UKC

The BMC til now has essentially been a trad organisation.Recent publicity on the BMC website
increasingly shows who is entering what comp and who is an ''ambassador'' to climbing.
I don't need any ambassador. I don't give a stuff who enters or wins what competition.The competition is against gravity,outdoors,unfilmed and unfunded.

I think competition climbers and indoor wall owners need to set up a separate body to the BMC,with separate funding,and separate staff.They can then justify their funding needs as being openly money and business oriented and supported by their membership.Possible future corruption allegations will be kept away from the BMC.They can campaign for funding from whichever government or business organisations they please,and leave the BMC to carry on as before.

The two bodies can hold regular meetings to try to keep the peace between the two main factions,both indoors and out.No single body should administrate both bodies.



Keeping this group within the BMC is only going to cause eternal ructions. Mitch

In reply to paul mitchell:

It will only cause ructions if people make ructions. There's no earthly reason why it can't all coexist if people are broad-minded enough to acknowledge that not everyone feels the same way as they do, and that just because the BMC is doing things in addition to what you personally see as its most important work, that doesn't mean it isn't doing your version of its most important work just as well as if it were smaller and only represented a subset of climbers.

And that's not getting started on the inevitable conflicts between disparate groups due to the massive and inevitable overlap between disciplines.

Such a split has been tried elsewhere and I'm not aware of anywhere it's ended well for anyone except the comp and sport climbers. I'd say be careful what you wish for.

In reply to paul mitchell:

There are no factions unless you choose to create them. Besides, does an indoor boulder have less in common with an outdoor boulder than the outdoor boulder does with a mountaineer?

In reply to paul mitchell:
I strongly disagree, many indoor climbers aspire to climb outside, most trad climbers train indoors, nearly all serious competition climbers also climb outside. I can't see how spliting the BMC would help.

(Edit)
Also, the climbing walls do have an organisation - the CWA. I suspect they would probably not want that much to do with funding competitions - they are unlikely to make a profit from them.

In reply to john arran:

The BMC represents mainly amateur participants in hill walking,rock climbing and mountaineering.Comps and privately owned walls are driven by money,thus professional.
The conflict between amateur and professional is not going to go away.The two camps need to be separate.Money oriented climbers are in the minority,and I would like them to take their profit motive elsewhere ,separate from the BMC.

As has been commented,some people don't want their subs funding comps etc.I don't see that changing. Let's have separate funding and separate bodies.

In reply to paul mitchell:


I do, let's not split the BMC in half based on your hunch, eh?

In reply to paul mitchell:

Are you seriously claiming that high altitude mountaineering is not money orientated, the expeditions would not have happened without serious sponsorship. And that is going all the way back to Mallory & Irvine, sponsored by Pilkingtons (among others) I believe

In reply to paul mitchell:

Seems like a pretty frail attempt to draw a distinction between what you like and what you don't like in climbing. There's plenty of money and professionalism in non-competitive climbing and most of the competitions in the UK are done pretty much for a laugh or a personal challenge - much like most of the outdoor climbing you probably get your kicks from. And AFAIK the funding has largely been separate for many years and harmoniously so. Of course, pretending otherwise provides a wedge to hammer needlessly into our climbing community for no actual gain other than personal dogma.

In reply to paul mitchell:

I don't think many "professional" climbers are in it for the money - any more than when I was a government sponsored climber in the 80s. They love climbing and are trying to make ends meet while climbing as much as possible.

In reply to paul mitchell:
Who do you imagine these "money oriented climbers" are? Surely you can't seriously believe somebody like Shauna is less passionate about climbing for climbing's sake than you are?

Anybody who is in competition climbing primarily for money is a fool who chose the wrong sport.

In reply to paul mitchell:

I can see sense in that. The Mountaineering Council can focus on the proper grown-up stuff of securing access to the hills and focusing on best practice which always was their bread and butter. Whilst Team Climbing Plastic GB 4U can relentlessly encourage young people to throw themselves at (and off) climbing walls...

On the other hand having 2 governing bodies is likely to become a cluster**** and make life difficult when we need advocacy at a government level etc. There is no real reason to break the two apart given that they are essentially the same activity.

In reply to paul mitchell:

I'm not really sure this requires a "splinter group". It's becoming clear that the remit of the BMC is so wide that it is resulting in confusion and ambiguity over what it's mission is, how it will achieve it and crucially how it's members money is spent. In short, as I perceive it, a single organisation is trying to achieve too much.

Rather than a "different body" it only really requires a group restructure to hive off the competition element of climbing. Having two separate companies would allow different and and mutually beneficial business strategies to be developed.

The "BMC" could continue to focus on access issues and represent the outdoor climbing and hillwalking community whilst developing a growth strategy that could better communicate their value to outdoors enthusiasts, increase there relevance to core membership and attempt to increase the size of the market by attracting indoors climbers outside.

Meanwhile "BMC Comp" could focus on running the competition side of the organisation and providing resources and support to indoor climbers and walls that increases overall participation and health benefits to local communities etc.

In reply to paul mitchell:

There is a genuine problem with the BMC acting as both a governing body for competitions and a representative body for everything else. Whilst there may be an overlap of interests and in some cases the participants, there is inevitable conflict in terms of resources (time and money) given to each. My understanding was also that the BMC was set up to merely represent those who chose to climb not to actively promote climbing. It has already strayed too far down this route for me and inevitably has to do so to sustain competitive teams.

I personally will not become a memeber of the BMC again as long as they support Olympic climbing, that for me was a step too far. I recognise that my guesture won't stop it happening and if some people want to shut themselves inside waiting their turn to to be measured and judged by the men with clipboards to win points and prizes then that's up to them but I don't want my representative body to be actively encouraging something that I find anathema to what I value in climbing. The more distance that can be put between comps and everything else the better.

I see no problem with having a separate body to govern comps, there are other sports which have more than one body to govern/represent different aspects of it. There is no reason why those who wish cannot be members of both.

In reply to KennyG:

In general I agree with what you have posted although I do think a separate body would be better, however I do have to take issue with this:


Why does it need any growth strategy and why should it try to attract people to climb outdoors?
Many of the biggest problems we face in climbing are due to pressure of numbers, the last thing we need is yet more erosion, litter, polish, crowds, noise, queues etc at crags. It has already strayed too far down the route of encouraging participation, its job is to represent the interests of those who have already chosen to climb.

In reply to pec:


If only everyone was as principled as you. We might lose access to crags or have daft health-and-safety rules foisted on us by a government that don't understand how climbing works, but at least we wouldn't have to worry that we were accidentally helping people who enjoy climbing for a different reason from us.

In reply to pec:

I agree with your point, my post was written from the point of view of what's best for the "company" i.e. the ability to generate sufficient revenue to meet its stated objectives or to fund an expansion in its operations. I agree that this is somewhat conflicting with the aims of not overly pressuring sensitive environments.

Could call it Climb Britain.

In reply to Ramblin dave:


Because of course, the increased popularisation of climbing to a more mainstream participation base couldn't possibly lead to those things in itself.


If you read what I said, I'm not actively trying to stop people doing their thing, I'd just rather it wasn't as closely linked to the other things the BMC is supposed to be doing and paradoxically, I think the comp climbers would be better served by having a separate body which only had to deal with their concerns.

In reply to paul mitchell:

Paul, I feel your pain. If I could engage in only one form of climbing, as with you, of course it would be trad. Allowed two, it would be trad and hillwalking (where it all started for me). But even this most ancient of dinosaurs seems to have spent this evening training on a Beastmaker, yesterday on plastic, tomorrow on a mix of plastic and wood, the weekend on bolts. The times they are a changing...

For me, the inclusion of speed climbing (so beloved of totalitarian regimes and no-one else) in the Olympics was a step too far, a true WTF moment. Bouldering, fine. Leading fine. Speed - no. But hey, that's just me.

My feeling is this: if the BMC splinters, all is lost. It dissipates its strength. And, once you start splintering, it's hard not to stop. The search for the 'true path' tends to attract zealots.

Surely the BMC needs to structure itself internally so that different elements are accommodated. And even that's a delicate balancing act.

I was against the Climb Britain debacle. But it's over. My gut feeling is that corporate bloodletting and splintering will bring disaster down on all our heads. (Obviously if there have been really dodgy dealings, that's another matter but, right now, there is no evidence of 'em that I can see.)

Climbing's a broad church. Better to have one organisation in charge of that broad church. Best to move forward in a spirit of tolerance, not animosity.

Mick

In reply to paul mitchell:

I was going to call troll, but your one reply has rather spoiled that...

I know you seem to like to court controversy, but do you seriously hold these views, do you ever train indoors?

Troll or not, it's an interesting thread.

In reply to Mark Kemball:


Your question poses a false dichotomy. After all: one can train indoors, and use walls, without expecting that the BMC has anything to do with the organization of, or running of, those walls.

Along the same lines, one could - say - go to a normal gym in order to do some weight-training, without expecting that the British Weightlifting Federation (or whatever the relevant organization might be called) either runs, or licences, or otherwise organizes the place.

In reply to paul mitchell:

Yawn.

In reply to john arran:


Exactly. It would be creating an expansion-oriented and well funded organisation collecting all the new climbers entering the sport via climbing walls. It would be full of young people who bouldered and sport climbed inside and quite likely after a while they'd start asking *their* organisation to fix it for them to sport climb and boulder outside at nice safe facilities with picnic tables and toilets like Austrian Klettergaerten.

In reply to paul mitchell:

These bodies will always evolve and expand their interests and project their goals as for the benefit of the sport and blah blah blah. Look at the fat heavy beast the National Trust has become. Potter would have a fit if she saw the stuff they were doing now. The BMC doesn't make a difference to me or what I do. Why care?

In reply to paul mitchell:
What about hillwakers?

In reply to olddirtydoggy:


But, who negotiates access agreements when landowners decide they aren't happy with climbers on their land?

In reply to Mick Ward:


Climbing might be (is) a very broad church bordering on undefinable at the edges. But aspects of those activities which require representative and/or governing bodies seem to me to fall into two categories:

1) The interests of outdoor enthusiasts (bouldering, walking, sport climbers, trad - you name it) boil down to access and conservation.
2) The interests of competition climbers boils down to all the things a SGO do (training, competition, funding) which appears to be totally non overlapping with the first category.

In my mind, the two roles are only being rolled into a single category because of the overlap in the users (in that most competition climbers will also have an interest in climbing outside)

Also, I think from my experience of climbing walls is that the majority of wall use requires neither a representative body or a SGO in the same way Go Ape doesn't. Again there is the the confusion of the role of Representative body / SGO because a lot of indoor wall users will also climb outside and increasingly in comps.

In reply to Mark Kemball:


The CWA is a two day course that certifies you to top rope climbers on man-made structures as long as someone else has put the top rope up.

Perhaps you meant the ABC?

In reply to winhill:
Thanks for that correction. http://www.abcwalls.co.uk/

In reply to GrahamD:

Agree - it's tricky! I don't pretend to understand it in any kind of comprehensive fashion. I'm just against bloodletting and/or splitting.

Thus:


Mick

In reply to paul mitchell:


A recipe for peace similar to the split of the ISCF from the UIAA?

In reply to meggie:


And get to use the mugs and t-shirts and web domains

In reply to AlanLittle:

I think you will find I named no names.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

I am not for controversy for its own sake.Arguing for its own sake I leave to others.Life is too short.Money corrupts climbing culture.Yes,it has been there quite a while.That never justifies it.I stand by the opinion that the BMC should hive off the more commercial elements.

In reply to paul mitchell:

#1stworldproblems

In reply to paul mitchell:


I think there are many merits to having a partially hived off structure.

Various sub bodies could have their own distinct identity with the BMC still at the centre with a central services teams (IT, Finance, HR etc) with wholly owned and managed, subsidiary bodies reporting in who support the overall cause but reach out and support and represent the hill walking and climbing communities in different ways.

I see five potential bodies:

1. The Indoor Climbing body (perhaps called Climb Britain?) is the NGB for competition climbing and manages the GB Team.
2. The Access side could be more formally grouped under the Access & Conservation Trust which is a BMC Charity which possibly is under-utilised currently in terms of its charitable status.
3.The Commercial side could be more formally defined as separate wholly owned limited company with certain financial benefits to the limited company status related to VAT reclaim.
4. An Associates arm built around supporting the Mountain Training organisations and the affiliated climbing Clubs and supports those organisations as well as others which want a BMC affiliation.
5. The Mountain Heritage Trust would represent and promote the history and heritage of British climbing

The overall strategy could be to aim to place the place the BMC at the centre of the hillwalking and climbing communities and therefore be the organisation that hillwalkers and climbers naturally want to join - which is the stated mission.

Each distinct body could communicate to their different audiences and bodies and would form separate identities and goals and growth strategies appropriate to their area which could be more easily understood internally and externally than they are in the current merged form.

In reply to paul mitchell:


A cursory glance at the threads about your actions over the years would put a lie to that.

In reply to Lemony:


I disagree. I think Paul's actions, whatever you may think of them, are motivated from his beliefs and opinions and 0% from being the centre of attention.

In reply to paul mitchell:
If you don't want an ambassador to represent your interests then don't be a member..which I presume you're not?

Personally I'm happy for the BMC to do stuff I'm interested in eg negotiate access (including nationally important CROW and Coastal Access ) and it matters not to me what they do re: competitions etc

In reply to ukb shark:


Makes eminently good sense to me.

Mick

In reply to paul mitchell:

The whole no confidence motion appears to be a waste of time from a bunch of old blokes who are afraid of climbing and mountaineering changing, Bob Pettigrew spoke about the motion at my local club's evening meet on tuesday, there didn't appear to be any plan of what to do if the motion was passed or a clear statement of how extensive the motion of no confidence was.
There's a huge amount of talk on this thread about young people and indoor climbers not being interested in climbing outdoors, it's rubbish. I've now organised two meets for my local club to introduce people to the club and to help them get the spark of interest with a few people attending the first one having only climbed indoors, from the first one we got 7 applications for membership (I think there were 10 new people on the meet), the second one's in a few weeks so I'll have to see how that goes.
For everyone who's in favour of the motion of no confidence: If you want to change the next generation of climbers for the better get off your arse, speak to them, get them involved and show them why you feel the way you do. Voting to prevent the BMC from keeping up with changes in climbing is just going to make the BMC irrelevant and hurt the interests of all climbers.
(For context I'm a 24 year old bloke who's been climbing for 4 and a half years, I climb out doors quite regularly and have been part of 5 different mountaineering clubs since I started climbing (1 uni club, 3 local clubs while I've moved around due to work and the CC)).

In reply to Misha:


Splitters!

The Popular Front of the BMC condemns them almost as much as they condemn the Fu***g peoples front of the BMC,

splitters...

In reply to paul mitchell:


I thought they'd been involved with comps for about the past quarter of a century.

In reply to stp:

In any case this isn't a Sport versus Trad issue here - both Sport and Trad have to coexist in the same environment facing the same access and conservation issues.

The possible conflict on resources is between outdoor interests versus (potentially) the interests indoor competition climbers.

In reply to paul mitchell:


Is there any particular reason why 'possible future corruption allegations' are more likely occur than say.. 'possible future Olympic medals'?

In reply to samwillo:


They tend to go together, along with drug taking.

In reply to MG:


Well, climbing has a fine tradition of that!

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Yeah but we weren't making any money!

(Oops...)

Mick

In reply to paul mitchell:

Careful what you wish for Paul. Let's say that the split happens as you propose, and in 10 years time indoor competition climbing has grown massively. Competition climbers might well then say "we want to start having competitions outdoors, so we're going to bolt a few lines at crag X" Without a single body to represent both sides, how would that be resolved?

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Different bodies negotiate on conflicting land use all the time. Good example is RSPB and the BMC. I'm pretty sure this is a bridge thats easily crossed when we get to it.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Ive kept out of this one for almost a week. However, the IFSC and BMC are dead against comps on natural rock. For one, hey are virtually impossible to organise / judge. International comps need a final route at around 9a/+, so the number of venues would be limited. The only way to run comps is on artificial surfaces with organised spectator spaces etc etc etc. Anyone who is worried about the IFSC or UIAA bolting a crag (or using an already bolted crag) for comps is suffering from a bit of paranoia........

Note there was a dry tooling type comp up the white cliffs a couple of years back. Sponsored by red bull. Lots of "name" climbers took part. Privately run, by whom I dont know, but nothing to do with anyone at the BMC.

Also, we have ongoing discussions at the BMC about a "wholly owned subsidiary" style comp / team section. Discussed a completely separate organisation, but it wouldnt work at the present time.

Ian W
Chair, BMC comps

In reply to olddirtydoggy:


It's made a huge difference to the kids who have gone through the climbing comp scene and are now fully fledged climbers in their own right.

In reply to paul mitchell:

Almost all BMC comps are for kids.

Our kids are the future of the BMC and they are the future guardians of everything that you cherish about climbing.

Why on earth would you want to cast them out?

Let me guess.... You voted Brexit.

In reply to Mick Ward:


Have a big 'like' for that one Mick
Paul

In reply to paul mitchell:

Strongly disagree with this Paul. By splitting the two up the power to govern climbing effectively is more than halved in my opinion.

It is all climbing and we are all part of a broad church.

Personally I prefer to be outdoors whether that be trad, sport or bouldering. I also like going indoors when it's horrible weather, I'm pushed for time or it's dark (I know I'm such a soft bastard)

Comps don't interest me but if that's what makes someone else tick then great!

Climbing is in the olympics whether you like it or not - giving the governance of this to another body would banish the BMC into irrelevance in the eyes of the government, sport England, newcomers to the sport etc. That means no more money for conservation and access work, no more chips at the Maynard or any of the other brilliant things the BMC does. Plus any newcomers attracted by the Olympics will have diluted access to the correct body to guide them through their first steps to becoming passionate about outdoors climbers like you or I.

The BMC started as a "trad organisation" when that was all that was available. To not move with the times will cause it to stagnate and die.

Please reconsider your position on this from a reasonable and open-minded perspective. You are being a poor 'ambassador' to the sport of climbing when you could be a great one; by being as passionate as obviously you are but also open to the new directions in which climbing is heading and guiding these along with the traditional principles of climbing.

In reply to Duncan Campbell:




I was with you at the start but I don't think the rest is supported by facts. Indoor and competition climbers are an important and growing segment of the climbing population that the BMC should and does aim to attract, support and represent. However, it entirely false to extrapolate that the BMC will wither and die without that segment (which is not an argument not to engage and represent indoor climbers with the by the way!)

If you take Sport England's own figures then currently exclusive indoor climbers number 171K. By contrast hillwalkers (ie proper hillwalkers not those who walk in a park) number 1.9million ! Now if you were going to logically concentrate on a segment of the community, who dare I say it identify more closely with the current core values of access and conservation, who would that be Duncan? Just saying

In reply to Duncan Campbell:


This cuts right to it. As a climber I do not want to be 'governed'.

In reply to GrahamD:

Totally agree and certainly not by a body that will tend to follow the money (indoor and competition) and inevitably start to favour that activity above others Some will withdraw from the organisation further accelerating that process.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


Evidence? Are you talking in relative terms? If so, then quite likely you might be right, assuming the comps involvement grows and that your definition of favouring an activity is to give it a greater proportion of the organisation's resources. But if the overall resources available are growing, and at the same time all other programmes have just as much support and investment as they would otherwise, and continue to thrive with their own dedicated staff under the same BMC umbrella, I really don't see the problem.

In reply to ukb shark:

A valid point!

Though I still sort of feel that although hillwalkers are a majority they may be a quite silent majority who's voice may not be so heard and so would lose out to the louder voice of comp climbing?

Could be wrong there but take the BMC meetings for example; lots of climbers but relatively few talking about hillwalking.

In reply to GrahamD:

Anarchism!!

So you aren't a BMC member currently? If this is true then it presumably shouldn't matter to you what the BMC does. If you are and it does matter to you what the BMC does then you are already being governed.

In reply to GrahamD:


Why do you feel you would become governed? Sports governing bodies do not govern people. What you would have is an organisation that represents the interests of all climbers whilst part of it runs / governs a small part that requires the application of rules (the comp bit).

In reply to paul mitchell:

Not read the whole thread so sorry if this has been mentioned before.

Not all, but a good proportion of indoor climbers want to move outdoors at some point. And many of them wonder why the type of climbing they identify with most easily (sport climbing) is predominantly only available in grotty quarries or on steeply overhanging limestone (at top end grades), or in France, Spain etc. A separate national body representing indoor and competition climbers will be simply responding to members' interests by pressing for the bolting of existing UK trad. venues. And it's likely, as people have said, to be much better funded than rump BMC.

Much better to keep these debates under one roof as at present, and definitely in the interests of trad climbers to do so.

Martin

In reply to GrahamD:

How about the power to represent, then?

As far as I can see, no-one is proposing to "govern" outdoor climbing any more than it's already "governed", so I think that's a red herring here.

In reply to john arran:


Agreed, if all those things are true and we can feel confident that they will continue to be so. Personally, I'll be looking for evidence of that (rather than simply taking it on trust unless evidence to the contrary comes to light).

In reply to Duncan Campbell:


Affiliated BMC member (twice) through two clubs. As such I have a representative body in the BMC.

In reply to slab_happy:


Representation is what I already have and I'm happy with that. You might think a change to a governing body is a red herring, I see it as pretty much the crux of the debate.

In reply to Martin Hore:


Why on earth do you think such a body would automatically press for bolting trad venues? Ridiculous scaremongering. The interests of indoor / comp climbers lies indoors and with comps.

And given we are all climbers, and resources are scarce, I agree it is better to be all under the same roof.

In reply to Duncan Campbell:

At the Peak meet yesterday evening, Rob Greenwood re-shuffled the agenda so that the hillwalking reps spoke first (rather than always being last and thus inevitably squeezed for time).

I thought this was an excellent move; it's clearly not good if any particular sub-group of members get treated as the "poor cousins".

In reply to GrahamD:


Agreed and also the conflict that the BMC faces. I can see that indoor and competition climbing are more likely candidates for governing.

Al

In reply to Martin Hore:


I'd like to speak up on behalf of indoor climbers who move outdoors (who are, at this point, the vast majority of people starting outdoor climbing); I'd like to think that we're generally not jumping up and down demanding that everything be bolted for our convenience.

(Some of us are boulderers, after all. *g* )

But I do think that the BMC plays (and should keep on playing) a very important role in *connecting* the different aspects of climbing, enabling people who start indoors to learn about the diversity of British climbing and its history, the reasons why regional ethics are the way they are and the value in that. All being under the same umbrella is hugely important for that.

And as I understand it, the BMC wasn't founded to be a "trad" organization; it was founded to be an *umbrella* organization, representing all British climbing and mountain activities. Even though "sport climbing" didn't exist at the time, there were multiple forms of climbing/mountaineering in existence, and it didn't set up itself up to represent any specific ones versus others.

The BMC has been involved in comps for a very long time. And I believe Angela Soper was the BMC's indoor wall rep before I was even born!

This isn't a thread about "seceding from" the BMC (unless the OP is volunteering?); it's arguing that certain groups of climbers (and hillwalkers? who knows? they're not trad climbers, after all, and Doug Scott for one doesn't want them allowed in) should be *thrown out* of the BMC -- that the BMC should stop being an umbrella organization and restrict itself to only representing the interests of certain kinds of climbers.

*That* would represent a huge change in the BMC's mission and functioning.

In reply to all:

Not making any statements of fact here, just a few musings .....

After reading this thread, I was just browsing the BMC website, looking specifically for a "what is the BMC?" - a raison d'être for the organisation, mission statement(s), that sort of thing, and found these notably lacking. Perhaps I missed them - couldn't see them anywhere prominent, anyway.

I noticed that Indoor Climbing is the first (leftmost) category of the drop-downs on the homepage, and wondered why. Is it paranoid to read anything into that - does it imply prioritisation? Is it because there are commercial implications - effectively, businesses are being advertised. Does the BMC get money from climbing walls for a specific mention on the website?

Has the BMC made an unequivocal commitment to continue to fund its existing activities at at least the current level? Hypothetically, if in the future the BMC apportions its funds more widely (to include expenses related to indoor, competitions, etc.), and then funding becomes more limited, which activities will take the hit?

In reply to paul mitchell:

Also musing, and to add an observation - training/awards schemes are overseen by a separate body (bodies) Mountain Training (was MLT -UL -E -S etc in my day). I have a feeling this is unusual for representative/governing bodies, but not sure - considering FFME and RYA leads me to think it is. So there is already a structure in the UK where separate aspects of hillwalking/climbing/mountaineering are administered separately - I guess there are some historical reasons for this, but I haven't got my copy of the BMC First 500 years to hand.

In reply to paul mitchell:
I was considering opening a new thread,titled BMC Amateur or Professional,but we seem to be on roughly the same topic.

I was at the BMC meeting last night in Grindleford,and as usual,the main topic was squeezed for time by minor issues that could have waited for area meetings later in the year.
Very few questions were taken from the floor.As usual,several speakers could not be heard,because no microphones were available for people at the back,and also from the BMC reps at the front.People were calling out for people to speak louder.Unprofessional preparation,as usual.

I asked one question,which was ''Can the BMC be considered a company and can the members be considered as shareholders?'' Dave Turnbull answered that yes ,it is a company and members are shareholders.I was not allowed to ask any more questions by the chair.If it is a company,then we need to know how it invests its funds and about future commercial strategy.That would help to reduce distrust brought about by poor communication.

The mover of the motion of no confidence did himself no favours by his absence.However,I think the point he is making is that the BMC executive has not sufficiently informed the membership of its future intentions and policies.

Dave T did nothing to reduce my concerns at last night's meeting,when he informed us of various meetings with government funders and comments they made to BMC exec members.These funding negotiations should be reported verbatim to the membership.

I don't think this lack of reporting can go unchanged. It seems to me that becuase the exec are afraid of what the membership might say to increasing commercialisation,they hold back on what they are doing behind the scenes to try and fund the current staff levels,at threat from govt funding cuts,from Lottery and Sports Council.To me,this is not an issue for a vote of confidence.As was commmented,the vote should have been a Vote of Censure,not a Vote of NO Confidence.

I don't doubt the sincerity and integrity of the Exec;but I do question their levels of professional communication.Fear of Joe Public,you,the members,has lead them to withhold information about the future commercialisation of the BMC. Does the BMC exist to fund its staff,or to serve its members?

As somebody pointed out,the BMC could just make staffing cuts and live within its budget.Someone else suggested that members could simply be asked to pay a little more to cover the funding shortfall.To me this is the the simplest and most realistic way to meet budget needs.

Henry Folkard pointed out that possible commercial links with equipment retailers would need to be rigorously scrutinised.He mentioned the word ETHICS.Would such companies be asked how they treat their workforce?I said to Rob Greenwood after the meeting,that when you sup with the devil (the retailers) you need to sup with a very long spoon. Myself,I don't want bmc literature crammed with adverts,to fund climbing comps and superfluous BMC staff.

I still think that the BMC needs to simplify its committee structure,and to hypothecate advertising funds to fund Olympic campaigning and competition climbing.Also to have a commercial offshoot with its own bank account and Constitution. Links to retailers will eventually call into question the judgement and reputation of the BMC.Fortunately the national press have so far not got hold of these renaming shenanigans.That could be a killer for govt funding.The BMC needs to sort itself out double quick.

Regarding the matter of No Confidence,that would be a vote too far.We climbers and walkers need a national body to represent our interests.There is no need to reinvent the wheel;just to replace a few spokes. Speaking of spokes,just look at the disrepute that cycling has come into once it made competitions commercial,and sponsored by retailers etc. That is why we need the BMC to hive off the more commercial and controversial elements of its portfolio.

If you don't want to comment on this website ,then I suggest you should e mail the BMC exec and state your opinions.

MITCH

In reply to paul mitchell:

My experiences with the work of the BMC have been overwhelmingly positive, whether around access rights or outright buying crags to protect them.

I started as one of the dreaded 'indoor climbers', as a youth, and ended up transitioning to outdoor climbing as most do eventually when you get old enough to drive yourself to the crags.

My local wall (the boardroom) hosts some amazing comps, attracting some pro names, who also climb incredibly hard outdoors. The youngsters who climb there regularly are unbelievably psyched about all aspects of the sport, and they aren't some evil generation who are going to take your crags. This feels like an imagined division by people who don't take the time to talk to the people they are demonising, and there is absolutely zero need for the BMC to split.

If there are genuine leadership issues then they should absolutely be debated, but I've yet to see any evidence of that.

In reply to paul mitchell:

>Unprofessionalism as usual?

I think you are being very unfair on Rob and Becky regarding organising the meeting. The change of room was not of their doing and Rob was at pains to apologise about this. There was only one occasion when someone asked for a speaker to speak more loudly. There is also a certain incongruity of you demanding greater professionalism when it is organised by volunteers. I have witnessed worse at paid-for events

>''Can the BMC be considered a company and can the members be considered as shareholders?''

Yes. This is easily researched. https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-memorandum-and-articles-of-association Each member is a shareholder with a maximum personal liability of £1. The reserve, which whilst healthy is still less than 6 month revenue and is ‘invested’ in a number of high street name deposit accounts.
>Does the BMC exist to fund its staff,or to serve its members?
Obviously the latter as well as the wider hillwalking and climbing community who aren’t members.

>It seems to me that becuase the exec are afraid of what the membership might say to increasing commercialisation,they hold back on what they are doing behind the scenes to try and fund the current staff levels

This may be your perception but my appointment was to investigate commercial options and I thought I made that plain in my introduction. We are already a commercial company with specialist travel insurance, a shop and guidebook publishing. There is no commercial strategy yet though I am in the process of drafting one which will be submitted for consideration in due course.

>to have a commercial offshoot with its own bank account and Constitution.

This is potentially a very good idea if established as a subsidiary company for more than just the reasons you give and which I am investigating and is a structure that is common in other not-for-profit organisations

In reply to Pewtle:

I don't think there is any intent to demonise anyone who climbs indoors and especially does competitions. Its more one of how best to organise representation / governance for the vast array of disciplines covered by 'climbing'. The governance needs of competition climbing is pretty much the same as any other sport, squash, badminton whatever. There are clear requirements for competitions organisation, rules and team management and even 'recruitment' to the sport.

For general outdoor enthusiasts (trad climbers, hill walkers, boulderers, sport climbers, winter climbers etc) there is no need of governance. What is needed is an organisation concentrating on preserving access and in that respect they have far more in common with the Ramblers than any mainstream sport.

These are almost totally non-overlapping requirements.

So just as I wouldn't want or expect a single body to represent my interests in outdoor climbing / waking and road cycling, or my wife's case in squash and triathlon, I don't see why people expect a single body to represent the sport of indoor competition climbing and to represent the concerns of the outdoor hill / crag users ?

In reply to GrahamD:



The concerns of someone putting up new routes in the greater ranges have nothing in common with the needs of hill and crag users either. In your reductivist view of what climbing the BMC should deal with, do we remove things like expedition grants?

In reply to Lemony:

They are pretty similar - access, safety, information etc. Just the geography is different. Also the motivation for doing the activity is largely the same. None of this holds for indoor or competition climbing, or arguably sport climbing. I think a split makes sense.

In reply to Lemony:


Its a debate worth having, but I would have said probably not unless it becomes a major aspect of the BMC.

In reply to MG:

My motivation for going climbing indoors is exactly the same as my motivation for climbing outdoors. So much so that whether I head up to Corby's or Climb Newcastle tonight will be solely down to whether our lass needs the car.

I don't know if there's a generational thing here but I really, really don't see those two as doing different things.

In reply to MG:

I'd say that almost all of the concerns that apply to outdoor trad climbing also apply to outdoor sport climbing. To take it to an extreme, you wouldn't expect the BMC to negotiate access agreements for climbing trad lines in the slate quarries while someone else negotiates access for the sport lines! Edit: trying to agree on bolting policies is another fairly obvious issue where it's better to have trad and sport in the same tent.

I think a lot of the same concerns apply to indoor climbing as well - safety, information, a degree of pushback against elf-n-safety culture and towards personal responsibility. Not to mention the obvious crossover in participation.

I can see an argument that organising competitons and running competition squads is a basically distinct set of responsibilities with very little actual crossover with the other stuff - to me, that's the more natural line to draw. On the other hand, for the moment I'm happy for the BMC to be aware of that and to be upfront about how much they're doing of what. I don't think that the core access / safety / conservation is suffering and I don't think it's worth triggering a major (and possibly counterproductive) upheaval just because that stuff might hypothetically come under threat at some point in the future.

In reply to Lemony:


Well OK but I'm really surprised. Other than some overlap in the gymnastic aspect, they are just totally different activities to me. Indoor climbing is a slightly less boring version of going to the gym to me. Outdoor climbing is vastly more.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Where a division lies is, I agree, debatable, but I think it's pretty clear there is a division - hence all this discussion. For me it's between gymnastic ability being the prime motivation, and "adventure", for want of a better word.

In reply to MG:


For me its about Governance, Rules, competitions and performance (like any other sport) and Facilitating climbing for enjoyment. I would also argue that the BMC don't need to facilitate anything to allow people to climb indoors - that is purely a business for the walls.

In reply to MG:

What you don't seem to be getting at all is that there really is no division that is widely agreed. You seem to draw it at gymnastic content, Paul Mitchell was drawing it at professionalism, others draw it at sport climbing, others at indoor climbing, others at comps, ... If it was me I would draw it at recreational abseiling or roped access.
That in itself pretty much proves that it's really a continuum, and only appears to be a division to individuals who don't take part in, or don't really enjoy, some aspects of the sport.

And of course a division that is not widely agreed is really no division at all.

In reply to john arran:

What you say is indeed true but it would be interesting to see which side the BMC favoured if someone suggested a competition outdoors. Personally I see indoors and competition having more in common with gymnastics than what I would consider to be adventure climbing/mountaineering. Outdoor sport climbing does at least score a little in this regard. My wall is mostly occupied by people who have never climbed outdoors and don't show any particular interest in doing so. I would not be in favour of some of my subscriptions going towards supporting their activities, although the ship may have already sailed in that regard.

Al

In reply to GridNorth:


If the comp was on natural rock I would hope that the BMC would have nothing to do with it.

Ian Walton
Chair, BMC comp comm

In reply to GridNorth:


How about outdoor bouldering? Gymnastics or proper climbing?

In reply to GridNorth:


Well there's another good example of a continuum, since outdoor events with some, usually pretty informal, competitive element are pretty common, especially in festival-type situations like in Kalymnos. And not just overseas, either. What's the Staffordshire Nose record if not a competition without a fixed date or entry list? The reason we're so opposed to organised outdoor comps is to prevent such things as chipping/manufacturing and route-hogging. For example, few would have a fundamental problem with an award for the climber who'd completed the most outdoor routes of a certain grade, or on the greatest number of crags, in that month, assuming of course they're climbed in the same responsible way as any other route climbed for other personal reasons. The continuum then will go from there, through boulder bash events and festivals, into the realm of events that most UK climbers would rightly object to, and for good reason.

I'm sure you'd find very few UK climbers that didn't think there was a line to be drawn somewhere, so that organised events didn't take over and ruin our crags, but when it came down to the detail I suspect you'd find quite some variation in precisely where different people think such a line should actually be drawn. The current status quo seems to be successful in preventing what we all really don't want to see, without needlessly getting hung up about grey areas that aren't causing problems in practice.

In reply to Lemony:


It's an adventurous activity IMO so I would say proper climbing and it's neither sanitised nor regulated. As soon as you introduce H&S it starts to be both.

Al

In reply to john arran:

I dislike the competitive elements that creep into climbing. I don't mean the friendly banter that has always existed between friends but the more structured formal type.

One of the reasons I took up climbing was because of the lack of overt competition so you are on a hiding to nothing trying to persuade me otherwise . In the grande scheme of things it doesn't matter what I think but the day I thought that the BMC was more representative of indoors and competitions than adventure climbing is the day I would stop subscribing.

Al

In reply to paul mitchell:

If nothing else this has been quite an interesting 'survey'. Fairly even split of 'votes' in the likes/dislikes to the original post.

In reply to john arran:


Which is why my view is that we dont use natural rock for any comps, so that the temptation to even have a grey area doesnt exist. Keep comps on artificial structures. Keep real rock for "adventure" climbing. Stuff like the staffordshire nose thing, or Bob Graham Round isnt to me a comp, just an outdoor challenge that people want to do faster than someone else. For me, the UIAA festival style comps simply should not happen.

In reply to john arran:


Division is perhaps the wrong word but I think the continuum is too long to be sustainable. Much like politics is a continuum but you wouldn't, I assume, want just one political party. Would you want to combine the Ramblers and BMC?


That's not it, for me at least. I rarely rock climb these days but certainly see it as closely connected to mountain walking and alpine climbing. But I don't see any close link with indoor stuff.

In reply to ukb shark:


Careful with the stats... Climb indoors, not exclusively climb indoors, there's overlap with the 106k outdoor climbers i.e. 65k exclusive indoor climbers (on the SE measure)

In reply to Ian W:

I agree with you about the Brown/Whillians thing and other similar challenges. To me one of the main things about a Competition is it takes place on a set date, with 'judges' there to enforce the rules and state who has won afterwards. Grit days out etc are totally different and are just examples of competition (small 'c') in climbing, much like the race to a FA.

In reply to ukb shark:


The BMC is limited by guarantee, there are no shares, there are no shareholders. The members, in the club sense, are members in the company sense, who each guarantee the company, limited to the value of £1 each.

In reply to JR:


Care to explain any practical difference?

In reply to JR:


Cheers.

In reply to ukb shark:

I know you're asking this rhetorically, but it's a legally important definition with implied practical profit distribution differences. As an analogy, it works, however, given the current sophistry going on, it's important to be accurate about the limits of it.

Going back to the wider issue about whether or not the BMC should represent climbers and hill walkers AND govern competition climbing in the UK: it might be useful to reflect on how British Canoeing (formerly the British Canoe Union) has fared. Firstly though, it should be noted that the BCU was set up as a governing body for Olympic canoeing, and later grew in to something purporting to be more representative of all paddlers.

As with climbing, the majority of BC members nowadays are recreational participants rather than competitive ones. There have been perennial complaints and accusations over the years about how the BCU has failed the recreationalists and prioritised competitions. Many recreational paddlers have said they would have voted with their wallet and not rejoined, but for them needing to remain members to maintain the currency of their coaching qualifications, and/or for the boat licence (which enables them to paddle on hundreds of miles of canals and rivers).

If the BMC is perceived as concentrating too much on disciplines that, however high profile, are of little interest to most in climbing and walking community, and if members begin to feel resentment about disproportionately funding niche activities, it is possible that they will not join/renew their membership. Remember, there is no requirement to be a member either to coach, lead or instruct, or to gain access to hills and crags.

There are good arguments for the broad church approach, but only whilst the BMC can ensure it continues to represent the whole climbing and walking community, rather than being (or even being perceived to be) focused disproportionately on competions (for all the kudos, or grant money, they might attract).

A very unscientific poll, based on the votes up and down for some of the posts in this thread, suggests a large minority of respondents have concerns about the direction the BMC is taking. If we are going to be a broad church, we need to address their concerns, not simply tell them they're wrong.

In reply to GridNorth:


Do you spend much time talking to them?

Based on my indoor experiences (mostly at a busy bouldering wall in the middle of London): yes, there are certainly some people who climb indoors once a week because it's less boring than the gym, and they have no interest in exploring it further in any way.

But the people who are passionate about indoor bouldering all seem to either climb outside or to really really *want* to get outside.

Somewhat to my surprise, I've found myself playing the role of sage adviser on how to get to bouldering areas in the Peak District if you don't have a car, where good places to start outside are, or how to connect with people who have the gear and knowledge to rig topropes properly on the southern sandstone, and so on.

People who fall in love with climbing *fall in love with climbing*.

I don't think "indoor climbers" are nearly as alien a species as you imagine.


How do you feel about some of their subscriptions going towards supporting your activities? It's not a one-way street, after all.

In reply to paul mitchell:

I really don't understand the negativity towards people with similar interests to your own. Its like cyclists arguing about road & mtb, cross country runners & track runners etc etc.

I have been extremely impressed with the attitude of the general climbing community I have had the pleasure to witness. Both indoor and outdoors, I don't really see any difference in the people. All seem nice.

What I really wanted to say was that despite my daughter being a indoor only climber (Due mainly to me being incompetence), there are plenty of outdoor climbers at our wall. Its used by adults keeping fit or topping up the skills for trad/sport climbing. Its used by families who find it easier to get to the wall but are primarily outdoors climbers. Its used by kids who have zero interest in competitions but love to use the wall but then go outdoors at every opportunity. I have seen kids progress from budding youngster and then be doing some amazing climbs outside. I have also witnessed young lads take breaks from the indoors life and come back 6mths later, amazing climbers and looking so much more mature. Indoor climbing is not all about winning competitions. Its about introducing people with similar interests to climbing. The fact that it might be a little bit easier and less daunting for a novice to visit an indoor wall makes it even more important.

Competitions are a part of the indoor scene and I love them tbh, but to hold that against them because you think they don't have your interest at heart is far from what I have seen