This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
But its ok because football is getting a £1,600,000 city of football. What narks me is with all the bribes from the Qatari Government and millions in TV and advertising revenues football must have oodles of lolly to spank on stuff...
In reply to muppetfilter:
This has been poorly reported. There is no net funding cut: Sport England is taking money away from sport governing bodies (e.g. the BMC) and investing it in the same sports in other ways - see http://www.sportengland.org/media-centre/news/2014/march/26/sport-england-c... However it's not clear how the £97,000 cut from the BMC is actually going to be spent on mountaineering.
This has been poorly reported. There is no net funding cut: Sport England is taking money away from sport governing bodies (e.g. the BMC) and investing it in the same sports in other ways - see http://www.sportengland.org/media-centre/news/2014/march/26/sport-england-c... However it's not clear how the £97,000 cut from the BMC is actually going to be spent on mountaineering.
In reply to muppetfilter:
Is this such a bad thing - maybe we can become more of a backwater again...
Is this such a bad thing - maybe we can become more of a backwater again...
In reply to muppetfilter:
I thought the story said that the football authorities were being fined £1.6M not being given it?
I also suspect that you're mistaking the shitloads of cash that the Premier League is swimming in with the largely cash-starved situation that most of the grass-roots game finds itself in. This is what the fine was for.
I thought the story said that the football authorities were being fined £1.6M not being given it?
I also suspect that you're mistaking the shitloads of cash that the Premier League is swimming in with the largely cash-starved situation that most of the grass-roots game finds itself in. This is what the fine was for.
In reply to muppetfilter:
Perhaps the BMC will have to stop devising diversity policies and running equity symposiums with sessions on "sprituality and the outdoors" and goodness knows what other bollocks they increasingly seem to find necessary these days.
Perhaps the BMC will have to stop devising diversity policies and running equity symposiums with sessions on "sprituality and the outdoors" and goodness knows what other bollocks they increasingly seem to find necessary these days.
In reply to muppetfilter:
I find this surprising, as Sport England's participation numbers show a small decrease but say this is statistically insignificant. Following several years of consistent growth any decrease looks to me more likely to be a sampling error (in a sport in which is difficult to measure participation)
I'd like to know how SE is going to fund the sport in other ways, and what the BMC has to say about it. Both their websites seem to be silent on this.
I find this surprising, as Sport England's participation numbers show a small decrease but say this is statistically insignificant. Following several years of consistent growth any decrease looks to me more likely to be a sampling error (in a sport in which is difficult to measure participation)
I'd like to know how SE is going to fund the sport in other ways, and what the BMC has to say about it. Both their websites seem to be silent on this.
In reply to pec:
Except it is probably to comply with grant conditions that they do it.
> (In reply to muppetfilter)
>
> Perhaps the BMC will have to stop devising diversity policies and running equity symposiums with sessions on "sprituality and the outdoors" and goodness knows what other bollocks they increasingly seem to find necessary these days.
>
> Perhaps the BMC will have to stop devising diversity policies and running equity symposiums with sessions on "sprituality and the outdoors" and goodness knows what other bollocks they increasingly seem to find necessary these days.
Except it is probably to comply with grant conditions that they do it.
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
Indeed - I can't imagine it'd help their application if they said "we're going to focus more on helping a load of predominately middle class white people to do what they would probably have been doing anyway."
Indeed - I can't imagine it'd help their application if they said "we're going to focus more on helping a load of predominately middle class white people to do what they would probably have been doing anyway."
In reply to muppetfilter:
I'm not too distressed by BMC losing govt money - there seems to have been massive mission creep. Climbing should be anarchic, not taxpayer funded. I'm not convinced there's any rationale for funding any sports from public coffers TBH.
I'm not too distressed by BMC losing govt money - there seems to have been massive mission creep. Climbing should be anarchic, not taxpayer funded. I'm not convinced there's any rationale for funding any sports from public coffers TBH.
In reply to neal:
I guess it's a public health argument - encouraging people to take more exercise.
> I'm not convinced there's any rationale for funding any sports from public coffers TBH.
I guess it's a public health argument - encouraging people to take more exercise.
In reply to wynaptomos:
The FA have had their sport england funding reduced by £1.6M for failing to reach an objective. They're still reciving near on £30M.
Where was this reported as a fine? And for what offence?
The FA have had their sport england funding reduced by £1.6M for failing to reach an objective. They're still reciving near on £30M.
Where was this reported as a fine? And for what offence?
In reply to Mark Bull:
I understand the rationale, I just don't agree with it.
1. Public health /= public good. People bear the costs of their own inactivity through ill health and an early death (probably costing the public purse less overall). It's not contagious (tho I am aware of evidence on social norms).
2. Even if we accept the view that the state should take it upon itself to take money from some ppl and use it to mither other people about their lifestyles (I'd hope most climbers were independently minded enough to find that a bit problematic), I'd be surprised if giving money to most sports (especially climbing!) were a cost effective way of doing so (beware evaluation reports that say otherwise, almost always flawed). Walking maybe. Not buggering up towns and cities so that nobody walks/cycles is probably more cost effective.
3. There is perhaps a case when it comes to minors, even then, still think point 2 applies. And even if it doesn't, there's no reason why the BMC should deliver this kind of work, there's a very well developed outdoor pursuits industry which would be happy to have the work, not to mention schools etc.
I understand the rationale, I just don't agree with it.
1. Public health /= public good. People bear the costs of their own inactivity through ill health and an early death (probably costing the public purse less overall). It's not contagious (tho I am aware of evidence on social norms).
2. Even if we accept the view that the state should take it upon itself to take money from some ppl and use it to mither other people about their lifestyles (I'd hope most climbers were independently minded enough to find that a bit problematic), I'd be surprised if giving money to most sports (especially climbing!) were a cost effective way of doing so (beware evaluation reports that say otherwise, almost always flawed). Walking maybe. Not buggering up towns and cities so that nobody walks/cycles is probably more cost effective.
3. There is perhaps a case when it comes to minors, even then, still think point 2 applies. And even if it doesn't, there's no reason why the BMC should deliver this kind of work, there's a very well developed outdoor pursuits industry which would be happy to have the work, not to mention schools etc.
In reply to muppetfilter:
What does the BMC do with the money?
I'm not sure climbing (outdoors at least) is something that should be promoted.
What does the BMC do with the money?
I'm not sure climbing (outdoors at least) is something that should be promoted.
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
quite agree. IIRC Fellrunning has (or always used to) a principle that the sport isn't "promoted" because of the environmental consequences of doing so. Obviously what counts as promoted is up for discussion (races aren't secret!) but this seems sensible, as long as nobody is *actively* excluded.
As to what they do with the money, I'd be interested to see a breakdown. I note that the BMC have got involved with doing things (producing maps, magazines) that were perfectly well supplied before. The BMC mountain maps are OK, but Harveys/OS made perfectly good maps before. Summit is (ironically) way more commercial than the commercial mags - every "how to" article comes with a list of overly expensive gear that you "need" to do that activity. Summit reads as if it's mostly aimed at people who don't yet do any climbing. Some of the articles wouldn't seem out of places in a lads mag: "wow, climbing, cool, and you can buy this jacket".
Blimey I'm grumpy this am.
quite agree. IIRC Fellrunning has (or always used to) a principle that the sport isn't "promoted" because of the environmental consequences of doing so. Obviously what counts as promoted is up for discussion (races aren't secret!) but this seems sensible, as long as nobody is *actively* excluded.
As to what they do with the money, I'd be interested to see a breakdown. I note that the BMC have got involved with doing things (producing maps, magazines) that were perfectly well supplied before. The BMC mountain maps are OK, but Harveys/OS made perfectly good maps before. Summit is (ironically) way more commercial than the commercial mags - every "how to" article comes with a list of overly expensive gear that you "need" to do that activity. Summit reads as if it's mostly aimed at people who don't yet do any climbing. Some of the articles wouldn't seem out of places in a lads mag: "wow, climbing, cool, and you can buy this jacket".
Blimey I'm grumpy this am.
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
It's seems highly unlikely that Sport England made it conditional that promoting Spirituality and Religion was essential to receiving grant aid.
Although if you have any evidence they have been doing so please do post it.
I would have thought it's more likely a failure of the BMC Equal Opportunities policy.
> Except it is probably to comply with grant conditions that they do it.
It's seems highly unlikely that Sport England made it conditional that promoting Spirituality and Religion was essential to receiving grant aid.
Although if you have any evidence they have been doing so please do post it.
I would have thought it's more likely a failure of the BMC Equal Opportunities policy.
(Shameless highjacking)) I was stunned to hear that the FA got any money at all from the government: surely the rich football clubs should spend a few days worth of their wages on grass roots football instead?
In reply to winhill:
Why?
According to Sport England:
"Under the Payment for Results process, their performance is reviewed annually to ensure they are delivering results and value for the public money they receive. Those failing to achieve annual targets risk losing up to 20 per cent of their future funding.
Today’s announcement means that Sport England is withdrawing a total of £2.8 million of funding from six NGBs (the Football Association, England Golf Partnership, England Netball, England Hockey, British Mountaineering Council and British Rowing) all of which have seen the number of people who play their sport regularly fall. These NGBs need to make significant changes to their approach to growing their sport. Sport England will reinvest funds in the same sports, but outside the NGB."
Nothing to do with Equal Opportunities.
> I would have thought it's more likely a failure of the BMC Equal Opportunities policy.
Why?
According to Sport England:
"Under the Payment for Results process, their performance is reviewed annually to ensure they are delivering results and value for the public money they receive. Those failing to achieve annual targets risk losing up to 20 per cent of their future funding.
Today’s announcement means that Sport England is withdrawing a total of £2.8 million of funding from six NGBs (the Football Association, England Golf Partnership, England Netball, England Hockey, British Mountaineering Council and British Rowing) all of which have seen the number of people who play their sport regularly fall. These NGBs need to make significant changes to their approach to growing their sport. Sport England will reinvest funds in the same sports, but outside the NGB."
Nothing to do with Equal Opportunities.
In reply to neal:
I think the evidence tends towards suggesting they cost the public purse more overall, because, even though they die younger, they spend more years alive but suffering life limiting illnesses that require health and/or social care.
Despite that, I still largely agree with your view
> 1. Public health /= public good. People bear the costs of their own inactivity through ill health and an early death (probably costing the public purse less overall). It's not contagious (tho I am aware of evidence on social norms).
I think the evidence tends towards suggesting they cost the public purse more overall, because, even though they die younger, they spend more years alive but suffering life limiting illnesses that require health and/or social care.
Despite that, I still largely agree with your view
In reply to Carolyn:
Interesting. I think smokers are net-payers, but i guess fat lazy people aren't taxed so much (tho a lot of their food would prob be VAT liable!)
Interesting. I think smokers are net-payers, but i guess fat lazy people aren't taxed so much (tho a lot of their food would prob be VAT liable!)
In reply to Jim Walton:
Glenmore lodge seems to get a lot of Sport Scotland cash (enough to be able to afford "Glenmore lodge" embossed place mats!) Great place, but very very shiny since the renovation. Not knocking it, it's all good stuff, I did a great course there, but not sure what the public interest is in providing me with such shiny accommodation - better than most hotels I stay in with work!
Glenmore lodge seems to get a lot of Sport Scotland cash (enough to be able to afford "Glenmore lodge" embossed place mats!) Great place, but very very shiny since the renovation. Not knocking it, it's all good stuff, I did a great course there, but not sure what the public interest is in providing me with such shiny accommodation - better than most hotels I stay in with work!
In reply to imkevinmc:
Yes, you're right, wrong word for it. From what I understand the reduction was because the number of participants at grassroots level has gone down.
> The FA have had their sport england funding reduced by £1.6M for failing to reach an objective. They're still reciving near on £30M.
> Where was this reported as a fine? And for what offence?
Yes, you're right, wrong word for it. From what I understand the reduction was because the number of participants at grassroots level has gone down.
In reply to tony:
I was responding to the point made that Sport England are funding the BMC's promotion of Spirituality and Religion because that's what they give money out for.
I thought that was clear because that was what I was asking for evidence of?
> In reply to winhill:
> I would have thought it's more likely a failure of the BMC Equal Opportunities policy.
> Why?
> Nothing to do with Equal Opportunities.
I was responding to the point made that Sport England are funding the BMC's promotion of Spirituality and Religion because that's what they give money out for.
I thought that was clear because that was what I was asking for evidence of?
In reply to winhill:
Sorry, I'm confused. You said:
"I would have thought it's more likely a failure of the BMC Equal Opportunities policy."
What 'it' were you referring to?
Sorry, I'm confused. You said:
"I would have thought it's more likely a failure of the BMC Equal Opportunities policy."
What 'it' were you referring to?
In reply to tony:
From Sport England:
How does that square with https://www.thebmc.co.uk/participation-in-climbing-mountaineering - and the fact that it's blatantly b****cks?
Anyway, I always thought the BMC had a policy of not pushing people into climbing due to the risks it entails, rather supporting those who independently choose to do it.
From Sport England:
> Today’s announcement means that Sport England is withdrawing a total of £2.8 million of funding from six NGBs (the Football Association, England Golf Partnership, England Netball, England Hockey, British Mountaineering Council and British Rowing) all of which have seen the number of people who play their sport regularly fall.
How does that square with https://www.thebmc.co.uk/participation-in-climbing-mountaineering - and the fact that it's blatantly b****cks?
Anyway, I always thought the BMC had a policy of not pushing people into climbing due to the risks it entails, rather supporting those who independently choose to do it.
Post edited at 12:03
In reply to climbwhenready:
What is blatantly bollocks? Not trying to be awkward, just trying to avoid misunderstandings?
The BMC link is a year old, so is not properly representative of the current situation.
According to the most recent Sport England Active People Survey, for the year Oct 2012-Oct 2013, there was a decline in the number of people taking part in 'mountaineering' activities compared with the period Apr 2012-Apr 2013. It also show a decline since the equivalent 2011/12 survey.
> From Sport England:
> How does that square with https://www.thebmc.co.uk/participation-in-climbing-mountaineering - and the fact that it's blatantly b****cks?
What is blatantly bollocks? Not trying to be awkward, just trying to avoid misunderstandings?
The BMC link is a year old, so is not properly representative of the current situation.
According to the most recent Sport England Active People Survey, for the year Oct 2012-Oct 2013, there was a decline in the number of people taking part in 'mountaineering' activities compared with the period Apr 2012-Apr 2013. It also show a decline since the equivalent 2011/12 survey.
In reply to neal:
Totally disagree with you about Summit magazine!
Received my copy yesterday and had it sat alongside Climb on the cofee table.
For a magazine whose articles and photographs are mainly gathered from contributions it does a splendid job.
Those commercial adverts in the magazine pay for that privilidge rather than your well earned membership money paying for the cost of the magazine.
The BMC maps are probably one of the best maps about at the mo.
you were right with your last comment though.
Totally disagree with you about Summit magazine!
Received my copy yesterday and had it sat alongside Climb on the cofee table.
For a magazine whose articles and photographs are mainly gathered from contributions it does a splendid job.
Those commercial adverts in the magazine pay for that privilidge rather than your well earned membership money paying for the cost of the magazine.
The BMC maps are probably one of the best maps about at the mo.
you were right with your last comment though.
In reply to tony:
I wonder how strongly the number of people 'undertaking mountaineering activities' in a given year correlates to the weather and the price of petrol compared to the correlation with factors under the BMCs control.
> According to the most recent Sport England Active People Survey, for the year Oct 2012-Oct 2013, there was a decline in the number of people taking part in 'mountaineering' activities compared with the period Apr 2012-Apr 2013. It also show a decline since the equivalent 2011/12 survey.
I wonder how strongly the number of people 'undertaking mountaineering activities' in a given year correlates to the weather and the price of petrol compared to the correlation with factors under the BMCs control.
In reply to tony:
I was referring to the increase in popularity of climbing, which is born out by the increased BMC membership (at least up to 2013) and the fact that new climbing walls can't seem to be built fast enough. Granted that latter point is indoor climbing, but that represents some of the BMC's activities, and for at least a decade now has been the primary way that new people get introduced to climbing before going outdoors.
> What is blatantly bollocks? Not trying to be awkward, just trying to avoid misunderstandings?
I was referring to the increase in popularity of climbing, which is born out by the increased BMC membership (at least up to 2013) and the fact that new climbing walls can't seem to be built fast enough. Granted that latter point is indoor climbing, but that represents some of the BMC's activities, and for at least a decade now has been the primary way that new people get introduced to climbing before going outdoors.
In reply to neal:
I imagine there's an element of how widely you look for costs, too - eg does the "net payment" of smokers still stand if you include to costs of their children being hospitalised with asthma, or the costs of a premature birth caused (or at least the chances increased) by a mother smoking through pregnancy? (Two things mentioned in a news report this morning, but you could easily pick others).
I imagine there's an element of how widely you look for costs, too - eg does the "net payment" of smokers still stand if you include to costs of their children being hospitalised with asthma, or the costs of a premature birth caused (or at least the chances increased) by a mother smoking through pregnancy? (Two things mentioned in a news report this morning, but you could easily pick others).
In reply to winhill:
Not entirely sure what you're looking for evidence of but if its the BMC promoting spirituality you'll find it here
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%20Equity%20Symposium%202014%20Time...
You'll find the relevant session at 10.30 on Sunday
> It's seems highly unlikely that Sport England made it conditional that promoting Spirituality and Religion was essential to receiving grant aid.
>
> Although if you have any evidence they have been doing so please do post it.
>
> I would have thought it's more likely a failure of the BMC Equal Opportunities policy. >
>
> Although if you have any evidence they have been doing so please do post it.
>
> I would have thought it's more likely a failure of the BMC Equal Opportunities policy. >
Not entirely sure what you're looking for evidence of but if its the BMC promoting spirituality you'll find it here
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/media/files/BMC%20Equity%20Symposium%202014%20Time...
You'll find the relevant session at 10.30 on Sunday
In reply to muppetfilter:
As climbing isn't a sport this seems quite normal, that it got any in the past was abhorrent. I thought the country was staggering under one of the highest national debts in Europe and was supposed to be make economies?
As climbing isn't a sport this seems quite normal, that it got any in the past was abhorrent. I thought the country was staggering under one of the highest national debts in Europe and was supposed to be make economies?
In reply to muppetfilter:
The BMC recieved funding which was aimed at equity. With this they have:
• run a disability syposium, this trained numerous instructors specialist rigging skills. They are then able to go back to their places of work and increase provision for people with disabilities.
•ran the para climbing series.
•developed the GB para climbing team
•ran the recent symposium aimed at religion. This looked at barriers which stop people trying climbing.not everyone gets the oportunity to try it. As well as eqiuping imstructors with skills and knowledge to get more ethnic groups in to the outdoors.
•held a womens climbing syposium, looking at gender specific issues.the number of female climbers is incresing but there is stoll a lack of female coaches compared to the high number of males.
I personally think that it is amazing how much the BMC do to try and give everyone an oportunity to partecipate, regardless of there ability, ethnicity,gender and economic status.
But that is just my opinion.
The BMC recieved funding which was aimed at equity. With this they have:
• run a disability syposium, this trained numerous instructors specialist rigging skills. They are then able to go back to their places of work and increase provision for people with disabilities.
•ran the para climbing series.
•developed the GB para climbing team
•ran the recent symposium aimed at religion. This looked at barriers which stop people trying climbing.not everyone gets the oportunity to try it. As well as eqiuping imstructors with skills and knowledge to get more ethnic groups in to the outdoors.
•held a womens climbing syposium, looking at gender specific issues.the number of female climbers is incresing but there is stoll a lack of female coaches compared to the high number of males.
I personally think that it is amazing how much the BMC do to try and give everyone an oportunity to partecipate, regardless of there ability, ethnicity,gender and economic status.
But that is just my opinion.
In reply to winhill:
Comply was probably too strong a word but I'm sure someone who's wages are subsidised by a grant might see the 'added value' of 'appealing to all stake-holders going forward' or some other appalling b*ll*cks. Especially if they see their post as being phased out...
> (In reply to DubyaJamesDubya)
>
> [...]
>
> It's seems highly unlikely that Sport England made it conditional that promoting Spirituality and Religion was essential to receiving grant aid.
>
> Although if you have any evidence they have been doing so please do post it.
>
> I would have thought it's more likely a failure of the BMC Equal Opportunities policy.
>
> [...]
>
> It's seems highly unlikely that Sport England made it conditional that promoting Spirituality and Religion was essential to receiving grant aid.
>
> Although if you have any evidence they have been doing so please do post it.
>
> I would have thought it's more likely a failure of the BMC Equal Opportunities policy.
Comply was probably too strong a word but I'm sure someone who's wages are subsidised by a grant might see the 'added value' of 'appealing to all stake-holders going forward' or some other appalling b*ll*cks. Especially if they see their post as being phased out...
In reply to stuartholmes:
They might have spent a few quid of that on a dictionary, which would have told them that "equity" doesn't mean the same as "equality".
> The BMC received funding which was aimed at equity.
They might have spent a few quid of that on a dictionary, which would have told them that "equity" doesn't mean the same as "equality".
In reply to Howard J:
Oddly enough, the BMC does know the difference in meaning, and has stuck with "equity" in its meaning of "fairness" (other meanings exist that are not applicable) which would seem a less problematic aim than equality (depending on which shade of meaning you want to use for "equality").
However, enough people seem to not know the full range of meanings and nuances of either of those words that the committee responsible might have to take the path of least resistance and use "equality" throughout, even where it's less appropriate.
> which would have told them that "equity" doesn't mean the same as "equality"
Oddly enough, the BMC does know the difference in meaning, and has stuck with "equity" in its meaning of "fairness" (other meanings exist that are not applicable) which would seem a less problematic aim than equality (depending on which shade of meaning you want to use for "equality").
However, enough people seem to not know the full range of meanings and nuances of either of those words that the committee responsible might have to take the path of least resistance and use "equality" throughout, even where it's less appropriate.
In reply to kamala:
I agree the nuances are subtle, however it seems to be "equality" rather than "equity" which they're trying to promote, judging by the programmed for the Equity Symposium which was linked to above.
I'm curious to know what obstacles there are to participating in outdoor activities. Geography is one, but that applies to all sectors of the community. Leaving aside the cost of travel if you live in the flatlands, it has to be one of the cheapest 'sports' to get into, and is entirely non-dependent on joining clubs or institutions if you don't want to. However I'm a white, middle-class, middle-aged male so perhaps I'm not well-placed to understand.
I agree the nuances are subtle, however it seems to be "equality" rather than "equity" which they're trying to promote, judging by the programmed for the Equity Symposium which was linked to above.
I'm curious to know what obstacles there are to participating in outdoor activities. Geography is one, but that applies to all sectors of the community. Leaving aside the cost of travel if you live in the flatlands, it has to be one of the cheapest 'sports' to get into, and is entirely non-dependent on joining clubs or institutions if you don't want to. However I'm a white, middle-class, middle-aged male so perhaps I'm not well-placed to understand.
In reply to kamala:
Actually I would have thought it's exactly the concept of Fairness that was problematic whereas Equality lacks the value loaded baggage that Fairness implies.
Especially in the context of the BMC promoting Spirituality and Religion, that somehow if the BMC doesn't promote religion it is being Unfair.
Whereas from the point of view of Equality the BMC would be promoting all the various stripes of Spirituality and Religion, that's why the Equal Opportunities Policy looks to have been compromised in favour of being 'Fair' to particular religious view points.
> Oddly enough, the BMC does know the difference in meaning, and has stuck with "equity" in its meaning of "fairness" (other meanings exist that are not applicable) which would seem a less problematic aim than equality (depending on which shade of meaning you want to use for "equality").
> However, enough people seem to not know the full range of meanings and nuances of either of those words that the committee responsible might have to take the path of least resistance and use "equality" throughout, even where it's less appropriate.
Actually I would have thought it's exactly the concept of Fairness that was problematic whereas Equality lacks the value loaded baggage that Fairness implies.
Especially in the context of the BMC promoting Spirituality and Religion, that somehow if the BMC doesn't promote religion it is being Unfair.
Whereas from the point of view of Equality the BMC would be promoting all the various stripes of Spirituality and Religion, that's why the Equal Opportunities Policy looks to have been compromised in favour of being 'Fair' to particular religious view points.
In reply to stuartholmes:
I don't think the decline in participation was supposed to be made up by the Equity initiative was it?
> The BMC recieved funding which was aimed at equity.
I don't think the decline in participation was supposed to be made up by the Equity initiative was it?
In reply to winhill:
You still haven't quite grasped the difference between "talking about" and "promoting", have you? IIRC, the same symposium had some stuff about families and the outdoors - that doesn't mean that they're promoting population growth!
You still haven't quite grasped the difference between "talking about" and "promoting", have you? IIRC, the same symposium had some stuff about families and the outdoors - that doesn't mean that they're promoting population growth!
In reply to Howard J:
That's a large and fairly complicated question, and I haven't really got time to even give a proper brief answer to it, but a couple of thoughts:
i) knowledge / opportunity - most people I know who do outdoorsy stuff have got into it through family / mates or through joining a club at uni. If you don't have family or mates who are involved and don't get into it at uni, you might have no idea that it's even a thing that you might be interested in, or you might be sort of interested but not know what the first steps to take would be. It's easy to say with hindsight that you can just join a club or hop on a bus and use cheap kit and so on, but that's still a level of knowledge that you aren't just born with.
ii) Getting involved in an activity that seems to be overwhelmingly associated with another social class and/or ethnicity can be nervewracking in itself. I guess that to get a handle on this as a white middle class male, it might help to imagine you were pretty hot at basketball and were thinking of going along to a pickup game in the South Bronx - people might actually be entirely welcoming once they figured that you're serious about the game, but you'd probably still be a bit nervous about going along to find out...
> I'm curious to know what obstacles there are to participating in outdoor activities.
That's a large and fairly complicated question, and I haven't really got time to even give a proper brief answer to it, but a couple of thoughts:
i) knowledge / opportunity - most people I know who do outdoorsy stuff have got into it through family / mates or through joining a club at uni. If you don't have family or mates who are involved and don't get into it at uni, you might have no idea that it's even a thing that you might be interested in, or you might be sort of interested but not know what the first steps to take would be. It's easy to say with hindsight that you can just join a club or hop on a bus and use cheap kit and so on, but that's still a level of knowledge that you aren't just born with.
ii) Getting involved in an activity that seems to be overwhelmingly associated with another social class and/or ethnicity can be nervewracking in itself. I guess that to get a handle on this as a white middle class male, it might help to imagine you were pretty hot at basketball and were thinking of going along to a pickup game in the South Bronx - people might actually be entirely welcoming once they figured that you're serious about the game, but you'd probably still be a bit nervous about going along to find out...
Post edited at 12:16
In reply to Ramblin dave:
If you think you have a useful distinction then by all means try to describe it, otherwise it's just lazy cant.
"It is silly of you, for there is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."
The CofE loves 'talking about' young earth creationism, not because it is a mainstream view point but because it acts as a springboard for the rest of their stuff.
I have a friend who is Sikh heritage, although not religious himself. He is very sporty, plays football once, twice a week, cricket occasionally, some golf.
But he has cultural baggage that means he thinks the countryside is dirty, full of dirty animals, camping is for cheapskates, walking exercise is for poor people who won't go to the gym etc.
The BMC faces an uphill struggle to get someone like him involved.
Given that the history of Sikhism is more or less the history of a militaristic cult formed to oppose muslim rule, the cherry on the cake to getting him involved is going to be the opportunity for a discussion on Islamic Spirituality?
Because some contrived distinction between talking about and promoting is the one that will make all the difference?
> You still haven't quite grasped the difference between "talking about" and "promoting", have you?
If you think you have a useful distinction then by all means try to describe it, otherwise it's just lazy cant.
"It is silly of you, for there is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."
The CofE loves 'talking about' young earth creationism, not because it is a mainstream view point but because it acts as a springboard for the rest of their stuff.
I have a friend who is Sikh heritage, although not religious himself. He is very sporty, plays football once, twice a week, cricket occasionally, some golf.
But he has cultural baggage that means he thinks the countryside is dirty, full of dirty animals, camping is for cheapskates, walking exercise is for poor people who won't go to the gym etc.
The BMC faces an uphill struggle to get someone like him involved.
Given that the history of Sikhism is more or less the history of a militaristic cult formed to oppose muslim rule, the cherry on the cake to getting him involved is going to be the opportunity for a discussion on Islamic Spirituality?
Because some contrived distinction between talking about and promoting is the one that will make all the difference?
In reply to winhill:
Okay - "talking about" is a discussion about how things are and how people approach things. It may be of interest to religious people or may be of interest to people who aren't religious at all but are interested in seeing other people's point of view and understanding how other people think about stuff. I'm solidly atheist and I'd be quite interested to hear a discussion of how someone else sees the outdoors in terms of their spirituality, and I'd be even more interested to hear it if I was (for instance) an outdoors instructor a lot of whose clients shared the same religion as the speaker.
"Promoting" is actively trying to change people's religious views - using a BMC event as a springboard to convert non-religious people and make them into religious people, to try to convince them that gritstone is evidence for the existence of God or something.
> If you think you have a useful distinction then by all means try to describe it, otherwise it's just lazy cant.
Okay - "talking about" is a discussion about how things are and how people approach things. It may be of interest to religious people or may be of interest to people who aren't religious at all but are interested in seeing other people's point of view and understanding how other people think about stuff. I'm solidly atheist and I'd be quite interested to hear a discussion of how someone else sees the outdoors in terms of their spirituality, and I'd be even more interested to hear it if I was (for instance) an outdoors instructor a lot of whose clients shared the same religion as the speaker.
"Promoting" is actively trying to change people's religious views - using a BMC event as a springboard to convert non-religious people and make them into religious people, to try to convince them that gritstone is evidence for the existence of God or something.
Post edited at 13:06
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Those are fair points but:
1) this applies to everyone regardless of gender, ethnicity etc.
2) I can imaging that scenario, but unlike basketball or other team sports enjoying the outdoors isn't dependent on joining a club or even going along to an informal gathering.
As for Rambin' Dave's Sikh friend, I can think of plenty of people from different cultural backgrounds who hold similar views
Those are fair points but:
1) this applies to everyone regardless of gender, ethnicity etc.
2) I can imaging that scenario, but unlike basketball or other team sports enjoying the outdoors isn't dependent on joining a club or even going along to an informal gathering.
As for Rambin' Dave's Sikh friend, I can think of plenty of people from different cultural backgrounds who hold similar views
In reply to neal:
" The BMC mountain maps are OK, but Harveys/OS made perfectly good maps before. "
BMC maps are Harvey maps.
" The BMC mountain maps are OK, but Harveys/OS made perfectly good maps before. "
BMC maps are Harvey maps.
I'm trying to get dragged into a long discussion about this, but...
In reply to Howard J:
It applies a lot more to people from ethnicities that are currently massively under-represented in outdoor pursuits, though, if only because they're less likely to have family members who're already involved.
It helps quite a lot, though - joining a club is one very good route into learning about the outdoors for people who don't already have friends and family who are into that sort of stuff. And you do come into contact with the culture quite a lot in other ways, too. I'm not saying this is some sort of insurmountable barrier - in fact, it evidently isn't - but equally I'm aware that it's very very easy to underestimate the significance of a problem if you don't actually have to deal with it day-in day-out.
Winhill's friend - I've never met the bloke! But I know plenty of white middle class people who have that attitude too, and I know people from quite a range of ethnic / cultural / religious backgrounds who are involved in outdoor activities, so I'm not convinced that that one example completely proves that any attempts to interest people from ethnic minorities in the outdoors are a waste of time.
In reply to Howard J:
> Those are fair points but:
> 1) this applies to everyone regardless of gender, ethnicity etc.
It applies a lot more to people from ethnicities that are currently massively under-represented in outdoor pursuits, though, if only because they're less likely to have family members who're already involved.
> 2) I can imaging that scenario, but unlike basketball or other team sports enjoying the outdoors isn't dependent on joining a club or even going along to an informal gathering.
It helps quite a lot, though - joining a club is one very good route into learning about the outdoors for people who don't already have friends and family who are into that sort of stuff. And you do come into contact with the culture quite a lot in other ways, too. I'm not saying this is some sort of insurmountable barrier - in fact, it evidently isn't - but equally I'm aware that it's very very easy to underestimate the significance of a problem if you don't actually have to deal with it day-in day-out.
> As for Rambin' Dave's Sikh friend, I can think of plenty of people from different cultural backgrounds who hold similar views
Winhill's friend - I've never met the bloke! But I know plenty of white middle class people who have that attitude too, and I know people from quite a range of ethnic / cultural / religious backgrounds who are involved in outdoor activities, so I'm not convinced that that one example completely proves that any attempts to interest people from ethnic minorities in the outdoors are a waste of time.
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I think this is mainly where you're going wrong.
The primary function of Promotion isn't conversion, it acts to ensure and enforce conservative conformity. Think of the vast amount of religious promotion that goes on every week - almost all of it is directed at the converted, not the infidel.
> "Promoting" is actively trying to change people's religious views - using a BMC event as a springboard to convert non-religious people and make them into religious people, to try to convince them that gritstone is evidence for the existence of God or something.
I think this is mainly where you're going wrong.
The primary function of Promotion isn't conversion, it acts to ensure and enforce conservative conformity. Think of the vast amount of religious promotion that goes on every week - almost all of it is directed at the converted, not the infidel.
In reply to Howard J:
Digging the sense out of this, it's not his attitudes that are unique, it's the Strategy (I use the word loosely here as I don't think this is the result of any serious thought at all from anyone at the BMC) that says when you face a very difficult task, success is more likely when you make it harder for yourself.
You simply don't attract Sikhs by advertising that they can come enjoy some islamic spirituality. Similarly, both the BMC and Mosaic say that their biggest challenge is attracting more Afro-Caribbean participants and yet only 5% of Afro-Caribbean's identify as muslim.
It's a very strange strategy that says you attract people by advertising something that they're not. Generally the strategy would be the opposite, that you are as neutral as possible to attract greater numbers.
Anyway there's a thread about that already and the Equity group isn't really the concern of this thread.
> As for Rambin' Dave's Sikh friend, I can think of plenty of people from different cultural backgrounds who hold similar views
Digging the sense out of this, it's not his attitudes that are unique, it's the Strategy (I use the word loosely here as I don't think this is the result of any serious thought at all from anyone at the BMC) that says when you face a very difficult task, success is more likely when you make it harder for yourself.
You simply don't attract Sikhs by advertising that they can come enjoy some islamic spirituality. Similarly, both the BMC and Mosaic say that their biggest challenge is attracting more Afro-Caribbean participants and yet only 5% of Afro-Caribbean's identify as muslim.
It's a very strange strategy that says you attract people by advertising something that they're not. Generally the strategy would be the opposite, that you are as neutral as possible to attract greater numbers.
Anyway there's a thread about that already and the Equity group isn't really the concern of this thread.
In reply to muppetfilter:
I'm a bit lost as to what's stopping ethnic minorities going to the countryside. Perhaps they just don't want to do it?
I'm a bit lost as to what's stopping ethnic minorities going to the countryside. Perhaps they just don't want to do it?
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:
"BMC maps are Harvey maps."
I know (i have several), that's my point. THe BMC-ification of Harveys maps seems to serve little useful purpose (apart from there's more stuff on them that nobody will read). Harveys produced nice maps before, and they still do, but now (some of them) have BMC written on them.
As I said above I don't know if the BMC puts any money into this (or indeed makes money out of it). If the BMC makes a few quid for the access fund from selling branded maps that's great. but the product itself is not a particularly useful BMC activity, since the maps were available anyway. (even if Harveys didn't cover an area, OS maps are +/- just as good - less guff, more unnecessary district boundaries).
Whether or not the maps cost the BMC, my general point was that the BMC seems to do a lot of stuff these days. Some stuff is excellent but I'm not convinced that all of it is really needed. It seems a classic case of mission creep - as Niskanen argued, bureaucrats often seem to seek to increase their budgets/size of their agencies. I suspect this is often well-intentioned, but probably exceeds what we members really want to pay for, so they then have to go to beg from government, and with public funds comes strings attached - including a requirement to increase participation, something that is probably in direct conflict with the interests of existing members, given the scarcity of hills and crags in this crowded isle. Climbing/mountaineering isn't like tennis. If more people want to play tennis you just build more tennis courts. I simply don't think we should be actively trying to encourage large numbers of extra people to take up climbing!
"BMC maps are Harvey maps."
I know (i have several), that's my point. THe BMC-ification of Harveys maps seems to serve little useful purpose (apart from there's more stuff on them that nobody will read). Harveys produced nice maps before, and they still do, but now (some of them) have BMC written on them.
As I said above I don't know if the BMC puts any money into this (or indeed makes money out of it). If the BMC makes a few quid for the access fund from selling branded maps that's great. but the product itself is not a particularly useful BMC activity, since the maps were available anyway. (even if Harveys didn't cover an area, OS maps are +/- just as good - less guff, more unnecessary district boundaries).
Whether or not the maps cost the BMC, my general point was that the BMC seems to do a lot of stuff these days. Some stuff is excellent but I'm not convinced that all of it is really needed. It seems a classic case of mission creep - as Niskanen argued, bureaucrats often seem to seek to increase their budgets/size of their agencies. I suspect this is often well-intentioned, but probably exceeds what we members really want to pay for, so they then have to go to beg from government, and with public funds comes strings attached - including a requirement to increase participation, something that is probably in direct conflict with the interests of existing members, given the scarcity of hills and crags in this crowded isle. Climbing/mountaineering isn't like tennis. If more people want to play tennis you just build more tennis courts. I simply don't think we should be actively trying to encourage large numbers of extra people to take up climbing!
In reply to Ramblin dave:
to reply to your point at 18:23 Mon:
Everything you say is true, but these are all problems facing anyone who doesn't have family connections with the outdoors. This applies to the vast majority of people I've climbed with over the last 40 years, I can think of only a handful who were introduced by their family. These are all obstacles to participation, certainly, but nothing to do with equity/equality issues.
I can understand that for people involved in outdoor education there may be a benefit in understanding different cultural attitudes which they may find among their clients. I also recognise that BMEs are under-represented in outdoor activities, although the statistical base reported in the BMCs 2007 report is only 1000 so I wonder how much reliability can be placed on it. However I think the question is far more complex - Sport England's figures quoted in the same report suggest that white people are under-represented in football and cricket - is that a cause for concern? Different sports appeal to different sorts of people for many different reasons, which may include ethnicity and gender but which also include many other factors.
To be clear, I am not opposed to equality in sport, far from it, but I question the value of initiatives like this. I guess what I am getting at is that if the £97k was ringfenced for this purpose then I'm not concerned that its withdrawal will have any significant impact.
to reply to your point at 18:23 Mon:
Everything you say is true, but these are all problems facing anyone who doesn't have family connections with the outdoors. This applies to the vast majority of people I've climbed with over the last 40 years, I can think of only a handful who were introduced by their family. These are all obstacles to participation, certainly, but nothing to do with equity/equality issues.
I can understand that for people involved in outdoor education there may be a benefit in understanding different cultural attitudes which they may find among their clients. I also recognise that BMEs are under-represented in outdoor activities, although the statistical base reported in the BMCs 2007 report is only 1000 so I wonder how much reliability can be placed on it. However I think the question is far more complex - Sport England's figures quoted in the same report suggest that white people are under-represented in football and cricket - is that a cause for concern? Different sports appeal to different sorts of people for many different reasons, which may include ethnicity and gender but which also include many other factors.
To be clear, I am not opposed to equality in sport, far from it, but I question the value of initiatives like this. I guess what I am getting at is that if the £97k was ringfenced for this purpose then I'm not concerned that its withdrawal will have any significant impact.
In reply to winhill:
Its an uphill struggle they just don't need to have. If he thinks climbing is "unclean" or whatever then he doesn't have to do it. All that matters is that should he ever decide to take up climbing there's nothing to stop him, which there isn't, apart from the imaginary issues you allude to. Its not the job of the BMC to undo people's cultural beliefs because we think we know best or indulge in politically motivated social engineering.
With problems such as litter, erosion, polish, access, parking etc all being serious issues which face a sport which takes place on a finite and often already overused resource, the BMC should not be doing anything to promote climbing in any way. It is supposed to be a REPRESENTATIVE body, i.e. it represents the interests of people who, for whatever reason, have already chosen to take up climbing.
> I have a friend who is Sikh heritage, although not religious himself. He is very sporty, plays football once, twice a week, cricket occasionally, some golf. >
> But he has cultural baggage that means he thinks the countryside is dirty, full of dirty animals, camping is for cheapskates, walking exercise is for poor people who won't go to the gym etc. >
> The BMC faces an uphill struggle to get someone like him involved. >
> But he has cultural baggage that means he thinks the countryside is dirty, full of dirty animals, camping is for cheapskates, walking exercise is for poor people who won't go to the gym etc. >
> The BMC faces an uphill struggle to get someone like him involved. >
Its an uphill struggle they just don't need to have. If he thinks climbing is "unclean" or whatever then he doesn't have to do it. All that matters is that should he ever decide to take up climbing there's nothing to stop him, which there isn't, apart from the imaginary issues you allude to. Its not the job of the BMC to undo people's cultural beliefs because we think we know best or indulge in politically motivated social engineering.
With problems such as litter, erosion, polish, access, parking etc all being serious issues which face a sport which takes place on a finite and often already overused resource, the BMC should not be doing anything to promote climbing in any way. It is supposed to be a REPRESENTATIVE body, i.e. it represents the interests of people who, for whatever reason, have already chosen to take up climbing.
In reply to pec:
Absolutely, and I'm sure he would regard people who take the view that he has 'cultural prejudices' (like mentioned on the other thread) as being condescending and patronising at best and racist at worst.
However it's all too easy to essentialise cultural groups, that is, to assume an essential conformity (like the BME symposium seems to have decided that religion is the essence of the BME experience) which doesn't reflect the spread of experiences of a disparate group.
So the BMC should be offering equality of opportunity to those members of minority ethnic groups who may be trying to take part in activities that are not commonly enjoyed by their heritage group.
> Its not the job of the BMC to undo people's cultural beliefs because we think we know best or indulge in politically motivated social engineering.
Absolutely, and I'm sure he would regard people who take the view that he has 'cultural prejudices' (like mentioned on the other thread) as being condescending and patronising at best and racist at worst.
However it's all too easy to essentialise cultural groups, that is, to assume an essential conformity (like the BME symposium seems to have decided that religion is the essence of the BME experience) which doesn't reflect the spread of experiences of a disparate group.
So the BMC should be offering equality of opportunity to those members of minority ethnic groups who may be trying to take part in activities that are not commonly enjoyed by their heritage group.
In reply to pec:
The problem is that the way these things work is that they are measured by someone who decides that lack of participation = barriers to taking part.
Grants can be dependant on these measurements.
> (In reply to winhill)
> [...]
>
> Its an uphill struggle they just don't need to have. If he thinks climbing is "unclean" or whatever then he doesn't have to do it. All that matters is that should he ever decide to take up climbing there's nothing to stop him, which there isn't, apart from the imaginary issues you allude to. Its not the job of the BMC to undo people's cultural beliefs because we think we know best or indulge in politically motivated social engineering.
>
> With problems such as litter, erosion, polish, access, parking etc all being serious issues which face a sport which takes place on a finite and often already overused resource, the BMC should not be doing anything to promote climbing in any way. It is supposed to be a REPRESENTATIVE body, i.e. it represents the interests of people who, for whatever reason, have already chosen to take up climbing.
> [...]
>
> Its an uphill struggle they just don't need to have. If he thinks climbing is "unclean" or whatever then he doesn't have to do it. All that matters is that should he ever decide to take up climbing there's nothing to stop him, which there isn't, apart from the imaginary issues you allude to. Its not the job of the BMC to undo people's cultural beliefs because we think we know best or indulge in politically motivated social engineering.
>
> With problems such as litter, erosion, polish, access, parking etc all being serious issues which face a sport which takes place on a finite and often already overused resource, the BMC should not be doing anything to promote climbing in any way. It is supposed to be a REPRESENTATIVE body, i.e. it represents the interests of people who, for whatever reason, have already chosen to take up climbing.
The problem is that the way these things work is that they are measured by someone who decides that lack of participation = barriers to taking part.
Grants can be dependant on these measurements.
In reply to winhill:
The BMC don't need to offer anything to anyone. Equality of opportunity already exists. If a person of ethnic origin decides they want to start climbing they can do exactly the same as thousands of others have done before them, read a book, watch an instuctional DVD, go on a course (as provided by many non BMC organisations/guides), post questions on here, go into a shop and buy some gear, buy a guidebook and go to a crag. The real barriers are the same whatever the colour of your skin, its not for the BMC to sort out the imaginary ones.
Climbers are amoungst the more tolerant, liberal minded people in society. Anyone from a minority group is less likely to experience discrimination than in most sports.
Once they've become a climber its then for the BMC to represent their interests on matters such as access, equipment testing etc.
> (In reply to pec)
> So the BMC should be offering equality of opportunity to those members of minority ethnic groups who may be trying to take part in activities that are not commonly enjoyed by their heritage group. >
The BMC don't need to offer anything to anyone. Equality of opportunity already exists. If a person of ethnic origin decides they want to start climbing they can do exactly the same as thousands of others have done before them, read a book, watch an instuctional DVD, go on a course (as provided by many non BMC organisations/guides), post questions on here, go into a shop and buy some gear, buy a guidebook and go to a crag. The real barriers are the same whatever the colour of your skin, its not for the BMC to sort out the imaginary ones.
Climbers are amoungst the more tolerant, liberal minded people in society. Anyone from a minority group is less likely to experience discrimination than in most sports.
Once they've become a climber its then for the BMC to represent their interests on matters such as access, equipment testing etc.
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:
My whole point is that if they had focussed only on what really needs to be done instead of allowing mission creep to set in and start believing its their job to solve all the problems of society then they wouldn't need the cash in the first place.
It's the committee disease, you set one up to solve a problem and before they've done that, they've found 10 others nobody had thought of before.
> (In reply to pec)
> The problem is that the way these things work is that they are measured by someone who decides that lack of participation = barriers to taking part.
> Grants can be dependant on these measurements. >
> Grants can be dependant on these measurements. >
My whole point is that if they had focussed only on what really needs to be done instead of allowing mission creep to set in and start believing its their job to solve all the problems of society then they wouldn't need the cash in the first place.
It's the committee disease, you set one up to solve a problem and before they've done that, they've found 10 others nobody had thought of before.
In reply to pec:
indeed. Well said in previous posts too. The BMC should represent its members. It can be argued that to do so, it should try to promote BMC membership to existing climbers/mountainers, but it is unnecessary (even harmful to existing members' interests) to promote climbing to non-climbers. Even if it weren't, there are numerous outdoor centres and climbing walls busy trying to do that already.
Once the BMC starts taking cash from govt, it starts serving a second master, and that almost inevitably conflicts with its ability and willingness to serve its members.
I can't see anything in the BMC's mission statement (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-mission-statements?s=5) that says anything about promoting participation in climbing (tho point 3 is vague enough to allow almost any interpretation I suppose). Nor does the equity statement (which seems very sensible).
indeed. Well said in previous posts too. The BMC should represent its members. It can be argued that to do so, it should try to promote BMC membership to existing climbers/mountainers, but it is unnecessary (even harmful to existing members' interests) to promote climbing to non-climbers. Even if it weren't, there are numerous outdoor centres and climbing walls busy trying to do that already.
Once the BMC starts taking cash from govt, it starts serving a second master, and that almost inevitably conflicts with its ability and willingness to serve its members.
I can't see anything in the BMC's mission statement (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-mission-statements?s=5) that says anything about promoting participation in climbing (tho point 3 is vague enough to allow almost any interpretation I suppose). Nor does the equity statement (which seems very sensible).
In reply to muppetfilter:
More evidence that SportEngland funding not needed:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/british-bouldering-team-crowdfunded
More evidence that SportEngland funding not needed:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/british-bouldering-team-crowdfunded
In reply to pec:
Mmm, you're conflating 2 separate things here. The point about equal opportunities, yes I think the BMC has struggled to find an effective BME strategy but then so have the national parks and they have much more experience. The numbers are very low and people have stopped talking in terms of numbers. That's probably partly why the BMC is reduced to replacing it's BME strategy with religion, they have few other ideas.
OTOH the extrinsic barriers for minority groups may not be grounded in climbing participants themselves - remember Sam Farmer at the Hope Project?
tohatchacrow.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/once-upon-time-in-west.html
The problem with focusing your BME strategy on intrinsic barriers is that it doesn't help someone like Sam, who seems to have dealt with that himself, regressing further into the intrinsic condition by then shifting the focus onto participants' religion is helping him even less.
> The BMC don't need to offer anything to anyone. Equality of opportunity already exists. If a person of ethnic origin decides they want to start climbing they can do exactly the same as thousands of others have done before them, read a book, watch an instuctional DVD, go on a course (as provided by many non BMC organisations/guides), post questions on here, go into a shop and buy some gear, buy a guidebook and go to a crag. The real barriers are the same whatever the colour of your skin, its not for the BMC to sort out the imaginary ones.
> Climbers are amoungst the more tolerant, liberal minded people in society. Anyone from a minority group is less likely to experience discrimination than in most sports.
Mmm, you're conflating 2 separate things here. The point about equal opportunities, yes I think the BMC has struggled to find an effective BME strategy but then so have the national parks and they have much more experience. The numbers are very low and people have stopped talking in terms of numbers. That's probably partly why the BMC is reduced to replacing it's BME strategy with religion, they have few other ideas.
OTOH the extrinsic barriers for minority groups may not be grounded in climbing participants themselves - remember Sam Farmer at the Hope Project?
tohatchacrow.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/once-upon-time-in-west.html
The problem with focusing your BME strategy on intrinsic barriers is that it doesn't help someone like Sam, who seems to have dealt with that himself, regressing further into the intrinsic condition by then shifting the focus onto participants' religion is helping him even less.
Post edited at 22:01
In reply to pec:
Of course not but there is a health strategy that says that more people need to be doing more exercise. Part of that strategy is regular involvement. That is difficult to achieve without an activity that includes some purpose, to keep people coming back for more.
Walking is an obvious choice due to it's low barriers of entry. The PCTs and BHF run lots of short, local walks but they're not attractive to youngsters and regular involvement is limited too.
The Ramblers is an obvious choice but their appeal to (and involvement with) youngsters is piss poor compared to something like walking/climbing/mountaineering.
If SportEngland decide to spend their million bucks a year encouraging this then the concerns about risk, the environment etc are present anyway and the BMC has to do one of three things, do nothing and leave it relatively unmanaged, oppose the health strategy on those grounds or step up to introduce some coherence and management to the situation.
If the BMC is going to present itself as the national organisation for access, training etc then it has to find a way to maintain that even in the face of government interference.
Of course if it can finesse a bit of support for it's own core objectives, so much the better.
> The BMC don't need to offer anything to anyone.
Of course not but there is a health strategy that says that more people need to be doing more exercise. Part of that strategy is regular involvement. That is difficult to achieve without an activity that includes some purpose, to keep people coming back for more.
Walking is an obvious choice due to it's low barriers of entry. The PCTs and BHF run lots of short, local walks but they're not attractive to youngsters and regular involvement is limited too.
The Ramblers is an obvious choice but their appeal to (and involvement with) youngsters is piss poor compared to something like walking/climbing/mountaineering.
If SportEngland decide to spend their million bucks a year encouraging this then the concerns about risk, the environment etc are present anyway and the BMC has to do one of three things, do nothing and leave it relatively unmanaged, oppose the health strategy on those grounds or step up to introduce some coherence and management to the situation.
If the BMC is going to present itself as the national organisation for access, training etc then it has to find a way to maintain that even in the face of government interference.
Of course if it can finesse a bit of support for it's own core objectives, so much the better.
In reply to muppetfilter:
Part of the problem is that Sport England's participation methodology is skewed against activities like hillwalking, mountaineering and climbing. It requires at least 30 minutes activity on at least four days out of the last four weeks (equivalent to 30 minutes on one or more day a week). That effectively excludes people who live in areas without easy access to the hills. In other words, someone who can only get away once every couple of months but then spends a 10-12 hours a day for 2-3 days at a time doing some serious hill-bashing doesn't count as 'participating' in hillwalking by SE's measures.
BMEs are disproportionately concentrated in urban areas, and many of these are in the lowlands. Urban dwellers of any background may simply not have the opportunity to get to the hills on a frequent basis. In this the BMEs are no different from other members of the same communities. I wonder how BME participation compares with others from the same geographical locations, rather than as a proportion of the population as a whole.
Looking at my own activity diary for the last four weeks I wouldn't register as a 'participant'. The 30 minutes brisk walking a day I do to get to and from work doesn't count. Neither does the 18 mile bike ride, because that wasn't 'recreational'. One evening's climbing and walking the dog a few times don't meet the target (and the climbing evening might not count because I was 'coaching' some novices - I still did all the routes though). The three big mountain days I had in Scotland in January are outside the time frame. Other activities which are moderately physically strenuous don't count because they come under the 'arts remit'. Several hours of fairly strenuous gardening doesn't come under anything.
I don't regard climbing, mountaineering or hillwalking as 'sports' at all. If SE want to provide funding for them that's great, but let it be used for things which actually benefit these activities eg dealing with access problems rather than pursuing mythical and irrelevant targets.
Part of the problem is that Sport England's participation methodology is skewed against activities like hillwalking, mountaineering and climbing. It requires at least 30 minutes activity on at least four days out of the last four weeks (equivalent to 30 minutes on one or more day a week). That effectively excludes people who live in areas without easy access to the hills. In other words, someone who can only get away once every couple of months but then spends a 10-12 hours a day for 2-3 days at a time doing some serious hill-bashing doesn't count as 'participating' in hillwalking by SE's measures.
BMEs are disproportionately concentrated in urban areas, and many of these are in the lowlands. Urban dwellers of any background may simply not have the opportunity to get to the hills on a frequent basis. In this the BMEs are no different from other members of the same communities. I wonder how BME participation compares with others from the same geographical locations, rather than as a proportion of the population as a whole.
Looking at my own activity diary for the last four weeks I wouldn't register as a 'participant'. The 30 minutes brisk walking a day I do to get to and from work doesn't count. Neither does the 18 mile bike ride, because that wasn't 'recreational'. One evening's climbing and walking the dog a few times don't meet the target (and the climbing evening might not count because I was 'coaching' some novices - I still did all the routes though). The three big mountain days I had in Scotland in January are outside the time frame. Other activities which are moderately physically strenuous don't count because they come under the 'arts remit'. Several hours of fairly strenuous gardening doesn't come under anything.
I don't regard climbing, mountaineering or hillwalking as 'sports' at all. If SE want to provide funding for them that's great, but let it be used for things which actually benefit these activities eg dealing with access problems rather than pursuing mythical and irrelevant targets.
In reply to muppetfilter:
Wow!
The BMC gets (or got) government funding.
Why for gods sake?
Its not competitive. Messing about on plastic doesn't count. That's as relevant to mountains as racing on rollers is to cycling or those arcade games are to motorcycle racing.
Wow!
The BMC gets (or got) government funding.
Why for gods sake?
Its not competitive. Messing about on plastic doesn't count. That's as relevant to mountains as racing on rollers is to cycling or those arcade games are to motorcycle racing.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...