UKC

The next round of Area Meetings will include a consultation on our recent rebranding announcement. Each meeting will be attended by at least one member of the BMC Board of Directors, the CEO or Deputy CEO, who will explain the proposal in detail; this will be followed by an open discussion and Q&A session.

Views from the Area Meetings will be fed back to the BMC’s National Council on 17 September; National Council will then decide how to proceed based on the feedback received.

Members are encouraged to attend their relevant Area Meeting to contribute to the debate:

London & South East
Date: Thursday 1 September, starting at 7.00pm
Venue: The Devereux, 20 Devereux Court, Temple, London WC2R 3JJ

North East
Date: Thursday 1 September, starting at 7.00pm
Venue: Durham Climbing Centre, St. John's Road, Durham DH7 8TZ

Cymru South Wales
Date: Saturday 3 September, starting at 6.30pm
Venue: Dynamic Rock, Hebron Road, Clydach, Swansea SA6 5EJ

Yorkshire
Date: Monday 5 September, starting at 7.30pm
Venue: The Wheatley Arms, Wheatley Lane, Ben Rhydding, Ilkley LS29 8PP

Lakes
Date: Wednesday 7 September, starting at 7.30pm
Venue: King Kong Climbing Centre, Heads Road, Keswick CA12 5EZ

Midlands
Date: Wednesday 7 September, starting at 8.00pm
Venue: Old Edwardians Sports Club, Streetsbrook Road, Solihull B90 3PE

South West
Date: Saturday 10 September, starting at 7.00pm
Venue: Moorlands, Haytor, Newton Abbot TQ13 9XT

Cymru North Wales
Date: Monday 12 September, starting at 7.30pm
Venue: YHA Snowdon Pen-y-Pass, Nant Gwynant LL55 4NY

Cymru Mid Wales
Date: Tuesday 13 September 2016, starting at 7.00pm
Venue: The White Lion Hotel, Heol Pentrehedyn, Machynlleth SY20 8DN

North West
Date: Tuesday 13 September, starting at 7.00pm
Venue: Manchester Climbing Centre, Bennett Street, Manchester M12 5ND

Peak
Date: Wednesday 14 September, starting at 7.30pm
Venue: The Maynard, Main Road, Grindleford S32 2HE

For further information about the meetings, visit the BMC website: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/september-area-meetings-consultation-on-rebranding

In reply to Team BMC:

Are you collecting opinions via email too?

As getting to the southwest meeting for 7pm from Bristol is basically impossible. If the plan is to only listen to input from attendees at these meetings, the poor coverage is going to leave a lot of people disenfranchised, again.

Also an up to date statement on the BMCs current viewpoint would be good to see, I'm aware some board members have replied in some threads on here, but some kind of official statement on the matter would be grand. (For the many of us that can't attend the area meetings)

In reply to Steve nevers:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-memorandum-and-articles-of-association

section 42.6, unlike Annual and Extraordinary General meetings, proxy votes are not allowed at Area Meetings, so you have to be there for your vote to count.

The BMC does not have to take a blind bit of notice to your emails, social media posts or online petitions.

In reply to Steve nevers:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/climb-britain-update-from-the-bmc

The BMC are doing what they said they would, what's to update?

A vote now at AGM is the only option by which to restore the confidence of the membership.

The membership should now be asking why the leadership is so reluctant to just put the decision to a membership vote! There is hardly any rush, after 72 years we can wait untill April! Unless the leadership know otherwise?

What is the problem?!!

An AGM vote would also allow all members, even those who cannot travel to an area meeting(or the annual general meeting) to vote via a proxy.

If the national council are allowed to make the re-branding decision, there will always be a large contingent of members(or worse, ex-members) who are disgruntled and feel unrepresented by the BMC.

The widespread skepticism caused by the previous complete lack of consultation on the decision and due process now obliges a direct membership vote and a restoring of the primacy of the membership.

So, come on BMC, commit to presenting the branding options(including the status quo) to a vote at AGM, what are you afraid of? The wrong answer?!

It is best that you do this before the embarrassment of the BMC membership taking matters into their own hands and demanding a direct vote at AGM via a motion at EGM. It would be hard to recover the confidence of the membership after such an action.

An EGM only requires 100 signatures and there are getting on for many hundreds of easily contactable objectors active on social media.

Just do the right thing!

In reply to MooseMouse:


The BMC (by which I presume you mean the Exec) must NOT commit to anything at this stage, it must wait until after this round of area meeting, and the next National Council meeting.

The UKC forum is not an adequate cross-section of the BMC membership, and the debate held on here has been very inadequate so far. I am still very much undecided on the issue, mainly because I haven't heard the opinions of people who will be affected by the change (access volunteers, access officers, members of other groups who look to us for assistance). If you don't care about such opinions, how can you claim to care about what the BMC does ?

If the area meetings are overwhelming in support of the change, will you still demand an EGM ? I suspect that won't be the case, but I'll be going along to the meeting with an open mind - will you ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

The Exec is not obliged to consult the National Council. It is within the power of the Executive Committee to defer a decision to the membership at AGM.

Given the overwhelmingly negative response(by their own admission, phone the BMC office yourself and ask) not just here, but on social media, via the phone and via email, why do you think the ultimate consultative option of a vote at AGM has not been adopted?

So come Chris, what is wrong with the ultimate consultation via a vote of the whole membership, with all the fairness of proxy voting for those (like Steve above) who cannot attend.

It is the no brainer, no cost option that will lead to a way forward from this mess that will not disenfranchise a good portion of the membership

In reply to MooseMouse:

I know the Exec could take action without consult the NC, or waiting til after the meetings, and that will be a massive slap in the face all those volunteers who put in the effort for the organisation. You've been complaining about a lack of consultation on the issue, but it seems you don't think we need a debate - your mind is made up so lets skip the debate and move straight to the vote.

I don't know which area you are in and who goes to those meetings, but I know that the people whose opinions I want to hear at the Peak meeting don't post on UKC.

And I genuinely don't know what those opinions will be, so as far as I'm concerned there are currently three possible outcome - ditch the change, wait til the AGM or go ahead in November as planned.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


You are questioning me like I am asking for something undemocratic. In fact, I am asking for the ultimate democratic option, after which we can put this thing to bed and move on with a final resolution.

I don't think the national council are going to be able to provide that outcome now, at least in respect of the re-branding decision.

Here are my reason for wanting a commitment to vote at AGM.

1) By the time of the next area meetings, the rebranding will be a fait accompli, there will not be the requisite 60 days with which in to call for an EGM before the stated branding go live in November. After the go live, it would not be a fair competition to vote on the name change, due to the costs and derision associated with changing back.

2) I have no confidence that the national council will reflect the opinion of the membership because;
i) They felt no need to even notify the area meetings via meeting agendas that the consultation was taking place
ii)They felt no need to consult the areas about the decision, with most voting without any consultation and all voting without any notification of the chosen name.
iii) The glib, dismissive comments from several national council representatives on social media.

3) Contradictory messages from the BMC that indicate that the decision is a fait accompli, e.g.
i) that they expected no negative response, yet pre published the 'Climb Britain: the facts' news item
ii) used new speak to suggest that the response to the rebrand was mixed when in fact it is overwhelmingly negative.
iii) Dave has stated that they have already made their mind up, despite no consultation with members, To quote Dave T, 'We remain firmly behind Climb Britain and believe it is the right choice for the future of the organisation;' - this is fundamentally backwards. The 'BMC' should be remain firmly behind the wishes of the membership!!!!!!

4) Making the decision at National Council in September does not relieve the membership of the suspicion(widely stated) that the rebrand is for reasons other than those the BMC are prepared to lobby the membership about.

In reply to MooseMouse:


No, here's what I'm asking:

a) Are you going to go to your area meeting ?
b) Are you going to go with an open mind ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Chris, you will know yourself, if you don't have thick skin then you shouldn't stand for national council!

However, you shouldn't have such think skin that you don't even bother to consult your members!

Please don't place words in my mouth, I have never said skip the debate. In fact, I am requesting the opposite. More debate.

The April AGM option would allow much more debate, at Area meeting, at National council, perhaps within a working sub group that considers an options put forward from Area meetings, debate within other sub formal committees(access, club etc), with outside agencies.

There would also be the option of opinion pieces in two copies of Summit, a social media campaign with those with an interest invited to contribute.

Basically a reinvigorating of the democratic processes of the BMC.

Importantly, there would also be opportunity to debate at the AGM before a final vote.

A vote at AGM allows a far wider debate and more consultation.

A vote at AGM makes sure that everyone gets their opportunity to lobby and also to vote(especially via proxy)

What is your case against a vote at AGM?

In reply to Chris the Tall:



For what it is worth to you, Of course. Are you trying to distracting from the main issue by making the attendance of one person(me), rather than about what I have written.

What is your objection to a vote at AGM and the wider consultation and engagement that it would provide?

I would like to hear it.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

a) I'd love to but am in Nepal for 3 months. Will I get a say another time?

b) "If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out" - Tim Minchin

In reply to Team BMC:

Ah, consultation, that rosey word that makes you believe you have an opportunity to change things.

In reality consultation is when you are told what is going to happen, you may question but it is still going to happen, or already has as in this case.

In reply to 3leggeddog:



Hmmmm, you may well be right, our very own Dave T quoted in the article!

"Japan and British mountaineering groups set to change names to reflect climbing being included on Olympic programme"

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1040189/japan-and-british-mountainee...

In reply to Chris the Tall:
There are precedents for the democratic process of a couple of cycles of area debate, national council followed by a vote at General Meeting.

Your very own club block vote issue flowed exactly like that, with a great deal of engagement across the board.

What is your objection for agreeing the same process for the branding?

In reply to MooseMouse:

I have no objection to there being a vote at the AGM, merely to the notion that the Exec should commit to that now. All they should commit to is listening to the views expressed at the area meetings, but then I would expect nothing less. If the feelings at those meetings are overwhelming against then it should be dropped, if overwhelming in favour then press ahead. If, as I suspect, it's mixed, then yes it should go to the AGM.

But let's wait until everyone has had a chance to have their say, whether they use social media or not.

In reply to MooseMouse:



Probably worth pointing out that isn't a quote from Dave T (as far as I could see anyway). I'm not implying you're saying that, but I did read it as that before I clicked on the link.

In reply to MooseMouse:

But the membership aren't organising an EGM. There hasn't been a peep.

In reply to climbwhenready:

Amazing really given all the massive e-fuss. I always thought MooseMouse was right about the almost certain need for an EGM if people really want to fully retain the BMC name.

In reply to Team BMC: Sadly I'll be climbing in Sweden when the Peak Area meeting takes place, and I'm not sorry. That being said, my only feedback is this:

1) After the furore (which is even madder than the usual one after membership fees go up by £1) it's pretty obvious to me why the BMC made an executive decision rather than asking for 75,000 opinions.

2) In the recent BMC e-newsletter regarding this name change , the phrase "The BMC has been listening intently" was used. If you wanted a phrase that made it sound less like anyone was listening I don't know what that would be. Jesus.

3) Unless you have an 85%+ turnout in any vote with at least 70% in favour of one thing or the other, then a few hundred votes of dissatisfaction/approval is meaningless.

Keep up the good work etc.

In reply to Team BMC:

It might have been helpful to emphasise that the Peak Area meeting has been moved to a different venue. It was previously advertised as being in Glossop. This list shows a different venue but doesn't draw to our attention that it has been moved. I only noticed it because someone flagged it up in another thread.

In reply to climbwhenready:


I would imagine that if anyone had been planning one, they'll now be waiting for the outcome of the next round of meetings.

In reply to Chris the Tall:




However, I don't think the meetings are representative either. I know many members of the BMC, none of them would dream of going to a local group meeting, any more than a typical member of the National Trust would go to one of theirs, or a building society member would go to the AGM

In reply to toad:

Oh I agree that the meetings are not representative either. Maybe a quarter to half the attendees at the meeting will have done voluntary stuff for the BMC in some capacity or another - imagine if that was the same for the membership as a whole, or even those who post on UKC ?

I'm not saying UKC isn't a good forum for discussing BMC issues, far from it. But ultimately area meetings are so fundamental to way the BMC works that if you undermine that you imperil the whole organisation. I'm really not bothered who "wins" this debate as long as the debate is done in the right way. And that means not by-passing the meetings where those who could be affected by it can have their say.

(I did post a longer explanation of this point on another thread - to which someone replied "stuff the area meetings" - a very rather worrying attitude that doesn't bode well)

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Agree wholeheartedly. But it would also be good - in my opinion at least - if the BMC showed some effort in canvassing the opinions of the vast majority of members who don't attend the area meetings. I think back in 2010 the was some member survey done across a range of topics. Surely, if the BMC is trying to 'move forward with times' something similar could be put in place? At the moment it seems like the BMC's attitude is "if you don't come to an area meeting then you opinion if filed under 'expressed some interest'".

In reply to Frank the Husky:


Unlike the Japanese Mountaineering Association who have seen fit to put their proposed change of name to the vote.
Since the BMC members have contributed a couple of million pounds in membership fees, that pay officers wages, you would expect the membership would would be entitled to some kind of say!
Not to mention that the membership have instituted an easy, cost effective method of having their say, when necessary, via a AGM vote.

The poor decision of the BMC has probably cost more in effort(not to mention reputation) over the last few weeks than simply referring to the AGM ever would have!

Furthermore it is clear that the BMC anticipated the adverse reaction, but nonetheless, decided not to push ahead anyway!


Here is another BMC quotation;

"We remain firmly behind Climb Britain and believe it is the right choice for the future of the organisation;"

The jist of this press release was as follows;

i) We didn't ask the membership, because Climb Britain has already been chosen.
ii) As expected, Overwhelmingly the membership were not happy.
iii) We will now ask your opinion, to hopefully make you feel better, but carry on as we would have anyway.

It is hard to read it any other way!

There is a feeling that the BMC press releases are given for two reasons,a) to appease the membership and b) to reassure Sport England that they are following their diktats.


85%+ is absurd and unrealistic for any type of democracy, let alone where the electorate already feel they are being marginalized. The percentage that turn out reflect the proportion of those who have an opinion and they want to be represented. It is completely inane to dismiss the interest of one subset because of the apathy of another subset.

In reply to Chris the Tall:




That is the whole point, the area meetings have already been undermined by the national council representatives themselves.

First by failing to notify or consult, then with flippant, dismissive or absent comments after the event.

UKC member HStudierende went to alot of effort to check through the area meeting agenda's and minutes to prove the above point and documented his findings here;

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=646638&v=1#x8356793

"as someone who bothers to take the time turn up to local area meetings, I feel totally disenfranchised. Why should I bother turning up to my local meetings again when it is apparent that they carry no importance?"

Before you put words in my mouth again, this isn't an argument against area meetings, it is an assertion that National Representatives, for some reasons, have not done what the governing documents expect of them.

For that reason, on the issue of rebranding, the membership deserve a vote at AGM.

In reply to climbwhenready:

There are quite a significant number of members who are not happy about the, re-branding, the lack of consultation and the measly concession to go back to National Council.

There is division about what to do about it.

There are quite a few people(including significant BMC volunteers) who are very angry about the lack of consultation, but are sitting on their hands at this time as they prefer to give the 'leadership' enough rope to hang themselves with, as which point they will give the 'leadership' a bloody nose(reversal of the name change, vote of no confidence) at the AGM.
Just look at the poll on here(94% currently against!) and the proportion of negative comments on the BMC social media.
It is entirely perceivable that an uprising would be extremely popular.
This would be a disaster for the reputation of the BMC and would force an expensive re-branding turnaround.

On the other hand, The vote at AGM proposal(forced, via an EGM, if necessary) is a reasonable response and if enacted soon, would prevent the BMC from following through on its already announced, yet to be rescinded 'Climb Britain' launch date of 17th-20th November.

This is a democratic, constructive way of saving the BMC from the actions of the leadership who think it is easier to force change, than apply a even a small amount of effort towards convincing the membership of the need to change.

In reply to MooseMouse:
I'm just going to leave this here. An interesting tale of, at best reading, a failure of the organisation's management to effectively communicate change

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/aug/15/british-legion-row-over-wom...

"There is also a feeling among some members that the merger reflects a more centralised and corporate approach to the running of the London-based charity that has left it out of touch with the wishes of many of its ordinary members.

Some volunteers have vowed to stop fundraising for the legion because they are infuriated by being allegedly kept in the dark about the proposals, which were presented without warning to branches a week before Christmas."

In reply to MooseMouse: The thing that's impossible to understand is how anyone in the BMC's Exec or National Council thought that keeping the whole thing secret would end up as anything other than the PR disaster that it appears to be. It's like a happily married politician believing that their S&M affair with a buck toothed girl from Luxembourg would remain a secret, and if they got found out everyone would be happy for them. It's impressive stuff and I take my hat off to those involved.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

People make mistakes. Water under the bridge now. People wanted consultation and they'll get it, no surprise to anyone familiar with how the BMC operates.

NC meetings can be 3 months apart so there are occasions where you ought to be decisive and not go back to the areas first. Maybe not on this issue.

As I said before, the fact they are capable of this sort of cock-up is actually quite reassuring - it's proof that they aren't the PR-driven, sharp-suited bunch of ego-maniacs that some would have you believe. I seem to remember you caused a rumpus or two with your column in Climber.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
This isn't water under the bridge, the re-brand launch date has not been rescinded and is still set for November.

If they were serious about the consultation, this should have been the first commitment, to cancel the launch, but Dave has already said, "We remain firmly behind Climb Britain and believe it is the right choice for the future of the organisation"

I think you are being naive in failing to recognise brinkmanship and the way in which the membership are being played.

I want neither sharp suits(although I see they are trying to recruit one to the exec) or incompetence from the BMC leadership.
Is open, representative and honest too much to ask in return for our membership fee?
It isn't difficult, it is about priority, respect and character, not about capability.

In reply to MooseMouse:


Call me naive if you like, but having started off as a keyboard critic like yourself I got involved, got to know some of the people and a little of how the organisation works.
The tone of your posts do seem to indicate that you regard the BMC a bit like a evil corporation run by a megalomaniac.
I probably had a similar tone 15 years ago. So what you consider naivety is actually experience.

At the moment you seem to be discouraging people from going to the area meetings by saying the result of the consultation is a foregone conclusion. I think you be encouraging them to make the effort, to go along, have their say and listen to others

In reply to Chris the Tall:



If you're referring to the politician and the prostitute then you might be right about that being a "mistake". However, keeping the rebranding secret from the membership was deliberate.

The ability to make such cock-ups is nothing to do with not being PR-driven & sharp suited. Look at the mess similarly suited politicians make all the time. I don't think many people find it reassuring that they made a decision that was so obviously going to go wrong.

I did cause a rumpus or two with my column in Climber. However the difference there is that everything I wrote about (e.g. installing a decent lower off in the Keyhole Cave at Millstone) was done in the full glare of the climbing press. There was no hidden agenda or desire to keep anything secret. Causing a rumpus by expressing an opinion is very different to deliberately operating in secrecy and then saying sorry.

For the record I think "Climb Britain" is far better than "British Mountaineering Council" and I vote to carry on with the name change.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
I am speaking as a person who has been on the inside, for many years.

I do not believe that the BMC is run by a megalomaniac, but it is again naive of you to believe that a disenfranchised good portion of the membership will not now be more inclined to that view.

Given what the BMC has been said and done, there is now no way that the national council can reach a fair outcome (including supporting the 'Climb Britain' or another brand or as a sub brand) without forever being accused of a stitch up.

A vote at AGM puts the problem to bed for the foreseeable future, and reengages all sides in a meaningful way, and provides us with the popular branding with all parties accepting the outcome because it was arrived at in a fair way.

You are putting words in my mouth again. I have not discouraged debate or attendance at area meetings. In this post:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=647730&v=1#x8367325

I advocating using the area meetings to receive feedback on members ideas for branding, with a working group set up to work up the options into valid choices for voting on at the AGM.

Chris, what do you think the difference between the AGM and the area meetings is. In this case, the only differences are democratic advantages.
i) Proxy voting, the whole membership can be reengaged at AGM. Proxy voting is not allowed at area meetings.
ii) Debate, not uncommon at AGMs, I think you will agree.
iii)Direct Democracy, after the sorry goings on of the last few months, the outcome of an AGM will be final, with no further accusations of a fait accompli or ignored membership.
iv) Timeliness, one meeting per year is not good for some types of decisions, but in the case of re-branding, after 72 years there is no rush. In fact, the intervening period between now and April allows time to democratically reengage, to pursue and work up the options, as previously stated, two copies of summit for opinion pieces, 3 area meetings, social media etc

In reply to Frank the Husky:


Is that based on experience or instinct ? I rather suspect that people like yourself will have a better insight into the difficulties created by the old name, but such opinions have been drowned out in this debate. And maybe not enough effort has been made to get the issue across. It's become an issue of personal preference rather than effectiveness.


Ah so that's why you left

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Is there an option being discussed of changing the name, but keeping the logo? The logo is the main thing that offends me (other than the secrecy thing). I can probably see why climb Britain is more relevant for us climbers, I would still be a bit pissed were I a hill walker.

In reply to MooseMouse:


Indeed!

MooseMouse - you advocate openness and transparency, yet you hide behind a pseudonym. Please can you tell us who you are (and how many years you have been an individual member of the BMC)?

Thanks, Neil

In reply to MooseMouse:


You have no profile and a name that gives no clue as to your identity. The BMC you describe is very different to the one that I know, so it's not unreasonable for me to make assumptions. Shed your cloak of anonymity if you want people to believe you are speaking from experience.

And as for misrepresentation, again let me state that I have no problem with this going to the AGM. Simply that it should be debated at the area meetings FIRST. And then the national council should make a decision. That decision could be to press ahead, to drop it, or to defer it to the AGM. And if you don't like the decision you can challenge it at the AGM. Indeed, why don't you stand for the NC yourself in November ?

But what shouldn't happen is for a decision to be overturned by a pitchfork mob without giving the correct process a chance.

In reply to MooseMouse:

Yes, please tell us who you are (or at least an obvious hint if privacy is an issue... maybe email Neil as most trust him as an ex area chair and well known BMC volunteer). Its a bit much claiming all this 'cloak and daggers' inside knowledge when we who have a different inside story can't judge the veracity of where you are getting it from.

In reply to Offwidth:

Have you ever been an area meeting other than in the Peak ?

I haven't, but I did get the impression (from other NC reps) that perhaps we did things a bit differently - less formal, more open, more people, better chips etc. ( All Hors***t's fault of course....). But it is worth remembering that other people's experience of the meetings might not tally with ours, hence the distrust.

In reply to Team BMC:

Not sure I will be able to attend one of the meetings, so just in case a couple of thoughts.

I am not too concerned about the change of name and logo (even though I find them ugly and the flag-waving a little sad, it is of little importance and it is only my personal opinion), but I am quite concerned about the symbol behind this change. It seems to me that it marks a shift towards competitive sport in opposition to the recreative aspect of climbing. I understand this change as a way to surf on the popularity of British competition climbers and the 2020 olympics to gain more members.

So far, so good ? Well, I am not sure that the BMC is big enough to cater for one side of the discipline (competition) without having to sacrifice another side (recreation) to some extent. This kind of debate has already taken place a long time ago in Italy and France for instance, and the respective national alpine councils had to split (creation of FFME and FASI) because it was impossible to continue to take care of high-level sport and grassroots activities at the same time: diverging philosophies and difficulties to share the same budget. Whereas some other alpine structures (notably DAV and ÖAV) manage just fine, it's hard to deny that the objectives of both aspects of the discipline are quite contrasted.

If the budget was to remain the same, what would be sacrificed to support more competition? If in 20 years there is no more money from Sport England and the membership numbers are the same as today, what will have to change?

(But my feeling might be wrong.)

In reply to Chris the Tall:
No, but more through bad luck on a few Yorkshire ones when I was in the area. I do know regular attendees from a few other areas, especially Yorkshire. I think the distrust of area meetings in this case from some posters may be more because the area regulars might be less against the rebrand than the so called "94%" here. The NC reps who were the best informed on the issues clearly agreed despite intial reservatioms. My concerns with the BMC were always the opposite.... shady dealings by a few people on the inside that wouldn't fare well if exposed to area meeting scrutiny.

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm sorry, I have been reading the goings on here for a few weeks and time and again, the case for binding the decision to an AGM vote has been made and I have seen no persuasive reason against.
It seems pretty clear the current executive's only tactic is to continue and hope to convince people at the Area meetings, I see nothing which indicates they will delay or change plan if they fail in this. They have made it clear this is not a proposal, this is happening!

A deadline should be set for a official comment on an AGM vote at which point, if not forthcoming, or if inadequate an EGM would be a unfortunate but proportional step.
It is not acceptable for an executive of any organisation to continue to push through changes which quite understandably members fear may result in a chance in the organisations focus or purpose without first presenting reasoned proposals to its members.

For what's it's worth I have not been to any BMC area meeting yet, however I am a fully paid up member and keen climber and do not see any less reason for the executive to not seek my view on the change.

It appears that had I attended any area meetings I would have remained none the wiser about the re-brand anyway.

In reply to Neston Climber:

Well then, if you have read all the threads you will have realised that we have been here many times before. If members were serious, having looked in detail at what they have so far, and absolutely rejecting the rebrand, they should have called an EGM straight away. Its a bit late and poorly timed now as the area meets are in just a few weeks time.

The reason the Exec are following the line they are, is probably because they are convinced the main aspects are a good idea based on the evidence they have. Some volunteer officers and local area NC reps I know and trust, have posted informed support...not people easily hoodwinked . Its clear a majory of ordinary members don't want the rebrand but most of them probably haven't seen or understood the detail. Even with this swell of negative opinion I just don't see a vast majority who wish to reverse things now (or it would have happened). We have to separate the anger at the poor process with the best way to continue to do good work and grow membership. The exec have in my view failed in the way they consulted overall (and I hope the apologies are sincere and impressive) but it was a decision using the formal (democratic) process; so unless folk hate change for the sake of it or really, really care about logos (a motivator for me in climbing involvement was to escape such shallowness), the area meetings will give a chance for detailed and informed discussion and a democratic view to be carried back to the organisation. If the views are overwhelmingly to reject the rebrand and the exec don't listen (a dangerous game to play and in my view more an assumed conspiricy than a realistic prospect) then an EGM is inevitable.

I've said before I think the new brand may have genuine benefits for the huge numbers of new younger and more indoor based climbers. I've also said I think the balance with the ongoing BMC brand (yes its still there) should be treated with caution unless there is clear evidence we won't do any damage in areas of access negotiation etc. Some say we shouldn't need to grow... I say bullshit...and lets not forget the real problem with membeship is for regular outdoor climbers (who should know better) where a shockingly low number are full BMC members. Given the threats to access (that including other things have led the BMC to be a rapidly growing landowner of last resort), the organisation needs financial muscle based on subs.

Celebrate the BMC for all the good it does, and don't get carried away with the negativity surrounding this incident. Be an indvidual member and volunteer to help them where you can.

In reply to Offwidth:

It would be premature to call an EGM until after the Area Meetings. The BMC will have a chance to explain the reasons and thinking behind the name change and support it with evidence. The original announcement contained only vague statements and platitudes and it has caused many to be suspicious of the motives and to think it represents a change in direction. "Climb Britain" doesn't immediately convey the full range of what the BMC covers, and the semantic case put forward to justify it seems feeble at best.

You say the ongoing BMC brand will still be there, but unless I've missed something that isn't going to be the case. The BMC will remain in the background as the legal entity, but the visible brand will be "Climb Britain".

The test will be how the Exec responds if the response from the Area Meetings is unfavourable. By saying beforehand that they are still committed to the brand they have raised concerns that this is just a token gesture at a belated attempt to consult and that they will go ahead anyway. I hope that statement was a mistake and they will listen. If not, as you say, an EGM seems inevitable.

In reply to drolex:

OAV doesn't look after competitions any more, a separate but linked body, the OWEK was set up in 2007 once the IFSC received it's initial IOC recognition - this was in line with the Austrian sports ministry's way of doing things.

And the FFME is more than a competition federation, although that is it's main focus.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Ah I ignored that about ÖAV, thanks for the complement.

Yes the FFME is more than about the competition aspect but it split from CAF in 1945 because of this very issue (it was more about ski at the time though). There is still a clear division of tasks between CAF and FFME, the FFME being the referent French federation for the climbing comps while the CAF doesn't touch climbing comps with a barge pole.

In reply to Neston Climber:

My argument is not that this shouldn't be debated at an AGM or even an EGM, but that we shouldn't go straight to that point, by-passing the area meetings.

I know I keep repeating this point, but area meetings are fundamental to the way the BMC operates. Not just in national matters like this, but more importantly on local access issues. It's an opportunity for those volunteers who put in countless hours on our behalf to tell people about the issues, look for help or advice, get feedback and inspire others to take up similar roles. Undermine the area meetings and you could jeopardise all of that.

I do get the impression that those who want to go straight to an EGM, or want to instigate instant electronic voting, are those who have little or no experience of area meetings. I understand that not convenient for everyone, but I'm also aware of the considerable effort some people do put in.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

The problem is the tight timetable imposed by the exec. They have as far as I am aware given any indication of delaying the re-brand if they fail to persuade sufficient people at area meetings.
As was explained before there would be insufficient time after the area meetings to take binding action against the exec if they push ahead regardless.
If you are happy with that risk then so be it.
The re-brand has not been pitched as a proposal, we have been told it's happening!

In reply to Neston Climber:

I'd be very surprised if the name change goes ahead if it is rejected by the area meetings. But at the same time I'd be surprised if the mood at the meetings is as negative as it is on here.

The exec are not evil dictators. The change had the overwhelming support of the NC. There was clearly a hope that enthusiasm and positivity would carry people along, and the negative reaction seems to have taken them by surprise.

Why the disparity between the Exec/NC and the poster on UKC ? I think it down to that fact that the latter do not perceive the old name to be a problem whilst the former is populated by people with lots of experience dealing with other bodies, and they think it is.

The internet being what is is everyone has gone for the conspiracy theory and assumed this is about climbing in the olympics, but the quite simply the old name doesn't reflect the organisation as it is now. It isn't a council of clubs anymore, and very few of us would describe ourselves as mountaineers. And as for the notion that hillwalkers don't climb hills, but they do mountaineer up them - that's rubbish.

That said I'm not sure the new name is an improvement....

In reply to Offwidth:

Exactly what 'cloak and daggers' inside knowledge have I been claiming?

I have already clearly stated that the BMC is not run by a megalomaniac.

I mentioned having been involved in the BMC, to explain to Chris that I do understand fully how the democratic process works. Also, as a result of being involved, I have probably had more conversations than average with ordinary fellow climbers about the BMC.

From those conversations it is my belief that there exists no small minority of members that think that the BMC does not represent their interest and is already too influenced by outside organisations.

This experience does not require inside information, merely involvement that might make one more often a sounding board for these kinds of complaints!

We now have a the re-branding disaster that has shone light on a democratic crisis, an on going failure to revert to the membership at AGM and still even now, an un-revoked and impending re-brand launch date, with the words of none less than the CEO ringing in our ears.

'We remain firmly behind Climb Britain and believe it is the right choice for the future of the organisation;'

Add to that the tendency of the press to (understandably in this case) infer and conflate, such as that in the article I posted above;

"Japan and British mountaineering groups set to change names to reflect climbing being included on Olympic programme"

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1040189/japan-and-british-mountainee...


In the face of all that, despite having been on the inside, it is going to be hard for me to support the point of view that says democracy is alive and well in the organisation!

Chris you mentioned the variance of how national issues are handled at area meetings, and this is a good point. Not every area is as committed to national issues as the Peak or London and SE areas. I think your opinion of the way forward is formed by this blinkered view. At other area's there would be scant regard to national debate, or usually not even an agenda published prior to the meeting.

I have a great deal of sympathy for view of UKC member HStudierende who examined the futility of attending area meetings here;

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=646638&v=1#x8356793

"as someone who bothers to take the time turn up to local area meetings, I feel totally disenfranchised. Why should I bother turning up to my local meetings again when it is apparent that they carry no importance?"

I am trying to convey to you how disenfranchised a good portion of the membership feel when the leadership behave in this way.
I have absolutely no need to invoke 'cloak and dagger' internal tales of previous alleged subterfuge and duplicity. The facts and pronouncements of the BMC in the case of the re-branding speak for themselves.

The online and social media opinion may not be what is actually reflected within the membership. What if the desired outcome of the membership is actually to accept 'Climb Britain' re-brand?

After the shenanigans of the past 9 months, there is no way that any such outcome can be achieved without shouts of foul play ,very likely followed by metaphorical bloody noses being dealt out at the AGM.

The only way forward to achieve a final, accepted by all, outcome is to use the next rounds of area meetings for debate, followed by a vote at AGM.

It is within the power of the executive to save us all some time and to direct the debate at area meeting to focus on this outcome.

In reply to MooseMouse:

The rebrand was agreed democratically (by NC reps) and can be revoked democratically (in several ways). There simply is no democratic crisis; in fact the fast EGM route hasn't been taken (I agreed with your previous arguments on why this should happen if people are informed and really angry) , which to me indicates how annoyed most members really are. The issue is one of poor communication and member engagement.

You still haven't emailed Neil with your name so we can independently (but privately) confirm you're an experienced BMC committee member and not some odd troll. 'Cloak and daggers', in quotes, is hardly unfair when dealing with someone unnamed publicly claiming insider knowledge.

In reply to Offwidth:



He's clearly not a troll Mr. Offwidth, if that's even your real name. There's no need to affirm he's a real human being, that's evident in his posts which has clearly spent some time writing, and suggest that he cares about the BMC. That's enough for me - what are you going to do with his verification anyway? Accost him at the next BMC area meeting?

Cheers,

r0x0r.wolfo (not my real name).

In reply to FreshSlate:

My identity is clear enough to a climber with minimal investigative ability and interest: Offwidth just keeps work and idiots off my case. I also know you. If someone is pushing such a serious critical postion of the organisation on a major internet climbing forum whilst claiming intimate knowledge of internal process, its only fair they are identifiable, as they would be at any BMC meetings.

In reply to MooseMouse:





You seem, contrary to what you've claimed earlier, to be saying that it's "futile" for people to turn up to area meetings.

But you're the one who wants to sideline them in favour of a vote at the AGM.

Why should people bother turning up to their local area meetings if it's already been determined (by you) that the consultation will be ignored in favour of a vote at the AGM?

A lot of people have protested (with some justice) that the area meetings weren't properly informed or consulted about the rebranding. But now they *are* being consulted, you seem to be coming up with a lot of reasons why that doesn't count and they should be displaced in favour of immediately committing to a vote at the AGM.


What a novel thought ...



What you seem to be implying here is that if the area meetings end up being broadly supportive of the change, there will be "shouts of foul play" (from whom? you?) and an attempt to overturn this at the AGM.

Do you perhaps want to rephrase that, if that isn't what you actually meant to imply? It seems a profoundly destructive approach.

Not to mention remarkably anti-democratic, to predict/threaten that there'll be retaliation at the AGM even if the change is actually what the membership want.

Reading this thread is like watching the Labour party self-destruct!

In reply to MG:

and just as entertaining

In reply to MG:

Only if you put the complainants in the position of those supporting the PLP and you show us the mass cult of personality giving 'momentum' to Dave's leadership (and if you imagine that this is at stake). More likely a loud dispute with uncertain outcome but unlikely to be more than a small change in plans. The only obvious similarities I see is lots of internet noise and too little meat in the real discussions needed. It has surprised me to know some climbers really care about logos (but on reflection we are a bit odd as a tribe sometimes)

In reply to Team BMC:

The area meetings are important as they are part of the consultation which should have taken place before the decision was made.

But in my view a decision as significant as rebranding should be put to a full membership vote

PS this is my real name and I'm a BMC member

In reply to Steve Woollard:
If only more people here were as straightforward.

I fully agree with the issue of consultation. The question for the areas is what we do next following this late consultation: do we push for a vote at the AGM to abandon the rebrand, or pressure to adapt it before an AGM vote (my preference), or somehow censure but accept (seems a bit pointless but maybe some need the catharsis)?

In reply to Steve Woollard:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but someone has to make a decision that this decision is so significant that the national council can't make this decision.

The problem is that you don't want indecisive people on the NC - it meets too rarely to keep deferring decisions to the next meetings so you can check with the area. The area should elect somebody it can trust to consider each issue fully and make a decision.

As I've said before I suspect the reason for huge disparity between the NC and UKC on this is that the former see the old name as a problem, and the latter don't. If you don't accept the need for re-brand, then the manner in which has been done will only make you more angry, more suspicious etc etc.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



The process appears to be the problem, after reading post after post after post on any number of threads and blogs etc.
I am not sure whether I like the new name. To use the term offered by my American friends, "It sounds like a fast food name!" While in the States (lived there for 7 years) I was amazed at the number of people who knew about the BMC, and who thought of it as superior to their national body. They have even got a separate organisation, the Access Fund, to deal with access issues. The ones who I have spoken to about this hope the rebrand doesn't happen, because it sounds like "Just another sports body who are looking for sponsorship for their international team and not one that has the best interests of it's members at heart!"
I am torn about the change, but upset by the methods to bring it about! This is my real name and I am a BMC member and I go to most of the BMC Peak Area meetings.

In reply to Offwidth:


I don't think he ever claimed to having any privelleged information - nor are any of his criticisms based on anything that isn't public knowledge unless I've missed something?

Shall we all email somone our names as BMC members with 'inside information'? Are you making a list ?

In reply to FreshSlate:

You appear to have some doubts as to Offwidth's probity. Well I've never met him and don't even know his real name. But from many hundreds of posts on here, about all sorts of topics, he's always come across as utterly decent and upfront. True, some dark spirit may take over his personality when it comes to BMC matters but... I very much doubt it.

Mick

In reply to FreshSlate:

He is trying to convince people that the BMC operates in a certain way, and he knows this through years of involvement.

Now his description doesn't not tally with my experience, or (from what I can gather) with that of Offwidth, Frank the Husky or Neil Foster. Now Steve, Martin and myself may obscure our identities, but I suspect most people using this particular part of the forum know exactly who we are - certainly those at UKC towers or BMC HQ do.

How do we know he is being honest, when he won't give any clues as to his identity, even in private ? Could there be some other agenda ?

Go back 13 years to the subs/individual members kerfuffle, which I was very much involved in. Now I'm afraid to say that I felt a bit uneasy about the motives of a couple of people who got involved - that they didn't have the best interests of the BMC at heart, perhaps quite the opposite. Was he one of those people ? I really have no idea.

I have no problem engaging in some light-hearted banter with an anonymous person, but not on something as serious as this.

In reply to Mick Ward:


Not at all Mick, I'm very familiar Offwidth's views and stand points. I certainly wouldn't throw any shade on his character at all, and I fully understand that his position is a fair one regarding the BMC.

It just doesn't matter a jot to me what his real name is or what he does for a living etc. Same goes for this moose character, couldn't care less as they both seem genuine and not 'trolls', as Offwidth appears to think is a possibility in the case of his opposite anonymous number.

Any reference to Offwidth putting naysayers on a list (to be taken outside and shot at the next area meeting) was purely in jest Mick.

In reply to FreshSlate:

Fair enough then and sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick!

All best wishes.

Mick

In reply to Team BMC:
As an alternative would "The British Climbing Organisation"have the gravitis that a lot of complainants have an issue with re "Climb Britain" but still have the inclusiveness that covers the breadth of the BMC's representation ?

In reply to FreshSlate:
" I am speaking as a person who has been on the inside, for many years." Is a pretty clear message to miss and is why Neil (ex area chair and ex NC rep) commented.

As to my troll point, I didn't accuse: a confirmed identity would remove that possibilty (useful as I know people who have lied and exaggerated on UKC: this is an emotive issue and a validated identity would confirm he has inside knowledge and isn't just poking the forum with a stick or exaggerating). Of course it's most likely he is not a troll but claiming inside knowledge when being so publicly critical of the BMC exec is rare and rather shady behaviour. I have no interest in outing anyone's UKC identity in general but can't recall a similar situation where anonymity is used here by a BMC insider to strongly critise the organisation .

Your reaction is also a bit unusual, do you know him? (I'd trust your word).

In reply to ukb shark:

Climbing is more specific (and therefore less inclusive) than climb (so the argument which I mostly agree with goes).

Most BMC members are hillwalkers, not climbers. They may have climbed Tryfan but they have probably not gone climbing on Tryfan.

In reply to andrewmcleod:

Someone on here suggested "British Mountaineering and Climbing", which I think could work

However I think there should be more discussion about the reasons why a change is needed first - no point in trying to find a solution if you don't understand the problem.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

That was one of the names I also thought of - BMCC, British Mountaineering and Climbing Council which is more appropriate to cover both rock climbing and hill walking/mountaineering.

However if Climb Britain is to continue then the awful logo and typeface must be changed. I used to teach 18 year old students who could design better than this!!

In reply to Christheclimber:


Surely mountaineering is effectively a subset of climbing? I can envisage lots of climbers who would not consider themselves mountaineers (particularly boulderers and indoor climbers) but I really struggle to imagine people who would consider themselves mountaineers who do not also consider themselves climbers. The grey area is hill-walkers, but even then the use of the term 'climbing' is very common to describe ascents in relatively mountainous regions.

So we're left with British Climbing Council and it's a very short hop from there to Climb Britain. Does it really need to be stated that the organisation is a Council?

Much ado over nothing in my opinion.

In reply to Christheclimber:

"British Mountaineering and Climbing" retains "BMC" but drops the outdated "council" bit, so the only problem is people mistaking "BMC" for "BNP"

Can't get excited about fonts or logos

In reply to john arran:


Very much the other way around in my mind - climbing is a subset of mountaineering, which also includes walking, scrambling skiing etc. Which is one reason I don't like this change - it seems to be narrowing the focus of the BMC. I agree bouldering, indoor climbing, competition and probably sport climbing aren't really mountaineering which is why I suggested above that they be hived off to their own organisation. Trying to have the BMC include everything from hillwalking to indoor speed climbing is too broad to my mind.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



True, BMC it is then but really does need a good logo and suitable typeface.

In reply to john arran:


Isn't climbing a subset of mountaineering?

In reply to MG:


Why sub-divide climbing as to the type of protection used ? Why not sub-divide by footwear or even the type of rock - granite, rhyolite etc are mountaineering, but gritstone, sandstone and slate are climbing. Who gets Limestone ?

In reply to Christheclimber:

If I'm climbing a three-metre boulder over a squishy mat, it seems like massive hubris to describe what I'm doing as a subset of mountaineering.

"Oh yeah, I'm a mountaineer, just ... really small mountains. Really, really small. Also sometimes they're made out of plastic."

More to the point, when I started climbing, it wouldn't have occurred to me to think that something called the "British Mountaineering Council" had anything to do with what I was doing or wanted to do.

I think when I first heard the name, I vaguely thought it was like a board of people that gave grants to people wanting to lead expeditions in the Himalayas, that sort of thing. And yes, I did subsequently pick up that "the BMC" was actually about climbing and should be my go-to organisation, but I would not have guessed from the name.

I do trad now, as well as bouldering, and it still wouldn't remotely occur to me to call myself a "mountaineer".

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Nothing to do with protection but primary reason for taking part - competition/physical agility, or broader enjoyment/adventure.

In reply to Christheclimber:


That was always my understanding.

Is there a slippery slide:

mountaineering to climbing
climbing to sport climbing
sport climbing to sport?

Mick

BMC and Climb Britain: next steps

Please visit the BMC website for a message from BMC president Rehan Siddiqui outlining the rebranding consultation process which will be conducted over the coming months.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-and-climb-britain-next-steps

In reply to slab_happy:

Historically climbing is a subset of mountaineering.

In reply to Team BMC:

The important bit out of that;
The rebrand is on hold until the AGM 2017 &

"I understand that not everyone can make it to area meetings. In this case, please email your views to office@thebmc.co.uk; include your name, membership number and your BMC area. We will make sure your email is forwarded to your area chair."

In reply to Team BMC:

Well said Rehan "a full rebrand to Climb Britain is not a done deal"

In reply to MG:

I climb outdoors so I want to be part of, and contribute to, a community that produces great guidebooks (which the BMC does) and works on access to new and existing crags (which the BMC does). If I just went to an indoor wall (which is just a commercial venture really) I wouldn't need or want to be part of a community like the BMC. I'd just pay my entry and climb.

In reply to MG:

Do you really think that, for example, boulderers don't have a sense of adventure or appreciation of beautiful places, or that trad climbers are never competitive or keen to show off their physical agility?

In reply to Christheclimber:
Well, no. Historically, climbing on small crags and outcrops was regarded as training or preparation for the Alps or the Himalayas. So it might have been an adjunct to mountaineering, but I don't think it was widely considered to *be* mountaineering in itself (perhaps someone who knows the history better can correct me if I'm wrong?).

Some of the earliest circuits in Fontainebleau were designed by people who wanted to train for the Alps -- does that mean that boulderers are all "mountaineers"?

In any case, what climbing may have been considered to be circa 1910 doesn't say much about what it is now.

I have a great deal of respect for mountaineers, which is one reason why I don't presume to call myself one.

In reply to slab_happy:


I don't think there is much adventure in bouldering, no. I think there is a continuum between walking in the Lakes and say an alpine N face but I don't see a link between either of those and indoor speed climbing, and I think connections with other competition climbing and bouldering are pretty tenuous.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
I agree

In reply to MG:


Ah, so you want to sub divide the BMC into "People who climb for the same reason as me" and "People who climb for other reasons"

In reply to slab_happy:





Historically which came first, Mountaineering or Rock climbing?
I have not said or insinuated that bouldering is mountaineering.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Why does this suggestion always result in snarky responses? In a sense yes, I want an organisation that represents my interests and not get distracted by other people's interests. Is that so unreasonable?

In reply to Mick Ward:







Yes there is

In reply to MG:


Yes - it's selfish and short-sighted

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Care to expand? Why not add in cycling sailing and canoeing too?

In reply to Christheclimber:


Not at all.
Mountaineering takes place in the mountains, by definition. Climbing can take place either in the mountains, in rocky areas such as escarpments and sea cliffs, or even indoors. In popular parlance if you ascend a mountain you've climbed it.

I can't really see how it could possibly be thought of similarly the other way around, unless you have an unreasonably broad definition of what constitutes a mountain. Even in jest you would be lucky ever to hear the top of a boulder or indoor wall, or even most crags, as being mountain tops, or even summits.

In reply to MG:

Are you really saying the dividing line between cycling and sailing is as arbitrary as that between trad and sport climbing ?
And that the BMC should have nothing to do with bouldering because you don't approve of it ?

And finally, do you really think the BMC will be stronger and healthier if it gets rid of the volunteers who climb for different reasons to you ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Why the dishonesty? I don't disapprove of bouldering and didnt even hint at that being reason. You (and others here) make a public thing of being heavily involved in the BMC and seem threatened by any discussion of its remit or decision making process. Not healthy.

In reply to MG:


I refer you to the answer I gave in another thread:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=645845&v=1#x8349115

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I would say there are closer links between non-competitive sailing and mountaineering (though not very close) than between mountaineering and competitive speed climbing, yes. I would go back to my post above - what is the main motivation for people doing these things?

In reply to john arran:
A bit hyperbolic! The BMC managed OK without competitive climbing for most of its existence.

In reply to MG:

I don't do anything for the BMC anymore, but my experience of it, and the people who put far more effort into voluntary work than I ever did, is that they don't fit into the neat pigeonholes that you've created.
If, for example, the BMC were to remove bouldering from it's remit, it would lose some very hardworking volunteers from the Peak area.

All I am trying to do is counter the ignorant and divisive attitudes that you and others are using this forum to ferment.

In reply to MG:


Very true. At that time it was responsible for overseeing all aspects of climbing and mountaineering. It still should be now.

In reply to MG:


It's worth bearing in mind that much of 'mountaineering' (not so much hillwalking) has had an competitive - albeit informal - component for much of history. Matterhorn? Everest? All-8000m-summits? Seven summits? Races for FAs? Fastest times on alpine routes? Better 'style' (aka Anything-you-can-do-I-can-do-better)? First failure buy the first round?

I suggest that if people weren't competitive, the BMC wouldn't exist.

If you're really keen on keeping the BMC initials (for some unfathomable reason) then how about: Bloody Minded Climbers

In reply to john arran:

British Mountaineering and Climbing AKA BMC seems to also be more acceptable alternative on UKB too which sounds a reasonable compromise providing the Hill Walking / Climbing members are happy with it...

In reply to ukb shark:

That may be so but I'm still at a loss as to who's being left out by being called a climber rather than a mountaineer. Has an air of stuffy conservatism about it to me. Not that I care that much.

In reply to john arran:
I agree - but some think "Climb Britain" lacks gravitas and sounds a bit modish (possibly looking outdated in a few years) maybe not cutting the mustard when negotiating with farmers for access etc whilst "British Mountaineering & Climbing" builds on the existing BMC brand (like the BBC?).

In reply to Christheclimber:


The fact that one thing came before another (at least as a organized activity with a name on it) doesn't mean that the later thing must (in all its forms) be a subcategory of the former.


You've said that climbing is a subcategory of mountaineering.

If bouldering is a subcategory of climbing (which seems hard to dispute), then it must also be a subcategory of mountaineering.

And the same point applies, for me: if I top out on a route at Stanage, I would not call that "mountaineering", and it would seem absurd for me to describe myself as a "mountaineer".

In reply to MG:


Pity. I'd tell you about the first time I ever touched gritstone, about how one day I impulsively jumped on a train from London and ended up lost in the middle of a moor on an icy blue January day, with a pair of climbing shoes and no gloves. And how stunned I was by the silence and the light, the great bronze sweep of the valley, a landscape I've been in love with ever since, and the first electric touch of the rock, that magic velcro friction like the rock gripping your hand back.

But I suppose that was just about "competition/physical agility"?

Look, I'm now (years later) a trad climber as well as a boulderer. They're different in some ways, obviously, but based on my experience, I don't think there's as profound a difference as you think. And a lot of my bouldering has been significantly more adventurous than much of my trad.

I have a friend who's done a lot of competition climbing, and she's also been trad climbing since her teens and is the person I know who's most likely to be going off on trips and expeditions outdoors.

You seem very keen to divide climbers up into people who are doing it for the "right", deep and meaningful reasons, as opposed to Those Other People (sport climbers, boulderers, etc.) who are shallow, competitive, non-adventurous, etc. etc., and never the twain shall meet.

In reply to Offwidth:

I think there's many variations of 'inside', could this guy be an ex chair or NC rep, or a member who turned up to a fair few meetings as a vocal advocate of the BMC. I don't think he's leaned particularly on this point to any extent where it matters whar his specific involvement was (for me).


I don't know, maybe clarifying his involvement might help, but I'm not giving any more gravitas to his comments than I would any other BMC member, maybe that's the crux of it.


I do not know him, couldn't vouch for whether he is stirring the pot or not. Perhaps if i'd witnessed a few of these shady attacks on the bmc back in the day I'd be a bit more cynical.

In reply to ukb shark:

This would be acceptable to me. However, I think a partial aim of 'Climb Britain' (!as well as dropping council" is that it will be abreviated less often. As others have suggested, the BBC seems to manage ok.

In reply to slab_happy:


Nothing of the sort. I don't understand why you (and others) think that from what I have written. I just think there are sufficient differences to make one representative organisation too broad. In the same way I don't think sailing is "wrong" but I wouldn't want the BMC representing sailing interests.

In reply to ukb shark:


Apart from the fact that the re-brand is really the side show and what the BMC does and where it is intending to go is the real question we should focus on...

Initials like the BMC, or GE or HP or ITV become the name over time. Nobody these days thinks of GE as 'General Electric', so trying to change GE to mean 'General Engineering', for instance, ispointless. Similarly, BMC is defacto the name, not the British Mountaineering Council. Personally I like this slightly old fashioned name because, as others have said, it has gravitas. Back in the day its original full name wasn't trying to pander to someones delicate sensibilities.

So if we decide that a re-brand is necessary, for as yet not fully understood reasons, at least make it an all out re-brand heralding a fundamental change of direction for the BMC.

if the BMC isn't changeing direction, it doesn't need a re-brand and especially a fudged re-brand.

In reply to GrahamD:
If things were so fiine and dandy way more trad climbers would be BMC members (including the few on these threads honest enough to admit it when I asked and I suspect a lot more who mouthed off and yet kept quiet about this: all this fuss and be amazed if a third of UKC regulars are BMC members). and more indoor climbers would have heard of it and understand the good it does (as it is we normally have to explain, when we encourage people to read local area newsletters, that its just an old name for a very worthy wide ranging body protecting access, enviroment, safe practice, guidebooks, and support for competitions). I believe the BMC is a useful brand for some aspects of what we do but the new brand seems to me to be clearer, so much better, for recruiting others. As for direction thats up to the membership (and I'd trust that membership to defend us from anything silly) but resisting change of any type is daft. When we are buying whole crags to save access and facing serious issues with how the increasing numbers indoor climbers transition to the outdoors, growth and spreading the message is useful.

In reply to Offwidth:


I think a lot of this is human inertia - what really motivates people to join the BMC? From the survey back in 2010 it seems to be (a) insurance (b) qualifications and eventually (c) everything else. People join for very pragmatic reasons and hopefully then they stay - inertia again - and perhaps get more involved. I certainly have never heard of anyone joining (or leaving, seriously) because of the name or logo.

Yes, 'brand' is important, but branding is not just about name and logo (although lazy marketeers like to think so). Its about how you create an image of yourselves to the rest of the community by what you do and how you behave. The BMC seems to have put the cart before the horse on this. If the BMC's priority is to get more members then it needs to look at what pragmatic (aka a degree of personal self-interest) things might tempt non-members to join up. It should then put those thing in place and advertise them in an appropriate way. Only at this last stage does discussion about name-and-logo make any sense. Perhaps the exec do have a strategy underpinning this, but it's not obvious at the moment.

There is of course a separate discussion about how high a priority the BMC should put on simply increasing its individual membership (yes, members are a source of funding and volunteers) within the general scope of its raison d'etre (as per the Articles), but that's for another time.

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm not sure whether you are arguing that a change of name is necessary or a change of direction for the BMC, of which name change could be a part ?

If we are talking about a change of direction, then that needs to be the debate, not the name.

In reply to FreshSlate:

"I think there's many variations of 'inside', could this guy be an ex chair or NC rep, or a member who turned up to a fair few meetings as a vocal advocate of the BMC. I don't think he's leaned particularly on this point to any extent where it matters whar his specific involvement was (for me). "

I doubt you will convince many here he is trying to come over as just a vocal advocate (so if he is, in my view he is being dishonest).

In reply to GrahamD:

There is no significant change of direction evident and the marketing review of the BMC was discussed at area meetings, its just the rebrand bit that wasn't. Whatever happens I'd prefer to keep the BMC brand in the foreground for access and safety issues but can see how the Climb Britain brand will help us recruit, educate and more effectively continue the current good work.

In reply to GrahamD:




Fair points - except that the BMC (as well as Climbing in all its forms) has changed beyond recognition in the last 70 years

In reply to ukb shark:

Simon, climbing has certainly changed in the last 70 years - but has it really changed beyond recognition? If we met a couple of guys from 1946 on Cloggy or in the Pass, wouldn't there be a common spirit between us? I'd like to think so.

Climbing is a broad church; there's a place for almost all of us in it. But it's different, it's special because we've kept it different and special. It's not a sport; it's sport. It's a game worth playing. But if it becomes dumbed down to be just another 'sport' (like beach volleyball?) then what's different - what's special - becomes lost.

For me and for many others on here, that's what Climb Britain signals.

Mick

In reply to Offwidth:

So we've seen a big backlash on UKC, who are climbers but mostly not BMC members apparently.

So how can you can assert that only a small minority of people moaning are members and also hold the argument that the name change will help recruit from the non-member population (who form the majority of people on here against the name change according to you).

In reply to Mick Ward:

I'm sure every long-established sport with its traditions thinks their sport is special. Quite frankly I'm surprised you are piling in because I didn't think you gave a toss about the BMC. And yes the sport has changed beyond recognition in my climbing lifetime (35 years) and I wouldn't call it dumbing down - just different and increasingly fragmented.

As for common spirit - I wouldnt pretend to know what that is and even if I did it would be guesswork and - yes there is an innate urge to climb stuff but the motivations and makeup between two climbers even back then could have been very different between two individuals let alone between than and now. Also I'm suspicious in applying the mindset of today to put myself in the shoes of the protagonists of yesteryear. I feel a latin quote coming on..

In reply to FreshSlate:

I think both are true.... most individual members are clearly annoyed from the largish sample of those I know personally and its likely most complainants on UKC are not individual members (as the stats show individual membership is a small minority of climbers and many complaining here wouldn't answer the direct question) . Being annoyed is not the same as acting to completely reverse the decision... its not at all clear to me how that will pan out.

I gave my views on why I think the new brand will help improve recruitment several times already, if of course it is used in parallel with the BMC brand.

In reply to Offwidth:



If only a minority of climbers are with the BMC then that means there's a good opportunity to increase the membership within the existing pool of climbers. Great. However, why are we annoying these people? That's the bit I'm struggling with.

In reply to ukb shark:


Agreed but...



As I've said, I've never regarded it as a sport and I doubt it's 'changed beyond recognition' in the last 70 years. I can assure you it hasn't 'changed beyond recognition' in the last 50 years.



As (to my knowledge) we've never discussed the BMC (except perhaps on one occasion when you mentioned you were going to do some voluntary and highly commendable work with them?) I don't know why you'd think I 'didn't give a toss'. And as for 'piling in...' Emotive language, Simon, emotive language.

For the record, what principally concerns me is the future of climbing, that, however diversified, it retains a common spirit which seemingly matters little to you (and the purveyors of the unutterably wanky 'Climb Britain'?) Clearly the BMC is the best-placed organisation to influence the future of climbing in the UK. Thus my interest.

Mick

P.S. Simon, I may have caught you on a bad day. If so, I apologise. But you're coming across like some bully boy from the Labour party - which is sad as we've known each other for 29 years. And I give short shrift to bullies.

In reply to Team BMC:

I would like to have attended one of this round of Area Meetings, to express an opinion on the rebranding issue; unfortunately, they are just too far away and don't fit with my work schedule.

In my opinion, the rebranding of the entire organisation is an issue to be debated, and voted on, by the entire membership, not just those who happen to be able to get to an Area Meeting.

There are members who are concerned and active with various issues, but simply find it very difficult to attend Area Meetings regularly. I resent the implication from some on this thread that such members are "non-involved"and that their opinion doesn't really count.

Frankly, if the only consultation of members on this issue is that which takes place at Area Meetings, and the rebranding is subsequently pushed through, I will give serious thought to leaving the organisation.

In reply to bpmclimb:


In case you didn't see it, the most recent message from the BMC specifically invites people to send feedback on this issue via e-mail if they can't make it to an area meeting:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-and-climb-britain-next-steps

In reply to bpmclimb:

Your attitude is frankly depressing given who you are and what you do . I can only think you missed the linked post above so I've copied the text in full below. Serious threats of leaving the BMC and all its good work in the context of how the rebrand is being handled now (as reported in Rehan's recent linked conciliatory post)... what on earth are climbers coming to? Given what Rehan said does anyone seriously think they will now bypass an AGM vote (where proxy votes are allowed from BMC members). There are numerous ways to input but if you want to hear debate you have to be where the debate is. We have also had an online version here and it will I'm sure continue after the area meetings so its hard to say people won't be informed.

What Rehan said:

"It has been a difficult time since 25 July when the BMC announced an intention to rebrand as Climb Britain. The rebrand idea was collectively agreed by the volunteer groups involved with BMC's management hierarchy (National Council and the board of directors) and had the enthusiastic support of the BMC Hill Walking Working Group and the staff, so we felt we were on solid ground to proceed.

Hindsight is a great thing of course, and following the strong reaction to the announcement we are now undertaking a series of consultation meetings and debates as part of the September round of BMC Area Meetings. This will be a genuine and open-minded consultation process and I give you my personal assurance that we will most definitely be listening, that everything is on the table and that a full rebrand to Climb Britain is not a done deal; if the consensus is that people would prefer to keep ‘BMC’, to adopt some form of compromise solution, or to take the rebrand forward – this is what will happen.

The area meetings will feed into a (minimum) two-phase process of consideration by National Council. On 17 September, National Council will review feedback from the area meetings, a position will be agreed (and published), then there will be further area-level debate leading up to the National Council meeting on 3 December.

Club officials will also have a chance to discuss club-specific issues at a meeting with BMC representatives on 6 September. Depending on ongoing feedback and the proposal to be taken forward, the BMC accepts it may be necessary for this to go to the 2017 AGM; and in order to let the consultation process run its course Climb Britain will no longer be launched (as was previously stated) on 19 November in Kendal and 2 December in Sheffield.

I understand that not everyone can make it to area meetings. In this case, please email your views to office@thebmc.co.uk; include your name, membership number and your BMC area. We will make sure your email is forwarded to your area chair.

Rehan Siddiqui
BMC president"

In reply to Offwidth:

Sorry if you find my attitude depressing, but I'm not prepared to rubber stamp my membership of the BMC, or any other organisation to which I subscribe, without thought. I want those organisations to realise that my continued membership depends on how they act.

I did see the link regarding Emails, and I have noted the various assurances that the rebrand is not a done deal. For the time being, I am suspending judgement, and will wait to see how things unfold.

In reply to Team BMC:

A reminder to those not attending these meetings to get written responses, including your membership number and which group you associate with, into the BMC asap.

I've just written mine.

In reply to john arran:

I suspect this will be one of these 'agree to disagree' type things but I would have always said Climbing was a subset of Mountaineering which in Britain also includes Winter Mountaineering, Hillwalking and Scrambling. Sure you get different types of Climbing which take place away from the mountains (indoor and cragging), the same way you might do remote low level walks, backpacking or long distance coastal trails. It's hard to include everything within one word.

But Climbing does not include Walking - they are two different things (obviously). I know that if I only hill walked I certainly wouldn't describe myself as a 'climber' and indeed have never come across anyone in that situation who does or would do so.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Hill walkers may not be 'climbers', but neither are they 'mountaineers'. And they do climb hills. And mountains, if you take the English definition of a mountain being over 2000ft. So there is no 'obviously' here. The BMC is (currently) a broad church, I'd like to see it remain so, but there is no single word that covers it all.

The question is this - will using the term 'climb' rather than 'mountaineering' make this organisation more effective?

In reply to Chris the Tall:


They are certainly closer to mountaineers, and probably are mountaineering when they go out in winter.

And they do climb hills.

No. They walk up them.

And mountains, if you take the English definition of a mountain being over 2000ft. So there is no 'obviously' here. The BMC is (currently) a broad church, I'd like to see it remain so, but there is no single word that covers it all.

For the reasons given above, 'Climb' seems far less encompassing than 'Mountaineering'

In reply to Chris the Tall:



I'm a bit surprised by that (and Offwidth's reply), but it's probably a good thing given the 'rules'.

In reply to Kipper:

All the fuss and no post area meet comments?

In reply to Offwidth:


Seems like a no-win situation for some people - post and you're accused of being a keyboard sycophant, don't post and you're an opinionless wall-flower.

I had hoped to get to the Grindleford meeting, but as usual work got in the way. For me at least, that's why BMC 'democracy' doesn't work too well.

There, a comment. Better now?

In reply to Marek:

me too. This had been the meeting I was going to get to, but it was fairly obvious that family was going to get in the way, so I sent a written submission via the BMC

In reply to Offwidth:

I was unable to attend, but sent in a written submission. I'd be interested in hearing what happened at the SW meeting...

In reply to toad:

Okay, the Peak area meeting -- all strictly my impression, and apologies for any inaccuracies in my memory:

There was discussion of a proposed possible abseil point in Horseshoe Quarry, carefully out of the way of any climbs. Concerns about shifts going on in the national parks authorities, though apparently public comment is currently embargoed, so we don't know what the exact concerns are, but the BMC is prepared to spring into action if needed. The "Mend Our Mountains" campaign was extremely successful, and repair work on the Ringing Roger path is about to go ahead. Apparently various national bodies were also very impressed by how successful the campaign was, and in particular how many of the donations came from individuals, and that in itself has helped get the BMC some extra respect. Kim Leyland reported on the survey of the ring ouzels in the Burbage area -- because it's intended as a a baseline survey it's hard to compare but it looks quite positive. Discussion of whether the meetings in the Glossop area should be moved.

Oh, and there was some stuff about the re-branding thing too.

*ducks and runs for cover*

Sorry, couldn't resist. There's a short summary of the re-branding discussion at UKB here, which pretty much fits with my memory of it:

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,27289.200.html

It was all shockingly civilized and thoughtful; there were a few people who'd clearly turned up wanting an epic battle with the Forces of Evil, and who presumably went away disappointed.

Lots of people there for whom it was their first area meeting (me included); hopefully some of us will keep coming back (there were free chips!).

To expand a bit, "Option 3" (which got a lot of support) was basically to keep the BMC as the BMC but find some use for "Climb Britain", e.g. re-purpose it as a specific campaign to get people outdoors or to encourage new members into the BMC, or as a subsection focusing on youth climbing, or something like that.

There was surprisingly little support at the Peak meeting for Option 1 (no re-branding of any kind, no change, no nothing), and some support for Option 4 (exploring other name change options -- for example, one idea that was mentioned was to keep "BMC" but change it to stand for "British Mountaineering and Climbing").

Anyone else who was there want to add their take on it?

In reply to slab_happy:

Thanks for the update. Option 3 seems a fair compromise to not throw away the money spent on this but retain the BMC for all intensive purposes.

In reply to slab_happy:
I was surprised that there wasn't more hostility displayed towards the name change. Personally I do not like the new name if it is applied to the complete organisation, however I noted that Dave mentioned a re-organisation within the BMC itself. Surely it would be appropriate to take up Simon Lee's suggestion and name the competition department (if there is one) 'Climb Britain' and leave the access work, guidebook work, etc under the BMC banner.

Also, I hope there will be more discussion on the fixed abseil station in Horseshoe Quarry. I note that the organisation promoting it has also changed their name, weren't they known as DARE when trying to get fixed belay points at Windgather. It's not that far to Teggs Nose from Windgather where there already is a fixed abseil area. Neggs Nose requiring permits is surely no barrier to it's use as some form of permit/booking system would also be required for a set-up in Horseshoe quarry.

John

In reply to John Gresty:


Jaysus, this rebrandin's gettin' all over the place. Perhaps they can DARE to feck off.

Mick

In reply to slab_happy:
There were 93 people in the room, of whom 85 had signed in. 5 non members and 15 first timers.

Option 1 - 15 votes
Option 2 - 22
Option 3 - 39
Option 4 - 42

(From memory: i typed up the notes last night. I might have transposed the 39 & 42).

In reply to Becky E:

I think you have. There were more for three than four! Subject to my counting ability and Dave's quick summary of the 'getting a feel for the mood' count.

In reply to Offwidth:


BMC engagement would be good on this thread, if that's what you mean? Tell people what happened.

In reply to Kipper:

The area committees are part of the BMC. In terms of the Peak we have a report here from Becky (area sec) and a link to a report from Shark (ex NC rep) and presumably the exec are busy collating the information from across the areas (supposedly a significant support for option 3 and presumably backing down from a full rebrand and now aiming to use either of the two brands where they help most).

I was a bit surprised given the hundreds of forum, facebook and twitter comments strongly against any rebrand that things were so quiet here following the meetings when I checked in the morning after the Peak meet.

I'm in Font so had to send rare apologies. I wrote in to say Option 3 was very much my preference and I strongly wish to see the BMC name continue in access work.

In reply to Kipper:

What happened to the ukc article?

In reply to Offwidth:

From what Dave said, the NC are meeting today. The show of hands at the area meetings was to give them a steer, but the final decision rests with them. There was actually a far bit of support for ClimbBritain in the peak, more so than in other areas, but I think the full rebrand is dead in the water. Good cross section of opinions, from the sensible to the somewhat rambling. Rob did a great job of handling the more difficult speakers - well a much better job than I managed with that same speaker in Glossop a few years back !

In reply to Becky E:

Sorry, didn't get chance to sign in. All a bit rushed due to a last minute trip to Ireland

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Out of interest, was there any discussion off the process (or lack of it) leading to the rebrand, or was it purely focussed on the branding itself?

In reply to toad:


Yes. There was a thorough narrative on how things happened and an open acceptance and regret that it was a mistake not to consult more widely with the wider membership.

In reply to John Gresty:


That's exactly what I suggested to Dave when I saw him in Sheffield a few weeks ago. Keep the BMC as is, and have ClimbBritain (a rather naff brand name) for the branch of the BMC that deals with the climbing comps.

In reply to slab_happy:

Out of curiosity, was there any mention of people who couldn't attend but had submitted their preference in writing? I sent my preference to the BMC prior to the area meets, so it would be good to know if they, and other submisions were taken into consideration.

In reply to Nordie_matt:

Didn't the submissions in writing go to a central BMC office e-mail address?

I don't recall mention of any particular submissions at the Peak meeting, but I got the impression that the idea with the area meets was to communicate and gauge feeling area-by-area. But presumably submissions in writing would also be included in the feedback that went to the National Council.

In reply to Nordie_matt: the deal was such emails would be sent to the appropriate local chair. I wasn't convinced, but couldn't make the meeting so sent it more in hope than expectation. I'm still not convinced that the BMC has got its democratic processes right, but we'll see how this goes.

In reply to toad:


Ah right, I missed that bit, sorry. In that case, I'd imagine (or hope, anyway) it gets fed back to the National Council along with the comments/discussion from the people attending the meet.

As I said, I don't recall mention of particular submissions at the Peak meet, but I may have missed a reference -- anyone remember?

In reply to toad:


This was my understanding, and as I informed the BMC contact person that I previously attended the Peak area meet on occasion (before moving), I had thought this would be the group that would receive it.

Matt

In reply to toad:

In the case of the peak area, the area chair is also one of the NC reps, so he is the appropriate person to contact, since this is a decision for the NC. It certainly wouldn't have been appropriate for him to read out these submissions to the meeting, as priority had to be given to allow attendees to speak.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Understandable, I was just curious as to if submissions were included in (summarized) final tally of votes. For what it's worth I was in favour of option 3, maintaining the BMC name but incorporating Climb Britain as a subsidiary concerned with comps and indoor climbing.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Are you sure there was more support for option 3 in the Peak area? This is a section of what shark said on the other channel:

"......Option 3 got a slight majority. Dave revealed that in the other Area Meets a similar vote was more strongly in favour of Option 3.

This now goes back to National Council on Saturday for reconsideration. Unless they are insane the Council will endorse Option 3 and probably come up with a proposal or a choice of options that encapsulates Option 3.

No doubt the proposals will be communicated online and will be discussed at the next Area Meet and depending in the proposal/s may go to a final vote at the AGM."

In reply to Nordie_matt:
Written submissions can inform the debate in area meetings but can't count as votes in the rules. The AGM, which has the final, say has formal proxy voting (for members). Moose Mouse explained all of this somewhere up thread when he quite rightly pointed out any serious attempt to fully reject the rebrand should have been done through an EGM.

I've always been impressed how the peak area has been open (since John Horscroft's time) in who gets a say and a vote. I'm sure it has gained the organisation members and more importantly volunteers (it certainly persuaded me to convert from a club member... which barely covers BMC costs... to a full membership and it's what led to me becoming extensively involved in volunteer work).

In reply to Offwidth:

I said there was a higher level of support for ClimbBritian - option 2 - in the peak, than there was in other areas. Option 3 was the most popular option, as it had been in other areas, whilst the do nothing option (1) was the least popular.

Been musing on the word "climb" and it's connotations. Some people associate it with "use of gear, gadgets and paraphernalia", whilst Rab said he always regarded what he does as climbing, not mountaineering, even in the Himalaya or the Andes. Some hill walkers were happy with the term, others less so.

To me, I can best sum it up as follows. "I have climbed Ben Nevis, but not climbed on Ben Nevis." To me, that statement is unambiguous and not contradictory. I'm sure most BMC members would know exactly what I mean.

In reply to Offwidth: How many people turned up to the meeting, and was there an option in the voting that would have been suitable for people who just don't care?

I'm glad I was climbing in Sweden instead - I recommend it!

In reply to Frank the Husky:
According to Beck E's comment above, there were 93 people at the meeting.


Well, it was made very clear that it wasn't a formal vote, just an attempt to "get a feel for the feeling in the room", and as a result people could raise their hands for multiple options.

So, if you just didn't care (but were there because of one of the other topics discussed, or for the speaker afterwards, or for the free chips), presumably you could raise your hand for all or for none of the options.

In reply to Offwidth:



An important bit that you missed out from my write up was that it wasn't a "proper" vote but a way of gauging feeling.

It wasn't clear when the vote was taken whether you could vote for more than one option but many people did as evidenced by Becky's vote figures vs attendance numbers

Clearly the way the options broke down didn't neatly encapsulate the view of those that voted twice or more or those that voted once but didn't realise you could vote twice.

In reply to Offwidth:


In which case what was the point in even taking the time to contact the BMC? As a fully paid up member I would hope my opinion would at least be considered within the greater scheme of things.

As a member who no longer resides within the UK is my opinion less valid because I can't physically be there to eat the chips? If so I shall cancel my membership without delay, albeit grudgingly as I appreciate the work the BMC has done and will continue to do with regards to access.

In reply to ukb shark:


Clearly the way the options broke down didn't neatly encapsulate the view of those that voted twice or more or those that voted once but didn't realise you could vote twice.


crikey. And this is the best way to handle the democratic process in the BMC?

In reply to Nordie_matt:


As has been mentioned, the "voting" was explicitly not a formal vote, but a way of roughly gauging the feelings of those in attendance.

So the fact that submissions weren't counted as part of that rough tally of hands waved in the air doesn't mean they were ignored.

In reply to slab_happy: That's a good turn out. I hope there were enough chips to go around.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


There were (despite my best efforts). Apparently chips for 100 had been ordered.

In reply to toad:



Maybe not but it wasn't terrible. I don't what the reasons were for having a vote of this type and it was a bit chaotic. Clearly the overall sentiment was against the full rebrand and in all likelihood the full rebrand will be withdrawn. Even a more finely judged process would have only achieved the same end.

Where we go from there remains to be seen

In reply to ukb shark:

Without the show of hands, though, it would have been impossible to tell how representative the people who stood up and spoke were/weren't (especially as there was finite time for speakers). Or to see if any minds had been changed by the discussion.

And there were things in that rough tally that surprised me -- how few people actually favoured option 1 when it came down to it, for example.

So yeah, definitely an imperfect process, but I thought one that added more information.

In reply to Nordie_matt:

Because you might have said something interesting that no one else did and/or your area might have been quieter than the peak. Otherwsie it still helps the local officers gauge levels of opinion.

In reply to Frank

Maybe they need a UKB style pink anasazi/ french pasty option.

In reply to Offwidth:



Pasty?

Let yourself down there

In reply to Team BMC:

It was a good meeting. Whilst the logo itself wasn't discussed in much detail, a couple of slides were shown which showed past, present and future (Climb Britain) logos. These brought home to me how strong a visual impact the current design has, and Dave Turnbull admitted this. It is a strong, clean design which looks good in print, on screen and on the T-shirts which the BMC reps were wearing. By comparison the Climb Britain design looked weak, and one which is likely to date very quickly.

Another slide which made an impression on me was one showing the results of the consultants' research, which showed that the BMC actually had good recognition among the outdoor contingents - rock climbers, hillwalkers and mountaineers, who were united by a love of the outdoors and adventure. It was amongst indoor climbers that there was little recognition. Clearly it needs a focussed and tailored approach to attract these into the fold, for which perhaps Climb Britain is appropriate, but it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater to rebrand the entire organisation to try to interest just one group. Besides, I'm not sure what the BMC (under any name) currently has to offer indoor climbers, although apparently new products and services are being designed for them.

My preference is to keep the brand as just "BMC" (and retain the existing logo). It's what everyone calls it, and it doesn't really matter what it stands for - no one thinks of the Royal Automobile Club, it's just the RAC, and the Honk Kong and Shanghai Bank is just HSBC. If it has to stand for anything, "British Mountaineering and Climbing" works although it doesn't explicitly include hillwalking.

In reply to Howard J:

Honk Kong, the noise a chinese car makes when warning climbers of its intention to crash and burn?
oh! how ukc loves it pedantics!!!

In reply to slab_happy:

(Option 1 being to ditch Climb Britain completely and never speak of it again, for anyone still not aware.)

I went in thinking that would be my opinion, but I was talked around a bit as things went on and I did find the explanation (and almost kinda sorta apology) about the way the rebrand has been proposed and presented very disarming. (Unlike the bloke sat behind me who was chuntering away throughout the whole thing and actually wanted to go outside for a punch up when asked politely to shush so we could hear what was being said at the front.)

In the end I voted 3 and 4. 3 for sticking with BMC but using 'Climb Britain' as well.
4 for Henry's tentative suggestion of changing from British Mountaineering Council to British Mountaineering and Climbing, thereby keeping "The BMC"

I think there were a few folk there with proxy votes from clubs, so those votes would have been unaffected by anything said at the meeting and some were voting in contradictory ways. (In the case of my pal sitting next to me, 1 on behalf of most of the club, 2 on behalf of a couple of others and 3 on his own behalf.)

In reply to Howard J:

Couldn't agree more. There did seem to be a murmur of agreement with the one voice saying that he had no problem with the proposed new name but absolutely *hated* the logo. (Not everybody liked the name, obviously, but nobody was leaping to the defence of the logo.)

In reply to Chris the Tall:


If you email me I'll add you to the list of people who were there.

In reply to toad:



Yes, and it's appropriate given the form of representative democracy the BMC has adopted. It was an informal vote to give a steer to those we have elected to make a decision - the members of the national council. If you are unhappy with their decision then you have the choice to propose a formal motion at the AGM, where votes will be cast on a stictly one member on vote system. Or you could stand for the national council. Or you could put yourself forward to work on a committee to design a form of democracy that you feel is more suited to the organisation.

Anyone seen white smoke yet?

In reply to ukb shark:

Age leads to less than perfect eyesight... not so bad yet that I discover I've been trying the same route yet again

In reply to deepsoup:

The most scary news of this rebrand bunfight is some climbers actually think the logo is the biggest issue. They belong on the B Ark, not in climbing.

http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_Ship_B

In reply to Offwidth:
Biggest issue? Nah, but if the name is important, the logo isn't trivial either.

If you're going to accuse anyone of belonging on the B-ark, it's a bit rich pointing the finger at the critics of that bloody awful logo rather than it's creators, no?

"b-focussed"? "Thinkfarm"? FFS.

Anyway, got to go. These telephones aren't going to sanitise themselves you know...

In reply to Team BMC:

Couldn't help but notice that the Climb Britain logo appears to have disappeared from the BMC website. Last time I went on it had wandered off to the right side of the page, but can't see it anywhere now. This might be old news, but thought it's worth mentioning.

Matt

In reply to slab_happy:


Perhaps many people holding that opinion are already so pissed off with the BMC they've given up on it already? Just a thought.

In reply to Offwidth:


At the Midlands meeting I think there were 4 folk in favour of Climb Britain and everyone else against, about 50/60 I guess.
The voting got a bit complicated as the organisers kept asking for a show of hands for each option then a show of hands against. People lost the plot of what we were supposed to be voting for/against.

We did hear about the rationale for the proposals - taking a more commercial approach to increase funding - and the perceived alienaton of some climbers by the words British Mountaineering Council, however there was a good deal of scepticism in the room to this view.

I thought it was unfortunate that the organisers chose to spend around an hour talking at us, rather than listening to us. Rather symptomatic of the way the whole thing has been handled by the BMC really. When will people learn that consultation means 80% listening....

And we didn't get any chips. The sandwiches and nibbles were nice though

In reply to Babika:

Thank you for your feedback.



Ouch!



Yep.



Evidently not yet.


Mick

In reply to pec:
Here we go again. All of the good the organisation does and they mess up on the way a potential rebrand is consulted on and communicated (but soon move to reverse that mistake) and 'people' are so pissed off they give up on it. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. I simply don't believe significant numbers are that stupid. Sure most people were rightly angry when it happened but either you did something about that or trusted others would on your behalf and the current position seems to be a reasonable one for the majority.

On deepsoups point I struggle to fully trust any marketing function... none I've experienced through work or elsewhere have been as professional or as cost efficient as they should be... the worst of the organisational functions I've witnessed. The function is a necessity but much can be done by training in marketing functions rather than employing 'experts' (and santisers should never have been on the B ark... people who look useless are often the opposite). Part of my concerns about marketing is the triviality of much modern logo design...recognition is the thing that matters: its clearly the organisation and things like visual variables are simple and consistent to help in that. Most people in marketing I've met couldn't name the visual variables with a gun to their head. Some attribute all sorts of metaphysical associated garbage to colour. They don't know how to check for colour blindness views or what happens if size is reduced for say business cards. My University logo was a dog's dinner with a main colour you could only print in expensive Pantone... the people who sold that were crooks. The CB logo seems to work in the main respects as a logo to me (and to find it just search "Climb Britain logo" as the BMC website can be clunky).

Up thread I pointed out someone consulted in the marketing survey on behalf of the BMC wasn't dealt with in the way the BMC described (presumably what the external marketing team sold them) . They had no idea a rebrand might be considered as part of the survey process. Given this I'd like to see concrete proof the marketing data sold to the BMC, gained through the survey, is accurate (but won't be holding my breath). Now I guess these same people will be helping out other sports using large amounts of public money in the process.

In reply to Babika:

That is bad. Have you written to Dave about it?

Any other area feedback out there?

In reply to Babika:


It was also noticeable that it appeared that 2 or 3 of those 4 in favour were individuals, whereas the majority of the "everyone else" were actually representing clubs, with up to 97 people being represented by a single hand.
If people had been able to raise a card with the number of persons they represented on it, and that had been counted instead, the number against would have been astronomical - shame it wasn't done in some way.

In reply to Offwidth:


Like I said, it was just a thought, the rebrand was spectacularly mishandled and not everyone is wildly enthusiastic about how the BMC operates anyway, despite it doing quite a lot of very good stuff.

In reply to pec:

Spectacular in the sense of a genuine mistake based on unanimous support from the democratic NC reps leading to impressive fireworks when it went public. They soon listened, consulted more using their formal proceses as soon as practical and then changed their mind within days.

Most other moans I hear about the BMC are bogus or overstated compared to the importance of things like the access work they support. Yet the moaning climbers as a tribe are too often bloody mean in that way too many won't join or upgrade to individual membership or buy their guidebooks or support the organization in other ways that raise income or save costs, such that other income sources are less needed (with inevitable agemdas that may differ slightly ...like Sport England and iits aim of mass participation). Climbers are too often 'cake and eat it' people who convert the 'what did the romans ever do for us?' Joke to the BMC ... its all too easy to moan on the internet, more people need to get out of their chair and do stuff.

In reply to Offwidth:

Well said.

I'm fed up with the number of times people have asked to borrow my guidebooks when going somewhere - especially when I can't go myself.
Why don't more people buy the definitive guidebooks instead of the cherry-picking private versions.