UKC

I'm so upset about the support that the BMC hasn't given to local issues here on southern sandstone, that I'm seriously considering dedicating the rest of my life to developing an alternative.
But this thread is about celebrating the things they do do. I understand that subs are being used to sponsor content for their fledgling 'BMC TV'. Does anyone know how much this project costs to run, how much of our subs have been used to provide this service and most importantly what the hit figures are please?

In reply to DingBat:

No idea of any stats or figures but I'm definitely a fan of BMC TV.

In reply to DingBat:

Probably not too much. They already pay for IT staff, who are more than capable of doing that sort of thing. Bandwidth probably costs a bit, but that depends a lot on traffic.

I think it's great personally. Really good idea.

If you're upset about the amount of effort BMC have put into Southern Sandstone, why not get involved as a volunteer. If you've got the time to spare to build an alternative, then you'd be able to go a long way in the heirarchy of the BMC and could make a difference yourself.

In reply to mattrm:



He is, we've spent many a happy hour in the rain, lugging barrow loads of earth and logs about, building up the revetments at the base of the outcrop.

In reply to mattrm:


So ( with rhetoric ) you don't know the cost. Why is it that there is a total assumption that people unhappy with the way BMC subs are spent are not part of the BMC? Or not doing things to support it?
I know of one past president who is disquieted about the way things are going currently.
Does anyone have a real idea of costings? What alternatives are there to the BMC?

In reply to DingBat:

Why would anyone on here know the cost, just ask them and see what they say.

Personally really like BMCTV, taught me a lot about climbing as a new learner.

In reply to DingBat:
Hi

Thanks for asking.

The BMC TV project is going really, really well.

The project is in two parts: the platform http://tv.thebmc.co.uk and creating the content. The platform is about creating an inspiring home for our video content that works across all devices. This is a licensed solution called Media Tank, also used by British Swimming.

The content is a mix of skills films, events films, films exploring issues and pure inspiration. Very much like an online version of Summit magazine.

The films have been a huge success. Top films have seen 200,000+ views and many over 40,000. And their real strength is the ability to open up previously underpublicised local events, such as the WiltonFest, the Tremadog Festival, the Crag Lough clean-up, and club meets such as the Rucksack Club at Gogarth.

http://tv.thebmc.co.uk/video/rucksack-club-meet-gogarth-2014?current-channe...

http://tv.thebmc.co.uk/video/bmc-tremfest-2014?current-channel=bmc-events

http://tv.thebmc.co.uk/video/crag-lough-clean-up-festival?current-channel=b...

http://tv.thebmc.co.uk/video/bmc-wiltonfest?current-channel=bmc-events&page...

Other hits have been the short how-to clips – such as how to coil a rope:

http://tv.thebmc.co.uk/video/how-to-coil-a-rope?current-channel=skills

But that’s not the only good news. The project is almost entirely funded by Sport England as part of their digital strategy for communicating with younger people. When it comes to digital, they’re fully on top of it, and they know that publishing information these days doesn’t just mean writing a magazine article or publishing something on a website, it means social media and video. Lots of video.

Consequently, we’re really fortunate to have this project funded for the next three years, so we’re very excited to continue developing it as a resource.

We’ve got some interesting films planned for this year: our ambassadors in action, walking issues, young climbers, all the main BMC events, and have just commissioned 40 new how-to films: walking skills, bouldering skills, indoor skills and...

...a special set of films about southern sandstone.

If anyone has any suggestions for films, wants any more information or even some BMC TV stickers or t-shirts, then do get in touch with alex@thebmc.co.uk.

In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:

No, no, no Alex. The role of the BMC is to operate toilets. Yet another example of the Manchester centric BMC giving the poor South East a good kicking.

In reply to The New NickB:

Ha!

In reply to The New NickB:

Much too close to the truth- thank you.
Alex, would the BMC quantify how much it applied for from sport England for this project ?

In reply to The New NickB:


To be fair, the BMC seemed to be quite happy for the issue to be kicked into the long grass and it was only after a petition by concerned locals gathered hundreds of signatures that they finally stepped in to help

In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:
I think the question was how much? not what is it and how good is it...(this being for folks to form their own opinion). Presumable the is it worth it is measurable?
In addition to how much? Could you also advise if there is a BMC deficit and how that is going to be made up? It was raised at a recent area meeting and I have not heard the response. Might be a good subject for a film?

In reply to simondgee:


Thanks Simon for being on beam.

Offers of stickers and t-shirts and if "anyone has ideas" of what to film next doesn't sound like an organisation on its knees, but I guess in these days of corporate accounting we can move offices from Manchester to Luxembourg and cook something up for the punters if things don't work out here.

The BMC is not poor. In recent years there has been a considerable expansion in employees, though the interest they don't take I n this region could make a very interesting subject for a panorama type expos'e

In reply to DingBat:

Alex's post pointed out that the money largely comes from a pot of money specifically for digital communication stuff aimed at grass routes and probably widening participation.. So it's not like they could spend that money on anything they wanted. Your question should really be if there's any funding shortfall from that funding stream, not total cost

In reply to abarro81:


Yes it's sport England (tax payer) money that the BMC bid for very successfully, the question is that at the same time why did the BMC failed to petition Sport England for funding for projects which they have been jointly committed to with Sport England over the last 40 years?

I have been unable to be directed to minutes from any BMC/ Sports Council meeting where the BMC tried hard to secure ongoing funding for Harrison's amenities. We've been badly let down by the BMC. the south east region contains a huge number of BMC members who deserve better representation.

I'm still waiting to see if someone can come up with some figures !

In reply to DingBat:




Why aren't you worried about the hundreds of other crags around the country that the BMC don't provide amenities at?

Should we all be up in arms as well?

In reply to Alex Messenger, BMC:





Maybe a short investigative documentary regarding how retro bolting at Blue Scar has led to unresolved access issues?

In reply to timjones:


Because, unlike Harrison's Rocks and Stone Farm Rocks, the BMC doesn't own most of these other crags.

In reply to Rob Naylor:


That is one way of looking at it but I'm not aware that crag ownership comes with any obligation to provide facilities for climbers using the crag.

Maybe it's just shandy drinking southerners that need such luxuries

In reply to DingBat:

I can't believe people still are whining about the toilets.

The best things the BMC could do for London climbers like myself would to campaign for the M3, M4 and M1 to be widened to five lanes and for a second runway at Stanstead.

BMC.TV is great in my view.

In reply to DingBat:

Am I missing something? I've reread this thread twice and I still can't see anywhere that it says what it costs. When I saw the post come up I thought to myself, actually I'd like to know that as well. When the BMC spokesperson posted I though 'here is the answer', nothing. I looked at the link provided, still nothing. Tell me, have I missed it? Is there a cost?

In reply to Removed User:

Well there is no cost out of the BMC subs which I think was the main key of the question.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Okay, thanks.

In reply to DingBat:


Sport England funding comes from the National Lottery, not taxpayers... and as abarro pointed out usually with the proviso that it's spent encouraging more people to get into sport.

In reply to timjones:



Basically this. Shall we campaign for toilets at Wilton next?

In reply to amy:

Yes and there is a strong argument for the BMC and Sport England to continue to support schemes which have encouraged real participation over decades. Despite the whacky comments from people on this thread who don't know the issues there is an important debate to be had about the abandonment of the SE region by the BMC and how funding streams they have access to bid for are approached. While walkers and climbers 1300 signatures want facilities to be kept open at Harrison's I'm not the BMC has a similar mandate to promote arm chair viewing.

In reply to DingBat:


Are 1300 signatories who may or may not be members a mandate?

In reply to DingBat:

There are far more than 1300 people who have taken advantage of bmc tv, as Alex' figures show.
The fact you can get people to sign a petition saying that they want the bmc to maintain toilets at their local crag means nothing. There is no downside for them so the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
There are several other bmc owned crags around the country of which you are presumably ignorant.

In reply to Si dH:

I signed the petition and now sadly almost regret it. I expected this was a normal request to the BMC to do what they could to work with partners to help expedite a solution to a problem important to local climbers. I did not expect it to transform into an attempt to prioritise the issue over all others and when this unreasonable request wasn't achieved to browbeat the organisation through the internet as much as possible and largely bypass the normal area meeting and AGM internal communication routes. I wonder now how many signatories are in my position and how many fully support what Dingbat has done.

In reply to Offwidth:

You're right, I signed it too. BMC gave it a shot did they not? I don't understand why BMC should halt everything their doing for a toilet block? Members seem to like bmc tv.

In reply to Offwidth:

>how many fully support what Dingbat has done.

I do. Completely.

In reply to Oceanrower:

Wait. What is he mad about exactly?

In reply to FreshSlate:

No idea. Wasn't the question I was asked. Do I support dingbat's almost single handed campaign to save the toilets (and, by definition, camping) at Harrisons?

Yes. Absolutely.

Twigged it now.

In reply to DingBat:
The BMC asked SE about further funding and they said no?

Harrison's has had an awful lot of attention from the the BMC, and so has this issue for the last year. Harrison's has had more attention than most crags up north, that's undeniable. Not everywhere can be bought up and provided with amenities, do you realise this?

In reply to DingBat:


All tax payer? I doubt it.

>... with Sport England over the last 40 years?

Have they been around that long?


I will: about 3 million over the period of this grant. I don't know how much is earmarked for this particular project, but hopefully a lot more than for some bogs.

In reply to Oceanrower:

There continues to be a sizeable group of BMC members who have campaigned actively and who are working to find a sustainable future. They are BMC members who have had no support from regional or national paid officials, despite making representations in all the right places, canvassing for support at regional meetings. In fairness there has been one visit from the BMC access guy to one meeting, in the autumn of last year, but that's about it. The paid BMC official for the region has not shown any interest or lent any sort of support. The BMC have certainly not given it any kind of shot. It's a disgrace.

In reply to FreshSlate:



It needed to. Without Dingbat's efforts the Forestry Commission bulldozers would have flattened it this coming November!

This also wasn't a random crag being gifted with some toilet facilities, this was an existing facility being lost for want of a bit of support by the national representing body. The fixing of the toilets was carried out by local volunteers on a shoe string

In reply to woolsack: I sometimes think that our more Northern colleagues, with their hundreds of crags, don't realise just how precious (and bloody overused) our little bit of sandstone is.

In reply to Oceanrower:

I think plenty of people can appreciate the importance of the crag. What I struggle with is appreciating the importance of a toilet block. If there's a decent argument to be made as to why this particular issue should have priority over some of the other important and wide ranging work that the BMC does then Im all ears.

In reply to woolsack:
In every single meeting the BMC did say that it would not run or fund the toilet block. It's not as if the BMC withdrew funding or anyone was ever under the idea that the BMC would pay for it once the funding was withdrawn.

What is this thread about? Scrap BMC TV for the bmc to maintain a toilet block? There's been quite a lot publicised about this issue, from the BMC, lets not pretend otherwise, type bmc and toilet block and Harrison's is the only thing that will come up, as its not really something the bmc does...
You're asking for special treatment whilst playing the 'ignored and neglected' card. It's simply not true.

In reply to Oceanrower:

I'm not sure what the toilet block has to do with this. Surely it attracts more traffic? Toilets and a campsite is not going to tackle overuse...

In reply to FreshSlate:



I believe both of these statements are factually incorrect. If you know that the BMC has made any kind of effort please share the detail with the forum.

In reply to FreshSlate:

The problem is, amongst other things, that because we don't have dozens of crags within a relatively small area, the vast majority of climbers go to either Harrisons or Bowles.

When the toilet block shut, it was soon proven that the aforesaid vast majority of climbers couldn't be bothered to walk too far to dispose of "waste"

But, AIUI, the problem with the Bmc stemmed not from the fact that they were withdrawing support. Most people understood that. It was that they wouldn't let anyone take over from them. We had suitable, qualified, insured volunteers queueing up to try and reinstate the blocks (without which, the campsite had to shut) but nobody was even allowed access through the door to try and assess viability of continuing.

In reply to DingBat:

In April the BMC reported that the toilets had been repaired and were open for business:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/harrisons-rocks-campsite-and-toilets-open-for-busi...

Has something changed in the last couple of months?

In reply to DingBat:

So to summarise, BMC TV doesn't cost the members anything, in fact, it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything either. In which case, its not only worth it, but proven to be quite a good source of information and inspiration.

The bugbear about southern toilet stuff is a separate issue entirely.

In reply to DingBat:


Looks like we're on the same level here. Need a BMC officer to tell us, by further funding I don't mean for the BMC to run it, but for the FC or SE to continue the status quo.

In reply to Oceanrower:

There's also very busy and popular crags up north


That's the climbers fault. The vast majority of crags don't have a toilet block. If you guys down south don't know how to not shit everywhere then that's not the fault of the BMC's. Everyone else seems to manage.


It's not really that simple, the forestry commission wouldn't let volunteers take over either they wanted BMC to back it and take the risk. What are insured volunteers?

In reply to FreshSlate:

Insured volunteers are, err, volunteers who are insured. I.e. electricians, plumbers etc. who are qualified and have insurance but are prepared to give their time for nothing.

Do you have to argue or try to pick holes in everything? Even the bleeding obvious? It does get a bit tiresome having to explain every detail to you.

In reply to Oceanrower:


The owner of the site may be able to check individuals' insurance in advance but how can they be sure that other volunteers won't turn up on the day to help who may not be professional or insured? They could be liable if anything goes wrong, and they will want to deal with a properly constituted organisation with a single public liability insurance policy to cover all its workers and with a single risk assessment and method statement, not a bunch of individuals no matter how well-intentioned and professional they may be.

If the BMC report is correct and Sport England have now repaired the toilets, isn't this all hypothetical?

In reply to Howard J:

As I am sure you are aware, much work is done for the BMC by volunteers. Not all of it needs to be done by professionals. Some jobs, plumbing, el2ctrical, roofing, do. However,


In a way, yes. The work has now been done. Not by Sport England, not by the BMC. By volunteers. Eventually. But only after much (hypothetical) screaming and kicking and entirely due to the petition by DingBat.

And so, after many posts, we come full circle. Anyone want to go round again?

In reply to Oceanrower:


What's wrong with asking what you mean by insured volunteers? Christ you get upset easily. It's hardly the crux the issue, no one had mentioned insurance for the volunteers before I wondered what you were going on about.

I signed the petition at the time, but it looks like a lot of people signed it to persuade SE or FC to chip in and sort this. Sport England have withdrawn funding so they're hardly going to give that same funding back to BMC to be spent in the same area they withdrew funding from. The FC don't have the cash and are unwilling to accept liability for a volunteer run group if it goes wrong. Basically if BMC are backing, the BMC as funded by members is backing.

In reply to Oceanrower:


Really? Is this quote incorrect?

The toilet block at Harrison's Rocks has recently been repaired by Sport England’s contractors following significant damage to the block during winter 2012/13.

In reply to Kipper:

As far as I was aware, it was repaired using local labour. I will look into that and see what I can find out.

In reply to simondgee:


You can make a video for buttons.. well camera capable of shooting HD and a reasonable lens probably £300, a mic and a computer (that most people have already). Dig around and you'll find hundreds of good quality climbing videos all over the internet. The reason is that its really cheap to do now.

In reply to Oceanrower:


The toilet block was repaired and reopened after being closed for 15 months using sport England funding.
The BMC whose responsibility it is to run and maintain the block had allowed the facilities to fall into disrepair and knowing that their lease and therefore their responsibility after 40 years was ending in November 2014 did nothing to lever sport England into repairing the block. It was the petition ( thank you all) that shocked sport England into action - the BMC have done absolutely nothing. In November the lease will end and the BMC are still standing idle on everything.
What they don't get because they are so up North is that it's not about a toilet facility, far from it. This is the biggest access and participation issue the BMC has faced in many decades in terms of numbers of climbers accessing the possible environmental impact- because the car park, toilet block and campsite were built for a reason that current BMC leadership cannot grasp, but their predecessors fully recognised.

In reply to DingBat:

Is this WHOLE thread not actually about BMC TV but actually about some toilets in Kent?

What is the point?

In reply to DingBat:

>This is the biggest access and participation issue the BMC has faced in many decades

Wow.

This thread is even more insane than the usual UKC excitement

In reply to DingBat:


The BMC has never taken responsibility for maintaining and running the toilet block. They have said many times it is not their priority.


No one can grasp why Southerners cannot help but shit everywhere. We don't have toilet blocks at crags up here. I think some education about environmental issues for the Southern districts is needed. Go to the bog before you go out mate, or learn how to deal with it properly. There are crags hours away from the road, what do you think people do?

In reply to FreshSlate:

The obvious answer is because southerners (or more accurately southern easterners) are full of it

(Joke obviously but roxy.wolfie set it up beautifully).

I hope people reading this thread know that a lot of people in London (and BMC members) don't give a *#%! about these toilets.

(go before you go out.....)

In reply to climbwhenready:



You've been there? Then you'll know there is a campsite.

Now, you might be able to hold on for two to three days, me however............

In reply to Oceanrower:


This is the crux of the issue, sure the toilets and the campsite are nice to have, which is why the BMC and Sport England have supported them for years and will continue to support them if a suitable partnership can be developed, but there absence will not restrict access.

In reply to The New NickB:
The loss of these things will hardly encourage participation. If these things are 'nice to have' why have the BMC done nothing to try to find a solution on behalf of climbers in the South East. The BMC have managed the facilities using Sport England (and sports council before that) money for decades and access and participation have profited as a result.

The efforts the BMC does make on access seem to be in remote crags with few users (in comparison) and as for participation, as far as the BMC are concerned, its all about climbing walls currently.

This issue really has had zero support from the BMC

In reply to DingBat:


If the place is so rammed then why do you want to encourage participation? Why do you need to camp there? I wouldn't have thought is was that remote from most of the potential visitors that it can't be done easily as a day visit. Why do you keep banging on about access when it's got bugger all to do with access.



Good.

In reply to Ms. Bustyerface.

because we, like the BMC participation statement, believe in the importance of participation.

Why do you need to camp there?
I don't, others from all over the uk and the near continent do and really enjoy it

I wouldn't have thought is was that remote from most of the potential visitors that it can't be done easily as a day visit.
Correct! well done, but others prefer to stay

Why do you keep banging on about access when it's got bugger all to do with access.

Do you work for the BMC? It has everything to do with access.

In reply to DingBat:



This could apply to any crag in the country.



Again, any crag in the country.

In reply to DingBat:

people travel from all over the UK to go climbing on SE sandstone? Really? Why would they do that? I mean, I love Pex Hill and Helsby to bits, but if they weren't on my doorstep I wouldn't be seeking them out. Yes, loads of folk live down south and all, but all the climbing in the country is essentially in that civilised part of the country north of watford, isn't it? we even have toilets up here that flush and everything... still haven't got our heads round bidets yet, but give it a few more years, eh?

BMC TV is a pretty good project, probably increasing participation much more than a Ty Bach in Kent could ever do, though I'd love to see a SROI report on both

In reply to Dom Whillans:


It's irrelevant to the point, but I'm not entirely sure you've thought that one through. Particularly if you mean Watford Gap rather than Watford, that being the traditional location of the North / South divide.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
Nah, I've been "dahn sarf" loads, i know what i'm on about thanks i know there's shed loads of climbing in "the south" in devon, cornwall, somerset, dorset etc... i probably should have said "outside of the M25 and it's immediate area, but that wouldn't have been half as concise or amusing to me.

in reality, a bog and campsite in kent are in no way comparable to the ongoing issues happening in the north lees estate area... like it or loathe it (and i do both at times) the crags there are of a much higher importance to a majority of BMC members. Access lost there would also set a national precedent which could have a huge impact on our activities across the wider country.

In reply to DingBat:

I understand why Harrisons is of significance to a large number of climbers in the SE who have no other local options, but the BMC has acquired the Rocks themselves to preserve access, so you can't say it's done nothing to support climbers in the region. The issue you are complaining about is the ongoing provision of a facility on someone else's land which no doubt is nice to have but which is not the BMC's responsibility, and which I suspect the wider membership would feel should not be.

In reply to climbwhenready:

I don't think the BMC should be poo pooing these ideas so readily.

In reply to Oceanrower:



"When the toilet block shut, it was soon proven that the aforesaid vast majority of climbers couldn't be bothered to walk too far to dispose of "waste" "

You do realise that's you saying that.

In reply to Dom Whillans:
Harrison's Rocks are in Sussex...

In reply to FreshSlate:

Yes? And? The campsite is for climbers. Not sure I understand your point.

In reply to Graham Ad:


are they? oh, i never did care much for birmingham.

In reply to Dom Whillans:


And Stanage is not even in the North (at least the climbing isn't, the topouts may qualify at the Stanage End end), so the attention there can't even be blamed on the northern bias the BMC is claimed to have... :P

In reply to DingBat:

If it is busy why don't they just charge more for parking/camping/peeing so there's enough cash to pay for repairs and placate the landowner.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Tom, the problem really isn't one of money. The building has been repaired, and would have been done so much quicker if access hadn't, continually, been refused.

The problem is that the lease runs out at the end of this year and negotiations between various quangos are problematic. At one point the preferred option was to flatten the whole thing and spend thousands doing so!

Hopefully we've moved on from that now but, really, it's not a finance problem that is holding this up.

Perhaps a more pressing question is why does the british MOUNTAINEERING council own what is essentially a small sandy outcrop of what is essentially a childrens climbing area.

Could the crag not be sold to a Southern Climbing and Abseiling Club who could maintain it via the profits of a small shandy bar with toilet.

In reply to Philip:

Why do the BMC own Horseshoe Quarry then? Or Wilton 1? Not exactly mountains either.

Have the BMC ever been just a mountaineering club? They get involved ALL aspects of climbing.

Perhaps it's time for a name change.