UKC

So we now have had a statement out from the BMC justifying why the are reducing the Access team from 7 to 4. 

The statement focuses on lack of forecasted growth in income particularly member income. Leaving aside the question of why any growth here might be expected in the middle of a cost of living crisis, it only tells half the story (at best). On the other side of the balance sheet from income are costs and what isn’t being revealed is where the growth in costs is coming from. The way the accounts are put together it is not possible to pin this down but I suggest that the major growth in costs comes from GB Climbing (GBC).

The salaried staff at GBC has grown from 1 to 9 over the last 4 years. These salaries are 85% supported by grant income with the remaining 15% picked up by the BMC of salary but doubt that includes employer NI ((13.08% to 15.05%) pension etc. Also competitions are expensive, a coaching network is expensive, dedicated training facilities are expensive and there are indications of a breakdown in financial control at events in Ratho and Innsbruck. Some of this will be covered by grant funding but to what extent? By comparison the additional expenses for the Access team are cheap as chips - laptop, travel to see landowners etc.

The annual report used to quote the cost of GBC less grant and income which in 2020 was £268k and 2021 was £327k. Suspiciously this metric was dropped in 2022 report. Whilst the metric doesn’t show how shared costs are attributed it did at least show the direction of travel. I’ve seen a calculation of £530k for 2022 and that doesn’t even include an apportionment for IT support and development.

I think it is reasonable that the BMC disclose a full and transparent breakdown of the 2022 cost of GB Climbing to the BMC and what is forecast for 2023 so we can see for ourselves where member’s money is really going.

No more smoke and mirrors please.

Genuine question..... Looking at the reports

2020:

• £274k to support the competitive activities of GB Climbing (income)
• £542k of gross costs for GB Climbing (spend)
• Net cost after grants £268k (542-274=268)

2021:

• £561k to support the competitive activities of GB Climbing (income)
• £889K of gross costs for GB Climbing
• Net costs after grants and other income £327k (889-561=328)

2022:

• £780k to support the activities of GB Climbing (income) (£587k from UK Sport/Sport England, assume the rest is sponsorship?)
• £960k of GB Climbing Costs (spend)

This implies net cost of GB Climbing for 2022 was £960k-£780k which is £180k. Understanding that shared costs are not reflected in these numbers, where has the £530k in your OP come from?

How much is GB Climbing really costing the BMC?

It's dignity, a wad of cash, a couple of jobs, many supporters and access to an increasing number of climbing venues?

I suspect the main reason for not splitting the comp climbing off from the rest of the BMC is that they would lose a significant proportion of their members who are required to join to take part in the Youth Climbing Series. However, I suspect that the vast majority of those have no interest in the rest of the work of the BMC, and their membership will cease as soon as they stop competing. 

It seems so obvious to me that comps should be split off from the rest of the BMC. With the remainder of the BMC having the simple mission to get people outside on mountains and crags. Take a short term hit in membership numbers in order to do the work that we know and love and make members for life.

Climbing is not gymnastics (or other competitive sport of a certain ilk). How many teenage gymnasts regularly do gymnastics to the highest level they can beyond their teenage years? Climbing is a life-long sport and for the vast majority of kids the end point should be climbing into their twilight years outdoors.

One of the failings of the BMC at present (and one of the failings in arguments that we should divorce climbing from competition) is the failure to provide an education in climbing culture and a route to segue from competitions to "grown up" climbing. The grass roots really matter in this sport and the grass roots are the mass of recreational climbers.

Getting over excited about the Olympics and forgetting what the point of the BMC is is the basic fault. Real climbing and competitions can coexist but the fascination with a few medals over the sport in its entirety is really damaging.

Climbing is amazing for the longevity of your sporting career and formal competition are only a tiny part. 

Participation in climbing is expensive and participation in the competition scene is really for the well off - I guess it's heading for the same posh-people profile of many elite sports which is a real shame.

I think some of the blame for the present situation is the over inflated enthusiasm of many non-climbing parents when the find they've got a bit of a climbing racehorse in their stable. They don't know about the wider world and they don't really see the end point beyond podiums. They remind me a lot of the anxious, aggressive gob-shites you see waiting for their little dumplings outside gymnastics and they wield too much influence and don't understand the wider context.

I recall pointing out that the Olympics ruined the BCU and resulted in zero access and a generation lost.  At the time, advocates of climbing comps vigorously argued that this wouldn't happen to the BMC.  It's a sad day to contemplate saying "I told you so", really sad.

I think it is reasonable that the BMC disclose a full and transparent breakdown of the 2022 cost of GB Climbing to the BMC and what is forecast for 2023 so we can see for ourselves where member’s money is really going.

And if they don't / won't perhaps it's time for an EGM?

What are you basing this on? Someone in one of the other threads who actually does stuff with junior competition climbers commented that they generally seem to be very keen on (and actively involved with) "grown up" climbing, as do a lot of the top level adult competitors. So far the assumption that comp climbers just want medals and have no interest in getting outdoors seems to have been just that - an assumption. And I don't see how telling competition climbers to piss off and set up their own club because we don't want them in ours is going to help to involve them in traditional British climbing culture.

I'm very much not in favour of a situation where failings on the part of GB Climbing can harm the BMC's work on stuff that I actually care about, assuming that that's a fair assessment of what's happened, but I do feel that bridging the gap between indoor-focused / competitive climbing and traditional outdoor climbing and mountaineering is best done by, well, bridging the gap.

This is not the thread for talking sense Dave, this is the thread for gossip, rumour and hyperbole.

Excellent final paragraph with the section in bold being pertinent.

Has anyone ever compiled a report looking at how other countries have fared after making a similar decision?

I suspect the outcome may be rather less straightforward, and rather less attractive,  than it might first appear.

I think that's a tricky question in that the 'BMC structure' in the UK is vastly different to many of the 'alpine arc' countries. Just looking at Austria, for example, nearly every local club is actually just a branch of the ÖAV - it's a national club. 'Everyone' is a member (599,000!) with a big network of volunteers 

The competition side, however, is the KVÖ - the Austrian Climbing Federation, set up in 2005. So they have, apparently, made a conscious decision to 'go separate'. Germany, however, has kept comps 'in-house' within the DAV.

Got to admit I'm no expert, someone like Graeme Anderson would be far more competent to answer.

I think this mystery £193k needs some investigation as there is no hint of any sponsors on any GB Climbing kit or web page.

The ÖAV and DAV seem like bad comparisons anyway - discounted hut prices and rescue insurance are going to be a big incentive for people to join, and this seems more significant than their relationship to climbing walls or competition.

Precisely my point. The 'system' in the UK is very unlike those that have evolved in other European Countries. Possibly because, historically, we have had strong non-national clubs (Alpine Club, F&RCC, Climbers Club etc) and only developed a 'Council' of those clubs in the '40's. 

I am probably a voice of one here and fully expect to get flamed! However, I wonder if we should be stopping encouraging participation in outdoor climbing due to increasing pressure on outdoor crags? When you see the crowds at popular crags like Stanage and the roaches and the abuse of the countryside it makes one wonder if encouraging the masses out into the outdoors is entirely a good idea.

The DAV owns 207 climbing walls in Germany.

The biggest incentive to joining, or joining a club in Germany seems to be that that is just how they do it over there.......similarly in France, if you look at the results of even a junior comp, their club will be listed next to their name.

second reply to the same post - there is also the thing that they have rather more much bigger mountains over there (France / Germany / Austria / Switz etc etc ) so there would naturally be a much greater requirement for "mountain user services" than over here.

Maybe if you go to Stanage popular end, or the Roaches. But the places I have been recently (Cornwall, Pembroke, Skye) have all been quieter than they were 20 years ago

There are plenty of crags, just a bit further away.

Once the roadside popular places fill up then those seeking peace and quiet will go and find it elsewhere. 

It is such a shame that people have only just woken up and are calling for an EGM, less than 4 weeks after the actual AGM where so much was discussed, for so long, by so few.

At the start of the AGM we weren't quorate - only 48 in the building (and no on-line engagement this year), so whilst some more local members were press-ganged from their beds to come and tip us over the magic 50, we had about 2 hours of Q&A, followed by the (then quorate) AGM business, and then another couple more hours of Q&A.

What the members lacked in quantity they more than made up for in engagement (aka streams of awkward questions). Competitions dominated by some margin, with a number of very unhappy, very vocal, and very switched-on parents asking questions that the recipients should have found frankly humiliating. These ranged from organisation, safeguarding, safety, policies, procedures and finance, and some of those questions expanded well beyond competitions. One 16 year old GBC athlete equitted himself very well - pointing out that he was old enough to be left to fend for himself at an overseas competition, but not to vote, that the years it was taking to sort out competitions were a relatively big chunk of his life, and that this was the athletes competition career here and now - not some abstract future aspiration. He got a round of applause (but would probably have preferred a vote and some action).

There is a structure out there for our Members to use, but we've got to be more than keyboard warriors and occasionally pitch up (physically and virtually). It's practically impossible for a bunch of members to force an EGM on the BMC these days (that was placed well out of reach in 2018), but you can all lobby your area reps with your concerns, and expect them to be raised via Members Council to the Board. Council is wide awake, and far from happy with the current situation. This is members (i.e. your) money, built up over decades of prudence, that's evaporating faster than a glacier.

Some on the inside are advocating ditching area meetings because so few attend, and some are even suggesting getting rid of F2F AGMs and just doing on-line ballots.

The next round of area meetings start next week, many will be virtual or hybrid (so you can sit in front of your keyboards ) and your reps want to know that they're representing your views:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/upcoming-bmc-area-meetings

The structure is still there for you at present - use it or lose it.

My thoughts exactly. 

The flip side of not enthusing people about the outdoors is noone caring when the real b@stards start to wreck the place and take away what freedoms we already have. They are many and need to be stopped.

I can understand that sentiment but I have a feeling the law of unforeseen consequences might come into play here. Less outdoor-inclined BMC members, then less concern with /support for outdoor access? And /or a less powerful lobby for outdoor interests in the wider realm of outdoor politics? 

We are part of the masses so I presume you’re doing your bit to fix that problem by staying at home?

We’ve got a massive problem with obesity and long term physical and mental health problems in the UK (we aren’t alone in that), and a healthcare system on its knees. Getting people out and active has tangible benefits for all of society.

Living in a very densely populated country does bring it’s challenges. But I think those are challenges we need to work with rather than framing the outdoors as somewhere that only belongs to people of a certain class.

Indeed. We weren’t so impressed when the owners of large swathes of Dartmoor decided that they didn’t want to share the moors with “the masses”. Turned out we weren’t the right sort of people either. 

You’ve got the wrong end of the stick. 1) getting fat people to shit all over the countryside isn’t curing the obesity problem , it’s just creating another problem. 2) encouraging loads of people, most of whom don’t really want to be there in the first place,  to trample over the countryside is the cause of a lot of the access issues in the first place. 3) wishing to participate in the outdoors is not a class issue, it’s a personal motivation thing. By 4) Accessible outdoor crags in the uk are a finite resource and access to them can be fragile. We have a few cases recently where access has been lost due to inconsiderate behaviour. 
5) it’s not just a climbing problem, when I used to surf a lot of the popular surf breaks were unsurfable due to being crowded and drop ins

6) indoor climbing is much better for obese people to get fit than scraping their way up a gritstone slab. I see no reason why migration to outdoor climbing is necessary for most indoor climbers.

7) I think the BMC should focus on outdoor climbing access and ignore indoor climbing and competition completely. Indoors is well covered by the commercial sector and it looks as if their participation in competition climbing is handicapping their ability to deal with access issues.

8) access issues include too many people, inappropriate behaviour as well as reluctance by landowners to allow people to climb on their crags

My understanding was that the BMC was supposed to be a representative body, i.e. it represented those people who had chosen to be climbers. I stand to be corrected but I don't think it was ever set up to act as a recruiting body to pull more people into the sport. I think that has come from commercial pressures from people and organsations who make a living from the "outdoors" and stand to make more cash from greater participation.

My view is that the BMC should get back to representation and do the best job it can with the cash it has, not keep chasing pots of cash (e.g. from government) and in so doing , have to pursue their agenda.

Re overcrowding at Stanage etc. It has long been obvious that as the numbers climbing have mushroomed in the last decade or two all that has happened is that a few popular venues have got busier than ever and trashed in the process with all the problems that brings: polish, litter, erosion, parking issues etc. Meanwhile the moorland gritstone crags and many mountain crags become ever more overgrown.

That's precisely the problem, the busier places get trashed whilst the other venues fall into disuse.

Some crags will naturally remain clean but large swathes of moorland gritstone, mountain crags, quarried grit and Peak limestone are almost unclimbable because of the vegetation due to lack of traffic.

If more people meant the load was spread more widely it wouldn't be such a problem but that's not what's happened.

Where did you say your estate was?

Drumbrochan, Cumnock. If you look it up you’ll find it was a council estate in a mining town. My dad and his family were all miners. Next question.

OK. Apologies for the cheap shot just up thread. It was in response to your points earlier which (given your background) are ironic in that they're the exact same sentiments trotted out by landowners, farmers and hunting estates to oppose the introduction of CRoW in England and Wales two decades ago. The wealthy, privileged and vested interests just can't bear the thought of us plebs wandering all over their property with our dogs, litter and camp fires despoiling and polluting as we go about our criminal way. You're basically doing their job for them. I'd like to see a large body which stands up for our rights and lets ordinary people who don't know about them how to behave appropriately. If you're only a small 'elite' you've no chance at all against these powerful interests. The vast bulk of people value the outdoors and want to see it preserved. Of course there are elements who don't give a t0ss but they're a minority and shouldn't be used as a spurious reason to deny access for the majority. It goes back decades - even Wainwright was decrying vandalism and littering in the hills in the fifties and sixties.

It's worth pointing out that Northumberland was a stupid place to hold the AGM, it's on the outskirts of the membership base, located in a region which relatively few people who haven't lived there are willing to travel to for the climbing ("it's just smaller grit", "the grades are all nonsense", "there is no gear" have all been stated to me as reasons not to go on a meet in Northumberland from Derby. A weekend away with your mates with a long day on rock and one curtailed by the drive home with accommodation research sorted by the meet leader is a far easier sell than 1 day shortened by sitting in an AGM and one day shortened by the drive home).

Personally I love the area and if I had felt that my attendance would have added anything of value (noting that I have dropped out of doing area stuff over the last couple of years in favour of tech committee due to issues in my personal life that have made the drive to my area meetings unpalatable after work and a general feeling of disengagement following every non -work hybrid meeting I have attended online). The BMC seemed to be ticking along ok (beyond the useless website and the rather slow pace of recruitment for volunteer roles) and I decided to prioritise something from my personal life over my voluntary activities.

I will be at the area meeting in person on Tuesday night if I don't get torpedoed by work and I will propose that members assembly makes a list of everything that is not working well about the organisation from a volunteers perspective and ask the board to fix those issues with urgency given that the organisation will become moribund if volunteers get fed up and down tools. I understand that important access negotiations in the south west have been severely hampered by the reduction in staff time associated with this whole business.

Re: not encouraging people to climb outdoors, I have done very little of that, but I have taken loads of people on their first days out as they have asked me to, would these people rather novices figured it out themselves without any mentorship, or went out with an instructor who has to meet competing needs across the group? Taking mates out climbing and offering subsidised training for members in a format that the NRB is confident is responsible is far better than just leaving it to instructors to decide what material to cut from their activities.

That's because Cornish, Welsh and Scottish crags were 'destination crags' people had to make an effort to go to - maybe for their annual easter or summer trip. Now they go to Kalymnos / Spain / Yosemite instead. When I was buying magazines in the late 90's early 2000s all the destination articles were about crags on mainland Europe or further afield.

I dunno, has Summit stopped publishing things about the country code / ethics etc.? Because it certainly used to.

  I'd say a bigger factor is the lack of an 'apprenticeship' - people are going to the wall and teaching themselves, then getting a bit of info off the net and going outdoors themselves. Gone are the days where people joined a club almost as soon as they started.

Since you were actually at the AGM, can you confirm whether any of this current mess came up or whether there was absolutely no indication that serious problems were literally just around the corner (which is what I and many others have assumed).

I think a lot of the non-attendance was due to no contentious motions and (as was said above), everything seemed to be going along fine.

Happy for your membership fee to increase then? Or for the BMC to do less? (I will presume the latter, and that will involve dropping the thing that doesn't make a difference to you - comps).

There's no doubt about it that more people would have found it easier to get to e.g. Buxton than Alnwick (but conversely the journey times on public transport to Alnmouth is amazing - quicker to get to from London than e.g. N Wales).

Also we're a national organisation, and there is more to the country than Sheffield and Manchester. The climbing may not be up to that in the Peak (but for me neither compare to Dartmoor granite), but the hills are far superior . Some strong input came from some SW based members, so some did make the journey.

Honestly though I think the venue came about because the office asked the areas if they would be willing to host, and the NE may have been the only one to say yes.

Well to be honest I don't really need a club at all to go bouldering in the Peak, which is my main interest. Nobody I climb with is in a club either and there's not much interest in joining one. I dunno which clubs are even around me although as I live in Sheffield presumably there's hordes of em

I applaud their commitment, but 8 hours of travelling in each direction at not insignificant cost is quite a big ask - especially when nothing of particular note is on the agenda.

If you asked me to make sure as few people as possible show up at a meeting, I'd probably have booked it somewhere near Alnwick.

Clearly nobody was going to be there. But as we've all recently become acutely aware the BMC have a great talent for foreseeing bleedin' obvious, inevitable outcomes.

Half the walls in Germany are owned by the DAV so I think they have quite a strong relationship with climbing walls ie they make a stack of cash out of walls.

Graeme Anderson knows naff all

I definitely agree that the non-contentious motions will have played a part, along with the amazing weather. There were three new Directors to vote for, but they were on shortlsts of one (and even they didn't turn up to ask for our votes!). Conversely King Charles did at least pitch up for his own Coronation in May.

The finances were definitely raised, but it was unique in my experience of 25+ years of BMC involvement that no finance people (staff or volunteer) were present, so it wasn't an in-depth discussion. It was also far more of a retrospecive on 2022 than it was a look at 2023.

Along with literally hundreds of comps-related questions & points, specifics about the losses on the IFSC event at Ratho were raised (c. 1/3 of the 2022 losses - that's an expensive weekend!), what was not invested in, in order to keep the overall outturn similar, and also about the future position. Not much was said in response, other than action was to be taken to bring the 2023 losses closer to the -£73k budget, and that 2024 would be a break even year. There weren't details on what those actions would be.

I'd challenge the point that there was no indication that serious problems were literally just around the corner. The BMC did make a surplus in 2020 (that was an exceptional year in every respect due to covid), but without the £139k covid job retention payment in 2021 that would have been a £244k loss; and 2022 was a £267k loss. When an organisation has c.£1m in the bank, it doesn't take an accountant to figure out that unless you dramatically increase revenue or cut costs, similar losses will continue, or that losing c.£250k pa. can't keep happening for very much longer.

The likes for your post actually show there are a substantial minority who believe that the social engineering project using a delicate eco system as the laboratory, whereby people who have no interest in the outdoors for many and cultural reasons are vociferously encouraged to go outdoors, should not actively be encouraged. Of course there is support for the current status quo because of the likes of mountain training offering and inventing ever more stupid qualifications as well as the growing legions of outdoor professionals who all have a vested interest in the project and these are most likely to be the people who populate the bodies and committees that decide the future direction of outdoor sport and education. But if you are my age (72) you can clearly and very sadly see the utter damage and degradation to the greater outdoors, much of it irreplaceable or repairable. I don’t want legions of uncaring visitors trashing the countryside and I much preferred it when the likes of Bamford edge were private, but we still climbed there unobtrusively, as opposed to the desert that is slowly forming there now and the environmental damage, including two moorland fires that I can recall. There is an interesting book by anthropologist David Graeber, called bullshit jobs and it postulates the existence of meaningless jobs and wonders if they disappeared tomorrow would anyone notice. If you were being harsh I think you could apply this theory to quite a few jobs in the outdoors, even though the original theory in the book was applied to middle class middle management jobs.

If they didn’t want to be there in the first place they wouldn’t keep going, so that would be a self-limiting issue if it were actually true. How exactly do you think the BMC is making people to spend time at the Roaches against their will? That’s a fairly extraordinary claim.

I didn’t say that motivation to be outdoors is a class thing. I was saying that separating yourself from “the masses” suggests that you think you are above the rest of society. 

Those that want to climb indoors can do so, and those that want to do other sports can do so too. But I don’t think it’s wise to start passing judgment on what sort of person is worthy of visiting the countryside which seems to be the undertone here. 

Fully agree that nothing of note was on the agenda and that undoubtely hit attendance. BUT, it's what wasn't on the agenda that people turned up to talk about. Even without a formal 'Open Forum' (for the first time since they started in 1996) there were going to be a lot of questions at the first F2F AGM since 2019.

Also fully agree that the more remote the location from the M4/ M1/ M62/ M5&6 box, the lower the attendance is likely to be. It was also only advertised at extremely short notice (8-10 weeks), and not as prominently as previous years even then.

Although it was personally convenient for me as a NE resident, I'm not going to defend the choice as an AGM venue other than that I don't think any other BMC area offered to host it, and that if there really hadn't been much to discuss, it gave a great excuse to visit the hills, crags and coast of a fantastic county, that's well away from the crowds.

Sorry, maybe I was a bit ambiguous. I meant was the potential shortfall and the serious nature of the consequential actions (i.e. redundancies) brought up by the management?

“Our crags are too busy” 

“None of these people have any interest in being outdoors”

The cognitive dissonance is remarkable. Why are they there if they don’t want to be, and where are you getting the information that all these people visiting Stanage actually hate being there?

Going off topic here...

As I'm sure you'll remember, Bamford used to have grass right up to the rock that you could comfortably walk on barefoot. It gave an insight into what places like Stanage must have originally been like. One of the unfortunate consequences of CROW is that Bamford has gone the same way ☹️

There is no easy answer, we live on an overpopulated planet. Edit: and in the last hour, my daughter's just added to that 😁

Can go back on topic now, apologies for the diversion.

Transparency is key, making the governing body for climbing less relavent to the new grass roots of the sport is an idea I don't support.

The landscape of climbing is changing and the BMC can either adapt or die. I see its support of indoor climbing and competition climbing as a vital adaptation to how an increasing number of people interact with the sport. 

This doesn't mean to say its historical and on-going work in access is any less important though and I do agree that i would not want to see this harmed at the expenses of moving to new pastures. I can't say i've seen any evidence of this due to neglect on the BMC's part. On the contrary it has been down to the actions of a few spoiling it for the many, with the BMC stepping in to provide vital mediation. Wrights Rocks surely shows the BMC is still on its game, rescuing a seemingly lost cause. Wild Cat, again not down to BMC 'neglect', but I'm hopeful like many we will see access restored in the future. No doubt down to the sensitive and diligent actions of the BMC.

However it is a shame that the BMC still struggles to be relavent to indoor specific climbers and I hope that it can continue to pivot as an organisation to be relavent to this group, thereby giving it more funding to support both activities equally. I can see that funding staff for a small group vs funding access staff who act for the many does create dilemmas for a member mandated body. 

But provided we don't become entrenched in the idea the BMC just represents hill walkers and outdoor climbing, I imagine a utopian existence where we all sit down at the same table.... and talk nicely!

I wonder how much of the erosion at Bamford is due to the hordes of Chinese students visiting, apparently the picture of Gargolye Flake is iconic in China so lots of the students want to go and see the view for themselves.

I'm sure that hasn't helped but the significant erosion at the foot of the crag predates the Chinese student invasion.

The change in volume of climbers is not surprising, before CROW most people thought that climbing at Bamford was banned not realising that a simple phone call was all that was needed for a car full of climbers.

I think you're harking back to a 'golden age' when there was grass growing around a nowadays busy crag. If you experienced those days then be glad but the reality now is that Britain is a much more populous island with the same amount of space. Given social media and the abundance of information available there is absolutely no way back to those halcyon days. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle so it's vital that we try and manage the situation as it is rather than hope that 'the masses' will just go away leaving the countryside for those that really appreciate it. Of course the 'good old days' weren't always all they're cracked up to be. Just up by me vast parts of Bowland used to be jealously guarded by gamekeepers or water bailiffs and it was a game of cat and mouse between us. OK when I was young and quick but nowadays 'No thanks!'. Now, I can wander around most of it without feeling like a criminal.

I'm curious as to why the vaguely negative reaction to the sentiments in my post, it hardly seems unreasonable

Don Whillans had a point. “Climbing walls, climbing walls, there’s no sense of adventure at climbing walls”. Today’s wall bread climbers transition to the outdoors seems to be limited to the manicured venues like Stanage and bolted limestone. Meanwhile too many Gogarth and mountain crags routes are becoming overgrown. A big part of the old climbing club apprentice route was introduction to adventure and development of well rounded skills and competence. (Posted from climbing wall during coffee break)

The world is indeed bigger than Sheffield and Manchester. I would suggest that AGMs should be held in the region between Yorkshire, Lake District, Peak, N Wales and Wye Valley with the exclusion of the area around Birmingham and Leicestershire etc.

Does it exclude the members who live on the outskirts of England/ Wales? Yes. Does it ensure a decent amount of members can reasonably get there? Yes.

The simple answer is no. There may have been something about actions needing to be taken to achieve lower losses this year and break even next year, but there was no mention of redundancies etc. in the AGM.

It seems ages ago now, but it was only 4 weeks ago tomorrow.

Almost everyone starts in walls these days because they're the most accessible. My point wasn't that clubs are bad but rather that people seemed to bemoan those not joining them and rather going to a wall and then figuring stuff out from online or whatever and taking themselves out. What's wrong with that?

I think there's this weird contempt on these forums for "well-bred climbers." There's been commercial walls for the entirety of my life, people like going to indoor walls for lots of reasons. Some of them go outside and push far beyond the standards set by those who started from a uni club or whatever. I don't get why people are so down on it.

As for honey pot crags, well, I see plenty of old timers climbing at Stanage too. Why aren't they at some esoteric hidden spot? I've got on plenty of out of the way spots myself, and I rarely see anyone there.

I think this discussion isn't really about comp climbing or the BMC. It's about people not liking that new young climbers go to walls, boulder on plastic, then go to Stanage and try Steep Traverse. Well why not? They've as much right to be there as anyone else, and what does a club or the BMC offer them? It's a question that we'll need to answer but we can't if a lot of people in the community come it from the perspective that these people are fundamentally doing it wrong, they don't belong, it's not what it used to be.

It's all climbing at the end of the day, mate 

I've already said I'd rather they do less and yes, I've been saying for years that comps should be done by a separate body. You can't be a governing body and representative body at the same time and do justice to both. I'm glad others are coming round to that view because I used to get flamed for suggesting it.

You were hardly the lone prophet out in the wilderness! Totally fair to say that there are even more people being even more critical now but that view was expressed by lots of people every time I've ever seen it discussed on UKC.

Lol what a typo 

Wall-bred! Although does class and accessibility come into this? Maybe so!

I never mentioned Stanage, but here’s a true story to think about. In Litton mill I was approached by a large group and the leader enquired “is this the Peak District” Yes. “Well what do you do?” Listed activities. “ no are there any cafes?” About a 1Km walk down here. “ no are there any we can drive to?” Walked away shaking head. I once instructed at an outdoor centre whose intake was exclusively from one of the most deprived areas in Britain. They all hated it with one exception in two years. But my main point is that aggressive social engineering is creating this damaging trend. These people would probably get more out of it at indoor walls, where respect and understanding of the outdoors can best be learnt to minimise damage. The rest of the mobs at Stanage are paying for the privilege as a trawl through social media will illustrate how this sector has grown exponentially and real damage is being done.

If you want real adventure there’s always Pex Hill and the Breck..

@Michael Hood: congratulations!

Fanned I think and not flamed.

An excellent f**k off!!!

In an ideal world I would make BMC membership compulsory to everyone that participates in indoor climbing , similar to a rod license to go fishing.  

When you go to the wall you pay your fee your BMC license is checked, if its expired you have to renew.

Those that then progress in the sport are more likely to keep renewing each year, and if the wall rats decide to then go 'real climbing' they are more likely to keep paying their yearly fee.

What am I supposed to be thinking about in that example? I’m not clear how people sitting in a cafe are supposed to be damaging the crags and moors that they aren’t visiting.

Similarly, if the people you worked with all hated it they presumably never took up climbing or hiking afterwards. So you reckon the damage is largely being caused by people in cafes and people from deprived backgrounds, neither of whom are actually visiting the places they are meant to be damaging. I’m afraid I’m not following. 

Just to be clear, the final group of reprobates who are paying instructors to take them climbing, are they also hating every minute of it?

I’m also not clear what visiting indoor walls teaches people about respect and understanding of the outdoors. The usual grumble is that indoor climbers moving outside are part of the problem precisely because they don’t understand and respect the outdoors.

Sorry, lots of questions. 

Not claiming I was a lone voice but definitely in a minority.

The whole of the outdoors has become over commercialised, over publicised, over promoted and is even being sold as a panacea to cure all of modern life’s problems.
Build it and they will come. Well we did and they have. What did you expect?
Drops the mic and leaves the room
 

Right and wall-bred climbers are often not doing just that they're out at a variety of crags they're trying new things they're going on trips and they've barely heard of local clubs or the BMC. The club membership as the main entry point has gone, and has gone for years. 

Besides it's not about people doing what you think is adventurous it's about people engaging with climbing in a way they find satisfying. I think someone who mostly goes indoors and occasionally goes to Stanage is just as much of a climber as anyone else and that there's nothing to look down on there, which I feel a lot of people do and it creates a tension.

A controversial point, definitely, but surely, as per the idea of carbon footprint, those that frequent crags most often are likely to be most responsible for polish and erosion?

Someone that hates outdoor climbing and only goes outdoors once or twice can hardly be blamed for the destruction caused by regulars?

I think frequent outdoor climbers need to take a long hard look in the mirror personally. You might not litter or light barbecues etc, but we are a significant cause of the issues we're moaning about, myself included.

I'm not prickly I'm just pointing out that I think there's people looking down on others for how they engage in climbing, which is true and is visible on this very forum

Perhaps people are unhappy about honeypot crags and more adventurous crags falling into decline. I think that's a separate topic though. And as I said, older climbers of the old style and entry into climbing are the same for that, imo. Not like they aren't on Stanage

I've just done some research in past Annual Reports. Looking at the declared net costs the BMC has contributed c. £1million to the cost of the competition climbing department over the last five years.

Whether that is the 'real' cost is, of course debatable.

Does that take into account grant funding and any other income ?

If that's aimed at me then the formula used in the annual reports is to deduct grant funding (plus any other income) from the declared department costs to produce a 'net cost'. So 'GB Climbing' is shown, using that formula, as spending c.£1mill more than it's dedicated income over five years.

The extent to which 'on-costs' are allocated (office overheads, IT support, staff training, travel and accommodation etc) to departments instead of just being added to 'general costs' I simply don't know.

Another potential future financial risk raised on UKB* by Pete Harrison is that if GB Climbing funding moves from its current status of ‘progress funding’ to ‘world class performance funding’ then the BMC match funding rises from 15% to 25% ie about a 65% increase in the BMC’s contribution. This is something well known to Paul Ratcliffe, the CCPG Chair as he discussed it whilst at British Canoeing**.

Is this next level status something that GB Climbing is aiming for and is so are Members Council and the Board aware of the financial consequences? 
 

*https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,28127.msg679848.html#msg6798...

**https://www.britishcanoeing.org.uk/uploads/documents/Board-Minutes-March-20...

I was always under the impression that the BMC did not "actively encourage" participation in outdoor climbing, instead being focussed on the various facets of "facilitating access" (for want of a better expression) for those that wanted to.

Now that matched funding point is something that in my view does needs serious answers from BMC leadership (alongside more transparency on the current GBClimbing spend). Yet it's also not new. I preferred GBClimbing within the BMC but part of that was being reassured their funding was nominally ringfenced within BMC budgets, to prevent automatic cross subsidy that  could cause future membership furores. That ringfence always included BMC contributions as required on grants.  It was one reason for my  preference  (who  on earth could have paid that contribution if GB Climbing wasn't in the BMC?)...the others being a larger lobby impact, better safety education and better education on those who wanted to move to outside.

Now we have established you were exaggerating about implying two (unanounced as yet) drepartures were the losses of two roles  (their work remains and has to be done, and most or the money to fund it is protected within the two BMC Trusts). Let's look now at BMC salaried staff working in "GB Climbing" four years ago. You say one. I make it 4 salaried staff back then doing work under the equivalent of the current remit, plus part of another probably adding up to below 3 FTEs: one full time, two in a job share, one dedicated fractional doing social media and admin and Nick's safeguarding allocation. Plus a much larger proportional extra expense on contract work back then compared to now. 

My reason for having this particular debate now (rather than disrupt area meetings) is that I,  as a member of Council, don't believe it is feasible to lose any core ACES roles from a workload perspective, let alone the almost certain terrible reaction from membership if a role was removed. It might be possible to tweak fractions of  FTEs but even that looks difficult in the face of Dave being off (and more so if covering for MoM and Land & Property trust work, if your likely information on those departures are right). If the Board think differently (I'm not at all convinced they all do),  I'd hope members would make it clear they feel the 4 core roles, 2 each in each England and Wales, need to stay in the practical and political climate we face and the BMC workload context.

"The BMC recognises that climbing and mountaineering are activities with a danger of personal injury or death. Participants in these activities should be aware of and accept these risks and be responsible for their own actions."

Not very encouraging.  

In defence of clubs: when I lived in Essex I joined the Colchester climbing club, through which I made several life-long friends, found a mentor who taught me how to lead trad, enjoyed twice-weekly wall meets and regular climbing and walking meets through the year, use of club-huts etc. I had years of adventures all around the UK and Europe through that club. It was a great bunch of people from all walks of life, brought together by an interest in climbing, despite being hours from any decent rock.

I joined there back in 2001 and obviously it was a different world back then. The availability of information, other ways to learn (guides, courses etc), other ways to connect with people, find partners etc have all just exploded in the last twenty years. It's a completely different world. 

Now I live in Sheffield and just go bouldering, have friends to climb with if I do want to put on a rope, and as a parent of young kids don't have time to socialise even if I wanted to..... I've no need for a club. But I have very fond memories of being in a climbing club and can definitely see the benefit. It's pretty obvious to me that the benefit is mostly there for trad climbers/mountaineers though. There's been such a growth in bouldering numbers, and that discipline just doesn't need a club structure to support people getting into it, or participating in it. 

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/extending-access-rights--opportunities-in-england

Although I am an active member of a club, increasingly I climb with a WhatsApp group of people that has organically formed of climbers at my local wall, it's just an easier way to socialise and climb with a wider range of people than doing it through a club. For people that have come through this route, clubs could be a hard sell.

Well the Mountaineering Councils could have set up an arm's length entity with an annual financial support amount. You would automatically have achieved transparency of 'cost' as contributions to the operation of Comps would have shown up clearly in the Accounts.

One person's contract has been terminated and I understand another redundancy is sought within the Access team. I'm not clear where the 'exaggeration' comes from? As an aside the cost of 'Safeguarding' staff isn't attributed to Comps; it is currently a cost to the Sport and Community department currently.

Strangely, in the NW, I have been asked to put together a couple of slides precisely so that members can discuss this at the next Area meeting and give a clear steer to Members' Council reps. Allowing members to question some of the issues here is hardly a 'disruption' to Area meetings, I'd have thought? 😉

I completely agree with your view that cutting Access staff does not sit well with members. I haven't had any positive comments about the apparent targeting of redundancy notices. Most members, I think, appreciate the work that the core staff at the BMC do on their behalf.

The apposite word being "could". Sounds easy but in practice incredibly difficult to get agreement even ignoring the significant extra costs of a seperate entity and extra bureaucratic clogging. Maybe rather than raking over the past we need to think about debating a best fix: now good results are coming through sponsorship possibilities open a wider range of possibilities.

I simply don't know full details yet (do you?) and oppose any removal of core ACES roles in the strongest terms. I think the 'at risk' designation is now questionable given Daves circumstances and whatever concrete position is behind the rumours around these two roles.

Yet we both seek a more realistic and transparent cost base for GB Climbing and the vast majority of BMC safeguarding risks were linked and still link to 'youth comps'. You can't  just transfer a proportional fraction of overheads etc to teams, as a large amount is core, but some should transfer to allow fair comparison for members. The new safeguarding role is Sport England funded (as are other roles outside GB Climbing).... I guess it's more the selective picking and choosing (and guessing) that bugs me. There are enough serious facts to be getting on with.

If this is correct why didn't the BMC statement say so? Instead it says -

"Our operational budget will need to reflect the income we receive and we need to ensure we have the right staff base moving forwards across all our areas of work, with income for the remainder of the year set to be below forecast we will make proportionate reductions where we can across all areas of the BMC. All departments will be affected, including ACES (Access, Conservation & Environmental Sustainability) as the team has grown faster than income can support,"

Out of interest, what are people in your unofficial group doing about insurance for their climbing? Is everyone a personal member of the BMC / OAC / a.n.other organisation?

Club hut, parking and a bed within walking distance of where you want to be. 

Are you worried about the liability insurance or the personal accident insurance?

I climbed for years without giving any consideration to either and I'm sure most people are happy to carry the risk. Certainly as a skint young person I couldn't give a dam about either.

I'd be interested to hear if any unqualified twenty something year olds, climbing in a non-professional setting have been sued for damages after a climbing accident?

Now I've some assets I worry slightly more, though in the normal course of a WhatsApp app arranged peer to peer climbing meet up I doubt I need to worry.

I think you're probably correct.

The third-party liability insurance issue is scare mongering put out by the BMC to justify why clubs should affiliate to the BMC and their members forced to pay a BMC subscription. If you look at the numbers there are many more people climbing who are not members of the BMC or an affiliated club and probably don’t have third party liability insurance.

The need to have third party liability insurance only matters when you have some assets that you could lose if sued and most of people have cover as a result of other insurance policies when this happens.

They have. I understand a fairly chunky claim may be currently going through the insurance process but there have been claims made on BMC third party insurance before. Mainly, I believe, as a result of accidents in walls: but I've been out of touch so that could be wrong.

I'm not saying 'right or wrong' here, but if someone gets dropped and suffers life-changing injuries and there is insurance cover in place .. ?

Would they have been sued without the temptation of an insurance pot?

Haha, this is the con! If the individual didn't have insurance and no other assets there would be no point in suing them. In the case of the climbing wall incidents the only recourse would be to try and sue the climbing wall for negligence.

It's very selfish, but it's much better for the individual to have accident insurance rather than relying on being able to prove negligence and try to claim against someone else.

The injuries for the case in question are going to require adaptations to wherever the person lives for the rest of their life and are going to have significantly increased costs associated with travel etc, daily fail article on the incident here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10164325/amp/...

That's their problem, they should have taken out accident insurance. They could try to sue me but they'd find that the cupboard is bare, some used climbing gear and a 12 year old car, so not worth the legal costs.

% of earnings - % of nothing is nothing

I remember a claim made against a Guide, back in the day, after their client died. Initial reaction: what's going on? That stuff happens; the Guide could have died on the mountain as well.

Then hearing that the dead client left a partner who was pregnant with his child and was faced with bringing that kid up without support...

It's very difficult to be judgemental. But, at the end of the day, a big selling point of BMC membership is the 3rd party cover. How many people take out accident insurance before going to a climbing wall?

The big club's can't function without things like insured officers and 3rd party cover.

I know that!

I think you're responding to someone else?

Extra cost to who? Currently this cost is borne by the membership anyway, the annual report has a line item for office costs etc whereas grants are allocated  to specific projects.

My point is that most people climbing don't have third party insurance and if you have dependants it’s sensible to have life and accident insurance rather that hoping you or your family can claim on someone else’s insurance

It may well be sensible to ensure that you have adequate insurance cover before you go down to your local wall / out on the crag in case you get injured.

However, in the real world, YOUR insurers are going to do their darndest to make sure THEY don't pay out! They'll accuse the wall of negligence, the belayer of negligence... Working as an MCI you will, of course, know all this.

this is certainly true, but whats the real world claims experience in this area?  does anyone know any stats or anecdotal experience?  I have never heard of a claim against club officers or a 3rd party claim.  

I posted this earlier:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10164325/amp/...

There was also the Hedley vs Cuthbertson case (although I don't know the details to know how accurate the commentary here is and the fact that Smiler was working in a professional capacity alters the situation a bit):

https://mountainclients.typepad.com/mountain_clients/tour-ronde-hedley-v-cu...

There is the outright requirement to be a BMC member, or carry alternative liability insurance if you want to climb on one side of Cheddar Gorge (I think it's the south side, but can't remember for sure).

Clubs owning huts have substantial responsibilities over and above those who don't, particularly around not injuring people undertaking work on their properties and clubs like the CC have potentially quite a lot to lose (given the size of their hut estate). My understanding is that club BMC insurance can be used as employer's liability insurance where it relates to the operation of a hut which is of obvious value to clubs and there will be plenty of cases of people suing under employer's liability.

That is indeed a case. I've been down a bit of a rabbit hole regarding negligence damages, bankruptcy, wage garnishment etc.

Sounds like you could be sued despite having no assets. They could then after failing to seize any assets get a wage docking order.

Bankruptcy seems very complex with negligence damages a debt type possible to be written off but only with the expressed say so of the judge. Case law suggests that won't happen if it's inequitable to the person awarded the damages though it could if there was hardship and no conceivable way the debt would ever be repaid.

I can't see any outcome to that trial reported anywhere. Any idea of the outcome?

I'd be interested to look at some financial accounting looking at the upfront cost of the trial Vs the net present value of £200,000 + costs paid back over twenty years through wage deduction (from someone on minimum wage). It might be worth doing if you have an unlimited budget but with finite funds?

thanks.  yes I knew of both those.  it would be interesting to know if there are others.  

If you're talking about the Cuthbertson case I seem to recall the eventual settlement was in the £2.5mill area. I could be wrong, it was a while ago.

There was talk of an appeal - a Guide seeking to preserve reputation etc. - but the insurers preferred to cut their losses.

No the other case involving a non (climbing industry) professional young person being sued by their peer. Plenty of reporting of the case starting. No reports of its end.

I think it may still be ongoing, hence why you can't find anything. Nothing shows up in case law for Smith vs Ollivier.

the vast majority of civil cases (including very high value cases) never go to trial.  So there won't be a judgement on line.  The few that do are reported here.  

My suspicion is that the real cost of providing 3rd party insurance to us is very low unless these claims substantially increase in the future.  In many climbing incidents I suspect proving "breach of duty" would be quite difficult (the belay failure on a wall may be an exception). 

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2023/

Next year is an Olympic year. By now I would expect all the planning and budgeting was already in place to support this, and it's probably too late to alter this.

John Gresty

And that life insurance provider may then sue whoever they feel may be liable for what happened to recouperate their costs, even the person who claimed on said insurance wouldn't ever do that. I have income protection insurance that covers me for climbing, if I claim on it and there is an inkling of liability from someone other than myself, I am pretty certain they are going to try and rinse it.

I don't think the claims history is really important. Clubs rely on people standing as officers to continue to function and without the insurance to protect those officers it would be very hard to persuade anyone to take on such roles. After all, in the event of no insurance there is the potential, however small, that the individual officers could be pursued in the event of a claim. I don't think anyone would risk their house in order to be a club official.  

The CEO has published an article regarding most of the issues raised lately.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/ceo-qa  

With respect to the cost of GBClimbing he has confirmed that the £180k cost he cited at the Peak Area meeting is made up of £780k from UKS, SE, competition fees and sponsorship less a spend of £961k which is £180k. However, this doesn’t include the £90k cost of hosting the World Cup at Ratho. 
He goes on to confirm that if a share of office overheads are included than there is a further £81k to add. However, he doesn’t say what % this allocation or what the overall overhead is - either figure would do to get a reality check.

Anyway in my book the net contribution of support by the BMC in 2022 towards supporting GBClimbing based on the figures disclosed so far is £341k ie more than the project deficit for this year before ‘course corrections’ and obviously far more than a cursory look at the annual report would suggest.

Is a share of office overheads relevant? Ie if the costs would have been incurred anyway irregardless of GB climbing then they should not be included in an incremental cost analysis. I’m getting the feeling that maybe an independent look at the accounts and structure might be a good idea.

You wouldn’t need so many support and management staff if GBClimbing wasn’t there and the BMC scaled down accordingly. If we are to understand how much GBClimbing costs these very real costs should be included especially if there is to be a weighing up of the advantages and disadvantages of GB Climbing becoming an independent body where it would have to shoulder these support costs itself and the savings the rump of the BMC might make in doing so.

I'm not saying there are no costs but a % of office overhead is not the way to go, the associated costs all need to be clearly analysed, and savings identified that would actually be made if GB Climbing were to be stripped out. Hence my suggestion of an independent look at the accounts and structure.

Quite. The devil is in the detail. However, in an excruciating way we are inching towards a better appreciation of the real scale in which the BMC supports GBClimbing that can be communicated to members with one realistic £figure. 

In his Q&A Paul Davies also says “There seems to be a lot of confusion around what GB Climbing is and how much it costs. I’d like to go into more detail in another interview soon”. I look forward to that as I’m still confused. In the meantime I will be sending an email to Paul, which he kindly invited me to do at the Area Meeting, with a request for a detailed breakdown of costs, grants and other income. 

At the Peak area meeting Paul Davies was asked how much the budget for GB Climbing was and expressed surprise/amusement at the suggestion that it was around £1 million /yr but isn’t that exactly what all of this is suggesting? Or am I missing something?

If the budget is £1million then the follow up point becomes even more important - what is that being spent on and is it being well spent? To me it’s not just a question of how much the BMC is contributing to GB Climbing, it’s if that money (and all the rest from grants etc) is actually being spent in a sensible way. We know it isn’t being spent on supporting athletes to attend international competitions…

Believe me these questions are being asked as well. There was a recent review of the CCPG (the controlling body that GBC reports to) and the report has been suppressed. I’m told it is highly critical and likely to cover such things as the effectiveness of governance, finance, safeguarding, performance structures and operations. Members Council hasn’t yet received a copy despite requesting it and assuming they do I expect it will be heavily redacted. 

Almost a rhetorical question but if you’ve got a quasi independent body (GB Climbing) spending a £1 million+ budget and serious questions have been raised about their competence (or whatever the report says) isn’t that quite important?! As in, shouldn’t the BMC CEO/President etc be doing something about it with some urgency? And if it is, why did Paul Davies respond to the question on oversight of GBC with a complete lack of understanding of what the question was about? Shouldn’t this be something foremost in his mind (accepting he had other more important priorities over last few weeks). But it’s all linked to some extent…

Can't you? The RYA does an OK job doing both in sailing.

Wouldn’t that be nice! I must admit I’m getting a bit tired of “oh no, it’s much more complicated than that”  

That may be the case, but how many members know how to use it? Let's face it, most (myself included) aren't very interested in BMC governance and politics until something goes wrong. 

If I want to lobby my area rep, how can I find out who they are and how to contact them? The "How to stay in touch with your local BMC area" page on the BMC website has a list of Chairs and Secretaries for the Areas but no contact information. Neither do the pages for the Areas. Possibly the information is hidden away somewhere, but if so it is hard to find.  The website suggests the only way to engage is through Area meetings, but it is not always possible to get to these, and Zoom is unreliable (I missed a lot of the Peak Area meeting Bamford because of dropouts). Only the most committed, or the ones with the strongest grievances, are going to travel a long distance to attend an AGM.

It is hardly surprising that people turn to social media to raise concerns.

Spot on

The easiest way to contact area chair/ secretary is via the Facebook page for the area meeting, however they aren't going to be able to answer many more questions than any other committed volunteer as they aren't members of council, however they should have an understanding of who you need to talk to. Email contact would be peak.area@thebmc.co.uk

You would be after the members council area reps (Sean Milner and Sam Harris), however there is no clear mechanism for contacting them as far as I can tell.

Peak area chair at present is the very enthusiastic Andy Reeves, the secretary role is currently vacant so Lynn was taking minutes on wednesday.

My point is that none of this information can easily be found on the BMC website (if it is there it is well hidden).

I had forgotten there is a FB page for the area. Apparently I am already following it, but I think FB in its wisdom doesn't want to show it to me very often.

The website is utterly crap and the fact that it is difficult to find the info you were after is one of many problems the BMC has, many of which can be resolved in a straightforward fashion.

I was trying to be helpful by providing the information you were asking about.

Nail on head. And, unfortunately, the web presence is one of the corner-stones, as I understand it, of the membership drive that hasn't, as yet, happened.

I'm wondering whether it's felt there are GDPR constraints on giving contact information but since Area Chairs have a 'Chair@' contact email provided it shouldn't be too hard to create a CouncilRepPeak@thebmc.co.uk email address or suchlike.

I don't think it even states the name of the area chair on the website unless you go digging in documents?

Ideally someone will take the time to sit down and map out the data that needs to be accessible from the website and devises a structure that stuff can fit under in line with the hillwalking site, if they don't the new website will be as useless as the last!

The CC have email addresses for officer roles that redirect emails to the personal email address of the person involved which works quite well, the oread had something similar but it got bombarded with spam so it's worth being careful.

I'm still getting spam from my time on National Council eight years ago. Why does Roger Fanner keep sending me 'photos I might recognise' from obscure addresses all across the world ... 😂

And that's appreciated, but my point was a general one.