BMC Motion of No Confidence - Bob Pettigrew Speaks!

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Neil Foster Global Crag Moderator 22 Mar 2017
After several weeks of ‘online silence’ from the proponents of the Vote of No Confidence in the Executive of the BMC, a document written very recently by the mover of the motion, Bob Pettigrew, has just emerged.

I have no idea if Mr Pettigrew intended to engage with the debate which has been ongoing on both UKC and UKB, but I do feel it is important that his views are disseminated as widely as possible, and that people intending to exercise their vote (be it in person at the AGM, or via a proxy) do so with the fullest information.

For that reason, I will reproduce Mr Pettigrew’s paper in the following post(s). However, I have 2 caveats to this:-

- I have not seen the original of Mr Pettigrew’s paper – what I am posting is a copy posted online by a 3rd party. I therefore have no way of knowing if that third party had made any amendments to Mr Pettigrew’s paper (though I have no reason to believe this will have happened).

- There is a missing link in the paper, which unfortunately comes at a rather interesting point where it appears he is about to provide what he considers to be ‘proof’ that the name change had already been agreed prior to last year’s BMC AGM at Castleton. (I’d have been interested to read that proof, not least because I know quite categorically that Bob’s accusation on timing is incorrect). Anyway, I have indicated that there is missing text at this point.

I think there have been some excellent posts in the previous threads on this controversial issue, and I hope that the debate which will inevitably follow the posting of this document is conducted in a civil manner, without resorting to personal insults. That said, I should warn readers that some parts of Mr Pettigrew’s paper are somewhat ‘shouty’ in their presentation….

Neil

Ps. Please give me a few minutes to post the whole paper before replying, as it will span more than one post, and I need to reinsert paragraphs as I am setting up the posts. Thanks
1
 Andy Hardy 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

Why not just link to your source?
9
OP Neil Foster Global Crag Moderator 22 Mar 2017
“BMC A.G.M. AT PLAS Y BRENIN, SATURDAY 22 APRIL 2017

MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE B.M.C.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE “BMC THIRTY”

THIS PAPER REPRESENTS MY PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS WHICH I SHALL PUT BEFORE
THE “BMC THIRTY” AS A WAY FORWARD.

OUR AIM IS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND COMPLIES WITH GOOD SPORTS GOVERNANCE
IT IS TO RESTORE DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURES TO THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING
(AGM) OF THE BMC, NOW AND HENCEFORTH.

IF OUR MOTION WERE TO BE CARRIED THEN IT IS FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS, TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION ACCORDING TO THEIR LEGAL
DUTY UNDER COMPANY LAW.

OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WOULD BE TO SET UP AN
INDEPENDENT REVIEW BY ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERTS IN THE FIELDS OF
MOUNTAINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION DRAWN FROM A BROAD SPECTRUM OF THE SPORT.

WE ARE NOT WRECKERS SO WE WOULD ADVOCATE THAT THE MAIN OPERATIONAL
DIVISIONS OF THE BMC CONTINUE TO SERVICE THE MEMBERSHIP DURING THE
INTERIM BY STRICKLY ADEHERING TO ESTABLISHED POLICIES AND WORK
PROGRAMMES UNTIL THE REVIEW IS COMPLETE AND IMPLEMENTED.

IF OUR MOTION WERE TO BE DEFEATED THEN IT MIGHT HAVE SERVED ITS PURPOSE
IN REMINDING THE GRASS ROOTS MEMBERSHIP THAT, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE AGM
OF THE BMC, THEY ARE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY TO WHICH THE EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE STANDS ACCOUNTABLE ONCE A YEAR FOR ITS FUTURE POLICIES,
PROGRAMMES AND EXPENDITURE.

QUI CUSTODIET CUSTODES – WHO IS IT THAT GUARDS THE GUARDS THEMSELVES?
JUVENAL A.D. 60 –c.130

IN OUR CASE – IT IS THE AGM SERVICED BY A FULL AGENDA OF FUTURE
POLICIES AND WORK PROGRAMMES PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL BY THE EXECUTIVE
COMMITTEE AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE NATIONAL COUNCIL THROUGH THE AREA
MEETING NETWORK – WHICH I KNOW HAS STOOD THE TEST OF TIME BECAUSE OF MY
OWN LONG EXPERIENCE OF THE VOLUNTARY WORK OF THE AREA ACTIVISTS, AMONGST
WHOM I STILL HAVE MANY FRIENDS.

ROBERT PETTIGREW – 19.03.17

BMC AGM 22ndAPRIL 2017 at PLAS y BRENIN NATIONAL MOUNTAIN CENTRE.
OP Neil Foster Global Crag Moderator 22 Mar 2017
I am Robert Pettigrew, one of thirty listed proposers of the Motion of
No Confidence in the Executive Committee of the British Mountaineering
Council. Because I am entrusted with the Moving of the Motion, I have
become the first among equals for this considered action.

Since I shall open the debate as the Mover of the Motion, supported by a
Seconder of the Motion, I believe that fellow members of the BMC are
entitled to know our reasons for this step, and the aims and objectives
of my co-signatories and many other supporters of the Motion so that
they are better equipped with the background to form an opinion and
either turn up, participate in the debate and cast their vote in person,
or, if unable to attend, cast a proxy vote before the time limit of
Monday 17th April next.

For my part I am a former president of the Loughborough University M.C.,
the Oread M.C. and the British Mountaineering Council, of which I am an
Hon. Member and holder of the George Band Award. I have also served as
chairman of the Training Committee, the South West and Southern Area
Committee, and the North East Committee of the BMC. I have also served
as chairman of the former Mountain Leadership Training Board for England
and Wales. In addition I was chairman of the CCPR/SRA, the Standing
Forum of 320 NGBs (Governing Bodies of Sport and Recreation} as a
mountaineering representative, following my distinguished forbears, Lord
Hunt of Llanvair Waterdine, and Sir Jack Longland.

Like so many of my contemporaries in the BMC, I have had a deep passion
for the mountains since I was a schoolboy and became steeped in the
mountain literature which is surely unsurpassed in range and content of
any sport in the world, and gives our sport a spiritual and
philosophical content like no other. This I have shared and enjoyed
with fellow members of the A.C., the CC, the Wayfarers, and the
Himalayan Club over the years.

I have had the good fortune, and with good companions, to make a number
of first and second ascents in the Lyngen Alps of Arctic Norway and in
the Indo-Tibet (China) border region of the Punjab Himalaya (Himachal
Pradesh). All my expeditions are recorded in the Alpine and Himalayan
Journals of the period, and”Lyngsalpene” Universitetsforlarget. All were
great adventures with loyal companions and a lot of fun, even in
retrospect, the broken limbs!

By profession I served as an Inspector of Schools in the Further
Education Divisions of the counties of Hampshire and Cleveland.

My aims and objectives in proposing the Motion of No Confidence in the
Executive Committee of the BMC is to restore the democratic process of
accountability to the grass-roots membership of the BMC in the
governance process. It is undeniably the very essence of the
democratic process and it must be restored and maintained.

I have attended every one of the BMCs AGMs since I had the honour to
serve as president of this great institution and I have observed with
growing dismay the diminishing of the AGM in form and content so that
the opportunity to hold to account the Executive Committee and the
National Council (formerly the Management Committee), and a better
title, has also dwindled – to be replaced by an Open Forum – in other
words a “Talking Shop” with no constitutional imperatives, and whatever
is proposed disappears into the ether with no consequent action of the
measures advocated.

I personally regard Open Forums as an improper and cynical device to
inhibit debate and advocate their removal from the annual programme of
events. That would give members more time to discuss and comment on
major policy issues – of which there are many.

This deplorable decline in the democracy of the BMC reached its nadir at
the AGM of last year, the 16th April 2016, when external events, such as
the admission to the Olympic Games of Competition Climbing were reaching
a climax.

Both Mark Vallance, a distinguished former president and alpinist and me
were given leave by President Rehan Siddiqui to make speeches warning
that momentous changes in our sport were impending due to external
forces, for which the BMC must make provision, but the debate was
curtailed by what has since been revealed as an hidden agenda known only
to the Executive and a privileged few.

I emphasise that the bulk of the grass-roots membership assembled in
Losehill Hall, Castleton, Derbyshire on Saturday 16 April, 2016, were
kept in total ignorance of the momentous events about to evolve.
On a lighter note I was even persuaded to buy a T shirt with the BMC
logo, when the decision had already been taken to change the name of the
BMC! Was anticipated old stock already being sold off? However – all
is well since I can still wear it with pride!

I had my first intimation that something was badly wrong when a member
of the Executive Committee who had listened to my speech came up to me
at tea and said:” We don’t want to rock any boats, do we?” Did he really
mean – “We don’t want to upset the International Olympic Committee, do
we?” We shall probably never know.

It occurred to me then that some momentous changes in the BMC were in
the making without the knowledge of the grass-roots membership, or any
process of consultation with that membership in the democratic process
of an AGM when the elected members and paid staff stand accountable for
the implementation of policies and strategies and financial probity
according to the Code of Good Governance laid down by the Department of
Culture, Media and Sport.

Subsequent to the AGM of 16 April 2016, a series of revelations about
proposed momentous changes in the status, name, international relations,
commercial projects, and Olympic ambitions of the BMC began to emerge,
none of which had been sanctioned by the grass-roots membership, but all
of which had been conceived, planned and developed by the Executive
Committee in secret over a time period of several months prior to the
AGM of 2016.
3
OP Neil Foster Global Crag Moderator 22 Mar 2017
FOR EXAMPLE THE MOMENTOUS NAME-CHANGE FROM BRITISH MOUNTAINEERING
COUNCIL TO CLIMB BRITAIN – THUS JETTISONING 75 YEARS OF HISTORY, WAS IN
PLANNING FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AND ACTUALLY MADE ON 3 MARCH 2016, MORE THAN
A MONTH BEFORE THE AGM AT CASTLETON ON 16 APRIL 2017, AND AT A COST OF
£75,500 – NOT£25,000 AS PREVIOUSLY STATED (SEE THE BMC “RECENT HISTORY”
BY MARTIN WRAGG – SOME OF WHICH IS INACCURATE!)

MR WRAGG IS HOIST BY HIS OWN PETARD! IN HIS REPORT HE CLEARLY STATES
THAT THE EXTRAORDINARILY EXPENSIVE RE-BRANDING WAS NOT A CHANGE OF
NAME. SINCE RE-BRANDING INVARIABLY MEANS A CHANGE OF NAME NAME – HE-
HE GOES ON TO STATETO STATE IN HIS REPORT THAT A CHANGE OF NAME WOULD
NEED THE APPROVAL OF AN AGM!

WHY THEN DID THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WITHHOLD FROM THE AGM AT CASTLETON
IN 2016 NOT ONLY THE CHANGE OF NAME (ALREADY MADE IN MARCH 2016 – THE
PRECEDING MONTH) BUT A RAFT OF OTHER MEASURES SUCH AS THE INEVITABLE
CHANGE OF STATUS OF THE BMC FROM A REPRESENTATIVE BODY TO A GOVERNING
BODY OF SPORT AND RECREATION?

FORTUNATELY THETHE AREA COMMITTEES SAVED THE DAY AND CAME INTO THEIR
OWN WITH A MASS REVOLT
WHICH FORCED AN HUMILIATING CLIMB DOWN BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AT
LEAST OVER THE ILL-FATED NAME CHANGE. BUT HAS THE LESSON BEEN LEARNED?
WHAT OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF THE BMC ARE
YET TO BE REVEALED?

PROOF THAT THE NAME-CHANGE WAS IMPLEMENTED ON 3RD MARCH, 2016 CAN BE


****** Text missing here ******


My fellow proposers and I then determined that the time had come to
bring matters to a head and seek a full debate at the AGM to demand
transparency and accountability to the membership in the future
operations of the BMC. The BMC is a company limited by guarantee and
is governed by an Executive Committee, so the conventional process of a
Motion of No Confidence in the Executive Committee, is intended to
initiate a debate on the Executive Committee’s corporate failure to seek
a mandate for its future policies and work programmes from the
membership at the annual general meetings, now a chronic annual failure.

Should the Motion succeed and become a Resolution I would further
propose that an Independent Review of the Structure and modern purpose
of the BMC should be set up with the aim of making the BMC fit for purpose.

Since the Alpine Club is not only the senior club in the world, it is
also the founder of the BMC and has the corporate philosophy and
expertise to advise on the personnel able and willing to conduct such a
Review under an independent chairman I and my fellow proposers would
recommend that it is invited to undertake the review.

If on the other hand, the Motion falls, I sincerely hope it will at
least have restored the central importance of the Annual General Meeting
as the principal agency of governance of the BMC where future policies,
strategies, work programmes, staff structures and finances, are openly
debated and endorsed or amended by the membership assembled at the AGM.

Robert Pettigrew – on behalf of the “BMC THIRTY”

19th March, 2017
2
 Kid Spatula 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

To sum up "Old man shouts at clouds!"
8
 Valkyrie1968 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

To sum up, for those that can't bear to read paragraphs and paragraphs of all-caps bollocks:

> Since the Alpine Club is not only the senior club in the world, it isalso the founder of the BMC and has the corporate philosophy andexpertise to advise on the personnel able and willing to conduct such aReview under an independent chairman I and my fellow proposers wouldrecommend that it is invited to undertake the review.

So, this is nothing but a coup. Let's not let the f*ckers get away with it, eh?

4
In reply to Neil Foster:

If Bob Pettigrew is that concerned with a fully democratic BMC, he really needs to ensure his proposal and full argument is made available to all BMC members, not just the few who can attend the AGM.

Therefore, it is incumbent on him to publish his argument, in full, where all BMC members can access it.

Leaving it to rumour, leaks, and third party disclosures isn't good enough. All this 'aha! wait for the big reveal at the AGM' intrigue isn't the proper, democratic way to do things.
In reply to Valkyrie1968:

> So, this is nothing but a coup.

My immediate thought was that since the vast majority of seconders were AC members, that immediately disqualified the AC for the position of independent reviewers.
1
OP Neil Foster Global Crag Moderator 22 Mar 2017
One clarification:-

It is possible that the text capitalisation might have resulted from an auto-formatting program (not mine, I hasten to add!).

If so, that is unfortunate, as I certainly find capitalised text incredibly offputting.

That said, I still think it was important to disseminate Bob's views to readers of these forums, and had he been prepared to engage in a more transparent manner, then he could have potentially kept control of his own text formatting...

Neil
 Ramblin dave 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

> If so, that is unfortunate, as I certainly find capitalised text incredibly offputting.

I keep reading it in the voice of the Reverend Ian Paisley, which I have to admit doesn't help the argument.

> That said, I still think it was important to disseminate Bob's views to readers of these forums, and had he been prepared to engage in a more transparent manner, then he could have potentially kept control of his own text formatting...

Thanks for posting!
 ebdon 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

Allthough its good to at last here somthing from the proposers of the motion this seems very heavy on insinuation and rumour and light on actual facts.
In reply to ebdon:

Plenty of flowery language and reminding us what a good chap he has been over the years. But facts, no we don't need any of them
 Ian W 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

Given what Bob has written there, I am of the opinion that the AC are the worst possible body to investigate the BMC, given they are coming at it as instigators of the motion of no confidence.

However, should this come to pass, I have a cunning plan!

Others who are not quite so keen on the AC running the BMC could set up a separate organisation, perhaps using the Climb Britain brand under the BMC legal banner, and become more attractive to the broad church of modern climbers.......There wold potentially be several recently unemployed officers who could fill the roles created in the new organisation, and no doubt some highly motivated and skilled volunteers willing and able to steady the new ship, and the AC could happily continue in their parallel universe........

Still not sure the AC are fully aware of their supposed involvement in this - anyone from their committee care to comment in public?
3
 ebdon 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:
I'm an AC member as far is im aware (from the last newsletter) the committee have said they want to be 'constuctive rather then destructive' which i interpret to be not supportive of the motion offically. However there is a proposal for an indipendant review of the BMC tabled at the next AC agm.
Post edited at 13:48
 AJM 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

Did i read somewhere that Mr Wragg, who gets short shrift here, is also a legal advisor for the AC? If so, that's an interesting place from which to start this investigation he proposes.

No facts, and i don't think proposing the AC is a smart move as given the backdrop it just screams coup doesn't it. Some sort of honest broker who is uninvolved would have made it a better pitch I'd have thought.
 Ian W 22 Mar 2017
In reply to ebdon:

> I'm an AC member as far is im aware (from the last newsletter) the committee have said they want to be 'constuctive rather then destructive' which i interpret to be not supportive of the motion offically. However there is a proposal for an indipendant review of the BMC tabled at the next AC agm.

Ta for that; I thought I'd read somewhere that it wasnt official AC policy.

Is nobody there aware that there is currently a full review of exec / NC authority underway?; its been mentioned on here several times.

As i said in a different thread, the position of the AC in mountaineering history should not be underestimated, but it is a much different world we climb in, and maybe a bit of self analysis would go a long way........
 Lemony 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

Good lord. This feels more and more like the worst episode of Midsomer Murders ever.
In reply to ebdon:

> Allthough its good to at last here somthing from the proposers of the motion

But we haven't. This is not from the proposer, but from a third-hand report (no disrespect intended to Neil).

I've tried a number of diagnostic phrases, but all failed to find any hits on Google. Therefore I conclude that this is from a private communication.

To be taken seriously, the full argument of the motion needs to be made public by its proposer, and argued in public.

And, regardless of the constitution, I do not consider the AGM to be adequately public; IMHO, the AGM should be pretty much a rubber stamping of issues already largely debated, considering that the vast majority of members will be unable to attend, but have the opportunity to vote. An uninformed vote is not democracy.
Post edited at 14:28
In reply to captain paranoia:

According to Shark, over on UKB, the document is on the Climbers' Club forum but is is in the Members area so I can't see who posted it.
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

So, as I said, a private communication.

Not acceptable.
2
 Chris the Tall 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

So he's not a "wrecker", doesn't want to plunge the BMC into chaos and merely want a review of the BMC governance.
Since the BMC has already decided to undertake such a review then logic would suggest that he should withdraw his motion.

I presume therefore that his objection is that working group isn't independent enough - presumably because it doesn't contain the requisite number of members of the Alpine Club.

 Marek 22 Mar 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

> My immediate thought was that since the vast majority of seconders were AC members, that immediately disqualified the AC for the position of independent reviewers.

And to add to that, the AC by its own admissions policy is neither democratic not representative of BMC membership as a whole. Perhaps the AC should open its gilded (guilded?) doors to all BMC members before waving a 'democracy' flag? Is that likely? Hmmm.
 toad 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Marek:

I don't see the AC representing hillwalkers/ scramblers/ weekend warriors.
 Ian W 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Marek:

The full thing is on the Lakes area Facebook page.
In reply to captain paranoia:

Shark is a CC member I think, so why is it unacceptable to copy it.
1
 Andy Cairns 22 Mar 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

Just for a bit of background, as with the original text of the motion itself, this seems to have been posted by Bob Pettigrew to a select few people. I agree it should have been made public - it should have been provided to the BMC in time to have been included with the AGM papers and voting slips sent to all BMC members! Instead, it was held back until the BMC papers had been posted, then sent to the favoured few.

I don't think it's hearsay. I'm a CC member, and another of our members posted it, with his name, on 20 March prefaced with "I have just received this from Bob Pettigrew. It may be of interest! ", so I have no reason to doubt it. As with every other club I'm aware of, the CC has a members area on its website where registered users discuss everything from pints and lifts to things like this. It's not viewable by non-members, which is why Neil had to go to all that faff to post it on here - a link to the website wouldn't have been visible to non-members. I think our member is to be complimented (although I suspect not by Bob P), for actually putting it there end enabling us to get it out to others.

At least now, we can all consider the eloquent (!) call to support the motion!

Cheers
Andy
 UKB Shark 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Shark is a CC member I think, so why is it unacceptable to copy it.

<Splutter> No I'm not a memeber of the CC.

I was sent it out of the blue to the general ukb email address by a CC member in an attachment entitled "Bob P gibberish.docx" !
In reply to ukb shark:

Sorry Shark, it must have been that beard you are sporting that fooled me
 Dave Garnett 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

> I certainly find capitalised text incredibly offputting.

Me too. Quoting Juvenal is never a good sign either. Misquoting him even worse.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Bob is incapable of making a speech without at least one bit of Latin.
 Andy Cairns 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I don't think he is, and I'm actually the CC Membership Secretary!

It was me who passed the text of the document to Simon this morning as I felt it needed to be publicised to all BMC members as quickly as possible. I removed the name of the CC member who originally posted it on the Club forum, as it wasn't fair to drop them in it, but I would say that although it may have been a private communication when it was emailed to him by Bob, by posting it on the website he was drawing it to wider attention and opening it up to the scrutiny it deserves.

Cheers
Andy
 Dave Garnett 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

What do you make of the specific £75K rather than £25K accusation?
 Andy Cairns 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
It's wonderful how posts overlap so quickly, although I'm not sure Shark needed to sound QUITE so offended!

Surely the only thing worse than slinging in a bit of misquoted Latin, is to then carry on and patronise your audience by assuming they are so thick they need it to be translated!

My contribution to the classical latin theme would be "NIL ILLEGITIMATUM CARBORUNDUM" ( Virgil, unless I'm much mistaken)

Cheers
(edited due to my apallingly spelt Latin!)
Post edited at 15:09
In reply to Andy Cairns:

>"NIL ILLEGITIMATUM CARBORUNDUM"

Very good.

(NB Google speaks Latin, not me!)
 Michael Hood 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Marek: Surely the Alpine Club should be renamed (not sure to what but I'm sure the minds across UKC can come up with something suitable) because being a British based club, and the Alps (especially post bexit) being definitely not in Britain, the name is inappropriately colonial in today's day and age.

As an initial suggestion - Climb (somebody else's) Alps

Bit unweildy

2
In reply to Andy Cairns:

> It's wonderful how posts overlap so quickly, although I'm not sure Shark needed to sound QUITE so offended!

If you had a hut on Malham Catwalk he'd join like a shot.


 Chris the Tall 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Lemony:

> Good lord. This feels more and more like the worst episode of Midsomer Murders ever.


Reading this:

>PROOF THAT THE NAME-CHANGE WAS IMPLEMENTED ON 3RD MARCH, 2016 CAN BE


****** Text missing here ******

got me thinking that is was more like an episode of Scooby Doo, in which Dave Turnball is revealed to be Marco Scolaris in a mask, and he would have got away with it but for those meddling kids in the Alpine Club
In reply to captain paranoia:

I'll clarify; when I say a private communication is not acceptable, I mean that private communication is not an acceptable way to try to promote one's argument. Especially if your argument is partly about democracy. If you have faith in your argument, expose it to public scrutiny, and don't leave it to 'smoky backrooms'.

I have absolutely no qualms that this communication has been made public, barring the fact that I'd prefer to hear it from the horse's mouth.
 Marek 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Surely the Alpine Club should be renamed (not sure to what but I'm sure the minds across UKC can come up with something suitable) because being a British based club, and the Alps (especially post bexit) being definitely not in Britain, the name is inappropriately colonial in today's day and age.As an initial suggestion - Climb (somebody else's) AlpsBit unweildy

I suspect that there are people in the AC who would be shocked to discover that the Alps and Himalaya are not 'ours' post Brexit. Sorry, cheap shot, but that does seem to be the image they portray.
 Ian W 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Its still bollocks, just instead of being out by a factor of just over 3, its wrong by a factor of about 10............
2
 Ian W 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Cairns:

Andy, if this goes through does it mean the CC will become the Mountaineers Club rather than Climbers Club, or will you be absorbed into the all powerful Alpine Club?
1
In reply to captain paranoia:

Thanks for the clarification

I agree.
 Offwidth 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Marek:
I wonder what the AC committee think about the damage Bob is doing to them (let alone the BMC): they are said to be against the no-confidence motion and an AC member has provided the legal advice for the BMC on why Bob is wrong. Unless proved otherwise this should be regarded as the action of individual club members, not the AC.

The text is ludicrous, pompous and dishonest and should have been called at an EGM months back under the articles , if following the BMC response to the area meeting feedback the proposers were certain the issue was as important as implied. The way it has been handled is mendacious, hypocritical (how ironic this is about openness to the membership) and irresponsible. I simply can't believe some of the other 29 are still happy to have their names attached to this crap (or the overlapping 21 on the draft motion).
Post edited at 15:56
In reply to Neil Foster:

Hi Neil,

Just so that you, and everyone else are aware, I - in my role as Chair of the BMC Peak Area - have received an email from Bob Pettigrew requesting that we distribute the explanation you've attached far/wide, so as far as I'm concerned your conscience should be clear in terms of 'leaking' this information.

Unfortunately Bob couldn't confirm whether he was attending the forthcoming area meeting, as it would depend on his work commitments; however, irrespective of his attendance I suggest everyone that can attend, should attend.

For those that haven't got the date in their diary, the next Peak Area Meeting is on 5th April @ The Maynard, Grindleford - no doubt going to be a memorable one...

If you're based elsewhere I suggest you check the BMC website.
 Offwidth 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

Thanks again for posting this Neil. Someone has kindly forwarded me a copy directly from Bob with the same capitalisation, so it must be his (and not your formatting error)
 The New NickB 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

Does the copy you have received contain the missing section with all the evidence.
 Offwidth 22 Mar 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

Its no proof at all, its the same old story: buying up domain names (which is prudent if you are even considering a name change)

https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=climbbritain.co.uk
OP Neil Foster Global Crag Moderator 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

> ...so as far as I'm concerned your conscience should be clear in terms of 'leaking' this information.

Thanks Rob, but worry not - my conscience is already completely clear.

My only slight regret is my earlier post on the capitalisation. I simply couldn't believe that Bob would not realise how terrible capitalised text looks, and how it undermines the credibility of the argument proffered.

When I heard that there may have been some issues in translating the text from Mac to PC which may have resulted in the introduction of rogue capitalisation, that made complete sense to me - hence my earlier clarification.

But no, as obvious as that would seem, it is wrong. The capitalisation was there all along!

I blame the education system, and deficiencies in the schools inspectorate....

Neil
 The New NickB 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

I suspected the evidence was probably no more than supposition, but good to read it anyway.
 Marek 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> I wonder what the AC committee think about the damage Bob is doing to them ...
... this should be regarded as the action of individual club members, not the AC.

Agreed.
Apologies to the AC.

 Ian W 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:
>My only slight regret is my earlier post on the capitalisation. I simply couldn't believe that Bob would not realise how terrible capitalised text looks, and how it undermines the credibility of the argument proffered.When I heard that there may have been some issues in translating the text from Mac to PC which may have resulted in the introduction of rogue capitalisation, that made complete sense to me - hence my earlier clarification.But no, as obvious as that would seem, it is wrong. The capitalisation was there all along!I blame the education system, and deficiencies in the schools inspectorate....Neil


i think Bob forgot he wasnt writing it all in Latin. Originally latin only used upper case, with lower case cursive script being a later development. Perhaps that explains the upper case fetish?
Post edited at 16:22
In reply to Offwidth:
Funnily enough I was just typing a reply to The New NickB when I refreshed and saw your reply, I couldn't agree more - never has the word 'proof' been used to confidently, yet so inaccurately.

Purchasing of a web domain is a very different thing to implementing a re-brand. Safe-guarding maybe, but this isn't an infrequent state of affairs with any brand/organisation.
Post edited at 16:22
 The New NickB 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

Is that the extent of the evidence? Of course if the BMC hadn't bought the domain before the announcement, they would have been accused of gross incompetence.
 galpinos 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

If only your thread title was true and he did speak, openly and publicly, instead of all this "letters" and speeches to climbing clubs to drum up support.
In reply to Offwidth:

Or protecting yourself against others buying the name.

Or even to wind someone up,- you'll never guess who bought www.awesomewallsheffield.com a few years back as a wind up
 james mann 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:
Rob,

I, as south west area chair have received nothing from Mr Pettigrew. We have our area meeting on Saturday where this motion will be discussed. At present, much of the information seems to be copied/leaked from private communications. This is unhelpful as not all members have access to equal information. Thanks to Neil for posting Pettigrew's statement, but it should have been the author.

The handling of this motion seems to be fairly shambolic. If the BMC 30 or whatever they wish to call themselves want to get their views across, they need to do so in the public domain, not through third parties and with arguments based on hard facts based on actual evidence.

There are a number of signatories to the motion who reside in the south west. It will be interesting to see if any of them attend the area meeting and put forward a coherent case for this. It should prove to be an interesting evening!



Romani ite domum

James
Post edited at 16:27
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

> never has the word 'proof' been used to confidently, yet so inaccurately.

That is a bold statement considering we are in the post truth world of Brexit and Trump!

In reply to The New NickB:

Hi Nick, I know this is hard to believe, but yes - that appears to be the extend of the evidence. No other links or references have been attached.

 Marek 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> Its no proof at all, its the same old story: buying up domain names (which is prudent if you are even considering a name change)https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=climbbritain.co.uk

But also prudent if you're thinking of creating a new 'brand'. So as evidence it doesn't really point one way or the other?
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

I knew someone was going to say that.

Guilty as charged
 Offwidth 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Marek:
Who said it was either one way or the other? Bob is the one claiming proof (it's clearly not).
Post edited at 16:32
In reply to james mann:
Hi James, the only reason I got a response (I suspect) is because I sent an email direct, asking whether he planned to attend the next area meeting - otherwise I suspect I'd have heard nothing from him either.

It's interesting that despite a great number of references to 'democratic process' and 'accountability to the grass-roots membership' he is more guilty than the organisation itself of keeping everyone in the dark!
Post edited at 16:46
 Ian W 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Marek:

> ... this should be regarded as the action of individual club members, not the AC.Agreed. Apologies to the AC.

Not forgetting the AC have called an EGM to discuss on April 1st.............
 Marek 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> Not forgetting the AC have called an EGM to discuss on April 1st.............

Ooh. perhaps they could ask the ISFC to organise a live stream?
Just in the cause of transparency, of course.
In reply to Offwidth:

> its the same old story: buying up domain names

That was my suspicion at to what the 'proof' might be.

As you say, no proof at all, other than of a sensibly prudent approach to corporate naming.
In reply to Marek:

I think that the IFSC streamed their Plenary Assembly!
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

> Purchasing of a web domain is a very different thing to implementing a re-brand. Safe-guarding maybe, but this isn't an infrequent state of affairs with any brand/organisation.

Just think of all those new companies/rebrands I did back in 2002 then. UKMountainBiking.com, UKTrailRunning.com, UKRoadBiking.com, UKSkiing.com, UKMountaineering, UKHangGliding,...

I hadn't realised we had actually started the ball rolling on all these sidelines, and all done without any consultation!

Alan
 james mann 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:
Rob,

I feel as chair that the onus is upon the BMC30 to come to area meetings throughout the land, explain openly and clearly the purpose of the motion and their plan for the aftermath. If their concern for a truly democratic process is as strong as their words, then I look forward to seeing them at the Nova Scotia in Bristol on the 25th.

James

(No latin this time)
Post edited at 17:17
 UKB Shark 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

> Just think of all those new companies/rebrands I did back in 2002 then. UKMountainBiking.com, UKTrailRunning.com, UKRoadBiking.com, UKSkiing.com, UKMountaineering, UKHangGliding,...I hadn't realised we had actually started the ball rolling on all these sidelines, and all done without any consultation!Alan


Sounds more like a rearguard action after someone took ukbouldering.com in 2001..
In reply to ukb shark:

Yeah Bubba was far sighted
In reply to Neil Foster:

Someone should propose the BMC adopt a bye-law on the use of Caps Lock.

Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus.
 Andy Say 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Bob is incapable of making a speech without at least one bit of Latin.

There was no mention of Kipling......
In reply to Neil Foster:

I thought I'd write a quick note of clarification on some recurring themes from here and elsewhere:

1. Cost of the rebranding exercise: The BMC received a £25k grant from Sport England solely for the purpose of covering the total cost of the branding consultants. The actual cost (i.e. over and above this and not including staff time) to the BMC was around £7k which covered trademarking and purchase of 28 relevant URLs (note: the URL purchases were made in three phases between 3 March - 6 July).

2. What happens if the vote goes in favour of No Confidence motion? There are different views on this but I'm told by legal advisors it would most likely mean the whole of the newly elected Executive Committee (Board of Directors) and the CEO would have to stand down with immediate effect. There would then be a period in which the BMC (National Council / the Patrons ?) would have to re-establish control of itself and recruit and appoint new volunteer board members and staff. Organisational confidence and decision making abilities would be impacted and government grants would most likely come under scrutiny.

3. The BMC - a Governing Body or Representative body? The BMC is very firmly the 'representative body' for climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers and there are absolutely no plans to change this, see: Item 3.2 in the BMC Memorandum & Articles of Association which states one of our main objects as being:

To act as representative body for the sport and recreation of Climbing, Mountaineering (which shall include ski-mountaineering) and Hillwalking (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘Mountaineering’) for Great Britain and to
represent directly to all appropriate authorities, institutions, organisations and associations in the interests of climbers mountaineers and hillwalkers(hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘Mountaineers’

The term 'National Governing Body' (NGB) is Sports Council / Government terminology; for 20+ years Sport England has categorised the BMC as an 'NGB' and this has enabled us to draw down grant funding. Conventional NGB's (cricket, fencing, rowing, rugby, netball and the like) are responsible for setting the rules of their sport, administering competitions and controlling the way people take part in the activity. The BMC is a very different beast in comparison and there are no aspirations to be a governing body in this sense. The one area where this might be questionable or beneficial relates to competition climbing; the BMC has been the de facto ‘governing body’ for competition climbing for many years and a question has recently come up as to whether we should publicly state this in order to clarify the situation.

It's also worth noting that dealing with the No Confidence motion has absorbed c.90% of my time for the past 5 weeks, pretty much all other work has gone on hold, and this is unlikely to change for at least the next 4-5 weeks; multiple other staff are also involved in one way or another plus our voluntary board members (the Executive Committee) are engaged on a daily basis and are doing their best to keep pace and stay positive.
 Trangia 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Thank you Dave for some clarification.

Can I raise one issue which I suspect is the possibly the main one that concerns so many of the rank and file BMC Membership?

Concerning the name BMC.

Has the lesson really been learned by the Executive Committee, and is the proposal to change the name now dead and buried once and for all? Or, as seems to have been hinted at, has the proposal to change the name merely been suspended for the time being with a view to it's being resurrected, once the the Committee believes the hue and cry has subsided and been "forgotten"?



19
 rocksol 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Kid Spatula:

The clue is in the name Kid! Seems to me a well put proposal and articulates perfectly my own thoughts on the matter Many of the "old men" associated with this motion have set the tempo for much of what has happened in British mountaineering and continue to do so. I also think Martin Wragg's report is biased and conveniently ignores points derogatory to the BMC case Also consider the demographic of BMC membership I'm fairly sure most are not competition/plastic climbing motivated individuals and in fact the BMC used to be implacably opposed ro any form of climbing based competition They probably would not subscribe to the extremely expensively titled ClimbBritain The AGM will tell !
30
 james mann 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Trangia:

I don't know why you think that the name change has been postponed. It was voted on and agreed at all area meetings that BMC remains as the name of the organisation. It was agreed at many meetings that climb Britain branding could be used within the BMC if a suitable use could be found for it. I hope that provides clarity.

James
 Andy Say 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

> WHAT OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF THE BMC ARE YET TO BE REVEALED?PROOF THAT THE NAME-CHANGE WAS IMPLEMENTED ON 3RD MARCH, 2016 CAN BE

****** Text missing here ******

>My fellow proposers and I then determined that the time had come to bring matters to a head

A very unfortunate redaction. Presumably the text that is 'missing' actually cited the proof of the accusation?
1
 Dogwatch 22 Mar 2017
In reply to rocksol:
> They probably would not subscribe to the extremely expensively titled ClimbBritain

So what? That was dead and buried before Pettigrew and friends decided to exhume the corpse in order to pick over the bones.
Post edited at 19:04
 AlanLittle 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> got me thinking that is was more like an episode of Scooby Doo, in which Dave Turnball is revealed to be Marco Scolaris in a mask, and he would have got away with it but for those meddling kids in the Alpine Club

Stretching the definition of "kids" a bit though.
 AJM 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

Been posted elsewhere but it's the registration of the domain name. According to DT above, one of 28 purchased during the exercise.
 Andy Say 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Kid Spatula:

> To sum up "Old man shouts at clouds!"

No. That's just facile.

'Old man' suggests an independent review of governance of the BMC. States that he believes that the membership of the BMC is the 'ultimate authority' i.e. the BMC is a grassroots democratic body rather than one that has 'top-down' decision making. Feels that the membership needs far more opportunity at the AGM to contribute to the policy making process of the BMC. Declares that the decision to re-brand was made on 3/3/16, a month before the '16 AGM, but that no mention was made at that AGM. Declares that the total cost of the re-brand was c. £75,500. Questions whether the re-brand would have resulted in 'BMC trading as Climb Britain' or the ditching of the BMC name.

I hope that is a fairly unemotive synopsis?
3
 Andy Say 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> Who said it was either one way or the other? Bob is the one claiming proof (it's clearly not).

Well.... I would have thought it IS proof that a month before the last AGM 'Climb Britain' was being considered as a 'new name' for the BMC?
3
 Si dH 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
...along with 28? other names.

As NickB pointed out above, if they had seriously suggested a new name to the membership for consideration without having first registered the url, that would have been grossly incompetent.

None of this puts any doubt in Martin Wragg's summary that I can see.



Bob's writing, to me, just tells me that he has misunderstood what actually occurred and didn't check his facts before proposing the motion. Given its potential impact, this is grossly poor judgement (by both him and all the others who have put their name to it.) He is probably now in a defensive mindset and unable to change course.
I'm also disheartened by the amount of space he dedicates to his own potted climbing history - as if it is remotely relevant!
Post edited at 19:39
In reply to rocksol:

> and in fact the BMC used to be implacably opposed ro any form of climbing based competition

At what time in the nearly 28 years of Climbing World Cups has the BMC been opposed to any form of climbing based competition.

Certainly not in May 1989 when the first ever Climbing World Cup was organised by the BMC in Leeds.
Certainly not in the winter of 1991/1992 when the BMC first organised the annual British Lead Climbing Championships (originally called BICC but now the BLCC).

Sorry but the facts don't fit your alternative version of history.

 Offwidth 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

Are you playing dumb for some purpose?... yes of course the BMC registered the domain name at that time (as anyone paying attention knew soon after the rebrand fuss erupted); yet that's not what Bob claims its proof of in his diatribe.
1
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

"Used to be", old boy. Don't you know how old the world's senior climbing club is...?
3
 Rob Parsons 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

> ... Cost of the rebranding exercise: The BMC received a £25k grant from Sport England solely for the purpose of covering the total cost of the branding consultants. The actual cost (i.e. over and above this and not including staff time) to the BMC was around £7k

For the avoidance of doubt, are you able to clarify how the £25K grant relates to the £75,420 grant from Sport England mentioned in the report by Martin Wragg? Thanks.


 Andy Say 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> Are you playing dumb for some purpose?... yes of course the BMC registered the domain name at that time (as anyone paying attention knew soon after the rebrand fuss erupted); yet that's not what Bob claims its proof of in his diatribe.

Nope. Obviously just dumb. But rest of your sentence doesn't make sense.
1
 slab_happy 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

> What happens if the vote goes in favour of No Confidence motion? There are different views on this but I'm told by legal advisors it would most likely mean the whole of the newly elected Executive Committee (Board of Directors) and the CEO would have to stand down with immediate effect. There would then be a period in which the BMC (National Council / the Patrons ?) would have to re-establish control of itself and recruit and appoint new volunteer board members and staff.

In other words, the entire scenario that Mr. Pettigrew apparently imagines as an outcome of the No Confidence motion (in which the Executive Committee seem to remain in place and keep the BMC functioning while being subordinated to the "independent reviewers" -- a.k.a. the AC -- until the "review" is over) is essentially impossible?
 UKB Shark 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

The other consultancy work related to advice on generating independent commercial revenues in anticipation of funding cuts from Sport England.

Other Sport England funded bodies received consultancy funding of a similar nature
 Rob Parsons 22 Mar 2017
In reply to ukb shark:

> The other consultancy work related to advice on generating independent commercial revenues in anticipation of funding cuts from Sport England.

Thanks. What exactly was that work?
 UKB Shark 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

An assessment of the current commercial work the BMC does, where it could improve, where new income can be derived. It is a substantial piece of work. One of the recommendations was the appointment of a Head of Partnerships which led to my appointment as Commercial Partnerships Manager (12 month contract). I will be hoping to talk at most of the upcoming Area Meets about Affinity Partnerships. End of plug!
 Offwidth 22 Mar 2017
In reply to rocksol:

What is mysterious Phil is what exactly the BMC have done so wrong in terms of governance that the whole exec needs to go at the AGM (and not some time last year?) with the massive disruption to the good the organisation does. Why did such great names need to skulk around in the shadows instead of opening their concerns immediately to the public via an EGM in 2016. On the BMC and competitions is this really a 28 year grudge based revenge?

The great achievements of climbing heros won't tarnish but measures of their current tempo in informed open debate sadly will.
 Trangia 22 Mar 2017
In reply to james mann:

> It was voted on and agreed at all area meetings that BMC remains as the name of the organisation.

For how long?

Sorry if I am sounding cynical but since the name change fiasco I am afraid that I am finding it difficult to trust every statement issued on behalf of the BMC at face value.

I want to believe those responsible for it have learned their lesson, and hope I am wrong, but the Motion of No Confidence has made me uneasy.
12
 Monk 22 Mar 2017
In reply to rocksol:


> Also consider the demographic of BMC membership I'm fairly sure most are not competition/plastic climbing motivated individuals

you have to be kidding? Nearly every active climber for the last 20 years will have climbed extensively on plastic, particularly those who don't live near rock. There was a membership survey a while ago that could be enlightening. Things change, new facets emerge. That doesn't mean they are bad.
Post edited at 20:47
2
 james mann 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Trangia:

There is no conspiracy. If at this point, the organisation has chosen to keep the name BMC, then that is the name that stays. In any case the changing of the whole organisation's name (British Mountaineering Council) is written into the articles and couldn't easily be changed anyway. Climb Britain was more of a new front or brand for the BMC rather than a true name change. Read what is out there on the MoNC, think carefully about whether or not it make great sense to move into a period of stagnation and disruption to the actual work of the BMC and then make your decision based on the facts. Do question some of the statements and the motives of those who have proposed this motion. Don't base any decisions on some kind of imagined conspiracy: There is none.

James
 AlanLittle 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Monk:

> Nearly every active climber for the last 20 years will have climbed extensively on plastic

And brick edges for 20 years before that

 Ian W 22 Mar 2017
In reply to rocksol:

Also consider the demographic of BMC membership I'm fairly sure most are not competition/plastic climbing motivated individuals and in fact the BMC used to be implacably opposed ro any form of climbing based competition They probably would not subscribe to the extremely expensively titled ClimbBritain The AGM will tell !

And therien lies the dilemma; the BMC are not attractive to the majority of modern climbers - its a changing world, and the rebrand was an attempt, for good or bad, to attract new members and hence "bring into the fold" a larger proportion of the climbing world. In order to maintain relevance, it needs to progress and change.

And wrt comps, what Graeme said, plus the fact that EVERY area voted in favour of the BMC supporting the IFSC in getting climbing into the olympics, and would hopefully carry that support through to supporting the UIAA in its bid to get ice climbing in the winter olympics.

1
 Brass Nipples 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:
Can you stick that God awful text through here?

https://convertcase.net

You never know, we might get some English out the other side that actually makes sense. All caps, the action of a 5 year old with poor English skills.
Post edited at 21:25
1
 flaneur 22 Mar 2017
In reply to rocksol:

> Many of the "old men" associated with this motion have set the tempo for much of what has happened in British mountaineering and continue to do so.

A few of them of them still did in 1987. None of them have in the last 20+ years. The world turns and old men don't like it. 'Twas ever thus. (Phil, in case you think I'm some whippersnapper unworthy of consideration like Neil Foster, I'm not far off your age, though still a youngster compared to the "BMC30").

> Also consider the demographic of BMC membership I'm fairly sure most are not competition/plastic climbing motivated individuals and in fact the BMC used to be implacably opposed ro any form of climbing based competition.

BMC membership survey 2010 found 72% of members use climbing walls. That percentage will only have increased in the last 7 years.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-member-survey-2010-results

Let us be clear, if this motion passes the BMC will cease to exist in its current form. A rump lead by a Doug Scott /Alpine Club nominee will take over with greatly reduced remit and influence. It would be a disaster for U.K. climbing.
 JoshOvki 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:
Even with the name change what would the BMC do to attract the modern climber? For me i joined the BMC due to a passion of climbing outdoors and the great work done around access. I saw (and still do see) the BMC as a great investment for climbing outdoors. None of this translates to indoor climbing, do they really provide anything to the modern climber that never steps outside?
Post edited at 21:43
5
 slab_happy 22 Mar 2017
In reply to flaneur:
> A rump lead by a Doug Scott /Alpine Club nominee will take over with greatly reduced remit and influence.

Would they? It seems that the motion would result in the Executive Committee having to resign; it doesn't follow that the Alpine Club and/or the proposers of the motion would automatically take over. Whatever the proposers of the motion may imagine or aspire to.

> It would be a disaster for U.K. climbing.

Very much agreed.
Post edited at 21:41
 TXG 22 Mar 2017
In reply to JoshOvki:

> do they really provide anything to the modern climber that never steps outside?

They provide a great deal to the majority of modern climbers who climb both inside and out.
 JoshOvki 22 Mar 2017
In reply to TXG:

Great! Like what?

As someone who has been a member for 9 years I don't know, so how is someone that isn't a member supposed to know?
 climbwhenready 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

What a load of cack this whole affair is.

My proxy form will be in the post tomorrow.
In reply to rocksol:

Just looked at your profile so now know who you are Did you and that other curmudgeonly old git get that yellow at the right hand side of the slab
 Ian W 22 Mar 2017
In reply to JoshOvki:

The bmc has many offerings that can show the plastic pullers what else is out there. But without appealing to them, how can the BMC ge tthem interested?
 JoshOvki 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:
> The bmc has many offerings that can show the plastic pullers what else is out there.

What are these offerings? No one is answering that pretty simple question.

> But without appealing to them, how can the BMC get them interested?

Let's flip that on its how. Without getting them interested, how are the BMC going to appeal to them? The BMC are trying to get new people through the door, without actually advertising what they can do for them.

On the front page of the BMCs website can you find out what they do (other than Insurance)?
Post edited at 22:15
 slab_happy 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
> What happens if the vote goes in favour of No Confidence motion? There are different views on this but I'm told by legal advisors it would most likely mean the whole of the newly elected Executive Committee (Board of Directors) and the CEO would have to stand down with immediate effect. There would then be a period in which the BMC (National Council / the Patrons ?) would have to re-establish control of itself and recruit and appoint new volunteer board members and staff.

To clarify further -- would the staff be able to continue working if the Executive Committee all had to resign, or would they have to leave, too? Who are they employed *by*, in terms of the structure of the BMC, or who determines their continued employment?
Post edited at 22:18
 Oceanrower 22 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

I would have thought they'd be covered under TUPE whoever took over.
 UKB Shark 22 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

Wouldn't have thought so. I would liken it to the civil service and incoming and outgoing political masters, but I am most of the way through a bottle of red. Other metaphors welcome

 Chris the Tall 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Trangia:

> Thank you Dave for some clarification.Can I raise one issue which I suspect is the possibly the main one that concerns so many of the rank and file BMC Membership?Concerning the name BMC. Has the lesson really been learned by the Executive Committee, and is the proposal to change the name now dead and buried once and for all? Or, as seems to have been hinted at, has the proposal to change the name merely been suspended for the time being with a view to it's being resurrected, once the the Committee believes the hue and cry has subsided and been "forgotten"?

A question which reveals your ignorance of the BMC constitution, and the principals of constitutional democracy.

First of all DT may be a member of the Exec, but it is the elected members of it who tell him what to do. It is the elected members who will decide whether or not to proceed with another name change.
Secondly no constitutional body can bind a future version. So even if Rehan was declare that the BMC would remain the BMC for perpetuity, it would count for nothing.
Finally, whilst it is likely that none of the current EXec will be considering a name change, they are all elected on 3 or 5 year terms. It is quite possible that in 2021 Graeme Alderson, riding a wave of post-Olympic euphoria, stands for President on a platform of changing the name of the organisation to the Shauna Coxsey fan club. Even if DT was still CEO, he would not be in a position to prevent it.
 Oceanrower 22 Mar 2017
In reply to ukb shark:

But surely, whatever the colour of the Government, the Civil Service do stay the same.
1
 UKB Shark 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Oceanrower:

Yes. Servants
 spenser 22 Mar 2017
In reply to JoshOvki:

Subsidised courses to help people start climbing outdoors is something they offer to indoor climbers, the liability insurance and national competitions, they've also had a part in developing coaching courses and promoting awareness of safety issues (such as those check or deck posters, not a big deal to someone who climbs with ropes regularly but a good reminder for beginners). I'm not sure the BMC should expressly seek to bring in people who only ever plan on climbing indoors, instead they should ensure that those who want to can transfer to climbing outdoors as well as indoors in a safe fashion that minimises the environmental impact of the new climbers. Clubs have a large part to play in this, some are doing an excellent job (London Mountaineering Club and Northumbrian Mountaineering Club I'm looking at you, some are figuring out how to connect with new people and I'd imagine some are happily bimbling along the same as they've been doing for the last 10 or 15 years).

This said I started working as a teenager, then got into climbing indoors and they met in the middle one day at Birchen Edge, my weekends have been more often than not spent in huts and campsites ever since!
 TXG 22 Mar 2017
In reply to JoshOvki:

> Great! Like what?As someone who has been a member for 9 years I don't know, so how is someone that isn't a member supposed to know?


Errmmm....
- Ownership and management of important crags? Bwlch y Moch, Harrisons, Longridge, Horseshoe
- Negotiating Access where it's difficult? Fairy Cave, Cheddar, Wintours (Just a few of the ones that I climb at regularly
- Random but important restoration and re-equipment initiatives? (e.g GO Wall Project)
- Lining Up insurers that don't ask stupid questions like "How High do you climb? do you use ropes?"
- Helping put in and manage seasonal restrictions that protect the precious wildlife of our crags, as well as our continued access to them
- Trying to educate people on safe and low impact winter climbing
- Providing a comp squad for young climbers to aspire to
- Providing training for the most promising regional comp winners to experience outdoor and trad climbing
- Safety initiatives for indoor walls (e.g. little tags at eye height "Check your Knot")
- Other stuff I can't be bothered to list

How do they let people know about it? Well there's the big signs at the crags they own and help out with, the RAD, the Facebook page, instagram, the big posters at climbing walls, leaflets, downloads from their website, those little tags at walls, Summit Magazine and an online TV channel to tie the whole lot together with a big red bow to make it reaaaalllllyyy easy for us all.

But apart from that, not much.
 stp 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

That's an extraordinary amount of waffle. What exactly is he saying? He didn't like new name because it wasn't decided democratically?
 johncook 22 Mar 2017
In reply to JoshOvki:

Maybe you should get involved more with your local area or at national level.
If the BMC has a fault it is not broadcasting the considerable work I does in all areas of the outdoors. You post is a good example of how people have no knowledge of the massive number of hours spent by BMC volunteers to ensure the future of climbing.
Try reading the Peak Area news letters, and several other publications. You may be very surprised what the BMC does for climbers, even indoor climbers!
In reply to Trangia:

please be assured...unless there was an overwhelming and proactive mandate from membership, personally speaking I wouldn't touch a BMC name change with a barge pole. This is most definitely not on the agenda of anyone on the BMC Executive or National Council and I for one have no intention of resurrecting it. BMC it is. Time to move on.

Dave
In reply to TXG:

That's great, but Josh's question was:

"do they really provide anything to the modern climber that never steps outside?"

And we're back to the questions raised during the renaming furore. If you want to encourage more climbers to venture outside (and that's always been a point of contention), then you need to engage with climbers at the wall, and, if your engagement isn't working, try to find out why, and try to find a better way. The proposed name change was one method recommended by outside consultants. I thought it was bullshit (and pandering to Sport England/UK Sport nonsense) and there must be better ways, but at least someone was trying.
Post edited at 23:19
 Wil Treasure 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> Its no proof at all, its the same old story: buying up domain names (which is prudent if you are even considering a name change)https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=climbbritain.co.uk

Similarly: https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=britishclimbing.co.uk#whois-results
In reply to Rob Parsons:

£50k for the commercial project
£25k for the branding project
In reply to slab_happy:

...unclear, I think the reality would be that an Executive with a 'No Confidence' black mark against it would struggle to function and decision making capabilities would be severely curtailed, even if people subsequently decided they wanted it to remain in place.
 stp 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

It's worth noting that four of his paragraphs are simply about his credentials. This appeal to authority is a well known logical fallacy: a way of trying to bolster support by making out he is an authority in some way. But it makes no difference to his argument that he is an Inspector of Schools, he's made first and second ascents in Norway or that he has worked on this or that committee. All of that is irrelevant to his (or rather their) proposal and should be disregarded by everyone.
 Ian W 22 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
Dont worry Dave, whilst i may have been consuming the tinto as well as shark, i'd put you through to the final interview stage of the British Sport Climbing Association (incorporated 23rd April 2017), if for no other reason than to give you a further hard time on extending support for the GB Climbing Team. Assuming you would apply for the post - The interview panel would be headed by me and Graeme Alderson.........

PS - I hope this scenario never comes to pass.......

Post edited at 23:49
In reply to slab_happy:

...most of the staff would not be directed affected but I think it'd change the dynamic of the whole organisation and there would be a period of unrest.
In reply to Bob Pettigrew:

Do you prefer style over substance? Is appearing at the foot of a climb dressed fashionably more important to you than the satisfying thud of a well placed ice axe? Would you rather fall and fail than use a knee to get onto a ledge?

Of course you don't, of course it isn't and of course you wouldn't. Well, it's the same for everyone at the BMC. They tried to go for a fashionable style, couldn't persuade their principal stakeholders - you - of the benefit and went back to how they were before.

They aren't the first to have tried this and failed. They are now a little wiser, sadder and organisationally poorer than before. They'll have learned their lessons. 'Angry from Manchester', or elsewhere, can write all the letters they wish but the hard lesson has been learned and receiving spittle-flecked rants and votes of no confidence won't turn the clock back.

If there is a matter relating to climbing or mountaineering that makes us call the judgement of the BMC into question then fine, but a vote of no confidence relating to a rebranding exercise? Grow up. Have you never decorated something and later been told that it doesn't look good? That's all that this is.

T.
 Dogwatch 23 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

> In other words, the entire scenario that Mr. Pettigrew apparently imagines as an outcome of the No Confidence motion (in which the Executive Committee seem to remain in place and keep the BMC functioning while being subordinated to the "independent reviewers" -- a.k.a. the AC -- until the "review" is over) is essentially impossible?

Correct. "Motion of no confidence" has a specific meaning, it isn't just a string of words. It means "you need to resign". If Bob Pettigrew intended to signal "we don't like what you did, review it", that would be a "motion of censure".

Good grief, anyone who wants to play this game needs to know the rules. Just like anyone who wants to impress with their Latin needs to get the quotation correct.
 rocksol 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Actually Graeme one of us did if Basher is not an old git! It does show I have nothing against Works resin or the laughs we have down there. Actually there seems to be a surfeit of old gigs at the moment. My beef is what I and many others perceive as BMC machinations which has come to a head over the name debacle
 Andy Hardy 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Wasn't there a bit of tutting when John Dunne set up the outdoor comp at Malham? First prize was the winner's bodyweight in pies iirc
 Michael Hood 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Dogwatch:
I think that a motion of censure would actually have some support if it was properly composed and limited to the necessary areas.
Post edited at 08:11
 UKB Shark 23 Mar 2017
In reply to rocksol:

> My beef is what I and many others perceive as BMC machinations which has come to a head over the name debacle

Do you accept the possibility that those machinations may be more perception than reality
 Trangia 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:
> I think that a motion of censure would actually have some support if it was properly composed and limited to the necessary areas.

I think you make a very good point. A motion of no confidence is too extreme because not only does it ignore all the good work the BMC does, it will because you can't cherry pick, and if carried, it will most likely result in the mass resignation of the Committee, leaving a vacuum. On the other hand if defeated, and it probably will be, it vindicates the Committee, in effect giving them a mandate to repeat specific actions, because again you can't cherry pick.

I am very uneasy about particular actions of the Committee, but I would much rather see them censured which should then be the end of the matter allowing everyone to move on.
Post edited at 08:43
 Rob Parsons 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Trangia:

> I think you make a very good point. A motion of no confidence is too extreme ... On the other hand if defeated, and it probably will be, it vindicates the Committee ...

I am not advocating anything here, but, given your statement, don't forget that, as well as voting either 'for' or 'against, you have the option to formally 'abstain.'
Post edited at 09:35
 Offwidth 23 Mar 2017
In reply to rocksol:

Of course you are right Phil, those BMC machinations look pretty pathetic compared to Bob and co's.... I wonder how we can get them up to a yellow slab problem machination level.
1
 Offwidth 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

I'm still in shock that so many climbers care about logo design and I've even taught some aspects of it and had a good laugh at the idiocy that marketing organisations can come up with (like choosing pantone colours you can't show on an RGB display or print on a CMYK printer as per my old Uni logo). Care about art, science, quality, morals, ethics whatever, but surely caring about logos, unless its part of your job, is really weird?
6
 AJM 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

I was similarly baffled but i think for a lot of people it became a blank canvas on which to project their fears about the direction of travel for one or more of the BMC/the sport/etc....
 Dave Garnett 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:
> I'm still in shock that so many climbers care about logo design

There's a difference between so visually offended by an existing design that you complain about it and deliberately choosing an appalling new one. Anyway, old designs acquire a patina of taste or at least familiarity even if they are objectively pretty naff.

I'm sure the outcry would have been even louder if more women had been involved. As a mere male I'm very aware that with my limited range of colour receptors, underdeveloped visual cortex and primitive artistic sensibilities I'm not really entitled to an opinion.
Post edited at 10:26
2
 Offwidth 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

If we are going to gender assign I'd suggest obsession with trivia and getting angry about such is very much more of a male trait.
 Andy Say 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:
> The bmc has many offerings that can show the plastic pullers what else is out there. But without appealing to them, how can the BMC ge tthem interested?

It's interesting that one of the main BMC presentational drives being undertaken is to try to convince Hillwalkers that they have a natural home in the B 'Mountaineering' C. Yet this thread has, indeed, totally ignored them and focused upon the need to attract 'plastic pullers'. Perhaps that is why this thread appears not to exist on UKHillwalking....?
Post edited at 11:02
 Offwidth 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
Not on UKH?? They are different brands for the same site.

My apologies .. just checked and it looks like you are right... if so Alan should fix that and make the climbing forum part of the menu... there is no reason why a hillwalker will be less interested in climbing as a minority interest than cycling etc.
Post edited at 11:14
 Andy Say 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

Log in to the forums on UKH and look for this thread then.
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Until 2021 when I take over the world
 fred99 23 Mar 2017
In reply to :

I find it somewhat suspicious that those flaming Bob Pettigrew with the greatest vehemence are those most heavily involved with indoor competition climbing.

Am I alone in believing that they would rather they personally should be directing the BMC, and that direction would be to place indoor competition climbing as the most important aspect of the BMC ?
24
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Yes there was a fuss about comps on rock, rightly so.
In reply to fred99:
You might not be alone in that view but as far as I am concerned, you are totally wrong. Access is THE number 1 priority for the BMC and always should be.

But nice of you to make assumptions on my behalf.

Ps Offwidth has no interest in comps.
Post edited at 11:32
 Andy Say 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

What was Mr Dunne's proposed new organisation to be called? The British Association of Sport Climbers wasn't it?
In reply to Andy Say:

I can't remember.

There is also David France's organisation, what was that called?
 Ian W 23 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

Am I alone in believing that they would rather they personally should be directing the BMC, and that direction would be to place indoor competition climbing as the most important aspect of the BMC ?


Yes, you probably are.

The BMC must represent ALL climbers, as equally as possible. Personally (and not altogether surprisingly) I believe that comps and the GB team should have a greater prominence than they currently do within the BMC, and as Comp Comm Chair, I am pushing to get that greater prominence, but there is no way the competitive sport side should ever replace access and conservation as the number 1 raison d'etre of the BMC, as that is the activity that affects us all,virtually every time we go and use the outdoors in whatever capacity (walk / climb. / run / bike).

1
 GridNorth 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

>I am pushing to get that greater prominence, but there is no way the competitive sport side should ever replace access and conservation as the number 1 raison d'etre of the BMC, as that is the activity that affects us all,virtually every time we go and use the outdoors in whatever capacity (walk / climb. / run / bike).

But that's the danger isn't it. The emphasis of the organisation will follow the money and the money will be with the competition climbing. How will you guard against that?

Al

 Offwidth 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
I've actually competed somewhere indoors in bouldering as long as my regular walls had competitions. It keeps me sharp and I enjoy the challenge and camaraderie. I think my first ever prize might have been third in a fun league (where it was the norm to then move up a league). Then about 20+ years on I won a locking biner from a nearish wall as a visitor as the second best vet. Locally its 'tricky' for an oldish bumbly to get into the top three vets against the likes of seasoned competitors like Justin P, Frazer H, Tony S (Justin most recently would have been 3rd and the others likely close to top 10 in my local open comp) but I got third not so long back when I did well and some better climbers missed the final (that biner must have inspired me).

Its only fun and training.. more important for me my outdoor ticklist for someone of ability is OKish.
Post edited at 12:13
 Rob Parsons 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> .... Personally (and not altogether surprisingly) I believe that comps and the GB team should have a greater prominence than they currently do within the BMC, and as Comp Comm Chair, I am pushing to get that greater prominence ...

I think you are overstepping the mark. Perhaps we *should* be worried about the organization.
9
 Ramblin dave 23 Mar 2017
In reply to GridNorth:
> But that's the danger isn't it. The emphasis of the organisation will follow the money and the money will be with the competition climbing. How will you guard against that? Al

Use the democratic process that's already there, surely? Pay attention to what's happening, and if you see anything concrete that you don't like then object at area meetings, bring constructive, well thought-out motions to the AGM, or propose alternative candidates for the elected roles who'll take a different direction.
Post edited at 12:08
 Simon Caldwell 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> if so Alan should fix that and make the climbing forum part of the menu

better to move this thread to a different forum, which is available to both sites. The majority of rocktalk discussions are irrelevant to hillwalkers.
 GridNorth 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Absolutely but I feel as though I'm witnessing a decline in trad climbing and an increase in indoor climbing which will increase the pressure. Calling a new organisation "Climb Britain", IMO, was an illustration of this i.e. a move away from walking, mountaineering and towards a more "sports" orientated outlook. It will be a bit like Brexit and immigration, if you voice concerns you are likely to be shouted down as old fuddy duddy as that pressure grows. Personally I believe indoor climbing and especially competition has more in common with gymnastics than climbing and should be represented by a separate body. Most people I talk to at my local walls no absolutely nothing about the history and traditions of climbing and many have never even heard of the BMC and are not interested in climbing outdoors.

Al
4
 Dave Garnett 23 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:
> I find it somewhat suspicious that those flaming Bob Pettigrew with the greatest vehemence are those most heavily involved with indoor competition climbing.

Well, 'flaming' and 'vehemence' are pretty subjective but let's say the pomposity, vagueness and shoutiness of the motion and associated letters, the inaccuracies both factual and presentational, and the failure of any of the signatories to engage in any further debate don't look very convincing so far.

I imagine the original was handwritten in green ink.


PS: For the record, I was against the rebrand and said so. I'm open-minded about the role of the BMC in the Olympic bid. I've never entered a competition in my life but I do all the pink problems when no-one is watching.
Post edited at 12:19
 Simon Caldwell 23 Mar 2017
In reply to GridNorth:

> if you voice concerns you are likely to be shouted down as old fuddy duddy

lots of people voiced concerns last year, and far from being shouted down, they were all listened to resulting in a complete U-turn
 Ian W 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> I think you are overstepping the mark. Perhaps we *should* be worried about the organization.

I dont understand what you are getting at? Which mark am I in the process of overstepping?
1
 Andy Say 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

>I think there have been some excellent posts in the previous threads on this controversial issue, and I hope that the debate which will inevitably follow the posting of this document is conducted in a civil manner, without resorting to personal insults.

Oh Neil, Neil......


 pebbles 23 Mar 2017
In reply to GridNorth:
well I dont think knowing about the history and traditions of climbing is a precondition for getting into it . I dont think Joe Brown, PaulPritchard, Don Whillans etc had a clue about these when they started out in their local crags and quarries - otherwise they would have left their mums washing lines well alone. And Gwen Moffat first hooked up with a load of climbers by complete accident.

And of the people I chat to at my local wall (and I'm a very chatty person) I'v come across some who are completely upfront that for them its an indoor activity only, some who use it as an indoor activity during the months they cant do their main sport, and others - generally the keener ones - who have started out indoors but are curious to see what the whole outdoor thing is like and maybe move into it. In fact thats how I got into trad climbing. I couldnt quantify the numbers in each group but I dont think theres a Donald Trump style wall between them, or between indoor and outdoor climbers.
Post edited at 12:25
In reply to Andy Say:

> Log in to the forums on UKH and look for this thread then.

That was an old setting which I have just changed. You may need to go to User Options to turn on Rocktalk though.

Alan
 Chris the Tall 23 Mar 2017
In reply to GridNorth:

> How will you guard against that?

You guard against it by getting involved. The BMC office may be staffed by professionals, but it is the volunteers and attendees at meetings who determine it's direction.

When you read posts from Trangia and fred99 you get the sense that there is still a desire for revenge against the people who instigated the name change, but I don't get the feeling they would be prepared to put themselves foward, to raise their heads above the parapet.

 Ian W 23 Mar 2017
In reply to GridNorth:

But that's the danger isn't it. The emphasis of the organisation will follow the money and the money will be with the competition climbing. How will you guard against that? Al

By organising the bmc to be able to "ringfence" funds for certain projects. So if Simon the commercial manager gets a sponsorship agreement for the team, that money is used only for the purpose the provider intended. If he manages to raise funding for an access issue or a conservation project, then that money should be used exclusively for that issue. Its really what the bmc does now; allocating amounts of money to be spent on different areas. We comp types have to at least try to stick to the amount allocated.
Should we get a monster deal for the team, it still wont affect access / conservation or whatever; the other areas will still have the same as they ever did, and when the (fictional at the moment) additional team funding ends, again it wont impact on any other area of operation.
 Offwidth 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Is there a UKH news thread that links the main threads of the BMC no confidence motion debate? Could be useful for hillwalkers who turn off some other forums.
 Rob Parsons 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> I dont understand what you are getting at? Which mark am I in the process of overstepping?

I would have expected that your position was to *represent* competitions etc, within the BMC, rather than actively work to get them a 'greater prominence than they currently do within the BMC.'

I hope you can see the difference.
 Marek 23 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

> I find it somewhat suspicious that those flaming Bob Pettigrew with the greatest vehemence are those most heavily involved with indoor competition climbing...

Suspicious? Why? It's perfectly understandable.
After all, they have been the indirect-but-actual target of the RP's machinations. I'd have been gob-smacked if there wasn't a correlation between climbing 'modernists' (for want of a better term) and people disagreeing with RP!

 Ian W 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Yes, thanks for the clarification; I do see what you mean.

Yes, my position is to represent the team within the BMC, but there's much more to it. I also want the team to represent the BMC; it can be a very good and prominent spearhead in various areas; the team and comps represents the best there is in terms of a certain type of climber. This type of climber operating at the level they do is a very special breed, and we ant to maximise their potential and allow them to represent GB climbing Team, the BMC, the sport / pastime of climbing and Great Britain as a whole on the international stage. To achieve this, I will always push to get greater prominence for them in whatever forum, and I will never apologise for doing that, or stop doing it. They train and make daily sacrifices to be the best athletes they can be, and they deserve to have the committee representing them doing everything in its power to give them the best chances to succeed.
1
 Rob Parsons 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

Getting one thing 'higher prominence' within the BMC means that, by definition, something else must have been relegated to lower prominence. Not everything can be 'at the top', as it were.

I am not impugning you or your motives - but this obviously creates a potential tension.

Beyond that, what is your remit? Does it actually include *pushing* to get greater prominence for competition climbing *within* the BMC?
2
In reply to fred99:

> I find it somewhat suspicious that those flaming Bob Pettigrew with the greatest vehemence are those most heavily involved with indoor competition climbing.

I rarely climb indoors, and I don't like the idea of competition climbing (especially speed climbing).

Though I don't think I'm 'flaming' anyone; just expressing disappointment that he has gone about this in a very poor way.

If he's not prepared to make his argument public, and discuss it publicly, I'm not going to pay any attention to it, and will vote against his motion, on the simple grounds of not having adequate evidence.
 Ian W 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
You are right in that it is always a balancing act with different interests competing for finite resources. My view of the bigger picture is that we should always put effort into trying to increase the size of the pie available rather than expend effort redistributing the same sized pie.
Beyond the previous post, i think the bmc can better use the team and comps in general to make itself more attractive to the new type of indoor climber, and attract more funds into the organisation, to the benefit of all. In order to do this, there needs to be some investment in the team and the comps section, as for example, bmc cop events are not progressing as much as some independent events, and there is no real reason why this should be so.

I fully accept that there are times when I have pushed the boundaries of my remit or "job description" as comp comm chair, and this has not always been welcomed by Exec. However, what has happened is that I have never been told to shut up and get back in my box; they have been more than willing to listen to my points, and enter into frank and open discussions / negotiations or whatever, the end result generally being a good compromise between what i want and what is feasible / available. Not a bad situation in my book, and one that i hope continues.

So no, my remit does not specifically include pushing for greater prominence within the bmc, to answer your specific question, but i would be failing in my duty not only to the team athletes but also the bmc itself if i were not to do so
Post edited at 13:05
1
 fred99 23 Mar 2017
In reply to :
It took the two most regular posters just over 40 minutes to shout me down.
Both are very heavily into indoor competition climbing, and are I would suggest financially advantaged from it.

It is no wonder that the Proposer of the motion has not come on here. This forum - and particularly the actual posts on this forum - are not representative of BMC membership, and more closely reflect the amount of time a small number of people have to push their personal views rather than every person who looks here having equal say.
(In this it is not unusual for a forum, or indeed any digital system).

I have no doubt that if he had come on here, then some persons would have spent their entire waking lives "replying" to him, to such a point where matters would probably escalate out of hand.

By the way, I am most certainly NOT "out for revenge" against anyone, but I do wish people would own up to the true representation of what has gone on, and the timing of such, and not attempt to gloss over matters which may not show their side in best light.

When people attempt to rewrite history, as seems so prevalent nowadays, all they are doing is sowing the seeds of discontent which will mature in future. We need to get this matter dealt with properly, and it needs to be seen to be dealt with properly, and not try and shuffle it to one side with the promise that it's all OK really, as it most evidently still provides views and matters which we do not want to fester.
20
In reply to Neil Foster:

I hope someone is going to look out for the interests of the young BMC members who's families have bought a individual under-18 membership to take part in YCS and other climbing competitions. There is an element of the past vs the future in this when you consider the motion was proposed by someone in their eighties and the people with most to lose are under 18 and don't get to vote.
 Lemony 23 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:
> It took the two most regular posters just over 40 minutes to shout me down.

It took just over 40 minutes for the two most regular posters to point out that you were wrong. There's a difference.
Post edited at 13:28
3
 Offwidth 23 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:
Your right he'd likely be shouted down tnat because what he says (at last, after hiding for weeks) is highly pompous and seemingly factually wrong in any concrete respects, other than the rebrand should have been handled better this time last year.

The BMC knows what activities its membership engage in from survey evidence and you seem completely ignorant to this. If anything my impression of UKC is it's a good bit more 'traditional' than the average BMC membership from the information in those surveys. Your claim to the opposite is based on what evidence exactly, other than your opinion?

Over the years I've watched Bob lose vote after vote in well attended Peak area meetings and until this highly destructive and dishonest motion I admired his tenacity. I share several of his concerns, unlike hardly any other BMC member I regularly climb with indoors or outdoors (mostly trad minded climbers who helped me as BMC guidebook volunteers). Its Bob who is out of touch and if the UKC population is biased, its more towards him than against. Go and ask what the 'young turks' think on UKB.
Post edited at 13:38
1
 Ramblin dave 23 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

> This forum - and particularly the actual posts on this forum - are not representative of BMC membership,

It's probably a great deal more so than the "BMC 30" are, though.

> and more closely reflect the amount of time a small number of people have to push their personal views rather than every person who looks here having equal say.(In this it is not unusual for a forum, or indeed any digital system). I have no doubt that if he had come on here, then some persons would have spent their entire waking lives "replying" to him, to such a point where matters would probably escalate out of hand.

Oh for goodness sake! If, in the name of democracy and openness, you're going to propose a potentially massively damaging no-confidence motion in the executive of a large membership organization then I'd have thought that some of those members "replying to you" might be a risk you were be prepared to take.
 Ian W 23 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

Fred,
I assume you are referring to Graeme Alderson and myself.

You were not shouted at.

We are the two most frequent poster s on this thread, but certainly not regularly on other threads.

Graeme has been involved in comps for several decades, me for about 14 years.

Neither of us gain financially from comps. Graeme is co owner of the Climbing Works, and as such has ploughed thosands into events such as the CWIF over the years, as publicity / marketin for his business, and because of an altruistic desire to advance comp climbing. He has volunteered in many roles for the UIAA, BMC and IFSC, none of which cold be remotely called financially advantageous.

I volunteer as comp comm chair and get reimbursed expenses. 4 / 5 national council meetings. 5 comp comm meetings. I act as chief judge/ jury president at national comps - this will take up 10 days of my time this year. No payment for any of it asked or given.

Neither of us has flamed Bob P or the AC. Just questioned their motive. We get involved because we care.

Should you wish to come and see me "in action", Im at Leeds wall this saturday helping with a youth comp. Next weekend I am in Reading and Wokingham acting as chief judge in a youth open / senior lead cup comp.

And before i get accused of being an apologist for Graeme; no chance. He's a Mackem, I'm a Geordie. If you know the difference, you'll understand.

Ian
1
In reply to Ian W:
>.Graeme has been involved in comps for several decades,

Steady on there Ian, you are making me sound as old as Bob and Co. Since 1989 so technically 5 decades but only just.

>Graeme is co owner of the Climbing Works, and as such has ploughed tens thousands into events such as the CWIF, the FIBO the BICC 1993/4 over the years

Fixed that for you
Post edited at 14:19
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> >Steady on there Ian, you are making me sound as old as Bob and Co

Old and a Mackem, my commiserations youth!

 Ian W 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

So i was right on both counts
 Simon Caldwell 23 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

I never climb indoors and haven't for several years. Have never climbed in a competition and am not even slightly interested in such things. I was against the rebranding last year.

I think Bob's motion is inexcusable - his concerns would all have been better aired by different means. I think his refusal to (so far) publish his reasons to anything more than some selected clubs is even more inexcusable.

I hope you don't see this as shouting you down. It's meant to be polite disagreement
 Tyler 23 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

> This forum - and particularly the actual posts on this forum - are not representative of BMC membership, and more closely reflect the amount of time a small number of people have to push their personal views rather than every person who looks here having equal say.(In this it is not unusual for a forum, or indeed any digital system).

At the risk of being accused of shouting you down, this forum is not all of climbing or all of the BMC membership but I'd have thought it was as good a representation of it as you'll get (Even at a BMC meeting). This thread doesn't seem particularly skewed towards the young or comp climbers. I'm 47, been climbing more or less for 30 years, BMC member for 10, started climbing on trad and that was my primary activity for years. Many (mostly unsuccessful) alpine trips, am I not representative.
 Martin Hore 23 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

> I find it somewhat suspicious that those flaming Bob Pettigrew with the greatest vehemence are those most heavily involved with indoor competition climbing.

I've not been flaming, vehemently or otherwise, but I have clearly indicated my opposition to Bob P's motion, in both threads on this topic.

I am not involved in indoor competition climbing save for one very light-hearted and very amateur club competition each year. I've 50 years experience as a predominantly trad. climber and mountaineer who uses indoor walls for training (and because Suffolk in winter is pretty remote from climbable rock).

I believe the aspects of mountaineering that are most dear to me are best protected by a single national body representing all aspects of the "sport". A BMC which did not represent and foster sport and competition climbing would be a BMC from which sport and competition climbers would soon split to form their own national body. Instead of decisions on which crags to bolt being argued out at BMC area meetings they would then be decided by conflict between two rival national bodies - and I think I know which one would be better resourced.

I'm in favour of a strong united BMC effectively supporting all aspects of climbing and mountaineering. Bob's motion would leave the BMC rudderless. And his underlying wish, as I understand it, to see the BMC distance itself from competition climbing, would result in a split into separate national bodies. I didn't like "Climb Britain" much, but as I see it, that's a pretty minor and now resolved issue.

Martin

 Frank Cannings 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

Now here's the irony of the Motion of No Confidence. The election of the accused Executive was proposed by none other than...

Minutes of the BMC Annual General Meeting - Saturday 16 April 2016,
YHA Castleton Losehill Hall, Peak District

6. Elections
The following candidates were eligible for re-election and were
proposed by Bob Pettigrew, seconded by Will Kilner.

6.a Rehan Siddiqui: President (eligible for re-election until April 2018)
6.b John Simpson: Honorary Treasurer (eligible for re-election until April 2018)
6.c Rupert Davies: Vice-President (eligible for re-election until April 2017)
6.d Nick Kurth: Vice-President (eligible for re-election until April 2018)
6.e Brian Smith: Independent Director (eligible for re-election until April 2017)
6.f Deirdre Collier: National Council rep on Executive Committee (Director)
6.g Colin Knowles: National Council rep on Executive Committee (Director)

If the vote goes in favour of the Motion then perhaps Bob Pettigrew should be expelled from the BMC for proposing this Executive?
1
 rocksol 23 Mar 2017
In reply to GridNorth:

Well said, totally agree with your points!
 Bob Bennett 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

I would quote a friend who said their are similarities with Brexit in that if this goes ahead we could end up without a plan for the future of the BMC. I have to say, that the good gentleman who composed this had a reputation himself for stifling discussion in a rather arrogant way in his position as chairman of the area NE BMC committee in the 80`s.
 Ian W 23 Mar 2017
In reply to GridNorth:

In some ways I agree on a separate body, and its something that has been explored. However, that would create a split, and the consensus was (and i agree with this wholeheartedly) that it is better to remain part of the BMC umbrella, so those with no idea of the rich history of climbing / mountaineering can have access to it. No connection = no chance of gaining the knowledge, at least if there is a connection, even if its only reading summit or the website, then some may be "converted" and aware of the climbing world outside of the gym.
 Trangia 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> When you read posts from Trangia and fred99 you get the sense that there is still a desire for revenge against the people who instigated the name change, but I don't get the feeling they would be prepared to put themselves foward, to raise their heads above the parapet.

Then I suggest you read my posts again, particularly my last post. I have never used the word "revenge". Yes, I was appalled at the high handed way in which the original proposal for the name change was instigated, and in particular the fact that the BMC Membership was not first consulted. I have already said that I was distrustful of statements coming from the BMC because of this, and remained suspicious of a continuing "conspiracy" .

Both James Mann and Dave Turnbull have posted reassurances on this and I accept what they say.

I have said that I believe the no confidence motion is too extreme, and have given my reasons. I have also agreed with Michael Hood that a motion of censure might have some support if properly composed. It would certainly be a better proposal than the no confidence motion and I have given my reasons for saying this.

No I am not prepared to put myself forward, but that shouldn't mean that as a member I have no right to disagree with the way the name change fiasco was handled.

I think it is a great pity that the no confidence motion has been put forward.

I wonder if Mr Petigrew and Co had actually considered the implications of their no confidence motion being defeated?
 Howard J 23 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

> It is no wonder that the Proposer of the motion has not come on here. This forum - and particularly the actual posts on this forum - are not representative of BMC membership

However neither has he gone onto the BMC website, or made any attempt to communicate with the membership as a whole, rather than that of a few select clubs. It is only because his communications with them have been leaked that we have any idea of his thinking and his objectives. In my eyes he is guilty of the very thing he is accusing the BMC of.

Like most people, I think the rebrand was badly handled but it was quickly reversed and there's no reason to think those involved haven't learned from it. I've no interest in competitions and avoid climbing indoors as much as possible, but they are aspects of the sport and should be part of the BMC's remit.


 Steve Crowe Global Crag Moderator 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

After reading all the background material I feel compelled to confirm that I fully support Dave Turnbull and his team. I am against Bob's misguided motion. I want the BMC to represent all climbers from novice to expert, indoors and out, on the crags as well as on the highest mountains.
In reply to Steve Crowe:

You see Mr Walton, us Mackems aren't too bad
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> It's probably a great deal more so than the "BMC 30" are, though.Oh for goodness sake! If, in the name of democracy and openness, you're going to propose a potentially massively damaging no-confidence motion in the executive of a large membership organization then I'd have thought that some of those members "replying to you" might be a risk you were be prepared to take.

I might be wrong, but the BMC 30 don't appear to be up to speed on modern equality and diversity practice in their demographics
 james mann 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

As South West Area Chair I have extended this invitation to Bob Pettigrew:

Dear Robert,

In light of the current MoNC in the BMC executive which you have proposed for the BMC AGM in April, I would like, as chair, to extend an invitation to your group of thirty, to attend the BMC South West Area meeting which begins at 7pm on the 25th of April. The meeting will be held at the Nova Scotia in Bristol. The motion has been placed as an agenda item as it is important that members have a clear idea of the reasons for and the possible consequences of it passing at the AGM. This would be an opportunity to provide a greater degree of clarity to the grassroots members of the organisation. I know that there are a number of the ‘thirty’ who reside in the region who might be available. The only regular attendee of these meetings is Dr Dave Hillebrandt and I understand that he is away in the Alps. Perhaps it might be possible to contact Steve Woolard or Leo Dickinson. I would be more than happy for you to pass my email on to them. The BMC is an organisation that we both clearly feel strongly about, both in terms of its’ past and future. Engaging with the areas is important, hence the immense strength of feeling surrounding re-branding, and therefore I hope that someone connected with the motion can attend. The addresses CCed into this are all South West Area committee or NC members.

I hope this finds you well

Many thanks

James Mann

I would encourage other area chairs to do the same.

James Mann
 Ian W 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Crikey Graeme, its getting to you! Who said mackems are bad...........? Tsk, Tsk, reading too much into something.......

 Chris the Tall 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Trangia:

If I was still on the national council, and giving up 5 weekends a year on a voluntary basis, then the technical difference between a vote of no-confidence and a vote of censure wouldn't concern me - I'd still resign if either was carried

We need people on the Exec and National council who are bold and decisive - if every decision has to be referred back to the areas then you get a 3 month delay each time - not very productive.

Sometimes bold decisions turn out to be damaging mistakes - haven't we all discovered that in climbing ? And sometimes you can avoid too much damage with a hasty climbdown !

As has been pointed out numerous times there were several reasons why the name change was kept secret until the national launch - but a conspiracy to hijack the organisation by comp climbers wasn't one of them.

If we want to move on, then it's best to do that with a positive attitude, rather than fostering a climate of recrimination.
In reply to james mann:

You mean BMC SW meeting on 25th March, (not April) James, I think!
 Jim Nevill 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

Shades of Donald Trump - really off-putting stuff, the first (looong) section being, broadly, "I, I, I, I..."
All sounds like a bad case of the grumps mixed with some mild paranoia.
Makes me even glader I've voted against.
 Jim Nevill 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Dave I truly feel sympathy, good luck with the AGM. My vote in the post.
 james mann 23 Mar 2017
In reply to AimHigh_Peter_Judd:

March of course. unable to edit.

james
 slab_happy 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

> IF OUR MOTION WERE TO BE CARRIED THEN IT IS FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,
THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS, TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION ACCORDING TO THEIR LEGAL
DUTY UNDER COMPANY LAW.

> OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WOULD BE TO SET UP AN
INDEPENDENT REVIEW BY ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERTS IN THE FIELDS OF
MOUNTAINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION DRAWN FROM A BROAD SPECTRUM OF THE SPORT.

> WE ARE NOT WRECKERS SO WE WOULD ADVOCATE THAT THE MAIN OPERATIONAL
DIVISIONS OF THE BMC CONTINUE TO SERVICE THE MEMBERSHIP DURING THE
INTERIM BY STRICKLY ADEHERING TO ESTABLISHED POLICIES AND WORK
PROGRAMMES UNTIL THE REVIEW IS COMPLETE AND IMPLEMENTED.

Legal advice (according to Dave Turnbull in the comments above) and the common-sense understanding of a No Confidence motion seem to concur that in the event of one, the entire Executive Committee would almost certainly be expected to resign.

They *could not* remain in situ to TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION or SET UP AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW or SERVICE THE MEMBERSHIP, let alone STRICKLY ADEHERE to anything.

It appears that Mr Pettigrew is either massively misinformed about the meaning of his own motion, or lying; I don't see a third possible explanation.

And it does seem to raise some questions about the legitimacy of the vote, if people voting for the motion have been informed -- by its proposers -- that it'll mean "the Executive Committee will have to hold an independent review but otherwise the organization will go on as normal" as opposed to "the Executive Council will have to resign en masse and the organization will have to reconstitute itself somehow".

If Pettigrew and co. actually mean what they say here about not being "wreckers", and wanting an outcome in which the Executive Committee remain in place and an independent review is held, then they should withdraw this motion.

Otherwise, I have to conclude that "wreckers" is in fact what they are.

And I say this with deep and bitter disappointment because some of the signatories are people I have a lot of reverence and respect for.
 Offwidth 23 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

"And I say this with deep and bitter disappointment because some of the signatories are people I have a lot of reverence and respect for."

This has always been the case for many of us., I still hope some were simply duped (more likely than it might sound since some of the original signatories had no idea what it was about when approached by the BMC).

Wrecking if they win and damage all round if they lose are the only possibilities if they go ahead. All of Bobs key facts are clearly nonsense and from the very low levels of support I see anywhere the game is clearly up, so I don't understand what is stopping some of the 30 from backing down and saving Bob from himself and for the BMC valuable time and energy wasted .
 deepsoup 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Jim Nevill:
> Makes me even glader I've voted against.

Earlier on I was looking for a proxy I could expect to feel similarly to me so my vote could go the other way if something earth shattering emerged at the AGM. Now that I've finally read the proposal I don't feel the need for that at all, voting against this misguided destructive gobbledegook is a no-brainer. My vote will be going in tomorrow.
 Andy Say 23 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

> THROUGH ITS DIRECTORS, TO TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION ACCORDING TO THEIR LEGAL DUTY UNDER COMPANY LAW.

Well that could be resignation after putting in train a re-election process.

> INDEPENDENT REVIEW BY ACKNOWLEDGED EXPERTS IN THE FIELDS OF MOUNTAINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION DRAWN FROM A BROAD SPECTRUM OF THE SPORT.

Well that has been put in train although I'm not sure how much progress has been made as a result of all these shenanigans.

> DIVISIONS OF THE BMC CONTINUE TO SERVICE THE MEMBERSHIP DURING THE INTERIM BY STRICTLY ADHERING TO ESTABLISHED POLICIES AND WORK PROGRAMMES UNTIL THE REVIEW IS COMPLETE AND IMPLEMENTED.

That just means that the staff go on as normal.

> It appears that Mr Pettigrew is either massively misinformed about the meaning of his own motion, or lying; I don't see a third possible explanation.

See above.

> And it does seem to raise some questions about the legitimacy of the vote, if people voting for the motion have been informed -- by its proposers -- that it'll mean "the Executive Committee will have to hold an independent review but otherwise the organization will go on as normal" as opposed to "the Executive Council will have to resign en masse and the organization will have to reconstitute itself somehow".

Well, no, they haven't as far as I'm aware.

> If Pettigrew and co. actually mean what they say here about not being "wreckers", and wanting an outcome in which the Executive Committee remain in place and an independent review is held

I don't think that has been said?

And you want to be careful about over-use of capitalisation, even in a quote. Some posters will consider you write like a 5 year old
 Andy Say 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

>As has been pointed out numerous times there were several reasons why the name change was kept secret until the national launch - but a conspiracy to hijack the organisation by comp climbers wasn't one of them.

And this is symptomatic of the difficulty the non-Illuminati have in keeping up with this farrago. I always thought the 'defence' was that no decision had been taken prior to the AGM; you seem to be inferring that the proposed 're-branding' was a done deal but kept secret. And, to be clear, it was a 're-branding'. We would have been in a world where Companies House and the Charity Commission had entries for 'The British Mountaineering Council trading as "Climb Britain" (or, nearly "British Climbing")'.

I'd love to know what other names the 'experts' floated
 Andy Say 23 Mar 2017
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

> I might be wrong, but the BMC 30 don't appear to be up to speed on modern equality and diversity practice in their demographics

Neither are the posters on this thread. Not sure how many beards are on display behind the keyboards but I don't sense much in the way of gender or ethnicity diversity. And I'd suggest the average age is highish as well!
 slab_happy 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> And you want to be careful about over-use of capitalisation, even in a quote. Some posters will consider you write like a 5 year old

As I have never been an Inspector of Schools or done any first ascents in the Lyngen Alps of Arctic Norway and in
the Indo-Tibet (China) border region of the Punjab Himalaya, I would not have the temerity to alter Mr. Pettigrew's capitalization (or correct his spelling).

 james mann 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

Speak for yourself. 40 is the new 30.
In reply to james mann:

> Speak for yourself. 40 is the new 30.

In a couple of weeks, 57 is the new 56 for me....
1
 ben b 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

I wonder if I am the only person to click on this thread wondering what a BBC Gardeners Question Time panellist is doing with a no confidence vote in the BMC?

B
 Andy Cairns 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

This doesn't seem to have been posted yet. The BMC have now set down what they say would be the consequences of the MoNC being passed -
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-17-whats-the-issue

The relevant bits are -
What is a no confidence motion?
It’s exactly that: a vote of no confidence in the entire board of directors. If successful, this means the board of the BMC would have to step down immediately.

What would the impact be on the BMC board of directors?
With the exception of CEO, all members of our board (the Executive Committee) are volunteers and are appointed for three-year tenures with the exception of the Treasurer who has five years. These volunteers are highly-regarded in their professional spheres and many devote considerable time for the good of the BMC. Tenures are staggered so that the composition of the Executive regularly changes. Some of the policy grievances that signatories of this motion have referred to predate any of the current volunteer being in office. In addition, some members of the Executive will end their tenure on the day of the AGM. If the motion is successful, many, perhaps all of the directors would stand down and there is currently no firm plan for what would happen next.

What would happen to the BMC?
If the motion succeeded, the BMC would enter an unstable period which would last several years. Organisational confidence and decision-making capabilities would be affected and there would be knock-on effects to all aspects of the BMC’s current work and services for members.

And interestingly -

Is there more background information about the motion?
Yes, but not on the BMC site. We have made several offers to the proposers of the motion to circulate supporting information for the case for No Confidence but nothing has been forthcoming as yet. If you'd like to discover more, join the discussions on UKClimbing.com and UKBouldering.com.

Which seems to answer the questions asked many times above, and raises one more - if I post a comment with a link to a BMC page which has a link to UKC, will the entire internet explode??

Cheers
Andy

 Si dH 23 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Cairns:
> . If you'd like to discover more, join the discussions on UKClimbing.com and UKBouldering.com. Which seems to answer the questions asked many times above, and raises one more - if I post a comment with a link to a BMC page which has a link to UKC, will the entire internet explode??CheersAndy

No...but more happens if you press the ukc link than if you press the ukb link. Doh!

Bmc need to get rid of the www in the ukb link.
Post edited at 21:39
 Andy Say 23 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

> As I have never been an Inspector of Schools or done any first ascents in the Lyngen Alps of Arctic Norway and in the Indo-Tibet (China) border region of the Punjab Himalaya, I would not have the temerity to alter Mr. Pettigrew's capitalization (or correct his spelling).

Have you done anything on grit, though?
 Andy Say 23 Mar 2017
In reply to ben b:

> I wonder if I am the only person to click on this thread wondering what a BBC Gardeners Question Time panellist is doing with a no confidence vote in the BMC?B

Flowerdew, Ben: Flowerdew!
 Ramblin dave 23 Mar 2017
In reply to ben b:

> I wonder if I am the only person to click on this thread wondering what a BBC Gardeners Question Time panellist is doing with a no confidence vote in the BMC?B

To be honest I've never forgiven him for betraying James and Lily Potter and pinning the blame on Sirius Black.
 Michael Hood 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster & others: Have I missed something - I can't find any mention of who the 30 are.

Also, am I right in thinking that the BMC hasn't explicitly told its members (I am one) the actual full text of the no confidence motion - or again, have I missed something in the latest Summit mailing.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Your Summit should have had an accompanying 4-page A5 flyer, giving the wording of the motion, the names of the 30 proposers, and a response by Martin Wragg.

You should also have a reply paid A5 voting card.

You can download a PDF version at the link posted by Andy Cairns

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-17-whats-the-issue
Post edited at 00:36
 Michael Hood 24 Mar 2017
In reply to captain paranoia: Thanks - yep it was me not looking at the Summit pack carefully enough - saw the 4-page A5 thing thinking it was the BMC response but not noticing the actual motion at the start.

As Zebedee said - time for bed

 Pete Stacey 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

Not sure if this has been posted already but just in case:

From last year's BMC AGM minutes:

Extract from the Minutes of the BMC Annual General Meeting - Saturday 16 April 2016, YHA Castleton Losehill Hall, Peak District
6. Elections
The following candidates were eligible for re-election and were proposed by Bob Pettigrew, seconded by Will Kilner.
6.a Rehan Siddiqui: President (eligible for re-election until April 2018)
For: 543 Against: 7 Abstentions: 6 Re-elected. Agreed
6.b John Simpson: Honorary Treasurer (eligible for re-election until April 2018)
For: 546 Against: 4 Abstentions: 7 Re-elected. Agreed
6.c Rupert Davies: Vice-President (eligible for re-election until April 2017)
For: 544 Against: 4 Abstentions: 9 Re-elected. Agreed
6.d Nick Kurth: Vice-President (eligible for re-election until April 2018)
For: 541 Against: 6 Abstentions: 10 Re-elected. Agreed
6.e Brian Smith: Independent Director (eligible for re-election until April 2017)
For: 540 Against: 6 Abstentions: 8 Re-elected. Agreed
6.f Deirdre Collier: National Council rep on Executive Committee (Director)
For: 541 Against: 5 Abstentions: 8 Re-elected. Agreed
6.g Colin Knowles: National Council rep on Executive Committee (Director)
For: 540 Against: 5 Abstentions: 9 Re-elected. Agreed

So Bob proposed the whole exec last year and is now seeking a vote of no confidence in the same people he proposed 12 months earlier - does he have no confidence in his own selection?

 spenser 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Cairns:

Hi Andy, in response to your last bit I dropped Bob an email on Wednesday evening asking if he could pass his explanation on to the BMC but he said that they were not willing to distribute it. Had a long discussion with him on the phone on Wednesday evening, he really emphasised the thing about Marco scolaris which seems to be an issue from his time with the UIAA, he also said that the main aim of the whole exercise is to get people involved and discussing governance. I think the MoNC is very much the wrong tool for the job but that there would be some value to it had the governance review not already been planned
 Lemony 24 Mar 2017
In reply to spenser:

> he also said that the main aim of the whole exercise is to get people involved and discussing governance.

So essentially, he's trolling?
 duncan 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

Thank you for this Neil.

The motion is ludicrous and riddled with inaccuracies but this is the latest battle in climbing's Culture War and we all know the first casualty in war.

The Alpine Club have previous of course: "His views were rigid and intolerant. The only decent and honourable way to climb was the way in which he had climbed as a young man."

If you're a BMC member, vote now. If you're not a member, now would be an excellent time to join.
 spenser 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Lemony:

He had the good grace to call me up and discuss it in a civil fashion despite knowing that I had no intention of voting for the motion so I wouldn't extend as far as trolling, not least because he's broken the main rule of trolling and responded (just not in public). When I emailed him I did request that he publicly come forward and explain what he's doing and why, however he seems happy enough with the text at the top of this thread representing his opinions having stated that the BMC weren't willing to publish an explanation on his behalf. Given that I'm a former member of the same university club as he was and am a current member of the Oread I'm not particularly impressed that he's citing those roles as reasons to trust him about this whole affair, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of support in the Oread and there's not been a peep from the uni club on the subject so far.
 Rob Parsons 24 Mar 2017
In reply to spenser:

> Hi Andy, in response to your last bit I dropped Bob an email on Wednesday evening asking if he could pass his explanation on to the BMC but he said that they were not willing to distribute it.

*If* that is true, then the BMC are at fault.

 Ian W 24 Mar 2017
In reply to spenser:

> Hi Andy, in response to your last bit I dropped Bob an email on Wednesday evening asking if he could pass his explanation on to the BMC but he said that they were not willing to distribute it. Had a long discussion with him on the phone on Wednesday evening, he really emphasised the thing about Marco scolaris which seems to be an issue from his time with the UIAA, he also said that the main aim of the whole exercise is to get people involved and discussing governance. I think the MoNC is very much the wrong tool for the job but that there would be some value to it had the governance review not already been planned

So from that, could you gauge whether his concern is really BMC governance, or the IFSC / Marco Scolaris. If the former, as per the MoNC, then fair enough, proceed to April 22nd. If the latter, then why the MoNC? It will have wasted vast amounts of BMC resource; as dave T said above, most of the office have been on this non stop for most of the last 4 - 5 weeks. The payroll cost alone will be many times the cost of the rebrand exercise which he so dislikes and which has been dealt with and (most people thought and hoped) we had all moved on from. Many other projects in all areas will have lost important momentum because of this.


 Rob Parsons 24 Mar 2017
In reply to stp:

> It's worth noting that four of his paragraphs are simply about his credentials. This appeal to authority is a well known logical fallacy: a way of trying to bolster support by making out he is an authority in some way.

Ha! Two can play at that game. From a following post (https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=660614&v=1#x8523868)

"The BMC have now set down what they say would be the consequences of the MoNC being passed -
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-17-whats-the-issue ...[snip]...

"With the exception of CEO, all members of our board (the Executive Committee) are volunteers and are appointed for three-year tenures with the exception of the Treasurer who has five years. These volunteers are *highly-regarded in their professional spheres* and many devote considerable time for the good of the BMC." (My emphasis.)




9
 Trangia 24 Mar 2017
In reply to duchessofmalfi:

Sorry, but your post is very difficult to absorb. Your link doesn't work, and it's difficult to read which are your comments and which are others you are repeating.

It would help if you would put bits you are repeating in italics, and put up a link which works.
 duchessofmalfi 24 Mar 2017
I found the following statements by Martin Wragg and Dave Turnbull rather odd. Surely these things are supposed to make me want to vote with the BMC and not with the MONC?

www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-agenda--motion

8. Conclusions

a) ...no connection ... Climb Britain and the ... Olympics.

-- Surely it points to a lack of competence? Any significant changes to the sport, the (de facto) governing body and branding need to be considered hand-in-hand. Disingenuous or incompetent?

b) The brand proposal was part of a scheme of modernization of BMC that commenced in 2014 and is on-going.

-- In some ways this cuts to the heart of the problem - the hands on the tiller haven't got the confidence of a large proportion of members and one of the significant issues is a lack of clarity and transparency as exemplified by the rebranding debacle.

e) Accordingly there is no governance issue arising from the brand decision.

-- I beg to differ and so do many others - the fact that the governing body got the mood of the members so spectacularly wrong points to an obvious governance issue - as highlighted by point (f)

f) When the announcement of the brand decision resulted in an adverse reaction by some members it was immediately put on hold, members were consulted and the proposal was abandoned.

g) A post mortem was held and lessons learnt.

-- Not yet they haven't, the lessons clearly continue!

And this statement by Dave Turnbull:

"It's also worth noting that dealing with the No Confidence motion has absorbed c.90% of my time..." (above)

Please go and solve some access problems or do something else useful. Wasting time on the MONC does not make me want to vote against the MONC and you can't blame thi problem on the proposers of the MONC.

I can accept a occasional cock up but I find this whinging and whining and attempting to weasel out of the frame most uncharming.
27
 Andy Cairns 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

*If* that is true, then the BMC are at flat out lying!

See my post above, they clearly state "We have made several offers to the proposers of the motion to circulate supporting information for the case for No Confidence but nothing has been forthcoming as yet"

Cheers
Andy
 john arran 24 Mar 2017
In reply to duchessofmalfi:

Is that the best you can do? You've clearly been through Dave's response in great detail looking for nuances to validate your pre-conceived ideas, and after all that effort you've found, er..., nothing of any substance whatsoever.
1
 Trangia 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Your post seems to have been pulled now! I don't know what the hell is gong on!?
 duchessofmalfi 24 Mar 2017
In reply to john arran:

I'm not sure exactly what you mean but I consider my post to contain useful criticism for the pro-BMC camp. Maybe you mistake me for someone or something else?
5
 john arran 24 Mar 2017
In reply to duchessofmalfi:
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean but I consider my post to contain useful criticism for the pro-BMC camp. Maybe you mistake me for someone or something else?

No, I'm quite sure I read it correctly and I couldn't find any useful criticism at all.

Your comment in a) is straw-clutching of the highest order, in b) you're claiming, without justification, that your opinions are shared by "a large proportion" (whatever that may mean) of members, e) is again claiming wider support for your personal opinion without justification, and g) is just plain silly, as it's clear for all to see that the BMC reversed decisions on rebranding and realised it may have misjudged its members; any difficulties in this regard that are still ongoing seem to be perpetuated completely by BP and his cohorts who seem to smell BMC blood and therefore refuse to let the BMC get on with its job.

And I think that covers your entire post, apart from the silly bit at the end.

edit: banished the evil apostrophe!
Post edited at 10:00
 slab_happy 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> Have you done anything on grit, though?

I have! Thank you for not asking *what* I've done on grit, as it's not anything remotely impressive, but "anything" is a bar I can definitely cross ....

Ironically, given some of the discussions going on in this thread, I am in fact one of those filthy indoor bouldering types, who started climbing with no higher aspirations than maybe one day making it up that purple-and-yellow problem, then ended up venturing outdoors and falling hopelessly in love with gritstone, before finally accepting that I needed to learn trad, and then rearranging my entire life for increased proximity to grit.

Now I go round getting my indoor germs all over the crags.
 Jim Nevill 24 Mar 2017
In reply to john arran:

Well said John and I especially agree re the final silly bit.
 fred99 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Lemony:

I would simply much prefer it if the two most prolific posters (among others) would, like UKC staff, actually have their company/institution listed along with their name.
That way people can identify (for example) whether the post is from "concerned of Sheffield" or from "owner of a Wall which has a commercial interest in X" - where X is the subject of the forum item.
Too many naive people take things at face value, and do not question whether there may be ulterior motives behind statements. (Note: I do say MAY rather than MUST).
And yes - I may be unnecessarily suspicious - but I'd rather that than be a patsy.
1
 Mark Kemball 24 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

> I would simply much prefer it if the two most prolific posters (among others) would, like UKC staff, actually have their company/institution listed along with their name.

To do this, I believe you have to register a commercial profile with UKC - this costs...
 Ramblin dave 24 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

> I would simply much prefer it if the two most prolific posters (among others) would, like UKC staff, actually have their company/institution listed along with their name.

There are an awful lot of people on here - most of them with no commercial interest in climbing whatsoever - who seem to think this motion is daft and counterproductive. Rather than blaming conspiracies in the shadows and looking for ulterior motives where there are none, you might want to consider that this might be happening because, looked at in the cold light of day, the motion basically _is_ daft and counterproductive.

Full disclosure: I'm on the committee of a BMC affiliated club. I've entered competitions at my local walls once or twice.
 Simon Caldwell 24 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

Ironic coming from someone with a profile called 'fred99'
 ebdon 24 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

This insinuation that those against the motion have some vested interest is bollox. Im sure there are many like me who don't regularly post who are glad that others take the time to write lengthy well thought out and factually correct responses so that i dont have to.
As demographics seem to be important on this thread I'm 34 mainly trad climb and am lacking a beard.
Ive never inspected a school but i have put up new routes in the Andes, Kyrgyzstan and ethiopia if that makes my oppinion worth more?
 Offwidth 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Indeed... there seems to be something of the opposite of occam's razor in operation here for some. Bobs 30 can skulk in the shadows and every critic of them must clear themselves of any small taint as the BMC *may have* done something wrong (oh the guilt implied in the asterix) while they completely ignore the elephant in the room: the motion, its ikely motives (Duncan's culture war), the highly delayed timing (why no EGM?), the secrecy (compared to admirable openess of the BMC) the poor and completely inconsistent argument and the 'facts' supporting their main governance claim not being even clear let alone close to something so serious we should (gridlock and) remove the exec. The BMC has its faults... no shit.... but I simply can't get my head round the logic of what the 30 are still trying to do with what we know now. Old heros are having reputations for wisdom, intelligence and honesty severly damaged, the AC is getting a huge amount of flak as playing power games and being out of touch (even though the committee are said to be supporting the BMC?). The Oread has been tainted. Opposing troops are rallied so they can't win.

Why isn't someone stopping this? Its not a game, the damage is real, and the governance review Bob says he did all this for is happening anyhow.
Post edited at 12:22
 Chris the Tall 24 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

I am more than happy to declare all the commercial interests I have in climbing walls, outdoor shops, gear manufacturers, outdoor pursuits companies and any company with the slightest hint of involvement with the BMC

The list in full:






Oh, and here's a list of all the "adventure" oriented companies that use my software:






But I did once enter a bouldering competition at the Foundry in about 1992. I came last
 Ian W 24 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

Name - Ian Walton
Resides - County Durham
Occupation - Finance Manager, KSC Worldwide Ltd (fuel forecourt operators).
Owner, Mantle Climbing UK Ltd (www.mantle-climbing.co.uk) . Importer and distributor of climbing chalk and associated equipment - thanks for the plug opportunity!

Chair, Competition Committee, BMC (since 2013)
BMC AYC, North East area (since 2007)
Also act as jury president / chief judge for UK National Competitions

So there's my details, nothing whatsoever to hide. Now about you..........
 Mark Kemball 24 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

Since we're playing that game - my "interests".
Trad climber, guidebook author (a fair way off publishing yet) BMC affiliated club member (CC and 4 Points), ex president MUMC, BMC SW secretary, keen indoor wall user, sometime competitor (would enter more if they had an over 60s category). Also, my 16 y.o. is a very keen climber and member of the GB development squad. Oh, and I have a beard.

I will be sending my proxy vote in against the MoNC.
 spenser 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Cairns:

I didn't mean to imply that the BMC were lying, just a statement of what Bob said. I think that the governance issue is something he feels passionate about and he's tagged the Marco Scolaris stuff onto the back of it because he can and it's a long held gripe, the conversation did wander off toward concerns about drugs beginning to proliferate in climbing at one point with him being quite clear that he hated the idea of climbing being in the Olympics. Bob did state that he didn't think he would get enough votes to carry the motion, I'm definitely not convinced that this is sufficient justification for the risks associated with the motion carrying.
I certainly don't think that the motion is a good use of BMC time, but I certainly don't begrudge them dedicating effort to fighting it given the potential damage it could cause to the organisation.
I'll be voting against the MoNC, not sure if I'll be there in person as that will depend on where work sends me in the next couple of weeks.
My interest in this:
I'm a climber and a member of 3 clubs (CC, Oread and NMC), no commercial involvement in climbing/ mountaineering/ outdoor pursuits. I started climbing indoors and have since managed to drag myself up a decent number of trad/ sport routes and boulder problems (often with little grace).
 Offwidth 24 Mar 2017
In reply to spenser:
Thanks again for your input, if nothing else to clear the Oread of guilt by association.

Drug use was of course heavily linked to the counter culture aspects of climbing in Bob's 'golden age' and for improved performance (on long days at alltiude) for a very long time, way before any comps. Modern international level comps, in contrast, drug test with strict consequences attached to 'fails' and the linked organisations that run competitive sport have good educational material on why drug cheating is a bad idea, so I fail to see any sensible link.

Blaming the current BMC exec for Schlerosis has also always been daft. Those with the main power are volunteers on fixed terms and tasked with acting on the repeated pro Olympic democratic decisions of the membership. Most of those criticising the motion here dislike the Olympic format and many have no interest in the BMC involvement in comps.
Post edited at 13:37
 Ramblin dave 24 Mar 2017
In reply to spenser:

> the conversation did wander off toward concerns about drugs beginning to proliferate in climbing at one point

I very nearly laughed out loud at that one...
 spenser 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

I'm assuming that "Schlerosis" was an autocorrect issue?
Bob was talking about the increasing amount of money in the sport potentially leading to a greater temptation to use PEDs to cheat, however as you've said the testing may significantly reduce drug taking among some climbers to enable them to compete.
 Mick Ward 24 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

> That way people can identify (for example) whether the post is from "concerned of Sheffield" or from "owner of a Wall which has a commercial interest in X" - where X is the subject of the forum item.

> And yes - I may be unnecessarily suspicious - but I'd rather that than be a patsy.

That's a fair enough point of view but I suspect that, in this instance, you are being unnecessarily suspicious. Re the "owner of a Wall which has a commercial interest in X", most folk know that Graeme's a co-owner of The Climbing Works. And, just in case anyone didn't know, hasn't he said so, on here?

Climbing's a very small world. That cuts both ways. It means that it's hard to conceal devious tactics (especially now with social media) because inevitably people will find out. Conversely opportunities for role conflict abound. Even if you don't have a vested interest in X, it's highly likely that you'll have mates who do.

Rightly we expect folk to put vested interests aside and simply give their honest views of what they think is best for climbing. And I think this is exactly what is happening.

Mick
 Michael Hood 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth & others: Can somebody explain what the AC has got to do with all this beyond the fact that BP suggested they would be suitable to conduct a governance review.

Why are the AC discussing a governance review of the BMC at the AC AGM? wtf has it got to do with them - unless they as a member club of the BMC are merely going to propose a governance review - which I understand is already going ahead. It's not as if the AC are somehow above the BMC - although some of the attitudes might make you think that they think that.

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

1
 AlanLittle 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Mark Kemball:

I can vouch for Mark having had a beard since long before it was fashionable, and having been an excellent president of the MUMC
 Andy Say 24 Mar 2017
In reply to spenser:

> as you've said the testing may significantly reduce drug taking among some climbers to enable them to compete.

Did you mean it to come out like that
 Ian W 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> Thanks again for your input, if nothing else to clear the Oread of guilt by association.Drug use was of course heavily linked to the counter culture aspects of climbing in Bob's 'golden age' and for improved performance (on long days at alltiude) for a very long time, way before any comps. Modern international level comps, in contrast, drug test with strict consequences attached to 'fails' and the linked organisations that run competitive sport have good educational material on why drug cheating is a bad idea, so I fail to see any sensible link.

Yes, we constantly remind our young climbers to be aware of the dangers of indulging in outdoor climbing and moutaineering, where they would be exposed to the two pronged (performance enhancing and recreational) drug taking of the traditional end of the mountaineering spectrum.

Can you imagine the reaction of the average french sniffer dog going past Snells Field in the 70's or early 80's?
 Offwidth 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

I've no direct link to the club and don't know the details. I do know second hand the AC were not behind Bobs motion even if some of its members were. Some were attacking the AC ('old fogieism' etc) on that basis and in my view that was unfair. I'm not at all conviced they are the right organisation to undertake a governance review for the BMC but its very hard to see how they will possibly be competion climber biased.
In reply to fred99:

Try clicking my profile then, I am not hiding anything. Unlike you.
1
In reply to spenser:

Did Bob tell you that the UIAA got IOC recognition in 1993 (under Mac's leadership I think) and recieved money from them for long after the IFSC was formed. I doubt it
 MG 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

I'm a member and as far as I have heard the meeting is to consider the club's position wrt to the BMC (to which it is affiliated) and its governance, which a reasonable thing to do considering the current ructions. Despite the rather bizarre proposals from Bob Pettigrew's letter, I don't think the club or its members have any interest in being responsible for a governance review of the BMC! Why would they - they are interested in alpinism, a small subset of the BMC's remit?
In reply to spenser:

Just to confirm that the BMC has in fact offered to publish a statement from Bob Pettigrew: quoting from the BMC's letter to Bob dated 24 February 2017:

'The BMC welcomes an informed debate on matters of concern and would willingly publish your statement / explanation to members alongside the AGM documentation.'

Nothing has been received as yet.
 Rob Parsons 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Ok, thanks.
 spenser 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

I did, seems to be plenty of evidence of climbers taking all sorts of funny things over the years (not necessarily those at the top of the field at the moment).
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> looked at in the cold light of day, the motion basically _is_ daft and counterproductive.

Just so. And to repeat what I said in a previous post, those behind it should realise that the message they wished to get across has been received and understood and will be acted upon, and they should now do a dose of growing up and withdraw this motion.

And since we're in the land of show and tell, I'm not currently a member of the BMC or an affiliated club since tedious illness has meant that my climbing days are pretty much* over. However, I have been both in the past and have greatly valued the services provided by the BMC when I've needed them. I have also worked in both corporate communications and outreach, though in a very different field, and have experience of stakeholder engagement at both routine and difficult times when the masses are baying for heads to roll. I've also been involved in rebranding and the commissioning and delivery of a new corporate identity. I know about this stuff.

T.
* allow me this. I know I'm only fooling myself.
 spenser 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

He didn't mention that, I did get the feeling the situation between the UIAA and the IFSC had a bit more to it than he was suggesting, however I wouldn't have known where to start in terms of challenging his assertions.
Dave: I'd hoped that was the case, it's unfortunate that Bob seems to think/ be stating otherwise.
 Ian W 24 Mar 2017
In reply to spenser:

Unfortunately some of his assertions are still being made in the face of incontrovertable facts to the contrary; when repeated, these assertions then become barefaced lies, and this then diminishes the value of any other valid points he might have.

Example; he asserts that Marco Scolaris made himself lifelong president of the IFSC; the fact is that Marco has to put himself up for reelection every 4 years proves otherwise. The most recent election was earlier this month.


 Marek 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

> ... And since we're in the land of show and tell, I'm not currently a member of the BMC or an affiliated club ...

All good, but you forgot to list your climbing achievements in order to validate your opinion on corporate governance and stakeholder engagement. I have photographs - I could post them...




In reply to Marek:

I do hope one of them shows me looking baffled at the bottom of the final pitch of Milestone Direct. I can still recall just how damn difficult I made that seem, despite having done it many times previously.

T.

1
In reply to spenser:
I will be having dinner (or maybe lunch) tomorrow with my long term friend and IFSC colleague, Mr Marco Scolaris I will see if he can shed some light on why Bob has such a bee inhis bonnet
Post edited at 16:39
 Marek 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

> I do hope one of them shows me looking baffled at the bottom of the final pitch of Milestone Direct. I can still recall just how damn difficult I made that seem, despite having done it many times previously.T.

Indeed. In fact, <whisper> I think a point of aid might have been involved </whisper>. Great times!
In reply to Marek:

With my PR hat on, I'd say that means the route was done in an alpine style. Though if I could have piled up the curses I uttered and stood on them, I'd have found a lot less difficulty. Fine times indeed!

T.

In reply to Ian W:

> Unfortunately some of his assertions are still being made in the face of incontrovertable facts to the contrary; when repeated, these assertions then become barefaced lies,

I've seen family members in their eighties with memories about things which happened in the past which are very important to them but don't completely correspond to reality. It's not that they are lying, it is really what they remember but the memory is not correct.

 Si dH 24 Mar 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I've seen family members in their eighties with memories about things which happened in the past which are very important to them but don't completely correspond to reality. It's not that they are lying, it is really what they remember but the memory is not correct.


This.
 Andy Say 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Well that's you in the seventh circle of hell then
 Andy Say 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> the fact is that Marco has to put himself up for reelection every 4 years proves otherwise.

As did Sepp Blatter.

 Andy Say 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Try clicking my profile then, I am not hiding anything. Unlike you.

And, similarly coming out of the closet, I like Bob. I would class him as a friend. He is extremely loyal to those he is close to (and, as i have said, a lot of the Scolaris stuff can be traced back to Blackshaw suffering a similar vote of no confidence) and has a heart that is in the right place. He actually CARES about the BMC. He can also, like some of the BMC 30, be a mischievous old bugger.
I know that when i meet him at the AGM he will be cool that I'm going to vote against his motion: provided I've actually thought about it and come to a considered decision.
So what I'm saying is, destructive and awkward as this motion is, just vote how you want (as I will) but save the vilification. The supporters of the motion DO deserve some respect.
2
 Ian W 24 Mar 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I've seen family members in their eighties with memories about things which happened in the past which are very important to them but don't completely correspond to reality. It's not that they are lying, it is really what they remember but the memory is not correct.

As have I. And we all can have less than perfect recall. However, they dont propose MoNC's, dont try to bring down the management of our representative organisation, and continue to hold the same position and push the same course of action in the face of facts they have been shown in writing, and explained to them by contemporaries.
 Ian W 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
He did, and it never ceases to amaze how he got back in, but i suppose that reflects on football as a whole.


Anywy, this thread has gone somewhat away from the orginal subject, and has started to descend into personal digs. I've been guilty of that as well as others, so will make a real effort to keep away from simply being negative.
Post edited at 21:10
 john arran 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> The supporters of the motion DO deserve some respect.

In principle, yes.
The problem comes now that it has become clear that many/most of the qualms raised have been shown to be unfounded and it has also become clear that the whole process is seriously hampering the BMC from currently being able to do the job it is expected to be doing, for fear that this scaremongering anti-establishment vote may end up being a close run thing despite all attempts at explaining and clarifying. It simply isn't possible to know what reach the protagonists have in spreading their misinformation via club mailings and the like. In which case the deserved respect becomes less justified every day the proposers of this motion refuse to engage in meaningful public dialogue.

Kipper 24 Mar 2017
In reply to fred99:

> It took the two most regular posters just over 40 minutes to shout me down.

They didn't, I'll try.

The motion, and the now exposed text backing it, are bollocks, I can't express my opinion simpler than that.

Name - Kipper
Resides - UK
Life Achievements - Worker, past BMC volunteer (pulled to one side by Pettigrew on a number of occasions to be congratulated on behaviour), never walked up a Polish or any other European hill.

 Mick Ward 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> I will be having dinner (or maybe lunch) tomorrow with my long term friend and IFSC colleague, Mr Marco Scolaris I will see if he can shed some light on why Bob has such a bee inhis bonnet

The Illuminati reveal all!

Mick
 bonebag 24 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

As an aspirant member of the AC I find it interesting that Bob Pettigrew questions democracy within the BMC in his proposal especially when the AC of which he is also a member only allows full members to vote on any AC proposals. Aspirant members and Associate members do not get a vote. To my mind that is certainly not democracy in action.

On the 1st April the AC are having an SGM to vote on a motion that the BMC undertakes a formal review of future policy and direction. Only full members get a vote.

Since the BMC is meant to be the club for the masses surely on this occasion the masses within the AC should get a vote on the future of the BMC.

It's difficult to take seriously the AC claim that they are an all inclusive and democratic club. Clearly they still are not and hang on to an elitist position in the mountaineering world.

BP sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me.





3
 Martin W 25 Mar 2017
In reply to bonebag:

> On the 1st April the AC are having an SGM to vote on a motion that the BMC undertakes a formal review of future policy and direction.

Is there any way that such a motion could actually achieve anything? To put it another way: does the AC have any actual authority over the BMC? As far as I can see from a perusal of the BMC's Memorandum and Articles of Association there's no mention of the Alpine Club at all, which would suggest that the motion is completely pointless. It seems to be about as pointless as the UK parliament voting on a motion to impeach the POTUS. Even if the motion was passed, the most it would achieve would be to p1ss off the USofA.

In Mr Pettigrew's letter/rant/call it what you will he seems to suggest that the AC has some kind of constitutional hold over the BMC because the AC is 'the senior organisation in the world' and it founded the BMC. Is there any way in which this is actually codified anywhere, or is it just a fantasy?
 Rob Parsons 25 Mar 2017
In reply to bonebag:

> As an aspirant member of the AC I find it interesting that Bob Pettigrew questions democracy within the BMC in his proposal especially when the AC of which he is also a member only allows full members to vote on any AC proposals.

That sounds entirely reasonable to me, and will mirror the rules of many/most organizations: you have to be a member (i.e. 'full member') in order to qualify for a vote.

The concept of 'aspirant', 'associate' etc. membership in this case is presumably designed to give a period during which each side can review each other, in order to confirm that 'full' membership is appropriate.
1
 toad 25 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons: I'm not comfortable with the idea of aspirants. Too much like a reactionary gentleman's club or a bike gang, neither of which I'd be eager to join.

 Rob Parsons 25 Mar 2017
In reply to toad:

> I'm not comfortable with the idea of aspirants. Too much like a reactionary gentleman's club or a bike gang, neither of which I'd be eager to join.

That's easy: if you don't like a club or organization, then don't join it.
 slab_happy 25 Mar 2017
In reply to bonebag:
> Since the BMC is meant to be the club for the masses surely on this occasion the masses within the AC should get a vote on the future of the BMC.

As I understand it, the AC don't have any authority over the BMC (and according to other comments here, are not at all keen on Mr. Pettigrew's proposals).

I'd be one of the first to revolt if the AC actually *were* given authority of any kind over the BMC, as Mr. Pettigrew seems to envision. But for an affiliated club to "call for" an independent review seems perfectly legitimate; it's an expression of opinion, not something they have power to enforce.

The aspirant/prospective member thing here seems beside the point. If the AC *did* get put in charge of the BMC, then it'd disenfranchise not only aspirant AC members, but all the BMC members who aren't any sort of AC members.

But a coup of that sort is fairly unlikely (I hope).

I do wish the AC would consider a public statement of some kind about this, though, because Mr. Pettigrew's letter does tend to give the impression that they're on standby champing at the bit to conduct an "independent review" of the BMC at a moment's notice, and that they're generally on-side with the motion.

From comments that AC members have made, I gather that this is not at all the case, but it is clearly causing damage to their reputation.
Post edited at 10:04
 Dave Garnett 25 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

So, getting on for 300 posts in, still no word from any of the 'BMC 30'. Of course, they'll just say that, believe it or not, there are people who don't spend their lives spraying on the internet (although possibly not in those terms) but I find it difficult to believe that there aren't people who are close to them reading this.

Or is it all just a massive troll designed to teach those young pups who have somehow infiltrated the BMC a lesson? Are they waiting until the last minute to withdraw the motion having taught us all a lesson?
1
 slab_happy 25 Mar 2017
In reply to toad:

Speaking as a Prospective member of the Pinnacle club: what it means in practice is that a) you can go on meets and they can verify that you have the competence you're claiming to have, and b) you can go on meets and take part in club activities even if you don't quite have the skill level for full membership yet.

For example, the Pinnacle have fairly high standards for full membership, in that it should mean they could safely entrust you with a novice climber for the day; I've had much less experience with multi-pitch routes than with single pitch and don't feel my skills have got enough practice, so on a big mountain multi-pitch route, I'd still rather be with someone who has much more experience than me. Therefore, I've not yet applied to be a full member.

I can't comment on whether this is similar to gentleman's clubs or biker gangs, as I am neither a gentleman nor a biker.
 Andy Cairns 25 Mar 2017
In reply to Martin W:

> In Mr Pettigrew's letter/rant/call it what you will he seems to suggest that the AC has some kind of constitutional hold over the BMC because the AC is 'the senior organisation in the world' and it founded the BMC. Is there any way in which this is actually codified anywhere, or is it just a fantasy?

Yes, it’s a sunny Saturday morning, but I’m currently injured, so I really don’t have anything better to do!

The Alpine Club is recognised to the oldest mountaineering club in the world, and certainly one of the most senior, but it has no direct hold on the BMC, and certainly isn’t “the founder of the BMC”!

The BMC was founded by 25 clubs, and in 1944 I suspect they were pretty much all of the major British clubs. In addition to the Alpine Club, there were the CC, the FRCC, Wayfarers, Rucksack Club, Yorkshire Ramblers and others from England. The Scots were in at the start with the SMC, JMCS, Cairngorm Club, Grampian Club and Ladies Scottish CC, but in an early Indyref, soon went on to form the MCofS. Female Clubs were there – the LSCC as mentioned, Ladies Alpine Club (to my shame I didn’t even know that existed), and the Pinnacle Club. Students were well represented by the Uni clubs from Cambridge, Oxford, Birmingham, Liverpool and Sheffield (my own old uni club, Edinburgh, wasn’t there as it was only set up in 1945, at which point it immediately joined!). Apologies to the ones I’ve omitted – it was getting a bit unwieldy, but I believe the all share equally in the credit for commendably setting up the BMC!

So to state that “Alpine Club is not only the senior club in the world, it is also the founder of the BMC”, as Bob P does in his document is rubbish, and as such I’d say fits seamlessly into the rest of the document!

Cheers
Andy
 Andy Cairns 25 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

So, thinking back to my previous post, in 1944, at the height of the greatest conflict in history, 25 climbing clubs got together and formed an organisation to best represent their views going forward! Can anyone come up with a better example, anywhere, of "KEEP CALM AND CARRY ON"!

The BMC was born out of that, and over the years has seen, and coped with, enormous change. It has made some pretty major mistakes, and achieved some great things. I believe it deserves a great deal better than to be brought to its knees by a shambles like this current motion!

Cheers
Andy
 jon 25 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

Prospective membership is pretty much a standard thing in clubs and as you say, has its uses.
 slab_happy 25 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Cairns:

To add to this picture (it's a sunny Saturday, but I'm a bit knackered after the sunny Friday ...): as I understand it, Geoffrey Winthrop Young, who was at that time president of the AC (and had previously been a president of the CC), did play the leading role in promoting the idea of an umbrella climbing organization, and bringing together the various clubs to found it.

Which is very different from claiming that the AC founded it, or implying that it's somehow a subsidiary of the AC which the AC should be able to reclaim at will.
 bonebag 25 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

Yes, well put and I agree with you.
 Mark Kemball 25 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:
Well, one of the proposers Steve Wollard has put his head above the parapet... https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=660774
Post edited at 16:52
 Martin Hore 25 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> The supporters of the motion DO deserve some respect.

I'm very happy to grant them respect for their mountaineering achievements, which in some cases are exceptional, and for their past contributions to the BMC. I'm struggling with respecting their motives or good sense in proposing this motion.

They would gain substantially in my respect if they would come forward and argue their case. The BMC has offered to circulate a statement from them to all members. Why have they not taken up that offer?

The vast majority of BMC members will not attend the AGM (and could not do so unless Plas y Brenin is massively expanded and the A5 improved to motorway standard in the next three weeks). Therefore this will be decided by proxy votes. You can't then expect a fair or representative outcome when one side refuses to put its case to the full electorate in advance of the meeting.

I'm wondering if I should encourage my own club to write to the Alpine Club and ask them, as a sister affiliate to the BMC, to tell us what it is their members are on about.....

Martin
 Dave Garnett 25 Mar 2017
In reply to Mark Kemball:

> Well, one of the proposers Steve Wollard has put his head above the parapet... https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=660774

Nothing to do with me, I don't suppose...
 Rob Parsons 25 Mar 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

> ... this will be decided by proxy votes. You can't then expect a fair or representative outcome when one side refuses to put its case to the full electorate ...

People can - and will - draw their own conclusions from all supporting information presented, as well as the *lack of* any supporting information. That's the same as in any election, or vote. I don't see any reason to fear that the process will be either unfair, or unrepresentative: every member of the BMC has one vote, which they can use (or not) as they see fit.

> I'm wondering if I should encourage my own club to write to the Alpine Club and ask them, as a sister affiliate to the BMC, to tell us what it is their members are on about.

Feel free to write and ask, but don't think this anything to do with the AC, does it? The motion has been tabled by its signatories - full stop.

 slab_happy 25 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> Well that could be resignation after putting in train a re-election process.

I'd hope fervently that this would be possible in the event of the MONC being passed, but presumably it would still completely gridlock the BMC for months until fresh elections could be held at an AGM (or EGM?). Not to mention having a catastrophic impact on grants to the BMC and its relationships with public bodies.

"Oh yeah, that's the organization where there was a vote of no confidence and the entire executive committee had to resign" would damage the BMC pretty devastatingly for years.

It would also be a massive waste of everyone's time and energy, especially given that some of the Executive Committee members forced to resign would have just been elected or re-elected unopposed a few minutes before the MONC.

> Well that has been put in train although I'm not sure how much progress has been made as a result of all these shenanigans.

Yes, but it's not being done by the Alpine Club so apparently it doesn't count ...

Seriously, I have no idea why the proposers of the motion are solemnly proclaiming that their goal is to demand a review when there's already one happening. Do they feel it's not independent enough? Have they just not noticed it's happening? Does anyone know?
 john arran 25 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

> It would also be a massive waste of everyone's time and energy

Ah, but surely it would be worth it, given that the entire BMC hierarchy is collectively guilty of having registered a number of domain names in advance of deciding which, if any, of them might form part of the ongoing rebranding exercise. They should all be grateful we don't still have capital punishment.
In reply to Mark Kemball:

> Well, one of the proposers Steve Wollard has put his head above the parapet..

And had it shot off in no uncertain terms. It's utter bollocks, as predicted way up the thread.

Also posted on a pretty obscure forum; one I don't have enabled, so I wouldn't have seen it without being pointed to it...

'bottom of a locked filing cabinet', anyone...?
Post edited at 19:58
 Andy Say 25 Mar 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

> It's utter bollocks, as predicted way up the thread.Also posted on a pretty obscure forum; one I don't have enabled, so I wouldn't have seen it without being pointed to it...'bottom of a locked filing cabinet', anyone...?

Oh c'mon! We've had poster after poster banging on about the lack of any communication on UKC by those proposing this motion.
And when someone does they get slagged for not actually posting in a forum you 'like'.

Get over yourself, man and just vote.
In reply to Andy Say:

Sorry Andy but posting it in crag access is probably a little bit more smoke 'n' mirrors.
In reply to Andy Say:

Posting to this thread might have been more sensible.

> Get over yourself, man and just vote.

I will vote. But you might be surprised to find that I am still open to argument. The AGM isn't until the 22nd; that's plenty of time for the proposers to convince me.

Or do you think I should vote before hearing as much evidence as possible?
 Andy Say 26 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

'Access, crag restrictions and BMC Area Meetings.'
 Andy Say 26 Mar 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Or do you think I should vote before hearing as much evidence as possible?

That's a novel concept
In reply to Andy Say:

Fair cop although the full title doesn't show when you hover over the icon
 stp 26 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Simply stating someone's credentials isn't always an appeal to authority. In the BMC statement it's a relevant point. All the board are highly skilled and if they all step down then these people/skills will be lost. So that's valid a reason members might not want to support the motion: the potential loss of skilled board members.
 lucozade 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:
I voted against the motion. Cobblers. I didn't like the way the Climb Britain re-brand was done, nor the initial BMC response to members (like myself) who opposed to the change. But congrats to Rehan Siddiqui for the way he subsequently handled things, at least as I see it. A vote of no confidence isn't called for IMHO but each person will have to make up their own mind. To me it's just detrimental, stressful and unhelpful to all parties, but I hope that some good will come out of it.
Post edited at 09:24
 Trangia 27 Mar 2017
In reply to lucozade:

> I didn't like the way the Climb Britain re-brand was done, nor the initial BMC response to members (like myself) who opposed to the change.

I agree, but as I've already said I think a vote of No Confidence is too extreme, so for that reason I have formally Abstained.

 Lemony 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Trangia:

So you disagreed with the motion and therefore decided to formally not disagree with the motion?
 Trangia 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Lemony:

Yes, and I explained why in a previous post.
2
 galpinos 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Trangia:

> Yes, and I explained why in a previous post.

In which post? (Not being facetious, genuinely interested....)
 Trangia 27 Mar 2017
In reply to galpinos:

08.42 Thursday and 16.31 Thursday
 fred99 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> Ironic coming from someone with a profile called 'fred99'

A variation on a nickname.
Remember Simon, I really do like using "fred" runners.
1
 galpinos 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Trangia:

Thank you for referencing them. I understand your points/opinions (though don't hold them myself) but would have thought that the "hammer to crack a nut" nature of the no confidence motion and the subsequent damage that will cause should it be passed (that you acknowledged) would be enough to vote against it with misgivings. An abstention does nothing to stop this?
 The New NickB 27 Mar 2017
In reply to stp:

> Simply stating someone's credentials isn't always an appeal to authority. In the BMC statement it's a relevant point. All the board are highly skilled and if they all step down then these people/skills will be lost. So that's valid a reason members might not want to support the motion: the potential loss of skilled board members.

It was also referred to in a single line not several paragraphs.
 Trangia 27 Mar 2017
In reply to galpinos:

No, but the alternative would have been to not vote at all. A formal abstention is an indication of unease. I have already returned my paper.
 The New NickB 27 Mar 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

To be fair, I think the crag access forum used to be called the BMC forum, so perhaps an irregular poster with access to a limited number of forums on their profile thought it the most appropriate place to post. My interpretation of the content of the post would be somewhat less generous though.
 john arran 27 Mar 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

> It was also referred to in a single line not several paragraphs.

Exactly. There's a huge difference between an appeal to authority to support an argument, and an appeal to authority in lieu of an argument.
 Mark Lloyd 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

We need people on the Exec and National council who are bold and decisive - if every decision has to be referred back to the areas then you get a 3 month delay each time - not very productive.

But to not mention an organisational name change at the AGM, or mention that they were consulting on the issue

We need people on the Exec and National council who are open and honest

4
 Rob Parsons 27 Mar 2017
In reply to john arran:

> Exactly. There's a huge difference between an appeal to authority to support an argument, and an appeal to authority in lieu of an argument.

I don't want to flog that dead horse any more - nor am I impugning anybody on either side of this debate - , but remember that it was the BMC leadership who handled the renaming matter in a manner described as 'indefensible' in their own report (the 'Wragg Report'.)

My initial comment was to highlight the logical absurdity of referring to those on your own side of the argument as 'distinguished', 'experienced', or whatever else - whilst mocking the other side for doing exactly the same thing. It's one of those English 'irregular adjectives' again, isn't it.

Anyway, I'll leave it!
 Ian W 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Mark Lloyd:
You have them.

I just wish I could say the same about the MoNC proposer.......
Post edited at 13:43
 UKB Shark 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
> My initial comment was to highlight the logical absurdity of referring to those on your own side of the argument as 'distinguished', 'experienced', or whatever else - whilst mocking the other side for doing exactly the same thing. It's one of those English 'irregular adjectives' again, isn't it.Anyway, I'll leave it!

One of the personal introductions is definitely more verbose that the other:

Wragg:

2. About the Author
I have been a legal adviser and honorary solicitor to BMC since 1976. I list a few matters with which I have assisted BMC over the years, some in a voluntary capacity and others on a feepaying basis.
1976 chaired Liability Working Group which led to the creation of the BMC insurance scheme.
1978-9 advised on the Mountain Training dispute.
1992-4 advised on BMC incorporation and drafted the Memorandum and Articles.
1999-2000 advised during the access debate that resulted in the CROW Act.
2006 to date: served on Land Management Group (LMG)

Pettigrew:

I am Robert Pettigrew, one of thirty listed proposers of the Motion ofNo Confidence in the Executive Committee of the British Mountaineering Council. Because I am entrusted with the Moving of the Motion, I have become the first among equals for this considered action.

Since I shall open the debate as the Mover of the Motion, supported by a Seconder of the Motion, I believe that fellow members of the BMC are entitled to know our reasons for this step, and the aims and objectives of my co-signatories and many other supporters of the Motion so that they are better equipped with the background to form an opinion and either turn up, participate in the debate and cast their vote in person, or, if unable to attend, cast a proxy vote before the time limit of Monday 17th April next.

For my part I am a former president of the Loughborough University M.C., the Oread M.C. and the British Mountaineering Council, of which I am an Hon. Member and holder of the George Band Award. I have also served as
chairman of the Training Committee, the South West and Southern Area Committee, and the North East Committee of the BMC. I have also served as chairman of the former Mountain Leadership Training Board for England and Wales. In addition I was chairman of the CCPR/SRA, the Standing Forum of 320 NGBs (Governing Bodies of Sport and Recreation} as a mountaineering representative, following my distinguished forbears, Lord Hunt of Llanvair Waterdine, and Sir Jack Longland.

Like so many of my contemporaries in the BMC, I have had a deep passion for the mountains since I was a schoolboy and became steeped in the mountain literature which is surely unsurpassed in range and content of any sport in the world, and gives our sport a spiritual and philosophical content like no other. This I have shared and enjoyed
with fellow members of the A.C., the CC, the Wayfarers, and the Himalayan Club over the years.

I have had the good fortune, and with good companions, to make a number of first and second ascents in the Lyngen Alps of Arctic Norway and in the Indo-Tibet (China) border region of the Punjab Himalaya (Himachal Pradesh). All my expeditions are recorded in the Alpine and Himalayan Journals of the period, and”Lyngsalpene” Universitetsforlarget. All were great adventures with loyal companions and a lot of fun, even in retrospect, the broken limbs!

By profession I served as an Inspector of Schools in the Further Education Divisions of the counties of Hampshire and Cleveland.
Post edited at 14:10
 Hugh Cottam 27 Mar 2017
In reply to ukb shark:

It's always a lot snappier if you don't mention the extinguished four bears.
 Chris the Tall 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Mark Lloyd:
Do you really think it would have been appropriate to announce it at the AGM before the national council had had their say ?

And if the Exec had told the AGM "We're thinking of changing the name, but we haven't decided on a new name yet" then yes it would have been open and honest, but also rather stupid.

Like it or not the brand consultants know their field and would have given advice on how to launch a re-brand. I'm pretty sure that advice would be to limit the number of people aware of it til launch. The NC gave it's approval in June, so the other option would have been to sit on it for 10 months. And then what - announce it at the AGM, have a vote and then go public ?????

Regardless of whether or not you agreed with the name change (and I was ambivalent) - the allegations that this amounts to poor governance are unfounded. I can't help but feel that the accusers don't really understand how the world operates these days - whether it be on registering domain names or the way the internet has changed the way we communicate.
Post edited at 14:51
2
In reply to Mark Lloyd:

> We need people on the Exec and National council who are open and honest

I do hope that this is a statement made in general terms in a broad 'person specification' manner because otherwise it could be interpreted as suggesting that those who currently sit on those bodies are neither of these things. If sit's the latter, you have to name names and give your evidence; or alternatively, state clearly either that you believe that those people currently on those bodies are both open and honest, or that you were speaking in general terms and do not wish to in any way insinuate that the people currently on those bodies are lacking in openness and honesty.

I have no agenda in this and do not personally know anyone on either of those bodies, and this certainly isn't an attack on you Mark as I don't know you either, but I think it best in the circumstances if statements are made that are free from different interpretations.

T.
 Andy Cairns 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

It's been posted on the other thread ("The smoking gun!") that -

"To be fair to the AC they have emailed round a statement today distancing themselves from the motion."

That was nearly 15 mins ago and we haven't had a leaked version yet? Things are slipping!

Cheers
Andy
Miranda 27 Mar 2017
Happy to oblige:

President’s statement regarding Bob Pettigrew’s post on UK Climbing on 19th March and his Motion of No Confidence in the BMC Executive

There has been considerable speculation about the intentions of the Alpine Club on both the UK Climbing and UK Bouldering websites following a post of words by AC Member Bob Pettigrew which appeared on UKC on the 19th of March. In that post, Bob Pettigrew sets out a case that the AC should lead an ‘independent review’ of the BMC. This led to many defamatory statements against the Alpine Club, which are damaging to both our reputation and integrity. These threads continue, so I am therefore putting the record straight regarding the AC’s position.

The AC Committee has never considered that the AC should lead a review. Quite the contrary. We fully support the recent call by the BMC Executive for an independent review of governance, policy, and operations. The AC is not independent of the BMC. Like all Clubs affiliated to the BMC, we are a Member Club of the BMC and like all Clubs are deeply involved with the BMC, with many AC Members working as volunteers on shared initiatives. The AC, if requested, will offer appropriate support to any formal review, as other Clubs and individual members will hopefully also offer to do.

Turning to the Motion of No Confidence in the BMC Executive now lodged for discussion at the BMC AGM on 22nd April, the AC Committee respects everyone’s right to their own opinion and understand the intentions of AC members to seek a BMC fit for purpose for the coming years, which will inevitably be full of new challenges. However, in my opinion, should the Motion succeed it would mean a year of chaos before a new Executive could take over and bring some stability. In the meantime, opportunities such as the BMC acting as moderator between the IFSC and UIAA to sort out their governance roles and the joint AC/BMC initiative to provide advice and information to young alpinists would be lost. I also suspect that Competition Climbing would establish its own governing body. Whatever you think about Competition Climbing, it is better to keep it inside the broad remit of the BMC than to risk a fracture.

If you have not done so already, I strongly encourage all AC Members to vote in favour of the AC SGM motion in support of the BMC review. If you cannot attend the AC SGM on 1st April at 55 Charlotte Road, I attach herewith a proxy voting form. The deadline is 5pm today. If you agree with the Committee, please vote both in favour of the motion and ensure that the proxy for a vote on any amendments is with the AC President.

By voting in favour of the AC Committee’s Motion, you will help your Club to distance itself from the rumours circulating that the Club is trying to take over the BMC and is supporting the Motion of No Confidence. In the meantime, we will carry on without pause with a number of important joint AC/BMC initiatives and the excellent work AC volunteers are doing in partnership with the BMC.

John Porter
President


 Andy Say 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Miranda:

My only quibble is that it was not the BMC Executive Committee that called for the review of governance etc. It was the National Council.
 james mann 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Miranda:

As I understand it, the review is taking place anyway and the Alpine Club's vote on this matter is at this point in time a moot point. I understand that this may not have been so at the time the decision to hold this vote was taken.

James
Miranda 27 Mar 2017
In reply to james mann:

In the light of differing, and sometimes vociferous views within the AC it is prudent to hold an open debate amongst the membership in order to form a consensus.
 RupertD 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
> My only quibble is that it was not the BMC Executive Committee that called for the review of governance etc. It was the National Council.

Not really. It's been brewing for some time. I think the most immediate timeline was that there was an exec strategy meeting at the beginning of the year after which a strategy document was put together that included reassessing the governance structure. This was put to the National Council and the review came out of that meeting.
Post edited at 17:40
 Andy Cairns 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Miranda:

Thanks very much for that. I'm pleased to see the position the AC have taken on the issue.

Differing and vociferous views within the AC? Shirley not!

Cheers
Andy
 Andy Say 27 Mar 2017
In reply to RupertD:

> Not really. It's been brewing for some time. I think the most immediate timeline was that there was an exec strategy meeting at the beginning of the year after which a strategy document was put together that included reassessing the governance structure. This was put to the National Council and the review came out of that meeting.

Like I said, then
 Andy Say 27 Mar 2017
In reply to RupertD:

> there was an exec strategy meeting at the beginning of the year after which a strategy document was put together that included reassessing the governance structure.

And that is also of note. The Exec. had a weekend strategy workshop that produced a proposal for future strategy. And subsequently the National Council was consulted about it. Correct?

And the National Council said 'whoah' let's think about this. It needs a proper review.

And that is where we are. Though i don't know if anyone has had the leisure to actually start the review?
 RupertD 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
No. I don't think that's a fair summary. The reassessment of the governance structure was one small part of the strategy that was firmed up into a "review." Nobody (metaphorically or otherwise) said "whoah" as if to stop a runaway horse. But I wasn't at the NC meeting. I was stuck in the snow. Why not ask Dave T for the full explanation at the NW area meeting?
Post edited at 18:57
 slab_happy 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Trangia:

> No, but the alternative would have been to not vote at all. A formal abstention is an indication of unease. I have already returned my paper.

I realize that it's obviously too late to change your vote on this, but in case anyone else is still considering:

Voting against the MONC means you don't want it to pass. And if you don't want it to pass, you have to vote against the MONC.

Voting against the MONC does not mean "I 100% support and endorse everything every member of the Executive Committee has ever done or may do in the future", it means "I do not want the MONC to pass".

Abstaining from voting is abstaining from voting. It means you are neither taking action in favour of or against the MONC.

It does not translate as "I don't want the MONC to pass but I feel uneasy and suspicious about some things and maybe I would have supported a motion of censure; if the MONC passed and the BMC was wrecked I would feel quite upset about that so I'd rather that didn't happen, so I want the MONC to be blocked but by lots of people other than me voting against it, so I can feel I'm sending a message by abstaining but without having to suffer the consequences of that."

If you actually want to communicate your unease: vote against the MONC, but send a letter to the BMC expressing your concerns. Or start planning for a motion of censure, if that's what you really want.

But if you don't want the MONC to pass, you need to vote against the MONC.

Basically, you know all the people who voted for Brexit or for Trump or who didn't vote because they wanted to "send a message" to the "political establishment", and then they were shocked and sometimes appalled when Brexit and Trump actually won? Yeah. That. Don't be those people.
 Andy Say 27 Mar 2017
In reply to RupertD:

> No. I don't think that's a fair summary. The reassessment of the governance structure was one small part of the strategy that got firmed up into a "review" at the NC meeting - I think. But I wasn't at the NC meeting. I was stuck in the snow. The reality is that the (largely academic) need for a resolution of the responsibility split between exec and NC has been discussed for some time. Nobody said "whoah" as if to stop a runaway horse. Why not ask Dave T for the full explanation at the NW area meeting?

Bummer. I thought that if I'd been 30 mins later I'd never have got up the hill
In reply to slab_happy:

Well said. Especially this bit pointing out that abstention does not mean "an indication of unease".
 slab_happy 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Miranda:
> However, in my opinion, should the Motion succeed it would mean a year of chaos before a new Executive could take over and bring some stability.

Okay, the following is something important which I haven't really seen pointed out yet.

I work part-time with a grant-making trust, so I have a bit of expertise when I say:

If we were potentially going to make a grant to an organization and we found that the previous year (or the year before that, or the year before ...), there'd been a Motion of No Confidence which forced the entire Executive Committee to resign, we would not touch them with a *bargepole.*

That is the sort of thing that will damage an organization's reputation for a *decade* or more. Many people would assume that the organization was rotten and/or incompetent to its core, that the whole thing was a Kids' Company type debacle, and stay well, well away, until the organization could show it had cleaned house and reconstructed itself, years and years later. If it survived that long.

(And no, trying to explain that it was just a few "mischievous old buggers" not understanding how domain names work wouldn't convince anyone.)

It would obviously also poison the BMC's authority and credibility with government and other public bodies (and landowners). You can't claim to speak for British climbers when apparently they're so divided and hostile to what the BMC's done in the past that they voted out the Executive Committee.

That is, to be honest, the point when clueless politicians could well go, "They seem like a total disaster and probably dodgy. Much better if we talk to this nice shiny new organization that's just been formed, ClimbSportYouthBrit."

Thinking it would be a "year of chaos" until a new Executive Committee could be installed is blithely, wildly optimistic; it totally ignores the effect the MONC would have on the BMC's public image and its relationship with other bodies.
Post edited at 20:08
 dan gibson 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> Do you really think it would have been appropriate to announce it at the AGM before the national council had had their say ?And if the Exec had told the AGM "We're thinking of changing the name, but we haven't decided on a new name yet" then yes it would have been open and honest, but also rather stupid. Like it or not the brand consultants know their field and would have given advice on how to launch a re-brand. I'm pretty sure that advice would be to limit the number of people aware of it til launch. The NC gave it's approval in June, so the other option would have been to sit on it for 10 months. And then what - announce it at the AGM, have a vote and then go public ?????Regardless of whether or not you agreed with the name change (and I was ambivalent) - the allegations that this amounts to poor governance are unfounded. I can't help but feel that the accusers don't really understand how the world operates these days - whether it be on registering domain names or the way the internet has changed the way we communicate.

You make it sound like everything was done perfectly, instead £75K of public money was wasted with nothing to show for it.
If that was your money would you still have such unwavering confidence and continued trust?
10
 Ian W 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

i was 30 mins later and got ot the top of the hill, but didnt make it too the meeting......decided that discretion was the better part of valour, and just avoided "doing a Rupert" on more than one occasion, so sloped off home.

 NickK123 27 Mar 2017
In reply to dan gibson:

I think you will find it was £25K provided by SE for the rebranding activity.

 NickK123 27 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

For completeness, the National Council includes all Directors from the Executive Committee.
 Mick Ward 27 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

> If we were potentially going to make a grant to an organization and we found that the previous year (or the year before that, or the year before ...), there'd been a Motion of No Confidence which forced the entire Executive Committee to resign, we would not touch them with a *bargepole.*That is the sort of thing that will damage an organization's reputation for a *decade* or more. Many people would assume that the organization was rotten and/or incompetent to its core, that the whole thing was a Kids' Company type debacle, and stay well, well away, until the organization could show it had cleaned house and reconstructed itself, years and years later. If it survived that long.(And no, trying to explain that it was just a few "mischievous old buggers" not understanding how domain names work wouldn't convince anyone.)It would obviously also poison the BMC's authority and credibility with government and other public bodies (and landowners). You can't claim to speak for British climbers when apparently they're so divided and hostile to what the BMC's done in the past that they voted out the Executive Committee.That is, to be honest, the point when clueless politicians could well go, "They seem like a total disaster and probably dodgy. Much better if we talk to this nice shiny new organization that's just been formed, ClimbSportYouthBrit."

In my mind I can hear the braying voices of those clueless politicians now. I don't want to hear them in reality and I definitely don't want a nice shiny new organization that's just been formed.

Mick
 dan gibson 27 Mar 2017
In reply to NickK123:

> I think you will find it was £25K provided by SE for the rebranding activity.

And what exactly is sport England money, public money generated by gambling.
3
caver 27 Mar 2017
In reply to dan gibson

I find it interesting that this far into the debate you're trying to perpetuate the £75 myth. Are you one of Bob's 30 hoping that new comers to the threads won't read the whole string.
 Rob Parsons 27 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

> ... I work part-time with a grant-making trust, so I have a bit of expertise when I say: If we were potentially going to make a grant to an organization and we found that the previous year (or the year before that, or the year before ...), there'd been a Motion of No Confidence which forced the entire Executive Committee to resign, we would not touch them with a *bargepole.*

I take the point; however:

1. The majority of the BMC's funding comes directly from membership subscriptions.

2. Whatever the BMC stands for, or wants finally to campaign for, is a collective decision for that organization. And it would be a pretty crappy - actually, nihilistic - organization if that decision was to 'pragmatically do whatever it is that gets us the most grants.'
2
 dan gibson 27 Mar 2017
In reply to caver:

The question still remains, will you answer it or side step it?
 Rob Parsons 27 Mar 2017
In reply to dan gibson:

The BMC has said that 25k was spent on consultancy fees for the 'rebranding' exercise; and 50k on consultancy fees regarding the cultivation of external revenue sources (i.e. commercial partnerships &c.); giving the total of 75k.

(I hope that's a reasonably correct summary; no doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong.)

Whether that's a good way to spend money in general is another question.
Post edited at 23:16
1
caver 28 Mar 2017
In reply to dan gibson:

Rob Parsons managed to answer before I did. No matter how you try to spin it or insinuate the BMC did not spend £25k of its own funds on the rebranding exercise. The Department of Media, Culture and Sport; and SE have the remit to both get people into and remain in an active lifestyle. They grant fund bodies such as the BMC in part to achieve this, on the understanding that they (the BMC) will achieve target figures they themselves set. The £25k was a sum over and above the grant given to the BMC. Given the discussion it caused and the re-engagement of the membership I don't think there was 'nothing to show'. The BMC learnt a lot. Probably much that they neither expected nor like; but those lessons have value.
1
 Offwidth 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

What you say about the £25k is not correct and you must know its not. The £25k from Sport England was spent on a branding project to look at how the BMC could improve participation from a brand perspective. The Climb Britain name rebrand idea arose from this but there was plenty of other useful market information that that money funded. By calling it a 'rebranding' project you imply the name change was part of the funding from the start and the new name was the only result of the spending.
 Dave Garnett 28 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

Wow, two posts from someone who clearly knows what they are talking about, packed with good sense, convincingly expressed. Are you attending the AGM? If not, someone needs to stand up and say exactly what you've just said.

 Lemony 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> 2. Whatever the BMC stands for, or wants finally to campaign for, is a collective decision for that organization. And it would be a pretty crappy - actually, nihilistic - organization if that decision was to 'pragmatically do whatever it is that gets us the most grants.'


That's not really the point though, is it? The BMC has to continue to work with a vast range of external bodies as an equal. If the motion of no confidence damages its ability to do that as it diminishes it in the eyes of its partners then it's not so easy to dismiss as mischieviousness and is petty and hugely damaging selfishness on the part of the "BMC 30".
 UKB Shark 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:
> to look at how the BMC could improve participation from a brand perspective.


It wasn't aimed at improving participation but related to how relevant the brand was to those new to climbing and hillwalking and also organisations we might wish to link with that didn't already know us. Sorry if that sounds pedantic but the distinction is important to some.
 Rob Parsons 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> What you say about the £25k is not correct and you must know its not ...

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=660614&v=1#x8522988
Dave Turnbull, BMC - on 22 Mar 2017:

"1. Cost of the rebranding exercise: The BMC received a £25k grant from Sport England solely for the purpose of covering the total cost of the branding consultants. The actual cost (i.e. over and above this and not including staff time) to the BMC was around £7k which covered trademarking and purchase of 28 relevant URLs (note: the URL purchases were made in three phases between 3 March - 6 July)."

Me:

"The BMC has said that 25k was spent on consultancy fees for the 'rebranding' exercise"

My summary seems quite fair; your own statement - claiming some deliberate intent to deceive - seems entirely typical of the way you conduct yourself here.
Post edited at 08:22
 Rob Parsons 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Lemony:

> That's not really the point though, is it?

I was making a point of principle.

3
 slab_happy 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Whatever the BMC stands for, or wants finally to campaign for, is a collective decision for that organization.

Totally agreed! But this isn't a question of the BMC's values or goals; it's about whether people want to throw out the entire Executive Committee, with all that follows from that.

There are plenty of ways of disagreeing and fighting about values and goals without doing that. For example, most the Executive Committee members are elected; people could, if they wanted, stand for positions on the Executive Committee. As I understand it, if the MONC passes, some of the people forced to resign will just have been elected or re-elected *unopposed* a few minutes earlier.

Out of interest, do you think the membership of the BMC as a whole is crying out for a MONC? Because I haven't seen any signs of that, and so far no-one's tried claiming that. The major concern seems to be that the motion might get passed because of votes solicited through misinformation being spread in private forums, and not enough of the wider membership being aware of it to vote against it.

And some of the people who've supported it here seem to be under the impression that it's a slapped wrist and a demand for an independent review, basically.

Some people have spoken as if they don't realize that it means the Executive Committee would have to resign, let alone that it's something that would have long-term (if not permanent) consequences for the organization.

A MONC in the entire Executive Committee implies something of the magnitude of "half the Executive Committee were caught embezzling and the others didn't stop them"; it says something was so rotten at the top that throwing them out by force was the only way to clean house, and that the massive collateral damage was worth it. It's a nuclear option.

> And it would be a pretty crappy - actually, nihilistic - organization if that decision was to 'pragmatically do whatever it is that gets us the most grants.'

Also totally agreed! Which is why I'm not suggesting that; I'm suggesting that people should be aware of the genuine potential consequences of what they're voting for (or not voting against).

Given that one of the potential consequences is "long-lasting damage to the BMC's credibility not only with grant-making organizations but with public bodies and landowners", people should consider whether they think that's necessary, appropriate and worth it.
 Andy Say 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> The BMC has said that 25k was spent on consultancy fees for the 'rebranding' exercise; and 50k on consultancy fees regarding the cultivation of external revenue sources (i.e. commercial partnerships &c.)

The BMC now has a commercial partnerships officer (of this parish ) so presumably that portion of the funding has, and is, being used. And to be honest, given the likelihood of all sports suffering a substantial funding cut, that 50k could be regarded as a positive 'golden handshake' helping BMC replace cut funding.
 UKB Shark 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Whatever the BMC stands for, or wants finally to campaign for, is a collective decision for that organization. And it would be a pretty crappy - actually, nihilistic - organization if that decision was to 'pragmatically do whatever it is that gets us the most grants.'

The BMC as a nihilistic organisation? Like it. Might have appealed to the punk rock climbing teenagers - not so sure about the youth today. Maybe get thinkfarm on the case?




 galpinos 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
> I was making a point of principle.

Really? I struggle to see it. slab_happy was explaining the affect a MONC could have, one of which was the massive decrease in likelihood of the BMC receiving grants in the future should the entire executive board be forced to resign.

> It would obviously also poison the BMC's authority and credibility with government and other public bodies (and landowners). You can't claim to speak for British climbers when apparently they're so divided and hostile to what the BMC's done in the past that they voted out the Executive Committee.

> That is, to be honest, the point when clueless politicians could well go, "They seem like a total disaster and probably dodgy. Much better if we talk to this nice shiny new organization that's just been formed, ClimbSportYouthBrit."

> Thinking it would be a "year of chaos" until a new Executive Committee could be installed is blithely, wildly optimistic; it totally ignores the effect the MONC would have on the BMC's public image and its relationship with other bodies.

That's not just talking about grants, it was a post attempting to enlighten those who seemed unaware that this is serious, it's a last resort and it will do untold damage. People need to think about this properly and vote, do you really think that the the guaranteed damage that will be done to the BMC is worth the benefits that I can't see (but I'm a NO voter so........) that would come from the MONC passing.

You cherry picked one point in an attempt to score some points. If you could have explained how the benefits of the MONC outweighed the havoc and damage 'the 30' intend to reek it would have probably helped your cause a bit more.
Post edited at 09:51
 UKB Shark 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> The BMC now has a commercial partnerships officer (of this parish ) so presumably that portion of the funding has, and is, being used. And to be honest, given the likelihood of all sports suffering a substantial funding cut, that 50k could be regarded as a positive 'golden handshake' helping BMC replace cut funding.

<cough> I would be prefer to be thought of as being of the neighbouring parish.

The affinity partnerships and commercial endorsement is a specific recommendation that I am following through from the b-focused consultancy reports. I have to say that the documents have been a source of inspiration and helped guide my activities working towards a commercial strategy. It will also have helped with directing the Marketing and Web initiatives underway led by Alex Messenger.

I don't think we should give up the battle to secure Sport England funding. Their own recent survey reveals that 2.14million uk adults go hillwalking or climbing which is more than golf, tennis and rugby put together. They say that they heavily base their decision making on this survey so there is a strong case to be made (and is being made) that they should increase our funding not slash it when you look at the combined funding for those sports - which actually I haven't but assume it is a scale of magnitude greater.

Robb Parson's point that funding should be aligned to our organisations direction, purpose and values (however hard those might be to nail down!) is well made.
 Offwidth 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Look at how the exercise was described at its inception. In that quote Dave was answering specific questions around rebrand after the event. I'm sure he can confirm one way or the other as he always seemed clear to me that there was no intent to rebrand at the start: it came out of the exercise. Given your many comments on this motion I don't understand how you could have missed this.

The final rather sad ad-hominon attack is below what I'd expect from you.
1
 Offwidth 28 Mar 2017
In reply to ukb shark:

Point taken although it is a rather subtle distinction: I fail to see why you would look at how your brand is functioning unless you wish to recruit or make links. What I meant by 'participation' was join or link to the BMC (not to start getting involved in the activities that the BMC supports).
 Rob Parsons 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> The final rather sad ad-hominon attack is below what I'd expect from you.

You accused me of lying.
 Rob Parsons 28 Mar 2017
In reply to galpinos:

> You cherry picked one point in an attempt to score some points.

I am not trying to 'score points' ...

> If you could have explained how the benefits of the MONC outweighed the havoc and damage 'the 30' intend to reek it would have probably helped your cause a bit more.

... nor am I promoting any cause.

All I was saying - and it's almost tangential to the subject of this thread, I guess - is that a principled organization shouldn't let the possibility of getting money influence how it behaves, or what it does. I realize that that is a hackneyed, trite, and cliched point.

(s/reek/wreak/ btw)
 dan gibson 28 Mar 2017
In reply to caver:

I stand corrected on the figures, but the sentiment remains. I was actually querying Chris The Talls post that seemed to suggest that the rebranding exercise was carried out correctly, therefore nothing would be learnt
 galpinos 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> All I was saying - and it's almost tangential to the subject of this thread, I guess - is that a principled organization shouldn't let the possibility of getting money influence how it behaves, or what it does. I realize that that is a hackneyed, trite, and cliched point.

I totally agree with all of the above, it just seemed trite to pull that one phrase out and expand on it which detracted from a very good post explaining the magnitude of what was being proposed.

> (s/reek/wreak/ btw)

You are, of course, correct. There does seem to be of a stink about all this though.........

 john arran 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> All I was saying - and it's almost tangential to the subject of this thread, I guess - is that a principled organization shouldn't let the possibility of getting money influence how it behaves, or what it does. I realize that that is a hackneyed, trite, and cliched point.(s/reek/wreak/ btw)

That's a bit like saying 'we shouldn't let immigrants rape our women', or 'we shouldn't let the EU tell us we can't sell straight bananas'. Those are unarguably true but by raising it you're implicitly suggesting there may be some real and present danger and that action may be needed as a result, even though no such danger whatsoever is known to exist and your scaremongering is 100% hypothetical.

 slab_happy 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Wow, two posts from someone who clearly knows what they are talking about, packed with good sense, convincingly expressed. Are you attending the AGM?

Thank you, I'm suitably flattered! Unfortunately, autistic spectrum stuff means I'm far, far better at expressing myself through writing than when speaking in front of people (especially in crowded rooms full of people I don't know in unfamiliar places).

> If not, someone needs to stand up and say exactly what you've just said.

Anyone who wants to would have my support, obviously! Also, I'd be happy to e-mail you with my real name and the name of the trust I work with, to confirm that I'm not making this stuff up.
 Chris the Tall 28 Mar 2017
In reply to ukb shark:

> <cough> I would be prefer to be thought of as being of the neighbouring parish.

Or maybe the trendy vicar of the happy-clappy alternative church....
 Chris the Tall 28 Mar 2017
In reply to dan gibson:

> I stand corrected on the figures, but the sentiment remains. I was actually querying Chris The Talls post that seemed to suggest that the rebranding exercise was carried out correctly, therefore nothing would be learnt

And have I ever said that nothing could be learnt ?

The fact that the membership rejected the change is not evidence of poor governance
 slab_happy 28 Mar 2017
In reply to ukb shark:

For that matter, Crappy And Nihilistic would have a nice ring to it as a route name.
 Rob Parsons 28 Mar 2017
In reply to john arran:

> ... Those are unarguably true but by raising it you're implicitly suggesting there may be some real and present danger and that action may be needed as a result, even though no such danger whatsoever is known to exist and your scaremongering is 100% hypothetical.

The direct context was the claim that a Motion of No Confidence - were it be carried; even, perhaps, were it simply to be tabled - might mean that the organization involved could then expect to get less income from grants. What I am saying is that - as a point of principle - that would never be a good reason to not proceed with a Motion of No Confidence.

I hope that's clear. I have no idea what you're referring to when you accuse me of 'scaremongering.'
 UKB Shark 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> Or maybe the trendy vicar of the happy-clappy alternative church....

As analogies go, I don't think you could be any wronger
 john arran 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> I have no idea what you're referring to when you accuse me of 'scaremongering.'

In which case you completely missed my point, although I'm pretty sure it was reasonably clear.

Hey ho.

 Rob Parsons 28 Mar 2017
In reply to john arran:

> In which case you completely missed my point, although I'm pretty sure it was reasonably clear.

I evidently have missed your point. Try again if you're interested.

 Ramblin dave 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> I am not trying to 'score points' ...... nor am I promoting any cause.All I was saying - and it's almost tangential to the subject of this thread, I guess - is that a principled organization shouldn't let the possibility of getting money influence how it behaves, or what it does. I realize that that is a hackneyed, trite, and cliched point.

True, but in this case the "principle" that I'd expect the BMC to stand for is supporting access, conservation, safety etc, and if access to grant money helps them to do that then I'd say that the nihilistic, unprincipled thing to do is to risk chucking it away because someone's having a pointless tantrum about the Olympics and isn't interested in trying to influence the organization via any of the constructive, democratic methods available to them.
 Ramblin dave 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
> The direct context was the claim that a Motion of No Confidence - were it be carried; even, perhaps, were it simply to be tabled - might mean that the organization involved could then expect to get less income from grants. What I am saying is that - as a point of principle - that would never be a good reason to not proceed with a Motion of No Confidence.

It'd be a bloody good reason not to proceed with a Motion of No Confidence if there was no real "principle" behind the motion of no confidence and if the income from grants was helping the organization to achieve what it was set up to do and promote the interests of the climbers, mountaineers and hillwalkers.
Post edited at 10:43
 Andy Say 28 Mar 2017
In reply to ukb shark:

> .I don't think we should give up the battle to secure Sport England funding.

Completely agree, in fact I'd be mightily surprised if it was all withdrawn. What i was thinking was that they were 'seeding' a means of making up any shortfall from a % cut.
 john arran 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Well, I think you'd need to be wilfully blind to miss it. But here goes:

If you assert, pretty much out of the blue, the need to prevent something happening, the implication is that you perceive a genuine threat of it happening. When there is no evidence at all of that it's called scaremongering. Stupid people then start going on about there being no smoke without fire, and before you know it we have Brexit, Trump and a BMC vote of no confidence.

Any clearer?
 Offwidth 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I'd say you are spinning the information to make thinks look worse than it was (as Bob is on his few substantive issues). Lying is very strong (more spin). Bob has lied on a few things.

So to clear this matter up, were you aware the exercise was originally about branding (and not about rebranding until part way through the process)?
Post edited at 11:52
In reply to ukb shark:

> I don't think we should give up the battle to secure Sport England funding. Their own recent survey reveals that 2.14million uk adults go hillwalking or climbing which is more than golf, tennis and rugby put together.

Sport England don't seem to fund sports that aren't Olympic sports (there are only three that they fund that aren't). Or at least that was the case. So promoting hillwalking wouldn't seem to be in their remit. I know it's odd, and that maybe they ought be really be encouraging all physical activity, but that's not what they seem to do; they appear to think of themselves as grass roots feeder generators for UK Sport, the Olympic athlete funding.
2
In reply to captain paranoia:

You have Sport England and UK Sport mixed up.

UK Sport is about elite sport and the Olympics, ie the medal agenda.

Sport England is about grassroots and participation, ie the health agenda.
 The New NickB 28 Mar 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

Lacrosse
Rounders
Rugby League
Water Skiing
Dance
Aussie Rules
Cricket
Netball
Surfing
Squash
American Football
Hang gliding
Sub Aqua
Motor sports
Bowls
Gliding
Kite Surfing
Roller Skating
Surf Life Saving
Orienteering
Korfball
Skateboarding

All the above are examples of non-Olympic sports supported by grants from Sport England and that doesn't include grants for "Multisport" "sport participation and capacity building". Which three non-Olympic sports do you think they support.
 Howard J 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

It's not as if the £25k was wasted - it came up with a brand which apparently was right on the button so far as indoor climbers were concerned - the group it was intended to attract. What was overlooked was how existing members, who mostly have more of an outdoors focus and includes a large number of hillwalkers, would react. The eventual decision was to retain 'Climb Britain' as a more target brand/campaign to attract indoor climbers but for the organisation as a whole to be the BMC.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> You have Sport England and UK Sport mixed up.

No I haven't.

Sport England is grass roots participation.
UK Sport is Olympic athletes.

As I said above.

I was basing my 'only Olympic sport' comment on this statement on Sport England's website from 2013. Maybe their stance has changed since then:

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 to support its elite and high performance programme"

I have highlighted the bit I obviously missed the significance of.

I'm very happy to learn that Sport England fund grass roots participation in all physical activity; this is exactly what I think they should be doing.
1
 UKB Shark 28 Mar 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:
> Sport England don't seem to fund sports that aren't Olympic sports (there are only three that they fund that aren't). Or at least that was the case. So promoting hillwalking wouldn't seem to be in their remit.

Dave Turnbull said at the last Peak Area Meeting that Sport England was impressed with the proposed BMC hill walking strategy and potentially prepared to help fund it.
Post edited at 13:32
 Offwidth 28 Mar 2017
In reply to ukb shark:

There must be a secret hill-walking competition agenda then I guess
 Rob Parsons 28 Mar 2017
In reply to john arran:

> If you assert, pretty much out of the blue, the need to prevent something happening, the implication is that you perceive a genuine threat of it happening. When there is no evidence at all of that it's called scaremongering.

No, that's no clearer. Above, you accuse me of 'scaremongering' : to what exactly are you referring? I have never asserted the need to prevent anything happening. Are you confusing me with somebody else?
Post edited at 14:34
4
 Andy Say 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

It's called 'cross-country'.
 The New NickB 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> It's called 'cross-country'.

No, that would be walking around the park competition agenda.
In reply to TXG:
> Errmmm....- Ownership and management of important crags? Bwlch y Moch, Harrisons, Longridge, Horseshoe- Negotiating Access where it's difficult? Fairy Cave, Cheddar, Wintours (Just a few of the ones that I climb at regularly- Random but important restoration and re-equipment initiatives? (e.g GO Wall Project)- Lining Up insurers that don't ask stupid questions like "How High do you climb? do you use ropes?"- Helping put in and manage seasonal restrictions that protect the precious wildlife of our crags, as well as our continued access to them- Trying to educate people on safe and low impact winter climbing- Providing a comp squad for young climbers to aspire to- Providing training for the most promising regional comp winners to experience outdoor and trad climbing- Safety initiatives for indoor walls (e.g. little tags at eye height "Check your Knot")- Other stuff I can't be bothered to listHow do they let people know about it? Well there's the big signs at the crags they own and help out with, the RAD, the Facebook page, instagram, the big posters at climbing walls, leaflets, downloads from their website, those little tags at walls, Summit Magazine and an online TV channel to tie the whole lot together with a big red bow to make it reaaaalllllyyy easy for us all.But apart from that, not much.

And now Crookrise
Post edited at 14:59
 john arran 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> No, that's no clearer. Above, you accuse me of 'scaremongering' : to what exactly are you referring? I have never asserted the need to prevent anything happening. Are you confusing me with somebody else?

... in which case you have my sympathy but I don't think it could possibly be any clearer. Does the phrase "a principled organization shouldn't let the possibility of getting money influence how it behaves, or what it does." ring any bells? And no, I'm certainly not confusing you with anyone else, unless of course I've been having a dialogue with 2 people, both with the same username, which I suspect is quite unlikely.
 La benya 28 Mar 2017
In reply to john arran:

You're being perfectly clear. Rob is trying his best to be obtuse. move on.
 NickK123 28 Mar 2017
In reply to dan gibson:

Rebranding was part of the package as were a number of other marketing strands - which have been used in various forms. In particular, items showing how activities can be presented together were generated. These have been and will continue to be used. Hence, any suggestion that public money has been wasted would miss the mark by some distance.
 Rob Parsons 28 Mar 2017
In reply to john arran:

> ... in which case you have my sympathy

I don't need that, thanks.

> Does the phrase "a principled organization shouldn't let the possibility of getting money influence how it behaves, or what it does." ring any bells?

You have completely misunderstood the point I was trying to clarify. Well done.
4
 john arran 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> I don't need that, thanks.You have completely misunderstood the point I was trying to clarify. Well done.

In which case I sincerely and wholeheartedly apologise ... for having replied to what you wrote rather than to what you now seem to believe you were intending to write.

Hey ho.

I think we've rather exhausted this line of misdirection now.
2
 dan gibson 28 Mar 2017
In reply to NickK123:

If there is any confusion it may come from Dave T saying £25k was for branding.
 NickK123 28 Mar 2017
In reply to dan gibson:

Yep - can see scope for confusion but my previous comment applies; there has been value secured from the work.
2
 Pete Stacey 29 Mar 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Regarding the 30 who signed the MoNC - some are members of my local club - The Yeti Club (celebrated 60 years as a BMC member club last year). None of them have responded to my repeated requests for their reasons why they support the motion. It is reasonable to say that the club has people on both sides of the argument and the more information I cull from here or grough and post it out only isolates those who have put their name to it.
 Andy Syme 30 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

Rob

As Yorkshire Area Chair I have also received nothing from Bob. It may be because I'm new in role and he doesn't have my contact details but I would appreciate a copy to share with my area too.

Andy Syme
 Andy Syme 30 Mar 2017
In reply to Trangia:

I'm with James on this. "Don't attribute to conspiracy what could (more likely) be attributed to a mistake" (clean version )

The question is over whether removing the executive the right way to address the honestly held concerns (some) people have about the handling of the rebranding exercise and the effects of competition climbing on the sport as a whole. IMHO the independent review already proposed, followed by appropriate action on the findings by the Exec and the NC is a better solution.
 Andy Say 30 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Syme:
> IMHO the independent review already proposed, followed by appropriate action on the findings by the Exec and the NC is a better solution.

I'm keen at the next NW BMC area meeting to hear what progress has been made with that (given that the motion has probably paralysed much BMC work) and what the terms of reference are.
Post edited at 17:57
 JR 30 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

On a slight tangent, but I thought this gave some fascinating insight into a little bit of BMC history. I'm sure many can draw links, lines and parallels. From the Independent in 2013 following the death of Derek Walker, an ex General Secretary of the BMC:

Derek Walker: Mountaineer and Climbers' Club president who helped overhaul the sport

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/derek-walker-mountaineer-and-...
Post edited at 18:34
 ebdon 30 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:
In the spirit of this debate i thought i'd continue with the leaked documents. especially as there's so little info from the supporters of the motion. This just got sent round AC members from Doug Scott, I have to say its the best written piece supporting the motion so far - that said I still don't get where there coming from and don't agree at all.

Members may find these comments useful with the meeting on Saturday in mind.

I read with interest your open letter appealing to Bob, Dennis and myself to withdraw the motion of censure. I note that you wrote this having followed an Email stream of letters from others alarmed at the thought of this motion and also after you had something of an Epiphany at the Westway Climbing Centre. That of course is where we last climbed together and where I was again last week. You seem to be inferring that Bob, Dennis and myself are against indoor climbing and indoor competition climbing. I can assure you that I shall be there watching our young competition climbers on the TV over in Tokyo at the next Olympics and cheering them on as I will our gymnasts and other Olympic competitors. I mention this so I don't appear alienated from the "inclusive church" you write about. Don't forget it was Dennis who actually organised the first indoor climbing competition in the UK back in the 80s. It will only confuse the issue to link competition climbing and the Olympics with this motion of censure of the BMC Executive. By the way, the motion of censure is, of course, Bob Pettigrew's initiative supported by not just Dennis and myself but 30 other recorded names altogether and thousands of others who are concerned at the present state of the BMC and the direction it is taking.

I am surprised at the depth of feeling and the extreme alarm the motion has engendered even amongst seasoned volunteers of the AC, CC and of course, the BMC. Every organisation goes through a cycle whereby the origins and reasons for it are obscured by the passage of time and the inevitable distortion of the original pure impulse that always happens, driven by the same old drivers - the quest for fame and fortune, status and power. It would seem there is no exception to this rule. All great religions, all paths to self-knowledge, every spontaneous gathering of like minded people to preserve a much valued idea, all lose momentum and end up doing the opposite of what was first intended but still retaining the original name - the classic of course is Christianity itself that moved on from "loving thy neighbour as thyself" to launching the Crusades, instigating the Inquisition and more recently of priests abusing small children.

The BMC, as with all social life, has deviated from the direction set out in the beginning. The BMC was set up to represent a common interest in the 1940s when climbing was becoming ever more popular with high wages and longer holidays and also the stimulus of the successful of Everest. The BMC was never seen as a single, national club and in fact the founders talked openly of avoiding the way climbing had evolved on the Continent. The BMC was seen as an "umbrella" body representing the collective interests of its members and never a governing body. There were no government grants or paid staff, no-one even charged expenses. The hard-working Hon Secretaries were hugely supported by volunteers who put in vast amounts of time voluntarily - such names as Rawlinson, Starkey, Solari and Nea Morin amongst many others. At an early committee meeting in March 1945 it was reaffirmed there should be no publicity given to mountaineering and popularisation of it should be avoided.

In 1966 John Hunt and Hilary Sinclair met with Walter Winterbottom of the newly formed Sports Council that had been set up to encourage more activity in sport. The Sports Council requested the BMC to submit a five year plan with expenditure and wanted the BMC to open up to individual members. Seeing the writing on the wall the BMC representatives stressed that, unlike competitive sports, the BMC was not and never would be a governing body but would always remain a representative body. This ethic, peculiar to climbing, was reinforced during subsequent years and appreciated by the Sports Council thanks to sensitive diplomacy and eternal vigilance.

Fifty years on exactly, for all to see, the current Executive of the BMC lost their way, caving in to government pressure to re-brand and to be match fit to become more commercial without reference to the membership - a clear reversal from representation to out and out governance.

As I have pointed out these situations are not unique in organisations. The Royal Geographical Society a few years ago, lost their way and the Beagle Campaign was instigated that highlighted the problems. It was the new President Michael Palin, who was able to reconcile the differences between the executive and the members and help put the RGS back on a track that appealed to most of the membership.

continues on next post......
 ebdon 30 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

The problems facing the BMC are much bigger than those of the RGS and therefore require a major review that must be entirely independent. The BMC, AC, CC, Rucksack Club and just about everyone else who has looked into it agrees that a review is necessary. The President of the BMC in his statement [10/03/2017] said that a "far reaching, independent review was instigated by the national council on 11 February 2017 before the no-confidence motion was filed." Apart from this being somewhat disingenuous since the executive knew long before 11 February of the motion, how independent will this review be when, even before the President put out his statement, the CEO was asking climbers to take part in the review group. Naturally we will all be thinking of asking turkeys to vote for Christmas or not!

I see that the AC, whilst encouraging members to support a review of the BMC, have not actually stated that it should be fully independent. In regard to the AC's attitude to the motion of no confidence, it does seem a bit alarmist in suggesting that if the motion was to succeed it would lead to a year of chaos before a new executive could take over. This opinion is shared by other respected clubs and their officers who forget that the graveyards are full of those we once thought were indispensable. Surely an organisation of 80K plus members can more quickly find suitable replacements for those who have to step aside?

I was not that impressed with Martin Wragg's account of the situation, who like Rehan Siddiqui, has been asked by the CEO and his executive to defend the status quo. He does, at least, acknowledge that "unrelated governance issues have been identified by the executive". He has, however, failed to grasp as Steve Town has pointed out, that although the BMC has done nothing wrong legally, "he totally misses the point that the BMC has not so much 'drifted away' from both the intentions of its founders and the interests of the great majority of its members, it has "willfully" charged away in a direction that has little regard as to why people go to the hills." Steve, in relation to Brian Smith's led paper on engaging with hill walkers, also makes the point that at the same time as the BMC was pushing the idea of "Climb Britain" it was also planning to attract some of the 2.4 million hill walkers into the BMC. So the BMC, it would seem, to survive must for ever increase its status and power - at one end of the spectrum from competition climbing and at the other from inducing everyone that intends to venture onto an incline into the organisation.

Unfortunately I have no time to continue as I have to drive to Andover where I am doing a lecture for CAN this evening. Still, I hope I have made the point that there has been a considerable drift in the last year or so away from representing the membership of the BMC. There is probably no need for me to go over old ground re the lack of transparency with regard to funding e.g. it wasn't apparently £25,000 of tax payers' money from Sport England that went into making the BMC match fit to go more commercial but £75,400 according to the BMC and Martin Wragg's own figures.

You can gather from the above that I will continue to support the motion of no confidence in the BMC's executive that was prompted by the attitude of the CEO of the BMC to the need for repairs at the Harrison Rock complex of ablution block and car park who unfortunately said it wasn't his or the BMC's job to fix lavatories. I notice that at the AC dinner Rehan Siddiqui could not see that this is but a symptom of the wider malaise when he said that "since the ablution block has been fixed there is no problem". I will attach Bob's report about this for your interest.

There have been some positive steps taken towards sorting out the problems between UIAA and IFSC thanks to Bob, Dennis and myself prompting Nick Colton to contact the UIAA's Executive and Management Committee when in Sheffield earlier this month. According to one national council member the BMC's competition climbing rep cowered away from confrontation with IFSC over its wild assertions that it represents all recreational climbers, is prepared to have competition climbers on natural surfaces and not to mention the fact that IFSC hi-jacked the name Sport Climbing from sport climbing. This failure was put down to the head long rush towards competition climbing and the Olympics. Hopefully an independent review will also redress this situation.

Nick did a good job there as he and the majority of the BMC executive and volunteers have done in many other areas that have helped to preserve the best traditions of mountaineering for future generations.
 john arran 30 Mar 2017
In reply to ebdon:

Is he being paid by the word?
4
In reply to ebdon:
I note that Doug uses Motion of No Confidence & Motion of Censure interchangeably yet a much earlier post by someone differentiates the two.
MONC is described to require the resignation of the Executive and significant upheaval in the work of the BMC.
MOC means that a deep examination by an independent body of what has happened needs to take place with the existing Exec still there to keep the boat afloat. Can someone clarify this please?
Post edited at 19:24
1
 slab_happy 30 Mar 2017
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
> I note that Doug uses Motion of No Confidence & Motion of Censure interchangeably yet a much earlier post by someone differentiates the two. MONC is described to require the resignation of the Executive and significant upheaval in the work of the BMC.MOC means that a deep examination by an independent body of what has happened needs to take place with the existing Exec still there to keep the boat afloat. Can someone clarify this please?

The one that's on the agenda for the AGM is a Motion Of No Confidence.

Whether that's what Bob Pettigrew and co. *intended* and whether they even know what it means I have no idea because it seems very unclear what they imagine the consequences of it will be, but that's what they actually signed and submitted.
Post edited at 19:37
 Michael Hood 30 Mar 2017
In reply to ebdon: If he wanted a motion of censure (as Doug keeps on repeating) then why go for a motion of no confidence - which is a more extreme motion.

 Chris the Tall 30 Mar 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

> If he wanted a motion of censure (as Doug keeps on repeating) then why go for a motion of no confidence - which is a more extreme motion.

Alternatively, why not table motions that directly address the issues he's concerned about ?

Much better than a series of rambling rants in support of the nuclear option

As to the fact that the BMC has evolved substantially from how it was in 1945 - well of course it has !!! If it hadn't, most of us wouldn't be members. I do remember one line from Doug's presidential campaign from a few years back - he said that by introducing one member one vote the pendulum had swung too far towards individual members and should swing back towards the clubs. I suspect his position on this hasn't changed.
2
 Offwidth 30 Mar 2017
In reply to ebdon:

Thanks for posting.

Yet another rambling explanation of support for the motion, from one of the 30, that bears only passing linkage with the other leaked explanation, draft and letter. A simple, straight argument for once would have been good.

It reads in parts more like an election manifesto, with the odd griping aside (southern sandstone now!) than support for Bob's motion. It's still completely opaque what the fatal governance issues are alluded to in the motion and why the exec need to go now (rather than Doug or someone similar standing for election to change the direction of the BMC, as Doug did before). While we all wait to vote based on the dishonest and secretive concerns of these mysterious egos, the day-to-day business of the BMC continues to be disrupted for no good reason (no proportionately serious goverenace issues at all have been identified and a governance review is imminent in any case).

The idea everything can be fixed quickly if they win the no confidence motion is simply deluded. A win will probably carry its desired effect (the position of the exec will be untenable) but the inevitable small numbers voting and mainly based on tribal proxy (based on lies and misinformation on Bobs side) will almost certainly lead to open warfare within the BMC over the way the exec has been treated. Its not at all clear that following this shameful motion that thousands will continue to be prepered to support Doug but its very likely many thousands will respond against him and more for the way the motion has been handled than the actual content.

The biggest governance exposure, following all this mess so far, about the BMC, is that such motions can reach a BMC AGM vote at all; in the face of the level of secrecy and dishonesty we have seen in evidence in these online debates. We really are living in a post truth world.
3
In reply to ebdon:

My word. Thanks for posting this. Can it really be true that, in the end, this all boils down to a long held grudge about the IFSC and a spat over the bogs at Harrison's?

I'd really appreciate someone who supports the motion joining the dots for me and explaining why the infamous rebrand represented "a clear reversal from representation to out and out governance". That seems to be the only other point of significance in Doug's letter, and I find it simply baffling...
 UKB Shark 30 Mar 2017
In reply to midgets of the world unite:

> I'd really appreciate someone who supports the motion joining the dots for me

If you don't understand it then there's no hope for the rest of us

 Ian W 30 Mar 2017
In reply to ebdon:

There have been some positive steps taken towards sorting out the problems between UIAA and IFSC thanks to Bob, Dennis and myself prompting Nick Colton to contact the UIAA's Executive and Management Committee when in Sheffield earlier this month. According to one national council member the BMC's competition climbing rep cowered away from confrontation with IFSC over its wild assertions that it represents all recreational climbers, is prepared to have competition climbers on natural surfaces and not to mention the fact that IFSC hi-jacked the name Sport Climbing from sport climbing. This failure was put down to the head long rush towards competition climbing and the Olympics. Hopefully an independent review will also redress this situation.


Does anyone know which NC member (I would like to find out first hand what is supposed to have happened), and when this took place? It wasnt me, and doesnt sound like Rob Adie.
I'm not even going to respond to the other stuff I have copied above.
Really sad.

Ian W
Chair, BMC comps
In reply to JR:

Interesting that Brazilgate is briefly mentioned. I wonder which of the BMC 30 was involved with that one !
 slab_happy 30 Mar 2017
In reply to ebdon:

> I am surprised at the depth of feeling and the extreme alarm the motion has engendered even amongst seasoned volunteers of the AC, CC and of course, the BMC.

After all, it's not as if the MONC would do any damage to the BMC or anything! Not like volunteers who've worked for those organizations for years would know anything about it!

> Seeing the writing on the wall the BMC representatives stressed that, unlike competitive sports, the BMC was not and never would be a governing body but would always remain a representative body. This ethic, peculiar to climbing, was reinforced during subsequent years and appreciated by the Sports Council thanks to sensitive diplomacy and eternal vigilance.

> Fifty years on exactly, for all to see, the current Executive of the BMC lost their way, caving in to government pressure to re-brand and to be match fit to become more commercial without reference to the membership - a clear reversal from representation to out and out governance.

In what conceivable way are the BMC "for all to see" aspiring to become a "governing body" controlling climbing?

If it's "for all to see", what is the evidence of it? Show me how the BMC are trying to "control" my climbing. Show me.

Unless the evidence is supposed to *be* the attempted re-branding, because it was carried out "without reference to the membership" -- except of course for the bit where it was approved by the National Council and the bit where they went round to all the Area Meetings and listened and backed down -- and this proves that the BMC are now a ruthless dictatorship.

> Unfortunately I have no time to continue as I have to drive to Andover where I am doing a lecture for CAN this evening.

Gosh, what a pity! I'm sure if you'd had time, you would be able to point us towards a tiny shred of evidence!

> In regard to the AC's attitude to the motion of no confidence, it does seem a bit alarmist in suggesting that if the motion was to succeed it would lead to a year of chaos before a new executive could take over. This opinion is shared by other respected clubs and their officers who forget that the graveyards are full of those we once thought were indispensable.

The graveyards are also full of non-profit organizations that died when their reputations and credibility were tarnished.

I will repeat my previous statement that I think if the damage to the BMC was *only* a "year of chaos", it would be *miraculous*.

I'm also impressed that he concedes that "other respected clubs and their officers" agree with the President of the AC's position that it would be massively destructive, and just takes that as proof that they're wrong.

> Steve, in relation to Brian Smith's led paper on engaging with hill walkers, also makes the point that at the same time as the BMC was pushing the idea of "Climb Britain" it was also planning to attract some of the 2.4 million hill walkers into the BMC. So the BMC, it would seem, to survive must for ever increase its status and power - at one end of the spectrum from competition climbing and at the other from inducing everyone that intends to venture onto an incline into the organisation.

For everybody who's been proclaiming that the true British Mountaineering Council is all about everyone who does things outdoors and in the hills and it's these evil plastic-pullers who need to be ejected: here's Doug Scott being affronted at the idea that hill-walkers are part of the BMC's constituency. You're welcome.

Do you think he knows there are hill-walkers in the BMC already? Does he know they have votes?

> You can gather from the above that I will continue to support the motion of no confidence in the BMC's executive that was prompted by the attitude of the CEO of the BMC to the need for repairs at the Harrison Rock complex of ablution block

Wait, I thought the MONC was because of domain names? Now we find out that all along it's been about the toilets at Harrison's?

> Nick did a good job there as he and the majority of the BMC executive and volunteers have done in many other areas that have helped to preserve the best traditions of mountaineering for future generations.

"They did a good job. Let's spit in their faces and make them resign."

Sorry if I've hit inappropriate levels of sarcasm here, but this whole thing is such a ... petty, destructive, deceptive, grudge-fuelled, *dishonourable* piece of nonsense, coming from people some of whom I had great respect for.
2
 Simon Caldwell 30 Mar 2017
In reply to ebdon:

So still not commenting publicly, just to carefully chosen clubs. If I hadn't already voted then this would decide me to vote against.
In reply to Ian W:

Once again Doug neglects to mention that it was Ian MaNaught Davis who started the rush towards the Olympics, he was grateful for the recognition and status and the money it brought to the UIAA but once he realised that it might actually happen he tried to derail it.

I have been very actively involved in the IFSC since before it existed! I have never, repeat never, heard any mention of comps on rock. Doug and Co are lying about this, total out right lies.
 bonebag 30 Mar 2017
In reply to john arran:

Yes, it does make you wonder. Very verbose.
In reply to john arran:

Are you suggesting that a respected mountaineer might seek to profit from his activities within our sport. Wash your mouth out.
In reply to ebdon:

FFS...
 Ian W 30 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Yes, and a quick look at www.theuiaa.org shows the utter disdain with which the UIAA hold the olympic movement........

I have also put on here, in case it was not obvious, the organisational issues around having a lead climb with a final route of 9a / +, and a boulder comp with 8 quali's 8 semis and 8 final climbs in an area able to hold 10k spectators, whilst all routes are hidden so they can be attempted onsight..........

I really wish I was around for the AGM. Usually i would be happy to just let the motion be defeated, and the proposers drift away. But these characters need to be called to account in public. How can Bob and Doug contemplate continuing as BMC patrons given the damage they are attempting to inflict on the organisation they hold honorary positions in via the spreading of deliberate lies and misinformation.


 slab_happy 30 Mar 2017
In reply to ebdon:

So it's not about comps and the Olympics:

> It will only confuse the issue to link competition climbing and the Olympics with this motion of censure of the BMC Executive.

Except when it is:

> According to one national council member the BMC's competition climbing rep cowered away from confrontation with IFSC over its wild assertions that it represents all recreational climbers, is prepared to have competition climbers on natural surfaces and not to mention the fact that IFSC hi-jacked the name Sport Climbing from sport climbing. This failure was put down to the head long rush towards competition climbing and the Olympics.

Of course, it may or may not also be about domain names and the Harrisons' toilets, so really, who knows?
 AlanLittle 30 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:
> So it's not about comps and the Olympics

Course not. Weren't you paying attention? It's about letting the hordes of grubby hillwalkers in.

And loos. There are crag loos at the Martinswand and the Weissenstein, *ergo*, the loos at Harrisons are a prime example of the BMC behaving just like the evil DAV and ÖAV and not "avoiding the way climbing had evolved on the Continent". So they shouldn't be there. AND they should be cleaned more regularly. OK?
Post edited at 22:55
2
 Rob Parsons 31 Mar 2017
In reply to ebdon:

(Apparently) quoting Doug Scott:

" ... The BMC, AC, CC, Rucksack Club and just about everyone else who has looked into it agrees that a review is necessary. The President of the BMC in his statement [10/03/2017] said that a "far reaching, independent review was instigated by the national council on 11 February 2017 before the no-confidence motion was filed." Apart from this being somewhat disingenuous since the executive knew long before 11 February of the motion ..."

Interesting comment, given that the 'Wragg Report' says:

"... There was a further debate at the National Council meeting on 11 February 2017 when a decision was made to set up a working group to review governance and to report to National Council and make recommendations. Subsequently BMC received a letter/email from Bob Pettigrew dated 16 February 2017 giving notice of his No Confidence motion."

So: did the NC set up the review - now regarded as necessary by all involved - because of the threat of a no confidence motion? Or did they set it up with no inkling of that motion, as implied by the Wragg Report?
2
 Rob Parsons 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Once again Doug neglects to mention that it was Ian MaNaught Davis who started the rush towards the Olympics, he was grateful for the recognition and status and the money it brought to the UIAA but once he realised that it might actually happen he tried to derail it.

I'd be interested in more history/documentation about that, if you can provide links to relevant minutes etc. Thanks.
 Rob Parsons 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> ... How can Bob and Doug contemplate continuing as BMC patrons ...

Well the BMC appears to have an organizational problem - and real differences of opinion - on its hands here, doesn't it?

Regarding the 'organizational' aspect, what exactly is the status of a 'patron'?

Edit: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-patrons says that Bob Pettigrew is not a patron, which contradicts your claim here. What are the facts of the matter?
Post edited at 00:59
1
caver 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Can Patrons be subject to a vote of no confidence; in the AOB at the end of the AGM?
 Doug 31 Mar 2017
In reply to AlanLittle:

Fairly trivial point but Martinswand is in France, so its the evil CAF (who also have a hut nearby that you can drive to, from where its a downhill walk to the climbs - very degenerate)
 AlanLittle 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Doug:

I was referring to the one just outside Innsbruck.
 Doug 31 Mar 2017
In reply to AlanLittle:

Ah - didn't realise there were two of them - I was referring to the one in Alsace (seems the German speaking world is at times as unimaginative as the English/Gaelic, quite how many Black Crags & Ben Mores do we have ?)
 galpinos 31 Mar 2017
 galpinos 31 Mar 2017
In reply to ebdon:

Thanks for posting that. It seems to confirm that there is little consensus within the 30 as to what the MONC is based on. Their continued failure to lay out the reasons behind their MONC and reluctance to actually do so in a public manner (some form of statement) whilst skulking in the shadows, trying to drum up support within the "old boys" club network reinforces where my vote is going.

(as an aside, as an engineer I'm just desperate for a concise list of bullet points to make their argument, lots of rambling verbose text may well appeal to the romantics but, in this case, has not led to a coherent argument being expressed)
In reply to Rob Parsons:

I don't have access to UIAA Minutes.

And I got the date wrong, it was 1995 (see http://theuiaa.org/ ), which by coincidence (or obviously not) is when Mac became UIAA President. So it is fairly obvious that Mac was keen on the recognition
 slab_happy 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> I have been very actively involved in the IFSC since before it existed! I have never, repeat never, heard any mention of comps on rock.

Some of the very earliest climbing comps (decades pre-IFSC) took place on chipped rock, right? Lynn Hill mentions this in her book. Followed by everyone realizing that it was a terrible, terrible idea, and that (ethics aside) it was a lousy way to try to "set" suitable routes.

Of course, there are a few competitive events that take place on natural rock, like Melloblocco or 24 Hours Of Horseshoe Hell, but nobody seems to be objecting to those.

... is it possible that they're referring to Melloblocco? So they can claim it's technically true that the IFSC is not condemning comps on natural rock, and let everyone think that chipping crags for the Olympics will be next?
 Andy Say 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Well the BMC appears to have an organizational problem - and real differences of opinion - on its hands here, doesn't it?Regarding the 'organizational' aspect, what exactly is the status of a 'patron'?Edit: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-patrons says that Bob Pettigrew is not a patron, which contradicts your claim here. What are the facts of the matter?

Bob is an honorary member. 1 of 18 currently.
 Rob Parsons 31 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

> Some of the very earliest climbing comps (decades pre-IFSC) took place on chipped rock, right?

I'm pretty sure that the Bardonecchia competition ('80s sometime) was one such.
 Offwidth 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

"So: did the NC set up the review - now regarded as necessary by all involved - because of the threat of a no confidence motion? Or did they set it up with no inkling of that motion, as implied by the Wragg Report?"

Again you suspect the openess of BMC at every opportunity (despite numerous fact based public clarifications) and continue to ignore a parallel assessment of the dishonesty and secrecy of the 30??. If what Doug said were true it would have been easy enough to prove that from the very beginning of this mess and better if he didnt add new mistruths. Don't you also think Bob might have mentioned it in his ramblings and mistruths?
 Andy Say 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> "So: did the NC set up the review - now regarded as necessary by all involved - because of the threat of a no confidence motion? Or did they set it up with no inkling of that motion, as implied by the Wragg Report?

Well I can only speak for myself. I was at the NC meeting concerned in February and I had no inkling of a No Confidence motion on the horizon; it was the first NC meeting I'd been to in two years though!

I supported the proposal for a governance review based on the conduct of the re-brand, a first sight of the document outlining the agreed roles and responsibilities of National Council and Executive Committee (agreed in 2015) and the suggestion by Martin Wragg that elements of that document seemed to be at variance with the Articles of the BMC.
 Ian W 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Yes, as per galpinos post, he is an honorary member. Apologies for the error. Can he continue to be an hon member etc etc.

The internal review had been suggested at a previous NC meeting. A matrix of decisions / responsibilities was drawn up, and (as per posts passim ad nauseam), it was found there are conflicts between authority and responsibility. Hence review set up, formally kicked off in Feb 17.
Not sure of exact timeline coincident with Bob P's first missive, but that contained a lot of rubbish about the IFSC / olympics / comps. So the review was set up with a timeframe etc. Bobs inklings / rumours etc were merely just that at the time; until he put his MoNC in, he counldn't be taken seriously (whats changed, dear reader, I hear you ask...).

And what Andy Say wrote above.
Post edited at 09:26
 Andy Say 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
> I'm pretty sure that the Bardonecchia competition ('80s sometime) was one such.

And the Arco Rockmasters. And the comp at Falaise de Leschaux.

And, of course, the preparation of a competition route at Cathedral Quarry in the Lakes.
Post edited at 09:32
 Ian W 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

>Regarding the 'organizational' aspect, what exactly is the status of a 'patron'?

Bloody good question! Something that could be looked at in a review..........

 Ian W 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

And the Dry tooling speed comp a couple of years back up the white cliffs.
 RupertD 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
> "So: did the NC set up the review - now regarded as necessary by all involved - because of the threat of a no confidence motion? Or did they set it up with no inkling of that motion, as implied by the Wragg Report?

I have repeated this several times in various forum posts. The governance review was initiated because the current exec and the NC have tried and failed to reconcile the responsibilities as set out in the articles of association (which was drafted 25 years ago and has been happily been used by the BMC since then, including by those that say that the current BMC has governance problems) with UK company law. This issue predates the motion and it is a coincidence that the motion coincided with the decision to subject the issue to a formal review that could reassess the whole legal structure of the BMC. In fact the proposers of the motion, whilst banging on about "governance" have not raised this fundamental issue at all and don't seem to have noticed it. It is a problem that has been wrestled with by other organisations with similar structures to the BMC, none of which have come up a perfect solution. It is has not arisen through any fault of the current exec or the NC who are trying to address it properly for the first time. The problem is a fundamental one that arises because UK company law was not designed for membership organisations which historically have been constituted as unincorporated associations but have been forced to incorporate as they grew (as the BMC did, 25 years ago). This is because it is virtually impossible to run an organisation the size of the BMC whilst it is unincorporated as, for example, it would be unable to form contracts.
Post edited at 09:40
 Andy Say 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Subsequently BMC received a letter/email from Bob Pettigrew dated 16 February 2017 giving notice of his No Confidence motion."So: did the NC set up the review - now regarded as necessary by all involved - because of the threat of a no confidence motion? Or did they set it up with no inkling of that motion, as implied by the Wragg Report?

Implied, but not stated, Rob. I'd have thought the formal notice of a Motion of No Confidence wouldn't actually be 'the first shot fired'. But, as I've said above I, as an attendee at that meeting, had no inkling of Bob's plans.
 Ian W 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Rob, you continue to ask questions of the BMC position that have already been answered several times on this and other threads on which you have made a significant number of posts.
Can I suggest you re-read these threads, both here and on ukbouldering, have a look at the bmc website, and those of the uiaa / ifsc / ac / vagabond / cc etc etc and find out for yourself, rather than ask what do appear now to be trolling, "mischevious", clarification style questions, and then come back and post something helpful and positive, rather than the little digs, which (and I apologise to myself for actually getting wound up enough to actually type this post), anre getting tiresome.
Cheers
Ian

1
 slab_happy 31 Mar 2017
In reply to AlanLittle:

> It's about letting the hordes of grubby hillwalkers in.

But if you let the hill-walkers in, then they'll want to be in the Olympics! WHEN WAS THE DOMAIN NAME FOR THE HARRISONS TOILETS REGISTERED?!?

Marco Scolaris ate my hamster.
 AlanLittle 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> I'd have thought the formal notice of a Motion of No Confidence wouldn't actually be 'the first shot fired'.

I don't see why not, given that Bob & Co don't seem to be particularly big on the concept of open & above board public communication.

 flopsicle 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

Bit of a late entry and not one based on mountaineering.

I have a deep suspicion of all those claiming to advocate for 'the masses' or 'grass roots' but expressing themselves in a way that intimidates and excludes.

Our language is beautiful and rich but there's a time and a place for everything. When the goal is supposedly inclusion but the language reflects a bloated appeal to authority, I feel it's safe to assume the author is either duplicitous (see, even I can do it!) or just thick.
 Rob Parsons 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> Rob, you continue to ask questions of the BMC position that have already been answered several times on this and other threads on which you have made a significant number of posts. Can I suggest you re-read these threads, both here and on ukbouldering, have a look at the bmc website, and those of the uiaa / ifsc / ac / vagabond / cc etc etc and find out for yourself, rather than ask what do appear now to be trolling, "mischevious", clarification style questions, and then come back and post something helpful and positive, rather than the little digs, which (and I apologise to myself for actually getting wound up enough to actually type this post), anre getting tiresome.CheersIan

There is nothing mischievous about my posts; if you yourself think that, then that is all going on inside your head.

In the current case, the questions relate exactly to the message posted above containing text from Doug Scott; they were an attempt to clarify the timeline; and they have now been answered.

I don't see any problem here.
3
 Andy Say 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Once again Doug neglects to mention that it was Ian MaNaught Davis who started the rush towards the Olympics.

You must surely be aware, Mr Alderson, that the Olympic movement, keeping alive the spirit of the Baron de Coubertin, has already given medals for mountaineering. Indeed the first olympic gold medal for mountaineering was won by Britain; awarded in 1924.

Medal table currently stands at Britain :1, Germany: 1, Switzerland: 1.
caver 31 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

Possibly another nail in the BMC coffin.The domains harrisonstoilets and harrisonsrockstoilet are still available......
In reply to Andy Say:

Specifically for the 1923 Everest Expedition. Yes I know Didn't Kenton put one of the medals on the top a few years ago, or was that just a plan.
 Offwidth 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Again the denial of mischeif when all your clarifications are pointed at the BMC in the face of consistent dishonesty and underhand behaviour from the 30. . Its perfectly obvious with all you posts for people to assess where your sympathies lie but a shame you cant state this publicly. Why not try it for the sake of truth and openess... its obvious the 30 gave up on this from the start.
 Andy Say 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

1922 I think you will find.

'tut tut....

young people these days....

no sense of history....

shocking.....

only seven porters dead.....

close run thing...

disgraceful....

play up, play up and play the game.....

 Martin W 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Syme:
> I'm with James on this. "Don't attribute to conspiracy what could (more likely) be attributed to a mistake" (clean version )

aka Hanlon's Razor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor. I usually cite it as: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."

I believe you may be thinking of the Bernard Ingham variation, as referenced in the Wiki article linked above.

Either way, I think it is highly applicable in this instance. (I actually think that Kid Spatula pretty much nailed it in his post on 22nd March. But then this thread would probably have been a lot shorter and less informative if it had been left at that.)

On the subject of information, can anyone shed any light on "Brazilgate" as referenced in Derek Walker's obit in the Indy, and by Graeme Alderson subsequently?
Post edited at 10:58
 The New NickB 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Specifically for the 1923 Everest Expedition.

It was the 1922 Expedition. There were expeditions in 1921, 1922 and famously 1924, but not 1923.

Hitler awarded Olympic Gold medals to the Harrer & Co in 1938, I'm not sure if this was IOC sanctioned as the summer and Winter Olympics both took place in 1936 (Berlin & Garmisch).
 elliptic 31 Mar 2017
In reply to galpinos:

> as an aside, as an engineer I'm just desperate for a concise list of bullet points to make their argument

-- We're very old, you know.
-- The BMC should be more like the old days.
-- In fact, everything should be more like the old days.
-- Nobody asked *us* about the rebranding!!!
-- Hillwalkers! And competition climbers! We're not hillwalkers or competition climbers so why should the BMC care about them? And what about those devious empire building Europeans and their "sport climbing" federation? That's probably the BMC's fault as well.
-- Err, something about the toilet block at Harrisons?!
-- It wasn't like this in the old days you know. Lets get the Alpine Club to sort it all out.
 Andy Say 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Martin W:

> On the subject of information, can anyone shed any light on "Brazilgate" as referenced in Derek Walker's obit in the Indy, and by Graeme Alderson subsequently?

An expedition grant was made by the BMC for an expedition to Brazil. I am unclear if the expedition ever, actually, left the Peak District.
 Andy Say 31 Mar 2017
In reply to The New NickB:

I think the 'official' medals went to the Dyhrenfurths in 1936 - they were classed as 'winter games medals'.

In '36 Hitler had promised a gold medal to the first ascentionists of the Eiger N. Face - but I don't think it was 'olympic sanctioned'.
 AlanLittle 31 Mar 2017
In reply to elliptic:

> We're not hillwalkers or competition climbers so why should the BMC care about them?

"I don't want to be a snow plodder like Scott or Bonington - give me rock, man, rock"

(... would be far too easy for a "name the source of the quote" quiz at a BMC area meeting)
In reply to Andy Say:

That's not what I heard. Something to do with a Foreign Office grant to some kind of Urban Outdoor Centre in Brazil. Our Man in Rio turns up to check to be met by a guy with a broad Yorkshire accent and no sign of an Outdoor Centre.
 Rob Parsons 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

From the AJ review of "The First Fifty Years of the British Mountaineering Council - A Political History":

"What this book is not, however, is a history of the BMC. ... It isn't comprehensive and it doesn't examine important issues that require it.

"The prime illustration of this is the so-called 'Brazilgate' scandal involving the former General Secretary Dennis Gray. References to this incident are dropped into the text like small unexploded bombs for reviewers to trip over. The consequence is that a question mark, hopefully not permanent, is left over Gray's considerable contribution. The chronology at the back of the book refers to a 'bogus training scheme' in Brazil which prompted a clearly discomforting question from the Sports Council. Geoff Milbum makes a gnomic reference in his introduction. "Would, or should we publish the facts of 'Brazilgate'?" he asks. (Imagine if you knew nothing of the BMC's history and read this comment. What possible sense could be derived from it?) In his chapter on the 1990s, Derek Walker elaborates slightly on this scandal but we are left with something which is more suggestion than explanation. I can understand the motives of the committee in their guarded references to this incident, but it should have been examined in full or not at all."

 Howard J 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster:

We've now had statements from Bob Pettigrew, Steve Woollard and Doug Scott, each giving entirely different reasons for the motion. Are the other supporters' views as varied, I wonder? This would be farcical if the consequences weren't so serious.

Shamefully, only Steve has put his views on a public forum, the others have been communicated privately to certain clubs and have had to be leaked to receive a wider airing. Quite frankly, even if I agreed with the motion this disgraceful and undemocratic behaviour would prevent me from supporting it.

 elliptic 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Howard J:

> We've now had statements from Bob Pettigrew, Steve Woollard and Doug Scott, each giving entirely different reasons for the motion.

And none of them seem to understand what a motion-of-no-confidence actually *means*.
 ripper 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Howard J:

> We've now had statements from Bob Pettigrew, Steve Woollard and Doug Scott.

Have I missed someone posting a leak of Doug Scott's statement? was it on here?
 Rob Parsons 31 Mar 2017
In reply to ripper:

> Have I missed someone posting a leak of Doug Scott's statement? was it on here?

See above in this thread: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=660614&v=1#x8528359

Not an official 'statement' as such.
 ripper 31 Mar 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

> After all, it's not as if the MONC would do any damage to the BMC or anything! Not like volunteers who've worked for those organizations for years would know anything about it!In what conceivable way are the BMC "for all to see" aspiring to become a "governing body" controlling climbing?If it's "for all to see", what is the evidence of it? Show me how the BMC are trying to "control" my climbing. Show me.Unless the evidence is supposed to *be* the attempted re-branding, because it was carried out "without reference to the membership" -- except of course for the bit where it was approved by the National Council and the bit where they went round to all the Area Meetings and listened and backed down -- and this proves that the BMC are now a ruthless dictatorship.Gosh, what a pity! I'm sure if you'd had time, you would be able to point us towards a tiny shred of evidence!The graveyards are also full of non-profit organizations that died when their reputations and credibility were tarnished. I will repeat my previous statement that I think if the damage to the BMC was *only* a "year of chaos", it would be *miraculous*.I'm also impressed that he concedes that "other respected clubs and their officers" agree with the President of the AC's position that it would be massively destructive, and just takes that as proof that they're wrong.For everybody who's been proclaiming that the true British Mountaineering Council is all about everyone who does things outdoors and in the hills and it's these evil plastic-pullers who need to be ejected: here's Doug Scott being affronted at the idea that hill-walkers are part of the BMC's constituency. You're welcome.Do you think he knows there are hill-walkers in the BMC already? Does he know they have votes?Wait, I thought the MONC was because of domain names? Now we find out that all along it's been about the toilets at Harrison's?"They did a good job. Let's spit in their faces and make them resign."Sorry if I've hit inappropriate levels of sarcasm here, but this whole thing is such a ... petty, destructive, deceptive, grudge-fuelled, *dishonourable* piece of nonsense, coming from people some of whom I had great respect for.

Not entirely based on the above post, but on the huge amount of good sense (and humour) displayed in all previous ones by the same person - should the worst come to pass and the MONC be carried, can I propose slab_happy as the new President?
 toad 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Neil Foster: just posted our proxies. I was sorely tempted to nominate bob pettigrew to be our proxy to vote against the motion, but my wife told me not to be an idiot.

 Andy Say 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Howard J:
> We've now had statements from Bob Pettigrew, Steve Woollard and Doug Scott, each giving entirely different reasons for the motion. Are the other supporters' views as varied, I wonder? This would be farcical if the consequences weren't so serious.Shamefully, only Steve has put his views on a public forum, the others have been communicated privately to certain clubs and have had to be leaked to receive a wider airing.

No 'we' haven't. We have seen correspondence between Bob P and Doug S and the Alpine Club (note to self; never contact them about anything confidential). And a post from Steve Woollard. There is no reason to regard any of them as a manifesto or formal statement; they are simply personal views.

And much as folks bleat on about an 'obligation' to post on UKC there is no such obligation. If they don't want to talk to you they don't have to talk to you. I find the idea that a lack of engagement with UKC is 'shameful' a bit strange to be honest. Given the vituperation and selective quoting that has followed the publication of those two letters, to be honest I'm not at all surprised that the supporters of the motion don't really want to engage in 'civilised debate' via this channel.
Post edited at 17:55
7
In reply to Andy Say:

> And much as folks bleat on about an 'obligation' to post on UKC

I don't think anyone has said they should have posted on UKC.

I have said they should have made their argument public, rather than lobbying in private. By public, I mean visible to all BMC members, not just selected clubs.

Yes, there is no reason for them to do anything to support their motion. But, if they don't, I would hope it would be dismissed out of hand.
1
 Andy Say 31 Mar 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

> I don't think anyone has said they should have posted on UKC.

I beg to differ. Hope we can still be friends
2
 Andy Say 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> That's not what I heard. Something to do with a Foreign Office grant to some kind of Urban Outdoor Centre in Brazil. Our Man in Rio turns up to check to be met by a guy with a broad Yorkshire accent and no sign of an Outdoor Centre.

I bow to your better knowledge.
 galpinos 31 Mar 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

No one's bleating on about then posting on UKC, they are complaining about the two refusals to submit any supporting evidence/background and reasoning behind the vaguely worded motion/any justification to the BMC for distribution to the membership.

If feels awfully like they don't want the great unwashed of the general membership to really know what's going on and vote. If only it was just kept within the clubs eh, old boy.....
In reply to Andy Say:

If you can point me to any such 'bleating', I might forgive you.

I've just searched through the thread, and the only reference pointing to UKC was a cut&paste from a BMC webpage, encouraging people to read threads on either UKB or UKC.

I did suggest Steve Woollard might have better posted to this discussion thread, rather than elsewhere on UKC. But he'd already chosen to post on UKC, so that's not 'bleating' on my part...
 Postmanpat 31 Mar 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:
> I don't think anyone has said they should have posted on UKC>

I think they should, or that they should write an open letter available to all members. UKC, as the de facto internet forum for the climbing community would seem to be the obvious option.

That that they don't implies to me two likelihoods: either they are too out of touch to recognise the importance of the internet as a vehicle for debate, or they are trying to subvert the democratic process by packing the AGM with their coterie of mates in the expectation that the wider membership will be in ignorance of proceedings. If the latter it stinks of the worst form of antideluvian union politics, which is pretty depressing coming from some of the great names of British climbing to whom I've always looked up.

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of their case (and Mr.Pettigrew's leaked piece is entirely unconvincing) the motion should be rejected on the basis of their refusal to engage with the wider membership.

(Punter of 40 years standing. Once accompanied my ageing dad on a cruise to Norway.)
Post edited at 19:46

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...