The British Mountaineering Council has released a video and an accompanying article sharing updates on the progress of the organisation. President Andy Syme visited BMC HQ in Manchester to find out more.
Recent progress listed includes the Dartmoor camping ban overturn, action to prevent dam construction in the Upper Derwent Valley, progress in sport development and competition success for GB Climbing athletes. The video also includes a brief financial overview.
This update comes amid public scrutiny regarding the management situation of the BMC and GB Climbing following announcements of redundancies and overspending (UKC Article).
Comments
What I can't fathom is why “President Andy Syme visited BMC HQ in Manchester to find out more” when he’s on the Board as the Members Champion and should know what’s going on already
A quick gloss over!
No mention of the CCPG report/findings/conclusions/action!
No mention of the financial management of GB Climbing and it's effect on the overall finances.
I expected more from this video. Come on Andy, you know what is troubling the membership, fill out more of the details in these and other contentious areas!
Live up to the promises of more openness and better communication. Not enough is being communicated to the membership.
When GB climbing are at a venue there should be a prominent BMC 'table' with BMC information for the spectators, most of whom are climbers and /or outdoor enthusiasts. At the Paraclimbing training there was no indication that it was a BMC event. (Apparently this was so that the competitors etc were not distracted, was the response to the same comment on another thread.) (The BMC logo on the front of the tee shorts was tiny and mostly facing away from the spectators!). This and other events of it's type are excellent opportunities to interact with indoor climbers and others in the outdoor community who are, allegedly, the target for increasing the membership!
Comments for this video have been turned off on youtube.
Not a good look.
They've got the video marked as "made for kids", so I suspect confusion rather than an attempt to stifle debate. That designation turns off comments, but they could have disabled comments without needing to label it for kids if that was the intention. Perhaps whoever was uploading it thought they were being asked whether there was any content in it that was actively unsuitable for kids, rather than whether it should be put into YouTube's special mode targeted at kids.
Am now more disappointed, not less.
Nobody asked for "more communication". Answer the question.