This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
FACT - The domain name climbbritain.co.uk was registered on the 3rd March 2016 by the BMC
This isn’t a 5 minute job –
• Someone would have decided to do it
• An application would have had to been prepared
• A payment would have to had been approved
• The application would have had to be approved before submitting
• The registrar would then have had to check and process the application
Who approved the application and when was it submitted?
There was a National Council meeting on the 6th February 2016 yet there is no mention of rebranding or renaming in the minutes. It is incredulous to suggest that the CEO and other Executive members at the meeting were not aware of the plan for a name change at this time only days before the domain name registration was submitted, but they choose to keep this from the NC.
The AGM took place on the 16th April 2016, after the domain name had been registered and despite there clearly being a plan to rebrand/rename this was not reported to the membership which it could have been without revealing any names.
This isn’t a 5 minute job –
• Someone would have decided to do it
• An application would have had to been prepared
• A payment would have to had been approved
• The application would have had to be approved before submitting
• The registrar would then have had to check and process the application
Who approved the application and when was it submitted?
There was a National Council meeting on the 6th February 2016 yet there is no mention of rebranding or renaming in the minutes. It is incredulous to suggest that the CEO and other Executive members at the meeting were not aware of the plan for a name change at this time only days before the domain name registration was submitted, but they choose to keep this from the NC.
The AGM took place on the 16th April 2016, after the domain name had been registered and despite there clearly being a plan to rebrand/rename this was not reported to the membership which it could have been without revealing any names.
6
82
21
3
47
1
In reply to Steve Woollard:
There's been a discussion about this on the other channel. Without wishing to misrepresent anybody, my understanding is that several domain names have been registered by the BMC in the past (23 or so), for example:
https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=britishclimbing.co.uk#whois-results
was registered by the BMC in 2013. It isn't unusual for companies or organisations to register alternative domain names. Martin Wragg's report for the BMC states (part (c) in the conclusions) that "at the time of the 2016 AGM ideas about brand were being discussed but no concrete proposals had been received and no decisions made". The 'evidence' (or, conjecture) that you've provided doesn't refute that.
>" It is incredulous to suggest that the CEO and other Executive members at the meeting were not aware of the plan for a name change at this time only days before the domain name registration was submitted, but they choose to keep this from the NC."
It is entirely credible that the CEO and other execustive members were aware of ideas of a re-brand, but that there was no plan to discuss. It's also plausible that the Climb Britain domain name might have been registered by ThinkFarm (the consultancy agency which was paid for by Sport England) as part of their brain storming. Nothing about this suggests a conspiracy.
I really don't think you needed to start a new thread about this.
There's been a discussion about this on the other channel. Without wishing to misrepresent anybody, my understanding is that several domain names have been registered by the BMC in the past (23 or so), for example:
https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=britishclimbing.co.uk#whois-results
was registered by the BMC in 2013. It isn't unusual for companies or organisations to register alternative domain names. Martin Wragg's report for the BMC states (part (c) in the conclusions) that "at the time of the 2016 AGM ideas about brand were being discussed but no concrete proposals had been received and no decisions made". The 'evidence' (or, conjecture) that you've provided doesn't refute that.
>" It is incredulous to suggest that the CEO and other Executive members at the meeting were not aware of the plan for a name change at this time only days before the domain name registration was submitted, but they choose to keep this from the NC."
It is entirely credible that the CEO and other execustive members were aware of ideas of a re-brand, but that there was no plan to discuss. It's also plausible that the Climb Britain domain name might have been registered by ThinkFarm (the consultancy agency which was paid for by Sport England) as part of their brain storming. Nothing about this suggests a conspiracy.
I really don't think you needed to start a new thread about this.
31
In reply to Steve Woollard:
Having registered several, I'd say that you could probably stretch it out to 5 minutes if you typed particularly slowly.
> This isn’t a 5 minute job
Having registered several, I'd say that you could probably stretch it out to 5 minutes if you typed particularly slowly.
84
In reply to Clauso:
I await the discovery that Dave Turnbull has been secretly taping all his conversations for the past eight years.
I await the discovery that Dave Turnbull has been secretly taping all his conversations for the past eight years.
7
In reply to Andy Reeve:
My god, the plot goes even further back than we thought!1!!?!?!
(Was that a suitable amount of punctuation?)
As I understand it, all registering a domain name means is that you might potentially want to use it for a website URL at some point, or at least that you want to nab it before someone else does so that you have the option (or that you might, for example, want to use it for a slogan and you don't want someone else having a website with that name and causing confusion).
Or, in certain cases, that you think someone else will really want to use it for a website and you hope you can make them buy it off you at an exorbitant price, but this seems unlikely here.
People who want to find out about climbing in the UK and don't know anything about it are quite likely to Google variations on things like "British climbing" "climbing England[/Wales/Scotland/etc.] or "climbing in the UK" or even, dare I say, "climb Britain".
If there is a website named that, it will likely crop up near the top of those search results.
It would not be unreasonable for the BMC to want to ensure that those searches lead to the BMC website, or at least make sure that another organization or commercial company can't park itself at britishclimbing.co.uk and set itself up as British Climbing.
> There's been a discussion about this on the other channel. Without wishing to misrepresent anybody, my understanding is that several domain names have been registered by the BMC in the past (23 or so), for example:https://www.nominet.uk/whois/?query=britishclimbing.co.uk#whois-resultswas registered by the BMC in 2013.
My god, the plot goes even further back than we thought!1!!?!?!
(Was that a suitable amount of punctuation?)
As I understand it, all registering a domain name means is that you might potentially want to use it for a website URL at some point, or at least that you want to nab it before someone else does so that you have the option (or that you might, for example, want to use it for a slogan and you don't want someone else having a website with that name and causing confusion).
Or, in certain cases, that you think someone else will really want to use it for a website and you hope you can make them buy it off you at an exorbitant price, but this seems unlikely here.
People who want to find out about climbing in the UK and don't know anything about it are quite likely to Google variations on things like "British climbing" "climbing England[/Wales/Scotland/etc.] or "climbing in the UK" or even, dare I say, "climb Britain".
If there is a website named that, it will likely crop up near the top of those search results.
It would not be unreasonable for the BMC to want to ensure that those searches lead to the BMC website, or at least make sure that another organization or commercial company can't park itself at britishclimbing.co.uk and set itself up as British Climbing.
11
In reply to Steve Woollard:
The application looks something like this:
Wot is your name: ___________________________
Wot domain name would you like : ________________________
Credit card number plz: ___________________________
[ Submit ]
Anyway, in answer to your last question, the application was almost certainly submitted on 3rd March 2016 because it's an instantaneous process.
> The application would have had to be approved before submitting
> The registrar would then have had to check and process the application
> The registrar would then have had to check and process the application
The application looks something like this:
Wot is your name: ___________________________
Wot domain name would you like : ________________________
Credit card number plz: ___________________________
[ Submit ]
Anyway, in answer to your last question, the application was almost certainly submitted on 3rd March 2016 because it's an instantaneous process.
15
1
In reply to Steve Woollard:
This bollocks again.
Simply, it's not very savvy to consider a name for a body or business without making sure you have suitable domain names registered.
If BMC had changed to CB and then discovered that someone else had bagged CB.co.uk (or equivalent) people would be calling for blood over perceived incompetence.
But I'm sure this is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't with some people.
This bollocks again.
Simply, it's not very savvy to consider a name for a body or business without making sure you have suitable domain names registered.
If BMC had changed to CB and then discovered that someone else had bagged CB.co.uk (or equivalent) people would be calling for blood over perceived incompetence.
But I'm sure this is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't with some people.
21
In reply to Steve Woollard:
If you have an account on a DNS registrar, which is linked to some form of payment (which you'll need to keep your domains active), then I'd agree, it's not a 5 minute job. It's a 1 minute job. Don't believe me? Try it. Type out:
climbbritain.co.uk
Click a few buttons. Job done.
I suspect that someone did obviously decide it was sensible to buy the domain, as the rebrand was planned. Obviously you've only got a limited number of domains, so I know plenty of organisations that often buy domains rather speculatively. Indeed I know companies who have 1000s of domains on the books for that reason.
> This isn’t a 5 minute job –
If you have an account on a DNS registrar, which is linked to some form of payment (which you'll need to keep your domains active), then I'd agree, it's not a 5 minute job. It's a 1 minute job. Don't believe me? Try it. Type out:
climbbritain.co.uk
Click a few buttons. Job done.
I suspect that someone did obviously decide it was sensible to buy the domain, as the rebrand was planned. Obviously you've only got a limited number of domains, so I know plenty of organisations that often buy domains rather speculatively. Indeed I know companies who have 1000s of domains on the books for that reason.
9
In reply to Steve Woollard:
Seems to me like appropriate first steps groundwork, is all. If you might want to use it, best do the internet equivalent of putting your towel on it and anything else that seems like a potential name too. If you decide you don't want it, you can always it release later.
Not so much a smoking gun as evidence of appropriate due diligence, and those who did it should be congratulated on their professional foresight.
T.
Seems to me like appropriate first steps groundwork, is all. If you might want to use it, best do the internet equivalent of putting your towel on it and anything else that seems like a potential name too. If you decide you don't want it, you can always it release later.
Not so much a smoking gun as evidence of appropriate due diligence, and those who did it should be congratulated on their professional foresight.
T.
19
In reply to Steve Woollard:
I registered www.awesomewallssheffield.com a few years ago, it took me a few minutes. I had no intention of opening a climbing walls called Awesome Walls in Sheffield but I knew someone else was, so I did it as a spoiler (and a wind up).
As Paul Weller once said "This is the Modern World"
I registered www.awesomewallssheffield.com a few years ago, it took me a few minutes. I had no intention of opening a climbing walls called Awesome Walls in Sheffield but I knew someone else was, so I did it as a spoiler (and a wind up).
As Paul Weller once said "This is the Modern World"
20
In reply to Steve Woollard:
If Bob stands up at the AGM and uses this as his proof; I'm sure I won't be the only one to take him to task for wasting our time. I'm sure there's going to be quite a number of people in that room who have registered a host of domain names; none of which they're likely to use but just don't want to be available to someone else. Bikeuk.com, Caveuk.com, kayakuk.com, canoeuk.com etc etc etc are all registered but don't get used.
Simon, if you are a friend of Bob's and you are giving him hope by pledging your support on the basis of this; you should be ashamed of yourself. The certain result is the shaming of someone who has given a lot to the mountaineering community; and you will have played a leading role in this disgraceful act.
Andrew Reid
If Bob stands up at the AGM and uses this as his proof; I'm sure I won't be the only one to take him to task for wasting our time. I'm sure there's going to be quite a number of people in that room who have registered a host of domain names; none of which they're likely to use but just don't want to be available to someone else. Bikeuk.com, Caveuk.com, kayakuk.com, canoeuk.com etc etc etc are all registered but don't get used.
Simon, if you are a friend of Bob's and you are giving him hope by pledging your support on the basis of this; you should be ashamed of yourself. The certain result is the shaming of someone who has given a lot to the mountaineering community; and you will have played a leading role in this disgraceful act.
Andrew Reid
18
5
In reply to Andy Reeve:
>... Martin Wragg's report for the BMC states (part (c) in the conclusions) that "at the time of the 2016 AGM ideas about brand were being discussed but no concrete proposals had been received and no decisions made".
Martin Wragg's report doesn't, unfortunately, present a complete timeline. In the text we read:
"Thinkfarm initially worked up ideas around a brand of Climb GB in February/March 2016 with the involvement of several BMC staff, but this proved unworkable due to trademark issues and the alternative of Climb Britain was proposed. The idea was developed during April/May with final designs being produced in June/July.
"...[snip]... the process of purchasing URLs started in early March but was not completed until 6 July 2016."
And then he reaches the conclusion you've quoted.
Given that the URL most relevant to this discussion - namely climbbritain.co.uk - was registered on the 3rd March 2016 by the BMC, it might be useful if the BMC could completely clarify what URLs, trademarks, etc. were purchased, and when.
I think we should move on from suggestions of 'plausibility' or 'implausibility.' Somebody must know who did what, and when: if they want to help to advance the discussion, they can tell us.
>... Martin Wragg's report for the BMC states (part (c) in the conclusions) that "at the time of the 2016 AGM ideas about brand were being discussed but no concrete proposals had been received and no decisions made".
Martin Wragg's report doesn't, unfortunately, present a complete timeline. In the text we read:
"Thinkfarm initially worked up ideas around a brand of Climb GB in February/March 2016 with the involvement of several BMC staff, but this proved unworkable due to trademark issues and the alternative of Climb Britain was proposed. The idea was developed during April/May with final designs being produced in June/July.
"...[snip]... the process of purchasing URLs started in early March but was not completed until 6 July 2016."
And then he reaches the conclusion you've quoted.
Given that the URL most relevant to this discussion - namely climbbritain.co.uk - was registered on the 3rd March 2016 by the BMC, it might be useful if the BMC could completely clarify what URLs, trademarks, etc. were purchased, and when.
> It's also plausible that the Climb Britain domain name might have been registered by ThinkFarm
I think we should move on from suggestions of 'plausibility' or 'implausibility.' Somebody must know who did what, and when: if they want to help to advance the discussion, they can tell us.
2
5
In reply to Rob Parsons:
They said the process of purchasing URLs started in early March, and this URL was purchased in ... early March. I'm not sure what still needs "clarifying" about that.
Or we could consider that "someone bought a domain name" might not be a good or proportionate basis for attempting to inflict devastating damage on the BMC.
> .[snip]... the process of purchasing URLs started in early March but was not completed until 6 July 2016."And then he reaches the conclusion you've quoted.Given that the URL most relevant to this discussion - namely climbbritain.co.uk - was registered on the 3rd March 2016 by the BMC, it might be useful if the BMC could completely clarify what URLs, trademarks, etc. were purchased, and when.
They said the process of purchasing URLs started in early March, and this URL was purchased in ... early March. I'm not sure what still needs "clarifying" about that.
> I think we should move on from suggestions of 'plausibility' or 'implausibility.' Somebody must know who did what, and when: if they want to help to advance the discussion, they can tell us.
Or we could consider that "someone bought a domain name" might not be a good or proportionate basis for attempting to inflict devastating damage on the BMC.
20
7
1
In reply to slab_happy:
If the critical (in this case, the ones which were finally used for the eventual rebranding) domain names, trademarks etc were all sorted out by early March, then why any need for secrecy about the general plans at the AGM in mid-April?
Beyond that, I am suggesting that complete clarity and openness regarding exactly what arrangements were made, and when, would both help the discussion, and would help to clear any doubts which people might have. In that respect, the more information, the better.
> They said the process of purchasing URLs started in early March, and this URL was purchased in ... early March. I'm not sure what still needs "clarifying" about that.
If the critical (in this case, the ones which were finally used for the eventual rebranding) domain names, trademarks etc were all sorted out by early March, then why any need for secrecy about the general plans at the AGM in mid-April?
Beyond that, I am suggesting that complete clarity and openness regarding exactly what arrangements were made, and when, would both help the discussion, and would help to clear any doubts which people might have. In that respect, the more information, the better.
3
8
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
FWIW, it is sensible to register a URL well in advance of even opening discussion on a concept, otherwise the domain squatters will be out in force.
So whatever you think of the concept this did make sense. A tenner to protect the domain for a possible idea? I would before I even opened my gob.
FWIW, it is sensible to register a URL well in advance of even opening discussion on a concept, otherwise the domain squatters will be out in force.
So whatever you think of the concept this did make sense. A tenner to protect the domain for a possible idea? I would before I even opened my gob.
Post edited at 19:23
14
In reply to Steve Woollard:
If you are even thinking about possible corporate name changes, the first thing you do is come up with some candidate names, and check to see if the name is already registered. If it isn't, then you register the domain name. This is a simple process that costs a few quid.
There are domain name trolls out there, who, at the merest sniff that a corporation is thinking of re-branding, will try to buy up the domain names, wih a view to holding the company to ransom, selling the domain name at a huge profit.
Thus, pre-emptive domain name registration is a very prudent part of the job of a rebranding agency.
No; it takes less than five minutes for anyone who has ever registered a domain name before. I have two domain names. The .co.uk one cost me £1.99 to register, and the .com one cost £3.49. It took me almost no time, and this was back in 2005.
I'm sorry, but suggestions that it's proof of some conspiracy is simply ignorant bollocks.
If you are even thinking about possible corporate name changes, the first thing you do is come up with some candidate names, and check to see if the name is already registered. If it isn't, then you register the domain name. This is a simple process that costs a few quid.
There are domain name trolls out there, who, at the merest sniff that a corporation is thinking of re-branding, will try to buy up the domain names, wih a view to holding the company to ransom, selling the domain name at a huge profit.
Thus, pre-emptive domain name registration is a very prudent part of the job of a rebranding agency.
> This isn’t a 5 minute job –
No; it takes less than five minutes for anyone who has ever registered a domain name before. I have two domain names. The .co.uk one cost me £1.99 to register, and the .com one cost £3.49. It took me almost no time, and this was back in 2005.
I'm sorry, but suggestions that it's proof of some conspiracy is simply ignorant bollocks.
22
In reply to captain paranoia:
Not a 'corporate name change' in this case, captain; rather a *rebranding*: the BMC has been at pains to emphasise that difference.
Are you seeking to persuade the OP to your case? Or just to insult him? If the latter: it's seldom a productive campaigning strategy.
> If you are even thinking about possible corporate name changes
Not a 'corporate name change' in this case, captain; rather a *rebranding*: the BMC has been at pains to emphasise that difference.
> simply ignorant bollocks.
Are you seeking to persuade the OP to your case? Or just to insult him? If the latter: it's seldom a productive campaigning strategy.
2
15
In reply to Steve Woollard:
This ridiculous saga is like a scene from The Daily Mail and/or the hard left.
Smoking gun indeed.
Why does a reversed name-change matter in the grand schema of life?
There's more important things to worry about and pursue in the world in which we live.
I love that the BMC exists and appreciate what it's officers, staff and volunteers do for the entire, growing and widening climbing community. Without the BMC I couldn't have climbed where I did today.
In terms of my all important biog credentials:
- I went to a Gramer school (and no doubt I misspelt that).
- When I was 14, the dad of my best mate at school told me "The trouble with you intellectuals Cusco is that you've got no ****ing common sense".
- I am not a member of any climbing club - my climbing partners are a somewhat motley crew who frequently roll their eyes in despair as I fail to commit to a move for the umpteenth time before slumping on the gear.
- Today I somehow led a sometimes bold, often tricky and in one place bloody thin E1 in the glorious sun beside an unusually calm sea whilst wearing a blue vest and red trousers. I whimpered and screamed a lot. The highlight of my year thus far.
- I whimper a lot when climbing, particularly if it's damp and/or raining and/or windy and/or when I'm at the wall and/or if I'm climbing.
- I refuse to fall onto bolts indoors or outdoors. They are too scary. But so safe.
- My favourite climbing term is "Take!".
- Grade creep is my saviour.
- I don't have a beard. It still doesn't grow properly even in my advanced years.
- I live to climb. Today was another reason why.
This ridiculous saga is like a scene from The Daily Mail and/or the hard left.
Smoking gun indeed.
Why does a reversed name-change matter in the grand schema of life?
There's more important things to worry about and pursue in the world in which we live.
I love that the BMC exists and appreciate what it's officers, staff and volunteers do for the entire, growing and widening climbing community. Without the BMC I couldn't have climbed where I did today.
In terms of my all important biog credentials:
- I went to a Gramer school (and no doubt I misspelt that).
- When I was 14, the dad of my best mate at school told me "The trouble with you intellectuals Cusco is that you've got no ****ing common sense".
- I am not a member of any climbing club - my climbing partners are a somewhat motley crew who frequently roll their eyes in despair as I fail to commit to a move for the umpteenth time before slumping on the gear.
- Today I somehow led a sometimes bold, often tricky and in one place bloody thin E1 in the glorious sun beside an unusually calm sea whilst wearing a blue vest and red trousers. I whimpered and screamed a lot. The highlight of my year thus far.
- I whimper a lot when climbing, particularly if it's damp and/or raining and/or windy and/or when I'm at the wall and/or if I'm climbing.
- I refuse to fall onto bolts indoors or outdoors. They are too scary. But so safe.
- My favourite climbing term is "Take!".
- Grade creep is my saviour.
- I don't have a beard. It still doesn't grow properly even in my advanced years.
- I live to climb. Today was another reason why.
13
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Name change or rebranding; it's immaterial. In either case, you need to take pre-emptive steps to protect your potential name/brand ID.
Frankly, I no longer care. If he's that stupid, someone needs to tell him. I'm happy to be the one to do it.
I'm sick of this waste of time and money caused by people who are 'mischievous'.
Name change or rebranding; it's immaterial. In either case, you need to take pre-emptive steps to protect your potential name/brand ID.
> Are you seeking to persuade the OP to your case? Or just to insult him?
Frankly, I no longer care. If he's that stupid, someone needs to tell him. I'm happy to be the one to do it.
I'm sick of this waste of time and money caused by people who are 'mischievous'.
Post edited at 20:04
13
2
In reply to Andy Reeve:
Doubtful. If you want to be secure you don't let a third party 'own' your name. And Alex Messenger, as the registree, is BMC to his very marrow.
And '23 names' isn't that many once you've hoovered up .Co.uk . org .Com .EU etc.
> It's also plausible that the Climb Britain domain name might have been registered by ThinkFarm (the consultancy agency which was paid for by Sport England) as part of their brain storming.
Doubtful. If you want to be secure you don't let a third party 'own' your name. And Alex Messenger, as the registree, is BMC to his very marrow.
And '23 names' isn't that many once you've hoovered up .Co.uk . org .Com .EU etc.
Post edited at 20:07
3
1
In reply to Andy Say:
None of which persuades me that the anyone at the BMC had made a decision regarding rebranding at the time of the AGM in 2016, which is the core issue in this thread.
> Doubtful. If you want to be secure you don't let a third party 'own' your name. And Alex Messenger, as the registree, is BMC to his very marrow.And '23 names' isn't that many once you've hoovered up .Co.uk . org .Com .EU etc.
None of which persuades me that the anyone at the BMC had made a decision regarding rebranding at the time of the AGM in 2016, which is the core issue in this thread.
1
In reply to captain paranoia:
It's in fact very material in terms of the BMC's own rules.
Don't forget that everybody has a vote. If you have an interest in one or other side of the argument, then, presumably, it's in your own interest to try to persuade people to your way of thinking.
If you are sick of it then I don't know why you continue to waste your time posting here.
For what it's worth, I do not believe that the proposers of the motion are acting in a vexatious or mischievous manner. Whether they are right or wrong is an entirely separate matter.
> Name change or rebranding; it's immaterial.
It's in fact very material in terms of the BMC's own rules.
> If he's that stupid, someone needs to tell him.
Don't forget that everybody has a vote. If you have an interest in one or other side of the argument, then, presumably, it's in your own interest to try to persuade people to your way of thinking.
> I'm sick of this waste of time and money caused by people who are 'mischievous'.
If you are sick of it then I don't know why you continue to waste your time posting here.
For what it's worth, I do not believe that the proposers of the motion are acting in a vexatious or mischievous manner. Whether they are right or wrong is an entirely separate matter.
3
11
In reply to Cusco:
Couldn't agree more.
I have a work blog and website, and bought up all the surrounding domain names and main domain well before kicking activity off. Seriously sensible thing to do, and have seen plenty of plum URLs picked up by speculators as soon as any interested parties raise their heads.
On another note, and this is true, I had to Google Bob Pettigrew as I'd never heard of him, despite climbing for nearly 40 years. I think that the good and the great of the BMC30 have lost sight of the fact that the bulk of BMC members are crag-rats like me who think the BMC does a blinking good job looking after my interests and is except for the odd hiccup run very well. Actually I wouldn't have minded dropping the word Mountaineering, as its an anachronism for a large number of members.
Biog credentials
nearly 40 years climbing, soloing is my only trad nowadays, mostly sport climb and boulder
Have climbed some big snowy mountains by hard routes here and abroad but that doesn't really matter.
Would like to rock climb forever.
I can see Froggatt from my house, but its a crag i never go to.
I only climb on Minus Ten Wall when i go to Stoney
I have taken cable cars in the Alps to go bouldering
I have been on bouldering holidays in the Alps
I would rather go to Font climbing than anywhere else in the world.
The irony of being a Professor of Intelligent Systems is not lost on me
I'm filling in my polling card voting against the motion
#BMCisgreat
> This ridiculous saga is like a scene from The Daily Mail and/or the hard left.Smoking gun indeed.
Couldn't agree more.
I have a work blog and website, and bought up all the surrounding domain names and main domain well before kicking activity off. Seriously sensible thing to do, and have seen plenty of plum URLs picked up by speculators as soon as any interested parties raise their heads.
On another note, and this is true, I had to Google Bob Pettigrew as I'd never heard of him, despite climbing for nearly 40 years. I think that the good and the great of the BMC30 have lost sight of the fact that the bulk of BMC members are crag-rats like me who think the BMC does a blinking good job looking after my interests and is except for the odd hiccup run very well. Actually I wouldn't have minded dropping the word Mountaineering, as its an anachronism for a large number of members.
Biog credentials
nearly 40 years climbing, soloing is my only trad nowadays, mostly sport climb and boulder
Have climbed some big snowy mountains by hard routes here and abroad but that doesn't really matter.
Would like to rock climb forever.
I can see Froggatt from my house, but its a crag i never go to.
I only climb on Minus Ten Wall when i go to Stoney
I have taken cable cars in the Alps to go bouldering
I have been on bouldering holidays in the Alps
I would rather go to Font climbing than anywhere else in the world.
The irony of being a Professor of Intelligent Systems is not lost on me
I'm filling in my polling card voting against the motion
#BMCisgreat
10
In reply to Andy Reeve:
The 'Wragg Report' (!) explicitly concludes that no such decision had been made by the time of the AGM. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is still an open question regarding the need - or not - for *complete secrecy* on the matter at the time of the AGM.
> None of which persuades me that the anyone at the BMC had made a decision regarding rebranding at the time of the AGM in 2016, which is the core issue in this thread.
The 'Wragg Report' (!) explicitly concludes that no such decision had been made by the time of the AGM. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is still an open question regarding the need - or not - for *complete secrecy* on the matter at the time of the AGM.
Post edited at 20:25
3
6
In reply to Rob Parsons:
The OP isn't one of the "undecided middle"; he's one of the proposers of the motion. I'd be surprised if he went "Oops, I didn't understand that about domain names, I'll vote against it now."
(Impressed, but surprised.)
I believe "mischievous" would be a reference to Andy Say's description of Bob Pettigrew (a friend of his) and some of the other proposers as "mischievous old buggers".
> Don't forget that everybody has a vote.
The OP isn't one of the "undecided middle"; he's one of the proposers of the motion. I'd be surprised if he went "Oops, I didn't understand that about domain names, I'll vote against it now."
(Impressed, but surprised.)
> For what it's worth, I do not believe that the proposers of the motion are acting in a vexatious or mischievous manner.
I believe "mischievous" would be a reference to Andy Say's description of Bob Pettigrew (a friend of his) and some of the other proposers as "mischievous old buggers".
6
In reply to slab_happy:
An argument's an argument. It's just better - and always more productive - to conduct it in civilized terms. That's my opinion, anyway. I haven't enjoyed the tone of most of the postings on this topic so far.
That's fair enough.
> The OP isn't one of the "undecided middle"; he's one of the proposers of the motion. I'd be surprised if he went "Oops, I didn't understand that about domain names, I'll vote against it now." (Impressed, but surprised.)
An argument's an argument. It's just better - and always more productive - to conduct it in civilized terms. That's my opinion, anyway. I haven't enjoyed the tone of most of the postings on this topic so far.
> I believe "mischievous" would be a reference to Andy Say's description of Bob Pettigrew (a friend of his) and some of the other proposers as "mischievous old buggers".
That's fair enough.
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I think, Rob, you are at the nub here. Had any decision to re-brand, or contemplate re-branding, been taken prior to the AGM. And, if it had, then maybe it might have been politic to actually mention this to the assembled masses.
And I do wonder, if this issue had not been raised, just how many BMC members would have known that there is a governance review and why.
Hey, I'm a member of Green Flag. I give them my dosh on an annual basis and I don't give a monkey's about their governance. But, if BMC is a truly 'representative' body, maybe more BMC members should actually get involved?
> The 'Wragg Report' (!) explicitly concludes that no such decision had been made by the time of the AGM. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is still an open question regarding the need - or not - for *complete secrecy* on the matter at the time of the AGM.
I think, Rob, you are at the nub here. Had any decision to re-brand, or contemplate re-branding, been taken prior to the AGM. And, if it had, then maybe it might have been politic to actually mention this to the assembled masses.
And I do wonder, if this issue had not been raised, just how many BMC members would have known that there is a governance review and why.
Hey, I'm a member of Green Flag. I give them my dosh on an annual basis and I don't give a monkey's about their governance. But, if BMC is a truly 'representative' body, maybe more BMC members should actually get involved?
2
In reply to slab_happy:
Well Dennis Grey is very definitely a mischievous old bugger. He has rebranded himself as Puck. I probably wouldn't put Doug Scott in that category. And I don't know the rest of the cabal enough to comment
> I believe "mischievous" would be a reference to Andy Say's description of Bob Pettigrew (a friend of his) and some of the other proposers as "mischievous old buggers".
Well Dennis Grey is very definitely a mischievous old bugger. He has rebranded himself as Puck. I probably wouldn't put Doug Scott in that category. And I don't know the rest of the cabal enough to comment
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
My time is my own. The BMC's time is not. It's that waste of time I am sick of.
slab_happy has correctly addressed both the 'persuasion' and 'mischievous' points. Although I'm not so sure about the vexatious point (the very word I was struggling to find yesterday).
My time is my own. The BMC's time is not. It's that waste of time I am sick of.
slab_happy has correctly addressed both the 'persuasion' and 'mischievous' points. Although I'm not so sure about the vexatious point (the very word I was struggling to find yesterday).
In reply to Rob Parsons:
p.s. why pick on me for rebutting the OP in such firm terms? I wasn't the first to call it bollocks (though I hadn't read any of the responses when I replied).
I also provided a clearly argued response prior to giving a succinct rebuttal.
p.s. why pick on me for rebutting the OP in such firm terms? I wasn't the first to call it bollocks (though I hadn't read any of the responses when I replied).
I also provided a clearly argued response prior to giving a succinct rebuttal.
Post edited at 21:05
2
In reply to Rob Parsons:
In the context of this thread, that of registering a domain name, it is immaterial. Whatever your intent, you register the domain name as soon as possible.
> It's in fact very material in terms of the BMC's own rules.
In the context of this thread, that of registering a domain name, it is immaterial. Whatever your intent, you register the domain name as soon as possible.
In reply to captain paranoia:
The motion, and the vote, exists. It won't go away just because anybody is 'sick of' it. On the other hand, people might be able to influence votes by coherent and civilized argument.
>... the vexatious point (the very word I was struggling to find yesterday).
You can amuse yourself by looking up 'barratry' and 'champerty' ...
It's nothing personal and I apologise if you are offended. I haven't read and responded to every single post on this topic - who could!
> My time is my own. The BMC's time is not. It's that waste of time I am sick of.
The motion, and the vote, exists. It won't go away just because anybody is 'sick of' it. On the other hand, people might be able to influence votes by coherent and civilized argument.
>... the vexatious point (the very word I was struggling to find yesterday).
You can amuse yourself by looking up 'barratry' and 'champerty' ...
> p.s. why pick on me for rebutting the OP in such firm term
It's nothing personal and I apologise if you are offended. I haven't read and responded to every single post on this topic - who could!
2
2
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I've done the civilised argument. As you can tell, I'm losing patience at what seems to me to be patent, undemocratic nonsense.
Calling 'bollocks' isn't aimed at the proposers; it's aimed at other BMC members reading this discussion. Not surprisingly, they outnumber the proposers by a significant margin.
I've done the civilised argument. As you can tell, I'm losing patience at what seems to me to be patent, undemocratic nonsense.
Calling 'bollocks' isn't aimed at the proposers; it's aimed at other BMC members reading this discussion. Not surprisingly, they outnumber the proposers by a significant margin.
6
In reply to Steve Woollard:
Would have been a bit of a waste of time to spend March and April discussing CB as a brand and only find out at the end that the domain name wasn't available.
Is this really the big reveal? Has there been an entire motion of​ no confidence underpinned by the fact that none of the proposers understand the timeline of how a rebranding discussion goes?
I suppose, now this has been pointed out at length and that it's by now clear that this Smoking Gun isn't actually indicative of anything, that it's too much to hope that the motion will be withdrawn. I live in hope...
Would have been a bit of a waste of time to spend March and April discussing CB as a brand and only find out at the end that the domain name wasn't available.
Is this really the big reveal? Has there been an entire motion of​ no confidence underpinned by the fact that none of the proposers understand the timeline of how a rebranding discussion goes?
I suppose, now this has been pointed out at length and that it's by now clear that this Smoking Gun isn't actually indicative of anything, that it's too much to hope that the motion will be withdrawn. I live in hope...
10
6
1
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Had they of announced a possible name change/rebrand in April and bandied about some possible names, those domain names might have been snapped up and sold back to them at a higher price. Much better to buy the domain names (for 99p each) at the earliest brainstorming session... Those that weren't available may have already had associated brands (e.g this website "UKClimbing") and would have been ruled out in the early stages of consultation. I really don't get how this has been portrayed as strong evidence that a rebrand had been decided. The consulting agency might just have been securing their sales pitch to the BMC at this point for all we know. Definitely no smoking gun.
> If the critical (in this case, the ones which were finally used for the eventual rebranding) domain names, trademarks etc were all sorted out by early March, then why any need for secrecy about the general plans at the AGM in mid-April?
Had they of announced a possible name change/rebrand in April and bandied about some possible names, those domain names might have been snapped up and sold back to them at a higher price. Much better to buy the domain names (for 99p each) at the earliest brainstorming session... Those that weren't available may have already had associated brands (e.g this website "UKClimbing") and would have been ruled out in the early stages of consultation. I really don't get how this has been portrayed as strong evidence that a rebrand had been decided. The consulting agency might just have been securing their sales pitch to the BMC at this point for all we know. Definitely no smoking gun.
4
In reply to dr_botnik:
It would definitely be a smoking gun ...
were there to be any smoke ...
or any gun.
It would definitely be a smoking gun ...
were there to be any smoke ...
or any gun.
15
1
In reply to Steve Woollard: You're looking for a conspiracy where none exists. If you have an idea for a company/website then, even if the idea never comes to fruition, it's a good idea to get the domain name ASAP. It doesn't need the Exec to approve anything, it's just someone with initiative going "Oh, better register it just in case."
And yes, it is a 5 minute job, possibly even a 2 minute job.
You plonker.
And yes, it is a 5 minute job, possibly even a 2 minute job.
You plonker.
11
In reply to Steve Woollard:
All this demonstrates is that some on UKC don't understand the internet but most do.
I used to reserve domain names for clients all the time, often they were never used but better to take a couple of minutes to reserve the option for £1.99 early than be held to ransom later.
it isn't like registering a birth or a company.
All this demonstrates is that some on UKC don't understand the internet but most do.
I used to reserve domain names for clients all the time, often they were never used but better to take a couple of minutes to reserve the option for £1.99 early than be held to ransom later.
it isn't like registering a birth or a company.
10
In reply to Steve Woollard:
This is the reason you've stirred up all this shit!?
I get from the other threads that Mr Pettigrew and you and the rest of the 30 are worthy of great respect and all that. But honestly, as someone not particularly familiar with your names, you're really not making it that easy to see you as anything other than a bunch of complete idiots.
This is the reason you've stirred up all this shit!?
I get from the other threads that Mr Pettigrew and you and the rest of the 30 are worthy of great respect and all that. But honestly, as someone not particularly familiar with your names, you're really not making it that easy to see you as anything other than a bunch of complete idiots.
20
In reply to deepsoup:
If you were having this discussion with someone in person, once all this had been got out of the way, gross misunderstanding and ignorance exposed , education delivered and the rest, you'd ask a question.
What are you really upset about?
And that's a question worth an answer here, I think. From what's been said some glimmers of the answer might be guessed, but to avoid further misunderstanding it'd be best answered from one of those who kicked this off.
T.
If you were having this discussion with someone in person, once all this had been got out of the way, gross misunderstanding and ignorance exposed , education delivered and the rest, you'd ask a question.
What are you really upset about?
And that's a question worth an answer here, I think. From what's been said some glimmers of the answer might be guessed, but to avoid further misunderstanding it'd be best answered from one of those who kicked this off.
T.
10
In reply to Annabel Tall:
As someone who doesn't! - the £7k suggests a bit more involved ?
from the other thread:-
"1. Cost of the rebranding exercise: The BMC received a £25k grant from Sport England solely for the purpose of covering the total cost of the branding consultants. The actual cost (i.e. over and above this and not including staff time) to the BMC was around £7k which covered trademarking and purchase of 28 relevant URLs (note: the URL purchases were made in three phases between 3 March - 6 July)."
> All this demonstrates is that some on UKC don't understand the internet but most do. I used to reserve domain names for clients all the time, often they were never used but better to take a couple of minutes to reserve the option for £1.99 early than be held to ransom later. it isn't like registering a birth or a company.
As someone who doesn't! - the £7k suggests a bit more involved ?
from the other thread:-
"1. Cost of the rebranding exercise: The BMC received a £25k grant from Sport England solely for the purpose of covering the total cost of the branding consultants. The actual cost (i.e. over and above this and not including staff time) to the BMC was around £7k which covered trademarking and purchase of 28 relevant URLs (note: the URL purchases were made in three phases between 3 March - 6 July)."
In reply to Steve Woollard:
A company AGM is a formal event required by company law, and is mainly for the purpose of doing the boring but necessary things most of us are happy to leave to others - approving the accounts, electing officers, and ratifying decisions by the board.
It is quite clear from the timeline issued by the BMC that at the time of the AGM last April no formal decision had been made. I hope it is clear by now that the 'smoking gun' is no such thing. But even if it did indicate that 'Climb Britain' had been settled on in March (which according to the BMC it had not) it would still have been only a recommendation by the internal team. it could not be a 'decision', since that could only be made by National Committee and this happened in June, after the AGM. Whatever conclusions BMC staff may have come to before April were not 'decisions' which could be put to an AGM.
Neither is it suspicious that ideas which were still being developed were not mentioned in the minutes of National Committee's February meeting. The absence of any mention in the minutes of that meeting does not indicate that it was kept from the NC. It may well have been mentioned as a work in progress, but it is quite normal in my experience for minutes to record only actual decisions and nothing should normally be read into the absence of informal discussions from the formal minutes of a meeting. I can well imagine a conversation along the lines of "How's the strategy review going?", "Fine, we expect to have some recommendations to put to the next meeting" which would not merit minuting.
If the purpose of the motion is to force a review of BMC governance, this is by no means a natural consequence. All it can be certain of doing is to force the resignation of the entire management structure of the BMC and put it through months of uncertainty whilst their replacements are elected, which will presumably require an EGM at additional cost to the BMC. During this time it will be very difficult for it to carry out its normal functions. However there is no obligation on the new committee to undertake a review of the sort that Bob Pettigrew and his associates are seeking.
Furthermore the motion appears to overlook that a review has already been set up, apparently after intervention by the Alpine Club. Neither the motion nor anything I have seen from its supporters mentions this or explains why this is unsatisfactory.
The motion is mistaken in its assumptions and misguided in its objectives and should be withdrawn. If the Band of 30 want an independent review that goes beyond what is already being undertaken, they could have tabled a motion asking for one. That would have been clear, the reasons understandable, and it might even have gathered wide support.
A company AGM is a formal event required by company law, and is mainly for the purpose of doing the boring but necessary things most of us are happy to leave to others - approving the accounts, electing officers, and ratifying decisions by the board.
It is quite clear from the timeline issued by the BMC that at the time of the AGM last April no formal decision had been made. I hope it is clear by now that the 'smoking gun' is no such thing. But even if it did indicate that 'Climb Britain' had been settled on in March (which according to the BMC it had not) it would still have been only a recommendation by the internal team. it could not be a 'decision', since that could only be made by National Committee and this happened in June, after the AGM. Whatever conclusions BMC staff may have come to before April were not 'decisions' which could be put to an AGM.
Neither is it suspicious that ideas which were still being developed were not mentioned in the minutes of National Committee's February meeting. The absence of any mention in the minutes of that meeting does not indicate that it was kept from the NC. It may well have been mentioned as a work in progress, but it is quite normal in my experience for minutes to record only actual decisions and nothing should normally be read into the absence of informal discussions from the formal minutes of a meeting. I can well imagine a conversation along the lines of "How's the strategy review going?", "Fine, we expect to have some recommendations to put to the next meeting" which would not merit minuting.
If the purpose of the motion is to force a review of BMC governance, this is by no means a natural consequence. All it can be certain of doing is to force the resignation of the entire management structure of the BMC and put it through months of uncertainty whilst their replacements are elected, which will presumably require an EGM at additional cost to the BMC. During this time it will be very difficult for it to carry out its normal functions. However there is no obligation on the new committee to undertake a review of the sort that Bob Pettigrew and his associates are seeking.
Furthermore the motion appears to overlook that a review has already been set up, apparently after intervention by the Alpine Club. Neither the motion nor anything I have seen from its supporters mentions this or explains why this is unsatisfactory.
The motion is mistaken in its assumptions and misguided in its objectives and should be withdrawn. If the Band of 30 want an independent review that goes beyond what is already being undertaken, they could have tabled a motion asking for one. That would have been clear, the reasons understandable, and it might even have gathered wide support.
14
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
Potentially trade-marking is more involved, I don't know. Its hard to imagine it being easier or cheaper than domain names given the trivially low bar that sets.
But the claim is that the domain name registration is the smoking gun because it was done early. Having done domain name registration myself it is as most people here have said - a quick easy and cheap job - which therefore makes it a no-brainer to do with abandon on any name you think might be worth considering.
Potentially trade-marking is more involved, I don't know. Its hard to imagine it being easier or cheaper than domain names given the trivially low bar that sets.
But the claim is that the domain name registration is the smoking gun because it was done early. Having done domain name registration myself it is as most people here have said - a quick easy and cheap job - which therefore makes it a no-brainer to do with abandon on any name you think might be worth considering.
6
In reply to AJM:
For reference on costs of trademarking: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trade-mark-forms-and-fees/trade-...
For reference on costs of trademarking: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/trade-mark-forms-and-fees/trade-...
2
In reply to Rob Parsons:
The motion could very easily go away if its withdrawn. The most aggressive posts to the 30 are often coming from the tradest of trad climbers who really respect their organisation (that has lost about a month now of full function because of this nasty pointless attack). If you really can't see any underhand behavior or mischief in what the 30 did, I suggest that fence you are sitting in is now barely above the ground on their side. Again and again you imply dishonesty of the BMC with your *asterix* and just ignore the clear lies, misinformation, secrecy, delay, and refusal to engage in public debate (proper Q&A on the internet or work with the BMC.....troll posts like this don't count). Bob himself claims this was only done to encourage people to think about BMC governance... job done, review in place, withdraw the motion and let the BMC function again.
No confidence motions are a nuclear option.. that if successful will cause heads to roll and institutional disruption that will last years. It's the role of the proposers to fully convince the membership in the face of the evidence on both sides. Its not the role of the organisation to deal with every members ideas on the matter in writing. I'd suggest when governance is looked at in the near future such motions to the AGM without full information should simply be rejected. Bob's motion has already caused loads of damage to the organisation, the AC, the reputation of his friends and forced much anger in the climbing community.
Given this desperately ignorant post and everything I've ever heard of Steve, its likely he has been duped by Bob. It would be best for everyone if friends of his pointed out there is no such evidence that any of this conspiracy nonsense is true. Sure the rebrand was a mistake they said so consulted the membership and stuck with the BMC. The time to deal with this was 6 months ago, the method in full public view, informing an EGM.
The motion could very easily go away if its withdrawn. The most aggressive posts to the 30 are often coming from the tradest of trad climbers who really respect their organisation (that has lost about a month now of full function because of this nasty pointless attack). If you really can't see any underhand behavior or mischief in what the 30 did, I suggest that fence you are sitting in is now barely above the ground on their side. Again and again you imply dishonesty of the BMC with your *asterix* and just ignore the clear lies, misinformation, secrecy, delay, and refusal to engage in public debate (proper Q&A on the internet or work with the BMC.....troll posts like this don't count). Bob himself claims this was only done to encourage people to think about BMC governance... job done, review in place, withdraw the motion and let the BMC function again.
No confidence motions are a nuclear option.. that if successful will cause heads to roll and institutional disruption that will last years. It's the role of the proposers to fully convince the membership in the face of the evidence on both sides. Its not the role of the organisation to deal with every members ideas on the matter in writing. I'd suggest when governance is looked at in the near future such motions to the AGM without full information should simply be rejected. Bob's motion has already caused loads of damage to the organisation, the AC, the reputation of his friends and forced much anger in the climbing community.
Given this desperately ignorant post and everything I've ever heard of Steve, its likely he has been duped by Bob. It would be best for everyone if friends of his pointed out there is no such evidence that any of this conspiracy nonsense is true. Sure the rebrand was a mistake they said so consulted the membership and stuck with the BMC. The time to deal with this was 6 months ago, the method in full public view, informing an EGM.
Post edited at 12:26
15
In reply to Offwidth:
Couple of things Offwidth,
What's your guess as to the outcome of the vote? My guess was overwhelming rejection of the BMC 30 motion. However I made sure I got my vote in just in case, and hope everyone else will.
My take on this fwiw, is that the AC is now characterised as an old boys club, 'mischievous', out of touch, and longing for a bygone age. Knowing some current AC members, including some in the '30', they're really doing their club a disservice in terms of wider perception.
Couple of things Offwidth,
What's your guess as to the outcome of the vote? My guess was overwhelming rejection of the BMC 30 motion. However I made sure I got my vote in just in case, and hope everyone else will.
My take on this fwiw, is that the AC is now characterised as an old boys club, 'mischievous', out of touch, and longing for a bygone age. Knowing some current AC members, including some in the '30', they're really doing their club a disservice in terms of wider perception.
6
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
I can't see how they can win... the latest UKB post reporting back from the BMC SW area meeting says there was no support at all in that meeting and reportedly (again) no support from the AC committee. Someone was there whom Bob added to the original list without asking (one of several). Posts elsewhere indicate the same lack of support in the Oread (Bob's other main club).
The rebrand only upset trad politically interested climbers I know, this motion seems to have upset all of those (maybe Bob should have thought on the fact he might become associated with undemocratic aloofness) and quite a few besides who never had any previous involvement in BMC motions. The 30 can still stubbornly disrupt BMC functions until the AGM and generate more wasteful anger on both sides.
I can't see how they can win... the latest UKB post reporting back from the BMC SW area meeting says there was no support at all in that meeting and reportedly (again) no support from the AC committee. Someone was there whom Bob added to the original list without asking (one of several). Posts elsewhere indicate the same lack of support in the Oread (Bob's other main club).
The rebrand only upset trad politically interested climbers I know, this motion seems to have upset all of those (maybe Bob should have thought on the fact he might become associated with undemocratic aloofness) and quite a few besides who never had any previous involvement in BMC motions. The 30 can still stubbornly disrupt BMC functions until the AGM and generate more wasteful anger on both sides.
Post edited at 12:55
4
In reply to ukb shark:
....and the rest! Legal, search fees, dealing with opposition to the application etc. In comparison, those fees are often small fry.
....and the rest! Legal, search fees, dealing with opposition to the application etc. In comparison, those fees are often small fry.
2
In reply to ukb shark:
And there is no smoking gun there. Climb Britain registered in June last year and Climb Cymru registered same month.
They are the ONLY trademarks apparently owned by BMC.
And there is no smoking gun there. Climb Britain registered in June last year and Climb Cymru registered same month.
They are the ONLY trademarks apparently owned by BMC.
Post edited at 15:03
3
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
That (quoted) sentence makes better sense with the insertion of a comma. Namely: "... £7k which covered trademarking, and purchase of 28 relevant URLs ..."
That is, most of the expense will presumably have been related to the trademarks; not the URLs.
> "... the BMC was around £7k which covered trademarking and purchase of 28 relevant URLs (note: the URL purchases were made in three phases between 3 March - 6 July)."
That (quoted) sentence makes better sense with the insertion of a comma. Namely: "... £7k which covered trademarking, and purchase of 28 relevant URLs ..."
That is, most of the expense will presumably have been related to the trademarks; not the URLs.
1
In reply to captain paranoia:
I'm curious why you think the current processes are 'undemocratic.'
> ... I'm losing patience at what seems to me to be patent, undemocratic nonsense.
I'm curious why you think the current processes are 'undemocratic.'
1
In reply to Annabel Tall:
I think this is a good point.
To be fair most people won't have ever registered a domain name. Unless you work with web sites or related OR you have your own company/entity it's simply something that most people won't ever have to do.
> but better to take a couple of minutes to reserve the option for £1.99 early than be held to ransom later.
I think this is a good point.
> All this demonstrates is that some on UKC don't understand the internet but most do
To be fair most people won't have ever registered a domain name. Unless you work with web sites or related OR you have your own company/entity it's simply something that most people won't ever have to do.
1
In reply to stp:
True, but if you're going to use it as your core evidence to unseat an entire executive/board then don't you think there's a certain onus on you to educate yourself about the process somewhere along the line?
If the trademark wasn't registered until months after, and that's the expensive bit, that more or less confirms a lack of decision when the URL was purchased - if the decision had been made then one assumes the trademark would have been sought then too.
> I think this is a good point.To be fair most people won't have ever registered a domain name. Unless you work with web sites or related OR you have your own company/entity it's simply something that most people won't ever have to do.
True, but if you're going to use it as your core evidence to unseat an entire executive/board then don't you think there's a certain onus on you to educate yourself about the process somewhere along the line?
If the trademark wasn't registered until months after, and that's the expensive bit, that more or less confirms a lack of decision when the URL was purchased - if the decision had been made then one assumes the trademark would have been sought then too.
12
In reply to stp:
I've not followed this thread (is it just me or is all this navel-gazing getting a bit wearying?) but re Annabel's point, here's a little perspective.
I know someone who's a successful small businessman but no more (i.e. he's not Bill Gates; nor is he claiming to be). He just can't stop having brilliant ideas (well they seem brilliant when he has 'em!) He literally leaps out of the bath, runs to the nearest laptop and tries to bag a domain name/limited company for a new idea/service/product.
Often he finds that someone else has bagged them. He used to go ballistic but now he knows better. He goes checking - and often finds that the owner of these domain names/limited companies is... him! (He got a similar idea a year back and nabbed the names back then. He can't stop having ideas; what he hasn't got is time to implement half of them.)
He's got loads of domain names. He's got loads of dormant limited companies. And this is just one (as he'd cheerfully put it) 'little guy'.
Perspective?
Mick
I've not followed this thread (is it just me or is all this navel-gazing getting a bit wearying?) but re Annabel's point, here's a little perspective.
I know someone who's a successful small businessman but no more (i.e. he's not Bill Gates; nor is he claiming to be). He just can't stop having brilliant ideas (well they seem brilliant when he has 'em!) He literally leaps out of the bath, runs to the nearest laptop and tries to bag a domain name/limited company for a new idea/service/product.
Often he finds that someone else has bagged them. He used to go ballistic but now he knows better. He goes checking - and often finds that the owner of these domain names/limited companies is... him! (He got a similar idea a year back and nabbed the names back then. He can't stop having ideas; what he hasn't got is time to implement half of them.)
He's got loads of domain names. He's got loads of dormant limited companies. And this is just one (as he'd cheerfully put it) 'little guy'.
Perspective?
Mick
8
In reply to Mick Ward:
He needs to be careful, lest he discovers one day that the shareholder in that business (himself) has proposed a motion of no confidence in the management (also himself) for profligate sqandering of the 'speculative opportunities' budget....
He needs to be careful, lest he discovers one day that the shareholder in that business (himself) has proposed a motion of no confidence in the management (also himself) for profligate sqandering of the 'speculative opportunities' budget....
9
I couldnt be bothered reading all of the posts,
My theory is that the OP is a wind up merchant that hasnt replied since the original post.
Lotta bites on this line.
My theory is that the OP is a wind up merchant that hasnt replied since the original post.
Lotta bites on this line.
3
In reply to pff:
He is a signatory to the motion and, although obviously mistaken in his views, is being serious. He should have responded to the thread but none of the 30 have entered into any proper public debate as yet.
He is a signatory to the motion and, although obviously mistaken in his views, is being serious. He should have responded to the thread but none of the 30 have entered into any proper public debate as yet.
Post edited at 07:37
6
In reply to pff:
Wind up merchant or not (I think not), Steve Woollard is one of the proposers of the motion, and the only one so far who has defended it on UKC.
Wind up merchant or not (I think not), Steve Woollard is one of the proposers of the motion, and the only one so far who has defended it on UKC.
5
In reply to Offwidth:
Yes, he did the same thing on the other thread, posting once (to claim that that the object of the MONC was to get the Executive Council to address improved communication with the membership "as a matter of urgency"), then not responding to any of the people who replied to him (generally to point out that they wouldn't be able to address anything as they'd all have to resign).
I don't know if he's even reading the replies.
Yes, he did the same thing on the other thread, posting once (to claim that that the object of the MONC was to get the Executive Council to address improved communication with the membership "as a matter of urgency"), then not responding to any of the people who replied to him (generally to point out that they wouldn't be able to address anything as they'd all have to resign).
I don't know if he's even reading the replies.
3
In reply to Neil Foster:
'Christ, you know it ain’t easy,
You know how hard it can be,
The way things are going,
They’re gonna crucify me.'
(The Ballad of John and Yoko)
Mick
> He needs to be careful, lest he discovers one day that the shareholder in that business (himself) has proposed a motion of no confidence in the management (also himself) for profligate sqandering of the 'speculative opportunities' budget....
'Christ, you know it ain’t easy,
You know how hard it can be,
The way things are going,
They’re gonna crucify me.'
(The Ballad of John and Yoko)
Mick
4
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I can't answer for the captain but from my pint of view:
- The motion has been raised without supporting evidence
- The 30 seem to have declined the BMC's offer to publish their arguments to allow the members informed opinion
- Bob and/or the 30 appear to attempting to drum up support 'behind closed doors' with reports of him attempting to drum up votes at an Oread meeting, letters posted on club websites, some kind of AC shenanigans* etc. All of this appears to be done by presenting 'facts' without corroborating evidence which them turn out to be blatant lies and by doing it behind closed doors in circles of trusted or sympathetic listeners it stifles the debate, which should be out in the open, and allows these 'facts' to go unchallenged. There appears to be a tactic of focusing on convincing those who will show up the AGM and vote in order to get the motion passed whether it's actually what the BMC membership want and not getting this out into the wider BMC membership so it truly reflects the memberships wishes. It would make some the people involved in coups in student unions blush!
The BMC is not perfect, even they recognise this, but a motion of no confidence is a last resort, the result of which is the resignation of the board. Apart from the cost and the fact the BMC would be rendered non-operational for probably six months to a year, it will damage the reputation of the BMC for a lot longer than that. Their influence to do all the good things they do now (access/parlimenty commitees etc) will be limited and undermined.
The AC was a club I aspired to join. Not anymore.......
> I'm curious why you think the current processes are 'undemocratic.'
I can't answer for the captain but from my pint of view:
- The motion has been raised without supporting evidence
- The 30 seem to have declined the BMC's offer to publish their arguments to allow the members informed opinion
- Bob and/or the 30 appear to attempting to drum up support 'behind closed doors' with reports of him attempting to drum up votes at an Oread meeting, letters posted on club websites, some kind of AC shenanigans* etc. All of this appears to be done by presenting 'facts' without corroborating evidence which them turn out to be blatant lies and by doing it behind closed doors in circles of trusted or sympathetic listeners it stifles the debate, which should be out in the open, and allows these 'facts' to go unchallenged. There appears to be a tactic of focusing on convincing those who will show up the AGM and vote in order to get the motion passed whether it's actually what the BMC membership want and not getting this out into the wider BMC membership so it truly reflects the memberships wishes. It would make some the people involved in coups in student unions blush!
The BMC is not perfect, even they recognise this, but a motion of no confidence is a last resort, the result of which is the resignation of the board. Apart from the cost and the fact the BMC would be rendered non-operational for probably six months to a year, it will damage the reputation of the BMC for a lot longer than that. Their influence to do all the good things they do now (access/parlimenty commitees etc) will be limited and undermined.
The AC was a club I aspired to join. Not anymore.......
12
In reply to Offwidth:
Can we please not call the Oread Bob's other main club, as far as I can tell he has not made any contribution whatsoever to the club in recent years and the only time he has shown his face is at AGMs to have a go about something or to talk about this MoNC. He's not ran a single meet in the last 2 and a bit years, I don't think he's not stayed in any of our huts recently and as far as I'm aware he's not actually been on any meets lately either, I found the club to be incredibly welcoming when I joined and the only occasion where I have ever been made to feel unwelcome as part of the club was by him on saturday night when I questioned something about his motion. He doesn't represent the Oread in any way shape or form in my view and the club is all the better for it.
> Posts elsewhere indicate the same lack of support in the Oread (Bob's other main club).
Can we please not call the Oread Bob's other main club, as far as I can tell he has not made any contribution whatsoever to the club in recent years and the only time he has shown his face is at AGMs to have a go about something or to talk about this MoNC. He's not ran a single meet in the last 2 and a bit years, I don't think he's not stayed in any of our huts recently and as far as I'm aware he's not actually been on any meets lately either, I found the club to be incredibly welcoming when I joined and the only occasion where I have ever been made to feel unwelcome as part of the club was by him on saturday night when I questioned something about his motion. He doesn't represent the Oread in any way shape or form in my view and the club is all the better for it.
11
In reply to galpinos:
To be fair to the AC they have emailed round a statement today distancing themselves from the motion.
To be fair to the AC they have emailed round a statement today distancing themselves from the motion.
Post edited at 15:30
1
In reply to ebdon:
They might have to do a bit more than that as I imagine both the AC and the Oread's reputations have been tainted by the implied associations with this motion.
However, it's good to know that it's not an AC endorsed Old Boys coup attempt.........
They might have to do a bit more than that as I imagine both the AC and the Oread's reputations have been tainted by the implied associations with this motion.
However, it's good to know that it's not an AC endorsed Old Boys coup attempt.........
Post edited at 15:38
2
In reply to Steve Woollard:
Ah, this is my website.
I'm manufacturing prosthetic limbs out of ceramic.
Hence I asked my dyslexic, egoistical and lazy assistants, Britney and Ian, to register CeramicLimb.uk but they messed it up and registered CLimbBritAin. What a pair of morons.
Ah, this is my website.
I'm manufacturing prosthetic limbs out of ceramic.
Hence I asked my dyslexic, egoistical and lazy assistants, Britney and Ian, to register CeramicLimb.uk but they messed it up and registered CLimbBritAin. What a pair of morons.
5
In reply to drolex:
Nearly as bad as the founder of a crisp manufacturer asking for loads of marketing for C. Brooks.
Nearly as bad as the founder of a crisp manufacturer asking for loads of marketing for C. Brooks.
1
In reply to Steve Woollard:
Having read Martin Wragg's report and most of the posts in this thread, I've reached the conclusion that the No Confidence proposal is a lot of nonsense brought by people with too much time on their hands (or ulterior motives). Unless I am missing something, the proposers' complaint is that the BMC made an error of judgment in not consulting more widely regarding the re-branding exercise. The Executive Committee acknowledge this and say they have learnt from the mistake. If so, then that should be that, we move on. I can't see any justification for the proposed electoral lynching - it's just a huge overreaction and a complete waste of everybody's time. My vote (against the motion) is in the post.
Having read Martin Wragg's report and most of the posts in this thread, I've reached the conclusion that the No Confidence proposal is a lot of nonsense brought by people with too much time on their hands (or ulterior motives). Unless I am missing something, the proposers' complaint is that the BMC made an error of judgment in not consulting more widely regarding the re-branding exercise. The Executive Committee acknowledge this and say they have learnt from the mistake. If so, then that should be that, we move on. I can't see any justification for the proposed electoral lynching - it's just a huge overreaction and a complete waste of everybody's time. My vote (against the motion) is in the post.
5
In reply to spenser:
Sorry but blame Bob for misusing the club not me. It is a club he is a member of and spoke to about the motion (without informing other BMC members elsewhere) and talked about to 3rd parties as if he had convinced quite a few people about his motion.
I'd be delighted if the Oread (and the AC) formal disowned his scurrilous actions around this motion. I've publicly championed the good most clubs do and their normal positive contributions to the BMC.
Sorry but blame Bob for misusing the club not me. It is a club he is a member of and spoke to about the motion (without informing other BMC members elsewhere) and talked about to 3rd parties as if he had convinced quite a few people about his motion.
I'd be delighted if the Oread (and the AC) formal disowned his scurrilous actions around this motion. I've publicly championed the good most clubs do and their normal positive contributions to the BMC.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
The President of the AC just issued a statement, which has been posted on the other thread ( https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660614, in the unlikely event that anyone's lost it ).
ETA: whoops, didn't see ebdon had already mentioned it. But it is now posted for anyone who wants to read it.
The President of the AC just issued a statement, which has been posted on the other thread ( https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660614, in the unlikely event that anyone's lost it ).
ETA: whoops, didn't see ebdon had already mentioned it. But it is now posted for anyone who wants to read it.
Post edited at 17:34
1
In reply to slab_happy:
Would be nicer to see them explicitly recommending voting against the no-confidence motion (or better still arm twisting to get the stupid thing dropped).
"However, in my opinion, should the Motion succeed it would mean a year of chaos before a new Executive could take over and bring some stability. In the meantime, opportunities such as the BMC acting as moderator between the IFSC and UIAA to sort out their governance roles and the joint AC/BMC initiative to provide advice and information to young alpinists would be lost. I also suspect that Competition Climbing would establish its own governing body. Whatever you think about Competition Climbing, it is better to keep it inside the broad remit of the BMC than to risk a fracture."
Seems like they are scared to take on the very bad behaviour of some of their members (refusal to debate in public, misinformation, secrecy, delay, adding names to the motion without checking with the individuals first)
Would be nicer to see them explicitly recommending voting against the no-confidence motion (or better still arm twisting to get the stupid thing dropped).
"However, in my opinion, should the Motion succeed it would mean a year of chaos before a new Executive could take over and bring some stability. In the meantime, opportunities such as the BMC acting as moderator between the IFSC and UIAA to sort out their governance roles and the joint AC/BMC initiative to provide advice and information to young alpinists would be lost. I also suspect that Competition Climbing would establish its own governing body. Whatever you think about Competition Climbing, it is better to keep it inside the broad remit of the BMC than to risk a fracture."
Seems like they are scared to take on the very bad behaviour of some of their members (refusal to debate in public, misinformation, secrecy, delay, adding names to the motion without checking with the individuals first)
3
In reply to Offwidth:
Can someone be kicked out of the AC for bringing it into disrepute? That's basically what that statement says isn't it...
Be a powerful wake up call if someone were to try. Harder to ignore than us randoms on UKC...
> Seems like they are scared to take on the very bad behaviour of some of their members (refusal to debate in public, misinformation, secrecy, delay, adding names to the motion without checking with the individuals first)
Can someone be kicked out of the AC for bringing it into disrepute? That's basically what that statement says isn't it...
Be a powerful wake up call if someone were to try. Harder to ignore than us randoms on UKC...
2
In reply to Offwidth:
I have already made my views of his approach to garnering support for this motion quite clear to him. He spoke again after our AGM on saturday and from a quick look round the room a third of the people had their heads in their hands in frustration/ anger, another third looked fed up to the back teeth, most of the rest looked confused about what was going on and I couldn't see the remainder, any impression he got of having convinced members is simply that we were bloody baffled by the whole thing. Chris Radcliffe gave a very eloquent response which showed Bob's motion up for what it is, a complete and utter waste of time, one person (out of 37) attempted to defend Bob's motion and quickly started babbling some nonsense about landowners charging for access once money comes into the sport through the olympics. I pointed out that Dave Turnbull had requested Bob to submit a sensible explanation about his motion to the BMC for publication and Bob agreed that this was the case, as such he now has no excuse for not publishing an explanation of what he's doing.
Bob has clearly stated on two occasions now (at least) that he doesn't think he'll get enough votes for the motion to carry, I've contacted our newsletter editor to ask if she can put some information in our newsletter which gets posted out to the none internet using members (several of whom I know don't read summit and will either not have heard about it or only heard about it at the AGM).
I have actively contacted Bob already and asked him to enable the entire BMC membership to fully inform themselves as soon as possible as I mentioned the other day, I fully agree that his actions are completely underhand.
For what it's worth the Oread is running a new member's meet next weekend to try and get some new members into the club and help indoor climbers to move outside.
I have already made my views of his approach to garnering support for this motion quite clear to him. He spoke again after our AGM on saturday and from a quick look round the room a third of the people had their heads in their hands in frustration/ anger, another third looked fed up to the back teeth, most of the rest looked confused about what was going on and I couldn't see the remainder, any impression he got of having convinced members is simply that we were bloody baffled by the whole thing. Chris Radcliffe gave a very eloquent response which showed Bob's motion up for what it is, a complete and utter waste of time, one person (out of 37) attempted to defend Bob's motion and quickly started babbling some nonsense about landowners charging for access once money comes into the sport through the olympics. I pointed out that Dave Turnbull had requested Bob to submit a sensible explanation about his motion to the BMC for publication and Bob agreed that this was the case, as such he now has no excuse for not publishing an explanation of what he's doing.
Bob has clearly stated on two occasions now (at least) that he doesn't think he'll get enough votes for the motion to carry, I've contacted our newsletter editor to ask if she can put some information in our newsletter which gets posted out to the none internet using members (several of whom I know don't read summit and will either not have heard about it or only heard about it at the AGM).
I have actively contacted Bob already and asked him to enable the entire BMC membership to fully inform themselves as soon as possible as I mentioned the other day, I fully agree that his actions are completely underhand.
For what it's worth the Oread is running a new member's meet next weekend to try and get some new members into the club and help indoor climbers to move outside.
10
In reply to spenser:
"one person (out of 37) attempted to defend Bob's motion and quickly started babbling some nonsense about landowners charging for access once money comes into the sport through the olympics."
A very similar statement to one made by Ken Wilson in the 1993 AC debate on competitions (or at least it is written up in the 1993 AC Journal).
Ken stated that comp climbers were barbarians and that BMC support of comps would lead to the Nose being bolted.
(NB I always made the assumption that Ken was referring to Dinas Mot but never had this confirmed!)
"one person (out of 37) attempted to defend Bob's motion and quickly started babbling some nonsense about landowners charging for access once money comes into the sport through the olympics."
A very similar statement to one made by Ken Wilson in the 1993 AC debate on competitions (or at least it is written up in the 1993 AC Journal).
Ken stated that comp climbers were barbarians and that BMC support of comps would lead to the Nose being bolted.
(NB I always made the assumption that Ken was referring to Dinas Mot but never had this confirmed!)
3
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Nose...nice!
But, such a HUGE waste of time, and gives us older climbers a bad name. There are quite a few in 'The Thirty' whom I respect for their achievements, but now, if I was one I'd go into hiding for a few weeks.
Global warming, Syria, ISIS, Trump, Brexit... please, just p**s on this silly motion from a great height and let's get on with our lives.
Nose...nice!
But, such a HUGE waste of time, and gives us older climbers a bad name. There are quite a few in 'The Thirty' whom I respect for their achievements, but now, if I was one I'd go into hiding for a few weeks.
Global warming, Syria, ISIS, Trump, Brexit... please, just p**s on this silly motion from a great height and let's get on with our lives.
2
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Brilliant! I believe that clubs have an important role to play in educating Ken's "Barbarians" on the subjects of ethics and conservation, namely by taking them climbing under the supervision of someone who can help them understand the rules and ethics of whatever game they're playing.
Brilliant! I believe that clubs have an important role to play in educating Ken's "Barbarians" on the subjects of ethics and conservation, namely by taking them climbing under the supervision of someone who can help them understand the rules and ethics of whatever game they're playing.
1
In reply to spenser:
At the time the people that Ken was referring to included the likes of Fliss Butler, hardly a barbarian
At the time the people that Ken was referring to included the likes of Fliss Butler, hardly a barbarian
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
I can't say I've met her or indeed heard of her before, not much of a surprise given that she was champion back in 1992 (probably a few months before I was born!).
I can't say I've met her or indeed heard of her before, not much of a surprise given that she was champion back in 1992 (probably a few months before I was born!).
In reply to spenser:
Is this one of those things like Boris Johnson's Brexit campaigning, or the people who voted for Trump as a protest gesture to demonstrate their alienation from the political system or something, where it's all a jolly jape/protest unless they accidentally win (and then other people have to suffer the consequences of the trainwreck)?
According to your comment in the other thread:
Has he been queried about the incompatibility between these two claims?
> Bob has clearly stated on two occasions now (at least) that he doesn't think he'll get enough votes for the motion to carry,
Is this one of those things like Boris Johnson's Brexit campaigning, or the people who voted for Trump as a protest gesture to demonstrate their alienation from the political system or something, where it's all a jolly jape/protest unless they accidentally win (and then other people have to suffer the consequences of the trainwreck)?
> I pointed out that Dave Turnbull had requested Bob to submit a sensible explanation about his motion to the BMC for publication and Bob agreed that this was the case,
According to your comment in the other thread:
> in response to your last bit I dropped Bob an email on Wednesday evening asking if he could pass his explanation on to the BMC but he said that they were not willing to distribute it.
Has he been queried about the incompatibility between these two claims?
2
In reply to spenser:
It is amazing how little shows when you Google her. She was climbing E6 in the early 90's when it was still a big number, she climbed hard sport routes and won comps. Anyone got any biog info on her?
It is amazing how little shows when you Google her. She was climbing E6 in the early 90's when it was still a big number, she climbed hard sport routes and won comps. Anyone got any biog info on her?
In reply to slab_happy:
That was what I was questioning him about at the time, he said that they had only agreed to do so in the last two days and that it had been published earlier that day (while I was, you know, out climbing in the glorious weather), checked when I got back last night and not a sign on the BMC website so I dropped Dave Turnbull an email in part as an apology for relaying false information to the BMC's detriment.
I think it is very much a Boris style statement, part of what pisses me off so royally.
That was what I was questioning him about at the time, he said that they had only agreed to do so in the last two days and that it had been published earlier that day (while I was, you know, out climbing in the glorious weather), checked when I got back last night and not a sign on the BMC website so I dropped Dave Turnbull an email in part as an apology for relaying false information to the BMC's detriment.
I think it is very much a Boris style statement, part of what pisses me off so royally.
1
In reply to Steve Woollard:
It is incredible. ie it is not believable.
I am incredulous. ie I don't believe it.
'It' can't be incredulous. That's the way it works.
> It is incredulous to suggest that the CEO and other Executive members at the meeting were not aware of the plan...
It is incredible. ie it is not believable.
I am incredulous. ie I don't believe it.
'It' can't be incredulous. That's the way it works.
4
1
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
I believe she did very well in the Ladies Vets Finals of the Awesome Walls leading league at Sheffield a couple of weeks ago.
Cheers
Andy
I believe she did very well in the Ladies Vets Finals of the Awesome Walls leading league at Sheffield a couple of weeks ago.
Cheers
Andy
1
In reply to Andy Cairns:
You'd think the (former) owner of the awesomewallssheffield domain name ought to be aware of something like that. Disappointing.
You'd think the (former) owner of the awesomewallssheffield domain name ought to be aware of something like that. Disappointing.
3
In reply to slab_happy:
Apparently Dave Turnbull's reinvited him to submit something to the BMC to be published and he's refused, surely at this point whatever positive contributions Bob made when he was younger he's written them all off with the damage he's doing now?
Apparently Dave Turnbull's reinvited him to submit something to the BMC to be published and he's refused, surely at this point whatever positive contributions Bob made when he was younger he's written them all off with the damage he's doing now?
5
In reply to Rob Parsons:
The calling of a MoNC isn't undemocratic.
The backroom dealing is undemocratic. Debate should be in public, and not hidden behind membership walls of individual climbing clubs.
I note the other comments in this thread saying exactly the same thing.
> I'm curious why you think the current processes are 'undemocratic.'
The calling of a MoNC isn't undemocratic.
The backroom dealing is undemocratic. Debate should be in public, and not hidden behind membership walls of individual climbing clubs.
I note the other comments in this thread saying exactly the same thing.
3
In reply to captain paranoia:
Collecting proxy votes based on misinformation is worse than undemocratic its that and dishonest.
Collecting proxy votes based on misinformation is worse than undemocratic its that and dishonest.
6
In reply to Steve Woollard:
Seems like perfectly good practice to me - why would any professional organisation propose a brand without first securing the website domain?
What is your point (not that I especially care)?
> FACT - The domain name climbbritain.co.uk was registered on the 3rd March 2016 by the BMC This isn’t a 5 minute job – • Someone would have decided to do it• An application would have had to been prepared• A payment would have to had been approved• The application would have had to be approved before submitting• The registrar would then have had to check and process the application Who approved the application and when was it submitted?There was a National Council meeting on the 6th February 2016 yet there is no mention of rebranding or renaming in the minutes. It is incredulous to suggest that the CEO and other Executive members at the meeting were not aware of the plan for a name change at this time only days before the domain name registration was submitted, but they choose to keep this from the NC.The AGM took place on the 16th April 2016, after the domain name had been registered and despite there clearly being a plan to rebrand/rename this was not reported to the membership which it could have been without revealing any names.
Seems like perfectly good practice to me - why would any professional organisation propose a brand without first securing the website domain?
What is your point (not that I especially care)?
6
In reply to Steve Woollard:
I'm calling it: 8/10.
Well done for staying under the bridge while your argument was torn to pieces.
You lost marks for putting too much effort into the OP.
I'm calling it: 8/10.
Well done for staying under the bridge while your argument was torn to pieces.
You lost marks for putting too much effort into the OP.
3
In reply to rj_townsend:
I think the main point being made is that Sport England offered £75420 in Feb for investigation of increasing revenue. Consultants were then engaged on three projects. Whilst the commercial proposals were only finally delivered on the day of the AGM the re-brand proposals were being worked on in Feb/March (hell, we were nearly Climb GB!). But none of this was mentioned at the AGM. It might have been politic to do so, in hindsight.
And in terms of joined up thinking I wonder how cool the hill-walking project were on the proposed new names?
> Seems like perfectly good practice to me - why would any professional organisation propose a brand without first securing the website domain? What is your point (not that I especially care)?
I think the main point being made is that Sport England offered £75420 in Feb for investigation of increasing revenue. Consultants were then engaged on three projects. Whilst the commercial proposals were only finally delivered on the day of the AGM the re-brand proposals were being worked on in Feb/March (hell, we were nearly Climb GB!). But none of this was mentioned at the AGM. It might have been politic to do so, in hindsight.
And in terms of joined up thinking I wonder how cool the hill-walking project were on the proposed new names?
3
1
In reply to Steve Woollard:
This is turning into a charade, set up by Bob's potty crew.
I'm getting thoroughly freaking bored with their shenanigans and wish they would withdraw their motion and go away.
Chris.
This is turning into a charade, set up by Bob's potty crew.
I'm getting thoroughly freaking bored with their shenanigans and wish they would withdraw their motion and go away.
Chris.
6
1
In reply to spenser:
I did indeed, in writing on 23 March, following up earlier invitation sent by the BMC on 24 February. Both offers were turned down. Given that proxy votes are now flowing in I think we've gone beyond the point of being able to publish further explanatory information.
I did indeed, in writing on 23 March, following up earlier invitation sent by the BMC on 24 February. Both offers were turned down. Given that proxy votes are now flowing in I think we've gone beyond the point of being able to publish further explanatory information.
6
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:
Thanks for being honest about this Dave, it seems like he's been given ample opportunity to do the right thing and turned it down.
Thanks for being honest about this Dave, it seems like he's been given ample opportunity to do the right thing and turned it down.
3
In reply to Andy Say:
Perhaps. But what could they have said? "We're considering a re-brand but nothing's been decided yet so we can't tell you anything" . All that would have done is to stir up a shit-storm of speculation. It is usually wise during a process like this to keep it under wraps until a decision has been made. I would have been more critical had partial information been disseminated at the AGM before the process was completed, or worse, if it had been announced before the decision had been made by the National Committee. That would have been a failure of corporate governance, which is what the motion is supposedly about.
The real failure was in not consulting the members through the area meetings after the decision had been made. I got the impression from the road-show that the response from focus groups had been so overwhelmingly enthusiastic that it hadn't occurred to anyone that it might be controversial. It appears the focus groups were made up of the wrong people. So far as I am aware nothing has happened since to suggest that this lesson has not been learned.
> the re-brand proposals were being worked on in Feb/March... But none of this was mentioned at the AGM. It might have been politic to do so, in hindsight.
Perhaps. But what could they have said? "We're considering a re-brand but nothing's been decided yet so we can't tell you anything" . All that would have done is to stir up a shit-storm of speculation. It is usually wise during a process like this to keep it under wraps until a decision has been made. I would have been more critical had partial information been disseminated at the AGM before the process was completed, or worse, if it had been announced before the decision had been made by the National Committee. That would have been a failure of corporate governance, which is what the motion is supposedly about.
The real failure was in not consulting the members through the area meetings after the decision had been made. I got the impression from the road-show that the response from focus groups had been so overwhelmingly enthusiastic that it hadn't occurred to anyone that it might be controversial. It appears the focus groups were made up of the wrong people. So far as I am aware nothing has happened since to suggest that this lesson has not been learned.
9
2
In reply to Howard J:
'We have been allocated a SportEngland fund to investigate ways of increasing commercial revenue. We are looking at commercial alliances, a possible re-brand, and ways to engage with hill-walking'. Developments will be communicated to areas and through newsletters.......:
Is that difficult?
> "We're considering a re-brand but nothing's been decided yet so we can't tell you anything" .
'We have been allocated a SportEngland fund to investigate ways of increasing commercial revenue. We are looking at commercial alliances, a possible re-brand, and ways to engage with hill-walking'. Developments will be communicated to areas and through newsletters.......:
Is that difficult?
2
2
In reply to Steve Woollard:
I do pity Steve here. He's made himself out to be such a foolish person. First, he signs a motion whose purpose he does not actually grasp, and now he's trying to tell us all that registering a domain isn't a 5 minute job, when all but the most ignorant on the subject know that it takes absolutely no more than 5 minutes.
I do pity Steve here. He's made himself out to be such a foolish person. First, he signs a motion whose purpose he does not actually grasp, and now he's trying to tell us all that registering a domain isn't a 5 minute job, when all but the most ignorant on the subject know that it takes absolutely no more than 5 minutes.
8
2
In reply to Andy Say:
It's not difficult. But it's pretty much what I said, dressed up a bit. It might have helped, but I'd be very surprised if it would have satisfied the proposers of the motion, and I'm sure it would have triggered massive speculation about what it involved, so maybe not.
Your final sentence is the key point. If they'd gone on to consult through the usual channels all this could have been avoided. It seems extraordinary that they didn't. Nevertheless I'm inclined to believe the cock-up theory, not least because I can't imagine what possible purpose a conspiracy might have served. Its not like this could have been concealed indefinitely.
It's not difficult. But it's pretty much what I said, dressed up a bit. It might have helped, but I'd be very surprised if it would have satisfied the proposers of the motion, and I'm sure it would have triggered massive speculation about what it involved, so maybe not.
Your final sentence is the key point. If they'd gone on to consult through the usual channels all this could have been avoided. It seems extraordinary that they didn't. Nevertheless I'm inclined to believe the cock-up theory, not least because I can't imagine what possible purpose a conspiracy might have served. Its not like this could have been concealed indefinitely.
1
In reply to Howard J:
A rebrand no-one can see. What a delicious concept
> Its not like this could have been concealed indefinitely.
A rebrand no-one can see. What a delicious concept
3
In reply to Andy Say:
Invisible re-branding -- it's the new thing. Making your new name and logo public is so 2016, you know? You want the new name to be *so* super-exclusive that no-one knows about it and they all keep on using the old name. It's very post-hipster.
Obscurity is the new fame.
> A rebrand no-one can see. What a delicious concept
Invisible re-branding -- it's the new thing. Making your new name and logo public is so 2016, you know? You want the new name to be *so* super-exclusive that no-one knows about it and they all keep on using the old name. It's very post-hipster.
Obscurity is the new fame.
2
In reply to Will Hunt:
I think it's partly a willingness to think the worst. There seems to be a small group of, shall we say, traditionalists, who are deeply suspicious of anything to do with competition climbing and probably still get pretty cross about bolts on the rare occasions they spot one. Their confirmation bias spots anything they don't understand, let alone actual mis-steps by the exec, as evidence of their darkest suspicions and ignores any evidence or assurances to the contrary.
The sad thing is that there is obviously a perfectly reasonable discussion to be had about the BMC's position with respect to the Olympics and what the repercussions might be. There is a discussion to be had about the role of the 'senior clubs' vs individual members of the BMC. There is already an enquiry into the conflicts between the BMC's committee structure and the responsibilities of its directors. How does the BMC reconcile its traditional outdoor activities with its predominantly indoor potential young membership? All real issues, all obscured by the nonsense likely to dominate upcoming Area Meetings, club AGMs and then the BMC AGM.
> I do pity Steve here. He's made himself out to be such a foolish person. First, he signs a motion whose purpose he does not actually grasp, and now he's trying to tell us all that registering a domain isn't a 5 minute job, when all but the most ignorant on the subject know that it takes absolutely no more than 5 minutes.
I think it's partly a willingness to think the worst. There seems to be a small group of, shall we say, traditionalists, who are deeply suspicious of anything to do with competition climbing and probably still get pretty cross about bolts on the rare occasions they spot one. Their confirmation bias spots anything they don't understand, let alone actual mis-steps by the exec, as evidence of their darkest suspicions and ignores any evidence or assurances to the contrary.
The sad thing is that there is obviously a perfectly reasonable discussion to be had about the BMC's position with respect to the Olympics and what the repercussions might be. There is a discussion to be had about the role of the 'senior clubs' vs individual members of the BMC. There is already an enquiry into the conflicts between the BMC's committee structure and the responsibilities of its directors. How does the BMC reconcile its traditional outdoor activities with its predominantly indoor potential young membership? All real issues, all obscured by the nonsense likely to dominate upcoming Area Meetings, club AGMs and then the BMC AGM.
8
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...