UKH

Our correspondent reports: ‘As the Bludgeon Members Campaign enters its third week yet more flights of high-tech ‘listicles’ took off tonight, towing fleets of lightweight opinion pieces loaded with crack celebrity personal pronouns.

Here there is chaos as a leaderless population suffers endless bombardment. At the target areas survivors can be seen scavenging through the ruins of their once proud website searching for any scraps of news to sustain them until the next onslaught.  Glowing, red-hot web-links glisten in the rubble.  Through the drifting smoke a few of these once proud, now desperate people could be heard singing that ancient hymn, ‘Are you there, Ken Wilson, are you there…….’  One woman cried to me, ‘where is the world?  The UIAA must act.  Every night these newsletters come.  Our spam filters have been overrun, is there no end to this cruelty?’  Meanwhile it is reported that on the Northern Border the Scottish Regiments are massing, wetting themselves with laughter, and preparing to enter the war zone. 

A statement was issued today from his bunker on the outskirts of  CENSORED  by Squadron Leader Rusty ‘Tufty’ Buftington.  His elite squadron, the Didsbury Flying Corps has been at the forefront of the courageous assault on the unarmed rebels.  ‘Make no mistake about it.  We are sorry for any collateral damage being caused, especially reputationality-wise.  But if those militants are going to try and pretend to be ordinary members when we bomb then I’m afraid there will, inevitably, be civilian casualties.  We know who they are, sort of.  And we know where they are.  Ish.  Here at BlackCommsOps our chaps, and chapesses will not rest until we bring them all, on their knees, to the surrender table in Kendal.

‘Now look; it is their fault.  They started it.  Their stance of blatant provocation had to be dealt with by force and we at the Bomb Member Command have the most powerful force in the world.  Well, OK: England and Wales then if you’re going to be picky.  We’ll bomb them back into the stone age* if we have to.  These crazed fanatics, with their bloodthirsty battle cry of ‘look, can’t you just leave us alone, we’re really quite happy the way we are’ have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century and converted.  We’ll use our water Board of Directors on them if we have to in order to try to find their leaders.

Our war correspondent Brain Hanrahanrahan reports….  ‘I’m not allowed to say exactly how many proxy forms have been despatched and used on this mission.  But I can say that I have counted them all out and I’ll damn well count them all a second time if I have to just to make sure we get enough votes’.

Meanwhile, high above the legal eagles circle; waiting to begin their grim scavenging once the battlefield has fallen silent.

*believed to be a reference to the ‘Dark Ages’ when the only protection was pebbles stuck in cracks

Liquid breakfast?

Nah.  Couldn't sleep so wrote it in my brain.

That's pretty good writing Andy ... such unfairly slanted satire has a long history in political battles. However who needs satire when this is the reality:

".......the notorious “Offwidth” is the most prolific of the abusive trollers.    However, that may be coming to an abrupt end because his entire string of defamatory trolls relating to me and my colleagues now rest for examination with the Digital, Culture, Sport and Media Committee, which is responsible for enforcing compliance with the Code of Good Governance on which all  future Sport England grants of public monies to the BMC will depend, whether it be Tier 1 (9b) or the extravagant Tier 3 (9a).  That status of Compliance, which still eludes the BMC, is now in further jeopardy because of the lamentable lack of any disciplinary procedure on the hooliganism which took place last April in the National Mountain Centre, Plas y Brenin.    Bear in mind also, that the BMC is the only one of 55 representative bodies of Sport which has chronically and repeatedly failed to achieve Compliance.   Further to this development my colleagues and I  are investigating the possibility of a delegation to place the problem before the Minister for Sport as we did in the great debate between the Mountaineers and the Educational Lobby which led to the definitive and decisive Hunt Report in favour of the mountaineers.   I recently asked Z whether or not he had read the Hunt Report.   He replied that not only had not read it,  he had never heard of it!

There are pages more of modern history of the BMC which will demonstrate decisively that we have entered the most extended period of maladministration in its history.   Reform is urgently needed since the ORG Review was a thinly disguised and massively incompetent coup d’etat spear-headed by several people like X and Y previously unknown to the BMC in any capacity - especially not known to the hard grafting core of volunteers, nor are they known to have worked in kind for the clubs they cite i.e. the CC and the Yorkshire Ramblers.    However it is clear they would make excellent exponents of the ancient practice of Snake Oil salesmen!"

The email was sent on June 5th, I've only replaced three names in this continuous block of text with X, Y and Z to protect them. Others can confirm the email exists if required.

Another (again names removed other than Bob) ..

" On Sat, 5 May 2018, Robert Pettigrew MBE, (email address  removed) wrote:

Gentlemen,

It does not surprise me in the least.   From my time in India he is the master of the Indian plotting for self-aggrandisement known in the vernacular as “Cut Put” - convoluted plotting.    To quote Field Marshall Sir Gerald Templar: “ If he swallowed a nail, he would shit a corkscrew! "   Whoever invited him into the BMC will have much to answer for but by then it will be too late!

Regards,

Bob Pettigrew.

On 5 May 2018,  (name and email address removed) wrote:

You will see below posted on the widely accepted petition web site, Change, a post by P.

This is at best unhelpful for it confuses such as Q who has responded in what can only be termed, well meaning ignorance? Personalising what is presently a complicated situation.

It really means that with such egoists in the mix as P stoking up the differences it will be ever more difficult to  find common ground?

Name removed."

I can't tell you how many BMC threads there have been.

But I counted them all out, and I counted them all back again.

You forgot to remove the names when you posted that same thing on the other thread, Steve.  And you have to admit, Bob does have a nice turn of phrase - loved the nail/corkscrew quote!

I'd describe it as particularly nasty and very personal attack on someone who has given the organisation a huge amount of time recently.

To make this a little bit more entertaining how about people get to name themselves after a colour: "Mr Pink", "Mr Green" and so on like in Reservoir Dogs.

Look I was trying to introduce a bit of lightness and levity. Where are we if we can't laugh at ourselves?

Would you mind sodding off and starting your own Bitter Machinations Conspiracy thread?

Let us laugh in the face of adversity......

See. I said the Scots crew would be laughing.  As for the 'hard border' in Ireland; MI have already taken that territory... 

Latest bulletins indicate that Colonel 'Mad' Stirling, leader of the Secret Armistice Service, captured at the battle of Fo Rum, has escaped from enemy forces only to be then recaptured and forcibly interned for the duration. We understand that even in his detention camp he is resisting efforts to assist the enemy forces.

Well there is a 'Mr White' involved.  And what about Miss Scarlett? Or Mrs Beige?  This an equal opportunities satire!

I'm looking at the 'dislikes' here and realising that there are some truly humourless sods kicking about.......

Or could it be personal  

The vote finishes this week. The consequences of the outcome are serious. Clearly some are enjoying the political game but most are finding it wearing and tiresome. Some close to it emotionally draining if not stressful. Congratulations on seeing the funny side.

Indeed. The disasterous consequences have been enumerated ad nausium. And, possibly more than many, I too have been stressed and depressed by this ongoing farrago. Simon, please don't deny me my little bit of lightness. I eagerly await the next incoming flight of 'smart' newsletters to tell me what to do.

C'mon, man - you have to be just a bit uncomfortable about this 'process'. Or do you think Alex and his posse are justified in their bombardment?

Got the jitters old bean? Chin up, your hour in the limelight is nearly through.

I acknowledged your satire but I just don't think it's totally harmless fun. Bob in comparison stopped being funny in any way a long time ago. Him and his mates cost the BMC tens of thousands, have seriously hindered and worried  volunteers and staff and caused us to lose a good president. He is constantly complaining even now about people defaming him (those he names most certainly are not... they are just dealing with what he puts in writing) while he clearly defames others with no sense of irony whatsoever. Threats of legal action for pointing out clear untruths, so called defenders of democracy using secret distribution of misinformation and now complaining to government, false accusations of ad hominen attacks from those who make a habit of it: the hypocrisy is breathtaking. You asked me to post evidence and I did.

I don’t find it the slightest bit uncomfortable. Alex is responsible for communications for the organisation. Option A is recommended by the BMC organisation and so he is doing a fine job promoting it.

By BMC Organisation I mean the Exec and National Council. The option A constitution has been arrived at through consultation and democracy and Alex is completely justified in promoting it. The organisation wants it to be successfully voted in. There is nothing I am aware of in the pieces that are untrue.

When Nick Bullock was invited to comment it was not clear where his allegiance lay. Contrary views are not denied and are in fact welcome for publication. However, the simple truth is that (your piece excepted) they have not been forthcoming. 

Oh Simon. Look this thread is about fun and humour. Like Offwidth if you want to be all po-faced and serious then start your own thread. You could title it 'the people who BMC staff have contacted to give an option B support article'. Might be a bit short though.....

So take him to court or stop bloody wittering. You are becoming a figure of fun with this obsession.

This is the same tactic that Alan Blackshaw threatened before resigning from the post of UIAA President in his infamous President's Report (paid for by the way by UKS in direct contravention of numerous rules) when he complained that  the then UIAA-Climbing Board (now IFSC) had recommended that Alan be voted in as President.

I suspect Alan never referred anything or anyone to DCMS and I suspect Bob won't because then his own actions will be cross examined.

I'm pretty sure the BMC exec are, if anything, a bit annoyed with me. I always speak on my own behalf and I despise those who claim to be independant but are in fact just a uncritical channel to push a pre-packaged political line. I have nothing against democratic disagreements, but I can't stand dirty tricks. I see law as an option of absolute last resort... complaining about bad behaviour in public and exposing dirty tricks to the public view is a much better option.

You are insufferable. I answer your specific point very specifically and then you accuse me of something else rather than address those points. 

Andy. Do please just f*ck off. It's beyond tedious.

I agree... copied from what I said on the other channel

"Does anyone seriously think government would buy this collection of misinformation, in the context of the things Bob and his mates have said on the record about the BMC being in thrall to Sport England,  let alone against a strong majority membership vote (which it will be under any circumstances even if it doesn't make 75%+)? It would be like brexiters complaining to Brussels about a government bending to remainers."

OK apologies.  You did answer my question; you are not uncomfortable about the 'Comms' campaign.  Others are.  I thought it was quite telling in Nick's article that he got contacted by BMC staff to write an article in support of Option A.  But any idea about my later point - the people who BMC staff have proactively contacted to give an option B support article?  Nobody phoned me up!

Apology accepted. In answer to your other question my view is that as the role of the BMC Comms department is to communicate the organisational view then it is not incumbent on them to proactively seek out minority views that are in opposition. However, it is right that the platform is also accessible to members who wish to express a different view (this is currently the case) though I suspect that any piece from Pettigrew would actually be doing Option A a favour.

Edit: to restate these are my opinions only - I’m not an official spokesperson

I thought the BMC had actively invited any Option B proposers to ensure there were opinion articles in their communications, and you were the only one to have done so. I'm pleased you did, as what happened with the MoNC was pretty disgusting: the BMC and several local areas invited Bob and he declined, then he later had the nerve to claim a denied platform.

These options are not equal. One has been through a full consulation and the democratic process (including major compromise with leading Option B activists) to the point of the AGM where the full membership get to vote. Option B is the remaining activists (exactly who we still dont know), which certainly from these emails seems to include the main destructive trouble makers from the old MoNC. We have no idea if it is what it says on the tin (Sport England Tier 1 compliant). For every BMC ambassador that isn't maybe a total governance expert (none claim it) there will have been a disgruntled grandee, who also won't be a governance expert, waved by Bob in private. The difference is the ambassadors believe in the organisation enough to stand up in public and defend the direction of travel. Those of who know governance better and support the BMC side still think governance is a red herring (both options require Board primacy to be SE compliant) and that option A has much better membership protections than option B, especially with the MoU. You disagree, as is your right, but that's without the mass consultation of Option B, which informed the views of the ORG; and against the majority of the membership reps of the NEC on which you sit. Yours is a clear minority view (the AGM will determine how small) and you stand with an unknown number of known members, who have shown dishonest destructive tendancies towards the organisation in the recent past, in this view.

I'd add that the satire of this thread may have been appropriate from a third party journalist looking in from the outside but not from the only named person (at the time you wrote it) stilll publicly known to be a an option B proposer, a member of the NC and of the Option A Implementation group. You need to think a bit about boundaries.

Nobody contacted me.  I had no invite.  I had to contact the office.

There is a possible 'work-around' here.  You see a thread that I have started: you don't click on it?

I guess the original spark for the original post is encapsulated in the idea that ''the organisation' wants it to be successfully voted in'.