UKC

Please sign the petition to stop the BMC changing it's name to Climb Britian.

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

In reply to Jonathan Spooner:
I think a better idea would be for BMC members to petition their National Council representatives to recant the 'Climb Britain' name change. It would be worth copying all the executive committee members into any messages sent to your national council reps.

Shall we start a new thread and collect the email details of all the relevant representatives?

If the National Council members refuse to stop the BMC from further embarrassing itself as the lap dog of the sports council, then any member could propose a vote at the AGM. It is likely also possible to demand an EGM for a vote on the issue, we will need to check the governing documents to see what is required for an EGM.
A vote at a general meeting has primacy over both the national council and also the executive committee.

I am astonished that the national council reps did not see the need to present the change to the membership via the area meetings. I'm just as astonished that the VPs thought it acceptable to proceed without consulting the membership! The national council should also have been informed before any time was wasted on the project, but I can't find any mention of it in the previous minutes of the national council meetings.

I can only think that the national council must have been kept in the dark(in which case, what on earth were the elected national council representatives on the executive committee doing? sleeping?), and then bounced in a quick decision at the June council meeting?

In reply to Jonathan Spooner:

If it attracts wider membership and more funding surely the name change is a worthwhile thing.

These days it's not only that many climbers don't have even the slightest interest in mountaineering. Many indoor climbers have little to no interest in climbing outdoors. To people like that 'Mountaineering Council' must be an instant turn off.

In reply to stp:

What if it puts off existing members? A few have already claimed to have left due to this, which if true can't be a good thing?

In reply to Jonathan Spooner:

Who are you? I know who Dave Turnbull is through his BMC work and his climbing so can trust that, even if he makes the wrong decision at times, it will be well intentioned. You seem to have set yourself as some sort of spokes person and so I'm left wondering why? Are you a BMC officer, or volunteer or access rep? I know everyone is entitled to a voice on the Internet and it's made it easy for anyone to whip up a storm on social media but that's my point, it takes nothing to stick the boot in but what else have you done for the BMC you seek to protect? I mean, if you'd had to have gone to the effort of writing a letter and finding a stamp and posting it would you have bothered? After all no one would even be aware of that whereas now you can posture away as the man trying to save the BMC, and all at the cost of a few seconds at the keyboard

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

It's a terrible thing but it's pretty unfathomable as well, surely you join the BMC because of what it does not because of what it is called? Did people stop eating Marathon bars when they became Snickers?

In reply to Tyler:

I haven't bought a marathon since they were rebranded snickers.






It's true -




It has nothing to do with the name - I just don't like them.

In reply to Tyler:


Yes. And many people are concerned that this renaming is part of change in direction. I don't think I agree, but I can't blame them given the way this whole thing has been handled.

In reply to Tyler:



where did he do this?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Well maybe the people who are sounding off will become more engaged with the BMC/CB and shape it's future. If not then it's just people on the Internet sounding off because it's easier (I'm in the later camp, I'm aware that you already do/have been doing stuff for the BMC, Simon)

In reply to climbwhenready:

By setting up the petition and promoting it on here on multiple threads. Just keen to know his motivations, he's obviously passionate about something I just can't tell if it's the BMC or self promotion. If the former why the strength of feeling?

In reply to Tyler:

A petition is a pretty ousy way to self-promote. It's more a way of getting a number of signatories to a cause that you and others feel passionately about.

Anyway, I'll let him come and answer you himself!

In reply to Jonathan Spooner:

out of interest, is anyone actively considering how to initiate an EGM. I did spend a while looking on the BMC website, but I'm blessed if it shows up in any of the search combinations I tried.

PS not saying thi is what should happen, more what the process is

In reply to toad:
I've been giving this some thought too as it seems a great many people have objections based on the following;

1)the requirement to change the BMC's name at all.
2) the new name and logo are completely inappropriate.
3) the complete lack of any effort to consult or even inform of the need for change, this applies to both the executive and national council.
4) the worrying increasing influence of Sport England in the running of the BMC.

Given the strength of feeling expressed, I would have expected the The BMC exec (fearing a vote of no confidence) to have offered an apology by now and at least be offering to withhold the rebranding until the national council have been allowed the chance to redeem themselves by way of a short consultation process with the local areas at September meetings.

Since this hasn't already happened, I cannot see it happening any time soon.

As I see it, the aggrieved membership now have several options.

A) Go full nuclear with an EGM motion against the re-branding, sports council involvement and also with votes of no confidence against the exec and management.
or
B) An EGM motion against the re-branding for a set period of time e.g. 10 years, so that no more officer time is wasted on this form of frippery.(with a caveat to allow for any required geo-political changes in the future).
or
C) An EGM motion to suspend any re-branding or renaming changes until the issue is put to a vote at the April AGM.

Keep in mind that EGMs are expensive(from memory at least £6000 just to send out the required mail shot to members)

The motion in Option C is so pragmatic and agreeable that it is very very likely to win at the vote. Regardless of how much divisive effort and resource the sport council or the BMC office apply via new media and summit magazine, a win with such a commonsense motion is inevitable.

When faced with merely the threat of an EGM with option 3 , the executive would have no option but to concede and wait until the issue has been put to the AGM in April. If the exec failed to concede, they would afterwards face the accusation that the EGM and associated costs were incurred solely as a result of the arrogance and belligerence of the exec.

This would save the membership the cost and effort of the EGM.

Delaying any decision until the April AGM relieves objections 1 and 2, as there would be time for consultation at at least two rounds of area meeting.
Those who hold Objection 3 might be able to obtain some reassurance from their national council reps that they will consult and inform on big decisions in the future where possible.

Option 4 is much more difficult(if the BMC is not to be split in the process) and requires vigilance. I don't think it is possible with our current apparently disengaged elected representatives.

In reply to MooseMouse:


Are you aware that the Exec are mostly volunteers ? You talk about the "arrogance and belligerence of the exec" but do you really expect them to convene at short notice, do a u-turn and offer a grovelling apology within 48 hours just because a few people on the internet have got their knickers in a twist And then what - this was approved by the National Council (also volunteers). shouldn't they have be allowed to discuss it before it's abandoned?

So by all means rant and rave, but lets have a bit more realism, a bit less vitriol and a lot less speculation about conspiracies and hidden agendas.

Go along to the next area meeting and make your case, but also listen to the area reps (and I suspect Exec members will be drafted in as well.) But don't be surprised if the mood at the meetings is a bit different to UKC - that's one thing I learnt !

Give the process a chance before you start considering such things as EGMs

In reply to Chris the Tall:

what process is that? The root of the problem is that there doesn't seem to be a process. happy to be enlightened if there is a process

In reply to Chris the Tall:
Yes Chris, I'm fully aware of who the Exec are.

I've attended many BMC meetings and I have often found therein a great reluctance to engage the membership in difficult decisions.

I understand that we do not have a direct democracy, and national councillors are elected to represent and that they cannot, nor should they have to consult on every decision. Sure, most of the time, we have to just trust them to do the right thing, no problem.

However, in this case, there was a long time frame within which to keep people informed. If they had performed this function, and documented it in the minutes of the area meetings, then the membership would have no beef or reason to feel left out now.

Clearly, many people are unhappy about the lack of consultation, and I don't think you can categorize my responses as whinging, vitriol or even speculation. I'm simply pointing out responsibilities and due process.

The office must have already considered the likely reaction to the announcement and were clearly expecting trouble. This is evidence by the tone and content of the Q&A page, published the at the same time as the re-branding press release!

In my opinion, the BMC should have at least informed, and allowed feedback on the need to re-brand. The feedback received from the area's need not be binding on the national council vote, but at least members would feel they had their say at area meeting. No wonder area meetings are not well attended, as there is no purpose served attending! Well, no point attending for the purpose of national issues anyway.

The national council have voted and agreed upon the principal of the re-branding, to be implemented as usual(including time frame no doubt) by the office with the normal oversight of the executive.

All Dave needs to do now is make a few phone calls about time frame to the exec directors(yes some voluntary) and suggest a halt to the roll out to allow for consultation.

In my experience, these interim phone calls between official meetings are not infrequent, nor onerous, for exec officers.

If the majority of the exec agree, then Dave has a mandate to hold off on the re-branding and we can all spare ourselves the cost of an EGM.

I do believe an EGM motion would win and also save any more time being wasted on perhaps an unwanted re-branding process before the November launch.

An EGM should not be necessary, it does not seem unreasonable that the membership at least have a chance to have their say. The Exec have forced the issue and the only way for the members to now have their say before the scheduled roll out is at a general meeting.

The exec have shot themselves in the foot! The national council could have legitimately ignored negative feedback from the Areas, and voted on the re-branding as they see fit. Now, a vote at general meeting will be absolutely binding and the BMC will have to work much harder to make sure it convinces people to vote for its re-branding!
You couldn't make it up!

In reply to toad:

the process is the next round of area meetings (early sept) . It's then up to the NC reps to report those views that up at their next meeting (mid sept I guess). See what arises from that before you start demanding an EGM.

I'm not sure about the new name, but I do see the problem with the old one. However I don't consider my opinion, or even that of the UKC forum, particularly important on the issue. What I want to hear is the opinion of the access reps, and of BMC staff who have to deal with those outside of the climbing bubble.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
Having had the usual knee jerk reaction ( which was largely - this is a troll to get some publicity - what ? It's not ? Ok, then why has some of my membership fees been given to that bunch of spunk monkeys to come up with that ? (Incorrectly) )I ve just taken a bit of time to read through the posts on this and other threads and now think I've changed my mind . I think chris (the tall ) and others are correct , the bmc is largely run by volunteers who are doing what they think is best. I'm sure There's no hidden agenda, why would there be?
If this was big buisness a lot more than £25k would have been wasted endlessly debating , researching , focusing , w&@king . The result would have been the same - one of the spunk monkeys would have come up with the name and logo in five minutes on the back of a beer mat.
This has been said before but within the membership of the bmc (and on here ) there is a wealth of talent for many things and I m convinced that amongst that there will be several people who could have made a far better job of coming up with a new name ( I don't think one was needed but I'm prepared to accept the view ofpeople who know more than me about such things ) and definitely of coming up with a new logo . They should have been asked. What I would like to see is some recognition that Some proportion of the membership are unhappy
With the this change and feel that a more open process should have taken place .
I won't be cancelling my membership and I won't be signing any petions,but I would like to see some other reaction than " this is done. We dont give a f£&k what you think "
Sorry for typos , fat fingers, iPad , bouncing along in the back of a van .

In reply to mike123:




This is precisely our (me and mrs T, who actually pays the subs) feeling, though we did think long and hard about cancelling the DD.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

If the membership wait until the September national council, that will leave precious little time to take any further action until the go live in November.

I also have little faith that the national council will do the right thing. I have read quite a few very flippant and dismissive comments on the personal facebook pages of some national council representatives.

Also between now and November, a great deal of officer time is going to be wasted on the re-branding, not least the time required to answer all the negative feedback on their facebook pages. They really are trying too hard now and it smells like they know they have made a massive mistake.

I think an EGM with a very fair motion to simply vote on the issue at AGM is the way forward. This makes sure the members are respected and no further membership resources are wasted on this subject unless there is a real mandate from the membership.

In reply to Tyler:

I'm not aware of much direct volunteer contribution to the BMC from Simon... he has been a minor help on guidebook information ...he does usefully poke the organisation with an e-stick from time to time over things like problems with RAD ... maybe he is being modest.

Back on subject I await the one hundred upset members calling an EGM. We need to wait as I remember a few occasions in the past with serious BMC related UKC hot air where absolutely no-one on the critic side turned up to the next area meeting to deal with the issue through the democratic process. I'm pretty sure this will be a lively discussed topic but the level of concern may drop when members read what Dave said on the BMC website the locked UKC post etc - and especially if the BMC exec move to compromise further in what exactly sits behind the Climb Britain public facing identity and what remains with the retained BMC formal background identity

In reply to Offwidth:

Your response is apposite. But we are stuck in a vicious circle.

Area meetings are inconsequential from a national point of view. Even this re-branding exercise was not notified to area meetings. Therefore, what is the point of attending area meetings if your interests are national? I don't really want to drive 120 miles for a meeting that makes no difference what so ever. The failure of national council reps to consult or even inform on the subject of the re-branding just completes this cycle yet again. National reps are the only folks with the power to break this cycle by engaging properly with the membership.

They have failed and now the membership must use the only tool left in the box, a general meeting. It isn't pretty or cheap, but the cost can be laid fairly at the door of the elected national council and exec. 100 members will be no problem.

In reply to MooseMouse:

I tell you what, as a means to encouraging membership participation this has succeeded. I usually glaze over and think 'whatever' at yearly elections and tho i'v attended a few area meetings in the past its only been on the basis that somebody in my club had to take one for the team. But after this I'll be checking agendas like a tax official poring over a dodgy looking expense account. its not just the name change issue - thats annoying but trivial - its the concern that the down to earth access, training etc functions will get lost in the attempt to refocus on the promised land of climbing gym fitness land and olympic status

In reply to MooseMouse:

Area meetings were informed that the money was being used to look at the marketing of the BMC and rebrands often come out of such things. Elected National Council area reps democratically agreed the rebrand. Other key volunteer officers supported it. A lot of the hot air seems to me to be a knee jerk reaction and missing the fact that the BMC brand will still exist behind Climb Britain and there is significant leverage to adjust the balance and in the end an EGM can democratically reverse the decision.

I drive anything from 80 miles to 140 miles to area meetings because I care about the activities of the BMC, especially climbing access, and I want to be part of the democratic process and activities of the organisation alongside like minded people many of whom volunteer hundreds of hours a year. It seems to me that some climbers think access comes like coins from tooth fairies. I disagree with the way the rebrand has been handled but in the end it is nothing like as important as the main activities of the organisation. I don't want to become a member of the B ark in the hitchhikers guide who spent decades not inventing the wheel as they couldn't agree what colour it should be.

In reply to mike123:

Read Dave Turnbull's reply on the locked UKC thread: they were not intending to rebrand and no BMC money was spent on it (it will cost the BMC money in transition but that hasn't happened yet). The volunteers on National Exec who made this decision and the exec and committee volunteers who were consulted are not some dastardly competition hungry clique, they are trusted representatives of their areas and their expertise.

In reply to Offwidth:


.....which unfortunately aren't public relations or stakeholder engagement

In reply to MooseMouse:

1) How quickly do you think you can organise an EGM ? And are aware that most climbers aren't very keen on meetings in the summer as they prefer to do other things, such as climbing

2) How can you talk about respecting members and ensuring no resources are wasted, when you are demanding an immediate and expensive meeting, rather than waiting until the next round of scheduled meeting and hearing what people have to say then. It is not democratic to force a u-turn every time the pitchfork cupboard gets raided.

3) Do not assume that the area meetings will share the outrage of the UKC forums, and that if they don't this means they are out of touch with the BMC membership. As someone who has been using this forum for about 15 years, and been to more BMC meetings than I can remember, you do start to realise that they attract different sub-sets of the climbing fraternity. And on this particular issue, the people who's opinion I care about don't use this forum.

4) Some of us have fond memories of the last BMC EGM, where a bunch of UKC forum users got ourselves organised to oppose the tyranny of the clubs. I think the vote was lost by about 27,000 to 34, a defeat so monumental that the BMC had to change the rules to save us from further embarrassment !

In reply to toad:


Yep, the irony is that this whole clusterf**k is down to the fact that the BMC is run by climbers, not the sort of sharp-suited, super-slick, media-savvy Machiavellian villains that people are worried are taking overt the sport

In reply to toad:

Sure the stakeholder engagement should have been much better in this unusual case but I don't want every decision checked in this way as it would be expensive and make the tricky role of an NC rep (where people are hardly falling over each other to volunteer) much more difficult: the representative democracy of NC reps works perfectly well most of the time. My main point was those accusing the organisation of completely ignoring democratic input are plain wrong.

In reply to Jonathan Spooner:
I completely support signing the name change petition - it is an ill advised and naive decision by the BMC. I posted this yesterday on the BMC facebook page which gives my reasoning: The BMC undoubtedly needs to modernize, become more inclusive, more open and better serve its members and attract a new generation to join. I don’t think anyone disputes that. The BMC’s role in the fabric of our country is important and has been for over 70 years. It exists to promote the interests of its membership – to encourage participation, ensure people the freedom to enjoy the outdoors.
But I firmly believe the recent rebrand won’t achieve any of this, simply because unfortunately this wasn’t the brief that was being answered. The budget from Sports England was for ‘developing the commercial & sponsorship potential ‘of the organization (letter from Dave Turnbull), not to modernize the organisation or attract new membership as has been implied in some communications. What the name change is about is commercial sponsorship of the ‘sport’ (which is why Sports England engaged a sports sponsorship agency rather than a communications agency), making certain sports under the BMC umbrella (notably climbing) more attractive to corporate partnerships, ultimately leading to more investment. I don’t begrudge investment in climbing or its athletes, in-fact I welcome the investment that big companies are making in better equipment, clothing and technical innovations. However I believe that the BMC in their naivety have taken at face value & implemented broadly a recommendation, which perhaps would have been suitable for its competitive & performance element (competitions, athletes) of the organisation (where sponsors will gravitate towards) and is blatantly unsuitable for the general membership (from the feedback I’ve read so far). In-fact they are alienating those members who aren’t interested in sports with commercial opportunity. Looking at the long term view – investment in the BMC & its activities is likely going to be channeled by corporate sponsors into certain areas that hold commercial value, potentially at the risk of its duties like conservation work.
The BMC has lost sight of its mission and its membership. I believe this is why the membership weren’t consulted, because it wasn’t about us.
(disclosure: I have worked in sports sponsorship, branding and communications agencies for 15years)

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Given that this process supposedly started after the MCofS began their equivalent, it's a shame that the BMC didn't adopt the same approach, being completely open about the plans from the start, asking for input etc. I suspect the end result would have been much the same, only without the outrage.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Lets think like Kennedy for the moment... what have you done for the BMC, as we never clarified that point Tyler made?

In reply to Jonathan Spooner:
I've delayed signing, but there appears to be no sign of proper engagement from the BMC, so......signed

In reply to Jonathan Spooner:

Just tried to sign and got 'We couldn't find the page you were looking for.' Anyone else had this problem?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


First that would have to be balanced with the number of new members it might attract.

But personally I'm skeptical of such claims. Many people I know join for the decent insurance, or maybe the mag now it's improved too. People never join organisations just because they like the name. That's just BS.