UKC

Is there a a thread going on this yet?
I have popcorn and slush puppy opened and ready, especially given some of the luminaries behind the motion.
https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2017/02/28/british-mountaineering-council...

In reply to simondgee:

The article does not name the 'luminaries', and I presume the BMC won't name them at this stage, so I wonder if they will put their names forward ?

The name change was a fiasco, but anyone who thinks the current name is perfect is living in cloud cuckoo land. More importantly the BMC reacted to the uproar and changed course pretty quickly, gave the membership a say, and abandoned an unpopular change.

What will this motion achieve ? And what do the proposers really want to achieve ?

I hope those raising the motion are ready to take over the running of the BMC. Put up or shut up, no sniping from the sidelines.

In reply to simondgee:

More dark deeds from the iluminaryati.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



"Cuckoo"

Speak for yourself!

I like British Mountaineering Council (BMC) and am glad we are keeping it!

"Cuckoo"

In reply to Dogwatch:

I agree. I have had this put to me.
Climb Britain was a cock up and it has been reversed. However if you are going to castigate your executive for making bold moves, they will never do bugger all inventive.
Also I have not seen from the noconners a plan B. What if the committee and the exec stand up and say, you know your right, you do it.
If stuck for a CEO though, give me a shout.

In reply to Dogwatch:


You make a fair comment, but that doesn't excuse any elected Council for making high handed decisions of such importance without first consulting it's membership. Hopefully lessons have been learned from the fiasco.

In reply to simondgee:

Climb GB may not be a complete waste of time. It could be the umbrella under which sport / comp climbing could come on the run up to the Olympics but still keep it part of the BMC. It would allow the BMC to remain as the governing body ( and keep the money generated ) but allow them to set up a separate division. This would potentially serve a dual purpose with BMC members happy that competitions were separate and comp climbers happy to have their own body.
But who knows what goes on at the BMC!

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I think the current name is fine. Why am I living in cloud cuckoo land?


Good questions. Until the motion is published, we just can't know.

In reply to simondgee:

This is lame. Let's all just get on!!

In reply to Chris the Tall:


My guess is that it's folk objecting to others enjoying climbing in ways they don't do themselves; notably comps but it usually covers dry tooling too, and depending on how limited their outlook is it could also spill into sport climbing or even bouldering. Not 'proper climbing', you see.

The ultimate aim will be to break up the BMC into two or more bodies, leaving 'their' bit in charge of 'their' type of climbing. The unintended consequence - as has happened elsewhere - is that 'their' body would steadily lose authority, funding and influence as it no longer represents the whole sport, ultimately becoming more like a national club, while a separate body gradually takes over many of its more official and important roles.

In reply to john arran:



As a person who enjoys walking as much as climbing, even now I feel under represented by the BMC on that side. If changed to Climb whatever, I would feel it had nothing for me as a walker, I could imagine that people who walk but do not climb at all would be turned right off.
For me the BMC is for people who enjoy the outdoors, climbing, walking, scrambling, camping, MTBing maybe horse riding, and indoor climbing is a wedge whose thin end got knocked in years ago, and needs knocking right back out.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Because it a) doesn't cover all of Britain, just England and Wales (see Mountaineering Scotland), b) it doesn't cover mountaineering directly, (see a), just walking and rock climbing and c) it's not really a council either is it?

The only reason we still have BMC as a name is because Climb Britain was just as crap and the status quo generally has some degree of attachment to it.

In reply to simondgee:
You must know who these luminaries are then, why not them and why haven't they revealed themselves? Seems a ridiculously trivial thing to base a no confidence vote on; "board makes mistake and then reverses it after listening to membership".

In reply to simondgee:

I think they'd be unwise to try to block the motion as Dave Turnbull seems to be suggesting is a possibility. That'll only succeed in creating further disaffection. Put it on the agenda, let it be discussed, it'll be soundly defeated, then everyone can move on.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Because what you like as a name is irrelevant. It's not a popularity contest. It's about attracting new people and having a name that better describes what the organisation is about.

If you can try to step back from your view formed over no doubt years of use and see how the term 'British Mountaineering Council' would appear to someone new to climbing in the 21st Century you might get an inkling of the problem with the title.

BTW as somone who has been climbing since the 80s the title has never been attractive to me. I've never done much in the way of real 'mountaineering', so always felt alienated by the title. I'm sure I'm not the only one. There are a lot of climbers these days who have no interest in mountaineering - possibly even more than those who do.

In reply to stp:


"Might appear", surely? "Would appear" implies that ALL recent newcomers to the sport have a problem with the name, which is incorrect. I can think of several counter-examples among people I know. Perhaps it is you who cannot "step back from your view".

In reply to stp:

... as somone who has been climbing since ....
I've never done much in the way of real 'mountaineering'
.... There are a lot of climbers these days who have no interest in mountaineering....

And that's what I believe is wrong with your view.
You only refer above to climbing.
You state that you (and others) have no interest in mountaineering.
I presume you only walk as far as the crag or the pub.
On looking at your profile it's all sport sport sport.

The BMC covers ALL aspects of mountaineering - climbing (sport, trad, aid etc.), walking and mountaineering.
You appear to only want climbing to be represented - and only part of it at that.

In reply to stp:


I think the whole renaming fiasco illustrates how difficult it is to come up with a significantly better name. I'm not sure how you decouple 'popularity' from 'attracting new people' anyway.


And would a name that would have attracted you in the 80s still attract people today (even assuming your personal tastes are generally acceptable)? An old name does at least have the advantage of consistency and brand recognition. If all old institutions constantly changed their names to appear current they would very quickly be unrecognised by almost everyone.

That said, I am starting to think that perhaps a new organisation dedicated purely to indoor climbing is worth considering.

In reply to fred99:


To you, mountaineering is obviously a more inclusive term than climbing. To many others it's the other way around, that is/was the nub of the whole Climb Britain debate. There is no right or wrong.








(actually there is but using the less inclusive term of mountaineering carried the day! If mountaineering is an umbrella term for all aspects of climbing why did you list as another sub-category under mountaineering?)

In reply to fred99:


There's a pretty strong argument that hillwalking, sport climbing, bouldering most English and Welsh trad climbing aren't aspects of mountaineering, though. I mean, I do a lot of hillwalking and mostly climb trad, but I wouldn't call much of what I do "mountaineering".

On the other hand I don't think that the name is a critical issue either way. Actions speak louder than words on this sort of thing. If it's obvious that the BMC are doing good things on the stuff that I care about then I'm not going to feel alienated by the name.

In reply to stp:
As a good BMC area meeting helper I often distributed our Peak newsletter to people at indoor walls. Most indoor climbers clearly felt no connection whatsoever with the BMC name (and struggled to get why it was relevant to them without a long explanation). In contrast during the 'period of excitement' I asked if the name Climb Britain would help and nearly everyone said yes. I was also very aware of the strong dislike for the name Climb Britain amongst the majority of my trad climbing and mountain walking BMC member friends. Having spoken to those in the BMC and part of the council vote I also could see why the idea was raised and why our elected council member volunteers would vote the way they did. Hence, I supported a joint branding with the BMC retained as the umbrella name for the organisation, especially for access work, with Climb Britain used for comps and recruitment of indoor climbers.

However that's now history, a new decision was made following apologies and that should be that now.

So does anyone else find it ironic that people being called luminaries are still stirring up trouble about 'BMC behind the scenes decisions' when themselves using BMC proceedural arguments that allow a very small number of people to force a no confidence debate, all done whilst seemingly hiding their own identities in the dark? This is surely more about character assassination than democracy within the BMC.

I personally think this a complete waste of time, so as a matter of interest will start a new thread to act as an indicative poll.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=659423&new=8508674#x8508674

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I tend to the view that it generally makes sense for the BMC to cover indoor climbing and outdoor climbing from a safety and participation point of view - the safety issues often cross over, and if people are going to be moving from indoor climbing to real rock then it makes sense for the BMC to be there on both sides of the bridge.

Arguably there's a case for competition and elite performance stuff to be hived off into a separate thing - the goals of improving crag access and winning more medals are divergent enough that it could be hard for a single organization to set priorities sensibly - although the competitions thing is presumably valuable in bringing in new members which has knock-on benefits for the campaigning / conservation side of things. Also, at the moment it just doesn't seem like a big enough thing for it to be worth the faff.

In reply to bpmclimb:


No that's not what I'm saying at all. It's not they have a problem with the name simply just that it doesn't sound like it has much to do with what they're doing. They simply won't pick up on it.

Most people these days start climbing at indoor walls. From there they may move on to rock climbing, or for many bouldering. It's very different from the days when people started climbing from hillwalking. The word 'climbing' or 'climb' is simply more inclusive.

In reply to fred99:


I think the viewpoint that all these activities fall under the umbrella of mountaineering is very out of date now. Times change. Gone are the days when going cragging was just seen as training for the 'real thing'. I very much doubt that, for instance all those people who take part or watch indoor bouldering comps, think they are doing something that's part of mountaineering.

Take a look at the covers on books with mountaineering in the title. It's all snowy peaks. That's how most people think about it these days.

You can climb up mountains. But you wouldn't go mountaineering at an indoor wall, a boulder problem or even a sea cliff.

In reply to stp:


Given that it comfortably encompasses rambles up Snowdon, top-roping on indoor walls and first ascents in the Himalaya, that's pretty much unarguably so. It's pretty hard to use Mountaineering for anything that doesn't actually take place on mountains - i.e. much of UK trad climbing, sport and bouldering.

I'm more interested in why some folk have such an attachment to the word Mountaineering anyway. Clearly an associative thing, but is it really such a leap to acknowledge that climbing can be worthwhile in its own right, even when it isn't training or preparation for high-mountain ascents? The actions of tens of thousands of UK climbers would seem to indicate otherwise.

In reply to john arran:


Climbers are trying to hijack the BMC. To be honest you are encouraging me to attend the meeting and support the no confidence vote.

In reply to john arran:

I thought the 'M' stood for something entirely different

In reply to Lenin:


That's logic worthy of Brexit: Someone points out an inconvenient truth so let's cut our nose off to spite our face!

In reply to Dave Garnett:


By being descriptive. Sounding cool is only part of it, and not the most important part.



It's only recognizable by those who already know about it. No use to newer climbers, and not attractive (in the sense of being attracted to) by anyone who doesn't climb in the mountains.

In reply to Lenin:


Damn. Those pesky climbers again. Getting involved in matters that don't concern them.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Ever thought of renaming your establishment 'The Mountaineering Works' to make it more inclusive?

In reply to stp:

Very good, you can have a free cuppa next time you are in

In reply to john arran:


Not an attachment as such but it simply describes what I enjoy most and why I am a member of the BMC - hill/mountain walking, scrambling and climbing on mountain crags,, winter climbing, alpinism etc The BMC was set up to support all this. If others find indoor climbing, bouldering, sport climbing, Olympics and competitions preferable, fine, but don't try and hijack an organisation that was set up for something else.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Worked for Dave Cameron!

In reply to MG:

Can't argue with any of that. That was pretty much the full range of climbers' main interests when the BMC was set up to represent all climbers.

Can't argue with that either, of course. These are increasingly part of the evolving world of climbing.

>but don't try and hijack an organisation that was set up for something else.
Given that nobody is trying to hijack anything, only to be more inclusive, it seems we are in complete agreement

In reply to john arran:


Almost. The Climb thing looked very much like a hijack to me and STP clearly doesn't think mountaineering should be the focus.

In reply to stp:


Then it would surely appeal more to those who like "camping, MTBing, maybe horse riding". Seems you've been missing out on your core market all this time!

In reply to Scott K:

Hi Scott,
It was agreed at National Council late in 2016 to set up a separate comps section as you describe. However we already have a name - GB Climbing Team - so dont want / need Climb Britain.
I must point out that this has been through the discussion mill before - both at the BMC and on here; you must have just unfortunately missed it.
Ian W
Chair, BMC comps comm.

In reply to john arran:

And you need to change the database to "MountaineeringTime".

And get rid of the Gaz picture!

In reply to MG:


You're just not getting it, are you? There is no focus, if by that you mean preferential treatment of one climbing/mountaineering group over another. That's what representative means. There's no competition for resources so you don't need to be scared that other user groups will steal what you perceive to be your share. And if a name change becomes more appropriate then so be it - nobody is losing out, except maybe those who are determined to drive wedges between different sections of climbers, but since most climbers do a bit of most types of climbing that doesn't seem like an effective or harmonious way to proceed anyway.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I do remember putting in a feature where you could replace Gaz with a photo of your own, but maybe it never made a release!

In reply to john arran:

Of course there is a focus! As you say it will be representative of the members. If these become predominantly interested in competitions, or whatever, that is where the focus will be. Of course you might say that is just fair and how things are, but things are coupled - who joins and how the organisation changes feed of each other.


Rubbish. There is always competitions for resources, anywhere.

> And if a name change becomes more appropriate then so be it - nobody is losing out,

Well it appears they won't be but again that is nonsense. If you change a name from Mountaineering to Climb, it is sending a strong signal about who is losing out (mountaineers) and who is gaining (climbers).

In reply to MG:

It must be hard living in a world where everyone is a competitor to be bettered rather than an ally to join forces with. I'm hugely thankful I don't see things that way.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:



From what I've heard, Simon, nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than trying to block the motion, the proposers have merely been advised that, in its current form, the motion does not comply with the requirements of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the BMC. And in purely legal terms, such things matter.

The mem and arts require such a motion to have 25 signatories to be eligible. If the motion submitted actually has no signatories - merely a list of names - and when some of those names were contacted, they denied having ever seen the motion, let alone that they support it....

.... well, then it would not seem unreasonable for it to be deemed inadmissible - luminaries or no luminaries.

Neil

In reply to stp:

I quiet liked the old name and its associations, I might never climb in the big mountain ranges and spend most of my time indoor climbing or bouldering but i liked the tenuous link to British climbing/mountaineering history and people. It has a bit of 'romance' to it! I didn't like Climb Britain, wondered why not suggested something like British Climbing similar to British Athletics, British Cycling or British Canoeing. Could even keep the same initials and use British Mountaineering and Climbing

In reply to stp:


Would also be interesting to see if rather than the BMC be renamed Climb Britain, the Climbers Club will become the Mountaineers Club, and FRCC become the Fell and Mountaineering Club.........

In reply to john arran:

!!?? You seem in two posts to have gone from agreeing with me to regarding me as some sort of tyrant. Odd

In reply to RX-78:

British Climbing has been registered by someone else and they were apparently VERY reluctant to let it go.

In reply to MG:


Its not a hijack, the BMC has evolved over time, like any organisation. Bouldering and sport climbing are part of what it now covers. It seems you object to more than just the name change but the fact that the BMC has changed, do you want it to roll back to only covering those aspects of the activity you are interested in?

In reply to MG:

I was agreeing with all of your underlying reasoning. But the conclusions you were drawing didn't seem to make sense until I tried to see the world through a dog-eat-dog, competitive prism in which no change could happen without someone badly losing out. Then I felt like I understood. Not sure where the 'tyrant' bit comes from.

In reply to Tyler:
Sort of. As I've suggested before, to me it would make more sense to have a sports/bouldering/competition organisation (the "new" aspects of the BMC) and a mountaineering/walking organisation (the rest of the BMC and the Ramblers.). Such a division would make much more sense to me. Previously though this suggestion appeared to be viewed as sacrilege and for suggesting it I should properly be burnt at the stake, so I guess I am odd.

In reply to Tyler:


"We send £31.45 a year to the BMC. Let's spend it on hexes, egg sandwiches and flasks of tea instead."

In reply to MG:


Where would you put cragging and sea-cliff climbing?

In reply to stp:


I think you should give new climbers more credit for their sense of direction. I'd define 'mountains' pretty broadly although I'd agree that it wouldn't include indoors.

The clubs I belong to define 'mountaineering' as including MTB and 'Alpine' as pretty much anything, so I don't see why the BMC can't include any activity commonly practised in mountain areas as qualifying.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
It wouldn't be a hard division, as now with the Ramblers and BMC there would inevitably be overlap. Personally I would put trad in BMClassic and bolts in NuBMC

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Unfortunately neither was the suggested alternative it seems. But I really don't see why the BMC couldn't use both names, or indeed several names, all under the BMC/Mountaineering Scotland umbrella. So you could have ClimbBritain for climbers, wall users etc, WalkBritain for hill walkers, maybe even BoulderBritain, and just pick a relevant name and logo depending on the context it's to be used in.


Quite!

In reply to MG:

Maybe one day there'll be a need for two organisations but at the moment climbing is still small fry and the voice we have that includes all climbers is louder than two smaller organisations.

In reply to MG:

What about routes with golos or pegs?

In reply to john arran:


Only tourists talk of "climbing" Snowdon. You walk up it.

In reply to MG:


That really is an odd delineation (even aside from the pedantic point that some trad routes have bolts) given that every teas climber I know sport climbs and uses indoor walls. James McHaffie, Dave McCloud, Hazel Findlay etc all do both

In reply to MG:


And would one group campaign on access issues at trad crags and another at sport crags and bouldering venues (and come to some arrangement at the large number of crags where trad coexists with sport and/or bouldering)? And would each group have their own technical committee, one to look into issues with bolt anchors and the other with trad gear, but both to look at ropes, harness and belay devices? Where would bolting policies be discussed? Would the majority of current ramblers who don't climb be particularly happy that their organization is now faffing around arguing about access to some sea cliff or quarry that they have no interest in? Or testing gear that they don't use?

Overall it seems like a rather pointless divide-and-be-conquered operation on two things that have massive crossover both in terms of the issues involved and the people who do them.

In reply to Ramblin dave:
As I said, it appears I am odd. I can't see any really connection between Olympic climbing and a remote winter route (or trad climb or hillwalk) - they are just different activities that have a increasingly distant common starting point. However, I can see a clear connection between hill walking and a remote winter route (and trad and sea-cliff climbing) - they all draw on self-reliance and exploration and managing risk as key elements) which is why I think what I suggest makes sense.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


What happens when one side decides Malham or Kilnsey are entirely trad or sport? Why would UKSportXlimbing give a hoot if their members started bolting up Pembroke.

In reply to Neil Williams:


http://www.ramblers.org.uk/find-a-walk.aspx?layer=walks&tab=walks&g...

The first page google landed on when I looked for rambles. Out of 10 walks listed, 4 of them mention 'climb' or 'climbing' in the single-para description.

You may not see it as climbing or you may draw a big distinction, but it's very often described as such among walkers as well as among tourists. Certainly enough to suggest that the word 'climbing' is indeed inclusive to many people of general hill-walking activities.

In reply to Scott K:

The BMC is not as is currently constituted a governing body, it is a representative organisation whose principal role from creation has been to represent the outdoor climbing/mountaineering/hillwalking community in its broadest sense. It has represented 'us' to landowners, local authorities, and central government. It has framed guidelines, proposed best practices and brought together stakeholders when negotiation has been required to achieve a settled position.

To date it has not 'set rules' (except in the broad advisory sense) as in the Regional Access Database, ie it can advise but can't police and has no sanction authority. Currently it has an advisory / assistance role as part of the greater climbing community and that is as far as it goes. Even the Mountain Leadership award process is an 'arms length' partnership with Mountain Training.

This is because competitions need rules, process and governance (eg drug testing as an Olympic sport). Governing bodies also need resources and that means a level of expenditure that I suspect is well in excess of what the current membership is willing to pay to fund competitions at an elite level, hence the developing relationship with Sport England.

One of the key debates may be that a decision will have to be made as to whether it becomes a part of the governing process that is necessary if it wants to be part of the national (like athletics or closer to us perhaps, canoeing) climbing competition process. As an Olympic sport, Sport England will, to a greater or lesser extent, govern and control this process whether we as the currently constituted BMC membership like it or not. To be controversial I will call this body 'Climb Britain' hereafter 'CB'.

My great concern is that if we cede this space to 'CB' without some concrete relationship, it may be to all of our detriments. Government in its broadest sense will want to deal with only one organisation because it wants to make life simple and they will follow the money (if there is any). Also one of the key reasons UK Sport has been successful is (and it states it proudly) is to be ruthless in pursuing elite medals. Do not be surprised if in ten years time CB as a standalone body is recommending bolts 'anywhere that assists the development of the sport safely to the greatest number and that helps our elite athletes to reach their goals'. See the BMC link

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/sport-climbing-olympic-games

I don't believe that a No Confidence Motion (if it makes it to the agenda) will achieve anything except at least 12 months of disruption. I do believe the BMC must work with 'CB' however it constitutes itself and given that it is only 3 years to the first Olympics with climbing medals we should be focussing on this.

In reply to MG:

Can you see the connection between someone climbing a trad route in the Llanberis slate quarries and the same person in the same quarry on the same day climbing a sport route?

Edit: and one obvious connection between remote winter or trad routes and indoor climbing - if not Olympic climbing - is that most people who do remote winter or trad routes use indoor walls for training, and would like to see the culture of indoor walls (as regards safety etc) informed by that perspective as well as by people who see them as a cross between a gym and Go Ape.

In reply to Trangia:


I can understand why people think it's better than the alternatives, but do you really believe it is 'perfect' ?

The British bit is debatable and the mountaineering bit even more so, but it's the council bit that I really have difficulty with. The BMC was originally a council of mountaineering clubs. There are those who campaigned a few years ago that it should revert and limit itself to that role. I think that would be a terrible move.

And I whole heartedly agree with Offwidth (yes, it does happen occasionally), I have found that you always have to explain what the BMC is to non-climbers or even wall-climbers - the name simply isn't self explanatory.

In reply to simondgee:

Much of this thread is just rehashing old arguments which are really just opinion. Me, I don't see how 'Climb' is more appropriate than 'Mountaineering' since the latter includes walking and climbing. I know if I only walked I wouldn't regard myself as a 'climber' (and perhaps would feel alienated by the proposed new name). Go out on the hills in winter and what you're doing does at least have a mountaineering flavour. But others apparently disagree.

Then again, I don't see the point in a motion of no confidence. They messed up but have hopefully been brought back in line again.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I think the word "Mountaineering" is good because it is all encompassing and embraces all the disciplines enjoyed in mountains, and to me that even includes indoor wall climbing. There is no other word which is so all embracing, not even "climbing"which I consider is an element of mountaineering, , as much as hill walking is.

I consider myself to be a mountaineer, and if I had never been to the Himalaya or Alps, I would still describe my "sport" as mountainering.

I've never had a problem trying to explain to non climbers what the BMC is.

The British Mountaineering Council sounds traditional (what's wrong with that?), well established, dignified (surely a good thing?), all embracing and solid. None of the other title suggestions have come anywhere that.

In reply to MG:

It wouldn't be a hard division, as now with the Ramblers and BMC there would inevitably be overlap. Personally I would put trad in BMClassic and bolts in NuBMC

A good split would be: 'British Mountaineering Council' and 'Mountaineering Council of Britain'...

In reply to john arran:


I think the word 'attachment' is key here. I think it's understandable that people are attached to the BMC title because it's been around forever, and it has a strong meaning and even a feeling for many that has no doubt grown over the years.

What surprises me is more people don't just see it for what it is, just an attachment, and can't see that the name change is about branding and marketing that could open the BMC up to a bigger audience, with more income and able to do more stuff. I think this probably boils down to the fact that people in general are naturally conservative and scared of change.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


It's not so much to do with activities they do or do not cover. It's more about how, in a totally media saturated world, people will respond the the title. We can say you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover but the fact is most people do make judgments about things very quickly. That's the way we're wired up. If someone sees British Mountaineering Council in a mag or on the internet somewhere and they don't think of themselves as mountaineers there's a good chance they'll get no further than that. For an indoor climber or a boulderer why would they? It just sounds like it's about something in which they've got no interest in.

I think the whole name is now very dated. I don't think anyone creating a new organization from scratch would come up with a name like that in this day and age. Though of course for people who have been climbing for years and BMC members, their perception of the title will be completely different.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

If that means MTB then I really would be against it. Mountain bike access is a time bomb judging by the state of the moors here and I wouldn't want relationships and infrastructures that the BMC have diligently built up over the years taken over to fight mountain bike issues.

In reply to Tyler:

I think that was more of a "what's in a name" point than a proposal to change the remit of the BMC. Likewise if members of the Rucksack Club go running, they're presumably allowed to take bumbags if they prefer.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Are you from the Judean Peoples Front?

In reply to john arran:

Not sure, John. I think it may be more about who holds the 'power' in the BMC: staff, Executive or members through the national council.
Until the motion is published we won't know, and we just don't know who is proposing.

There will undoubtedly be some tensions around the Olympics and the ISCF though.

In reply to Barrington:

Are you from the Judean Peoples Front?

F*ck off!

In reply to stp:


English Climbing Council, then?

In reply to fred99:

I trad climb. I sport climb. I boulder. I go walking in the hills. I don't consider myself even a little bit a mountaineer.

In reply to Scotch Bingington:


I know what you mean. It's a bit like someone putting up a shelf and being expected to think of himself as a builder. What's so wrong with the term handyman? Do you really need to have dreams of laying bricks and roof tiles to feel you are in a community of home improvers?

In reply to stp:

But I don't think the BMC is in the business of impulse selling is it? Wouldn't even boulderers climbing indoors become aware of the BMC's role in training? The walls I go to have plenty of BMC branded material. Then there are the guidebooks. Certainly in the Peak most active boulderers and sport climbers are going to come across a BMC guidebook fairly early in their career, aren't they? Certainly if they climb at Horseshoe or Aldery Cliff, or look into climbing insurance...

It's not like the BMC is trying to grab the attention of the general public by putting an advert on the back of a bus. We aren't selling energy drinks or ready meals, I think we need a different kind of brand awareness, where solidity, reliability and consistency are more important than instant eye appeal and where peer to peer referral is more important than point of sale attention grabbing.

In reply to Ian W:

Don't you think that climb Britain is a much catchier and more inclusive name the GB climbing team? What if you are not in the team but like watching comps?

In reply to Dave Garnett:


It seems the reason for the disagreement is that there are two different questions that are posed:

1. Which name do we, the BMC members, like best?

2. Which name will best serve the BMC in the future to represent the changing trends in climbing and maximize participation?


The answer to 1. is clearly the old name. Don't change it. We like it.

The answer to 2. is Climb Britain based on empirical research and the expertise of professionals.

In reply to johncook:

I think climb Britain is an excellent choice (as was suggested at the time) for a sub brand of th BMC, but not for the team. For those who like watching comps, i dont see the difference? Have i missed your point? GB Climbing Team is the identifier for the body of people who represent GB in the world of climbing competitions (both sport and ice climbing), and is what team GB supporters identify with, and we dont want anything so broad as Climb Britain, which would encompass so much more than just "the team".

In reply to Ian W:

The team will, and should, always have its own unique - and by definition elitist - name. That's fine.

What I understand to be the case, is that some folk would like to see part of the work of the BMC hived off to a separate section - ideally a separate organisation completely if they can get away with it - and managed under a different name. Things to be shoved there would be comps (obviously because they're anathema to true outdoorsy people), all indoor climbing (except when it rains), all performance training (except some useful things like technique and rescue), youth development (except when a son/daughter/grandchild turns out to show particular aptitude), and probably sport climbing too (depending on whether or not they live near Portland.) Then if there's ever any doubt as to which body is responsible in a given situation it would always be the BMC that has first dibs.

I can't see a problem with that plan; can you?

In reply to stp:


Was there much empirical research? Sorry, I can't remember! (But, if so, how valid and reliable was it?)

Expertise of professionals... hmm... rebranders don't seem to have a marvellous track record (or have I missed something - always possible).

Mick

In reply to john arran:

John. you cynical old tart.
Have a like.

In reply to FactorXXX:

What about the Judean Peoples' Front? Or was it the Peoples' Front of Judea?

FWIW I have no issue with the BMC using Climb Britain as a sub-brand. I just don't want the organisation renaming. I don't see what the problem with achieving that is, and if Sport England have a problem with it they are being pig-headed for no good reason.

In reply to stp:

Why can't the BMC operate certain aspects (e.g. Olympic influence) under the Climb Britain brand?

I similarly mourn the passing of the Grand National Archery Society and the British Canoe Union (though "British Canoeing" isn't quite as far from the old name) - but each of those could have used the "modern" brand for those specific areas, with the venerable and respected old organisation retaining its traditional name overall.

In reply to Neil Williams:


There is a bit of a geographic over-reach happening with the BMC which becomes more explicit with a Climb Britain brand. The geographic area for BMC is England and Wales. Scotland and Ireland have their own organisations. BMC should not gradually redefine itself as representing the whole country.

In reply to stp:

>Climb Britain based on empirical research and the expertise of professionals.

Doesn't mean (a) the name is any good, (b) it would necessarily make climbing/mountaineering/hillwalking more popular, or (c) it would better represent those taking part in those activities. And the BMC, as far as I'm aware, doesn't just represent climbers.

In reply to simondgee:

This has gone off topic somewhat. I suppose I must declare my hand as a volunteer for the BMC. We had due process in September on the matter of the rebrand, membership was given the opportunity to have its say, was listened to and the decision was reversed. There is little point in rehashing it now.

The announcement of the rebrand was poorly handled but there was no immense conspiracy. The executive genuinely had no idea of the feelings that this decision would provoke. In any vote of no confidence we need to consider the direction of the organisation and outcomes produced. In this, the BMC continue to work hard for members whose interests and needs have widened immensely since the conception of the organisation. It seems that there may be a plan with knives sharpened some time ago, at work here. This can only result in a period of destabilisation during which, members views won't be represented as well as possible.

Anyone proposing this vote should think carefully about why they are doing this and the end result.

My thoughts for what they are worth.

James

In reply to stp:



It depends what you mean by 'representing future trends' and 'maximising participation' Even assuming you accept these are desirable goals, I really don't see that the name matters very much if you mean providing support and services for climbers of all kinds. It's not as if it's a competitive market for national representative bodies is it?

If someone doesn't immediately recognise the BMC as representing climbing generally then pretty much the first person they ask will put them right. And, as many have already suggested, there's no reason why some more specific, catchier brand couldn't be used under the BMC umbrella.

I really think that it's rather patronising to young climbers to assume that they can't work out what the national body is unless it's in the specific, dumbed down, and now very tired, 'Sport Climb UK' or 'Boulder UK' format so loved by lazy brand consultants. And, as I said earlier, the logic of this approach is to rename the organisation every 10 years to reflect the zeitgeist. Not that it would, of course, it's all embarrassing dad branding.

In reply to Mick Ward:

Well Offwidth already mentioned some informal findings:

As a good BMC area meeting helper I often distributed our Peak newsletter to people at indoor walls. Most indoor climbers clearly felt no connection whatsoever with the BMC name (and struggled to get why it was relevant to them without a long explanation). In contrast during the 'period of excitement' I asked if the name Climb Britain would help and nearly everyone said yes.

Beyond that I don't know what the rebranders did or how generalized or specific it was (asking climbers or just drawing from previous case studies etc.). But seeing how that is their area of work, which they've studied and practice full time and were paid to do I'd expect their views to carry far more weight than anyone who has simply stated their preference based on nothing.

Additionally it also seems fairly obvious that the term 'mountaineering' conjures up a very specific image for most people that is at odds what probably the majority climbers to do today. I think the argument that 'mountaineering' is the umbrella term encompassing all kinds of climbing is just plain wrong for the vast majority of people. Climb/Climber/Climbing are the umbrella terms which are also the names of popular magazines too (as is this web site).

I think we have to try to see what the phrase British Mountaineering Council might imply to someone who has never heard of it before. Maybe that's not easy to do when it's been part of our vocabulary for many years. But for me it conjures up an image of old men sitting in a grandiose chamber somewhere who decide on the funding applications for British based Himalayan expeditions. As rock climber, indoor climber or even hillwalker it doesn't sound like it has anything of interest for me.


As for rebranders track record I think the the abject failures tend to stand out and get in the news whereas the successes are just not newsworthy. Pretty much all businesses of any size rely on branding and marketing companies so if they were really useless most of the time I don't think they'd last very long.

In reply to stp:

The rebrand itself is a red herring. Personally I don't see what is wrong with the name BMC for looking after the interests of outdoor enthusiasts (just as I don't have an issue with buying OS maps. (Ordnance Survey FFS - what sort of a name is that ? but its still a strong brand).

The issues are two fold as I see it. One is the management of the re-brand. I'd be quite happy to put this down to cock up theory if it weren't for the second one: indoor climbing, teams and now the Olympics. To me the re-brand smacked of moving the centre of focus of the BMC - which I am concerned with.

I'd be far happier that the good old BMC carried on representing the interests of outdoor enthusiasts and we have a new governing body with a sexy snappy name (such as 'Climb GB' or some such) for competition climbing.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Fair point. Perhaps, then, such things should operate as Climb England and Climb Wales?

Of course, it's quite possible that, were that not owned by Beacon/Big Rock's parent company, "Climb UK" would work in a few years' time once Scotland and Northern Ireland have seceded... As they don't heavily use that brand the BMC might equally find they'd give it up if asked nicely and paid the costs of a rebrand.

Actually, if you did want to rename the BMC to avoid those issues while keeping it nice and traditional sounding, "Mountaineering England and Wales" does work for me.

In reply to GrahamD:

The surveying division of the Royal Ordnance Corps, was it not?

I do see a big strength in these venerable, trusted old names. Why not keep them? I could see a temptation arising to call it "Mapping UK" or something, but there's really no need.

FWIW, rebranding every 5 minutes is a US/UK thing. I think I mentioned it on the other thread, but there's a couple of radio stations I used to listen to when I lived in Hamburg in 1999-2000 (Delta Radio and Radio Hamburg). Nearly 20 years on both are still using the same set of branding, and one of them still uses the same set of jingles, and both still have some of the same presenters doing the same shows. Germany values conservatism like that (if it ain't broke, don't fix it), for some reason we don't.

The bus industry sometimes likes to hang onto those old names, for one, though. Until a recent restructuring killed it, our local Stagecoach buses used to carry legal lettering for "The United Counties Omnibus Company Ltd", just trading as Stagecoach in Bedford/Northampton.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


By future trends I'm thinking of the way that climbing as a sport or activity is constantly changing over time. Think of how different it is from say the Joe Brown era to what it is today. Eg. In this country now it's possible that most climbing takes place indoors. But 50 years ago there was no such thing as indoor climbing.

By maximizing participation I simply mean getting the most numbers of climbers to join the BMC.



Well if the BMC ceases to be relevant to the majority of climbers perhaps eventually it will cease to exist at all.




They are two separate things. If the name doesn't matter we could just as well call it the Lesbian Camel Jockey's Club then and it wouldn't change anything. I think given this discussion and the previous debates on this it's clear the name does matter.



It's not that they couldn't work it out. More that why make it sound like something that it's not. Why put up that barrier if you want to get more people involved?



I think the word climb or climbing is unlikely to change it's meaning. And unless Britain is annexed by another country and we become part of say France I can't see that requiring a change either.

In reply to stp:
It was likely more problematic than that. Some people I know who were surveyed for the BMC at the time had no idea at all that a name change was even being considered through the survey. If that is true the rebranders might not have been honest with the BMC... another reason I'm sympathetic to the Exec and the National Council.... the (likely flawed) evidence they saw for some change was compelling. I'm not saying the BMC is the ideal name for everyone but I can't believe if those surveyed knew that a name change was in prospect that the survey wouldn't have highlighted the likely backlash. I still think the BMC would benefit indoor recruitment with a 'climbing' sub-brand, yet I also know many BMC members don't want indoor recruits.

It's not easy to explain to young indoor-exclusive boulderers what the BMC is and why it is important, as Dave Garnett implies. They are far from stupid but its a complex set of ideals and issues they often have little direct connection with and so it takes time (away from the climbing!). Most are inspiring in their climbing enthusiasm and caring nature though, so I'll keep trying.

In reply to GrahamD:


We hear this a lot, but there's little, if anything, to suggest that it wouldn't cause more problems than it solved (admittedly there seems little in the way of problem currently to solve so it would be hard to improve on what we have now.)

Similar things have been tried in other countries, and many now have two climbing federations, but can anyone point to an example where it's actually worked out well for all climbers, rather than just working out well for the competition and sport climbing side of the sport?

In reply to the thread in general:

I'm baffled by the whole thing. I was a bit shocked by the re-brand at the time. It was a bland name in a horrible jingoistic font that seemed to come out of nowhere. I was against it. I like the traditional, weighty feel of the BMC name and brand and all that is associated with it, it has a long history o doing good and feel that abandoning that for the sake of a currently hip but soon to fake name of the moment would be an error. There is no requirement to attract "non-climbers*" as they are only trying to appeal to climbers*. The BMC isn't trying to increase absolute participation numbers as far as I am aware but it is trying to increase it's membership my appeal to more of those who already climb*. Therefore they don't need to a jazzy new name to appeal to the man on the street, they just need more advocates and more effort to get the message out there about what they do.

The two things that totally baffled me thought are:

1. I also really don't understand the want of some posters to carve up our national body in order to keep those that pursue different strains of the pastime that is climbing at arms length. YOU might not boulder, climbing indoors, comp climb etc but "most " climbers do a bit of everything and can see the advantage of keeping everyone under the same umbrella. Stronger together surely? (though I think the last campaign that was used in went a little pear shaped so I might have to rephrase that........)

2. Do people really believe in these "jobs for the boys"/abandoning traditional values to pursue some comp climbing Olympic ideal? Really? All the access, youth work, training, area meetings, turf temp monitors etc are all a front to allow the world domination of plastic bolt clippers or just a way of getting a few quid? The mind boggles......

*I'm using climbers and climb to include everyone the BMC represents for ease of typing

In reply to stp:


Lord Leverhulme to the cream of British advertisers circa 1930s, "How much advertising actually works?" Shock horror! Much muttering and mumbling. Finally an answer, "50%." To which L L calmly replied, "Well can I pay for the 50% which works rather than the 50% which doesn't?"

Re lasting very long, I once worked for the oldest management consultancy in Europe. Very blue-blooded indeed. The quality of the work? In my humble opinion, negligible. We parted company. Looking back 30 years later, I can see where their flagship product ('the future of management') went... nowhere. Cos it was always bollox. I was the first person to say, "The emperor ain't got any clothes on." Folk don't want to hear that.

Although I don't know about rebranders per se, I've yet to come across a marketing consultancy which was any good (though I'm out of things now). Big companies spend huge amounts on management consultancy (from big consultants, not the one-off good guys) and almost always end up with no long-term benefit. How do these companies stay in business? F*ck knows - but they do.

Sorry, been around far too long to be easily impressed.

Mick

In reply to GrahamD:


My concern too.

Mick

In reply to GrahamD:


There are lots of very strong brands with meaningless names: Nike, Adidas, Shell, Exxon etc. etc. The good thing with such names is that at least they don't lead you into a wrong direction.



Seems like that's what many were worried about. Personally I think they're better treated as separate issues: what it's called and what it does. But I can appreciate how that concern would be magnified by the fact that the members don't have any power or voting rights and thus spill out into outrage. But ultimately if the organization wasn't doing what people wanted they could simply not renew their memberships. The BMC knows that so they have to be kept in line to some extent by that.



Well climbing is such an incredibly diverse activity that very few, if any, of us have interests in all the different parts. We can divide up climbing in a myriad of different ways. The BMC could break up into many different splinter groups for each of these. For me a long term knee problem means I'll never be a hill walker or a mountaineer. I enjoy watching bouldering comps but have never watched a speed climbing one. I sport climb but don't go bouldering. If there were 50 specific groups instead of just one we could just join those we like and ignore the rest. Would that be better than one big group? I think it would take a lot more resources to run.

In reply to GrahamD:

So is the concern that some of the subs you pay is being spent on things of which you have no interest, like comp climbing?

And if so wouldn't the solution be to get a attract a wider group of people involved, including those who enjoy competitions, whose subs would then end up paying for the stuff you don't support?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

'We aren't selling energy drinks or ready meals, I think we need a different kind of brand awareness, where solidity, reliability and consistency are more important than instant eye appeal and where peer to peer referral is more important than point of sale attention grabbing'.

Spot on Dave, well said, hammer, nail, head springs to mind

In reply to stp:


Ah. I suspect that to bodies like Sport England it doesn't mean that. Not that there's anything wrong with lowering the entry barriers to non-climbers to get involved in indoor climbing but it is the sort of thing that tends to motivate a rebranding exercise.

Anyway, all of this is rather straying from the original question about the fall-out of the exercise. It was a fair enough idea to explore, the BMC was essentially given some free rebranding advice and the more vocal portion of the membership expressed its disapproval. The Exec backed down, and here we all are.

In reply to stp:


What do you mean, they have meaningless names? Nike is named after the goddess of victory, famed for her fast running, Adidias is a compound of the founder's name, Adi Dassler, Shell is called shell because it started out as a sea shell import/export business etc.

If you want, the BM could jsut become "The BMC" and ditch the actual words behind the acronym*?

(*total aside but I was lead to believe that an acronym implied the letters had to be "said as a word", not just as letters, so the BMC would not be an acronym but NASA, NATO would be. Is this true, has the usage changed over time?)

In reply to Mick Ward:


It's because they are a way of outsourcing risk. Management feels that they need to be seen to be keeping things up to date, they take expert advice, if it goes well they take the credit, if not the consultancy gets the blame and they don't use them again.

Of course, generally the consultancy gets well paid whatever the outcome, and there will always be new customers who are dissatisfied with their previous consultants...

In reply to:

One of the items shown up at the meetings was that the rebranding had effectively only been shown to people at indoor walls - it is therefore no surprise that they came up with the response that they did.

If questions had been asked at the Storey Arms each weekend then I'm sure that the answer would have quite the opposite.

I also would like to point out that the BMC is a Representative Body, not a governing one. Sport England (and other governmental groups) hate representative bodies, but love governing ones, especially when they can wheedle their way in and control them with some initial financial input, which they can then gradually remove once control has been wrested from the membership and into a small number of (easily controlled) people.

The competitive climbing lobby has a hell of a lot of influence relative to the paltry numbers (of adults) who take part, especially when compared to the numbers of BMC members who walk and climb without ever taking part in competitions.

The competitive climbing people would get zero financial help from any governmental body if it could only call upon the pitiful number of adults involved. However by claiming the entire membership of the BMC as their own they suddenly become a big player - and oodles of money beckon.

Please note that I repeatedly refer to adult numbers, something the competitive climbing lobby refuse to do, as they can then include all the 5 - 10 year-olds sent to walls as a variation on child-minding in order to boost their numbers. A dodgy tactic at best. What would happen if athletics claimed every schoolchild taking part in school sports, or swimming every schoolchild given swimming lessons, or cycling every child given a bike (or trike) for Xmas.

It is true that a large number of climbers use indoor walls.
It is also true that a large number of both climbers and walkers go for a run on either an occasional or regular basis.
It is not the case that such occasional runners would (or should) be classified as wanting to join the governing body for Athletics - such an argument would be absurd.

It is therefore not exactly surprising that an action which crept under the radar, sponsored by an outside group, and championed mainly by those with a financial interest was thrown out.
However the antics of many to control OUR organisation are still going on - hence the motion.

In reply to fred99:


Do they? Do they really? What has been effect of their influence?


Oodles of money? You do realise lots of sports are having their funding cut and Sport England aren't the cash cow they once were due to the reduction in lottery spending?

This all sounds like hearsay, it not exactly a coherent evidenced argument.

In reply to stp:


It is more a case that I think that the requirements of an outdoor enthusiast from their representative body (access etc) is just poles apart from the interests of the sport of competition climbing. To me there is a more logical overlap between 'traditional' BMC, cavers organisations and Ramblers and Fell Runners and even the National Trust than there is sport climbing, which more overlaps with all the other sport governing bodies (ie sponsorship, coaching etc). You don't expect the FA to be taking an interest in maintaining footpaths in local parks.

The issue of subs is interesting. It will cause disquiet because the needs of competition and outdoor enthusiast don't overlap so under a common funding model, one will inevitably subsidise the other.

Obviously a few people will have feet in both camps, but then many of us are members of multiple societies. Its not unusual.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


I suppose 'good' is a subjective. I'd say it's more likely to provoke interest amongst a wider group of people. Maybe 'useful' is a better way of putting it.



No agreed. I think the idea is to make the BMC itself more popular.



Agreed again. That's more to do with policy. Though indirectly with more members and more income it would have more power.



It certainly doesn't just represent mountaineers either.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:



So this implies the 'British' in BMC is also misleading then?

In reply to galpinos:

And how many people actually know what those names mean? To most they mean the brand and nothing else. Ordinance Survey also has a meaning but to most it's just the brand.


As I understand acronyms now include non-words like BMC too these days. So usage has changed the meaning.

In reply to stp:


Yes.

As regards climbing as a sport I'd like to see it structured like football and rugby with MCofS running Scotland and collaborating with BMC to appoint a GB team for Olympics/IFSC etc. I don't want BMC positioning itself as a GB wide organisation and running the show as of right.

In reply to stp:


That was my poorly articulated point. I believe the BMC is the same, the brand is now, "the BMC", with associated clean and appealing logo, not the British Mountaineering Council. It has history and authority and it would seem to be a shame to throw it all away for something that is fleetingly, barely a la mode.

To back up my claim that he brand is now just "the BMC", look at the website, www.thebmc.co.uk. The only mention of the British Mountaineering Council is in the footer.

In reply to stp:


Surely everyone knows where those names come from.

In reply to fred99:
How wrong you are! A lot of sport England support to the BMC is due to competition climbing and developing talent support systems (indoor climbing is required for this). This means that competition climbing is self funded. The BMC could not get the increased participation required for funding without the climbers who start at indoor walls.
Apparently the bulk of indoor climbers are not members of the BMC which I think is a travesty and all national bodies should be doing more to encourage these people to join, if only for the insurance aspect. If the climb GB brand encourages these guys to join, then it should be given due consideration.
The bulk of new climbers are starting in climbing walls now but this is where the next generation of outdoor climbers and mountaineers could come from if they are engaged and encouraged.
Regardless of the actions of this group you refer to, the results of the rebranding exercise should be studied and lessons could be learned on how to engage this new generation of potential members.
I must be honest and admit I am a member of MCofS but this applies to all national bodies. New climbers of all ages must be persuaded that there is more to climbing than an indoor wall whether that be sport, trad or mountain routes.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Because, as stated in a previous post, WE DONT WANT TO!!!!!!!!


Ian W
Chair, BMC Comps. Comm

In reply to stp:
Not in international competition terms, William Bosi competes internationally for Team GB and is entered into the events by the BMC.

Ireland is more complicated as MI covers all Ireland but someone from Northern Ireland could compete for Team GB or, if they had dual nationality they could compete for Team IRE

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Rugby only has 7's in the Olympics and I don't remember Scotland having a team in Rio.

We don't enter a football team into the Games because of the home nation issues, obviously 2012 was the exception and look at the fuss that was ade about that.

It is not a case of the BMC positioning itslf as the GB wide body for international competitions. The IFSC doesn't recognise MS, it recognises the BMC, Likewise UKSport recognises the BMC as the relevant body.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Which is fine because there is a partnership/understanding between BMC and MCofS on comps and the GB team and it works well in practice. There only starts to be a problem if GB level decisions get taken by BMC without reference to MCofS.

In reply to simondgee:

I have not read through the whole thread but picked up various aspects - I have been involved with the BMC in many areas over many years. It is such an important organisation and must be kept together to represent all aspects of climbing and mountaineering (including walking).

I spoke to Dave T re the rebranding after the furore started last year. I have been to many area meetings over the years and it is often difficult to wind up enthusiasm from members so the BMC was surprised at what happened. They went through a procedure, with the inclusion of the National Council. I thought the proposed name was a great idea - I spoke to my cousin at the same time who is not a climber but used to be a PE teacher and interested in sport and she thought that for those outside the climbing / mountaineering worth Climb Britain was better than British Mountaineering Council or BMC.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


And letting managers become fatally weaker. When I was consulting, my job was to get managers to face up to realities they'd rather avoid and deal with them. I'd give them an eternity of help - but if I did it for them (which would have been ten times easier and faster) it would simply weaken them.

But let's look at what happened (or seemingly didn't happen) in this case.

Why would you rebrand a company? Because it's focus/direction was changing. So you'd need a strategic plan with operational and logistical requirements (e.g. different allocation of resources, almost certainly different roles). And you'd need a plan for implementation.

Did such strategic and implementation plans exist here?? Rather like the plans for Brexit at the time of the referendum, they've been maintaining a discreet silence.

Let's make it even simpler. What say I rebrand myself as Mick the rebrander (for five minutes only!) I go back in time and space to a meeting with the BMC supremos:

[Mick] No point in rebranding without strategic and implementation plans. Have you got 'em?

[BMC reply] ????

[Mick] Well, let's take implementation, for example. No point in failing to implement a rebrand successfully. If that happens:

a) It's a waste of money.

b) You'll look silly. And the knives may be out for you.

c) It will hurt our reputation.

So whether or not your legal underpinnings (Memorandum & Articles of Association?) require consultation, surely you first need to consult with your stakeholders. I note that you're partially a membership organisation. Have you consulted with your members, re your perceived need for a change of focus/direction and your respective strategic and implementation plans [if they existed]?

[BMC reply] No.

[Mick] Well you need to. Why don't you consult with all of your stakeholders and, if it goes well, we'll sit down again and consider the rebranding exercise.

[End of role play.] Not rocket science, is it? The professional coming ahead of the commercial. But seemingly it didn't happen here.

For me, a plague on both houses. Though, as little Sid aptly noted, stuff goes wrong, best to learn from it and move forward. In my experience, corporate bloodletting is rarely useful and (unless there are dark secrets, which I very much doubt) I'd be firmly against it in this case.

Best to move forward and not make any similar mistakes.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

What you say sounds very credible and useful advice in general.

I have to point out that I have no current knowledge of BMC affairs beyond occasional hearsay references, but I'm assuming they still publish agreed strategic plans covering several years in advance and describing the changes the organisation is planning so as to adapt to an inevitably changing environment. It seems entirely plausible then, that a situation may arise in which a rebranding is suggested and recommended by way of adaptation to the new environment and objectives as described and agreed in the strategic plan. I'm far from convinced that will have been the case here, or at least not entirely so, but I do think your painting the picture in terms of a quantum change, being planned in advance and somehow deliberately kept from the members, may not be entirely accurate either.

In reply to john arran:

BMC’s overall strategic aims for 2013-17:
1. Access & Conservation: To work with landowners, conservation bodies and statutory agencies to improve access to the cliffs and mountains in an environmentally sustainable manner.
2. Membership: To grow our membership by at least 2.5% per year with an increased focus on younger people.
3. Regional support: To significantly increase our presence ‘on the ground’ by appointing up to four Regional staff to support new climbers, clubs, Area volunteers and indoor facilities.
4. Infrastructure: To support newcomers to climbing and hill walking by encouraging an infrastructure of high quality clubs, walls and training opportunities, and a clear pathway to help people to develop their interests in the sport.
5. Profile: To promote the interests of climbers and hill walkers amongst Government and the national media, and be an advocate for competition climbing as an Olympic sport.
6. Social media & online resources: To connect with younger climbers and hill walkers by extending our use of social media and to create an extensive online film and video resource for the BMC website.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1085

BMC’s strategic aims for 2015-17:
"Our key strategic aims for 2015-19 focus on hill walking, young people and membership development as follows:
Aim 1 - Hill walking: to extend our work for hill walkers, so that the BMC becomes the natural home for new and existing hill walkers.
Aim 2 - Younger people: to connect with people in the 14-25 age band through social media, BMC TV, local and national activities
Aim 3 - Membership: to grow our total membership by at least 2.75% per year with a focus on hill walkers and young people.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1285

In reply to john arran:


Me neither!



John, I don't think I've suggested it was deliberately kept from the members; I very much doubt this was the case. But that it wasn't deemed necessary to consult widely? Doesn't fill me with hope! I strongly suspect the rebrander didn't say - you need to consult your members in every way imaginable before we do anything. I certainly would have.

What we got was a failed rebrand. I would argue that no rebrand would have been better than a failed rebrand. The £25K came, I guess ultimately, from the public purse (us as taxpayers?) I don't like to see effort and money wasted. (Guess I'm old-fashioned.)

I agree, we don't know the full picture. And organisations such as the BMC are always tricky - inevitably they mean different things to different people and achieving a balance is always going to be hard. All the more reason imho for proceeding cautiously and consulting as much as possible. Takes longer and can be balls-aching at times, I agree. But the alternative...

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

Thanks Mick.
I realise the 'deliberately' bit must have come from my reading rather than your writing, so apologies for that.
None of us likes to see waste, and it is disappointing to me to see wasted what could have been a great opportunity to modernise the outward persona of the BMC, due to apparently insufficient consultation. I do think there are potential advantages to be gained by modernising the public face of the organisation (the name must surely conjure among non-climbers images of mustachioed gentry planning assaults on distant, snowy, north faces) and a rebrand could be a core element of that, but for it to be presented as a fait accompli, with the inevitable suspicion that it may somehow have been demanded as part of a funding renegotiation, was far from the best way to have heard about the change. Even though I personally think the re-naming was positive (the logo and font were truly horrific!) I'm glad the BMC reacted well and backed down quickly when they saw the level of discontent.

In reply to louiswain:

Thanks Louis but I really don't want to get into the details. I was mainly interested in the implication that any rebranding decision should necessarily come before any strategic development or refocusing, and wanted to point out how the need for one could also come about later, if at some stage it becomes apparent that a former branding has over time become alienated from current strategic goals. In an ideal world of course the future would be predicted and planned for

In reply to GrahamD:

OK interesting points.


I take it you mean competition climbing or indoor climbing rather than climbing outdoor bolted routes?



More than a few I would say. I can't think of any well known competition climbers who don't also climb outside. But it's true the activities could be viewed completely separately.



Whilst that is true and I can see your point the fact of the matter is that the BMC DO run the British team and play an active role in competitions and have done so for the past two decades. Given that is the case, and given that there are no plans to split the organization the way you would prefer, surely it's better to get more indoor climbers involved since it will bring more money in to support those activities. If there's currently any subsidy by the outdoor brigade of the indoor/comp brigade then getting more indoor climbers involved would surely only lessen that.




I don't know enough about the membership of the BMC but it may well be that competition climbing is already subsidized by the only outdoor group.

In reply to stp:


I tried to do an estimate of this, and i came to the approximate conclusion that it is the other way round; eg that indoor / comp climbers bring more to the table than they take away. However, as one poster above stated, there arent many comp climbers who dont climb outdoors, so benefit from BMC activities anyway. Its also very difficult to say how much of the sport england money is used by any one group, as much of it is ringfenced for specific purposes, eg the YCS, specific training / education projects, youth developmnt etc

In reply to simondgee:

For balance, anyone for a vote of *confidence*? See other thread

In reply to Ian W:
Maybe the 'outdoor' climbers would react better to the comp climbers if the people in the 'comp' group did not react with arrogance to the 'outdoor' climbers.
Recently, at an indoor wall the Team GB or whatever they call themselves were training. They blocked out many panels with ropes, none of which were being used at the time. When I asked if I could climb on a panel I was imperiously told "We are the GB team and we are training" and someone was pushed forward to tie on. I was told that "we are going for lunch in 15 mins so you can have it then". They went for lunch leaving all their ropes up. They got somewhat snotty with a lady who was climbing on a panel, where I had pulled a rope, telling her that they needed that panel as they were "Team GB in training".
I would never think of reserving a route, indoors or out. If I set up a toprope for more than one person I am always ready to move it if a leader comes along. I never leave a toprope set up and go away. If I am not using it I remove it. Common curtesy!
Sorry to the many, didn't intend to hijack this thread, but the competition climbers/masterminds (maybe a few unrepresentative ones) I have come across seem to have a certain arrogance. They are a small part of the BMC and it's activities and they should be doing their best to promote it in a positive way, not acting as though they are the most important part.
I frequently take novices climbing, indoors and out. I have spent many happy hours helping others. I am a BMC member. I do believe that the BMC does more for the outdoors than any other organisation. I promote the BMC whenever I can. Many people recognise the BMC name and logo, even in America.
Rant over. (Notice I use my own name if anyone is desperate enough to want to talk to me!)

In reply to stp:


Mollie TS was Team GB Youth captain for years without ever having climbed outdoors.

In terms of using the YCS to boost membership, this year it's £22 to enter a single round of the YCS if you aren't a member of the BMC, as a parent you volunteer to help run it as well. Compare that to Boulder Comps at most walls that are £12 and you get a free T-Shirt. So it's inevitable people will join the BMC just to discount entry to the YCS. That didn't happen a few years ago and has got worse every year recently.

Funding from Sport England is based on increasing membership numbers (although why this should be a target for the BMC is arguable) but is spent in part on competition climbing.

A privately owned bouldering wall opened in a student area probably gets more people starting to climbing (without cost to the taxpayer) than the combined efforts of the BMC and SE. So from a SE point of view there is definitely a question of Value.

The problem for the BMC is that it offers nothing to those temporary new climbers (one director of a bouldering wall recently said some of his clientele didn't even realise you did bouldering outdooors!) and some BMC bods have very dubiously suggested that these climbers are comp climbers because most walls run their own comps. But the climbers themselves don't consider they are comp climbers and if you look at the results, it's clear that 2/3 of them just turn up for a bit of fun, not to compete for honours.

Hiving comp climbing off to an arms length body maybe tempting but if the demands for governance that SE are making still apply to the main NGB then there is no advantage to doing so. The benefits of SE funding for non-comp climbing and hill walking don't really justify the interference from SE.

In reply to johncook:

did you get any names....I dont want to read about things like this and will do something about it if you can help identify those involved. PM me if you can; its better not to name names in public whils still at allegation phase. I dont like arrogance, and it doesnt send out a very good image of climbing if its in evidence as you allege.
however, i would point out that they probably couldn't tell that you and your group were outdoor climbers, what with being in a climbing wall..........

Look fprward to hearing from you,
Ian W (chair, bmc comps)

In reply to Ian W:


Whoah. What's the difference in etiquette? What are you trying to imply here?

In reply to Ian W:

E-mail sent.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

An allegation has been made regarding members of the GB team, as follows;
"Maybe the 'outdoor' climbers would react better to the comp climbers if the people in the 'comp' group did not react with arrogance to the 'outdoor' climbers.
Recently, at an indoor wall the Team GB or whatever they call themselves were training. They blocked out many panels with ropes, none of which were being used at the time."

I was trying to point out that in an indoor wall, it is difficult to tell the difference between indoor and outdoor climbers. For me, we are all just climbers, and its hard to tell the difference. Perhaps the allegation should have been that GB Climbing Team members reacted with arrogance to other wall users.

My implication is that we are all climbers, no real distinction between any of us, we just go at it from a different perspective. For John to differentiate is i think somewhat disingeneous, and the use of phrases such as "competition climbers/masterminds" .
I agree with Johns point that behaviour of the team should be better than he reports, hence my request for further info. And I'm also quite prepared to ignore periphery such as choice of words, so sorry to ick on some of your phrases john, but Rob asked for clarification.

And Rob, there isnt any difference in etiquette that i'm aware of (not exactly sure what you are driving at though) - we are all just climbers.

In reply to Ian W:

I apologise for my choice of words. They stem from a comment higher in the post where it was claimed that indoor climbers subsidised the activities of the BMC.
I should have said all climbers who were not on the 'team'.
Maybe the use of the word mastermind was iffy, but 'competition climbers and the man in charge' sounds a even worse.
Does that help

In reply to johncook:
Both arrogance and top roping would be completely out of character for the Team GB climbers I've met. Maybe you came across an organised event with a section of the wall reserved for their use.

In reply to galpinos:


I think that's a good point and the contraction to 'the BMC' avoids, at least to some degree, the problems with the full title. The intention to hide the full title in this way also reflects an admission or recognition that there is a problem with it - which is what Chris the Tall, myself and others have been saying on here all along.

'The BMC' might not pique interest in a rock/indoor climber as much as something with 'climb' or 'climbing' might and seeing the full title at some later stage - like signing on the dotted line - might still be offputting to some. However it's no doubt better than 'British Mountaineering Council'. It still seems slightly wrong that the full title needs to be concealed in this way at all. But on the plus side, as you say, the history and continuity of the name are kept which are worthwhile too.

In reply to johncook:

It does.
Anyway, i hope this distraction is now over, and the motion of no confidence can take centre stage again. In this thread at least.

My hope is that this and other threads / discussions will convince the proposers of this motion that it stands very little chance of success, and significant embarrassment to themselves, and drop the whole idea.

In reply to johncook:

I think it's a fair to rant about such stuff. Personally it really annoys me when people leave ropes up at walls. Usually, if they don't return and start using them within a few minutes I just pull them down and start climbing - as I would fully expect someone to do if I ever leave a rope up.

Clearly one or some of them are a bit up themselves. I can see that happening with younger climbers who have learned by being in the team they are special but not yet learned a bit of humility. Less understandable with older climbers though. I don't think it's fair to tar all comp climbers/team members with the same brush though. No more you than you would tar all female climbers if it had been a woman leaving the ropes up and getting snotty about it.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
It was a team training session. It was the senior people there, not the climbers, most of who were sitting bored on the floor. They had the ropes up in pairs covering four panels per pair to 'practice speed climbing'. I support comps at my local wall. I don't support disrespect. The team leaders should be promoting BMC at indoor walls, I do. Not turning off other wall users. I am in further correspondence on this topic so this is my last word on here.

In reply to stp:


Yes, sorry, 'sport' climbing as in climbing on bolts is very much BMC remit. What I meant was climbing as a sport.


I would say the majority of indoor climbers aren't competition climbers and if their only interest is using a climbing wall as a gym or a social venue, then arguably they don't need a representative body at all.

All of which is slightly missing the main point on change of BMC focus. The increase in competition climbing and the changing sponsorship models brought about by Olympic participation means that the current model, which sort of worked under the BMC , could become a tail that is wagging the dog it seems to me.

In reply to simondgee:

Is this all an elaborate piece of performance art? If so I quite like it. It's certainly original and creative.

In reply to tebs:

I do wonder. has anybody commenting seen the Motion and, specifically, the grounds for it? ...You know, I cant imagine anybody would prejudge situation without knowing the facts...

In reply to Scott K:


I'm not sure why you've used the word travesty here? Is it just a misnomer or some huge injustice you've identified?

I see new climbers at the wall who are half decent but still using rented shoes, if they climb once a week over an academic year (25-30 times) I can see why they might not have committed to new shoes, especially if they have a tight budget.

What is The Offer from the BMC that will entice them to buy membership before shoes? Or even after shoes? For a casual boulderer the BMC just doesn't enter on the radar, let alone represent some sort of travesty.

By thinking of them as the future of climbing (!) the BMC is just making a rod for it's own back that it uses to punish itself for not converting them to membership. It's better to think of them a gym rats, outside of the fold and go meh.

In reply to winhill:

A lot of shops will give you a discount on shoes with a BMC card?

I do take the basic point, though.

In reply to winhill:


Mollie also lived in London and was too young to drive, both of which make getting to the crag quite difficult. She is currently on a year long (outdoor) climbing trip.

In reply to stp:



I think its a handy three-letter acronym, which doesn't in itself sound like it has much to do with anything - it's just a set of noises we use to identify what we're referring to. If I were recommending BMC membership to someone I might not use the word "mountaineering" at all; even when telling someone how to find it online I'd probably just suggest they Google "thebmc". If I got round to saying what it's an acronym for, I'd probably qualify by saying it covers more than just mountain activities (as others have said, a similar qualification would still be needed if "climbing" was mentioned instead of "mountaineering", to cover hill-walking, etc).

FWIW I've introduced a lot of people to climbing over the years; this has almost entirely been on lowland outcrops and sea cliffs, yet I've never heard anyone complain about, or be puzzled by the reference to mountains. The connection is an obvious one, and IMO people just accept it, store the BMC acronym as a handy label, and move on.

In reply to simondgee:

I dont think the actual motion has been submitted yet, and I simply dont know how much of the detail would be distributed to potential attendees in advance (ie BMC members). I'm also unsure how sensitive either the proposers or the bmc would be about non-members being aware of the contents / details of the motion (it is after all, none of their business if they are non-members, and hence their opinion counts for precisely zero if expressed here or anywhere else).

In reply to Ian W:

If it goes on the Agenda then it has to be public. If it is a motion from the floor then obviously it doesn't have to be public in advance.

As a member who can't attend the AGM (it clashes with Chongqing) I would like to know the motion so I can use my proxy vote accordingly

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Hi Graeme,
Fair enough; I suspect as a member you will get to see a copy with the agm papers. Have a good time in China!

In reply to Ian W:

Non members are prospective members of the BMC and their concerns, although much less important than members, are simply not irrelevant. BMC area meetings recognised this years ago and allow non members to attend, raise concerns and even vote on most things. The BMC is not masonic, it is there to act for all climbers and hill walkers.

In reply to Offwidth:

My concern is that with renaming,the BMC will concern itself more with it's own financial progression and bureaucracy than with
its members. It may claim that there may be trickledown for trad issues and access funding,from pursuing Sports Council funding.I am skeptical about that. Already,certain exec members only turn up to AGM's when there is some kind of crisis.

In reply to paul mitchell:


Erm, you're 5 months too late and on the wron thread. The whole name change thing has been and gone.

In reply to paul mitchell:

Its a fair concern and I know you know its not on the aganda this AGM (you are clearly not luminarious enough for some to realise), just attempted punishment beatings. See you at Frank the Husky's party?

In reply to Offwidth:
Not the worst example, but your last post does kind of illustrate one of the wider problems with the BMC, or if I'm honest any small charity / interest group - want of a better expression it is that "secret knowledge" /cliquey thing. But I think I've grumped about that on other threads so I'll shut up

In reply to paul mitchell:

My concern isn't the renaming - its whether the BMC start to chase after and come to wholly rely on funding streams aimed at competition climbing, primarily spurred on by the Olympics (without the Olympics, I don't think competition climbing - at least the level of representation it requires from a body like the BMC is significant.). So when that funding model fails (think badminton) there is a real crisis.

I saw the proposed name change as symptomatic of that shift in emphasis and objected because of that.

In reply to Offwidth:


Although ironically Paul is probably far more of a genuine luminary that many so-called luminaries and at least he's visible whereas this particular bunch of luminaries aren't.

Mick

In reply to toad:

Cliques?.. two of us have challenged official BMC positions at the last BMC meeting (the third wasn't there) and none of us currently hold any volunteer officer positions. I am here on this thread defending the area meeting approach of listening to the full constituency the BMC claims to represent, not just the members. You are a real pain sometimes in your seemingly paranoid attitudes on this subject but your actual access concerns raised on UKC are always welcome input in my view. I've even offered you a lift to the meeting when you complained about getting there in the past.

One of the reasons I joined, volunteer for and am vocal in my support for the BMC is it is unusual organisationally in my experience in the way it does listen if you bother to interact. Its not perfect but show me a similar organisation that does a noticably better job.

In reply to Mick Ward:

I know ... I have my party sunglasses at the ready

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


But those aren't reasons she didn't climb outdoors - her training partners, also in London and curiously also too young to drive would have happily taken her along with them if she'd wanted to go.

In reply to paul mitchell:


The irony is probably that part of the argument in favour of the re-brand was that it would have been easier to access alternative funding streams.

The problem with Sport England funding is the governance demands SE are now making the trickle down much less so.

In reply to Offwidth:

i actually agree with you on this one, they are indeed, but the last attempt to make the bmc more appealing to the changing demographic of climbers was knocked back by the membership.

*hides behind shield*

In reply to winhill:

Sport England have been funding the bmc for years and are perfectly happy with the governance (which isnt perfect, and is under review by the bmc anyway). I think you mean UK Sport, who fund elite (for which read potential olympic medals) and who do have certain governance requirements (based around making sure nobody trousers the cash and uses it for any other purpose, i suppose). Which the bmc are also looking at making sure they comply with.

In reply to paul mitchell:


As far as I'm aware the Sport England funding has been largely devoted to 'grass roots' issues. OK, in the modern world you are often talking about initiatives to catch folks at walls, but I don't think the funding has been largely devoted to any sort of 'elite' sector.

But I might agree that the funding is about the 'icing on top of the cake' and that 'core' BMC work - the stuff it's always been quietly beavering away at - is effectively 'self-funded'.

In reply to Ian W:


I think you're being deliberately obtuse here, A Code for Sports Governance is published jointly by SE and UKS because it applies to all organisations receiving public money for sports activities.

You've spoken in favour of it on here before, so it's obvious you know better than this misleading chaff.

It's about Governance (you know, as the name implies) not just financial stuff, implying it is financial is leger de main to mislead people and you wonder why the hoi polloi don't trust the leadership!

In reply to GrahamD:


As far as I'm aware there is no 'elite' level funding being provided to the BMC. I think some may have been given to support a 'talent development' process.

In reply to winhill:


And it is largely based upon the Sport and Recreation Code of Good Governance. That has been in existence for at least four years. These are a set of 'suggestions' and 'models' that any organisation can adapt to fit their own purposes.

I welcome the BMC's apparent willingness to review its governance structures but think that the first task is to identify 'if it is broke' before major changes are undertaken.

In reply to Offwidth:


This may be part of the problem as it's not allowed by the Articles -

43.1. Participation in each Area Meeting shall be open to all Voting Members resident in that Area.....

In reply to winhill:


Sorry, didnt mean to be obtuse, just pointing out the difference between SE and UKS. There are differences in the financial governance requirements, based around the different ways funding is decided etc etc, but yes there is a joint code.
importantly here though; the bmc are trying to make sure they adhere to whatever is required, and are analysing where they currently are and where they need to be, and following that, what changes may be needed to comply.

In reply to winhill:

I don't know about Mollie specifically but I grew up in London and it was basically impossible to climb - either outdoors or indoors as there were no indoor walls back then. The nearest outdoor climbing is about 50 miles away and that's just top roping on short sandstone outcrops and not easy to get to by public transport: both expensive and time consuming. The next closest are Avon and Dorset about 120 miles - way too far for a day trip - totally out of the question for young climbers.

So really I'm sure you're right. Young climbers from certain areas are only going to climb indoors. That's actually a very good thing because without that they wouldn't be climbing at all. But it's not that they're not interested it's simply lack of opportunity and difficult logistics. I can't see too many parents being keen on the idea either.

That's exactly how it was for me. Aside from a 3 day trips with the scouts when young I couldn't start climbing until my early 20s when I had a my own transport.

In reply to Kipper:

Oh the thrill of 2 decades of rebellion....so I guess thats one of the imperfections that needs changing. I don't think it ever distorted anything but it did allow for increasing participation (and thence usually membership) and better informed meetings. I've even taken foreigners to meetings...several visiting europeans and even a Japanese... the shame.

In reply to simondgee:

Here's the full motion...

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,27760.msg546309.html#msg54630...

In reply to JR:


Curious. I just counted the supporting signatories/names and there's only 22, which makes 23 including Bob. If that's actually the letter submitted it won't get very far if 25 are needed!

In reply to john arran:

Ru (ie Rupert Davies, BMC Vice President jusy posted on UKB to say that isn't the actual motion. Shame as it was so inaccurate it would have taken about 5 minutes to dis-credit!

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I wonder now if my Japenese interior designer and climber pal was involved in the conspiracy? It seemed mad at the time that he agreed to come.

The motion on UKB is like a KTEL release of Bob's greatest rants as bellowed by a different artist.

We do need to be careful with those names as it was said some were contacted and had no idea they were on it. I'm amazed at one of them, as it goes contrary to several conversations last year.

In reply to Offwidth:

This whole thing saddens me. I have some real differences with the BMC hierarchy on a regular basis, and over the past year can claim to have been a "thorn in their side" but this motion of no confidence is pathetic in the extreme. If the list a published on ukb is even close to what comes out as the motion then there are some mountaineers / climbers with some very fine reputations, and who I (along with many others) have looked up to and been inspired by over the years, who will be laughed at. It will be very sad to see their reputations so unnecessarily tarnished any further (Bobs has perhaps gone too far already), by involving BMC management in a personal feud with the head of a separate organisation. There is quite enough for them to be dealing with without this distraction, and i shall continue to be as forceful as possible in promoting comps and the GB climbing Team within the bmc, and no doubt will have further disagreements with Dave, Rehan and the others, but for my money, they have no case to answer here.

In reply to Ian W:

Just to clarify a few things: the motion as published on UKB and in the link further up this thread is an earlier version of Bob Pettigrew's text from a few weeks ago; this version gives a flavour of the underlying issues but the motion formally submitted to the BMC on 16 Feb has been simplified to a more straightforward 'no confidence in the Executive Committee...' form of words, the accusation being that the BMC Exec (the Board of Directors) wilfuly and deliberately withheld 'future policy decisions' (presumably Climb Britain) from the AGM in April 2016. The BMC is still in correspondence with Bob Pettigrew on a few issues, in particular precisely who has formally signed up to the motion.

We should know by 9 March (the deadline for AGM submissions) exactly what is happening with this.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Which sort of implies quite strongly that all that crazed ranting is what's actually driving this.

What a total waste of time. If anyone wants my proxy vote to assist voting this nonsense down (Offwidth you were making noises either here or across the road?) then just let me know what to do...

Edit: also be good to know the final supporters list - as others have said on the other channel that original list had a lot of "well-respected names" on it who my respect for will have fallen away if they are still ultimately associated with it.

In reply to Offwidth:

And a conversation I had in the last couple of days!

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

A Saturday spent looking at annual reports, Sport England stats and writing about it all.

Is this the BMC’s Corbyn moment?

https://johnroberts.me/outdoors/2017/03/is-this-the-british-mountaineering-...

In reply to Ian W:

I agree that Bob Pettigrew's anti-Olympic fanaticism has now gone too far and is threatening disintegration of the BMC - a move which will harm all climbers and mounaineers. Bob's glory days are long past and he seems hell-bent on thwarting the younger generation from achieving their deserved recognition for outstanding sporting achievements.
The BMC is not a private members club for male old-fogey colonialists but an inclusive organisation representing lots of interests be it high altitude Himalayan Climbing, heritage or indoor climbing. The BMC rightly supports each group within this.
The Climb Britain re-branding was a mistake but The BMC admitted this and reacted quickly to the democratic feelings within the organisation. Yet members of the executive, (all of whom except the Chief Executive are, we must remember, unpaid volunteers) have been shamefully, continuously pilloried and perhaps libelled by individuals such as Bob Pettigrew. I have heard from a number of sources that the President himself did not support the re-branding but following a vote of acceptance by the Nat Council and Exec he stood behind their democratic decision. It appears he has faced considerable unwarranted criticism from Pettigrew, Doug Scott and others.
I hope common sense prevails over a clearly politically and personally motivated attack by those behind this ridiculous motion.

Just change 'Council' to 'Climbing'?

British Mountaineering and Climbing

In reply to JR:


Interesting and isightful article, John, thanks.

There's a lot of good detail in there to support your position, but for those who choose not to read it through, the final sentence is worth copying directly here:

"I can only hope that, unlike Corbyn’s Labour, the constitution, governance and leadership of the BMC is strong enough to stop activists protesting it into insignificance."

In reply to Deverem:

You make a number of personal claims directed at individuals there. But you are posting from a newly-created anonymous account. That doesn't sit very well.

In reply to Rob Parsons:
I do not normally comment on forums but have been reading this forum and decided I wished go comment on this issue with my views.

In reply to JR:
A Corbyn moment? no.. apologies for the cut and paste from the other channel.

"the BMC is in my view healthy and functioning. I don't buy into JR's analysis as it misses out the huge volunteer efforts that don't get costed. As an example I've spent the vast majority of 2 decades of my spare time doing things that are directly BMC work or align very much with BMC aims and feed into local area meetings: in guidebooks, crag maintenance and access, with no funding or expenses. This overlaps with club efforts who look after other guidebook areas, as I witnessed where I helped the YMC team. There are people who do more than me (hugely more say for Henry F), lots like me and large numbers with smaller but very valuable contributions; this adds up to more than the paid staff by some margin. The really important offer the BMC can continue to make is to support its current volunteers and attract new people to volunteer, based on their local concerns and to facilitate reports and action and where neccesary apply national pressure. JR does raise areas where the BMC need to think ...but doing this led to Climb Britain. Those attached to the no confidence motion seem inward looking and so likely to be very opposed to JR's suggestions. I agree the BMC should help all climbers and hillwalkers but focus is needed on specifics and these and the balance of the membership will always change with time. Like several posters here I'm not at all convinced we should be acting as a body to encouragd new participants....we currently represent those who choose and that's where I prefer it."

In reply to Offwidth:

and my response... http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,27760.msg546366.html#msg54636...

In reply to Deverem:
I welcome your contribution; its a public forum the subject is important for the BMC and I recognise what you say. I like Bob and understand his concerns but that draft is bonkers, unlike the careful contributions I normally disagree with from him and as Ian says it damages the reputations of those who's names are attached. Heros of mine in some cases.

In reply to JR:
Cut and paste again ( the debate is wider over there)

"I know volunteers are not always the right people for the job but most often they are and most BMC work is done by volunteers including a good bit of its organisational functions. You can't ignore that. Fee rises will cover the finance gap for this year. The BMC is cheap and numbers are increasing."

What you write is important for the medium term. Fee rises and increasing membership won't go together for ever. This motion will dominate debate and remove time for important issues and increase attention to the opposite direction that the BMC needs to move in my opinion.

I argued for that at one point. My preference now would be: 'British Mountaineering Community' to maintain the acronym, or better still: 'British Hillwalking and Climbing Community'

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm not sure I'm keen on copy and pasting bits and pieces out of context and adding other comments that aren't on the other channel too, so, I'll only comment there: http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,27760.300.html

In reply to JR:

Agreed.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

This is the list from the motion being proposed by Bob Pettigrew:

Doug Scott, CBE AC
Dennis Gray AC
John Ashburner AC
Rodney Gallagher AC
Harry Wilson AC
John Vincent AC
Mark Vallance AC
Edwin Hammond Yeti
Peter Rowland AC
John Allen AC
Judy Wilson Yeti
Robert Butterworth Yeti
Phil Bartlett AC
Frederick Yardley Yeti
Terrie-Anne Yardley Yeti
Stephen Venables AC
Roger Lanchbury CC MAM
Ian Lonsdale INDIVIDUAL
Tom Lewis INDIVIDUAL
Leo Dickinson CC
John Cleare AC CC
Brian Molyneux VAGABOND

Thjis was an early list and it may have been added to or changed.

In reply to AJM:

Sorry I didn't get back earlier.

Shark details the process here:

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,27760.375/topicseen.html

"AGM voting - by hand or by proxy. We know that the majority of members don’t attend the AGM, but we would still like to encourage you to vote, which can be done by proxy. A Proxy Voting form is included with the mailing of the Spring issue of Summit, which is distributed to all BMC members. Proxy voting allows another member of the BMC to vote on your behalf at the AGM. You may appoint your Nominated Proxy or nominate the Chair to vote on your behalf. You can indicate on the form the direction of your vote on any of the agenda items; if you do not stipulate the direction of your vote, your Nominated Proxy can use your vote as they see fit. If you have declined to receive Summit, or if your household includes more than one eligible voting member but receives only one copy of Summit, you can download additional copies from the BMC website. Alternatively, contact the BMC office and we will post additional copies of the form to you. Proxy voting forms must be received by the CEO by ........48 hours prior to the AGM."

In reply to Offwidth:

It will be interesting to see if more than 0.1% of the membership actually get to the AGM this time .

In reply to Offwidth:

The next issue of Summit with the forms should land on doorsteps towards the end of the month. Worth adding that from an admin, postage and saving paper perspective it will be better to vote online. The process on how to do this will also be publicised later this month.

In reply to ukb shark:

Good effort, Simon.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

Thank you, but credit isnt due to me as the work relating to this falls to others. As a current employee I'm obviously not in a position to comment on the merits or otherwise of the motion but I am in a position to witness the additional workload and pressure which this motion and its ramifications has placed on some staff and volunteers (and will continue to place on them); the level of which is, I suspect, far greater than most who aren't directly involved could imagine.

In reply to ukb shark:

No, poorly worded, accept that the workload falls to others, just glad that things are being so upfront.

I can well imagine that this business puts an awful lot of extra work and pressure on people who were already working at full capacity.

Another reason for critics to proceed with tolerance and humanity.

Mick

In reply to stp:


Not in the case of MTS, like I said she had peers she could have gone out with, I spoke to some of them about it years ago.

She took a deliberate decision to focus only indoors. At the time (5-6 years ago) a few people used it as an example of the democratisation of climbing, no bearded Dad or moustachioed Mom pushing her to do their favourite sport.

With the Olympics round the corner it'll be common place for kids to only climb indoors then quit when they get uncompetitive, just like they do in trampolining or parallel bars.

In reply to simondgee:

Presidents statement issued today:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-presidents-statement-2017

In reply to winhill:

Can't really comment on MTS. I'm sure she had her reasons and I can't see any problem with that. If some people prefer indoors that's fine with me. There are many advantages and indoor walls are getting better all the time. Climbing has lots of different facets and we tend to concentrate on them at different times - assuming they're available of course. Sounds like she's now enjoying the outside stuff anyway. That seems to be a common trend with comp climbers. Comps are the maine focus when they're younger, outdoors when they get older.

I wouldn't assume the Olympics will make a difference to anything. I've seen interviews with people from other sports who had the Olympic shadow pass over and said it basically changed nothing in their sport.

I wouldn't compare climbing to trampolining or gymnastics. Climbing is so much richer and diverse and all encompassing. It's sometimes described as a 'life style', a term I doubt would apply to many other sports. I know a lot of people who started fairly young and are still at decades later. Not true of everyone of course but it certainly seems to apply to a lot of people. It's a pretty interesting phenomenon. Perhaps there's a genetic basis for it - in which case it's not something we can alter anyway.

In reply to simondgee:

The full wording of the motion, the list of its proposers and papers relating to it are now available on the BMC website: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-agenda--motion

In reply to Mark Kemball:

How does it take 5 months to purchase some URL's? It's a ten minute job?

Also what are the other issues of governance that are being looked into?

In reply to Offwidth:

Do you know if affiliate members are eligible to vote or is it only full members?

In reply to Removed User:


I can't recall the time line re urls. Clearly not 5 months just to press the button saying purchase. Bear in mind that this is run by volunteers with day jobs and families etc.

Re: governance issues, this is about at what level different decisions need to be taken between members/the national council/the exec, whether those structures work and whether there is a workable (and legally compliant) alternative. This does not have an easy answer because of the odd mix of the BMC being a membership organisation goverened by articles of association whilst also being a limited company with responsibilities under the companies act. Previous attempts to define it have not been fully successful, hence the review. It is not because anything untoward has happened.

In reply to climbingpixie:

I don't, but intend to find out, and about the electronic submission that was rumoured to be possible. Proxy voting closes 48 hours before the meeting so there is plenty of time yet.

You never know, Bob might turn up and show us some proper evidence that the BMC exec have actually done something really bad, and force me and others into a humble apology. Seems very unlikely though, as why would he wait and pull a rabbit out of a hat.

In reply to Offwidth:



Sorry I may have been overstating to refer to an electronic submission. Members can print and complete the pdf of the voting card and return a scanned copy by email but it must be handwritten with signature, not typed as it otherwise it cannot be accepted. The procedure is limited by the articles apparently. It is not an online voting system.

In reply to climbingpixie:


If by 'affiliate member' you mean that you're a member of an affiliated club, then yes - you certainly have voting rights at the AGM.

You should receive a proxy vote card in the March edition of Summit which will be posted to you (that's the same procedure which happens every year); equally, you can just print off and use the on-line one.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Thanks. I didn't get a copy of Summit last year (my first as an affiliate member) as I'd moved house and not updated my records. Hopefully they've got my details this year but if not I'll print one out.

In reply to simondgee:

A letter from Leo Dickinson, one of the proposers of the No Confidence Motion has been published on the Vagabond's website: http://www.vagabondmc.com/news/background_information_to_vote_of_no_confide... Make of it what you will, but to me the drive behind it seems to be that the BMC should not be involved with competition climbing in general and the Olympics in particular. A point of view which I profoundly disagree with.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

If competitions/the Olympics/Scolaris are what's behind it then I'd have thought that they'd have got more support by proposing a motion explicitly on that subject rather than this no confidence thing (which apparently doesn't even mention this issue).

I have doubts about the BMC getting involved with the Olympics etc, and might be persuaded to vote against it, but not if it involves bringing down the whole committee.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

That letter is full of exactly the same the same bullshit that has been countered by the real facts time and time again. The only truth I can see is the BMC, in following democratic process, should have been more formal in getting membership agreement following the nearly unanimous NC support for the rebrand. Even here the BMC owned up to their mistakes, went to area meets and reversed the decision., hardly the stuff of Bond movie villains, that letter implies. I really fail to see what has got into the heads of such knowledgeable people to attack the BMC exec in this bizarre way; and I'm speaking as a trad climber who thinks the olympic plans for climbing are just daft and 'Schlerosis', is one of many modern examples of diseased leadership governance at the vital organ of an international sporting body. Every move the BMC made on the Olympics went through votes at areas and the AGM.

In reply to simondgee:

It seems that these ukc threads are marshalled by the normal narrow minded bullies who crowney the bmc executive.
I will be voting for the motion of no confidence. The rebranding debacle is just an example of how a self serving fashion focused out of touch elite thinks it can be the tail that wags the dog.
A bmc chasing funding as a result of climbing being included as an Olympic sport has really lost all hope- where will the funding go? More jobs in Manchester and more climbing competitions? Not what I signed up for.

In reply to cheeseandpickle:
Out of interest, what did you sign up for?

In reply to cheeseandpickle:


This is irony, right?

I feel like we've gone properly through the looking glass when it's more narrow minded to include climbing disciplines than to exclude them.

In reply to meggie:


English Climbing and Hillwalking Association, surely?

In reply to cheeseandpickle:


Nice invective. I guess your first point is that there is an inbuilt pro-BMC bias on UKC? Hmmmm
There is some discussion about who is the dog and who is the tail to be had - review being set up.
And at present BMC (as far as I know) is actually not chasing any SportUK funding as SportUK hasn't actually worked out how the hell it will fund these new sports.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Looks like this letter has disappeared. Could you summarise it what it said? Rather reluctantly I'm being drawn into this and I'd like to understand whether there's really something specific and factual going on here or whether, as I suspect, it's a trigger for the old misgivings about organised competition vs the freedom of the hills or whether outdoor climbing and indoor climbing have conflicting priorities.

I should say that I'm open to being persuaded either way, on both arguments. I'm also interested in what "unrelated governance issues" were already being investigated by the working party before the no confidence motion was received.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

>. I'm also interested in what "unrelated governance issues" were already being investigated by the working party before the no confidence motion was received.

Dave, read through the AGM papers on the bmc website which address this. Essentially, in order to make the decision making process easier, there was an attempt to make a matrix listing which bmc body is responsible/accountable for a long list of types of decisions. Essentially this attempt failed as the matrix was incompatible with the articles of association in some respects. A governance review was initiated. This, in my opinion, reflects the inherent difficulties with incorporated membership organisations whereby the legal responsibilities of the board of directors are to some extent incompatible with the desire for policy decisions to be taken by a differently constituted council of member representatives.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

It's not too dissimilar from the draft on the ukb thread (or ask Will Hunt).

But basically, the statements, many of which are incorrect, are something like:
- the rebrand cost the BMC 25k
- it was all to do with the Olympics. We don't like the Olympics.
- there was collision with the Japanese Alpine Club or something on this score as well.
- scolaris (head of the ifsc) is a dictator, not a nice man and doesn't share our values. He wants to hold competitions on real rock

I can't remember what else.

In reply to cheeseandpickle:

It seems hardly anyone agrees with you on the narrow minded bit and this isn't just UKC nobodies, its proper cronys like Sir Chris and those who must have a bit of independance in this, as its been said the Alpine club committee are against the motion.

As for bullies, they thrive on secrecy and influence in small places to get away with bad things regarded as unacceptable to normal people in public. This is an open space and those you accuse seek open debate including many here who for a long time have been against BMC involvement in the Olympics and were firmly against the rebrand. Internet bullies typically use accounts no one can trace to spread their bile.

The rest of you post is the same misinformation Bob spreads, that has been done to death now. You're entitled to believe in it and a flat earth alongside it.

In reply to cheeseandpickle:

<Synopsis: "Moan, moan." - Anonymous> ... Not what I signed up for.

So what exactly did you 'sign up' for? Perhaps if you told us what you are 'for' rather than moaning about everything you are 'against', people may take your position more seriously. And if the motion of no confidence gets passed and the executive resigns, what then? Are you going to stand for election? On what platform? Or who would you support? Or would you rather the BMC just fell apart if it can't meet your unknown (unknowable?) criteria?

In reply to RupertD:


OK, thanks for responding. I'll do some homework...

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Here is the letter, copied before they pulled it

"Posted by Stephen Boote on 5 March 2017
To members of the Vagabond Mountaineering Club


Bob Pettigrew - a former President of the BMC has proposed a motion of
no confidence in the current BMC Executive Committee. He is an
honorary lifetime member of the BMC and was awarded an MBE for
services to Mountaineering.

'Please spread the word far and wide to your own club members. But
they must be members of a BMC affiliated club, or individual members!
And they must act speedily since the deadline is fast approaching.

Please encourage any club members to come to the AGM (DETAILS ON THE
BMC WEBSITE)

The reasons for the proposed vote of no confidence in the current BMC
Executive Committee at the coming AGM are as follows:-

a) The BMC Executive committee, headed by CEO Dave Turnbull
attempted to change the name of the BMC to “Climb Britain” without
either debating the issue within the membership of the BMC or putting
it to a vote of its members. Don’t forget if you are in a Climbing
Club you are automatically a voting member of the BMC.

Why ? Well its all tied up with promoting climbing into becoming an
Olympic sport. This undercover re-branding exercise cost the BMC
£25,000 ….yes... thats an awful waste of money and representative of
what we are complaining about. Remember the whole reason for the BMC
is exactly what it says on the box - 'British Mountaineering Council'
- established to represent mountaineers,climbers and walkers in the
great outdoors - not to cow tow to the Olympic Committee. The late Ian
McNaught Davis held his nose in horror when he first got wind of the
intentions of Marco Scolaris…

Who? Well apart from having an Italian wine of the same name and
according to Wikipedi, was 'an active boulder’, he has somehow become
the President of the IFSC and he appeared to be trying to steer our
‘BMC’ into colluding with the Japanese Alpine Club regarding the name
change to Climb Britain in order to gain influence within the
International Olympic Committee (IOC).

What the fk is the IFSC ??? . The International Federation of Sport
Climbing is an organisation which Scolaris invented of which he is its
first and apparently lifelong President whose first action was the
immediate distancing of ‘his IFSC ‘ from the UIAA in 2006 and whose
sole intention appears to be getting Sport Climbing into the Olympics.

This is an excerpt from a recent interview with Marco Maria Scolaris.

Question to Scolaris…" for those few who haven’t yet grasped it
fully, what does it mean for the sport climbing competitions movement
to be a part of the Olympics?

'The legitimacy of climbing as a sport now opens the doors to further
development of this discipline, which must of course be in line with
climbing’s core values.'

What core values does this share with ‘our BMC’ and mountaineering?

Its empire building pure and simple and our current BMC executive
seems to be in agreement.

So why has our esteemed leader Dave Turnbull decided to ride
rough-shot over its members and attempt to take ‘our’ BMC in a
direction that it appears, are not the wishes of almost everyone we
have spoken with? That is one reason to turn up at the AGM and ask him
to account for his actions as he appears not to share his vision with
grass roots membership.

Marco Maria Scolaris allegedly wants to “supplant the UIAA with the
IFSC” and have future competitions on natural rock. Stanage - Dovedale
?

There is another issue in the current debacle that on the face of it
appears to be unhealthy and it is this,

Salaried members of BMC staff are encouraged to attend Area Meetings
in a voting capacity - is this constitutionally acceptable?

Finally are the accounts in a healthy condition?"

In reply to simondgee:

Have the proposers of this motion made a public statement to explain it? The motion makes allegations of decisions being withheld from the AGM without saying what these were. What do they expect to happen if the motion is successful. Presumably the Executive Committee will be expected to resign - who will then be proposed to replace them and on what platform?

Various leaks and letters appear to have been passed around those 'in the know', and in one case posted (briefly) on an individual club's website. It would be helpful to have an authoritative statement from the proposers to explain and justify their motion.

Many of those voting, myself included, will be doing so by proxy, and will be unable to hear arguments at the meeting and in particular won't be able to cast an informed vote for a new EC, should that situation arise. If the proposers of this motion want my support they need to earn it, by explaining their case. If they won't do so I will be voting against it.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I've asked the Vagabond MC if I could send in a response to Leo's letter, and answer what I termed the lies contained therein - the response from them was that they would welcome any facts to put to thir members to give them as much info as possible. The club itself doesnt have a "consensus position", its a BMC one member one vote thing, so they feel it inappropriate to tell or advise people how to vote.
Havent heard back since saturday, but if the latest is that Leo#s letter has been pulled from the website, it appears to me that they are stepping back from any direct involvement.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Sorry, I didn't keep a copy and cannot remember with sufficient accuracy. Perhaps someone else coud access a copy.

Just noticed that this has been done, thanks.

In reply to simondgee:

So we have a motion which purports to be based on an alleged failure to consult with the membership, and yet the proposers themselves seem to be unwilling to engage with the membership as a whole to explain and justify their argument, and instead appear to lobbying the members of a few chosen clubs. Hardly consistent behaviour. If it weren't so unprincipled it would be laughable.

In reply to simondgee:

Right got my vote card in the post today i shall be voting against the motion unless anyone can point me in the direction of any actual facts of miss management at the BMC which arnt based on hersay, insinuation or ancient grudges which to date is all I've seen supporting the motion.

In reply to Howard J:

Classic illustration by the BMC that following due process does not guarantee either a good or a popular decision. They reacted quickly and openly to the come-back (i.e. 'ops, sorry') and have already had their wrists slapped. The motion will achieve little except create uncertainty and I will oppose it.

In reply to simondgee:

I've voted in favour of the no confidence motion, on the basis that the current executive invested in an improved visual identify and more inclusive modern name, then bottled the implementation when the nimbys raised their voices.

Clearly to get change implemented we need braver leaders.

Maybe if we can rouse enough of team 'Climb Britain' then the vote will pass, but the consequences will be grossly different to what the proposers were hoping for.

In reply to i_alan_i:
That's like voting for brexit because you didn't like the government. Massively counterproductive and no chance of achieving your intention. I'm really hoping that's just internet bravado rather than how you actually voted/ intend to vote

In reply to i_alan_i:

So the motion has been proposed because the Exec didn't seek members' views on the name change, but you're supporting it because they later did?

In reply to Howard J:

Howard, I'm not sure they actively 'sought' the members' views. More had them pushed in front of their noses

In reply to i_alan_i:


I couldn't disagree more - which makes me one of the "nimbys", I suppose. Sticks and stones. As far as I'm concerned, after the rebranding debacle, the BMC are very much on probation, and the "brave leadership" of the type you describe is very likely to result in my cancellation of my membership - me and many others, I daresay.

In reply to i_alan_i:

This is very confusing. You are voting for the motion because you would like a team that is more representative of those in favour of 'Climb Britain' but I suspect that most people voting for are objecting to that very thing. Am I missing something?

I'm still undecided. On the one hand I do not feel that there is anything wrong with the name BMC and objected to what was apparently a decision to change it without consultation but on the other hand the executive did listen to the objections and reconsidered so I'm not sure what will be gained by supporting the motion other than creating considerable disruption.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:

If the current executive were to be removed there is no guarantee that their replacements would be backwards reactionaries. There is the chance of a progressive fresh start.

It's not guaranteed but a risk worth taking.

In reply to i_alan_i:

A better way to achieve that would be for the progressives (whoever they are) to get nominated and stand in elections against the current executive. If they have as good a case as you think then they'd romp home.

In reply to Andy Say:

When the name change was followed by a massively negative response the BMC were initially shocked but very quickly realised they'd misjudged, and they then went round all the Area meeetings to find out what the members' views were. I went to one of these and it was a genuine attempt to listen.

Of course, they should have done this sooner, but in most situations like this cock-up is more likely to be the reason than conspiracy.

In reply to i_alan_i:

This is one of the most illogical things i've ever heard. Its a bit like wanting to remodelling your kitchen so you set fire to your house in the hope that the charred reamains will resemble whst you were looking for!

In reply to i_alan_i:


That's hilarious. Let's throw away a successful model because a few things haven't gone completely perfectly and there's unsubstantiated fear of what might happen in future, in the hope that a much better outcome will land in our lap even though nobody has yet been able to credibly explain what it would look like or where it could possibly come from.

I'm sure I've heard a deluded wishful thinking argument just like that somewhere else recently.