UKC

The topic at https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660614 abruptly got archived, so I checked with the mods -- apparently it happened automatically because the post got too big, and there's no problem starting another one to continue the discussions.

(Unless we're all thoroughly sick of it by this point.)

In reply to slab_happy:

One of the thirty supporting the MoNC has withdrawn support for it now. They felt pressured into signing up for it and now regret it.

In reply to Pete Stacey:

These BMC 30 guys really are class acts aren't they?

In reply to slab_happy:

Thanks, I think it's important that people don't think that just because most of the responses on here have been against the Motion, that it's somehow 'gone away'. If you disagree (or, indeed, agree) then get your vote sent in

In reply to Pete Stacey:

I would like to know the names of those who no longer support it. Although I have already voted, this episode has coloured my view of all those named on the motion and I might regain some respect for them if they were to publicly step back from it and explain why.

In reply to Will Hunt:


This loss of respect for guys, some of whom have done a lot for climbing, is one of the saddest outcomes of this dismal affair

In reply to Si dH:


I would guess it will all come out in the wash at the AGM.

In reply to Pete Stacey:

Any idea who it was? Have they spoken about it publicly?

In reply to Andy Say: Not necessarily - I think (although it would require a good read of the BMC "rules" to be sure) that once the 30 valid members have signed the MoNC so that it becomes an AGM voting item, then how they individually feel, behave or vote is a totally separate issue. It's too late for them to rescind their support for the motion being tabled. However there's nothing to stop them speaking at the meeting and saying that they've changed their mind and voting against the motion.

In reply to Postmanpat (from https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660614&v=1#x8529229 in the linked thread):


I agree.


If we are invited to extend the courtesy of assuming 'cockup not conspiracy' to the subjects of the motion, then it might be wise to do the same for its proposers.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

>

I agree and very much hope that this is the explanation.

In reply to slab_happy:
As an English member of a Scottish club I am only an outside observer of this process but I would like to offer a few thoughts to the debate. As an engineer I will use bullet points for my argument.
1. There is a history that needs to be put aside to deal with the reality of the current situation.
2. The decision to include climbing in the 2020 Olympics needs the establishment of a UK governing body to support those people who will take part.
3. It is quite clear that there is an issue regarding the conflict of the BMC being a membership based representative organisation and being a governing body for a sport. This needs resolution if the BMC is going to be involved in such activity.
4. Point 3 can be resolved by a review of the governance of the BMC led by an independent body that has expertise in handling such conflict. An ideal lead of that process would be someone with experience of the transition.
5. It appears that the BMC has already committed to point 4.
6. For the good of the membership & future of the BMC the day to day activities of the organisation need to be maintained.
7. From the points made by Doug Scott it is clear that there is confusion between the devices of 'Motion of No Confidence' & 'Motion of Censure'. This must be clearly understood by all those who vote in this matter. MoNC leads to hiatus in the BMC and possibly a toxic future.

Based on the above points it appears to me that the Motion of No Confidence should be withdrawn and that the proposer should endorse the review of the governance of the BMC as a satisfactory outcome of their action.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

>...and that the proposer should endorse the review of the governance of the BMC as a satisfactory outcome of their action.


I'm not sure how the proposer could claim the review as an outcome of their action, Keith?

As has been explained a number of times earlier in the thread, the review was instigated prior to the MoNC being lodged. Also, in case there was any doubt, full details of the review and its scope were included in the letter to the proposer in reply to his first non-complliant motion submission. (A copy of this letter was on the Vagabond website, though I don't know if it is still there. However I did make a copy when it was first posted).

The proposer chose to resubmit an alternative, compliant motion, and to ignore any reassurances that a review was already underway....

Neil

In reply to Neil Foster:
A good point - I do understand that the review was underway before the MONC so perhaps what I meant to say was that 'their endorsement of the review' would be a satisfactory resolution of their concerns.

In reply to slab_happy:
I've read through all of the threads on UKC about this (taken a fair while) and just read Doug Scott's "statement".

Is it just me, or does it ring of a "longing for the good old days" mentality?

I completely understand the need for review and appropriate governance etc etc etc. (before anyone shoots me down!), but if we kept everything EXACTLY as it was originally intended (the points below are slightly tongue-in-cheek, but *hopefully* illustrate my point)...

Ordnance Survey need to go back into military uniform and ditch all public mapping services
Morrisons go back to being a egg and butter merchant in Rawson Market, Bradford
Bill Gates should go back to building circuit boards in his garage

It's been 50 years for the BMC now - surely it CAN'T stay as it was/is?

Alternatively, new organisation comes into being, as the *governing* body for climbing / mountaineering / hill-walking, with BMC remaining the *representative* body - in theory ideal, in practice I would suggest this model would mean the BMC's days would be numbered...

Finally - not really a sure a review could be truely independent, as any person/body who would have the knowledge / expertise to advise / undertake would surely already be known / involved / have an interest?

The debate goes on...

In reply to MtnGeekUK:


Can you tell me where I can find this "statement" or give a link to it? Sorry if its out there somewhere, but so much has now been written on this subject that it's becoming increasingly difficult to wade through it and see the wood from the trees!

Thanks in advance.

In reply to Trangia:

It's on the old thread https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660614
posted by ebdon at 19.01 last Thursday

To say it rambles a bit is an insult to ramblers ...

In reply to Trangia:

It was emailed around the AC apparently. (As with Bob Pettigrew's halfpennyworth it's not been published or distributed among the wider BMC membership.)

It was 'leaked' in the other thread in a post by ebdon, here (hopefully this will work):
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660614&v=1#x8528359

Edit to add: yep, that works. The above link takes you directly to the appropriate post, to save wading through the thread looking for it. Tony's not wrong about rambling. It's also somewhat enlightening that Doug Scott's "smoking gun" apparently has more to do with the bogs at Harrison's than owt else.

In reply to deepsoup:

Thanks to you and Tony.

I'll take a deep breath before reading it.

In reply to MtnGeekUK:


How about an arm's length 'governing body' for competition climbing (you could call it...umm...'Climb Britain' or something like that) and a BMC that continues doing pretty much what it currently does as a representative body?

In reply to Andy Say: This was suggested some time back, might even have been before all this MoNC stuff - I think it was Paul Mitchell who posted it (may be totally wrong here of course), but if I remember correctly it was a post talking about restructuring the BMC to make it fit-for-purpose for future needs/pressures like the Olympics etc.

In reply to slab_happy:

Cheers.

For those of us away on our hols can folk attending the various area meetings post back a summary of the views there.

In reply to Andy Say:
You could call it association of British climbing walls which already exists. All comp venues are commercial organisations with a wealth of arranging comps etc. leaving the BMC to best represent the paying memberships needs The training bodies and guides split from BMC for self governance and never looked back! They would probably loose the Sport England grant and expenses paid trips around the world but shit happens

In reply to rocksol:

It's the guys on the UIAA Commissions that tend to go on the jolly's around the world. You know, people like Bob Pettigrew.

In reply to rocksol:


For reference: Sport England is focused on grassroots participation in sports, and is not to be confused with UK Sport, which is the one focused on Olympic athletes.

I only know this because it came up in the previous thread, but obviously that got so huge that it's easy for information to get buried in there.


Given that in 2014 the GB Bouldering Team had to run a crowd-funder just in order to travel to the World Cup, I highly doubt that anyone's awash in money.

In reply to Neil Foster:


Have the details of the review and scope of the review been published by the BMC yet? If so, can you point us at them? Having a more complete idea of both its remit and conduct might be useful reassurance at this point.

There's been some discussion on these threads about the review dealing with 'technical' matters of governance (e.g. to do with reconciling the tensions created by the BMC being both a company, and a representative body.) But it seems to me that there are also 'softer' matters to be discussed. For example, what kind of rule changes could or would prevent a repetition of the kind of 'serious misjudgement' identified by Martin Wragg?

To throw in one more matter: since some of the subtext in this whole affair seems (to me, anyway) to be connected with matters of the commercialization of climbing, I think it might be healthy if everybody actively involved in the running of the BMC were officially obliged to register any commercial interest. (Perhaps that's the case already but, if it is, I am unable to find any details.)

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Someone already called you on this one Rob so I am asking again.

Do you question anything about the motivations of the proposers of the motion or do you even accept questions about their points?

No you don't, you just chuck questions in about the BMC whilst ignoring people's answers to your points.

So, come on, own up. Are you a BMC 30 (29 apparently now) stooge. Because it appears that way.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

To answer one of your points - BMC Staff have to sign a conflict of interest form, and so do the volunteers on the Specialist Committees. That would cover any commercial interests.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


I accept questions about both sides. We have an actual debate here; let's shine as much light as we can on all the issues raised.


A strange reply. I have certainly never intentionally ignored anybody's answers. What exception(s) exactly do you take the questions in my previous post here?

In reply to Dan Middleton, BMC:


Thanks for your reply. Are those various signed forms available in a public register?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

If not, maybe they should be. Another thing for the review to consider.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

You seem to only ask questions that are protagonistic towards the BMC, you never question the BMC 30's points.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I would hope that they are not available publicly. They contain information that SHOULD NOT be publicly available. I am a member of a BMC Committee and declare my interest where they should be appropriate but they should not be a matter of publicly available information, the BMC should be able to judge whether my declaration is sufficient and deal with it accordingly.

In reply to Rob Parsons: I would argue that we don't have much of a debate here - rather a lot of rather biased questions that ultimately look like a fishing exercise to me.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Plenty of other people and posts already question those points.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Okay so let's get direct. Do you agree with the MonC? Yes or No? Simple question.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Certainly I would suggest that anybody standing for any elected position in the BMC should have to publicly declare. That's pretty standard practice in any organization, isn't it?

In reply to Andy Say:


I think perhaps we can get too hung up on the difference between a governing and a representative body. The other two outdoor activity national bodies that I belong, or have belonged, to are British Orienteering and British Canoeing. Interestingly both have recently dropped their old-fashioned "Federation" and "Union" handles. Because both sports have always had a competitive as well as a recreational focus they have had to have "governing bodies" to control the rules of competition. But I don't believe that this has stopped these bodies being democratically constituted or representing their membership on matters such as access to rivers or forests.

Yes, I am aware that both bodies have regularly come in for a degree of criticism from portions of their membership but that's almost inevitable I suspect.

Martin

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Me personally? No.

In reply to wbo:


We have the Wragg Report which characterizes the handling of last year's affair as a 'serious misjudgement' (fairly strong words); and we have a forthcoming review covering the governance of the BMC. I don't think anybody can deny that there are tensions.

If you want things to be done both correctly and well - as I would hope that all members of the BMC do - then I suggest that there really is a debate to be had.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Well done for trying to confuse matters.

I am not an elected member of a SPECIALIST COMMITTEE, I am on the Committee because I am a SPECIALIST, my appointment is confirmed every year by the National Council who have sight of my declared Interests. They decide if there is a conflict, not me, not the Executive Board, not the Committee I serve on.

In reply to Martin Hore:



I don't know anything about British Orienteeering, but from my observations of British Canoeing I'd suggest the very last thing the BMC ought to do is follow its example. "A degree of criticism" is indeed inevitable in any large membership body, but I've never seen an organisation so universally held in contempt by its members as the BCU. (Most that I know are members purely because they have to be to compete or hold coaching qualifications, or because they're associate members through clubs.) Its rebrand was so successful that large numbers of people don't even know it has a new name let alone what that is, and the questions about how and whether it is actually doing anything for access to water for ordinary members have been long and bitter. I could go on! At least the recent AGM roundly rejected the creation of a president for life, and elected a new president for the first time in decades.

Declaration of interest: I volunteer on a BMC specialist committee and go to local area meetings. I don't volunteer on a BC committee because there doesn't seem to be much call for volunteers, and I don't go to area meetings because they don't seem to have them. (Anyway I'm a Canoe Wales member and it's often unclear whether BC is acting in its capacity as the body for England or as the body for the U.K.) I usually turn up to any events designed to inform the members, though, so I'm doing my best to engage.

Phew, rant over! I'm just seriously keen that the BMC never becomes as unrepresentative as the BCU has been to date.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Eh?


It's not just 'about you.' In respect of a public register of interests, I am making a completely general point. Whether it's one which will crop up in the course of the review I have no idea.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


I run a business with my husband Rehan, and have shouldered a much increased workload over the last two years because the voluntary role of BMC President is now in-effect a full-time role which deals not just with strategic issues (as the role in most other sporting bodies does) but also day-to-day operational issues as well. I would therefore like to speak out in my own right. The motion of no confidence has caused a stressful additional workload to each of the dedicated volunteer Executive members who I believe have been slandered and libelled by the main instigators of this motion. Excellent and talented volunteer Directors such as Rupert, together with the BMC's staff, have been diverted from important initiatives elsewhere by this motion and other professionals may be deterred from volunteering in the future.
Doug Scott says in his 'toiletgate' diatribe that appeared on this forum, that his continued support for the motion is primarily based on his historical complaint about a toilet. He must have been traumatised by the condition of this toilet to want to replace an Executive body that was not even in office during the era of this offending toilet.
Does Mr Scott believe that the CEO, each subsequent Executive body and BMC staff have been squandering their time on trivial issues such as land management, maintaining access, environment, finance etc instead of concerning themselves with the crucial matter of being empathetic to Mr Scott's lavatorial sensitivities.
The BMC is not, and I believe should not become, a restrictive club for colonial gentleman adventurers that Mr Scott and his co-conspirators seem to desire. It is a diverse, inclusive organisation representing over 80 000 members from various disciplines and different walks of life. He may not appreciate that an Asian from working class routes can become President of the BMC, or that an inspirational female climber can be awarded a MBE. He has a right as a BMC member to make his views heard but I just wish that he and Mr Pettigrew had done so in a less destructive and less selfish manner that does not threaten the interests of the other 80 000 members.
It is dismaying to read that they still refuse to withdraw their ill-conceived motion in the face of such widespread calls for them to do so. I would also urge them to issue a full public apology to all the hard-working volunteers they have attacked. The Executive and National Council were honest enough to admit that consultation over the rebranding should have been more widespread and ultimately this is what occurred. Let us hope that the instigators of this motion can be man-enough as well.
I have heard a troubling rumour that Mr Scott does not want to attend the AGM to defend his motion of no confidence because attending some committee meeting for the UIAA is apparently more important to him. I think other BMC members besides myself will justifiably feel slightly aggrieved if, after causing such upheaval, damage and expense to our organisation (which as paying members we are all funding), he isn't brave enough to stand up in public and explain himself. My young family have had to cancel our Easter holiday because of his motion (one of a long list of sacrifices that my husband's voluntary work for the BMC has entailed) so I'd appreciate it if Doug could spare half an hour of his time to defend his motion in person at the AGM. I would certainly welcome the chance to debate with him. Then again, I am probably not important enough, being merely a slightly disabled, female with unfortunately little climbing aptitude - probably just the sort of BMC member that Doug resents. I can categorically assure him that I have always found the public conveniences at Plas y Brenin to be spotless.

In reply to LouPrice:

Great post. A UKC classic!

In reply to LouPrice:

Well said.

Assuming the vote comes to nought (which can't be taken for granted but we've seen no credible case for it via any channel) it is hard to see how Doug could continue in the role of BMC Patron, since that title implies a notable support for the organisation.

In reply to LouPrice:

Glad to hear your opinion - the two long rants by BP & DS contained a lot of vitriol but not much content. I now know that Bob has climbed in Lyngen (so did I), that even God can change his mind, and the Harrison's toilets wouldn't be acceptable at the South Col. I hope the BMC folk are getting the impression, as am I, that they have the sympathy of the vast majority re this pointless MONC.

In reply to Jim Nevill:


And it is essential to translate this sympathy into votes.

In reply to LouPrice:
Some rather unfortunate references to racism and sexism and prejudice towards disabilities directed at Doug Scott there.
You talk of people being libelled, these unsubstantiated remarks are poor.
I believe Dave T was CEO during 'Toiletgate'

In reply to LouPrice:


I can certainly appreciate the problems caused by the Motion of No Confidence for Rehan and all of the others at the BMC.

But, in fairness you might consider https://www.canepal.org.uk/what-is-can before you accuse Doug Scott of being a 'colonial adventurer with a distaste for working class Asians'.

In reply to Andy Say:
As per previous posts buried on previous threads, we have been looking at this for a while.

There seem to be a lot of people who have suggested it, and none of them seem to have taken any notice of the posts pointing out that a review and change of comp management structure has been looked at since sept / oct last year, as part of the change in team structure to development squad through to world class performance program. Its all on hold at the mo, as we wait for more info from UK Sport and this MoNC to be resolved so the BMC can actually get back to some progress (on any front, not just comps )

In reply to Rob Parsons:

In this spirit of openness that you call for can you tell us of your experience as a volunteer on BMC committees ?

We have already had one poster on these threads making insinuations that BMC volunteers are only doing it to serve their own interests. It seems to me that your call for a the register of declared interests to be made public stems from the same suspicion. And since Graeme is well known for being a successful wall-owner he is an easy target.

But what you are doing is creating a climate where people like him will be reluctant to volunteer. Why take the hassle if all you get is snide comments ?

One thing you get from attending the infamous november meetings of the national council is an appreciation of the wide range of experienced people that the BMC has managed to gather together on it's specialist committees. Of course most of these people work in the outdoor industry - that's why they are experts !

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Rob, as far as I am aware the protocol is that all at National Council (that includes the Exec.) complete a written declaration of interests which is held on file by the BMC. At the beginning of any meeting members indicate any agenda items which may cause a conflict for them. I can recall Scott Titt assiduously reporting that his brother ran a climbing equipment manufacturer at the start of every meeting!

Given that most of the National Council are volunteers I would think that a public register is well over the top. The Exec. will normally have a circulated personal profile issued prior to election which should be also considered as a record of interest I'd have thought.

In reply to dan gibson:

Given that the BMC currently has a gun to its head, that all ordinary business has been stalled to try to deal with the MONC, and it's obviously putting a considerable burden on the Executive Committee, the staff, and their families, I'm not surprised if people who are so directly affected by it are getting a bit frayed.

In reply to Andy Say:

The protocol exists for all Specialist Committees I think. I know I am always stating my interests as CompsCom

In reply to Rob Parsons:


As far as I know, no-one supporting the MONC has said anything at all about whether or not conflict of interest forms are available in a public register. It's not mentioned in the MONC and it hasn't been brought up as a reason for the MONC; in fact, it has nothing at all to do with the MONC. As you say, it may or may not even be within the scope of the review.

The only tenuous connection you've offered is that it's somehow relevant to concerns about "commercialization".

It just seems like you're casting around to find something, *anything* connected with the BMC that could be somehow construed as vaguely dodgy if you strained hard enough, and bringing it up in a thread about the MONC ... why?

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Sure: none.



'insinunations', 'suspicion', 'target', 'snide': I'd reject all of those if they're directed at me. In addition, I've tried to avoid any personalization in this debate - I don't think it helps.

The suggestion - suggestion, only - of a public register of interests was intended precisely to counteract the possibility of any claims that policy decisions which affect the direction of travel of the organization might have been swayed by external (e.g. commercial) interests. The BMC is now a large organization, and everybody seems to accept that its rules now need revising - hence the review.

In reply to slab_happy:

No excuse for that type of language though.

In reply to slab_happy:

I have only just realised this is quite important. Have now filled in and posted my voting card. Normally I can't be bothered with this sort of stuff because I quickly get bored of people going on an on about it.

In reply to slab_happy:


Well, one of the problems with the motion is that - as you say - nobody associated with it has publicly issued *any* kind of detailed supporting statement ...


Not at all.


Because, as I've said above, it seems to be related to the general issues of 'governance' which have been raised by both the motion and the review, both of which are subject matter for these threads.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Given the way your concerns have meandered from point to point throughout the debate without ever seeming to develop a point of there own, it's understandable that people are suggesting that it might just be "Whataboutery".

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Rob, there have now been 3 of us have a go at you because of the same thing; picking a small part of a lengthy post and then asking for clarification / more detail etc etc. When you have been called out, your only answer has been along the lines of "no I'm not".
There is a pattern emerging here, and you are not coming out of the debate very well.
Have a think, please.

In reply to Lemony:


Suggest what you like, I guess.

The real issues now are that, after the AGM, we'll all have to try to get on; and that there is indeed a review of the rules and governance of the organization to be gotten on with (and presumably voted for.)

You can perhaps forgive 'meanderings' on the overall subject: it's complicated.

In reply to Ian W:


This again. I completely reject it.

In reply to Ian W:


To be fair, Ian that is symptomatic of this 'debate'. I'm getting bored myself of reading that Doug Scott's letter to a club is 'all about toilets'.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Its standard to declare to the electorate relevant to the position; if its public office (MP's etc) then it is a matter of public interest, therefore it is a public register. If its the BMC comp Comm choosing which venue to host a comp in, then Graeme would have declared his interest o those who need to be aware, and would be excluded from the discussion if the works was on the list of potential venues.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


I rest my case.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

AFAIK the review has already been agreed and requires no further vote or decision at the AGM. Which begs the question of just what is left of substance in the MoNC? I am not seeing or hearing anything much at all, and the idea that whatever it is justifies a MoNC is utterly unfathomable. If it wasn't for the enormous disruption and stress to everyone at the BMC and the work that isn't being done as a result, it would be very funny. Instead, it reflects extremely poorly on each of the 29, who really should know better and be far more responsible.

edit: to remove reference to the review having commenced, as opposed to the process having been agreed.

In reply to john arran:


I don't know if that's the case or not. The Wragg Report says: "There was further debate at the National Council meeting on 11 February 2017 when a decision was made to set up a working group to review governance and to report to National Council and make recommendations." It would be helpful to hear more details of the process, as well as any progress - but of course all of this might well have been delayed on account of the motion.


That is certainly true.


Fair question.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Apologies, see edited version above. Not that this makes the slightest difference to the point being made.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


If you re-read my post you should realise that I wasn't accusing you of malice, but suggesting that through a lack of experience you are unwittingly helping to create a situation in which malice can fester.

Thing is you are just the sort of person that ought to be volunteering to go on the national council - namely someone whose only concern is to see the organisation is being run properly. Maybe contact your area rep and offer to deputise next time they can't make it ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

When is a competition on rock not a competition on rock? When it is accredited by the UIAA it seems. http://theuiaa.org/home/uiaa-rock-climbers-award-given-to-two-south-african...

It looks as if Bob, Doug and Co are barking up the wrong tree!

In reply to Graeme Alderson:
From the UIAA:
'The UIAA Rock Climbers’ Award in few words:
From its establishment in 1932, the UIAA has promoted and developed mountain sports while respecting the environment.
High mountains, big walls, bouldering, ski mountaineering, ice climbing and rock climbing; these are all activities in the DNA of the UIAA International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation.
Rock climbing enthusiasts around the world are now being recognized by the UIAA with a new Rock Climbers’ Award.
Every year the UIAA will choose the best male and female rock climbers from among athletes participating in different events around the world. The climbers will be chosen by a group of experts based on criteria established by an awards assessment team.
The members of the awards assessment team are former British climbing champion Anne Arran who is on the UIAA Management Committee, UIAA Vice President Peter Farkas and Executive Board member James “Marc” Beverly.
A prize purse of CHF 2’000 will be shared among the male and female winners.

The goal of the UIAA Rock Climbers’ Award is to recognize internationally the commitment of climbers in the rock climbing community – everywhere.'

But it seems to have 'died a death': two events in '15, one in '16.......

In reply to Andy Say:

From the article on the UIAA link

"“The second goal was to establish an event that celebrated the different interest groups found in climbing today – at one location and under one banner, the Origin Festival,” he said. “The event enjoyed a full program of workshops, bouldering, traditional climbing, sport climbing and a difficulty competition all set in spectacular surrounds with accommodation in an “Out of Africa” bush camp experience.”

A difficulty competition? That sounds like a competition to me. On rock. Accredited by the UIAA.

In reply to LouPrice:

Thanks for that very pertinent and articulate posting. For a start it shouldn't have been necessary for Rehan's wife to be the first on this thread and its predecessor to point out that he is the first BMC president to be from the black and minority ethnic community, an important milestone for the BMC.
I can thorough endorse Lou Price's comment on the workload on key volunteers, and since the MoNC has been around the workload on the BMC president must have multiplied. My own experience as a BMC volunteer, pales in comparison to Rehan's, but as chair of the 2003-5 Future Policy Review Steering Group my workload was considerable, involving inter alia living in Brighton and attending 14 meetings of the group, all of which were in Manchester except for one that as a concession to the southerners was off the M6 in Staffordshire!
Ii is good that Lou Price has drawn attention to the pressures that this and other volunteer work puts on partners and families. The toiletgate references in Doug Scott's rant meant that as former chair of Harrison's Rocks Management Group, I was asked to produce the statement in support of the BMC's CEO (see next posting), two days before my Golden Wedding celebrations (yes it was on 1st April!). While I was most happy to support Dave Turnbull, the time involved in looking up minutes of meetings etc was not appreciated by my wife! The fact that we've got to 50 years despite my climbing-related work during all of that time is to my wife's everlasting credit.
Although Bob Pettigrew is was President of the BMC from 1976-79, I doubt if he fully appreciates that the workload for the President has increased immensely since his time in office due to the expansion of the BMC's activities. This was evident from the 2003-5 Future Policy Review and I am sure that this trend has continued.

In reply to LouPrice:

Since the Harrison's Rocks toilet block has been mentioned in this thread and it has now gained a gate suffix, I am copying my statement below, which was dated 31/3/17. My successor as chair of HRMG, who was in that position during the events in question, also prepared a statement, in which he put the emphasis on the Rocks themselves being the main priority, a view that I fully agree with.

Harrison's Toilet Block
As a former chair of HRMG I have been asked to comment on criticism of Dave Turnbull's attitude to the possibility that the Forestry Commission might close and even knock down the toilet block at the Harrison's Rocks car park on the cessation of Sport England' lease of the land in question in 2014. I continued to be a member of HRMG for the period in question and I still am. I am also a trustee of the BMC Land and Property Trust, which owns Harrison's Rocks.
I and the other members of HRMG reluctantly accepted this possibility and the fact that it would not be appropriate for the BMC to incur the ongoing costs of taking over the lease of the land in question and in running and maintaining the toilet block. As someone who first climbed at Harrison's in 1960 and as the editor of four editions of the Climbers' Club Southern Sandstone guidebooks, which has involved considerable historical 'research', I am well aware of the background as to why the car park and toilet block were built on land leased by sport England from the Forestry Commission. I and the other members were particularly saddened by the implication that the adjacent Julie Tullis memorial campsite would have to close if the toilet block were to be closed. As HRMG chair I was instrumental in handling the Sandstone Climbing Club's request that the BMC take over the administration of the Julie Tullis fund, which benefited from the profits from the campsite.
The situation from 2012 when I and Tim Skinner, my successor as HRMG chair, met with officials from the Forestry Commission to discuss what would happen when the lease came to an end to 2014 was ever changing and throughout this time I found Dave Turnbull responsive and supportive of the many efforts to keep the toilet block open after 2014. In the end the Forestry Commission decided that they would continue to manage the toilet block funded by a new payment regime for use of the car park, an arrangement which has continued satisfactorily to this day.
Dave has always supported Harrison's. starting with when HRMG was set up in 1997, when he was its secretary until his promotion to the BMC's CEO. During this time it was his advice that led to the initial programme of extensive ground erosion work, funded by Sport England, which has transformed the appearance of the Rocks.

In reply to Bob Moulton:

So what exactly is Doug Scott's gripe?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

And also:-

http://theuiaa.org/rock-climbing/the-aggtelek-climbing-festival-and-the-win...

It would be good if those who have contact with Bob P, Doug S or the BMC 30 could point them to this link, and let them comment on it with reference to their statements about Marco Scolaris and the IFSC.

In reply to Ian W:


And Kalymnos last year......

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

That enough people didn't agree with him last time?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:
"You can gather from the above that I will continue to support the motion of no confidence in the BMC's executive that was prompted by the attitude of the CEO of the BMC to the need for repairs at the Harrison Rock complex of ablution block and car park who unfortunately said it wasn't his or the BMC's job to fix lavatories. I notice that at the AC dinner Rehan Siddiqui could not see that this is but a symptom of the wider malaise when he said that "since the ablution block has been fixed there is no problem". I will attach Bob's report about this for your interest. "

The whole letter was posted somewhere in the predecessor thread. Bob Pettigrew's report was undated, which made it pretty meaningless given the way things progressed between 2012 and 2014. The quote above from Rehan says it all!

Bob

In reply to slab_happy:

This does get confusing! Doesn't help that every time I see MONC I initially read it as MOAC

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Graeme Do Not get me wrong I think indoor climbing (as you know the amount of times I'm at The Works) is great I also think comps are relevant, although given the format you know as well as me that GB stand no chance
I would just like to see you guys with a genuine vested interest collaborate and administer it, leaving the BMC to concentrate on what should be core pursuits
I know the figures show that twice as many people climb indoors as opposed to outside; but here's the rub. How many of them would be BMC members?

In reply to rocksol:

How many "outdoor climbers" don't climb indoors ?
How many of those who do comps don't climb outdoors ?

More to the point - how many people involved in supporting the "core pursuits" would leave if the BMC was split up? Just because you think there is a neat split between the stuff you do and the stuff you don't, why assume that it's the same for everyone else ?

In reply to rocksol:

Why would the "guys with a genuine vested interest" be able to "collaborate and administer it" better from a separate organisation than from withing a larger BMC?
Why would a smaller BMC with less funding be more able to "concentrate on what should be core pursuits"?
It's the whole issue of focus again; the BMC is perfectly able to represent a broad range of climbing-type activities.

Also, nobody knows how many current BMC members would feel like a comp/wall federation would be a better choice for their membership than what would be left of the BMC, so funding from member subscriptions would very much be finger-in-the-air guesswork. There's a real danger of wishful thinking in assuming the number of people who would choose to be in one organisation or the other would reflect what we personally would want to be the case.

In reply to rocksol:

I think long term comps would do better with it's own body but I also think this would be bad for climbing.

And also the Motion is not about comps, even though Doug Scott has made it clear that for him comps are part of it. The Motion is apparently about governance and whether registering a domain name is enough evidence to rip the BMC apart. By all means have another debate about comps but only after this ridiculous Motion has been voted down.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Point 1 they do climb indoors but it's a fact that twice as many climb indoors as opposed to outside. That's my whole point 50 % of BMC members climbing indoors could be subsidising the other 50% I,d like to explore that concept. The BMC must have the data
Point 2 comp climbers climbing outdoors BMC members? I don't think so.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Graeme I never said I'd vote for the motion. I wouldn't wish to sanction the BMC officers but I believe the whole episode requires closer scrutiny The comp debate is a bit of a side issue but it does reveal the way the BMC is changing without to my perception a mandate
Finally the way some people have criticised Doug Scott is reprehensible Here is a man (a previous president of the BMC) who has pushed the boundaries and furthered world mountaineering over the years and run a very successful charity to help the people of Nepal. Plastic pulling pales into almost insignificance compared to his palmares

In reply to rocksol:


Are you doubting that there are any comp climbers who climb outdoors, or any who are BMC members, or both?

If you look at who the top current comp climbers in the UK are, almost all of them have very impressive records on rock too. I'd be amazed if a lot of them *weren't* BMC members.

A few of them are even BMC *ambassadors* (Shauna Coxsey and Fran Brown, off the top of my head).

In reply to rocksol:


'Palmares'?? Doug Scott might have taken plenty of drugs in his time, but please don't ever accuse him of being a cycle racer.

In reply to rocksol:


Translation? 'Why don't you chaps interested in that sort of thing toddle off into your wall things and leave us proper mountaineers to get on with BMC stuff.'

You ARE Bob Pettigrew and I claim my £50.

In reply to Andy Say:

No he is someone who played in the football match at Stoney (as reported in Crags), he looked dangerous on the pitch but not as dangerous as when he was soloing later at Curbar.

He was also one of the guys that set up Technitube

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Maybe we should try wedging it into a crack and seeing how many kN it can hold?

In reply to john arran:


That would be pretty much everyone on most indoor walls apart from the boulderers with their tops off completely.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Shit. I think i might have played. Crags team Vs Sheffield lads?

In reply to rocksol:


I completely agree with your sentiment but I don't think Doug has ever been BMC president?

In reply to Andy Say:

I agree that it would be a shame if this sordid episode should sully the reputation among climbers of such an accomplished mountaineer who has done so much for the mountain people of Nepal. But that is what is already happening, and will continue to happen as long as Doug persists in perpetuating his support for this motion, against all reason apparent from publicly available information. He could go a long way to redeeming the situation were he to withdraw support for the motion.

In reply to john arran:

Hi John,
I would really hope that people can rise above this and that they continue to recognise those mountaineering achievements for what they are: a pretty monumental legacy.
I know some folks who voted for leaving the EU. I don't automatically hate them as a consequence nor denigrate their past.

Although they are prats

In reply to rocksol:
I don't think criticising Doug Scott is remotely reprehensible. He's supported this motion, for apparently no reason except a long held grudge concerning the bogs at Harrison's, and apparently can't be bothered to defend his actions or rationale in print or person.

He's a great man who's done some big things, but come on


PS - my cut off for what the BMC does - does it have a grade? If not, Ramblers association . My point being everybody's opinion on where to split climbing will be different

In reply to rocksol:


Doug Scott has done many amazing things and I grew up reading his exploits. That has no influence on how I should react to his recent actions regarding this motion. Bring on the vote and let's see how the BMC membership thinks.

In reply to rocksol:


Genuinely got no idea what point you are trying to make. Who is subsidising who ? And what data 'must' the BMC have. Has anyone with a clipboard at a wall ever asked if you are a BMC member. Or at a crag for that matter?


I saw a comp at Cliffhanger - I think the top 4 women were Audrey Seguy, Leah Crane, Katy Whittaker and Mina Wooja-wooja. All 4 have pretty impressive outdoor records, 2 were BMC VPs and I'm pretty sure I've seen the other two at Peak area meetings

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Come on Chris, it is Mina Wuji-wuji.

What's Katy Whitt ever done on grit?

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Maybe that would be a good starting point for the 'how should the BMC engage with wall climbers?' problem...

In reply to captain paranoia:

I was just re-reading some of the stuff about the Motion and noticed the following bit from Leo Dickinson's letter to a club:

"The late Ian McNaught Davis held his nose in horror when he first got wind of the intentions of Marco Scolaris…"

So just to re-iterate a couple of facts. The UIAA got IOC recognition in 1993. Guess who became UIAA President in 1993, yes the one and only Ian McNaught Davis. Did Mac not think that getting recognition (and money for the UIAA and status for whoever was UIAA President) might eventually lead to actual games status. Shock horror. This is what Leo is referring to when in the mid '00's it became apparent that climbing might actually get into the Olympics.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I assume you didn't mean to reply to me specifically, as your post seems to bear no relation to mine...

In reply to captain paranoia:

No, don't worry, it was a generic 'reply to last post' as it wasn't really replying to anyone in particular. Maybe there needs to be a 'reply to thread' button.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

There is!

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


See bottom of the page: 'reply to topic'.

In reply to slab_happy:
I understand that the Alpine Club had a meeting last weekend to discuss a motion requesting a review of the work of the BMC. Does anyone here have anything to report from that meeting?

In reply to slab_happy:

As a matter of interest, does anyone know the procedure for this Motion. Does Bob or his appointed representative stand up and address the AGM; setting out the grounds for the Motion. Does anyone have the right of reply. Is there a time set aside for individuals to argue for and against?

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

This was mentioned at the peak meet last night. I gather the AC voted against the motion but I don't know the figures.

Bob P was invited to attend last night - he is a local and regular attendee in the past - but didn't show up

In reply to caver:


Yep, I would expect to hear Bob speak on the motion, a rebuttal from the accused - so presumably Rehan - and then I would expect the chair to throw it open to questions from the floor, doing their best to get a range of opinions. No idea how much time will be allocated but there's not much else on the agenda. Once the arguments get a bit repetitive the chair calls for a vote.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Out of interest, does anyone know if any of the MONC signatories have shown up at any area meetings?

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:


Dave Turnbull reported at the Peak Area Meeting last night on this and other things as follows: The EGM meeting on Saturday was far more positive towards the BMC and the Exec than Dave anticipated. Pettigrew was there too. The review was already instigated by National Council with the focus is on governance. The Chair of the Independent review is likely to be Ray Wrigglesworth a retired QC and judge who although a climber (did the Bat on the Ben in 1972) is entirely independent as he has never had an involvement with the BMC or I understand been a member. He also has the advantage of living within 30 mins drive of the BMC office as well as being keen and available.

In reply to slab_happy:

There was one at the Peak Area Meeting whose short speech did nothing to clarify the situation, not even his own standpoint.

In reply to johncook:
Ah, I'm guessing this would be the person who mentioned being "involved with the MONC" (and having phoned Dave Turnbull about it) and "in the middle of it" in some way? I genuinely couldn't understand if he was supporting it or against it, or what he was trying to say; I didn't catch his name and didn't realize he was a signatory.

ETA: I have difficulty with auditory processing in crowded rooms, so sometimes inability to follow things can just be me. In this case, I'm guessing not?

In reply to Offwidth:

Peak area meet (other people please correct my memory): Bob Pettigrew did not put in an appearance, despite its being his local area and his having been specifically invited.

Dave Turnbull plus others speaking from the floor tried to explain just how devastating the MONC passing would be.

The exact timeline of the rebranding process (domain name registration included) and why possible name change hadn't been mentioned at the previous AGM (because it hadn't yet even been to the National Council for discussion) was explained -- everyone seemed pretty satisfied by this, it seemed.

Everyone was begged to vote, and not to relax and not bother because it seems like everyone on UKC is against it so it must all be fine. Brexit was alluded to.

"Long boring forum threads" were mentioned ...

The most damning thing said was by someone who expressed their opinion that Bob Pettigrew was *entirely* aware of exactly what the MONC passing would do to the BMC.

In reply to slab_happy:

It was Mark Vallance (Sp?). He was not easy to hear, even from close up.

In reply to ukb shark:


'A review of governance was requested by the National Council. At present no progress has been made an no Chair has yet been appointed' might be more accurate?

In reply to johncook:


Yet another nonentity who has done nothing for British Climbing. PS - he doesn't talk loud because of his illness.

In reply to slab_happy:

Interestingly (to me) i was looking at a book on governance* and it opened at 'Dealing with problems'!
'Conflict most often arises because of:
Differences of perception, opinion or belief about power and authority (who's in control) and the vision, aims and priorities (of the organisation)'.
Resolution?
Each person should be heard and allowed to explain their side.
Discussion should focus on facts rather than speculation and hearsay.
Avoid attributing personal motives, or making personal attacks on the other parties.
Encourage all? to search for a solution that is in the interests of the organisation.
*I read some weird shit, me

In reply to Andy Say:

I think Mark should be applauded for at least having the courage to turn up and speak, particularly given his state of health. Unfortunately he didn't really shed any light on why he choose to support the motion.

In reply to Andy Say:


Unfortunately, speculation and hearsay (and leaked emails) are pretty much all we have to go on given the motion's proposers' silence.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

So that's one of the 30 who was unable to explain his reasons, another (Steve W) whose support for the MONC is based on an incorrect understanding of the process of registering domain names, another (Doug S) who seems mainly concerned about an ancient spat over toilets, and the proposer (Bob P) who just doesn't like competition climbing and wishes it would go away. Unless i've missed/misunderstood something?
I am genuinely trying to keep an open mind about all this but every new thing I hear/read just strengthens my impression that the actions of the 30 are about on a par with the Father Ted 'Down with this sort of thing' protest - as I said on another thread - but unfortunately with the potential to be much more damaging.

In reply to slab_happy:


Yes, that would be an entirely accurate recollection of the meeting.

In reply to Andy Say:

I dunno. It would be less informative to say that. I wasn't at National Council and you weren't there to hear Dave speak. I'm not a stenographer though. I have low standards and approximately right in this medium is good enough. Whether he used the word 'requested' or 'instigated' is the kind of differentiation that I don't miss one bit from when I was on National Council

In reply to Andy Say:

I didn't intend to infer anything else. I just stated that Mark was hard to hear, even from close up. It was not really a problem with slab-happy's hearing in this instance.
I thought Mark was brave to try to defend the stance of the MONC 30, especially given his health problems, and admire him greatly for his efforts.

In reply to Andy Say:


That seems unnecessarily leading, since it could be read as suggesting that *despite* the National Council's request, there has mysteriously been zero progress, and that a Chair should really have been appointed by now but hasn't been, thus leading one to the suspicion that the whole thing is being stalled or blocked.

Whereas in fact we know that almost everything in the BMC has ground to a halt because everyone's time is being consumed by fending off the MONC (in the interests of the organization surviving the next few years *at all*). That given, the fact that a potential Chair has been found (and one who appears to have a rather rare set of credentials) seems like distinct progress.

Setting up a review can't be done overnight, and finding the right person to chair it is crucial.

In reply to Andy Say:

Er ... he just invented Friends, that's all.

He was also part of the team that built The Foundry, the first really good climbing wall in Britain.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Um, I think Andy was being ironic, Gordon.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Hope so.

Worth reiterating anyway, in case some people don't know. His book's an interesting read too.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

In the current context, he is also a former president of the BMC.

In reply to slab_happy:

Some ToRs have been drafted and will be sent to the NC shortly, for discussion and hopefully agreement.

In reply to Andy Say:

His achievements are monumental and lasting, and as Chris said much kudos to him for being willing to show up and speak.

And I think he did communicate concern and what I took as some sadness about the MONC; he's clearly not doing this for sh*ts and giggles.

However, if he was offering reasons to support the MONC, I genuinely wasn't able to follow what they were (as I said, I actually didn't know at the time if he was speaking for or against it). That's not intended as any kind of snark or mockery of him; it's a literal statement.

Maybe it made more sense to people who already know him and have had discussions with him about it before (he'd obviously spoken to Dave Turnbull about it at some point, for example)? But it doesn't seem to have come across to people not already privy to that context.

In reply to NickK123:

"ToRs"? I'm guessing Terms of Review, or something like that?

In reply to slab_happy:

Oui - Terms of Reference but Review works as well!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Friends were invented by an American. Mark just manufactured them.

I still like him, but not his current stance on the MONC.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

As someone said, he didn't invent Friends he just manufactured and marketed them. And invested of course.

And he didn't invent the Foundry (that was Jim Kelly and Paul Reeve) he just invested and marketed.

Whether that means he is a luminary, well I don't know

In reply to johncook:


Ex NASA engineer, lightweight backpacking pioneer, and all-round fruitarian loon, Ray Jardine.

In reply to captain paranoia:

That's what I thought. It seemed so obvious I was starting to think I'd maybe got it wrong somehow.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Sorry if I was a bit 'opaque' Gordon. I was trying to gently mock the line of many posts on these threads. If you disagree with the no confidence motion the first stage of discussion is personal denigration.

In reply to NickK123:

Thanks -- nice to hear things are progressing on that front, despite everything.

In reply to Andy Say:

Utter rubbish, there has been remarkably little personal denigration of the "30" and it is most certainly not the main thrust of the argument against their destructive and misguided motion.

In reply to johncook:

Because of his health issues Mark sometimes struggles to speak and stressful situations can make this much worse. This makes me even more pissed off with Bob and co that he was the only one of there to speak to the motion. I'm still very much hoping he and quite a few others have been duped. Doug and Bob have been very economical with the truth in reports back from meetings and the leaked letters and I'm sure can be very persuasive with their many long-standing friends... another reason why everyone who dislikes the motion and in particular the dishonest and secretive way it has been handled should make sure they vote. Patrons of the BMC, ex BMC presidents and those with BMC supported gongs shouldn't be carrying out a " shit and run" in the BMC house.

Thanks everyone for the feedback, even if it puts a small cloud in a sunny Cornwall sky.

In reply to Offwidth:

Like others I struggled to follow the gist of what Mark was saying (even though I could hear him perfectly). It certainly didn't seem at all clear to me that he was speaking in favour of the motion. From what he said I didn't realise at the time that he was one of the proposers, I could be wrong but I got the impression that he himself feels he was drawn into the whole thing somewhat against his will.

In reply to slab_happy:
I will start this post with the same disclaimer as my earlier one.
As an English member of a Scottish club I am only an outside observer of this process but I would like to offer a few more thoughts to the debate.
1. At the heart of this problem lies the question of what is the future role of the BMC. Is it going to remain simply a membership organisation that represents the interests of its members or is it going continue that role and take on an additional one of becoming a governing body for a 'sport' in order to fully embrace competition climbing and an Olympic future without losing any of its representative purpose? (My own view here is that the latter is the most desirable possible future for the BMC)
2. My interpretation of the MONC is that the proposer believes that only the first option is acceptable and it may be necessary to reset the organisation to achieve that outcome even if it creates a hiatus.
3. The BMC Exec take the view that the second future is the one they wish to pursue and have gone down that road without adequate engagement of the membership. Hence the Climb Britain turning into Climbdown Britain.
4. One way for the BMC to now achieve this transition is through a strategic review of its structure & governance. This will need a high level of leadership, skill & knowledge to deal with the legal issues and should be done by drawing on other expertise. In particular it must draw on the experience of other bodies that have gone through that transition and have learned lessons from it.
5. It seems that the BMC is committed to that review but for it be seen as valid amongst the wider membership the process needs to establish what they really want from the organisation in the future. Their views have to be taken into account.
6. The device of the MONC may indicate what the members do wish but it will be a devastating way to go about discovering it.
7. This discussion is being posted on a Climbing based forum and the balance of views seems to be very much against the MONC but the membership of the BMC is much wider and it cannot be taken for granted that the wider populus takes the same view in their votes.
8. I was once a BMC member before moving Up North and have a lot of respect for the many people who devote their own time to furthering its aims. It would be wrong to disavow their efforts by destruction rather than reconstruction of the BMC.
9. I really hope that the rare commodity of 'common sense' and 'stepping back from the brink' prevails on April 22nd.

PS I note that some of these comments are echoed in the parallel post 'What next for Bob Pettigrew?'

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Top post! Thank you. We need less heat and more thought.

In reply to slab_happy:

I have managed to track down one of the other signatories. Without going into names and details there was a similar sense of poorly focused dissatisfaction, a feeling that the BMC was heading in the wrong direction, that ordinary (trad) climbers were not the priority that they should be and that Scolaris is a Bad Man. He was approached by a 'friend' and felt that Bob was expressing similar views.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Excellent summary.

I've been asked to say a few words about this sorry affair at the MAM AGM today. I was thinking about how I was going to boil the whole thing down to something I could say in 5 minutes but I think you've nailed it - I'll just print this out!

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Bugger me, that's eerily familiar.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:


I disagree with this part.

It seems clear (from the numerous times that the process of re-branding has been discussed by Dave Turnbull and others at area meetings) that the attempted re-branding *didn't* have anything to do with competition climbing (or the Olympics or whatever).

And "Climb Britain" was endorsed enthusiastically by the National Council, which is made up primarily of the area reps and thus supposed to represent the membership.

Clearly there was a massive disconnect between that decision and what the wider membership turned out to feel about it, and there are very good reasons to look at decision-making processes so that similar things don't happen in future.

But it doesn't actually have anything to do with comps, or with the BMC Executive Committee deciding to become a "governing body".

As I understand it, in the sports sense, being a "governing body" would basically mean they would be officially in charge of the rules for indoor climbing comps. It doesn't have anything to do with the "governance" of the BMC, or how they do or don't engage with the membership.

There are obviously legitimate questions to be sorted out about what it would mean if the BMC were to technically take on the role of a "governing body" in addition to its other roles.

But people keep on throwing "governing body" around as if it means that the BMC would be somehow "controlling" climbers.

And, as mentioned, as I understand it that had nothing to do with "Climb Britain" anyway.

In reply to slab_happy:

I agree with your disagreement with that part. I seem to remember there WAS consultation about taking on the role of supporting climbing in the Olympics, and all the areas were massively in favour? I always felt the opposition to the rebrand was just about the fact that the new name and logo seemed a bit naff, rather than any deeper fear over 'what it stood for'. But maybe that was just me...

In reply to slab_happy:
I don't really agree with point 6 either-or are the BMC really going to learn how the wider membership feels from this unfortunate exercise .

Still at least your (Keith) opinions are clearly and honestly expressed and that is to be applauded

In reply to ripper:
Perhaps I should have prefixed my comment on point 3 with 'It is my view that......etc'
I still believe that the re-branding was in part a preparation for the move towards a new role for the BMC in the light of the Olympics connection that would place competition climbing clearly in the category of a recognised sport. All my climbing is recreational - I have never competed so I don't refer to it as a sport. Even the limited 'sport' climbing I have done is in the same category.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:


You believe wrongly.
The rebrand was designed to broaden the BMC's appeal given that the scope of its members activities has broadened significantly. From mountaineers and rock climbers, to now being comp climbers to hillwalkers and everything in between. Competition climbing has long since been a recognised sport (the UIAA got IOC recognition - and funding - back in the early / mid 90s). It would have been hugely pointless exercise to go through the rebrand process if it was done in the manner and for the reasons you describe; the rebrand was voted on by NC almost 2 months before climbing got the olympic go ahead.

In reply to Ian W:
As I said in the first sentence of my full post I am an observer and based on what several people have now clarified it seems I got it wrong.
So I would withdraw point 3 'The BMC Exec take the view that the second future is the one they wish to pursue etc.
and replace it with:
The BMC Exec now wishes to explore new structures that allow it to accommodate the current & future needs of its members and embrace the new developments in the widening world of mountaineering.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Have a like.