 12-20 £ a YEAR. If that was a real concern, the proposed names could just have been registered and held in reserve until the decision was made democratically. The loss of a few quid when the decision was rejected outright (as it would have been, I suspect) would have been tolerable.
In reply to Xharlie:

>that the BMC is accepting a mandate to govern competitive climbing.

I am sorry but have you been asleep for the last 27 years? The BMC accepted that mandate when they organised the first ever World Cup (May 1989).

The debates were had back then including one at the Alpine Club in 1992 or 1993, published in the AC Journal in 1993.


 Ian W 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

> I think that's my biggest gripe about this whole affair. Personally, I couldn't care less about the name or the brand or the logo or the colours but the change signifies something very worrying: that the BMC is accepting a mandate to govern competitive climbing.

> Why should it?

> If you asked members the real question, whether they want their subs and membership fees to pay for "resources" allocated to teams and competitions for the benefit of a vanishingly small number of competitive climbers, I expect that the overwhelming majority would say no.

> Those people may not be opposed to competitive climbing and may even support the BMC's cooperation with some governing body for competitive climbing.

Vanishingly small? - The ABC has >400 members, and not all climbing walls are members. Most walls host bouldering leagues etc, and attract large numbers of climbers. I think you'll find the number of climbers (at all levels) who compete regularly numbers in the tens of thousands.
MooseMouse 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> So what is you objection to this being discussed at area meetings before calling an EGM ?

1) By the time of the next area meetings, the rebranding will be a fait accompli, there will not be the requisite 60 days with which in to call for an EGM before the stated branding go live in November. After the go live, it would not be a fair competition to vote on the name change, due to the costs and derision associated with changing back.

2) I have no confidence that the national council will reflect the opinion of the membership because;
i) They felt no need to even notify the area meetings via meeting agendas that the consultation was taking place
ii)They felt no need to consult the areas about the decision, with most voting without any consultation and all voting without any notification of the chosen name.
iii) The glib, dismissive comments from several national council representatives on social media.

3) Contradictory messages from the BMC that indicate that the decision is a fait accompli, e.g.
i) that they expected no negative response, yet pre published the 'Climb Britain: the facts' news item
ii) used new speak to suggest that the response to the rebrand was mixed when in fact it is overwhelmingly negative.
iii) Dave has stated that they have already made their mind up, despite no consultation with members, To quote Dave T, 'We remain firmly behind Climb Britain and believe it is the right choice for the future of the organisation;' - this is fundamentally backwards. The 'BMC' should be remain firmly behind the wishes of the membership!!!!!!

4) Making the decision at National Council in September does not relieve the membership of the suspicion(widely stated) that the rebrand is for reasons other than those the BMC can lobby the membership about.

I could go on, but I don't really feel I should have to!

The proposed EGM motion is reasonable safegaurd to take in the circumstances. Anyone without an ulterior motive will see a membership vote at AGM as the only way the membership can now be sure that the leadership are reengaged with representing their wishes.

The BMC 'leadership' should preempt a call for an EGM and commit to putting the decision to a vote at AGM. Remember, after 72 years there is no time constraint that forces an earlier decision in September. Making a de

It is the right thing to do and will save us all the cost of the EGM.
MooseMouse 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Additionally, what Xharlie says regarding domain names.

As part of the consultation process between now and February(allowing notice for the motion at AGM), names that are felt to be a goer could be registered cheaply, and there will not be many alternatives. A sub committee or the exec could easily fulfill this role.

These can then be put to vote at AGM, along the 'BMC', 'Climb Britain' safe in the knowledge that those names are available for use if they win without paying a ransom to a domain name sniper.
 Ian W 03 Aug 2016
In reply to fred99:

> Yes they do - for a price.

> As for actually teaching newbies to lead - that is only done after a lot of money has been handed over. Remember once someone can lead outside the wall isn't going to extricate any more instruction money from them.

> As for actually educating them on how to behave in the countryside !!

> Why is it that pretty well all the problem areas I read about on UKC involve sport climbing venues - parking across gates/access, changing in view of houses, urinating (and defecating !) in view as well, rubbish left strewn about.

> The above bad behaviour is one of the first things newbies are told about at clubs - probably because with clubs the idea is to get out into the countryside first, and climb second; whereas wall instructors go to climb, and it just happens to be in the countryside.

> Maybe I'm being cynical, and I do know wall instructors who do educate regarding the countryside, but the wall-bred climber seems less caring regarding the countryside and others compared to the persons who went out to enjoy the countryside and then became a walker/climber.

Thats exactly why the bmc / cb need to get to these people and educate them. Mind you (old fogie bit following), I dont need to be told to not block access, drop litter etc etc by a wall instructor / the bmc etc. Its just called having some respect for things........
MooseMouse 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:
> I'm pretty sure that one way or another there will be a vote at the AGM, I have no objection to that. When you say the "BMC are relunctant" who do you mean exactly - Dave T, the Exec, the NC ? You haven't given them the chance to consider the feedback from the UKC forum, nor (far more importantly) the feedback from the area meetings. In fact you are making demands for action before the area meetings have even had chance to discuss the issue.


I am deliberately being vague in my use of 'BMC' as I don't want to point fingers, or make this a personal fight.

By BMC, I generally mean, the BMC leadership.

The 'leadership' had plenty of time to consider the feedback, because they already considered the membership response before the press release, otherwise why would they have pre-published the 'Climb Britain: the facts' news item? They expected a reaction, but none the less did not care to consult. That smells like a fait accompli to me and frankly it stinks!
Post edited at 12:53
 Steve nevers 03 Aug 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Climb Britain isn't very distinct. If fact Sport Englands own setup Climb2020 is very similar, and I wouldn't be shocked to hear that the same branding team are responsible for both, BMC is an established 'branding', dropping that for a weaker name would be a step back in my mind.

Also a lot of climbing walls DO run events taking their members outside, often to over-used crags in fact. Which then loops back into access. 'sigh'.
 toad 03 Aug 2016
In reply to MooseMouse:
It was the "climb Britain: the facts" article ( and timing of the release of that article) that really made me start to doubt any intention to engage meaningfully.
 Xharlie 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

Do the walls pay anything or contribute to the BMC? If so, that's grand. The BMC can have their money in place of mine... and the subs of the hill-walkers, ski-mountaineers, alpinists and trad. climbers who vote with their feet.

If not, you're asking hill-walkers, ski-mountaineers, alpinists and trad. climbers to pay subs for "resources" for competitive climbers. That sand-pit belongs to the walls. They're commercial ventures that make a profit from it, let them have it, let them run it and let them pay for it.

Tens of thousands? Not a chance. Whenever I've seen competition nights down at walls or bouldering leagues or whatever, it's never populated by thousands or even hundreds. It's usually populated by punters "having a go", mostly, plus a very small core of people - usually the same people - who actually climb competitively.
MooseMouse 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Chris the Tall:
By our reckoning, there are getting on for a thousand contactable members who object, both to the rebranding and to the lack of consultation that has led to it.
Add to that the numbers that can be swelled by a simple social media and club campaign.

If anything is a fait accompli it is that an EGM will win and restore the primacy of the membership in this decision.

The BMC 'leadership' should now take the initiative, commit to putting the rebranding to an AGM vote and save the membership the cost of an EGM
Post edited at 13:04
1
 fred99 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> Its just called having some respect for things........

Unfortunately the current attitude seems more to be "I've paid, so I can do what I want".
In reply to fred99:

As I already pointed out, lack of respect leading to access issues, is not a new thing. The cars that blocked Millers Dale did not belong to wall bred climbers - they belonged to 40+ (age) climbers of many years standing that were at Ravens Tor.
 alastairmac 03 Aug 2016
In reply to UKC News:

In addition to everything else the new logo is hideous. Tory party circa 1985. It has all sorts of flag waving right wing associations. It looks like the BMC has been taken over or bought out.
 Offwidth 03 Aug 2016
In reply to MooseMouse:

One of my maxims is don't suspect conspiracy when cock-up is a possibility. I see no clear prior hidden agendas but there is good reason to see one developing now (to avoid a sudden direct reversal)... hence I agree its best the exec should delay changes to a post AGM vote (or an expensive EGM is likely). The market detail could then be provided in good time: there is good reason to expect young indoor climbers could be put off by the BMC name and attracted by Climb Britain (which could be a very useful partnership brand alongside the BMC ... to focus on red socks and bobble hats).

In a way the BMC is a bit like some political parties with the membership probably a lot more simplistically idealistic and less pragmatic than the BMC committee volunteer reps (and some of those I know have political agendas that may not ideally match the avaerage BMC membership). However, the democratic NC vote (whom I would certainly trust on a majority) was overwhelming and a few volunteers in the know have said already they were initially sceptical but were convinced. So if there is dishonesty, I'd believe that more of the marketing company (my partner, Moff, was surveyed but there was no mention of anything like a name change for the organisation... was this really a different survey or was the survey misrepresented?).
1
In reply to Xharlie:

> This domain name excuse is absolute bollocks. Domain names are more or less free at 12-20 £ a YEAR.

Indeed. I think I paid £1.99 for .co.uk and £3.49 for .com name registration.

The only time that URLs become expensive is if they have already been snapped up by a domain-name agency, with a view purely to sell on to parties who might actually want to use them. Then they'll charge you an arm and a leg to buy the domain name you want off them.
In reply to Ian W:

> The genuine concerns have not been laughed at and derided by the officers of the BMC (show me an example if i'm wrong

> I actually laughed out loud when I read this post.

You're still doing it:

> the outrage brigade

Dismissing those with genuine reservations as 'the outrage brigade' counts as derision in my book.
 Andy Say 03 Aug 2016
In reply to fred99:

> Unfortunately the current attitude seems more to be "I've paid, so I can do what I want".

So let's NOT engage with them?

I had a memorable couple of hours at Pot Hole (Three Springs) Quarry a few years back. A group was there with three dogs running loose. They'd lit a fire in the middle of the quarry. They had a ghetto blaster going. They were top-roping routes with ropes simply passed around trees. But it was OK. Because they were proper climbers. Not an instructor in sight.

Groups under instruction may get up some peoples noses on the crag but they do NOT indulge in the behaviour you are concerned about.
 Offwidth 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Sutt:

Our national democracy is representative (one person one vote to elect people to vote on the issues) and the BMC democracy is way more open to individuals already. Voting on everything wastes time and money better spent on the organisational aims.
1
 fred99 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

As I would like to point out, it's getting worse.
It is also mainly happening at the shorter, easier access locations, rather than those requiring effort to get to, and mainly sport locations.
This is not down to the old fogey trad climbers, but the "I want it now" lazy "persons" who unfortunately we get to suffer.
If they were members of clubs then I hope they would soon be thrown out.
Walls/Instructors however are quite content to take their money.
We also get too many instructors who seem to believe that because they have paid for access to a particular location means that they get to control anywhere in it that they choose, again because they feel they have "hired the crag". With instructors that have such a mindset, it's not surprising that we get new climbers following suit.
1
 Offwidth 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

Most big walls will have more than a hundred involved in comps across the year and there are a good number of them now so the nearest order of magnitude of annual indoor competitors will likely be 10, 000 (I'd suspect just below that due to overlaps) and so the number overall who have engaged in comps will be in the tens of thousands. A lot of people also score themselves in comps without entering.
1
 Offwidth 03 Aug 2016
In reply to fred99:
As Graeme says, the evidence on the crags shows problems from the old and experienced through to the young (who at least have youthful exhuberance and a better excuse not to know). The biggest problems I've had when directly and politely challenging bad behaviour is with experienced climbers. The best reaction arguably from apologetic stoned kids who were throwing bottles at Woodhouse Scar. Most experienced climbers, including a good number of affiliated club climbers (allowing for the minority with genuine affordability issues), don't really care about the BMC and its good work or the individual membership would be ten times bigger at least.
Post edited at 13:33
1
 Andy Say 03 Aug 2016
In reply to fred99:

> It is also mainly happening at the shorter, easier access locations, rather than those requiring effort to get to, and mainly sport locations.

Examples?

> This is not down to the old fogey trad climbers, but the "I want it now" lazy "persons" who unfortunately we get to suffer.

Well that is society My contention for years has been that we owe the upsurge of bolted routes in the UK to the Maggie Thatcher era of 'there is no such thing as society' and the acquisitive, yuppy, ethic.

> Walls/Instructors however are quite content to take their money.

Your issue is? Someone offers to buy a service and you should turn them way?

> We also get too many instructors who seem to believe that because they have paid for access to a particular location means that they get to control anywhere in it that they choose, again because they feel they have "hired the crag". With instructors that have such a mindset, it's not surprising that we get new climbers following suit.

And any instructor with such a mindset should be named and shamed. There are very, very, very few situations where access to a crag is paid for.

And, lastly, the instructors you deride are also climbers first and foremost. If they aren't then they shouldn't be instructing.
 Andy Say 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> The best reaction arguably from apologetic stoned kids who were throwing bottles at Woodhouse Scar.

You've met them too!
In reply to fred99:

> This is not down to the old fogey trad climbers, but the "I want it now" lazy "persons" who unfortunately we get to suffer.

You have obviously never been to Stanage on a weekend at anytime over the last 30 years. Old fogey trad climbers, as well as young upstart trad climbers are the ones that used to park all along the bottom that have led to the raised borders on the roads.

And I don't remember the Pass being much better in the mid 1980's and early 1990's. Bloody sport climbers, what are they like!

But hey, let's just blame all of the newbies as looking in the mirror might show something that you don't want to see.
 Steve nevers 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> A lot of people also score themselves in comps without entering.

Lot of people abuse this system to hell as well.
 Andy Say 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> You have obviously never been to Stanage on a weekend at anytime over the last 30 years. Old fogey trad climbers, as well as young upstart trad climbers are the ones that used to park all along the bottom that have led to the raised borders on the roads.

You had a car to park?!?

I had to get there in a cardboard box. AND sleep in it.

 Michael Hood 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Andy Say: Cardboard box?

We had to cut tree down with blunt table knife, chop it up with our bare hands, chew the chunks into pulp and make t'cardboard by pressing t'pulp onto road whilst dodging articulated lorries...

Etc.

 Marek 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> Most big walls will have more than a hundred involved in comps across the year and there are a good number of them now so the nearest order of magnitude of annual indoor competitors will likely be 10, 000 (I'd suspect just below that due to overlaps) and so the number overall who have engaged in comps will be in the tens of thousands. A lot of people also score themselves in comps without entering.

On the basis of those numbers, it still suggest that comps are of interest to <10% of the people the BMC purports to represent. Probably a lot less depending on how you define "hillwalkers". I think the concern for many is not whether the BMC supports or even governs comps, but that its efforts in that direction should reflect roughly the level of interest amongst its members.
 SenzuBean 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> Voting on everything wastes time and money better spent on the organisational aims.

Nobody is suggesting or asking for "voting on everything". The ask is to vote on something that has never happened before in 72 years, or to at least have the representatives represent the views of their constituents - which are overwhelmingly that the proposed rebrand is a bad idea.
 Andy Say 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Marek:

> I think the concern for many is not whether the BMC supports or even governs comps, but that its efforts in that direction should reflect roughly the level of interest amongst its members.

Marek,

Rest assured, they do. Have a look at the breakdown of expenditure published annually by the BMC. Competitions are small beer compared to overall expenditure.

Andy
 GrahamD 03 Aug 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> representatives represent the views of their constituents - which are overwhelmingly that the proposed rebrand is a bad idea.

I don't think there is any evidence for that. If its like any other walk of life I'd expect the overwhelming feeling of the membership will be of antipathy.
1
 Marek 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

> Marek,

> Rest assured, they do. Have a look at the breakdown of expenditure published annually by the BMC. Competitions are small beer compared to overall expenditure.

> Andy

It's not just money spent, it's also time and effort, particularly of the exec itself and the other "official" parts of the org.
 Marek 03 Aug 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> I don't think there is any evidence for that. If its like any other walk of life I'd expect the overwhelming feeling of the membership will be of antipathy.

I think you are right, but I also think you meant "apathy".
 GrahamD 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> But hey, let's just blame all of the newbies as looking in the mirror might show something that you don't want to see.

Increasing participation puts on significantly more pressure, however. If the pressure is being caused by commercial organisations like walls then its fair to ask those organisations to help fund the upkeep. Equally, it doesn't seem sensible for the BMC, faced with increasing access pressure, to have a policy of actively increasing numbers of participants.
MooseMouse 03 Aug 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
> I don't think there is any evidence for that. If its like any other walk of life I'd expect the overwhelming feeling of the membership will be of antipathy.

take a look at the BMC facebook page, the BMC area pages, grough news item, the BMC news pages etc. The comments are overwhelmingly negative, especially in regard to the lack of consultation.

Easily enough people without apathy for a successful EGM.
Post edited at 14:26
 Ian W 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Marek:

> It's not just money spent, it's also time and effort, particularly of the exec itself and the other "official" parts of the org.

Be careful here with the distinction between comps and the team. Much comp expenditure is funded by Sport England (YCS for example, the BMC's single biggest event). Also a lot of the officers cost (Rob Adie) is covered by Sport England. The team itself is BMC funded. The total annual cost to the bmc of the team is less than the refurb. of the Glenbrittle hut.
If you are advocating that the money given to comps should be a proportional share of the total bmc income, i'm right behind you.

2
 SenzuBean 03 Aug 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> I don't think there is any evidence for that. If its like any other walk of life I'd expect the overwhelming feeling of the membership will be of antipathy.

Then let's get the evidence. A direct vote, or submissions to local reps.
MooseMouse 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> The total annual cost to the bmc of the team is less than the refurb. of the Glenbrittle hut.

Just for info, this is not quite a fair comparison;
i)The team are an annual cost, the GBH has been refurbished by the BMC once in over 50 years, and should be good for decades to come.
ii)The GBH had monies in reserve, through income generated, not so for the team, who do not generate income.

iii)The GBH benefits thousands of members. The expenditure on the BMC team benefits, errr, the team.
 Ian W 03 Aug 2016
In reply to MooseMouse:

> Just for info, this is not quite a fair comparison;

> i)The team are an annual cost, the GBH has been refurbished by the BMC once in over 50 years, and should be good for decades to come.

> ii)The GBH had monies in reserve, through income generated, not so for the team, who do not generate income.

> iii)The GBH benefits thousands of members. The expenditure on the BMC team benefits, errr, the team.

Its not quite fair, but makes a point I could have used many similar examples. I would also argue that he publicity generated by the team reflects beneficially on the whole of the bmc.

5
MooseMouse 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> Its not quite fair, but makes a point I could have used many similar examples. I would also argue that he publicity generated by the team reflects beneficially on the whole of the bmc.

I guess fair is the wrong word, as really, it is like comparing apples and oranges!
Bellie 03 Aug 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Just reading an article on one of my design blogs. Its about Canada, but hey - you see some similarities here...

"We last looked at the work of Vancouver-based design firm Hulse & Durrell when it came up with a rather dull new logo for Swimming Canada earlier this year, which was most noteworthy for its massive red maple leaf. One of the firm's recent projects has been reshaping the name, identity and brand strategy for Equine Canada, which has as its mission being the voice of equestrian sport in Canada. The privately-held organization had, according to the design firm, seen "engagement and value drop year over year for a decade." Yikes, time to rebrand. Don't forget the red maple leaf!

Actually, the outfit wisely decided to first change its name, since research revealed that nobody knew what the heck "equine" meant. It took ten years to figure that out? Be that as it may, the new name is the less obscure Equestrian Canada, along with the inevitable French version, Canada Équestre."



It would see the verb noun label is a global thing - along with the marketing folks, saying "oh nobody can understand what you are about so you must change your name to something simple." Lets have none of these words like Council, Association etc.


 humptydumpty 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Bellie:

Horsey Canada should do the job. As for anyone who knows what "equestrian" means, but can't equate "equine" with it...
 Andy Say 03 Aug 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> If the pressure is being caused by commercial organisations like walls then its fair to ask those organisations to help fund the upkeep.

Upkeep? Of what?

>Equally, it doesn't seem sensible for the BMC, faced with increasing access pressure, to have a policy of actively increasing numbers of participants.

I recall the cavers had, at one point, a policy of 'negative growth'. They wanted less people going down them caves. But, given the number of posts on UKC about fat couch potatoes and their drain on the NHS, shouldn't the BMC be encouraging a less sedentary lifestyle?

 Offwidth 03 Aug 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

Re-read the post I responded to and my other posts. BMC democratic structures exist but some people seem to be unclear what they are. Just as the decision was made democratically (by elected NC reps) it can be reversed democratically if that is what the members who are prepared to vote want.
 Offwidth 03 Aug 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
The BMC does have guidance for groups in the green guide: this would include avoiding busy sections of crags on busy days, parking considerately and not littering, route hogging etc. If only some of our independent adventure climbers took the same advice. In the meantime, while Stanage Popular is rammed, most worthwhile ordinary no star routes on Peak grit crags are if anything suffering from lack of traffic and many of them are getting overgrown. In the mountains it's even worse.,
Post edited at 16:03
 GrahamD 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

> Upkeep? Of what?

Has path maintainance, crag management in some places or tidy ups passed you by ? plus extra access resources as the pressure on existing resources causes more confrontation with land owners
 Mike Nolan 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

I appreciate you taking the time to reply Ian, and I've resisted the temptation to reply to this thread so far, but I have tried to keep up!

Would you care to explain how the publicity generated by the team (How much publicity do they actually generate, realistically...?) benefits me, as a member of the BMC?

Cheers!
Mike
 GrahamD 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Its not about guidance though, is it ? its asking for a contribution from those benefiting from the BMC's work. If we are to be believed this is more and more commercial set ups like walls.
 Mick Ward 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

> Well that is society My contention for years has been that we owe the upsurge of bolted routes in the UK to the Maggie Thatcher era of 'there is no such thing as society' and the acquisitive, yuppy, ethic.

That's an interesting point of view. My notion of bolting is a) making best use of rock unsuitable for trad, b) creativity in getting the best routes from what's available, c) giving to others. The weighings would be roughly equal, I think.

Often cleaning takes far more time than bolting. Sometimes it's pretty harrowing - dodging loose blocks, etc. You're got to be pretty motivated to keep at it and, certainly for me, a lot of that motivation is altruistic.

I'm mildly left-wing and have always abhorred Thatcherism. A friend, who's done a lot of cleaning/bolting with me is both more left-wing and more altruistic. Are we anomalies?

Certainly the onset of bolted routes coincided with Thatcherism but I see this as coincidental, not causal. I'd certainly agree though that routes are increasingly being viewed as commodities (e.g. the 6c on the left) rather than entities (e.g. Left Unconquerable). I suspect this is partly a trickle-down from Thatcherism, with its dehumanising emphasis on reducing everything to commodities.

Mick

 Offwidth 03 Aug 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

I agree but think this is best done voluntarily. People are certainly entitled to run a business and the walls I've worked with as a BMC volunteer have always been very supportive to the organisation and membership and run well behaved groups outdoors. Several wall owners and outdoor centre owners I see at meets are BMC members and have volunteered and donated extensively for the organisation.
 Andy Say 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Mick Ward:
> Certainly the onset of bolted routes coincided with Thatcherism but I see this as coincidental, not causal.

Mick,

'I want it and I want it NOW'. The philosophy of the era. If I can't climb it as it exists then I will alter it so I can. Chipedeedoodah.

And don't you think that really reflects on our approach to the environment. 'I don't give a shit if it causes damage - I want to do it'. The impact of placing a bolt fades into insignificance compared to the footprint of the latest, local, 'retail park'. BUT it is an indicator of how people view their environment. 'I want it and I want it NOW'.

I would agree that the motivation behind much bolting in the UK is to climb stuff that 'cannot be climbed' otherwise (sections of Malham / Kilnsey etc.) but the motivation behind some bolting in the UK (Portland / Robin Proctor's etc.) is more 'I can't be arsed to get good enough to deal with this'.

I can vividly recall standing on top of a crag in Yorkshire with a group of students explaining that whilst the bolts they were looking at paled into insignificance in environmental terms compared to the new Halifax HQ in the valley below it was very sad as it indicated that 'one of us' had a similarly acquisitive view of the environment. And it was a grit crag!

Can you tell I felt, and feel, strongly?
Post edited at 16:32
 1poundSOCKS 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Mick Ward:

> I'd certainly agree though that routes are increasingly being viewed as commodities (e.g. the 6c on the left) rather than entities (e.g. Left Unconquerable).

Not quite sure what you mean by commodity, aren't they all commodities in a sense? Which isn't necessarily a bad thing is it? But remembering the name depends more on the route to me, than whether it's bolted or not. I tend to remember the names of classic sport routes I've done (not many) and forget the names of average trad routes. And I would guess that classic trad routes in this country tend to be more attainable to more people, the classic sport routes tend to be very hard, for me at least. So people on average will tend to recall more classic trad routes they've done.

The BMC guidebooks (and definitive guidebooks generally) do a really good job in keeping the history alive, I was flicking through the Peak Limestone North guide the other night just for that reason. Which does make the decision to abandon a historic name such as the "BMC" seem odd.
 toad 03 Aug 2016
In reply to humptydumpty:

> Horsey Canada should do the job. As for anyone who knows what "equestrian" means, but can't equate "equine" with it...

Or as they used to call it, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
 Mick Ward 03 Aug 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> Not quite sure what you mean by commodity, aren't they all commodities in a sense? Which isn't necessarily a bad thing is it?

What if Vector - or Cenotaph Corner - just became 'the 5c'? Their names positively reek with history. 'The 5c' is just another commodity, like the purple route with pink spots down at the wall that will be pulled down and re-set tomorrow.

OK, we've not got there yet with trad routes (thank goodness) but, with sport, I think there really is a tendency just to cite the grade - even with classic routes, with stature ('the 7b, the 7c+'). I've heard it again and again and often it makes me cringe - even though I must have done it myself on the odd occasion!

For me, citing the route in terms of its grade is a quick verbal shorthand (I kind of 'I can't be arsed with the name') which ignores other aspects and thus commoditises it.


> The BMC guidebooks (and definitive guidebooks generally) do a really good job in keeping the history alive, I was flicking through the Peak Limestone North guide the other night just for that reason. Which does make the decision to abandon a historic name such as the "BMC" seem odd.

Totally agree. The history is a big part of what makes our little activity so interesting, so different. When Brown read Steve Dean's biography of Colin Kirkus, 'Hands of a Climber', he loved it and was appropriately respectful to a preceding generation. He didn't just think, 'Oh it was that VS on Cloggy...'

Mick

P.S. Meant to reply to Andy Say first and typically have muffed it. Training calls. Later!

 1poundSOCKS 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Mick Ward:

> What if Vector - or Cenotaph Corner - just became 'the 5c'?

Nobody would know what route you were talking about?

> 'The 5c' is just another commodity

Or to be more accurate, the tech grade!

> I think there really is a tendency just to cite the grade - even with classic routes, with stature ('the 7b, the 7c+')

Can't say I agree at all. I regularly chat about Malham & Kilnsey routes with friends down the wall, and we all use the route names. If somebody talks about a route I don't know, I ask about the grade, the same I would about a trad route.
 SenzuBean 03 Aug 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> Nobody would know what route you were talking about?

> Or to be more accurate, the tech grade!

> Can't say I agree at all. I regularly chat about Malham & Kilnsey routes with friends down the wall, and we all use the route names. If somebody talks about a route I don't know, I ask about the grade, the same I would about a trad route.

Have you lot been paid to derail the thread to keep attention away from the rebrand?
In reply to GrahamD:

You mean walls should let Team members in for free, or allow Team training sessions at walls for free (despite disruption to normal money making activities), or allow Team management to use our facilities and resources for free. Or be the 1st wall to sign up to be a Gold supporter of the Team. Or not charge the BMC mileage to attend meetings. Or sponsor staff members who are on the Team.

Well my wall (The Climbing Works) has done all of this and more. And I know that other walls are very supportive (eg The Arch gives a significant amount of cash to the Team). And NICAS and the ABC haveprovided funding for the Team in the past.

So (some of) the commercial organisations are contributing. Could they do more, almost certainly yes. Have the BMC solicited that support. Well, no they haven't but that is a seperate (although related) issue.
 1poundSOCKS 03 Aug 2016
In reply to SenzuBean:

> Have you lot been paid to derail the thread to keep attention away from the rebrand?

I think hearts and minds have been won already.
 Graham Hoey 03 Aug 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

The BMC guidebooks (and definitive guidebooks generally) do a really good job in keeping the history alive, I was flicking through the Peak Limestone North guide the other night just for that reason.


You've just made my day

Thankyou

 Mick Ward 03 Aug 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> Can't say I agree at all. I regularly chat about Malham & Kilnsey routes with friends down the wall, and we all use the route names. If somebody talks about a route I don't know, I ask about the grade, the same I would about a trad route.

Well, looks as though standards are being maintained in Yorkshire - and I'm glad! But go elsewhere...

Mick

 Ian W 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

We've been talking recently; support both ways and all that. finding common ground etc......
 Ian W 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Mike Nolan:
Over the past few years, as results get better and climbings profile increases, exposure in the non climbing media has expanded rapidly. Shauna is now the "standard bearer" and has appeared numberous times on TV and radio. And national print media, most recently the guardian. Sianagh Gallagher , our paraclimbing captain is on thr Lorraine Kely show this week, and has also had a TV programme devoted to her and her achievements. A couple of years ago Ian Dunn and Molly Thompson Smith appeared on Blue Peter, coaching the presenter Radzi - who kindly agreed tp present the prizes at the junior BLCC's for us.
There isnt a direct monetary value to this publicity, but it shows climbingin general, and by association the BMC, as the representative body for climbers in a good light. It then allows access to more people in the world of climbing.
I'm pretty certain it doesnt benefit YOU directly, but it draws attention to the BMC, and therefore benefits all 80k + members as part of the bigger picture. It may eventually lead to some commercial sponsorship for the team, which will benefit the team certainly, as the competitors themselves are the greatest source of funding, and exec and national council may get a rest from having me bang on incessantly about resoucing the team
1
 Ian W 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

> Do the walls pay anything or contribute to the BMC? If so, that's grand. The BMC can have their money in place of mine... and the subs of the hill-walkers, ski-mountaineers, alpinists and trad. climbers who vote with their feet.

> If not, you're asking hill-walkers, ski-mountaineers, alpinists and trad. climbers to pay subs for "resources" for competitive climbers. That sand-pit belongs to the walls. They're commercial ventures that make a profit from it, let them have it, let them run it and let them pay for it.

> Tens of thousands? Not a chance. Whenever I've seen competition nights down at walls or bouldering leagues or whatever, it's never populated by thousands or even hundreds. It's usually populated by punters "having a go", mostly, plus a very small core of people - usually the same people - who actually climb competitively.

I didnt mean tens of thousands per comp........
look at the results / events page at a few random wall websites, see how many people entered their comps, and then extrapolate ........
 Mick Ward 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

Hi Andy,

First off, I've always meant to thank you for your comment on Tabula Rosa. 'A truly character deforming experience.' We must be two out of a very small club indeed who have taken that unforgettable walk on the wild side.

Chipedeedoodah. How did Paul get away with that one? How come Manic Strain didn't get filled in? I've always imagined that Paul just got a bit over-excited. Manic Strain is, I agree, bringing it down to your level - even if that level was F8a in the 1980s.

We had climbing ruthlessness in the 60s, 'the murder of the impossible'. We had it in the 70s - undeclared practice/tension/aid. In the 80s, climbing just had to split. You couldn't inch forward into F7b+/7c/8a going ground up on trad gear, taking groundfalls. For me, the onsight/flash/redpoint divisions are more honest than the, "Well I did it... after a fashion."

Have only been to Robin Proctors once - on a bitterly cold day when we pretty much ticked the crag just to keep relatively warm - and wasn't able to stand back and judge whether it would have been better as a trad crag. I gather it was bolted by someone with impeccable trad/sport credentials who (I would think) felt he was doing it for the greater good.

Portland. I can think of about 10 crack lines which would take good gear and, in my opinion, should never have been bolted. I can think of another, quite minor crag, with solid rock, good belays on top and (generally) little protection; personally I'd have left this as a soloing/headpointing/top-roping venue. So - another 10 - 20 routes. And there are a few (less than 10) routes chipped - which I totally disagree with. That's still less than 40 routes out of almost 2,000 - less than 5%.

A bolted grit crag in Yorkshire - surely wrong!

Our damage as climbers being relatively less than others'? Well, we should have much, much higher standards.

Maybe I'm missing something though. The late Sheridan Anderson memorably wrote, 'Thou shalt not wreck the place'. He was right.

Mick






Removed User 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

Just back up there a minute. Why does increased exposure in the media benefit 80k+ members as part of some sort of 'bigger picture'? There is a serious case for saying less climbers and less expansion of the sport is a good thing in light of the limited resource we have in terms of crags.
 Ian W 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Removed User:

The expansion of the sport is happening, like it or not. The best thing is to be able to educate the newcomers in the ways of conservation, etiquette etc. Although as posted by others above, many experienced climbers could do with "refresher courses". Stuff such as TV exposure can help get the bmc / climb britain name out there as something with the authority to try to ensure good behabiour / mimimise damage to the environment.
1
 wbo 03 Aug 2016
In reply to Removed User: I am immediately distrustful of any argument that aims to limit access to a sport, activity, whatever that has provided some of the highlights of my life. You might need to walk a bit more but I am sure there's space for everyone

Removed User 04 Aug 2016
In reply to wbo:

It's not about limiting access, it's about asking whether we should be actively promoting it wholesale.
 GrahamD 04 Aug 2016
In reply to Removed User:

Indeed
 lucozade 04 Aug 2016
In reply to UKC News:

Saw a feature just on sport climbing making the 2020 Olympics on Sky News. Nice to see the BMC logo...
Ann65 04 Aug 2016
In reply to UKC News:

To help make sense of all this try reading Robert Townsends book, "Up The Organisation". They seem to develop a life of their own.
 1poundSOCKS 04 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> The expansion of the sport is happening, like it or not. The best thing is to be able to educate the newcomers in the ways of conservation, etiquette etc. Although as posted by others above, many experienced climbers could do with "refresher courses". Stuff such as TV exposure can help get the bmc / climb britain name out there as something with the authority to try to ensure good behabiour / mimimise damage to the environment.

That's just lots of speculation (again), from somebody advocating the expansion of the sport and more exposure, which would make it more likely to get commercial sponsorship for the team, which is your stated priority. I'm not sure we should bother to take your opinion seriously.
 Simon Caldwell 04 Aug 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> The BMC guidebooks (and definitive guidebooks generally) do a really good job in keeping the history alive, I was flicking through the Peak Limestone North guide the other night just for that reason.

Peak Limestone North? That's the one that doesn't have the history anymore isn't it?
 Offwidth 04 Aug 2016
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I guess someone making Graham feel happy for his contribution was too much for you. There's plenty of history in the guide so if you want to moan again about FA lists, at least be specific.
 1poundSOCKS 04 Aug 2016
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> Peak Limestone North? That's the one that doesn't have the history anymore isn't it?

No, it does.
 Andy Say 04 Aug 2016
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> I am sorry but have you been asleep for the last 27 years? The BMC accepted that mandate when they organised the first ever World Cup (May 1989).

I used to have four panels from that comp. wall in Leeds.

 Rob Parsons 04 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> ... Although as posted by others above, many experienced climbers could do with "refresher courses".

'Refresher courses' for what?

And, even if we accept that premise (which I don't) - what has it got to do with the overall subject being discussed?
Post edited at 12:16
 Andy Say 04 Aug 2016
In reply to Mick Ward:

Mick - 'Tabula Rosa'? I was intrigued by what the guide described as a 400' limestone route. I recall dragging myself on to the penultimate stance and getting through two Woodbines before calming down.

I started doing a point-by-point response but deleted it, Mick. Climbing HAS been 'commodetised' over the last 30/40 years. One thing that is increasingly evident is that fewer folk 'gain experience' through trial and error and peer learning and more 'buy experience' by seeking instruction and formal tuition. Get 10 years experience condensed into a week. I think it is no accident that this trend started at the very time when material acquisitiveness and self-interest was given the moral green light by 'society' (although, of course, 'there is no such thing as society').

In global terms the placing of a bolt is a minuscule impact. But I wholeheartedly agree with you that we should have higher standards. And my sorrow at the time was that the upsurge in bolting, and particularly retro-bolting, was a reflection of an 'I want it and I want it now' mind-set that suggested bad times for the planet.

Andy

Anyway. Time to leave this thread to get back to 'I love the BMC but 'Climb Britain' sucks......

 Simon Caldwell 04 Aug 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Does it? Where? We were at one of the crags a couple of weeks ago and I tried looking up the history but couldn't find it.
I'm not doubting you, just my own competence
 1poundSOCKS 04 Aug 2016
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> I tried looking up the history but couldn't find it.

Sorry, we must be talking about different guidebooks, it's everywhere and really obvious. And I don't have it with me.
 Simon Caldwell 04 Aug 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

We must be then. Ah well.
 Ian W 04 Aug 2016
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> That's just lots of speculation (again), from somebody advocating the expansion of the sport and more exposure, which would make it more likely to get commercial sponsorship for the team, which is your stated priority. I'm not sure we should bother to take your opinion seriously.

Then we shall agree to disagree; my priorities are different to yours. Everyone has an opinion, everyone is free to disagree with anyone else's opinion.
We shall see what happens!
 Ian W 04 Aug 2016
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> 'Refresher courses' for what?

> And, even if we accept that premise (which I don't) - what has it got to do with the overall subject being discussed?

For those who seem to have forgotten how to treat our natural resources (see Graeme Aldersons post above, inter alia). Apologies for straying off topic; I was just answering a question put to me.
 Mick Ward 04 Aug 2016
In reply to Andy Say:

Agree that climbing - and an awful lot else - is being commeditised, monetised and lots of other undesirable iseds - which is why I fear that the dreadful 'Climb Britain' seems like a greasing of the ever steepening, ever more slippery slope.

Re experience, Ken Wilson always used to bang on about serving your apprenticeship, to gradually build up experience. As always, he was right on the nail.

Mick
 Mick Ward 04 Aug 2016
In reply to Ann65:

> To help make sense of all this try reading Robert Townsends book, "Up The Organisation". They seem to develop a life of their own.

Superb book - one of the best ever about management.

Mick
 rogerwebb 04 Aug 2016
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> >that the BMC is accepting a mandate to govern competitive climbing.

> I am sorry but have you been asleep for the last 27 years? The BMC accepted that mandate when they organised the first ever World Cup (May 1989).

> The debates were had back then including one at the Alpine Club in 1992 or 1993, published in the AC Journal in 1993.

That decision may or may not have been the right one 27 years ago when competition climbing was a very small minority activity.
Now that it is perhaps not a mass participation sport but a strong expanding and increasingly commercial one that decision should maybe be revisited.

Can a single organisation continue to govern an indoor competitive sport and be a representative body to a number of loosely related non competitive outdoor activities?

It's a question to which I am not sure of the answer.
 Rob Parsons 05 Aug 2016
In reply to Ian W:

> For those who seem to have forgotten how to treat our natural resources (see Graeme Aldersons post above, inter alia). Apologies for straying off topic; I was just answering a question put to me.

Thanks for the reply; and no problem. By 'refresher courses', I was imagining you might have been thinking about something else - but clearly not.

Thanks.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...