UKH

British Mountaineering Council CEO Paul Davies has resigned after three years in the role.

Read more

See https://www.thebmc.co.uk/statement-from-the-board-of-directors-regarding-bm...

Trouble at t'mill again?

It would be good if he were to be replaced by someone less slippery and more in tune with what the BMC should be about but I doubt it. In any event hardly a great loss.

Might take more than a 3 part series. The chaos has been going on for years/decades!

As the cynic that I am (or perhaps a realist in this case) I suspect he jumped before he was pushed after the chaos and financial troubles. The guff about the commute is probably nonsense. 

Yes.

A remarkably brief statement that says a lot between the lines.

A rod for his own back perhaps, but the BMC doesn't seem like a particularly fun place to work at the moment. I can't imagine having your every move dissected by outside observers fosters a productive working environment.

I think they are going to struggle to recruit a new CEO.

I agree. Imagine if your role at work was sniped at everyday on UKC? 

Perhaps some of the gainsayers could stand for the job if they feel its so easy.

No one has said the job is easy. They are saying he was in charge when things went badly wrong, and that was his responsibility. 
If you do a bad job in that role, being sniped at  shouldn’t come as a surprise. 

” Outside observers” You mean members who actually give a shit about the BMC. 

You probably aren't CEO material if internet criticism bothers you. My job gets slated online by millions of people online every day, I find it rather amusing personally! 

Hello Rishi. 

Millions? Gosh

Are you Elon Musk? 

No, I work in game development. Being subject to tsunamis of internet abuse comes with the job. It's quite fun to read it sometimes and have a laugh though. 

Sorry, my choice of language was probably a bit strong. I maintain it is a hard environment to work in though, there's a lot of cooks involved.

I assume that you are a fairly anonymous midget though. I get the same, less numerous, but locally focussed and quite intense. Like you I tend to laugh and remind myself not comment, even anonymously.

However, in this case we appear to be dealing with significant failings within his role.

I don’t know, there seem to be many on here that think they can run the BMC better than the now-previous CEO, so should be easy

Accepted. The BMC is first and foremost a membership organisation and my reading is that Paul Davies never seemed to fully grasp that it is the DNA of the organisation and just regarded members and the non-sport side as an inconvenience. When forced to engage his reaction was high handed and that included with volunteers with long standing and inside knowledge of the BMC who could have helped. His attention and bias was that the BMC was just another competition body that revolved around funding cycles and he neglected the wider aspects. He was virtually invisible to the membership until recently and when forced to engage it revealed his true colours to me at least. It is disappointing that he didn’t work out as on paper he was potentially bringing in sporting body experience and professionalism that the BMC could benefit from. All my opinion as an outside observer

I agree.

I'm sure it's not an easy role. I hope they can find someone to steady the ship,

BB

So the CEO has resigned so soon after after the CFO. How bad are the finances and just how strained are the relationships with external partners? 

Will the board seek / accept help from the members council or wii the board continue in its current independent dogma?

A reset has been needed for some time, perhaps the way is clear for volunteers to once again be trusted to help run parts of the BMC l (like they used to be).

Aren't they always? I thought I saw requests for new volunteer BMC Board Members earlier this year? Did anyone on here apply? 

Yes, in fact currently all the Board members are volunteers now the CEO has gone. 

No great loss. I heard him speak shortly after his appointment and it was clear to me that he had no understanding of the nature of climbing and climbers. He talked the talk but, sadly for BMC volunteers and staff, he couldn’t walk the walk. The next appointment will be critical to the future of the organisation.

And yet this person had already been in active service as Interim CEO, and was lauded by the then President, Lynn Robinson. (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/paul-davies-appointed-new-bmc-ceo)

What state has the BMC gotten itself into?

And it wasn’t as if his appointment was just based on a couple of interviews. Those making the appointment had first hand opportunity to weigh his capabilities over the space of a year or more. Initially he was on the CCPG, then he was appointed as an Exec to support the CEO and then he was appointed Interim CEO before getting the permanent position. 

Sometimes people can have all the skills and experience, but aren't necessarily equipped for the next tier, there are old adages about people being promoted one tier above their competency etc..  I've met several knowledgeable folk who were just too nice individually for middle management upwards, they always give people who weren't performing another chance, wanted to be everyones friend not their boss etc... those less competent can spot managers like this and know how to play them and avoid being held to account.

The bmc needs a new broom, someone who doesn't know everything and one, but will analyse their predicament without bias, with the previous experience and skills to fix it. They don't really need to be a climber, even for climb gb GB Climbing management the ability to get a group of people to a venue for a week, within a given budget, requires organisational skills, what they do once there doesn't actually have to matter to the administrator.

Curiously Mr. Davies doesn’t mention the BMC role in his LinkedIn profile, https://www.linkedin.com/in/dsm-paul-davies/ perhaps he knew it would end badly. He does mention being employed by Davies Sports Management Ltd. over the period of his BMC tenure. The Company obtained a Government bounce-back loan and was dissolved in 2022. It is unclear from the published accounts if this loan was repaid. Good luck with recovering the bike loan….

Yes I noticed that he’d never bothered to update his LinkedIn profile too. 

IIRC didn’t he say he and his family would be relocating when he got the job? And now we hear that the commute and being away from his family were an issue. Guess that never happened.

Doesn’t paint a picture of the most committed of CEOs does it?

Oh dear - more change.

I'd be willing to bet that his commuting and accomodation costs away from home were paid for by the BMC, i.e. you and me.

It's a pathetic joke.

Perhaps we can now return to core values at the BMC. The 2nd word in the acronym is “Mountaineering”………..still relevant!

Yes, absolutely!

Unfortunately, in the eyes of some, there is more kudos in being able to say they got a GB Team member on a podium somewhere, despite the cost, than it is to say they maintained access to a mountain, hill or crag for thousands of people to walk up or climb.

A photo of some young gun on a podium looks better in the media than a photo of me and my friends bumbling around at Stanage.

That is called a) working for a representative organisation; b) democracy and c) accountability. It is part of the job description; it is part of good governance. Get over it.

The preferred phraseology - as per Andy Syme, the President of the BMC - is 'a photo of some young gun podiuming'.

Get it right, Bill!

I take it you are a 'mountaineer', then? Not a boulderer; a sport climber; a wall user, a trad climber or a humble hillwalker. Just a 'mountaineer'?

The BMC is, and needs to be, a 'broad church' if it is to have relevance and survive. Yes, for many the key roles are 'access', 'access' and 'access; but for many others easier access to walls, the refurbishment of sport routes, a clear progression route through competition to elite level etc are also important.

The Peter Principle?

I am a recent returnee to the Members' Council. I don't know the guy concerned at all well. Just a couple of meetings.

He has made a very difficult, personal decision. The BMC now also has difficult decisions to make. It's going to take all concerned to come together and try to rescue it.

Ken Wilson: where are you now....?

I understand Volume II is in the pipeline.

I take your point, Andy, but I do think that elite, Olympic level sporting competition is straining the definition of mountaineering a little beyond its common usage, at least in how it is organised, administered and marketed.

All,

It IS bloody difficult. Trying to balance being the "Sport Governing Body'" with being the 'activity representative body' was always going to be a tough ask. It caused heated debate. The BMC is (cliche alert!) a 'broad church': always has been.

It was decided that the funding available to a competitive NGB was attractive and so the BMC became the recognised NGB it is today. Sports NGB's (or, rather, the government funding agencies) don't like member power. You can't have the footballers telling the FA what to do!

It was hoped that the BMC had found a middle way which allowed 'members' to have sufficient say in the way that the BMC conducts itself. That is why I am back in the game; I really hope there is some 'member power' left.

For all those with an opinion to gift on threads like these I would say - get down to your BMC Area meeting (they will be going on over October) and express your feelings! Hey; maybe you could even stand as an Area Councillor!

I agree. And I also think that the idea that elite competition will inspire a whole future wave of participants is unsubstantiated by any research.

But I'm always pulled back to the idea that Adam Ondra is no slouch on rock; one of the GB squad coming back from a recent World comp fired off an on-sight of Strawberries and (just to wind Ian Dunn up) I hear that Toby Roberts was leading 8a whilst still in the womb...

You saw the upset it caused when Rashford told the government what to do! 

You are speaking a lot of sense at the moment, has someone been putting something in your tea? (Good natured joke as we often disagree!).

How dare you suggest that:

a) I'm talking sense and

b) I'm drinking tea.

I'm currently in Germany existing on a diet of wurst and bier. Maybe I should promote it as a lifestyle choice?

Totally agree, rescue might be a bit strong, steer it back on track. New leader, back to core values with a secondary element supporting climbing competitions and I'll happily keep supporting them (as well as remaining a member). Because of the regional meetings etc.. the bmc has great reach and it can spread developments quickly face to face. With the right decisions it won't potentially take long to win back wider support. 

How do we have any idea about the 'difficulty' of the decision, and how 'personal' it was? We benighted members are in an information void on all of this. Do you consider that the official statement from the BMC has really told us anything?

From your many postings here, I can see that you're a decent guy - and I respect your general plea for human sympathy. But I am angry about the mess which the BMC has gotten itself into. Should I not be?

The role of a CEO comes with having ultimate responsibility, and the salary reflects that. If you do or are seen to be doing a crap job, it's neither surprising nor unfair that people will say so.

While I thankfully manage to hide in the shadows these days, some of my colleagues invite the potential to be sniped at in national newspapers and publications with every project they do, by people whose job is to sell newspapers and thus whose tone is often anything but restrained - and without the salary to go with it. It comes with the role - if one doesn't like it, find a different role.

You are perfectly entitled to feel angry. There are times I'm glad I don't have a cat to kick as I shout, 'just HOW the f....'. The BMC IS having a hard time currently on a variety of fronts. Getting it back on to an even keel, if that is even possible in the current structure, is going to be tough.

The 'system' however should preclude any one individual being responsible for a failure. And if someone falls short, and acknowledges that, I'm happy to move on and look at 'the system'.

I do worry about the general morale in the office. Many of the staff I have known for a long time. They are skilled, do a bloody good job and serve the membership well and I would like to call them friends. It is SO wrong that when 'we' have angst about 'the bloody BMC' they should feel under criticism.

Right. I'm getting back to the bier having eaten the wurst.

“Perhaps we can now return to core values at the BMC. The 2nd word in the acronym is “Mountaineering”………..still relevant!”

I have always disliked the name British Mountaineering Council. As a name it suggests mountaineering exclusively which doesn’t represent what I do.

I don’t mountaineer. I am not a mountaineer. I’ve snow plodded up a 6,000m trekking peak in Bolivia once a long time ago and didn’t enjoy it. 

I rock climb, trad and sport, I climb indoors, I do a small amount of bouldering infrequently, I do some hill walking from time to time.

For me, BMC as a name and image is anachronistic. 

For me, a name which involves climbing of all types to encompass the broad church, for Britain (or just for England and Wales if the SMC trumps the BMC in Scotland) would be better.

“Climb” something or other would be quite good and would encompass your still very relevant mountaineering. 

"Trying to balance being the "Sport Governing Body'" with being the 'activity representative body' was always going to be a tough ask. It caused heated debate. The BMC is (cliche alert!) a 'broad church': always has been.

It was decided that the funding available to a competitive NGB was attractive and so the BMC became the recognised NGB it is today. Sports NGB's (or, rather, the government funding agencies) don't like member power. You can't have the footballers telling the FA what to do!"

And yet the BMC is failing to be a competitive NGB! Our athletes are unfunded at all levels, unsupported by qualified discipline-specific coaches and because of the BMC's outdoor/sustainability/eco focus can't even accept major sponsorship deals because no large corporation can possibly reach those standards.  The BMC should separate from GB Climbing and allow GBC to reform as an NGB that can effectively promote manage and support the development of elite sport.  It seems to me, from your quoted post above, that the BMC is only interested in NGB status for the funding and has no interest in supporting our athletes. 

I know most on here, and on the BMC boards, thinks that competitive climbing is "not real climbing," but as unhappy as most of my fellow members seem to be with any support of competitive and indoor climbing, it seems as though the athletes who should be receiving the SportUK funding are being shafted even more.  It seems to those of us in the comp scene that both bodies the BMC and GBC would better served by a divorce than continuing to work on this dysfunctional marriage.

SMC is kind of the Scottish Version of the CC or FRCC (albeit with a bigger range of publications then those clubs). Mountaineering Scotland (previously the Mountaineering Council of Scotland) is the Scottish equivalent of the BMC

Not arguing the rest of the point, just trying to make things more clear.

Who's sorting the whip round?

Many thanks for the clarification and apologies for any confusion. 

Hey, how about 'ClimbUK'...

<runs away>

Sounds perfect.

Or maybe ClimbWalkUK to avoid those who hill walk feeling left out?

Still, from 4-5 years worth of threads about the BMC on UKC it sounds like there’s more important things to address first. 

I don't feel that those who choose to climb Snowdon by one of its popular paths should have reason to feel excluded.

Indeed "climb" seems to me to cover absolutely all activities and disciplines, outdoors and in. "Mountaineering", on the other hand, hugely less so.

Given that members of the competition community have been fairly quiet throughout this barring a few parents (who have rightly been fairly vocal), what is not being provided to athletes which needs to be, and what of the stuff that IS being done isn't needed?

You're being a bit unfair to the BMC's volunteer base, and probably also to the wider membership as well. The volunteers I know are largely supportive of competition climbing, although many of us aren't fully in the loop about what's been happening as we don't actively participate in/ watch competition climbing. Even the people who are being highly critical of the BMC seem to want the athletes to be well supported.There are some people who dislike, and possibly hate, the idea of competition climbing, but they broadly don't have much to do with the BMC in terms of voluntary involvement.

Under the circumstances, that's a very ill-considered, pejorative, and unhelpful characterization. I suggest that you retract.

Of the active volunteers I know I can't think of any who have expressed a dislike of the idea of competition climbing. There are clearly some who do dislike and possibly hate it, but they don't support the BMC in any meaningful way other than through their subscriptions (which they often moan about too).

Is that a bit better?

I note that you edited the post to which I originally replied.

"Given that members of the competition community have been fairly quiet throughout this barring a few parents (who have rightly been fairly vocal), what is not being provided to athletes which needs to be, and what of the stuff that IS being done isn't needed?"

Theres a reason for that lack of noise, and it is a clause in the athlete contract about "not brining the BMC, GBC or the athlete into disrepute" and has been interpreted by athletes and families as being injurious to the future of athletes if they rock the boat.  The only athletes who receive any support from the wider membership are the ones who are "real"climbers ie outside climbers.  A good example of how marginalized the competitors feel is the pathetic 1.5 pages dedicated to even mentioning the World Cup and European Cup Athletes in the most recent Summit magazine, in contrast there were four pages on how to take a good photo!  

In comparison to say, USA Climbing or the French or Italian Associations, our athletes receive no support. They are given one shirt and one jumper per season, zero kit, zero travel/accommodation assistance for seasons that span five months and three continents and can cost upwards of 25,000 pounds. There is almost no on-field support for one of the major disciplines - speed, and while it is still nascent in the UK, the athletes who are selected are still expected to perfom alongside the Chinese and Indonesians and don't even have a speed coach, let alone physio and mental coaches. The "national performance centre" is a joke, it doesn't even have a certified speed wall, doesn't have the kind of setting or walls that lead and boulder athletes need and is not staffed by GBC staff... there are many things that are not being done. 

It seems as though the lack of funding is mostly about a divided purpose.  An organization cannot raise funds for hill walking, trails, and mountaineering, as well as elite sport. Being a broad church just isn't working.

Hi David. Be careful what you say here. Angry rants and vitriol are frowned upon!! Far too many posters here who have been to the "sense of humour by-pass operation" clinic. I like to think that the climbing fraternity are pretty outspoken, sarcastic and to the point whilst, at the same time, having a mutual respect for each other's views no matter how they differ. Sadly, this doesn't appear to be the case any longer.   

In these troubled times at the BMC HQ, this was Paul Davies' only option I fear. He has done the right thing.

The organisation needs to re-evaluate and re-boot its role. All the recent debate over Team GB has diverted everyone's attention from the BMC's core purpose. Whilst I'm all for a fresh new start, they need to also appease their members and reiterate their continued hard work with access issues, crag maintenance, technical, and offering the benefits of reciprocal rights and insurance services.

My personal belief is that the Team GB stuff is monopolising the communication and having an adverse effect on new member recruitment, whilst existing members are no longer renewing their subs as well. If they continue to resist listening to the opinions and thoughts of members, this decline in membership will simply continue spiraling out of control. And, let's not forget, PEOPLE'S LIVLIHOODS are at stake here! In very uncertain economic and political times in the UK it's not the time to be collecting your two-weekly Giro Cheque!     

On a more optimistic note, this gives the BMC a fantastic opportunity to "start again" and bring someone in (someone who is a "climber/mountaineer or walker!" Not a non-climbing civilian!!!!) who will give the organisation a great new impetus and regain its grip on the finances.

Off-topic but ...reading the news reports, it's looking like Rishi and his band of "Con-men" and women are heading for a cataclysmic loss at the next election in the UK. What could be a wiping-out of the Con Party! My heart bleeds...NOT!

Let's hope that the "new" BMC CEO listens to the members. Not trying to sound nostalgic but, "I miss Dave!" Yes, he and I thought differently but...he was a very good CEO and really believed in the organisation. DAVE TURNBULL...!!! Get yourself back in the hot-seat and sort this mess out!   

Good to see your 1980/90's sense of humour hasn't been lobotomised Mr. Alderson!

Thanks Ally, it is disappointing that athletes feel gagged to the point that they can't say anything publicly about the shortcomings of the provision, there is certainly nothing similar for members of specialist committees (I have been on Technical Committee for several years and am now chair) that I remember receiving.

I remember that there was a crowd funding campaign to get the GB climbing squad the cash needed to attend comps back in 2014/2015 (I may be out by a year), I struggle to see how it is justifiable that they still have the same issue when the BMC gets government funding that is ring fenced for supporting competition climbing, especially given that they are quite rightly pushing for the organisation as a whole to be more inclusive (the costs alone would exclude a lot of people).

I am always pleased to see the next generation of top climbers doing hard stuff, a lot of members can relate to the experience of someone pushing themselves onsighting a route at the top of their ability (and are therefore easily attracted to stuff about it) and the achievements of current/ former competition climbers outdoors has often been used as a means of justification for supporting competitions (rightly or wrongly this has occurred). The experience of high level Sport in a competitive environment is something that most climbers will never experience so it's more difficult for them to relate to it and those who don't also climb outdoors will likely not get the same level of support. I will try watching a comp next time I am at home when one is on.

I presume the last bit goes back to your point about sponsorship deals being difficult to obtain due to the BMC's environmental ethos and there not being enough cash to support the athletes effectively in what is provided from the UKSport grant? 

In reply to Rob Parsons, yes, I did, I toned it down slightly, but that post still reflects my understanding of how involved they actually are with the organisation on the whole, I certainly can't think of any vocal dislikers who participate in Peak area meetings.

That would involve the BMC management doing something they are very poor at, communicating with the members!

The extremely poor communication has been at the root of many of the troubles besetting the BMC. Not communicating what is happening allows the rumour mill to thrive, often allowing the nay sayers a huge chance to get their point of view across without official information to prove them wrong!

Communicate BMC. Tell the truth, however grim it is. Accept member criticism and react positively to it. Do it quickly. Do it effectively even if it does not fit in with your personal ideals/aims/predjudices!

I think the truth is still looking for its shoes...

The BMC needs to be open about its challenges.

Not defending him, but there's more to making working away bearable than having it paid for. 95% of my work is away from home and normally paid for by my employer, but that doesn't make it any easier

Such a separation was proposed by the Organisational Review Group six years ago. I supported that proposal at the time. It was decided instead to create an internal department. I wasn't part of those discussions so can't comment on the motivations really. Certainly at that time funding was largely derived from Sport England and was focussed primarily on encouraging grassroots participation. A divorce now would be extremely difficult and would possibly be unsustainable for 'GBClimbing' unless they could instantly pull in a major sponsor who would be willing to match the not inconsiderable contribution that the BMC makes financially to make it viable.

I think you are wrong. I can honestly say I've not come across anyone on Members' Council who has expressed that opinion. It's different but then so is deep-water soloing. And, as I sometimes bore myself by repeating, you only have to look at what top competition climbers do on rock when they are 'off-duty' to realise that they are 'climbers'.

I miss Dave too, but I can’t see his health problems allowing him to take a very active role in the near future. 

I'm really sorry to hear that. I didn't realise he was unwell. If you speak to him say "hi" from me and wish him a safe recovery.

He was employed on the basis that he would relocate.  He failed to do that and chose to commute.  Almost certainly he never had any intention of relocating, it's far too complicated at his stage in life, so he deliberatly misled the BMC.

In reply to johncook:

That one was Climb Britain John.

Close!

You know thathappens in business life. It’s always a risk . That is more the company/ or BMCs issue for taking that person on in the first place.  You should not really throw it back as his issue. 

Climb Britain John has a certain ring to it.

--Breaking News--

Veg Box is appointed new BMC CEO.

It'll be like Truss vs The Lettuce, all over again.

Which will last longer, the new CEO or the lettuce?

Edit: ^ fastest finger first

I admit I haven't delved into the detail of this because it is extremely boring, but from what I have read I can imagine that two things are simultaneously true. First, that Davies did a crap job and there a big problems with GB Climbing; second, that the level of "scrutiny" is intense to a fault. It feels like a relatively small number of members/ex members have hounded the organisation's leadership in a desperate search for things to disagree with (e.g. people going through every press release and making a huge issue of relatively trivial grammatical errors). Probably motivated by their dislike of comp climbing and not wanting any money from the outdoor side to move over (interesting that nobody really objected to the idea of attracting casual indoor climbers as members then using their money to buy crags).

I guess the CEO can take it (though responding to it all must be a huge hindrance when you're always fire-fighting the latest outrage/ranting email) but I feel sorry for Andy Syme who isn't paid to put up with it.

If, to use your phrase, someone is doing a 'crap job' and there are 'big problems' in one of the BMC departments would you not think that a certain level of scrutiny might actually be a good thing?

​​​​​​Could you give me an example of someone criticising a press-release because of trivial grammatical errors? I've not seen that.

And your broad assumption that this is all driven by a few people who are motivated by a dislike of 'comp climbing' is, I would guess, evidence that you indeed haven't delved into the detail.

Yes, absolutely, though a lot of what I see on UKC/UKB/BMC Watch is the same people who seem to be on the hunt for any molehill they can make a mountain out of or infer the worst possible conclusion from. This makes it harder to sift through what they're saying and determine which bits are actually worth paying attention to. I haven't read much of what you've written about this, but I remember you getting similarly froth-mouthed about the Attermire escarpment bolting. At one point you said that you thought guidebook producers (me, for instance) had egged it on to provide more saleable book material, which is absurd.

https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,28127.msg680004.html#msg6800...

I commented once on the quality of English in one press release. I’m sceptical it played a major role in Paul Davies’s decision to resign, however.

I’m afraid I can’t help you with who the Grammar Mafia who scrutinise every press release for errors might be. Maybe there’s a hidden BMC Grammar Watch group on Facebook.

We’ll have to wait for Will to enlighten us.
 

edit- I see he already has.  Who are the other dastardly grammar pedants, Will?

I'm not suggesting the grammar comments on UKB and Facebook where what brought down the management. I gave it as an example of the febrile attitude that has surrounded discussion of the BMC for months/years.

Sadly, I think the BMC had missed the boat. The German Alpine Climb had opened many excellent indoor climbing centres in various cities in Germany so the new wave of indoor climbers had an incentive to join the organisation for membership discounts. The income can be used for access,hurs, education etc. 

I am a current member. I love climbing, trad, sport, mountaineering, walking, etc. I also enjoy watching competition climbing and fully support the climbers who do it. 

I have 'sniped' at the current problems with the BMC because they are causing a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the general membership. The financial management, of both the BMC and it's in house competition department apparently leave a lot to be desired. The CEO is in overall charge of the organisation. If he has allowed things to get this bad, then he really needed to go. The main problem still is the lack of communication with the members, who have been held in utter contempt (By the board/CEO or whoever!). Even at this point, communication by the board/management is sadly lacking, allowing those with an axe to grind to get their point across unopposed, and those who would like to defend the BMC left short of information to do so!

This lack of communication has allowed the rumour mill to run rampant.

All I ask is that someone considers the loyal members, take the organisation in hand and tells us what it is doing in the short term and what it's plans are for the future. 

If heads have to roll, so be it!

I’ve sent you a DM

The trouble is that you're falling into the same trap: You are using the grammar police as an example of the 'febrile attitude' (your words) of the complainants in the same way as they use the poor grammar as an example of the lack of professionalism in the BMC. Same tar, same brush.

'Froth-mouthed' moi? I certainly was pretty tuned up by the retro-bolting of established trad routes without any real consultation (a minority opinion, obviously) but I seldom froth.

And I certainly do not recall suggesting any guidebook writers had instigated or urged it.

You've got me there. Never touch the place; I've heard you come out a changed person.

But you've not come back with any bearded septuagenarians wearing tweed who want comps banned (though, personally, I think nu-skool boulder setting with its obsession with combination sequences is getting a bit far-fetched; as a bearded septuagenarian what would I know?).

I heard that they cut off your shirt sleeves and turn them into a beanie when you create an account?

(For the avoidance of doubt, this is a joke).

I'm having a similar non-BMC reaction to a work client who have pushed things too far. My personal experience is that when trust is lost and past experience suggests that one can't take things in good faith and at face value, this sort of outcome is inevitable. It's certainly not surprising at the very least.

I do hope the BMC (80,000 members) remains a ‘broad church’, from Trad to Elite comps and everything in between.

As well as climbing, I also do a bit of sailing and cycling.

The Royal Yachting Association has c100,000 members and seems to be doing a good job at representing all elements of sailing, from dinghies to modest cruising yachts to full-on carbon fibre racing machines. The RYA has delivered some Olympic champions while also campaigning for cleaner seas. 

https://www.rya.org.uk/

Whereas for cycling, the representative orgs are mainly British Cycling (c145,000)  and Cycling UK (70,000). In my opinion, they would be more effective as one combined organisation.

Both BC and CUK have had their respective organisational challenges (what orgs don’t!), but I do believe that they would be more effective by merging.

Assuming that some people are already a member of both organisations, a single body could have a membership of some 200,000. This, in my opinion, would provide more clout to represent the diverse interests of cyclists.

https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/

https://www.cyclinguk.org/

The Ramblers have some 100,000 members. Maybe the Ramblers & BMC should merge? Just imagine an organisation with almost 200,000 members.

Aside from my wishful thinking, I doubt that British Cycling and Cycling UK are going to merge, let alone the BMC and the Ramblers. 

However, my point is that the BMC should stay as it is. I feel that we should all work harder to make it work representing all aspects of climbing: from old farts like me, who struggle up V.Diffs, to 12 year olds who have been climbing indoors for 5 years and have the ambition to win Gold at an Olympics - ‘together we are stronger’.

I don’t frequent Facebook so have no idea what you may have been reading on there. What I do know however, is that in the service of your argument that

you held up my comments as a representative of this, when in fact they are an isolated criticism from one individual about poorly presented communication.

That’s somehow evidence of an ongoing witch hunt? Desperate stuff. It’s a very weak argument when when you have to misrepresent me to support it.

Please don’t do that again. It’s not a good look.

Away from the make believe and back on topic, grammar is not the reason the CEO has departed. You’d be better served focusing on the reasons why GB Climbing is in such difficulty and what might happen next to set a course that serves both the competition and outdoor climbing enthusiasts that make up the BMC.

Couldn't agree more. The British mountaineering Council sounds about as accessible to the public as a 1920s ministry. 

Time to gut and rebuild it. Been a member for a decade haven't seen any benefit recently.

The poor dears.

Amazing as it may be to you, the BMC doesn't find my summer Alps trips or winter climbing on Ben Nevis either.

The key criteria in judging whether the BMC is successful (and indeed worthy) in its role as the National Governing Body for comp climbing is the extent to which it supports (mainly young) climbers to achieve success. As part of that equality of opportunity should be a key component. If only those with well off parents can afford to participate then that it is a failing. 

Mountaineering grants are also available via the BMC for exceptional objectives. 

If you were doing exceptional stuff, which I would argue elite level competition qualifies as, there would be some support available for mountaineering trips, more so if you where young.

You say "I feel that we should all work harder to make it work " - I disagree. There are elected officilas nd paid employees who work on our behalf to make it work. It has not been working. Ergo the officielas and employees (read senior managers/CEO, etc) who have supported or endorsed the polocies that are not working should now go. The CEO has fallen on his sword with an apparent face-saving excuse. That shows the measure of that person. The board should set policies and goals for the executive - such as the climbing athletes getting back on board by date X.  Its the board and executives who should work harder - and smarter - and more transparently, not us, the great mass of BMC members. They work for us.

I could never see it working out for a non climbing Netball coach leading the BMC. 

Can we have someone who's interested in Access and Conservation next.

You commented "The BMC is, and needs to be, a 'broad church' if it is to have relevance and survive. Yes, for many the key roles are 'access', 'access' and 'access; but for many others easier access to walls, the refurbishment of sport routes, a clear progression route through competition to elite level etc are also important."

I fully agree.  Unfortunately too much of what comes out of the BMC these days seems to prioritise trendy, eco themes or money-making spin offs.  The two most recent examples of email contact I have received from the BMC:

21st Sept 2023 "Take Sustainable Steps with Your Grocery Shopping"

Really? WTF has that got to do with BMC?

Then it goes on to justify it with:

"In February of this year, the BMC committed to becoming a net-zero organisation by 2040"

Really? Why? What possible difference can it make?  They go on to say:

"Dr. Catherine Flitcroft, Campaigns and Policy Manager at the BMC, said, "The power of the BMC and our members is that we can - and will continue to - demonstrate climate leadership by taking responsibility for our footprint and stepping up in the face of the threats posed by climate change."

Demonstrate Climate effing leadership?  You are having a larf.  You want climate leadership join a political party, Greenpeace or Just Stop Oil.  I do not take out a BMC affiliated club membership for "climate leadership", I take it for access and 3rd party insurance. Its enough to make me throw up.  "Climate leadership" (whatever that is) has nothing whatsoever to do with the BMC and this is half the problem - the organisation has been hijacked with other purposes.

Moving on:

1st Sept 2023 (August Newsletter) The first four titled topics (in this order) are:

"Three ways to support Climbers Against Cancer's Blue Prostate Cancer Research Collection"

"BMC Shop | Welcome to the future of energy snacking"

"Tickets now on sale for British Speed, Lead and Paraclimbing Championships"

"Understanding the impact of the Climate Crisis on sea bird populations"

1 out of 4 ain't bad I suppose.  None of the other three are core to the organisation so why do they get headlines in the newsletter?  If you want to eradicate cancer, donate to Cancer Research.  If you want energy snacks, go to your supermarket or outdoor store.  And if you are worried about climate change impacts on sea birds join the RSPB, Greenpeace or any other appropriate organisation.  I  won't be going to the climbing championships, but it is relevent and clearly a core part of BMC.  

The BMC appears to spend far too much effort on irrelevant and unrelated but trendy activities or "concerns", none of which it should be doing nor, in the case of climate change, can it possibly make any difference.

Well said Flash, possibly a tad direct for some, but I like your style.

I think, in the interest of balance, it should be pointed out that the vast majority of staff at the BMC are knowledgeable, hard-working and skilled. They keep the place going even during political storms; the tragedy is that some of them feel that criticism of 'the BMC' is directed at them wholesale. It really shouldn't be.

I will acknowledge that it should not be possible for one person struggling to pull down the house of cards; one lesson to be thought about is how the BMC 'Brass' (essentially the Board) can try to ensure that staff are adequately supported, and monitored. I'm not sure it's a matter of the 'policies' more a matter of keeping tabs on their implementation.

Dear Lord Flash Heart...

I'm not really sure if I was your actual target. But I'll bite....

I have no problem with the BMC attempting to be a 'net-zero' organisation; it's a laudable aim. Whether it, on its own, will prevent the extinction of the human race given our own government's lackadaisical approach I doubt. But it's a contribution.

I will admit to a bit of confusion over the veg-box thing. Buying local or growing your own is probably a better contribution to the environment; but I know nowt about the background to the email.

Moving on the the newsletter. It's a newsletter; the summer is renowned as a slow news time.... I'd actually categorise it as 'three out of four ain't bad'. CaC is a charity supported by many BMC members; as you acknowledge members might want to buy tickets to a competition and for those members who are interested in the environment then an article about seabirds might be stimulating fare. Energy snacking? I get oat bars from Lidl....

CAC donate 100% of the money raised from donations and sales of merchandise direct to cancer research institutes, bigger charities like Cancer Research UK do not, a significant amount goes to pay for expensive campaigns and expensive CEO's.

CAC's overheads (a single member of staff and rent on a unit) are paid for by the sponsors and supporters.

So if climbers want to help erdicate cancer I suggest that they either donate direct to cancer reserach institutes or to charities that do not swallow up significant amounts of your donation to pay for overheads (eg CAC).

It was not intended to make you bite, your comment was simply succinct in terms of reasonable objectives with which I agreed with.

My issue is with coat-racking and re-purposing.  You have no problem with its being a "net zero" organisation.  I do.  Because any time spent on "net zero" or any other irrelevant activities is a distraction from what it should be doing as an organisation.  And because I inherently disagree with "net zero" - it serves no useful purpose beyond virtue signalling - but opinions vary.  But "net zero", along with some other irrelevant activities gets a free pass because their is sufficient support amongst the membership.  It is a selfish infliction of unrelated beliefs onto others within an organisation.

Aside from rock climbing my interests include trout fishing.  Clearly this is a mountain/outdoor related activity.  How would you feel if a sub-section of the BMC membership insisted on the club devoting time and effort to promoting fly fishing and maintenance of lakes and streams? If I was trying to sway the BMC I might point out in support of my point that in his later years Joe Brown was a keen fly fisherman...

I also find that if you reverse a situation you get a sense of why its not a good policy.  Lets consider RSPB and sea birds nesting.  Perhaps the RSPB should start to devote its time to rock climbing interests and show articles of climbers on sea cliffs?  How likely do you think that would be and how would spending money on that serve the primary purpose of the RSPB.

So coming back to my original point earlier in the thread:

1. Is Dr Caroline Flitwick a paid member of staff or a volunteer for BMC?

2. How much time and BMC member's money does she devote to the BMC "becoming a net-zero organisation by 2040" and "climate leadership"?

If it does not serve the core purpose of an organisation it should not be pursuing it.

 > nor, in the case of climate change, can it possibly make any difference.

You are wrong on this point. Everyone and every body needs to do things to make a difference. If the BMC weren't, that would be a problem. The question is more whether they are doing things effectively or "greenwashing"

I think I deleted the email, but isn't this just the same sort of model as members getting discounts at gear shops, either with or without some sort of additional direct contribution to bmc for the publicity akin to what happens when people purchase adverts in Summit?

It doesn't seem that hard to imagine a veg box company concluding that the bmcs membership has reasonable overlap with their target audience and being interested in some sort of cross-linking. And if the bmc can either trumpet another member discount or gets a few quid out of it....

I wish you well in opting out of dealing with organisations aiming to become a net zero organisation as the government has passed legislation mandating that all companies are net zero by 2050.

Actually I don't wish you well in that regard.

You said "Actually I don't wish you well in that regard."

And herein lies half the problem. When opinions vary you reply with an unpleasant ad hominen statement, which some might almost construe as a threat.  Perhaps you are used to getting your own way or only associate with those that you agree with?

And you and several others have missed the point.  When an organisation is diverted from its primary purpose it dilutes its financial and time resources.

BP can rest easy then.

Not wishing to get into a CC disagreement, my original post picked up on items that were in the latest BMC emails as examples of re-purposing and coat-racking.  Net zero was one of them, I am sure there are many others.  You obviously think Net Zero is ok, I don't so we disagree.  What we might be able to agree on is that it should not be a core part of the BMC or divert from its primary purposes.

And picking up on a point by Andy Say where he said:

"I have no problem with the BMC attempting to be a 'net-zero' organisation; it's a laudable aim. Whether it, on its own, will prevent the extinction of the human race..."

I find it hard to be convinced that actions by the BMC are going to make any difference to the longevity of the human race, but the danger signal to me in that comment is the "it's a laudable aim" part.  Virtue signalling or being involved in activities unrelated to the core purpose of the BMC (whatever those activities might be, don't get hung up on Net Zero) is not "laudable" its vanity and it diverts resources and time from the main objectives.

Looked like reactionary old bollards to me, but hey that’s only my opinion.

When an organisation is facing a quite serious financial shortfall, I would argue that diverting a small proportion of its resources to generating new income could be very much in its interests. Of course we can never know to what extent resources to its core functions have been starved as a result, but sending a few emails to members offering a discount that many may find welcome: is that really taking its eye off the ball? Maybe it can be argued as such, but I think you'd need to have an axe to grind already to come to that conclusion.

As the government has passed legislation to mandate that everyone is net zero by 2050 it is not a laudable aim, but rather it is obligatory. It is now a key obligation upon the leaders of all organisations to outline how they will achieve this as it is legally mandated.

You can have little regard for Net Zero whilst also being aware that if you fail to take action your business or organisation will be bankrupted by carbon offset payments or just left behind as a relict of the past.

Directorial responsibility one. Preserve shareholder value. You don't achieve that by ignoring legal and social change.

I don't wish you well in opting out. I hope you have your pension invested with a company with an ESG policy, I hope you buy groceries from a company with a Net Zero policy, I hope everyone you are forced to do business with is more forward thinking than you.

Is that literally true? (Genuine question.) Specifically, in the current context, is the BMC legally mandated to produce its own specific plan?

I can’t find the post now, but remember a few weeks back when all this started kicking off I mentioned that through my work, I’d seen this exact thing happen at several sports federations and associations, all of them Olympic and larger than climbing…

New management exec comes in, makes all kinds of predictions and promises of growth, sponsorship and revenue, makes all sorts of changes, it’s doesn’t materialise and they disappear off into the sunset to prop up at another sport’s federation where they start again meanwhile the people who have been there all along and have a passion for the sport are left to pick up the pieces.

I knew then that the writing was on the wall Paul Davies’ tenure at the BMC, but stopped short of saying so as I thought my post would get deleted.

However, the point of this post isn’t to say “I told you so”, I’d take no joy in that, more to say this is what happens. And it happens to some federations over and over again. The BMC need to learn from this, and completely change track on who they work with, and how they go about it, otherwise this will happen again, and that could spell them end of the BMC in its current form.

Of course, that’s if it gets through the current difficulties, and with no CEO, CFO, open letters of dissatisfaction and no clear path through this, I’m starting to wonder if it can.

Currently no. There is a requirement for financial disclosure where assets may be at risk due to possible climate change. Currently it only applies to UK listed and large companies. Hard to see how it could possibly apply to BMC.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&a...

And laws can be changed by future parliaments.

The Companies Act requires Directors to act with.regard to the environment, so yes 172(1)d 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/10/chapter/2/crossheading...

"You can have little regard for Net Zero whilst also being aware that if you fail to take action your business or organisation will be bankrupted by carbon offset payments or just left behind as a relict of the past.".

More likely to happen by following the net zero path.  

"Directorial responsibility one. Preserve shareholder value."

No, the primary duty of company directors is to act in what they see as the best interests of the company. And I would point out that Client Earth lost a case against Shell:

"However, the Court refused to accept that there were specific obligations on directors on how the company’s management and affairs ought to be conducted to address climate risk. Instead, it focused on ‘the well-established principle that it is for directors themselves to determine (acting in good faith) how best to promote the success of a company for the benefit of its members as a whole’ (at para 19). In arriving at this conclusion, the Court relied on well-known English dicta in Re Smith & Fawcett Limited [1942] Ch 304 and Howard Smith v. Ampol Petroleum Ltd [1974] AC 821. The Court suggested that directors’ obligations to address climate risk are not uni-dimensional, as ClientEarth suggests, but that directors are required to account for several competing considerations and weigh them on balance. Courts would, therefore, be averse to dictating to corporate boards (either by themselves or based on prescriptions by shareholders) how they should perform their duties in reality. That is a matter for boards’ discretion to be exercised on a real-time basis."

You further commented:

"I don't wish you well in opting out. I hope you have your pension invested with a company with an ESG policy"

Certainly not. Why burn money on unnecessary costs?

"I hope you buy groceries from a company with a Net Zero policy"

Nope, but completely agnostic. I buy on the basis of price and quality.

True, but that is not answering the question originally posed:

 "It is now a key obligation upon the leaders of all organisations to outline how they will achieve this as it is legally mandated"

Everyone seemed to know that Paul D was the wrong guy for the job.  Except the BMC Chair, President and Board who employed him and supported him for three years.

I want to hear more from the (two?) Presidents involved, starting with Robinson. Not optimistic though.

It does because "now" climate change is an overriding environmental concern, and will only become more so.

That's not what the act says:

"(1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—"

The words are "have regard" and as I quoted above from the ruling in clientearth vs shell:

"However, the Court refused to accept that there were specific obligations on directors on how the company’s management and affairs ought to be conducted to address climate risk."

So the answer is, under current legislation, no. That may be changed by a future parliament, or if clientearth successfully appeals it, an outcome I think unlikely the courts will support.

Do you have a link to that case? Sounds interesting. "Specific" sounds ab important word, unless it entirely undermines the Act 

There's a review of it here:

https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/oblb/blog-post/2023/06/clientearth-shell-english...

There is a further ruling here:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&a...

And if you Google "uk companies act 2006 clientearth shell" or similar I am sure you will get more. The only things I look at are rulings or legal opinion.

If you are not aware of Kath Flitcroft I do wonder how much you actually know about the BMC

John

Doctor Flitcroft to you, young man!

Kath has been in post for around 20 years. Not sure who Dr Caroline Flitwick is though.

It’s Cath, Graham

Andy

Thanks for referring to me as a 'young man'. Old and worn old would be more like it, and as such someone who has been quietly involved with the BMC for many years.  Even seeing 'Block voting' being used once to enable senior clubs to get their man elected.

John

If the BMC is no longer paying the salaries of a CEO and a CFO, does it still have a financial problem?

The faux outrage on this thread when Will suggested that perhaps those "scrutinising" the Bmc might like to consider whether such scrutiny is counter productive is instructive. You say you want a climber to take on the CEO job. Who in their right mind would take the job on reading this thread? 

Do you reckon Lachlan Murdoch could handle it? He boulders about 7a/7a+. I think he has a bit of business experience and wouldn't be put off by a bit of criticism on UKC.

It might spice up Summit magazine a bit!

"Faux outrage"? Où? 

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

There was no outrage in the responses, faux or otherwise. 

I know you and everyone else on this thread means well and cares deeply about deeply about the BMC. But I do think that Will has got a point. I've made a similar point on UKB; in my opinion inquisitorial Facebook groups and long threads on here slagging off the former CEO (Andy Say has to his credit warned against this) are counterproductive.

Responses to Wills (imo reasonable) post have ignored the thrust of the argument and instead nitpicked over the minor point that people has critiqued the BMCs use of grammar. An exaggeration, fine, but the wider point remains unacknowledged and unanswered. 

At the root of this is surely the fact that it's very hard to be an overarching representative body and a members organisation. My personal view is that the Bmc is no longer really a members organisation whatever it may profess to be. In large part the membership are profoundly uninterested and disengaged. Outside of the Peak nobody attends Area meetings. I say this as a former Area Chair who put hours of my life into trying to drum up attendance. People aren't bothered, or don't have the time (more likely) and would perhaps prefer a organisation which is perhaps more of a governing than a representative body. No idea how we get there but that's my view. 

If that's aimed at me Jim, I'm afraid it's nonsense. Will linked some  comments about communication as somehow symptomatic of a wider culture. If he wants to put an argument about the extent of unhelpful criticism that's absolutely fine, it's a reasonable point to discuss and one I agree with to an extent.

Misrepresenting one off comments however, by claiming they illustrate ''the same people who seem to be on the hunt for any molehill they can make a mountain out of or infer the worst possible conclusion from'' isn't just offensive, it's untruthful.

If you have a solid argument, there will be evidence aplenty, it doesn't need making up.

You might have a point, but how can any of the current difficulties be blamed on the fact that members (uninterested, or otherwise) exist?

He linked to your comments as an example of nitpicking and being symptomatic of a wider culture. You disagreed at some length, as you're of course entitled to do! The wider point remains, I recall similar critiques of the grammar of Bmc press releases during covid on UKB, for example. I don't think pointing to these as examples of "missing the point" is remotely offensive.

That aside, cause I don't think we're going to agree on that, the wider issues is one of the extent of unhelpful criticism. I continue to think this is a big issue and unlikely to result in good candidates putting themselves forward to be CEO. 

My experience has been that without external criticism literally nothing changes. The cultural inertia is incredible. 
 

Edit: no criticism intended 🤣

Yeah, it's a balance isn't it. I think the difficulty comes from the fact there seems to be no member engagement with Bmc work except to slag it off which perhaps makes the criticism appear larger than it is. If the only member engagement is critical that makes for a poor look, and makes it look like the critics have an axe to grind even when they're acting in good faith. 

Not true. There is a small army of volunteers which is also member engagement, the best sort of engagement. Also square that with critics who are also typically volunteers who have lost their rose tinted spectacles 

It's a bit difficult to be positive when there are endless governance crises, many core functions (e.g. insurance) seem broken, the finances are a mess, the organisation has been captured by Olympic/competition promotion, and senior figures keep resigning!! 

I would consider myself a volunteer as well, but considering membership is 85,000...volunteers are still a pretty small proportion. Not a criticism by any means. I don't actually have a solution, I'm more playing devil's advocate and just suggesting that excessive criticism is counter productive. Obviously that's open to definition. 

By no means am I going full Offwidth and saying we should all be being positive! It's a mess. I just worry that we are shooting ourselves in the foot. 

I kind of get your point, I’ve been guilty of moaning, there’s a lot to moan about. A ton of good work happens at local level, much of it FOC out of sheer love for the sport. I just wish the powers that be would stop actively p*ssing off the membership. They work for us after all.

I wish any new regime the best and happy to give them a chance.

He wrote, word for word, ''The same people who seem to be on the hunt for any molehill they can make a mountain out of or infer the worst possible conclusion from.'' and used my comments as proof. Where have you or he ever seen me ever be hypercritical of the BMC?

You misrepresent me. I did not say that was offensive and Will did not do that, he chose to quote me to support his argument and then claimed it illustrated that it was the same people looking for things to be outraged by, time and again. It's reasonable to object when things are written which are untrue.

I completely agree, but I don't think Will deserves a free pass to say whatever he likes. A bit more care in how he responded to being challenged on his point and the focus would be on that, not this.

There are some- I'd give Simon as an example- who are intent on moving things forward. It's obvious that this is not going to be quick and reflexively clutching at solutions, such as splitting off comps, is not the way to work out a long term structure which will be be to the benefit of all. (I'm not saying that comps shouldn't be split off; rather, I'm not qualified to know either way and better informed people will have to consider that one).

Look, I get what you are objecting to. There is a 'heads must roll' feel at times, which must be devastating to read if you think it's about you.  Venting anger is very easy to do, especially behind a keyboard where it is easy to forget real people read and have feelings about what they read.  I agree. Too much of that and it'll look like a fools errand to work at the BMC.

Where I do think criticism is valid is in the lack of transparency. I suspect that is partly is a problem of culture- that of an elite NGB vs a representative body which is fully accountable. The two are very different. Any CEO will need to be able to straddle both worlds. I don't envy anyone that task.

If you'd care to extricate your head from the deepest reaches of your own intestines you will see that my posts are not all about you. Your example was simply the first that came to mind (because it WAS unduly critical and it came after many people had complained that the BMC's comms were too corporate, so it was galling to then see someone take a simple press release and make niche complaints about the grammar). I could just as easily have pointed to a comment on Facebook by someone else which suggested that the BMC was "silencing" its members because one of the BMC's YouTube videos did not accept comments.

My point is that the militant BMC critics make themselves less credible by voiding their bowels in distress over the tiniest of things. Years ago I was passed a manifesto written by some pompous edgelords referring to themselves as The BMC 30 (if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire The BMC 30) and I was so concerned that I set up a Facebook group to rally an opposition. So I do kind of care about the organisation; if it's a shitshow I'd like to know. However I, and the overwhelming majority of other members, have no interest in wading through petty outrage to get to the real substance.

Wow. What a superior and contemptuous tone. Fair enough if that’s who you are. In fairness, it does blend perfectly into the toxic culture of complaint you make such a fuss over deploring.

I think that's pretty uncalled for. The comment about grammar that you posted seemed to me to be a minor aside; a small postscript to the main thrust of the complaint.

There seems to be plenty of real substance to be concerned about, much of which has been discussed here, and in the thread about the open letter from the competition climbers.

Agree 100%. The comment re. commercial partnerships ($$$) was also directed towards sustainability. The fact GO OUTDOORS sells festival tents that are unkind to otters was a factor behind not pursuing membership revenue by advertising throughout their 100 stores.. and that was back in 2015!! Like you said, if your conscience nags you and you cant sleep at night because a couple of sq.M of ripstop will still  be here in 500 years time, then go and join the GREENS!  

I’m hoping that you had one glass too many of lambrini on Sunday evening, and you’ll apologise for this post this morning. 
 

This would usually just be a downvote, but they seem to have been turned off for this topic, something usually only reserved for deaths…

BMC ..."Rest in Pete's!" Oh, sorry. I gather that's yet another climbing institution that's no longer there!

Thanks Jim.  There are one or two lone voices here that view this mission creep into environmental campaigns as a possible indication of some of the root problems with BMC.  In my view too many UKC members are fully aligned with environmental/Net Zero views that they are unable to consider that it should be completely outside of an organization representing the interests of hill walkers, rock climbers and mountaineers.  They can also be very reactive and hostile to views like mine which dare suggest it is not the business of the BMC to be involved in these matters, I suspect interpreting my criticism of the BMC involvement as an attack on their beliefs.  They need to learn to separate the two.

Just taking a look at the BMC access and conservation page today makes me think I am reading the pages of an environmental campaigning organisation.  Yes, there is stuff about right to roam but even there there is obvious mission creep with talk about "Woodland, watersides and grassland" and "activities such as outdoor swimming, paddle sports and mountain biking" plus a plug for Labour and the Greens.

However, besides right to roam two articles posted 20th and 21st September (just last week) are:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/weakening-net-zero-policies-is-a-historic-mistake

and

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/sustainable-steps

The first one is the most concerning, the BMC has signed a letter to the government objecting to watering down Net Zero.  I'll post the first part of the article:

"The BMC strongly opposes any weakening of net zero policies related to insulating homes, promoting clean heat, and encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles.

"The BMC urges the Prime Minister not to weaken these policies, warning that doing so would be a historic mistake, damaging the UK's economy and international climate leadership, especially in the face of worsening global climate crises. The BMC calls for immediate action to combat this pressing global crisis.

"Dr Cath Flitcroft, the BMC’s Campaigns and Policy Manager said: “at what point does the climate crisis take priority.  We are disappointed that the message from our own Government is that ‘more time’ is required. That’s just not a luxury we have.”

"The BMC, along with other influential organisations, has signed an open letter expressing deep concerns about reported plans. This collective appeal underscores the significance of preserving long-term net zero commitments, emphasising their pivotal role in fostering business confidence and attracting vital investments."

Anyone who thinks/supports that as a core activity of BMC or thinks it has anything to do with hill walking, rock climbing or mountaineering is part of the problem.  What next - BMC decides on reciprocal membership rights with Socialist Worker or equipment loans and training for Just Stop Oil protester's climbing bridges?  Or perhaps we can have a BMC campaign in support of NHS worker strikes?

Its got nothing to do with hill walking, rock climbing or mountaineering.  Its mission creep, pet personal views and coat-racking.  Like many organisations, much of the original purpose has been hijacked and/or diverted and phrases such as "The BMC, along with other influential organisations..." are a giveaway that people high up in the organisation think their role is much grander than simply representing the general interests of people enjoying the hills and mountains.  They are on a mission to take us on a  "journey...to make meaningful change".

A few people (correctly) criticised me up thread for not knowing who Dr Cath Flitcroft is, but having looked at some of this stuff in the light of the problems at the BMC I would say she may well have made important contributions to access but she is certainly involved, on behalf of BMC, in activities which should be completely outside of any possible remit.  At the very least the board should not be sanctioning this stuff.

They just happen to be people who disagree with you about what they think the BMC should be doing, it doesn't make them 'part of the problem'.

This whole debacle is largely about members feeling the BMC are not representing their interests and priorities. That's not solely _your_ interests and priorities, that's the interesting and priorities of the membership as a whole and frankly I'd be surprised if their 'mission creep' into environmental concerns does not better reflect the membership as a whole than your attitude does.

Did you notice what happened to the Cosmique Arete?

Coat-racking?!

Not even Google knows what this is supposed to mean.

Nearest I found was Urbandictionary.com - "The act of taking one's coat or other primary covering and throwing it on top of someone unexpectedly whilst loudly proclaiming "COAT RACK""

Given the environmental impacts of climate change on the landscapes that we walk and climb in its surely really obvious that being concerned about net zero is within the BMC's interest.

To characterise net zero as a policy of the left or groups like Just Stop Oil is wrong. Net zero is a target that the majority of UK parties support (the only parties I can think of that disagree are UKIP and Reform. Any more?) The target was agreed to and made legally binding by a Conservative government.

You have just made my point for me.  But I don't think you even realise.

The idea that climate change isn't going to have an impact on hillwalking, rock climbing, or mountaineering is a departure from reality and to describe anyone that knows this to be true as 'part of the problem' is horrendously out of touch/on the verge of climate change denial.

Any organisation that represents hillwalkers/rock climbers/mountaineers would fail to represent their members if they didn't lobby for greater action on climate, net zero, or environmental issues.

Well, I suppose there won't be any need to sell insurance for alpine climbing once alpine climbing becomes untenable...

Mr Flash635 said he did a couple of alpine seasons and some North Wales winter routes back in the early 80s but since then has focused on rock climbing. So perhaps doesn't know about how much the Alps have melted. If he was around Chamonix in the early 80s he might be surprised by how different the Mer de Glace is now. It's only 22 years for me, but it's amazing how much smaller it is now.

But some people think that's only natural processes happening, or even if it is caused by mankind don't really care. I don't know if Mr Flash635 holds such opinions, or just doesn't think environmental protection has anything to do with the BMC, but I reckon he's in a minority. I can't see how many climbers wouldn't think their representative body shouldn't have some role in dealing with the climate emergency. 

And to flash635, I suspect you're not a bot, but did you pick such a bot-y sounding name because you thought it was a bit of a laugh? On twitter (sorry, X) or youtube comments I think my brain just automatically sorts lower-case-word-string-of-random-numbers usernames into a mental spam/bot file and ignores them!

"The BMC strongly opposes any weakening of net zero policies related to insulating homes, promoting clean heat, and encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles."

Nothing to do with hill walking, rock climbing or mountaineering in that statement.  But you and others appear, as I predicted in my post, to support BMC "climate action" and are empathetic because it likely aligns with other views you hold outside of those activities.  I take the view that these are not proper activities or objectives for an organisation such as the BMC.

"A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. Typically, the article has been edited to make a point about something else."

The BMC was about hill walking, rock climbing and mountaineering but now appears to coat-rack in external, unrelated aspects in its objectives.

How, dare I ask, does one go hillwalking, mountaineering or climbing not in the outside world?

I suspect - and sincerely hope - you're in the minority here. Given that it's indisputably impossible to go hillwalking, mountaineering or climbing without engaging with nature, I suspect most people who engage in these activities would like to see the environment that they do them in not go up in flames. If the BMC aa an organisation didn't hold strong views on climate change, I'd have the best part of ' all respect for them.

And the personally hostile messages begin elsewhere on the thread, although not with your post I should add.

I have been back to Chamonix (skiing) in the last 5 years.  Yes the Mer de Glace has retreated.

It may surprise you to learn that the Mer de Glace has been retreating almost linearly since around 1850-1860 and that the period of fastest retreat was in fact the late 19th century and not in the 20th century.  But then I have actually done some glacier retreat forward and inverse modelling, so maybe I would know that.

But lets not coat-rack an argument about climate change into what the BMC should properly be engaged in eh?

If insulating homes, promoting clean heat, and encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles is part of the bare minimum that needs to be done to achieve net zero then, yes, it does have something to do with hill walking, rock climbing and mountaineering.

I'm not going to engage any further. I've better things to do than argue with climate change deniers.

What does that sentence even mean?

GPT4 seems to be just as clueless as I am - 

"I'm sorry, but I don't know the meaning of the expression "coat-racking" or to "coat rack in". I searched the web for it, but I couldn't find any results that explain it. Maybe you can try rephrasing your question." 

It seems to come from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coatrack_articles

Although I'm still not convinced this really helps Mr Flash's point. I think he is saying the BMC shouldn't do anything that is directly to with climbing, hill walking, mountaineering etc. Plenty of us are saying "but we already are limiting our ability to do those things due to climate change, so of course its connected to the BMC's remit". And Mr Flash says no - making those connections is coat racking, and obscuring the real argument. I'm just confused by what the real argument is!

This is gaslighting. Your posts have been responded to with robust but well argued disagreement backed up by evidence. Nowhere has anyone been hostile or reactive. They've merely responded to your posts, which is how discussions work. 

Okay, I think I get it.

So for example someone might use a thread about a high level BMC resignation as a vehicle to rail against climate action.

Good to learn new expressions. 

Thanks!

It's maybe just my personal view but I would suggest that attempts to protect our environment actually do have quite a bit to do with hill walking, rock climbing or mountaineering'. I'm not too keen on walking through deserts or being unable to climb ice.

And I would also suggest that 'we' do need to attempt 'meaningful change'; the government has actually enshrined that in law. I've no problem at all with the BMC (along with MANY other organisations) pressing for action.

Would you have similarly criticised the Kinder Trespassers for trying to make 'meaningful change' despite the opposition to them by vested interests?

Do you think it might be appropriate for you to start a new thread under the title "Why I oppose the BMC's environmental stance"?

It might 'simplify' things. You know. Reduce the 'coat racking'😉

It didn't take long did it?  Oh no, a suspected "climate change denier" in our midst!

You might as well accuse me of being a witch.

Good one, made me smile.

But if I hold the opinion that distraction/mission creep is an important factor in steering the BMC from what I see as its core purpose then I have as much right as anyone to speak my mind.  I don't expect many here to align with my views, but perhaps they might at least think about.

That's a good question and I had already thought about it when reading about the "right to roam" position of the BMC. 

My answer would be that the Kinder Trespass was of its time and was necessary.  I do not think that a similar action now would be justified because so much of the political and social landscape has changed in the past 90 years or so.

I am not railing against climate action, that is what those who disagree with me have postioned my arguments as.

I am pointing out that, in my opinion, it is a waste of time and resources and distracts from the core priorities of the BMC and there are plenty of more appropriate organisations where concerned parties can engage and express these views or actions.

Have you seen the state of Alps in recent years!? Or the large areas of moorland burnt?  The idea mountaineering, climbing and walking are somehow divorced from climate change and environmental issues is way off. They should absolutely be a core activity for the BMC.  

Your language suggests otherwise. Suggesting it is a "belief" and associating it with fringe publications like Socialist Worker strongly implies you think it a fringe obsession.

Some data on changes in thickness of the glacier https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Cumulative-mass-balance-of-Mer-de-Gla...

Well it is a relief you think Socialist Worker is a fringe obsession!

Thank you, I will enjoy reading it.

OK, opinions vary.  I respect your view and I am fully aware that I am in a minority here.  If the majority are in favour of the BMC treating climate change as a core activity then that is what it will do.  I will still remain an affiliated member and hope that people might be persuaded to change the BMC priorities in the future.

Not very linear...

And given the recent challenges to access on Dartmoor do you think that SO much has changed?

I actually agree with your wider point. The BMC has lost its way and is doing too much not very well, including irrelevancies 

Yes.  Hill walkers and climbers have excellent representation.  There are Acts of Parliament creating public rights and outdoor enthusiasts have a clear voice.  There is significant public and political awareness of the importance of access to our wilderness areas, that also goes hand in hand with how to protect it from over-use or careless use.

For sure. I'm not trying to close you down. Just suggesting that a separate thread about the BMC environmental 'policy' might be appropriate. It's not really linked to the loss of the CEO, is it? 

Or do you think it is?

(a) I haven't read the paper and I suspect nor have you.  You have simply pulled out a picture that you think makes your point.  I would note that Fig 6 that you showed is not even referenced in the text of the paper and its not clear what the data actually is.  Before commenting on it I would need to read the paper, check the provenance and also compare it to the Glacier database version that I have downloaded.

(b) I do not wish to this thread into a climate change evidence argument.  I responded earlier to a direct question about (i) had I seen the MdG lately and (ii) supported that with known and published numbers that come from the Glacier Database.  Enough.

I suspect Flash is trying to close the thread down though. They’re a stuck record and the wider discussion is getting mired.

I think that's an unfair comment. flash635 made a comment that attracted critical responses from various posters. Since then, so far as I can see, he/she has then been responding to those responses (as one would expect.)

Not specifically, but I am responding as some other posters did.  For example doctorgranite commented:

"Perhaps we can now return to core values at the BMC. The 2nd word in the acronym is “Mountaineering”………..still relevant!"

and I initially responded to your "broad church" comment.

Enough now.  I have made my point, some people have listened to it and a few have agreed.

Gosh, if the chart shows what I think it does (basically the mass of ice in the Mer de Glace?) I'm now even more depressed than I was earlier. I flew (yeah, I know) across the Alps about a month ago going to Turin, at the end of the super hot and dry summer. It looked so incredibly dry, and the glaciers that I could see were all bare grey ice, even the highest ones. There didn't seem to be snow anywhere. Maybe the couple of years I went to Chamonix in late August/early September (2000 and 2001 I think it was) were unusually snowy, but I suspect rather they were just normal two decades ago.

Can you post the full reference please?

It's from the paper linked higher.

It got cropped, sorry. The link above has it. It's the regression of the snout over time. 

And yes, it's basically not there anymore below about the Courvercle hut 

If the BMC published an article setting out how climate change (specifically global warming) would detrimentally affect our access to climbing (of various types), would you still be unhappy with the BMC trying to do whatever it can to affect our behaviours and government policy so that the effects of global warming were minimised thus helping to preserve our access to climbing.

Responding to and arguing with responses is fair enough but it's getting a bit repetitive with a slight whiff of "I'm being cancelled."

If the BMC had communicated properly with its members, stating what had happened and what was happening, and not hiding the facts, including detailing what wasn't working, then most of the "sniping" wouldn't have happened (*). In these days of social media, lack of proper communication just leads to the rumour mill.

(*) - there would no doubt have been criticism, but it would have been more informed criticism and would likely have had an overall tone that was more suggestive of solutions (because pretty much everyone on these threads does actually want the BMC to be a successful organisation).

I don't what your alpine history is Toby but I went to Chamonix c.1989-91 and Bernese Oberland around the same time. I never went back until 2015 to Chamonix and 2019 to Grindelwald and if you'd described how much the Unterer Grindelwald glacier and the Mer de Glace had shrunk I wouldn't have believed you. It's jaw dropping. 

Below linked is the most comprehensive review I know of the history and data for Mer de Glace.

Key figure is on p52. The spectacular retreat in the second half of the 19th century is very clear.  This is to head off anyone thinking I am not relying on published data. The same length curve is in the glacial database.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&a...

For me that's my last post on the topic on this thread. Nothing further to add.

Linear?? It also stops in 2000, just as recent rapid retreat started. No one questions it's been retreating a long time but using this to argue against climate action is nuts.

Coat racked?

I think I've been hung in the back of a certain wardrobe having read this thread...

In reply to JIM KELLY:

And you were doing so well until you came out as a COVID conspiracy theorist.

It like the ladders from Montenvers, they keep getting longer. Courvercle has to be my favourite hut, great location and best view ever. 

I think I'm right in saying the ladders are no more either because of glacial retreat!

Sadly not been for a few years, but perhaps the balcony traverse is the approved route to it now. I did think they were still in place, or perhaps gaining the first ladder isn't easy. 

The ascent ladders were there in July, but as you say getting to the first ladder involved scrambling over some loose choss.

I think MG might be referring to the decent from Montevers which is now a combination of cable car, metal and concrete steps, but looks like that will be replaced by a new chairlift for the winter? 

I said I wouldn't post further as some commenters have rightly noted it is derailing the thread, but I will add a postscript:

If you are interested in a reply/discussion to your post email me through UKC and I will respond in good faith providing you treat it as anonymous/confidential.

Alternatively start a new thread on this topic and I will comment and discuss.

Beyond that, nothing further to add on this thread.

I think there will always be a level of improvisation, as there's nothing solid at glacier level to anchor to, even if a cable cable is below the snout, at some point you need to scramble up onto the glacier. Sad times as it was so good 30 or so years ago, but me travelling there no doubt played an extremely small part in it's demise. So we are all in hindsight accountable.

Who let the Daily Mail in here?

The problems at the BMC aren't because they're too "woke" and hey actually accessibility to climbing and hills means accessibility for all different kinds of people not just miserable old farts who think that society peaked when they did an E2 in the late 70s

The BMC should be promoting diversity and accessibility. The BMC should be engaging in climate change and biodiversity and all that because that directly impacts the areas where BMC activities take place.

The problems with the BMC are a lack of accountability and oversight of the comp side to the comp oversight group, and a senior leadership team who are mismanaging the finances and doing stuff like hiring based on utterly absurd membership projections. They need a good CFO who can instigate a bit of fiscal discipline, a head of Comp Climbing who takes reporting to the oversight committee really seriously, and a CEO who isn't some non-climber whose experience is in sport governing bodies and who sees the membership as an annoying distraction. Get someone in who understands the appeal across everything the BMC does, get them to get a hold of the reigns and help them do what the BMC does best, which is done by a small team of great staff and a load of great volunteers.

I'd assumed it is more aimed at skiers and sightseers , not tightfisted climbers like me, who would still walk down/up, if there was a fee involved. 

Like you and others, it was a similar length of time between my visits and I found it utterly shocking. 

Similarly guilty, it would be much easier to deal with if I could believe the problem doesn't exist. 

I gave up my BMC membership a few years ago, partly due to mission creep.

I would say that if the loss of the CEO is in any way due to financial issues then the 2 issues are linked.

Just started thread in alpine section. Be interested to see info you have

I'd agree.

As in previous online BMC debates, plenty of older members were progressive and those who are maybe less so still have valid opinions.

Id agree, but also the BMC survey their members to ensure this is what most want and they must listen to Council where members are formally represented and to area meetings. It's simply not true these initiatives are top down, as some claim.

There have clearly been serious issues within the governance of GBC, especially with stakeholder communications, but the associated committee, the CCPG, did it's job. Although their report got bogged down (as any report can that is so critical, if it leads to formal impacts on individual employees) and it was shared with Council slower than it should have been (as the information was coming to us anyway via other routes) there do seem to be plans to change things and Council are involved now. The tragedy is for some of those athletes caught up in the mess: as a 16 year old pointed out at the AGM, it will be too late for him. Some of the fuss is also pretty rough on blameless staff in GBC.

I still think the hits on finances and membership targets were much more forgivable, despite being one of the minority on Council urging caution on growth projections (see CFO comments below). 100,000 members by the end of 2024 sounds big but even with that we would likely be behind activity participation growth in BMC activities. The cost of living crisis has hit a good proportion of membership organisations hard in 2023.  We also had an entirely unexpected insurance underwriter issue (and various other internal issues, including a slower than expected run out of a much improved marketing plan and various membership initiatives). Running the BMC as a company is as much to encourage grasping sensible opportunity as minimising risks. Why evidence is there to expect BMC membership falling further behind participation rates?

They had one who only recently left...all the financial plans went past them, and the Board and Members Council. Having spoken to a few experts I think we need a portfolio CFO backed by a strengthened Finance and Audit Committee (recent plans were to reduce the size of FAC... a mistake in my view). 

I think we need employees who have the best skills for the job from the applicants we had. Any lack of BMC context or misunderstanding about CCPG should have been easily resolved through a functioning management with governance input. Just blaming individuals is unfair: we have a complex governance structure to reduce risk and ensure representative membership input to strategy, finance and governance.

Is it unfair to blame individuals? I am happy to blame the CEO for this mess. He was the CEO, so it's his responsibility. He clearly feels similarly since he's resigned.

Someone decided to project absurd membership number, as an example, and them use that as a basis for spending. Whoever did that made a serious mistake. And while I do agree many things that you say, you personally are too close to this to see it objectively imo.

OMG has your account been cloned? I actually agree with most of what you said 😀

Where we differ is around the Senior Management Team. I agree they need to be competent but I think they should also be climbers who will understand what the BMC is about to the members.

I think both the CEO, CCO and CFO don't have a background in climbing and come from an elite sports background which isn't really what most of the membership want and the BMC is still primarily a membership organisation

Totally dismissing projecting membership growth to 100,000 being possible at the end of 2024 (with several risk strategies to follow if targets didn't track before that) which is almost certainly going to be a slower increase than participation in BMC activities since our pre covid peak membership, is what seems absurd to me. Of course it wasn't guaranteed but it was far from unreasonable, especially before all these unexpected extra factors arose (and the planned contingencies kicked in).

Yes I think it's unfair to single out individuals, ignoring the governance structure they work within, and for staff below the CEO I'd say its unethical if they are not subject to formal complaints or disciplinary issues.

I actually agree with you quite a lot but tend to write more here about where I disagree. Even being part of the BMC 30, I defended your right to your views on the Motion of No Confidence; I was just disgusted by some of the dishonest tactics of some of your fellow signatories.

Paul was a mountaineer, climber and hillwalker and was fully briefed and 'up to speed' on the BMC when acting CEO and was managed by the Board and subject to all the BMC governance structures. I see no need for a CFO to be involved in BMC activities (just a mildly desirable factor) and only strongly desirable that the GB Climbing lead is so (if not so, with stong support being provided as required). Many life long BMC members who engage  in every activity the BMC represents are clueless about how the BMC operates and the huge complexity of the organisation.

If that’s your idea of it doing its job then the bar couldn’t be set any lower.

Report Conclusion

The ‘Purpose’ of CCPG, as drawn from its current Terms of Reference, are:

Purpose 
The purpose of the CCPG should include, but not be limited to: 
• Advise and report to the Board 
• Support and challenge GB Climbing 
• Develop its strategy and long term aims 
• Advise GB Climbing on the management of resources at their disposal 
• Exercise the delegated authority of the Board in accordance with these terms of 
reference 
• Assess the performance of the CCPG and GB Climbing against set criteria to 
ensure that competition climbing is being governed in the best possible manner 

We have not seen any evidence that would lead this Review to conclude that any of
the above criteria have been met.This is clearly a breach of the operating mandate 
which CCPG and GB Climbing were duty bound to deliver, and a failure to comply with 
the Terms of Reference which were set out and agreed by the BoD and for which they 
are accountable.

Are you aware of how much Paul Davies & some members of the board attempted to interfere with the CCPG review & report preparation? Initially the CEO & Board refused to acknowledge it, then they didn't want make it public so sat on it.  Then when the pressure to make public was too much they stalled for a further 2-3 months. Lord only knows what else was said behind closed doors. A highly regarded Director & long standing BMC volunteer felt they had no option but to resign from CCPG due to the active suppression that was going on.
It's hardly surprising the report seems somewhat watered down.

Who's been singled out below Paul Davies & some of the Board members?

In addition, the report was hugely delayed, apparently because of the direct implications of its contents for certain individuals. Whatever that was, it was entirely removed from anything that became public and there don't seem to have been any consequences for those individuals. Hence why we've ended up in a pretty depressing situation where almost 3/4 of the GB Climbing team have expressed no confidence in their leadership. Thats basically the most extreme action sports people can take and yet, almost a week later, there has been no substantive response from the BMC or GB Climbing.

The CCPG's role is to follow that remit the best it can and highlight any significant issues to the Board: it did that in my view. It can't fully achieve all of the governance aims in a timely manner if other parts of the management and governance structure involved don't do their part and/or if things get stuck in disputes or other internal processes. 

Yes, I’m aware

My understanding is that it was put back to the authors of the review who refused to amend it. It doesn’t seem watered down to me especially in the context of BMC internal reviews which in my experience are typically conservative and defend the establishment.

The report’s conclusion I quoted above couldn’t be any more damning. No wonder every effort was made to prevent it going public.

Several staff and non director volunteers on several occasions. I made the same point every time I saw it happen.

Who? If you don't want to name names, use role titles...

Ahh, yes, apologies, I missed your angle on the discussion...

Get GB  Climbing out of the BMC. The BMC has been corrupted for years over commercial financial interests. Disband GBC and drain the swamp

Let GBC set up their own quango, nobody seems to be accountable these days.

I will not pay BMC fees until they start looking after the interests of mountaineers and climbing outdoors. Let the GBC look after the circus that's indoor climbing.

I’m not sure you’ll find many Trump fans on UKC…

What do you think the BMC isn't doing for outdoor climbers that it should be doing?