UKC

In response to some ideas on a thread a few weeks ago we have set up this new forum dedicated specifically to the topics normally reserved for BMC Area Meetings. Hopefully by using this forum we will be able to broaden the debate and reach many more climbers.

We would like encourage participation by all the various BMC Area reps to use this forum to advertise their meetings, to prompt discussion before meetings, and to inform and continue debate after meetings. If any area reps have questions about using these forums then please get in touch - alan@rockfax.co.uk

Both the BMC and UKClimbing are keen to point out that these forums shouldn't be used for general questions directed to the BMC.

Alan

In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
But is it for BMC (in reality English MC) or for MCoS stuff as well ?

In reply to Doug:

I was wondering that myself and I know very little about it which I am sure won't suprise anyone.

In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:

And didn't they miss someone out?

<sniff sniff>

Regards,

Ben (From Bristol, in the South West!)

In reply to BenP:

Thought you lot didn't have a committee anyway?

Maybe that could be a good subject for debate.

In reply to Horse:

I was just thinking that due to most of the rock in the natural catchment for a uk climbing site being up here where the hills are it would be only fair that we get to shout about things too!

Ands

In reply to Doug: So is there a WMC?

In reply to CENSORED:

Ohh that W could stand for so many things, then again I can think of a number of things the B in BMC could stand for also...

In reply to Ands: Get yer mind out of the gutter youth, that's my job!

In reply to CENSORED:

now why should you get to monopolise the gutter............

In reply to CENSORED:

As the great Connolly of Billy once said whenst being heckelified:

"Don't you come round my place of work and tell me what to do, would I come down to you in the gutter and tell you how to sweep the streets?"

I think it is time for bed!

Ands

In reply to BenP:

Unfortunately, the SW Committee was "suspended" due to a lack of interest/willing volunteers etc.

With some luck, however, this forum might be a wat or resurrecting it.

In reply to Ands:

But not most of the climbers or most of the climbs done on any given day I would wager.

And anyway where were you lot when this was being debated on the original thread? Damn Johnie cum lately's the lot of you

In reply to Doug:

MCofS stuff and general club stuff is also welcome.

I am sure we could discuss a more formal incoporation of the MCofS - logos, links.

Alan

In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX: That would be cool.

In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:

I think it would be great if the MCofS could be included on this forum.

Some of the things they deal with are of relevance to climbers from all over the UK who come up to climb in Scotland.

For instance the Access Bill going through the Scottish parliament at the moment. If the right amendments to the bill don't go through it could have a major impact on anyone who comes up to Scotland for winter climbing. It would be good if there was a way this could be drawn to the attention of all UK climbers.

In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:

Thanks for this. There were also discussions about rules...are there any or can anyone post anything?.

In reply to Horse:
Too true. We owe it to the South West to get a committee going and sharpish. How about three committees, Weymouth, West Penwith and Bristol, to give it a truely local angle. Less distance to travel, talk about local issues or just get together for a chat and a beer.............

In reply to Offwidth:

As I have said elsewhere, we don't want direct questions to the BMC. However I don't think we'll impose anymore rules at this stage. Just see how things go for now.

Alan

In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:

Yep, it'd turn into a full time job here at the BMC if every conceivable question had to be answered!

It's really intended to kick off area discussions, and of course the BMC staff and volunteers will pitch in when they can, but that won't always be possible...

In reply to alex:

When will you be issuing a leaflet and video short on the ethics of taking part in Rocktalk picnics. If a video is planned will you be pretending to be a shy lurker meeting the scary regular posters for the first time (but with inconsistenty obvious social skills); or will you be the 'sage' gently informing the 'begginner' why its not a good idea to top rope the 3 star classic, drop litter, make a lot of noise at 2:00am on a public campsite or tell the farmer to 'fook off'? Hey you may even get to include an amusing out take.

How high is Everest in cubits?

In reply to Horse:

I posted thrice to the original thread. Addmitedly it was humour though as most of what needed said was being said by people who knew what to say

I read it with interest though what with having been involved with a bolting "debate" (read turned into slanging match and then back to debate!) already on this forum and I have only been visiting it a while.

Ands

In reply to Daniel:

I just read your profile. You work for DMA Design eh? I am sure it is they who are baed in Dundonian Land as I got to drinking a bottle of rum outside a nightclub up here in Inverness one night with one of the bosses ;P

Yeah it would be well sound to have somewhere to argue with 'Onians (Dundee) and Qweins (Aberdeen) alike

Ands

In reply to John Horscroft:

Yes John. I reckon the main reason for the SW Area disbanding was the huge distance required to travel to meetings. West Penwith is a good 3 hours from East Dorset.

Mind you - why Weymouth. Call it "Dorset" and it will be clearer.

Also Cornwall, Devon and Avon could be good groupings.

On the other hand, not having our own committee means we can just get on with retrobolting and there are no meeting for anyone to complain at.

In reply to Doug: Actually, not. The BMC represents Welsh climbers at the moment, as well as Scottish and Irish climbers (in league with their national representative bodies) where the UK is treated as a whole, as it is by the UIAA. It's not exactly satisfactory though.

In reply to steve taylor: I'm watching you Taylor!

In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX: I go away for a while and what do I find, a new forum.

Seems like a good idea Alan.

In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:

Well done for starting this.

One of the big problems at the moment is the decline of BMC areas. This has a lot to do with chairmanship. If the area chairman or chairwoman is not suitable ... knowledgeable and wise enough, interesting and charismatic, jolly and welcoming, shrewd and firm etc etc etc then the area tends to die. Chairpeople who observe this happening should really seek to replace themselves. The BMC leadership needs to keep a watch on this and try, through the semi- democratic procedures to ensure the areas stay up to speed and that good chairing is evident. The main clubs need to take care to ensure that their formal representation on areas is given thought and attention and that a suitable person is asked to attend with full voting powers linked to the club's membership size.
The recent experience in the Peak is an object lesson - no names no pack drill - but, following some ups and downs, the present spirited chair and area secretary now helps a lot to make it work.

The geographical spread of the area is also a problem and the timing of meetings might solve that problem ... for example SW might have meetings at weekends at suitable climbing spots ... in Winter Torbay or Barnstable might be a good places(in the evenings of course) rather than in cities in mid week, to counteract that problem. Similarly London and SE Meetings might on occasion be held at Tonbridge Wells on a Saturday night or even tack Swanage and Portland onto that Area and hold them there (I note the comment elsewhere on this thread about the distance of Weymouth from Bristol or Penzanze. It certianly seemed more London focussed to me when I lived down there so maybe London and SE is its natural home?

The areas are critically important for if they fail to send well informed and usefully quizical people up to Management Committee the quality of debate on that body will deteriorate and poor decision making or inadequate vetting and ratifying of bright shiny new policies will be the result.

For example ... to take a recent case concerning the Rheged Mountaineering Exhibition (which has gone rather pear shaped in terms of its finances in recent months) ... I am amazed that the Area reps on the Management Committee did not insist at the outset on a week by week formal record of attendance and revenue being made available to them from the start as a foundation for a very acute attention to that project's "progress". Rheged is much like a play production and if attendance fails to live up to expectations the theatre goes dark within weeks, sometimes days. It is very worrying that the BMC Management Committee was so lacking in probing energy at this time of major project initiative (and risky spending) not to be enquiring energetically into these matters ... it failed to break through a swathe of leadership platitudes and make sure that they knew what they were doing. I can only assume that this is the result of allowing the Area Committees to deteriorate so that the quality of committee reps is not up to scratch. It is not always necessary for the Chairs and Secs of the areas to attend Management. Informed members can fill the roll and then report back to their Area Chairpersons. It may be that running an area AND giving a full contribution to management is too much. There should also be a very firm working link between Areas and the General Secretary and the president or delegated Vice Presidents.

These are now vitally important matters if the BMC, already staff bloated, is to retain a realistic contact with the rank and file of the sport.

The other thing that needs to happen is for those attending areas (from small clubs or as individuals) to seek (at some stage) to join one of the main institutional clubs of the BMC and thereby increase their political punch and breadth of knowledge and contacts. The old clubs are often scorned and derided by the young. This is a mistake as they are the scaffolding that holds the whole show in place. It thus follows that they are important institutions to join and foster even though their exert no direct influence on the day to day affairs of the BMC. The alternative is that we all become a disparate rabble with no more contact to the affairs of our representitive body than the average AA member has with that organistion.

In reply to Ken Wilson:

Maybe the time has come to look at the whole area structure and question whether it serves any real purpose or of any relevance to individual climbers.

Maybe the concept has had its day and needs to be replaced with an alternative that better reflects todays climber and the way in which they climb?

Maybe it just needs some modification, keep the good, bin the bad and bring on some innovations such as this forum.

But what is the harm in questioning and reviewing the structure. Not for the purposes of political games and personal betterment but to find a way in which the BMC can better serve its members, be seen as relevant to more climbers and maybe that way increase the constituency that BMC represents.

In reply to Horse:


What sort of structure would you suggest? The present structure has evolved empirically since 1944. Are you suggesting that the climbing world does not need a representitive body? Or maybe you would just like the whole show to be run paid paid government officials?

In reply to Ken Wilson:

The American Climbing structure?

Mick

In reply to Mike/Van Helsing:

Mike - I've sold my drill now (though I could still borrow one). Others have taken up the retro-bolting campaign...

Ken - It's almost as hard to get to London for Area Meetings from Dorset as it is to get to Penzance. At least there is some decent climbing to be done in Cornwall.

Dorset has managed to function on it's own quite well for the last few years. Acting as devil's advocate here - what effect has the loss of a SW Area Committee had on SW Climbing? Any idea?

In reply to Ken Wilson:

Perhaps what I mean Ken is that it needs to evolve a bit more for the modern world.

>Are you suggesting that the climbing world does not need a representitive body? Or maybe you would just like the whole show to be run paid paid government officials?

No and no.

I have always found the apparent pre-eminence of the Area Committee something strange. When I lived in London it was largely an irrelevance to my climbing which was centred on the Peak and the Lakes. Now I live elsewhere and really would like to attend Peak Area meetings but it is very difficult given other committments.

What I would like to see is some structure that did not allow decisions to be made by a relative few local activists who are in the know and/or attend the meetings. This is particularly the case in the Peak where a good many of the crags attract such large numbers of people who don't fall within the catchment area of that committee. Those from outside the area may have a different perspective to the locals and I would like to see a structure that could more easily take that into account. No bad thing surely?

In reply to Horse:

Especially when all the Peak meetings are on Thursday evening and are difficult for outsiders with an interest to attend.

In reply to Offwidth:

Keep banging the drum Steve!

In reply to Horse:

Of course,

I'd add last time I attended (the Sat ' beer and sarnies' meet the BMC spectacular) I brought a quarter of the audience with me (ie mates from Nottingham I'd suggested it would be good to go to..including some of the international visitors they boasted about!).

In reply to Horse:

Areas not truly representitive etc:

This is one of the great problems of politics. Decisions in the main parties always come down to smoked filled rooms of activists interrelating (often fractiously) with the elite in the top positions. The rest of us just seeth on the fringes. Take a London climber interested (as I was when I lived there) mainly in the Peak, SE, SW and Wales (Yorks and Lakes and NE tended to be too far for serious knowledge and involvment)... he/she goes to the local committee and there is nothing to prevent debate in say SE about some pressing Peak issue as far as I am aware. The Peak would be enthralled to hear of points coming to them from the SE. The alternative is to attend or send letterss, E Mails to the Peak Chairperson. I cannot see how else to do it ... that has always been a puzzle. If the issue is big enough (such as the proposed climbing competition on Malham in the 1980s) then all the areas would likely have a point of view and mandate their Management Comm. reps to take their views to the higher stage.

In reply to Ken Wilson:

This one seems to have been overtaken by JH's Democracy threat, maybe you should join in on that one rather us repeat ourselvs on two threads.