UKC

It's not often the climbing community gets a presidential run-off, but in a mirror of the recent US elections, there are two candidates currently vying for the post of BMC President.

Rab Carrington (of RAB equipment fame) has been involved with the BMC for the last five years and Doug 'I survived The Ogre' Scott has the phrase "Back to Basics" as the cornerstone of his manifesto.

Who will you vote for?


Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=46675

In reply to UKC News: I'm sure Doug Scott is a top bloke but if you want a no nonsense, get things done approach, then Rab is your man - to whom a spade is a spade (at a carefully negotiated knock down price which will last for years even if it looks like it's falling to pieces!).

In reply to UKC News: "Bolt funds are to be used not only for replacing unsafe bolts but also for removing bolts where they compromise traditional climbing."


There is no cost in removing bolts.

In reply to UKC News:

Doug Scott: Open up a vigorous debate upon man vs mountain or man vs man and whether climbing should head towards the Olympics

Is it 1976 already?

Sheer perversity deserves support.

In reply to Simon Lee:



Agreed!

In reply to UKC News: I think the BMC needs a Rab not a Doug. It needs a person who understands how big organisations work, and could make them work better - who happens to be a climber, rather than a climber who has some experience of running an organisation.

BUT there should be room for a voice like Dougs to be prominent within the organisation, because the downside of becoming focussed on getting the house in order is that you wind up with a bland, safe organisation, who are perhaps that little bit too quick to leap into bed with the establishment. The BMC is, when it comes down to it, a pressure group acting in our best interests.

So a vote for Rab, but we need qualities both of these people have

In reply to Simon Lee: repeat after me.

"voluntary labour IS NOT FREE!"

In reply to Simon Lee:


ACT funds have been used for bolt removal in the past, there are costs. Glue for making good the holes, drill bits, volunteer expenses, wear and tear on equipment etc.

In reply to UKC News:

I'll be voting for Rab because I think he has much more rounded view of climbing as it is today.

In reply to Tyler: Rab's full manifesto is here http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Download.aspx?id=418

In reply to Graeme Alderson: how did you find that link, it's not remotely obvious from the front page. I assume the BMC want's members to, y'know, actually vote.

In reply to toad: AGM page is linked to on front page under Features. Then scroll down to find it.

I knew it was on the site, which helped. Also worked there for years so have a vague understanding of BMC logic

In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Hopefully at some point the statements from both candidates will appear, and as webpages rather than as downloads

Just noticed the closing day for booking is next Monday - I almost forgot(wouldn't be the first time)

In reply to UKC News:

I'm for Rab too (even though he lacks several apostrophes in his manifesto!) - to be honest I was a bit chilled by Doug's suggestion of spending breath talking about climbing and the olympics....

Rab is the man for the job. He has done some excellent work for the BMC over the last few years.

Who are the candidates for vice-president and do we have a dream ticket?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

With Rab standing down and the others eligible for re-election, there appears to be one vacancy that Audrey Seguy is seeking to fill.

Now I like Audrey and wish her no harm but why in God's name does she want to join the committee?

In reply to UKC News:

Can affiliated club members vote ? If so my vote is going to the candidate who allows dogs in affiliated club huts.Installs Turkish baths, mini bars and unisex power showers.

Oh...and who doesn't have the obligatory grey beard.

In reply to gaz parry:




I concur - the olympic thing leaves me cold, that avenue is something that is very low on my list that the BMC should be concentrating on.

Si

In reply to UKC News: Since this is UKC it has to be said...

Doug Scott? What's he ever done on grit? ;P

In reply to Nick Smith - UKC:

Look Nick, is this not now a somewhat tired "joke"?

I think the choice is between a forward thinking open minded fellow and, how do I put this, a living in the past, diehard for trad values? I do however agree with Doug that climbing should never be tainted by Olympics but his " back to basics" is a bit reactionary in my view and he clearly is anti sport climbing with his very provocative statement that the Bolt Fund may be used for de bolting! Rabs the man! My missus and him used to see which one could do Bored of the Lies on Cornice first!

The Grimpeur Ancien (moins ancien que Rab!)

In reply to Grimpeur ancien: The Olympic issue has arisen because the BMC is a member of 2 international organisations (the IFSC and the UIAA) which are IOC recognised and both have things in their Articles which state member federations must actively pursue inclusion of climbing/mountain sports in the Games.

It is also worth noting that the Alpine Club is a member of the UIAA and should therefore support the idea of getting climbing/mountain sports in the Games.

Also interesting to note that Doug was nominated by Alan Blackshaw who was UIAA President for a bit and was therefore active in pursuing inclusion in the Games.

Me, I'm voting for Rab

In reply to UKC News:


Rab has done some awsome and outrageous climbs. He isn't just famous for making Duvet Jackets.

In reply to the cassin ridge:

And of course the UKC staff don't know that?

In reply to petestack:

It is a bit like saying Doug Scott of Everest Fame. There is a lot more to Rab than making Duvets.

He must be the best old climber in the UK?

In reply to the cassin ridge:

Or Doug 'I survived The Ogre' Scott?

It's just a couple of words to colour a sentence, not a potted biography...


Yep, he makes bivy bags as well!


Now you're really starting a whole new debate! :-/

In reply to petestack:

You name me another 60 year old who climbs 7c+?

In reply to the cassin ridge:

It's not just about standards, it's about definitions of 'best', 'old' and (since you stress the sport grade) 'climber'. And whether it's possible (or useful?) to answer such a question objectively...

Come on Rab, make Glasgae Proud! We'll all raise a haggis supper to ya down at the REAL gods own rock DUMBY!!!! Take no prisoners and straight in way the head if it starts looking like a close call!!!!

In reply to UKC News:
Noone declared their vote for doug yet? Also the Obama-McCain comment, firstly Obama won the election and also I believe 80% of Britians were in support of Obama rather than McCain. When I read the Latest Issue of Summit I would have voted Doug, Rab has been in charge of a company(very succesfully) and Doug a democratic members club, Rab puts foward his experience and Doug what he wants to do.
However after being on UKC I must wonder am I right? However taking a second look at the article who gets the bold print with bullet points? Should UKC news items be relatively neutral for this BMC Election? Should the BMC magazine ram it down your throat about PYB(which is a very good place) whilst at the same time rarely metioning other centres/outdoor companies?
I may have to renew my membership(has either run out or will do in next 3 weeks!) to vote but at the moment I think I shall vote Doug Scott despite ukc changing my view slightly. I feel he is at least noting problems and suggesting soloutions. Also though I don't believe in situ gear/bolts on trad routes is a problem here, it does make me worry when I look at climbing magazines and see leo holding on sports climbs in the Czech Republic within half a meter of a beautiful crack which would take natural pro. Also as Indoor Climbing has nothing to do with real climbing I don't care if it's in the olympics, If they drug test each other or even if they want to have speed doubles climbing with upside down ejaculation tie offs in the case of a draw, what matters to me is that I can go climbing and do whatever I want.

Anyrate just my thoughts(they're probably wrong!!!) . . . . . .

In reply to The third:

>what matters to me is that I can go climbing and do whatever I want.

The BMC staff and its volunteers work on your behalf for just that - although I'm not sure where you are going with the "whatever I want" statement?

Si

In reply to UKC News:

Vote for Rab. He has an inclusive view of British climbing, he understands that the sport has many different facets and the BMC needs to represent all of them. Doug has a rose tinted view of how great British climbing was in the past, unfortunately he doesn't want to embrace the future.

If you have any interest in sport climbing, competitions, development of youth climbing, climbing walls, then Rab will listen to you, I am afraid Doug won't, because he is not interested in these aspects of our sport.
Don't get me wrong Doug's voice is a respected view but he is too blinkered to be President.

Rab gets my vote.

Ian Dunn

In reply to Ian Dunn:

What about Guide books, Access issues, Hill Walking, the review of CROW and its ramifications Squark?

si

In reply to UKC News:

Heart Doug, head Rab!

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

"I sincerely believe that competition climbing is as valid as any other form of our sport"

Christ. Leaving aside the fact that I suspect I don't agree with whatever it is the fellow's trying to say, anyone sufficiently woolly-minded to think that this sentence conveys any meaning other than a warm feeling is - well, probably reasonably well-equipped to be a successful politician, but not the most articulate pencil in the box, I would say.

Having said that, you only have to look at UKC to see that woolly-minded fluffiness is the way forward, so he'll obviously win.

jcm

In reply to Simon: Both Doug and Rab will have the same views on Guidebooks, Access, Hill walking and CROW the areas of difference are Rab is inclusive with regards all aspects of climbing, and Doug is not.

A President needs to be able to listen to all views and carry the organisation with him, Doug will bring back old issues and split the BMC.

Doug has no interest in sport climbing, competitions, climbing walls, youth, and thus will push forward views against these parts of our sport yet this is where Sport England actually give the BMC money for.

Rab is in touch vote for him.

In reply to Ian Dunn:

I have to agree with Ian. Rab's views will probably relfect more closely the aims of Sport England who are big funders of the BMC.

However it is vitally important that we maintain the key characteristics of British climbing and mountaineering. Having read so many books recently. Andy Cave, Colin Wells, Jime Perrin...you can understand why moutaineering and climbing in this country is such a colourful and brilliant thing...HISTORY.

Graeme

In reply to UKC News:
For the last few years the BMC has adopted a "Broad Church" approach of trying to be very inclusive of all the elements of mountaineering - alpinism, ice, sport, trad, indoor, hill walking, bouldering etc. Does its involvement in comps and coaching qualification mean less involvement in access and conservation? Hardly.

And of course there is that other perennial balancing act - fairness betweens clubs and individuals. Having seen at first hand Rab's excellent diplomacy on this thorny issue, I have no doubt that he is a great choice for president if we want the BMC to remain a broad church.

Doug is, of course, a mountaineering legend, and a visionary for his "small is beautiful" approach to expeditions. But I'm not convinced that the BMC needs to go "back to basics" - will that mean a smaller, less active BMC ?
Will it be a return to the days when the BMC was dominated by big clubs like the Alpine Club, and those interested in sport or competitions were marginalised.

Cast those vote folks !

In reply to UKC News:

It's another vote for Rab from me. Rab has done superb work as VP and I think that recent involvement at a high level is a pre-requisit for a putative President. Rab knows how the BMC works and understands that climbing is a broad church. Doug, legend though he is, hasn't been involved with the BMC recently and seems a little backward looking in the statements I've read. Rab's the man, active climber, active BMC volunteer and very active mind!

jh

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Please can you find the link to Doug's manifesto too? I'd like to compare their views. I have a huge admiration for Doug's work in the Himalayas and his conscientiousness is a example to us all. On the other hand I share Rab's philosophy about mountaineering and climbing covering a broad church and I think the BMC have so far done an excellent job of balancing the different pressures of sport and trad climbing to the extent that it's a non-issue now and I'd like to see hillwalkers and trekkers given more attention.
I'm a bit disappointed that Rab hasn't said anything about fostering excellence at the upper end of our sport; particularly in Alpine and Himalayan mountaineering. In other countries people seem to be light years ahead of us in terms of awareness of physiology, training and coaching. Why is there no aspiring British Ueli Steck? Not through lack of raw talent I'm sure.

In reply to the cassin ridge:

Al Austin does

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

"Leaving aside the fact that I suspect I don't agree with whatever it is the fellow's trying to say, anyone sufficiently woolly-minded to think that this sentence conveys any meaning other than a warm feeling is - well, probably reasonably well-equipped to be a successful politician, but not the most articulate pencil in the box, I would say."
Que?

In reply to UKC News:

It's interesting that Rab having recieved hundreds of expeditions grants himself, does'nt seem to support the idea of future grants for British expeditions!!

In reply to Jon Bracey: I doubt Rab has received hundreds of expedition grants, and i bet he is behind Doug in number of grants received!

Rab I am sure wants to see British Climbing excel in all areas, Doug is happy for many traditional areas to be supported but does he support the hundreds of youngsters who competed in the BMC YCS today and their aspirations such as competing in the Olympics? I don't think he is in touch with the future of British Climbing.

Rab is the man for President.

In reply to Ian Dunn:

>Doug is happy for many traditional areas to be supported but does he support the hundreds of youngsters who competed in the BMC YCS today and their aspirations such as competing in the Olympics?

Let's hope not. Even Rab seems to have more sense than that.

jcm

In reply to UKC News:

"Rab I am sure wants to see British Climbing excel in all areas".

How the hell is removing expedition grants going to help British Mountaining excel! Its called the 'Britsh Mountaineering Council' after all.

One of the key reasons British climbers have climbed so many new routes across the globe is due to the very generous support of the Mount Everest Foundation and the BMC/UK Sport.

In reply to Ian Dunn: Involvement with the Olympics is incompatible with a broad organisation such as the BMC.

It is necessarily elitist, and requires ruthless focus, both in terms of attention and funding.

Carrington dissembles on this issue.

I have already voted for Doug Scott by proxy.

In reply to AlisonS: Don't think Doug's manifesto is available on the website, only seen it in Summit

In reply to UKC News:

Rab's your man. I think he will have a far less blinkered approach to British climbing issues than his adversary.

In reply to The third: I agree that the coverage of the BMC presidential election on ukc is very biased.

In reply to Jon Bracey: and the Alpine Club climbing fund.

In reply to UKC News: Should the BMC have published the article prominently citing the work Rab Carrington has done with the Clubs Working Group in the same article as the AGM / election material? This could be interpreted as the institution actively supporting one of the candidates for its own presidency, .

In reply to UKC News:

Im not interested in "sport climbing, competitions, climbing walls, youth". But at the same time the bmc need to be inclusive of everyone who does any form of climbing, and as such my vote goes to rab.

In reply to toad:



Or it could be interpreted that Rab has done some great work voluntarily for the BMC. Why keep it hidden?

I don't think for one moment the BMC are trying to support a candiadate for its own presidency - but its no secret that Rab and all the BMC volunteers do a great job.

It might say something about the measure of the man - and that surely is a good thing?

si

In reply to UKC News: Irrespective of the content of the candidates' views, the coverage given in the original 'News' article doesn't appear balanced - as previously discussed - nor does the lack of access to Doug Scott's manifesto (compared to that for Rab Carrington) bode well for the BMC and its attempts to become a more inclusive representative organisation.

It presents the image of a favoured candidate who is popular among certain influential sectors of the community who are then prepared to publicly support him because he will further their particular interests by his ability to attract finance into the sport.

I don't believe Rab Carrington needs this.

In reply to Simon: I think that was the intention, but it is open to alternative interpretations. I think it's also a tiny bit naive of the BMC. He's also singled out in the editorial by Charles Clarke - no big deal, but I think the editor should have delayed "eyes on the ball" until the next issue. It's the timimg that is the issue, not the article.

In reply to Jon Bracey:

Where did you hear that? I thought Rab did support grants. There's a page about applying for grants on the BMC website.

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Pages.aspx?page=40

I assume Doug supports expedition grants too.

I'd like to see where they each stand on coaching and training for extreme Alpinism.

In reply to Dee:

I think Doug's nomination was received a bit late in the day and was a bit unexpected - I don't think anyone thought to go back through Summit and remove any mention of the hard work Rab's done recently.

I'm sure there is a similar explanation for the fact that Doug's statement has yet to appear on the website - I'm sure it will be corrected on Monday !


I have no financial interests in climbing, but I do know Rab and I do know what he has done for the BMC over the last 3 years. There is a reason why a lot of people are expressing their support for him - it's cos we know he will do an excellant job !

In reply to Chris the Tall: I've been out of the loop for ages. The news is pretty biased it seems to me, and maybe the BMC want Carrington to win- or is there a simpler explanation?!!?
RC gets 200 words in the news article, and DS gets 40, there's a statement from RC on the BMC site, but not even a mention of DS. The article was created over 3 weeks ago, so maybe someone just made a mistake, or maybe there is an agenda. everyone loves a conspiracy, dont they?
A couple of questions- what power does the BMC president have, and what things has RC done for the BMC in the last 3 years that you know of? WHat has DS done for the BMC in the past?

In reply to UKC News:
Both candidate's statements are now on the web site

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=3024

In reply to Chris the Tall: Thanks for that Chris!

In reply to UKC News: I'm not sure, Doug Scott has an integrity I admire, he has put an awful lot back into Nepal through his charitable work and I might prefer someone who wears his heart on his sleeve. I think with him what you see is what you get whereas Rab's address is full of business speak which is usually couched in terms that are duplicitous and can mean anything (so you don't really know what they mean - which is the intention). I think I need Rab to say what he is and isnt going to do in much the same way Doug has. It seems that Rab has a lot of support and his work for the BMC is cited, but someone tell me waht he has actually done or brought about because I genuinely don't know. He has said in his address that he knows his way around an office and can implement change. Well for me that is never a good thing, it says to me more of our subs' spent on a new photocopier and endless meetings.

In reply to UKC News:
I'm a little bemused by Doug's pledge: "removing bolts where they compromise traditional climbing"

The only possible routes I can think of are the flowstone bit of Harpur Hill. Are there many or any others? Possibly some retro bolted lines on slate, but they are hardly sports routes. Many indiscretions of the past have beenleft to rot and are now useless rust spots.

As I understand it the bolt fund pays for bolts and resin only, the man hours and skills are provided voluntarily. In what way could the fund contribute to removal of bolts?

Is this a platitude to pander to general opinion without any specific routes for it to apply to?

In reply to kevin stephens:

Think bigger (and yes there are far more examples than you quote.

I listened to Doug on Saturday:

Topically Doug Scott touched on his 'manifesto' in his campaign to be elected president of the BMC. He told the story of a 1974 international climbers meet to Lenin Peak, renamed Sina Peak in 2006, hosted by the Russians, and explained how government bureaucracy, a desire for climbing to made an Olympic sport and national pride can lead to climbers taking excessive risks; eight Russian women died on Lenin Peak that season.

And how in the Alps where commercial pressures from some guides and hut custodians can lead to the wholesale bolting of cliffs and mountains for financial gain. The message here was that if climbing does become a Olympic sport, if bolting is left unchecked, we may lose control of climbing to more powerful forces than climbers. We will be told what we can and can't do, regulation and certification will be imposed upon us, the spirit of climbing will be less and our freedoms denied us.

Doug stressed how unique the Bristish climbing tradition is, and how it is respected across the globe and could be used, exported even, as an example how a country can have a diverse climbing experience without being sanitised by the drill and the bolt. And no matter how many times he recounts the tale of his epic descent of the Ogre with two broken legs, no one can ever tire of this tale of team spirit and survival in an extreme environment.

Mick

In reply to UKC News: Not to put a damper on things but having perused Summit I notice Doug has a "Back to Basics" strategy. The last person to have this strategy was John Major. He lost the next election.

Why would anyone want to go back?

I want to go forwards.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

It really does depend on what forward is.

What we have is unique in the UK. Is this something worth saving? If forward means more bolts, more legislation, if it means certification before we can go out and climb, how is that forward?

There is a balance.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Sure, it was a genuine question rather than rhetorical - please can you give examples

In reply to kevin stephens:

The biggest example is Cheddar Gorge.

Lots of examples on Yorkshire Limestone.

In reply to kevin stephens: Cheers, here you go Kevin (copied from a disparate thread I started in the pub). I have a feeling this election is going to raise a few old and sore issues within the BMC. I get the impression that Rab is pro-bolting, pro-olympic sport climbing and pro-change. If this is simply because of the involvement of Spoprt England and funding maybe he is best described as pro-funding or pro-money. Doug wouldn't be, which kind of highlights the polemic that exists at the moment, and the bolting issue crystallises or brings it into focus (again!).
The bolting fund can have whatever ethos it chooses, the thing is it exists whereas previously it did not. The bolting fund itself was not the product of an area meeting it was a BMC-wide decision. I am a member of the BMC but I didn't vote for it and a voting slip did not drop through my letterbox. The thing is with all these type if organisations a very small and often unrepresentative body of active and vociferous members make the decisions that affect the silent majority. (Its a generalisation that holds true.)
The ripost to this is to say well you should have attended the meetings, but the majority again do not want to spend time in meetings and on committees, they want a body that represents them and to go out to climb occasionally. It wouldn't matter so much but there is money involved, my money, your money. If it isn't spent how I want and is used to go in a direction I have no interest in then I will leave (rhetorical). But if members start to leave then the whole house of cards starts to fall. A situation will develop where clubs will leave and perhaps set up their own organisation to truly represent their interests. There are precious few sport climbing clubs and none of them have huts.
To ask the question, 'who took up climbing in the hope of winning olympic gold?' So why are we pursuing this aim. Sport climbing, speed climbing (it will come if you go down that road) belong in the same arena as synchronised swimming, a recognised event and part of the Sport England set-up - but is it a sport really?
Who wants to bolt a new route? Elite climbers, a ridiculously small minority of the BMC membership but very active because of their dedication to their climbing. 95% ( I am guestimating) of BMC members will never climb to that ability such that they can access a bolted route... unless easier routes are bolted. Last question. 5 years ago there was no bolt fund. Now the bolt fund if or retro-bolting existing routes only. Where will the bolting fund be in 5 years from now?

In reply to redsulike:

Can I ask why you get that impression? Nothing I've read suggests (to me) a particular attachment to bolts and sport climbing on Rab's part.

In reply to tony:


An interest in SportEngland money, though, and I'm guessing they haven't got the interests of a low grade trad climbing, hill walking mountaineer at the heart of their putative climbing business plan...

In reply to toad:

Actually thats the sort of thing Sport England are into, participation. Its UK Sport that funds elite sport.

In reply to toad:

Please read this article
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=2997

In reply to redsulike:

Just because someone is not anti-bolting doesn't mean they are "pro-bolting" ! Likewise just because someone doesn't want to go backwards doesn't mean they are "pro-change"

In reply to Chris the Tall: This wasn't in summit, was it? I'm quite heartened by this - It's a promising sign. Apologies about the Sport England slur - I'm obviously getting my quangos confused.

Is there a more detailed breakdown available, as a brief bit of mental arithmetic shows about £500,000 deficit between the projects highlighted in the article and the c. £1.3m awarded. No implied critisism, more a nerdy interest in how different NGOs fund core costs from specific grants.

I admire the fact that Doug has a clear view of his candidacy and what he wants to achieve. He makes several comments (specifically about the respect Britain has around the world for its traditional ethic, and that we should make the effort to ensure that respect is deserved) which I agree with wholeheartedly. I also have enormous respect for his mountaineering achievements.

However, the BMC has grown in the last 10 years to be a succesful organisation that represents several different 'games' (to quote a famous article) of mountaineering and rock climbing.

From reading his manifesto, and the report of his comments at the CC dinner, it seems clear to me that Doug will favour some of the games above others.

My opinion is that all of the games have equal value and are equally great. It seems to be that Rab shares that view.

So, my vote will go for Rab.

In reply to toad:
I've got a feeling that there is something about it Summit. Plus the money is for a four year period, so the BMC isn't going to spend it all at once

In reply to Chris the Tall: A small piece on club funding, no specifics. I'd assumed the figures quoted in the article were for the 4 year period, but this is slipping off topic, and I'm pretty happy the BMC won't spend the WHOLE 500k on beer and chips.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


If it were not for Martin Crocker working with the BMC, I doubt Cheddar would be as popular as it has been with the resurgance of the bolt & all Martins hard work.

To say that these now need taking out it is a little backward thinking IMHO...

Si

In reply to UKC News:

There does seem to be a bit of an 'end game' of the Peak Area moving their man towards the top spot at play here - the unforeseen contender appears to have come as a bit of a surprise.

In reply to UKC News:
Lots of talk; but who is actually gonna go to the AGM to vote or sending the voting card in the post?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Quote from Doug:

"Bolt funds are to be used not only for replacing unsafe bolts but also for removing bolts where they compromise traditional climbing."


As you yourself said it might apply to parts of Yorkshire & Cheddar - to which I dissagree with Doug in regards to Cheddar - not yourself.

I'm not shameless in wishing that Rab gets the gig, I don't think Doug is the man for the BMC in 2009, Rab I feel will carry on the great work that Charles Clarke & Mark Vallence have done in the past.

Si

I'mm in danger of being a one issue voter as the grants for mountaineering trips do make a big difference to small teams.

I'm more keen on getting kids outside than anything else. The bmc could usefully support a youth programme for local clubs. :

In reply to tony: I get that impression because he is part of the BMC management that set up a bolting fund, its a small leap although its possible he was opposed to it but was outvoted. What do you think?

In reply to UKC News: Should the BMC be promoting indoor climbing and elite climbing competitions and identifying talent for the British climbing team? I see there was a bit of a storm in a tea-cup at the Outdoors Show Comp'when the runner up lodged an appeal because one of the quickdraws wasn't hanging correctly. FFS vote for Doug!

In reply to redsulike:

It's always dangerous politics to disenfranchise a segment of your current constituency. It creates resentment and factions. If the BMC walk away from indoor climbing and competitions what will happen? People who enjoy those aspects of climbing will form their own representative body. The BMC and its members will have no more say in the affairs of that group and no control. The members of the new group will be able to lobby for whatever they want and be released from any obligation to consult with people who have no empathy for their branch of the sport. There is something quite threatening about being expelled from a group; and there is no better way to galvanise people than to give them a cause that draws them together.
The alternative is to adopt an approach that fosters diversity but also manages it, so that all interests are supported fairly, and though agreement and compromise.
The more members an organisation has; the more people it can call on in times of need. I see an awful lot of people using climbing walls. The BMC would do better to encourage as many of them as possible to join, so that when any aspect of our sport is threatened, we can all pull together.
The greatest threat to our sport is from those who don't understand it and would restrict our freedoms. If anyone had forgotten that, last year's OMM was a salient reminder.
I'm happy to support wall climbers and competitors in their quest to continue their particular perversion of our sport, so long as they are prepared to support mine.

In reply to AlisonS: I can see the reasoning in a live and let live approach, and I can see the reasoning in trying to be inclusive to all aspects of climbing. But at the risk of upsetting a few people, indoor climbing isn't climbing at all. Arguable I know but it certainly isn't mountaineering in any shape or form. I see no reason for the BMC to feel it should be any part of its remit to support indoor climbing and its bastard offspring sport climbing in any way. They are so disparate as to warrant their own organisation and lobby for more churches and old warehouses to be converted. There can be no pulling together with someone I have nothing in common with vis-a-vis people who climb exclusively indoors.

In reply to redsulike:

I see no reason for the BMC to feel it should be any part of its remit to support indoor climbing and its bastard offspring sport climbing in any way. They are so disparate as to warrant their own organisation


Now that is a Radical way of thinking...

In reply to Simon:

Fundamental understanding number one.

The BMC represents climbers, all of us, whether we sport climb, compete in indoor comps, ice climb, alpine climb, boulder, hill walk, ski mountaineer - irrespective of where you live, your ability level, colour, race, creed...etc etc

That's an even radical-er way of thinking!

For some.

Nice to see Rab at the Foundry, taking an interest in the BMC Leading Ladder Final on Saturday.

In reply to redsulike: as the majority of new climbers are introduced to our sport via indoor walls you should seriously think about your position. Look at the acheivements of Leo Holding and Ben Bransby, and if you knew that they both started in the BMC Youth Climbing Championships on indoor walls then you might actually appreciated that climbing walls are the future breading grounds of all aspects of climbing talent.

Also a fairly recent BMC survey reackoned a very high percentage of all climbers use indoor walls.

I agree with inclusive views of Alison and Mick, and these are represented by Rab.

In reply to Ian Dunn:

Leo also started by leading Little Chamonix with a helmet about eight sizes too big at the age of 12 or so., and for that matter Ben was climbing hard trad outside at a very young age. They ain't exactly converted competition climbers.

Anyway look where Leo ended up - f'kin car adverts and sponsored by Red Bull.

jcm

In reply to Ian Dunn: I accept that most of us use indoor walls, me included. I tend to use them when the weather is poor or its too dark. I have no problem with indoor walls per-se. However, they are commercial organisations, the only people they need to represent their interests are themselves and a trade organisation.
In thinking about this I have to ask myself why has the BMC decided that it should pursue or widen its interests in this area. Mick says we are all climbers whatever our chosen 'arena' and I am sure he is not 'disingenuous' in this. Nevertheless you cannot equate the aims and ideals of a mountaineering organisation, primarily focussed on bringing together and representing the interests of 'outdoor' enthusiasts with those of 'indoor' enthusiasts.
The BMC is becoming increasingly a corporate 'business oriented' organisation in its pursuit of money in the form of Sport England funding-it is part of the qualifying and eligibility process to become so. In effect therefore BMC policy is being determined by Sport England and the invisible hand of the Gov't. There is no doubt that Rab Carrinton is the man to take us forward in this direction... if that is what you would like the BMC to become. The BMC will indeed eventually change its name as 'mountaineering' is not an inclusive monicker for all its activities.
If the BMC continues to evolve and develop in this direction the organisational needs will grow and head office will expand and more full time staff will be employed to manage the different aspects of the business in response to greater demands from groups within the organisation for representation. Its a simple business model. I do not want to see the BMC become a business, I just want an organisation to represent my interests.
There is no doubt that the traditional BMC members are a pretty 'conservative' group and that there is little scope for growing the organisation from the clubs and existing members. The area for growth must be the indoor world and attracting youth through competition and a raised profile using the Olympics as the vehicle. I realise that many people are dedicated indoor climbers and that competition is attractive but there is a fundamental difference between what you do and what I do and what the BMC was established to do.

In reply to redsulike:


The BMC is already a business and has been for many years. It has probably been turning over around £2million for at least the last 10 years.

If you want the BMC to go back to what is was fine but I personally don't. I want the BMC to have a reserve of £1million so if they have to buy Stanage then they can.

Do you really think a downsized BMC would have had the clout to reverse the stupid interpretation of the Working at Heights Regs (which would have affected anyone instructing including those without pay - think club beginners meets).

Graeme Alderson on a work logon

In reply to redsulike:

'Our' interests surely?

Whether you are mountaineer, 'just' a boulderer, 'just' climb indoors, produce gear, an 'armchair mountaineer' or a hypercative bunny that does everything.

Too many people look down their noses at other climbers and different types of climbing - and the opinions of others (some in the BMC actually - Ouch!).

There needs to be more respect in the UK climbing community, respect of others, their chosen types of climbing and their opinions.

Mick

In reply to redsulike: The BMC will indeed eventually change its name as 'mountaineering' is not an inclusive monicker for all its activities.



Are you getting a bit hung up on semantics here. Most University Mountaineering Clubs, for example, became cragging clubs decades ago. Even in the strap line the declared aim of the BMC is to "work for climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers". Whether that is in order of importance I'm not sure !

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Here here Mick. That's why Rab is the man for the job, because he has respect for all branches of our sport, just like I have, and he doesn't want to split the climbing community with petty arguements about which type of climbing is most worthwhile and which should have most support.

Everyone agrees that the number one thing the BMC does is to ensure access to the cliffs we wish to climb on, the second priority is different depending on which area of the sport you enjoy. It might be karabiner standards, competitions, alpinism, sport climbing, trad climbing meets, climbing walls, etc etc.

The main thing that we want is a leader of the organisation that is inclusive, someone who wants everyone to be part of one family and not someone who values one aspect of our sport higher than another aspect.

Doug has many very valid views but Rab is the person who will try to keep the BMC representing all climbers views.

Ian

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

But they also enjoyed and took part in competitions too, you won't get them slagging off young climbers at the climbing wall you will find them encouraging climbers to broaden their horizons and try all aspects of our sport. I think a few kids I know might like a car and a Red Bull contract! too.

In reply to Ian Dunn:

We are running a guest editorial by Ken Wilson tomorrow.

I'm in two minds. I see many benefits to climbing becoming an Olympic sport: goodness it would benefit UKClimbing.com and my pocket directly.

BUT - it could have a very dark side: increased commercialisation, let's face it this is a lot about money and money that will go in the pocket of a few and the rest...? Check many of the supporters out of Olympic climbing, most stand to benefit. More government control if it becomes more visible; certification to actually climb, more bolts....

I get pissed off enough with the ranking at sprayfest sites like 8a.nu, just imagine if we had friggin league tables of climbers stuffed down our throat. There's enough bullshit that we as a media and readers have to wade through from pro climbers in the UK already.

To me, I think competitions are great and at a national level, but especially at a grassroots level. It gets youngsters in to the sport and climbing can be life changing.

But do we really want climbing celebrity and overt competition to become dominant and something we can't escape even if we try.

We have the spirit of adventure to look after.

Mick

In reply to redsulike: The BMC is a business, that's why Rab would be a good choice to be President as he has run a business before. The BMC nearly went bust a few years back and it was only with Mark Vallance bring a business head to the Presidency that it stayed afloat.

The BMC needs the grants it gets from Sport England, however the money is targeted for certain projects, including competitions, developing talented climbers etc etc. If the President does not want to encourage this area of the sport the money cannot be used for other projects. The new four year plan is in place and the new President will have to run with it. As Rab has been involved as a Vice President he will be able to ensure the plan moves forward, Doug has not been involved in this plan and he is opposed to aspects within it according to his manifesto so all that will end up happening is either a very disgruntled president, very disgruntled volunteers, and if the moneyt is not spent in the right way a very disgruntled Sport England.

There are many people that want The BMC to move forward as a business and many who want climbing in the Olympics too. There are over 600 children who take part in the Youth Climbing Series, non of who can vote even though many have paid their subs, and they can't attend the AGM as it takes place at the same time as their final round of this years competition. 600 children who would vote for someone to have more youth events and competitions, more coaching and who will go on to be outstanding climbers of the future. Perhaps their voice should be heard as much as the big clubs and the older more conservative members after all should it not be one member one vote, no matter what age as long as you have paid your subs.

Ian Dunn

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Sure Mick, It might benefit me too at the climbing wall, and with more coaching etc etc.

However we already have celebrity in climbing, we always have had, from the Abraham Brothers to Chris Sharma, it's a fact of life.

The climbers who start in competitions will either give up climbing after competiting or go on to enjoy other areas of our sport; from bouldering to big routes on El Cap, to the Alps and beyond. Look at Pete and Katy Whittaker for great examples of what climbing is all about.

It is your job as a journalist to reflect who are the good examples of the sport and who to praise. The most import thing is that we give credit where credit is due, whether first place at Arco, a magnificent ascent at Malham Cove or Scafell a new route in the Alps etc. The press can maintain The Spirit of Adventure.

Ian

In reply to Ian Dunn:


Yes I know that.

ThIt is amplified and all ubiquitous these days and more open to power, corruption and lies. Many youngsters want that Lambo and that Red Bull sponsorship that you spoke of earlier and some will stop at nothing to get it.


I know that too...and like you can cite great examples of climbers who started at the wall and are now the leading and not-so-heard-of climbers outdoors.

But does climbing need the additional exposure of the Olympics?

We are dealing with a sport that fundamentally happens outside. Can outside take that extra promotion - this country is already packed like rats in a lab.




Yes the editorial filter has to be more stringent these days and that costs money.....and to be honest, UKClimbing.com is committed to doing that.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: The crags are quieter than they were 20 years ago, or certainly the ones I have been to in the last 2 years. That includes trad,& sport. Bouldering is more popular but it always was at Almscliff Brimham Caley Widdop Bridestones Scugdale etc etc.

There will be no big influx of competition climbers ruining the crags outside.

Keep up the filtering and ensure the praise goes where it is due, preserve the spirit of adventure and als recognise good achievements in all aspects of our diverse sport.

Ian

In reply to Ian Dunn:

We need a competitions person at UKC??????

In reply to Ian Dunn: But who should we vote for?

In reply to Ian Dunn:

That old chesnut.

Cite your sources, name your places. You frequent of Portland, Southern Sandstone, Bristol areas?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


Judging from the arguments I have heard and the politik behind it all, I vote no.

How interesting would it be to non-climbers let alone climbers anyway?

The recent Superstars is just about enough excitement I can cope with...

Si

In reply to Simon:



That's irrelevant.

It's the perception that counts.

The perception that can be transmitted to the International Olympic Committee and once admitted it's a done deal..... the money starts to flow.

Now, where does that money go?

Schools and climbing walls and courses for kids hopefully.

But mainly to kids to give them opportunities to enjoy the outdoors.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Britain is a small country in a big world. If climbing is going to be considered as an Olypic sport, our two-pennyworth for or against is not going to make much difference.

But if it does become one, I would prefer our talented youngsters to have equal opportunities to the rest of the world. And I would prefer those to be managed within the framework of discussion and consensus that has been ably fostered so far by the BMC and its members. Not taken over by some sporting quango that has little regard for the traditions and sensibilities of our breathtakingly diverse mountaineering and climbing community.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Interesting to consider that one mountain sport is already in the olympics - skiing

And what effect does this have on me as a recreational skiier - very little as far as I can tell. Why would it bother me if someone's else interest in the sport was driven by desire for olympic glory - hardly.
But should the fact that I'm not interested in competing affect someone else - when did climbing became all about telling other people how they ought to climb ?

I do recognise the risk that if the BMC could be blinded by the lure of olympic gold and so lose sight of the more important aspects of its work, but I think that there will be sufficient pressure to resist that. A far greater threat is that competition climbers are frozen out of the BMC and sports climbing marginalised. A split in the BMC would result in a much weaker organisation, less work on access, environment, equipment etc, not to mention having less of a voice with authorities

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Read the small print and you will recognise that for some this is not competition vs no competition.

But whether competetion should be recognised as an Olympic sport. The fear is that if it does, that is exactly what will happen - someone will be telling you how and where you can climb.

But that is just speculation.

Just as it was speculation that the mountain environment would be flooded with buildings, tarmac and people when ski rope tows were replaced by chair lifts, gondolas and resorts.

Like I say I'm in two minds so don't direct your comments at me but make sure you vote.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


Read the statements and you will recognise that competion and olympics are just one of a number of aspects to this contest

Can't see that happening myself - well, not as long as we have a strong BMC representing all climbers


I'll see you in PYB then !

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Voting by proxy Chris.

We have a UKC trip to Mallorca.

Ken's editorial is up in the morning at UKC.

In reply to Robertostallioni: You know he was at the leading ladder final.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Malham, Almscliff, Kilnsey, Brimham, Ilkley, Caley, Widdop, Heptonstall, Bridestones, Various crags in the lakes, Haven't been to Portland for 5 or 6 years or Avon for 10 so don't know about these.

But all those above were busier 20 years ago than last year.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Are you asking if I want a Job? Get in touch if you are.
Ian

In reply to Ian Dunn: Climbing isn't a sport as there is no element of competition unless you count the rock as your opponent. There is no spirit of adventure on a concrete and plastic wall designed by another human being.

Rab ticks the boxes for me.

In reply to Ian Dunn: Here you are posting from the 'Northwest's Premier Indoor Climbing Centre' ...says who? You should have no say in the direction of the BMC...and I don't care if you are a member, because you are representing a commercial body and therefore you have interests outside climbing and should declare tham and dis-bar yourself from the debate. If anyone is in any doubt as to why the BMC needs Doug as its president to undo some of the damage to the honesty and integrity of the organisation then look no further. If as pointed out this will piss off Sport England then that should not be a reason not to do it. Do Sport England reprresent the interests of climbers? Absoloutely not! Name me a member of Sport England, someone who is in effect deciding the future of climbing...and what have they ever done on grit?

In reply to redsulike:


Divisive, redsulike.

Yes he should have a say, of course he should, but when you debate you declare your interests.

That's only fair.... as it does influence your opinion and any self-interest. As a climbing wall owner Ian does stand to profit from the increased exposure that climbing would gain from being an Olympic sport and associated benefits (tax payers money).

But a vote is a vote and any member of the BMC is entitled to that, whatever their interest or commercial bias.

In reply to redsulike: Sure I have a commercial interest in climbing something that I happily declare. Climb Rochdale pays a BMC associate membership of around £200.00 for which we don't even get a vote at all.

We also help the BMC giving out information and displaying posters etc.

I am also an individual member of the BMC for which I get one vote just like any other member, unless they are under 18 then they are disenfranchised. I also buy BMC insurance for my climbing trips.

I also give up a huge ammount of time to attend BMC committees this is all on a purely voluntary basis and I try where possible to take on work from those committees writing papers debating issues and trying to move things forward positively. Do you attend any BMC meetings to air your views?

The BMC is an open organisation where views are debated and generally a positive way forward is found, sure there are many things that i feel the BMC could change but I am willing to listen to other views and accept the views of the majority. Are you.

I have found it is generally best to try to work with people like Sport England and try to get assistance from them rather than have the attitude, they aren't climbers so they can't help us. Sport England have a lot of money that The BMC can tap into to help move the BMC forward and the BMC can educate them in the climbing issues of the day. Perhaps the BMC can take them out on grit like they did with Kelly Holmes.

In reply to UKC News:
The most important point of all this is that people should VOTE! I can't make the AGM but filled in my proxy form today and popped it in the post. Debate on UKC is interesting but worthless unless people vote!

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

That's bad timing - I assumed your news team would be streaming live coverage over the web, whilst you would be back in the studio with some fancy graphics showing the uk being covered by nuts or bolts

Can you imagaine if a general election was called and the BBC decided not to cover it cos it clashed with a planned trip to Disneyland ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

We have a correspondent.

In reply to UKC News: Morning Ian and Mick. I don't feel like I'm being purposely divisive. I feel that there will be a great many BMC members will feel like I do and see this election as a way to put the BMC back on track representing the interests of its members rather than those of Sport England. To answer Ian he is correct in his assumption that I do not attended BMC local area meetings, which peversely puts me in the majority. I touched on this before when I said that the BMC is being driven by a small number of enthusiasts who do not necessarily represent the wider views of the membership. Ian, you would be a classic example in that you own/run a climbing wall, so your work and leisure interests are one and the same. I would guess that most of your days and weeks are involved with climbing on some way or other. I on the other hand climb purely for pleasure in my free time that I juggle with a myriad of other commitments,(nothing special in that).
I'm not sure if I am 100% correct about you not voting because you have interests that are directly linked to the outcome of any vote, (as MP's have to, although I am not sure if MP's who have interests are allowed a vote, but we get into a very dirty world there of outside commercial interests seeking to influence decisions by lobbying and favours.)
I was hoping that you might put forward the name of someone from Sport England and that they might be part of the climbing world. It does seem to me now that the Kelly Holmes 'event' was just that a media event with an ulterior motive. That motive might be linked to her DKH Legacy trust which is supported by (guess who?) Sport England and her Double Gold business interests of personal appearances and corporate speaking etc.
It does seem to me that there are an awful lot of irons in the fire for the BMC and any failure to elect Rab Carrington would seriously upset that apple cart or gravy train (sorry for mixing all my metaphors).
Just to reitterate I have as much respect for RC as I do DS but I can see what is down the line for the BMC if it pursues Sport England money in this way. The Olympic dream is driving the funding and any sport which bases its development on it will have is plans catastrophically curtailed if the day after the closing ceremony there isn't gold silver or bronze on its mantlepiece. The gov't has no care for climbing or climbers, only for the reflected glory and the publicity which follows when the next Leo Houlding is pictured next to the minister for sport.

In reply to redsulike:
So you've never been to an area meeting, but yet you suggest that those who do are out of touch and are all on the "gravy train" ?

Rather than make disparaging and unsubstantiated comments on the intenet, maybe you should make the collosal effect and get yourself along to the Grouse at Froggatt on April 22nd, 7:30. You might realise that the people there are not protecting their business interests, but rather their climbing interests.

P.S. If you'd bothered to read some of the comments from people less prejudiced than yourself, you'd stop making comments about Sport England funding being related to olympic success - it isn't

In reply to redsulike: I think you will find MP's voting in a general election, that is exactly the same as me casting my one vote in a BMC presidental election.

On all the committees I sit you specifically declare if you have a commercial interest if a subject comes up that is related in any way to your business.

If I look at the amount of time and effort I put into helping the various committees both at meetings and in my leisure time then I personally well out of pocket and I can assure you it is not for commercial gain.

EG 3 Fridays setting up the BMC YCS for the North West
3 Saturdays running the BMC YCS for the North West
A couple of North west Team training sessions for the team prior to the BMC YCS National Final
Attending the BMC YCS National Final helping the NW Team in my role as Area Youth CoOrdinator. On all of those days I make zero money for me, i don't even get to climb more than demo-ing a couple of routes, yet I do it because I want to see keen young climbers develop and get the same enjoyment out of climbing I have had.

That is just in one small area of work I do with The BMC.

If you think that those people who help the BMC do so for commercial gain then you are very very misguided and you should attend a few meetings and find out how much help the BMC volunteers give the organisation.

In reply to Ian Dunn:

It seems to me that most, if not all people who work for the BMC, either as staff or as volunteers, could get a lot more money using their sometimes considerable talents doing something else. Therefore I assume they value other things above sheer financial gain.

In reply to Chris the Tall: Thanks for the invite Chris and I might just take you up on it. It actually clashes with part of my domestic schedule; running daughter to dance class and back and son to Youth Club; which I imagine is very similar for the vast majority of BMC members. When you meet me you will see that I too am very ordinary and not the prejudiced individual you imagine.
I do disagree fundamentally with you and with Ian. That would not be to be-little the efforts you make attending meetings and in Ian's case the work he does with youngsters.
Ian though, it appears, (?) is working with children indoors and supporting indoor climbing competitions. So in supporting the BMC in this way he is driving the organisation in a direction I do not agree with. I'm not sure; is Ian regularly spending his weekends taking children out on the crags?
Neither have I suggested that any of the volunteers for the BMC do so for financial gain, the 'gravy train' is Sport England funding. If you have it your way Chris, the only way I can change things is to turn up to the Area Meetings mob-handed and force the vote our way. You would then find yourself in the wilderness and in disagreement with BMC policy. It might be democracy but its hardly representative. This is what I feel is happenning now. Even if you do carry votes at Area Meetings, it does not represent the vast majority of BMC members who care enough to make a financial commitment even if they do not actively participate in debate and meetings.
As someone else said, I do not want any of my contributions to be spent supporting an Olympic bid, or a bolting fund or the development of indoor climbing as a sport, or sport climbing. None of this represents the interests of BMC members who are outdoor activists and would not join an indoor climbing club. The fact that the BMC is heading down this route is because of people such as yourselves becoming involved and turning the organisation away from its grass roots.

In reply to redsulike:

That is a disgracefully rude comment. Words fail me.

In reply to redsulike:

I'm sure you've very friendly in the flesh and that you save your insults for when you can hide behind the anonymity of the internet


Sorry, but the grass roots is people like myself who find time to turn up to area meetings, get involved and volunteer. I've got no professional interest in climbing, I'm a software developer. I climb outdoors slightly more often than indoor, I climb trad slightly more often than sport. I generally lead about E1 or F6b. I'm in my early 40's, balding, slightly overweight and male. I'm the epitome of Mr Average Climber

But my message is simple, if you want to change the direction of the BMC, get involved

In reply to UKC News:

Having had a look at both manifestos, Rab seems to have a more rounded view of today's climbing scene. Doug makes two comments which appear to side towards a particular type of climbing, rather than being empathetic to all camps:

"...see the proliferation of drilled rock more or less everywhere..."

"Bolt funds are to be used not only for replacing unsafe bolts but also for removing bolts where they compromise traditional climbing."


From this it seems that Doug doesn't place much value on sport climbing!

In reply to redsulike:

I feel compelled to leap to the defence of Chris the Tall. He probably wouldn't have got involved in BMC work at all if I hadn't twisted his arm up his back. Having taken the plunge, Chris has been assiduous in his representation of the opinions of those who attend Peak Area Meetings, who are, I assure you, representative of the climbing community. Chris is so far from the model of a BMC apparatchic that words fail me.

So, Mr redsulike, who I note, has been climbing for a mighty four years, when you go to a few meetings, get your ear bent by a few real live members of the BMC and have to argue your case face to face, then perhaps I'll take your opinions seriously. Till then.......

jh

In reply to redsulike:
>The fact that the BMC is heading down this route is because of people >such as yourselves becoming involved and turning the organisation away >from its grass roots.


I don't think I will reply to this, its so tasteless, but I will just shake my head and try to remember that there was never a monument erected for a critic, especially an arm chair one...

In reply to UKC News: Doug gets my vote......

In reply to Simon:

To all and sundry,

Try and limit yourself to expressing facts and your opinion.

Please desist from being negative and insulting to other people and their opinions.

Cheers,

Mick

In reply to UKC News:

But how can you have debate without deconstruction of arguments?

In reply to UKC News: Seems like Mr Scott has been proposed just to stop Mr Carrington being elected, which appears to be a very negative reason. One things for sure, they have between them an immense amount of mountaineering/climbing experience from which to draw on, but surely this isn't about what they've done, but what they can bring to the table which will benefit the BMC and climbing. With regard to the best 'old' climber, Rab might defer to his climbing partner Martin Boysen, or does he come under 'best even older climber'!

In reply to john horscroft: Its clear that my opinions are at odds with yours and you are resorting to attacking me rather than what I say. You might as well dismiss me with 'What have you done on grit?' as if attendance at meetings or climbing ability makes one persons opinions more or less relevant than another. Ken Wilson has come in for a deal of criticism and had his arguments dismissed as diatribe. The only opinions you do take seriously are those in line with your own.

In reply to john horscroft:


John

This is a terribly negative and counter productive opinion, and not the first time I have discussed this in the last week.

It keeps getting repeated by people who know each other and who volunteer. The latest was, 'I helped clean up Wilton so I have the right to bolt the place if I want to...'

I wish you guys who do wonderful work would knock this attitude right on the head.

All because someone does volunteer work or goes to BMC Area meetings, it does not make their opinion any more valid or relevant than anyone elses.

Sure, it is upsetting if someone who does naff all criticises those who put hard work in, but the knee jerk reaction of people like yourself, Chris, Simon, Martin et al doesn't do the BMC any favours --- and I have talked to Dave Turnbull about this.

You aren't the Chosen People.

The BMC has 60,000 members, please remember to respect each one - even if they can't volunteer, live bloody miles away, or don't want to.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Aw, shucks Mick, I didn't mean to upset you, but I don't think I was the one to start the mud-slinging.

1. I'm not involved with the BMC at all at the moment, so some of your comments are misplaced because I wasn't using the 'I go to meetings therefore I'm one of the chosen few' argument. I don't go to meetings either! I was actually explaining, in a somewhat ham-fisted fashion, that Chris the Tall is an independent minded guy, who was part of a very vocal UKC group who were critical of the BMC back in the day. He has since become a very effective campaigner within the BMC.

2. Those who demonstrate an ignorance of the BMC yet feel they can lecture the climbing community about its faults deserve to be called to account. I'm not going to simply accept their arguments without question, and I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to.

3. You can talk to Dave Turnbull all you like - he ain't my guvner! I'm just a climber like the rest of you who understands that much of the Olympic debate is pure posturing and that when it comes down to it, the BMC does one job really - It keeps the crags open and makes sure we can enjoy our pastime, on the whole, without the heavy hand of officialdom on our backs.

cheers
jh

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Mick

Please re-read the comments made about me by "Redsulike", a person who has never met me, has had no direct involvement in the BMC, and yet is prepared to accuse me of destroying the BMC and being out of touch with the grass roots. It's hardly a knee-jerk reaction from me to defend myself against such vile accusations. Nor is it a knee-jerk reaction from John and Simon, who realise the absurdity of those accusations, to step in and defend me.

However, I have tried to avoid a slanging match with "Reds", and merely suggested to him and anyone else who thinks the BMC is heading in the wrong direction, is to get involved. That's what I did 5 or 6 years ago when I got annoyed over subs.

Sure it's easier to carp over the internet, but please try and remember the effect your negativity will have on volunteers. And yes that includes you Mick. None of my climbing partners understand why I give up so much of my free time to attend BMC meetings - we aren't the Chosen People, we're the Damned United

reply to UKC News:

In reply to UKC News: Having read other replys, I started climbing in 1958, well before the protected 70s.I am not a member of any club or BMC as dont want any of my funds going toward bolts.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Nice Chris, not the chosen people, but the Damned United....that's fookin' poetry that is.....

In reply to ranger:

Bolts! They're the spawn of satan!!! Keep yer brass jingling & jangling in yer pocket.

'The protected 70s' - when climbing really took off, err sorry, went downhill. Stuff got so well protected (a piece every 15 feet??), you had to keep on soloing Extremes just to get yer adrenaline fix.

Pass us the stick-clip mate! Them yokes is just the thing for giving yer back a right good scratch...

Mick (a fellow climber)

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


>
>


Very True Mick, but it might just give them a better nay, more informed understanding of the very same institution & its volunteers that they are damning...

I didn't know what the BMC did until I went to a meeting, and I admit, its not for all. However as you know, to make an informed opinion you need to have at least a few facts in your armoury.

I think the 'knee jerk' reaction you accuse us of - is maybe sometimes yes - a little involved lets say, and I can see the argument against this - trying to be as unbiased as possible - however the fact remains that if you are working hard voluntarily and someone makes such a huge inflamitary accusation against you as in Chris's case - what are you going to do? Buy them a beer?

In reply to UKC News:

While I appreciate that this is climbers forum I would like to point out, as a couple of people have already, that the BMC strapline is:

"Working for climbers, hill walkers and mountaineers"

I consider myself to be a climber, hill walker and mountaineer and as such I will not be voting for Doug as 5 of his 6 bullet points on the BMC website refer to 'climbing' but not at any point does he mention the wider aspects of being in the hills and mountains.

I know that there is always a big debate going about bolting and that the olympics is another hot topic of discussion but surely a candidate that wants to go 'back to basics' should be focusing on the bread and butter issues like access, the environment, basic mountain skills and making sure that young people have the opportunity to enjoy our mountains in the years to come.

Whether or not climbing is in the olympics or the fact that a few more bolts have appeared on another crag are vastly insignificant compared to making sure that young people get out into the mountains under the guidance of enthusiastic and qualified people. This will ensure that future generations can develop the love of the crags and mountains that I have been fortunate to enjoy!

In reply to Mark House:

depends on the bolts and the crag - once you've made a hole it takes a long time for rock to grow back