This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
At the Peak Area meeting the other night, Rob Greenwood said he'd attempted, on a number of occasions, to contact Bob (the Peak being is his area) with the aim of getting him to explain his stance in public, and to give some much needed clarity to this no confidence motion. Despite his best efforts Bob didn't turn up or even reply to the messages.
It looks increasingly likely that the motion will be crushed. My questions is - should Bob resign his honorary membership as a consequence of a) the total rejection of his motion and b) the damage he has already caused to what is an incredibly proactive and effective organisation?
I'm sure that this has been done somewhere else but I can't face trawling through the threads...
It looks increasingly likely that the motion will be crushed. My questions is - should Bob resign his honorary membership as a consequence of a) the total rejection of his motion and b) the damage he has already caused to what is an incredibly proactive and effective organisation?
I'm sure that this has been done somewhere else but I can't face trawling through the threads...
32
2
In reply to Frank the Husky:
One of Bob's arguments is that the AGM ought to play a bigger part in deciding the direction of the BMC. It's a point which has been generally overlooked on these forums, but I think has more merit than any other of his rants. So at least he should be applauded for ensuring that year's AGM will have something to talk about !
And until the AGM, when I hope we - the ordinary membership - will finally get to hear his reasons, I don't think it's appropriate to discuss any consequences.
One of Bob's arguments is that the AGM ought to play a bigger part in deciding the direction of the BMC. It's a point which has been generally overlooked on these forums, but I think has more merit than any other of his rants. So at least he should be applauded for ensuring that year's AGM will have something to talk about !
And until the AGM, when I hope we - the ordinary membership - will finally get to hear his reasons, I don't think it's appropriate to discuss any consequences.
3
4
In reply to Frank the Husky:
A couple of people (including me) have already said this, and I would include Doug Scott in this. They knew what they were doing, I dont think they thought through the consequences properly, and probably misjudged the general mood abot as badly as national council did when voting for the rebrand (ironically....). My reason for thinking they should be relieved of their hon. positions is because of the way they have gone about the whole matter, including continuing to spread malicious lies when it had already been proven to them that they were wrong.
A couple of people (including me) have already said this, and I would include Doug Scott in this. They knew what they were doing, I dont think they thought through the consequences properly, and probably misjudged the general mood abot as badly as national council did when voting for the rebrand (ironically....). My reason for thinking they should be relieved of their hon. positions is because of the way they have gone about the whole matter, including continuing to spread malicious lies when it had already been proven to them that they were wrong.
12
1
In reply to Frank the Husky:
I wouldn't count on the motion being crushed, or even defeated. I think at this point our energies are better put into encouraging everyone who has a vote to actually use it to vote against the amendment.
I wouldn't count on the motion being crushed, or even defeated. I think at this point our energies are better put into encouraging everyone who has a vote to actually use it to vote against the amendment.
26
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Let's please ensure that the MONC *does* totally crushed first. After Brexit and Trump, I'm not counting any chickens ...
To be honest, I'm somewhat terrified. I think a lot of people (possibly including some of the signatories) probably think of the MONC as a slap on the wrist for the Executive Committee, and have absolutely no clue how devastating it would be to the running of the organization and its credibility and reputation.
If the MONC was passed, I genuinely think the BMC might not survive the next five years (not as a functioning organization which could represent British climbers, anyway). I don't want to scaremonger, but this is my real fear.
Let's please ensure that the MONC *does* totally crushed first. After Brexit and Trump, I'm not counting any chickens ...
To be honest, I'm somewhat terrified. I think a lot of people (possibly including some of the signatories) probably think of the MONC as a slap on the wrist for the Executive Committee, and have absolutely no clue how devastating it would be to the running of the organization and its credibility and reputation.
If the MONC was passed, I genuinely think the BMC might not survive the next five years (not as a functioning organization which could represent British climbers, anyway). I don't want to scaremonger, but this is my real fear.
20
In reply to Capricorn One:
Neil Foster made this very point and I agree with you. We don't want another Brexit style surprise. I have voted against the motion and I hope everyone else will too.
Neil Foster made this very point and I agree with you. We don't want another Brexit style surprise. I have voted against the motion and I hope everyone else will too.
6
In reply to Chris the Tall: If Bob hasn't been able to explain his reasoning to date, he won't be able to do so on the day. The guy isn't keeping back any coherent arguments to surpise us with, and we all know that.
His motion is a convoluted piece of circularity that never gets to the point and is filled with misconceptions and falsehoods.
I think it's entirely appropriate to suggest that he walks the plank and resigns!
His motion is a convoluted piece of circularity that never gets to the point and is filled with misconceptions and falsehoods.
I think it's entirely appropriate to suggest that he walks the plank and resigns!
14
In reply to Chris the Tall:
How many members are there? 80,000? where are they going to hold an AGM which can accomodate all those? Wembley? Or will it end up as a teeny weeny number of people wielding a disproportionate influence by being able to get to every meeting?
We're in the 21st century now, who knows we could even have internet voting on important stuff...
> One of Bob's arguments is that the AGM ought to play a bigger part in deciding the direction of the BMC. It's a point which has been generally overlooked on these forums, but I think has more merit than any other of his rants. So at least he should be applauded for ensuring that year's AGM will have something to talk about !And until the AGM, when I hope we - the ordinary membership - will finally get to hear his reasons, I don't think it's appropriate to discuss any consequences.
How many members are there? 80,000? where are they going to hold an AGM which can accomodate all those? Wembley? Or will it end up as a teeny weeny number of people wielding a disproportionate influence by being able to get to every meeting?
We're in the 21st century now, who knows we could even have internet voting on important stuff...
12
In reply to slab_happy:
That's my guess, that it was thought that a MONC was a way of expressing disaffection and not something that would set in train a formal set of procedures and consequences.
One of the lessons learned from this is that there needs to be a way for ordinary BMC members, and others more elevated too, to express a grievance and get that grievance listened to and discussed in public where appropriate. A MONC may be a form of words that someone has heard without fully understanding, or may be familiar with from other arenas such as being in a branch of a union but where the procedures and consequences are different.
Someone should sit down and try and capture all the lessons that might be taken from this, work through them and then report back on what was learned, what's already been done about it and what's going to be done in the future. Whether this should trickle down to ordinary members at the first step is a point worthy of discussion, but it should certainly feature at branch meetings at an early stage.
T.
> I think a lot of people (possibly including some of the signatories) probably think of the MONC as a slap on the wrist for the Executive Committee, and have absolutely no clue how devastating it would be to the running of the organization and its credibility and reputation.
That's my guess, that it was thought that a MONC was a way of expressing disaffection and not something that would set in train a formal set of procedures and consequences.
One of the lessons learned from this is that there needs to be a way for ordinary BMC members, and others more elevated too, to express a grievance and get that grievance listened to and discussed in public where appropriate. A MONC may be a form of words that someone has heard without fully understanding, or may be familiar with from other arenas such as being in a branch of a union but where the procedures and consequences are different.
Someone should sit down and try and capture all the lessons that might be taken from this, work through them and then report back on what was learned, what's already been done about it and what's going to be done in the future. Whether this should trickle down to ordinary members at the first step is a point worthy of discussion, but it should certainly feature at branch meetings at an early stage.
T.
2
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
I'm pretty sure that in the case of BP those benefits of the doubt certainly would not apply. He has huge experience and knowledge of political matter affecting the BMC.
The biggest issue for me is the fact that he apparently has been reluctant to circulate to all BMC members (the electorate) a document fully explaining his reasoning. It must be very clear to him that those attending the AGM can only realistically be a tiny subset of members, so he's deliberately choosing to keep in the dark many of those members who can't attend. This, to my mind, whatever merit his motion may or may not have, or whatever arguments he comes up with on the day, is completely inexcusable.
> A MONC may be a form of words that someone has heard without fully understanding, or may be familiar with from other arenas such as being in a branch of a union but where the procedures and consequences are different.
I'm pretty sure that in the case of BP those benefits of the doubt certainly would not apply. He has huge experience and knowledge of political matter affecting the BMC.
The biggest issue for me is the fact that he apparently has been reluctant to circulate to all BMC members (the electorate) a document fully explaining his reasoning. It must be very clear to him that those attending the AGM can only realistically be a tiny subset of members, so he's deliberately choosing to keep in the dark many of those members who can't attend. This, to my mind, whatever merit his motion may or may not have, or whatever arguments he comes up with on the day, is completely inexcusable.
19
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
But Bob did have that, at the AGM last year, he's said as much himself.
In response to John's remark, he's been given plenty of opportunities to do so, I personally asked him to do so and instead he chose to explain the very circular convoluted logic to me directly, it was sufficiently circular that I wouldn't be able to explain it to anyone else as I simply didn't understand all of it, the way he's gone about the whole thing is completely inexcusable.
But Bob did have that, at the AGM last year, he's said as much himself.
In response to John's remark, he's been given plenty of opportunities to do so, I personally asked him to do so and instead he chose to explain the very circular convoluted logic to me directly, it was sufficiently circular that I wouldn't be able to explain it to anyone else as I simply didn't understand all of it, the way he's gone about the whole thing is completely inexcusable.
9
In reply to john arran and spenser:
I bow to your superior knowledge, chaps; though thanks for reading my post.
T.
I bow to your superior knowledge, chaps; though thanks for reading my post.
T.
In reply to Frank the Husky:
No. That isn't how democracy works. Everyone has a right to raise a MONC and If the motion is defeated, its defeated and that is the end of it.
> My questions is - should Bob resign his honorary membership ....
No. That isn't how democracy works. Everyone has a right to raise a MONC and If the motion is defeated, its defeated and that is the end of it.
10
9
In reply to slab_happy:
^^ Very much this. ^^
Please let's not be complacent, we all need to get those proxy votes in!
> Let's please ensure that the MONC *does* totally crushed first. After Brexit and Trump, I'm not counting any chickens ...To be honest, I'm somewhat terrified.
^^ Very much this. ^^
Please let's not be complacent, we all need to get those proxy votes in!
9
In reply to GrahamD:
It's nothing to do with democracy, you misunderstand the situation. It's about someone who has already damaged the organisation - and who refuses to explain himself publicly - accepting that his MoNC was ill conceived as well as riddled with errors and falsehoods. He hasn't offered any constructive way forward and that's a mark of someone who doesn't have the best interests of the BMC at heart. Chuck a bomb in and walk away seems to have been his approach. He should walk the slippery plank!
It's nothing to do with democracy, you misunderstand the situation. It's about someone who has already damaged the organisation - and who refuses to explain himself publicly - accepting that his MoNC was ill conceived as well as riddled with errors and falsehoods. He hasn't offered any constructive way forward and that's a mark of someone who doesn't have the best interests of the BMC at heart. Chuck a bomb in and walk away seems to have been his approach. He should walk the slippery plank!
17
3
In reply to deepsoup:
Or turn up to the AGM, listen to the arguments, defeat them with your responses and then vote.
> ^^ Very much this. ^^ Please let's not be complacent, we all need to get those proxy votes in!
Or turn up to the AGM, listen to the arguments, defeat them with your responses and then vote.
3
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Is it possible to propose a Motion of No Confidence in the Motion of No Confidence?
... And if so, can I pre-emptively propose a MONCITMONCITMONCITMONC against the inevitable response?
Is it possible to propose a Motion of No Confidence in the Motion of No Confidence?
... And if so, can I pre-emptively propose a MONCITMONCITMONCITMONC against the inevitable response?
4
In reply to Frank the Husky:
What Doug and Bob have done, especially given their status in the organisation, does make their positions look really untenable. It's beyond belief that genuine critical friends could not have used a less nuclear option and a more honest approach.
I agree totally with your point that any potential resignations have nothing to do with the submission of a MoNC but with the dishonest, secretive, delayed, and potentially highly destructive way they have handled this. Something alledgedly this serious should have been dealt with at an EGM (with full public papers in advance) half a year back. This is no harmless procedural wrist slap issue: if they succeed, the exec will pretty much have to resign and Dave's job has gone.
Like others I think it's best we hold off until after the AGM when we will know they haven't withdrawn it and the full information is available. One wonders if Bob will turn up... Doug seemingly already wants to be elsewhere. They are behaving like shits who have shat and run.
I think the process around MoNC in the BMC needs to be tightened considerably after this AGM. No longer can we allow climbing 'names' to hide in the shadows and behave in this way. We need a full briefing paper from both sides on a fixed length that contains enough information to inform members properly. What we have right now is a motion 6 months late that says almost nothing; but in the background we have clearly dishonest lengthy briefings (some in the public view only thanks to leaks) and given this, almost certainly the dirty AGM 'democracy' of an unknown but likely large numbers of proxy votes in support of the motion from duped members.
What Doug and Bob have done, especially given their status in the organisation, does make their positions look really untenable. It's beyond belief that genuine critical friends could not have used a less nuclear option and a more honest approach.
I agree totally with your point that any potential resignations have nothing to do with the submission of a MoNC but with the dishonest, secretive, delayed, and potentially highly destructive way they have handled this. Something alledgedly this serious should have been dealt with at an EGM (with full public papers in advance) half a year back. This is no harmless procedural wrist slap issue: if they succeed, the exec will pretty much have to resign and Dave's job has gone.
Like others I think it's best we hold off until after the AGM when we will know they haven't withdrawn it and the full information is available. One wonders if Bob will turn up... Doug seemingly already wants to be elsewhere. They are behaving like shits who have shat and run.
I think the process around MoNC in the BMC needs to be tightened considerably after this AGM. No longer can we allow climbing 'names' to hide in the shadows and behave in this way. We need a full briefing paper from both sides on a fixed length that contains enough information to inform members properly. What we have right now is a motion 6 months late that says almost nothing; but in the background we have clearly dishonest lengthy briefings (some in the public view only thanks to leaks) and given this, almost certainly the dirty AGM 'democracy' of an unknown but likely large numbers of proxy votes in support of the motion from duped members.
Post edited at 19:29
22
2
In reply to Andy Hardy:
That appears to be Bob's intention. Even if his arguments had any merit, his approach is despicable, and a crushing defeat is the only outcome any reasonable person can hope for.
But if he is crushingly defeated, I don't see that vindictiveness afterwards would serve any useful purpose.
> Or will it end up as a teeny weeny number of people wielding a disproportionate influence by being able to get to every meeting?
That appears to be Bob's intention. Even if his arguments had any merit, his approach is despicable, and a crushing defeat is the only outcome any reasonable person can hope for.
But if he is crushingly defeated, I don't see that vindictiveness afterwards would serve any useful purpose.
9
In reply to Andy Say:
Well indeed (if we charitably assume for a moment that the proposers of this motion will have developed some coherent arguments by then).
But it's not an option for me, nor for a substantial majority of the BMC's membership. Those of us who do not normally attend BMC meetings, those of us who do not normally vote, need to vote on this.
My proxy vote is already in. I've never voted at a BMC AGM before, but then as long as I've been interested in climbing I don't think there's been a vote as important as this before.
> Or turn up to the AGM, listen to the arguments, defeat them with your responses and then vote.
Well indeed (if we charitably assume for a moment that the proposers of this motion will have developed some coherent arguments by then).
But it's not an option for me, nor for a substantial majority of the BMC's membership. Those of us who do not normally attend BMC meetings, those of us who do not normally vote, need to vote on this.
My proxy vote is already in. I've never voted at a BMC AGM before, but then as long as I've been interested in climbing I don't think there's been a vote as important as this before.
6
In reply to AlanLittle:
I think any action needs to be taken in full face of the facts, its embarrassing in the extreme for such a serious move, that we still don't know what they are. It's certainly not vindictive to act on really bad behaviour otherwise we would be letting off most of our minor criminals (speeding offences etc). A patron and honorary members of the BMC who have already been clearly dishonest and dishonestly secretive and cost the organisation many thousands of pounds in staff time and goodness knows how much volunteer time and to no clear useful end, when a governance review is already in place. I'd say such has to be called what it almost certainly is: serious and dishonest vidictiveness towards the Exec and will likely deserve some proportionate response, and I'd like the leaders of the 29 to think on that as a potential consequence if the motion doesn't get pulled.
I think any action needs to be taken in full face of the facts, its embarrassing in the extreme for such a serious move, that we still don't know what they are. It's certainly not vindictive to act on really bad behaviour otherwise we would be letting off most of our minor criminals (speeding offences etc). A patron and honorary members of the BMC who have already been clearly dishonest and dishonestly secretive and cost the organisation many thousands of pounds in staff time and goodness knows how much volunteer time and to no clear useful end, when a governance review is already in place. I'd say such has to be called what it almost certainly is: serious and dishonest vidictiveness towards the Exec and will likely deserve some proportionate response, and I'd like the leaders of the 29 to think on that as a potential consequence if the motion doesn't get pulled.
Post edited at 19:46
9
I want to put a proxy vote in but feel I don't have the information required.
I have read the legal note that came with the vote form but wondered if anyone has any written information on what makes these guys think that there are reasonable grounds to call such an extreme motion.
Does this all boil down to Robert Pettigrew et al really not liking the 'Climb Britain' thing. There must be more to it.
I have read the legal note that came with the vote form but wondered if anyone has any written information on what makes these guys think that there are reasonable grounds to call such an extreme motion.
Does this all boil down to Robert Pettigrew et al really not liking the 'Climb Britain' thing. There must be more to it.
1
In reply to Fobbit169:
A successful motion of no confidence will cost the exec their jobs (most of whom are volunteers and some of whom have little to do with the rebrand) and significant damage thereafter. In such serious circumstances if those bringing the motion can't bring forward a clear and coherent case in public, its both fair and logical to vote against it. Given Bob and co have been collecting proxy votes based on lies and misinformation (see the attached letters earlier in these threads) its important people do vote in support of the exex if they care about honesty and democracy in the organisation.
A successful motion of no confidence will cost the exec their jobs (most of whom are volunteers and some of whom have little to do with the rebrand) and significant damage thereafter. In such serious circumstances if those bringing the motion can't bring forward a clear and coherent case in public, its both fair and logical to vote against it. Given Bob and co have been collecting proxy votes based on lies and misinformation (see the attached letters earlier in these threads) its important people do vote in support of the exex if they care about honesty and democracy in the organisation.
10
In reply to deepsoup:
Like you I have also sent my proxy vote in having never voted at a BMC AGM before.
Also there is now another long rambling letter that has been sent to AC members written by one of the above mentioned proposers of the MONC.
It's starting to look like a farce.
Like you I have also sent my proxy vote in having never voted at a BMC AGM before.
Also there is now another long rambling letter that has been sent to AC members written by one of the above mentioned proposers of the MONC.
It's starting to look like a farce.
4
In reply to Fobbit169:
The topic at https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660614 has a letter from Bob Pettigrew, which he seems to have refused to provide to the BMC to distribute but then asked Rob Greenwood to distribute, so it seems fair to treat it as a public statement, or at least the nearest to one we're going to get.
There's also this, from another of the signatories:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660774
(Someone at the Peak area meeting who said they work with domain names a lot was expressing shock that possible URLs had been registered so *late* in the process.)
Oh, there was also Leo Dickinson's letter which was very briefly posted on the Vagabond Club's website before it abruptly disappeared again, which may or may not be related to various people commenting on some rather huge factual inaccuracies in it.
The topic at https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660614 has a letter from Bob Pettigrew, which he seems to have refused to provide to the BMC to distribute but then asked Rob Greenwood to distribute, so it seems fair to treat it as a public statement, or at least the nearest to one we're going to get.
There's also this, from another of the signatories:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660774
(Someone at the Peak area meeting who said they work with domain names a lot was expressing shock that possible URLs had been registered so *late* in the process.)
Oh, there was also Leo Dickinson's letter which was very briefly posted on the Vagabond Club's website before it abruptly disappeared again, which may or may not be related to various people commenting on some rather huge factual inaccuracies in it.
Post edited at 20:14
3
In reply to bonebag:
The one by Doug Scott (it was leaked and someone posted it in the "Bob Pettigrew speaks" topic, fairly near the end, I think)? Or has there been *another* long rambling letter to AC members?
> Also there is now another long rambling letter that has been sent to AC members written by one of the above mentioned proposers of the MONC.
The one by Doug Scott (it was leaked and someone posted it in the "Bob Pettigrew speaks" topic, fairly near the end, I think)? Or has there been *another* long rambling letter to AC members?
1
In reply to slab_happy:
The factual inaccuracies in Leo's letter do match those in Bobs and Dougs rather closely.......
The factual inaccuracies in Leo's letter do match those in Bobs and Dougs rather closely.......
3
In reply to Fobbit169:
It IS deeper than the rebrand farrago. I think a great deal of this is to do with where the power lies in the BMC. Is it a representative body directed by its (active) membership where the AGM is an opportunity for ordinary folks to actually make a difference? Is it a governing body that has an Executive that decides what will be done for the members?
The BMC is experiencing severe growing pains; some prompted by increased funding leading to a much wider spread of activity. This is reflective of the growing pains experienced by the climbing community; i mean bouldering, what is that all about
So much as some would like this just to be about Bob Pettigrews hatred of the ISCF or Doug Scott's objections to toilets it isn't! It is about how the BMC is 'governed'.
> Does this all boil down to Robert Pettigrew et al really not liking the 'Climb Britain' thing. There must be more to it.
It IS deeper than the rebrand farrago. I think a great deal of this is to do with where the power lies in the BMC. Is it a representative body directed by its (active) membership where the AGM is an opportunity for ordinary folks to actually make a difference? Is it a governing body that has an Executive that decides what will be done for the members?
The BMC is experiencing severe growing pains; some prompted by increased funding leading to a much wider spread of activity. This is reflective of the growing pains experienced by the climbing community; i mean bouldering, what is that all about
So much as some would like this just to be about Bob Pettigrews hatred of the ISCF or Doug Scott's objections to toilets it isn't! It is about how the BMC is 'governed'.
Post edited at 20:31
3
3
In reply to Frank the Husky:
I think someone (possibly Dave Turnbull?) made the point that forum threads like this only involve a tiny percentage of BMC members. It may look like almost everyone is against the MONC, but we're a very small (and not necessarily at all representative) sample.
So assuming on the basis of a UKC thread or several that the tide of voting will be safely against the MONC is very dangerous.
Also (and this is strictly my take, not anything Dave Turnbull said), it looks like that there's been a lot of soliciting of votes by Pettigrew and others "behind closed doors", within clubs and in forums where things can't necessarily be fact-checked. I have no idea how many proxy votes have been acquired that way.
I think someone (possibly Dave Turnbull?) made the point that forum threads like this only involve a tiny percentage of BMC members. It may look like almost everyone is against the MONC, but we're a very small (and not necessarily at all representative) sample.
So assuming on the basis of a UKC thread or several that the tide of voting will be safely against the MONC is very dangerous.
Also (and this is strictly my take, not anything Dave Turnbull said), it looks like that there's been a lot of soliciting of votes by Pettigrew and others "behind closed doors", within clubs and in forums where things can't necessarily be fact-checked. I have no idea how many proxy votes have been acquired that way.
3
In reply to Offwidth:
So. About Aldery Cliff......
> It's certainly not vindictive to act on really bad behaviour otherwise we would be letting off most of our minor criminals (speeding offences etc).
So. About Aldery Cliff......
4
In reply to Andy Say:
Do you seriously think it would be better governed by secretive little cliques drumming up support among their old mates in the clubs while studiously avoiding any form of public discussion with the wider membership?
Do you seriously think it would be better governed by secretive little cliques drumming up support among their old mates in the clubs while studiously avoiding any form of public discussion with the wider membership?
Post edited at 20:44
11
In reply to Fobbit169:
Honestly, I suggest you have a look at Pettigrew's letter (and Steve Woollard's post), and the various ensuing comments for fact-checking, and draw your own conclusions. That's what they've chosen to put out there.
There's also Doug Scott's letter to members of the Alpine Club (which was leaked, and which someone posted -- I think near the bottom of the same thread as Bob Pettigrew's letter). Obviously whether you want to treat that as an official "public statement" or not is up to you.
> Does this all boil down to Robert Pettigrew et al really not liking the 'Climb Britain' thing. There must be more to it.
Honestly, I suggest you have a look at Pettigrew's letter (and Steve Woollard's post), and the various ensuing comments for fact-checking, and draw your own conclusions. That's what they've chosen to put out there.
There's also Doug Scott's letter to members of the Alpine Club (which was leaked, and which someone posted -- I think near the bottom of the same thread as Bob Pettigrew's letter). Obviously whether you want to treat that as an official "public statement" or not is up to you.
1
In reply to Andy Say:
Your point would come across as far more informed if you at least got the name of the IFSC right. It might look like it's about how the BMC is governed, but I think in reality it's just good old-fashioned 'this-isn't-what-climbing-was-in-my-day'.
> So much as some would like this just to be about Bob Pettigrews hatred of the ISCF or Doug Scott's objections to toilets it isn't! It is about how the BMC is 'governed'.
Your point would come across as far more informed if you at least got the name of the IFSC right. It might look like it's about how the BMC is governed, but I think in reality it's just good old-fashioned 'this-isn't-what-climbing-was-in-my-day'.
10
In reply to slab_happy:
Another one it seems sent today 7th April. Definitely different to the previous one as I have read them both. I'm not going to post it as I don't want to partake in all the skulldougery of it all.
Another one it seems sent today 7th April. Definitely different to the previous one as I have read them both. I'm not going to post it as I don't want to partake in all the skulldougery of it all.
1
In reply to bonebag:
But don't you think that sending it out to just a selected subset of the electorate is itself the skulduggery? Surely if people are going to vote on a motion, it's only fair that they all have access to the full information available to others. Otherwise we'll end up with a Brexit-type situation where people are voting for all sorts of different reasons, nobody will end up getting what they want, and we'll all be worse off as a result.
> I'm not going to post it as I don't want to partake in all the skulldougery of it all.
But don't you think that sending it out to just a selected subset of the electorate is itself the skulduggery? Surely if people are going to vote on a motion, it's only fair that they all have access to the full information available to others. Otherwise we'll end up with a Brexit-type situation where people are voting for all sorts of different reasons, nobody will end up getting what they want, and we'll all be worse off as a result.
4
In reply to Andy Say:
'Is it a representative body directed by its (active) membership where the AGM is an opportunity for ordinary folks to actually make a difference? Is it a governing body [For a rapidly developing Sport] that has an Executive that decides what will be done for the members [Alongside its role as a representative body]?' [My additions KR]
.... or can it find a way of being both?
PS How do you put an extract from someone else's post in a new post please? I have copied & pasted but there must be a proper way.
'Is it a representative body directed by its (active) membership where the AGM is an opportunity for ordinary folks to actually make a difference? Is it a governing body [For a rapidly developing Sport] that has an Executive that decides what will be done for the members [Alongside its role as a representative body]?' [My additions KR]
.... or can it find a way of being both?
PS How do you put an extract from someone else's post in a new post please? I have copied & pasted but there must be a proper way.
Post edited at 21:41
2
In reply to AlanLittle:
Did I say that? Where?
I tried to explain where I think the 'fault lines' lie that is all.
> Do you seriously think it would be better governed by secretive little cliques drumming up support among their old mates in the clubs while studiously avoiding any form of public discussion with the wider membership?
Did I say that? Where?
I tried to explain where I think the 'fault lines' lie that is all.
In reply to Andy Say:
If so, the question that we're currently looking at seems to be: does it lie with a small and select group of clubs, or does it lie with the members of the BMC as a whole, with whom (if we're not members of the right clubs) Bob Pettigrew has so resolutely refused to engage?
Yes.
It does not follow from the previous that only the tiny minority of people who can physically make it to the AGM should be allowed to "make a difference".
It has an Executive Committee who I believe are are variously elected, appointed by the elected officers (e.g the CEO), or in a few cases appointed by the National Council, because that's how it's currently set up.
And may I point out that it was the National Council (made up primarily of the area reps from the "active membership") who made the ill-fated decision about the re-branding for which the Executive Committee are now being punished?
The BMC *may* in future take on some aspects of a "governing body" in sports terms when it comes to *deciding the rules of indoor climbing competitions* -- that doesn't mean it's going to suddenly start "governing" climbers as a whole, nor that the "Executive" is a terrifying Stalinist dictatorship.
Climbing. It's that thing we do when we're not arguing on the internet. *g*
Even if some of us persist in doing it on rocks of insufficient size, or even sometimes on plastic.
Yes, there are absolutely growing pains the BMC has to deal with, and difficult issues involved in how to handle the Olympics, etc., and the review seems like a good and healthy thing to be doing.
But the MONC is the equivalent of "Growing pains? LET'S SAW YOUR LEGS OFF AND LET YOU BLEED OUT, THAT'LL SORT IT OUT."
> I think a great deal of this is to do with where the power lies in the BMC.
If so, the question that we're currently looking at seems to be: does it lie with a small and select group of clubs, or does it lie with the members of the BMC as a whole, with whom (if we're not members of the right clubs) Bob Pettigrew has so resolutely refused to engage?
> Is it a representative body directed by its (active) membership
Yes.
> where the AGM is an opportunity for ordinary folks to actually make a difference?
It does not follow from the previous that only the tiny minority of people who can physically make it to the AGM should be allowed to "make a difference".
> Is it a governing body that has an Executive that decides what will be done for the members?
It has an Executive Committee who I believe are are variously elected, appointed by the elected officers (e.g the CEO), or in a few cases appointed by the National Council, because that's how it's currently set up.
And may I point out that it was the National Council (made up primarily of the area reps from the "active membership") who made the ill-fated decision about the re-branding for which the Executive Committee are now being punished?
The BMC *may* in future take on some aspects of a "governing body" in sports terms when it comes to *deciding the rules of indoor climbing competitions* -- that doesn't mean it's going to suddenly start "governing" climbers as a whole, nor that the "Executive" is a terrifying Stalinist dictatorship.
> i mean bouldering, what is that all about
Climbing. It's that thing we do when we're not arguing on the internet. *g*
Even if some of us persist in doing it on rocks of insufficient size, or even sometimes on plastic.
Yes, there are absolutely growing pains the BMC has to deal with, and difficult issues involved in how to handle the Olympics, etc., and the review seems like a good and healthy thing to be doing.
But the MONC is the equivalent of "Growing pains? LET'S SAW YOUR LEGS OFF AND LET YOU BLEED OUT, THAT'LL SORT IT OUT."
5
In reply to GrahamD:
Tabling a MoNC is a clear indication that you do not support the organisation in the way it is currently managed. I would expect that any ordinary member so disaffected as to go down this nuclear route would immediately withdraw their membership if defeated. There presumably would be some equivalent course of action for honorary members, and I would hope that if the vote was convincingly against the motion then BP would do the honourable thing.
> No. That isn't how democracy works. Everyone has a right to raise a MONC and If the motion is defeated, its defeated and that is the end of it.
Tabling a MoNC is a clear indication that you do not support the organisation in the way it is currently managed. I would expect that any ordinary member so disaffected as to go down this nuclear route would immediately withdraw their membership if defeated. There presumably would be some equivalent course of action for honorary members, and I would hope that if the vote was convincingly against the motion then BP would do the honourable thing.
6
In reply to john arran:
I hate bloody acronyms.....
But don't you think, really, that there has to be more to this than geriatric petulance, John?
> Your point would come across as far more informed if you at least got the name of the IFSC right.
Touche! I hate bloody acronyms.....
But don't you think, really, that there has to be more to this than geriatric petulance, John?
In reply to Andy Say:
I would love to think there was more to it than that ... but I've yet to see any evidence of it. I base my judgement on what I read, not what I imagine may or may not be the case.
> Touche! I hate bloody acronyms.....But don't you think, really, that there has to be more to this than geriatric petulance, John?
I would love to think there was more to it than that ... but I've yet to see any evidence of it. I base my judgement on what I read, not what I imagine may or may not be the case.
4
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
You either click "Quote original" (and then delete any bits you don't want), or you can manually type in the rightwards-pointing arrow > at the start of a line to put it into italics:
N.B. There needs to be a space after the arrow or it doesn't work.
>this doesn't work
> PS How do you put an extract from someone else's post in a new post please? I have copied & pasted but there must be a proper way.
You either click "Quote original" (and then delete any bits you don't want), or you can manually type in the rightwards-pointing arrow > at the start of a line to put it into italics:
> like so, this is not a quote from anyone but I'm making it look like one as an example
N.B. There needs to be a space after the arrow or it doesn't work.
>this doesn't work
4
In reply to slab_happy:
Thanks for the beta.
Thanks for the beta.
1
In reply to john arran:
But if the National Council of the BMC itself has decided that there needs to be a review of the way the BMC is governed.....?
But if the National Council of the BMC itself has decided that there needs to be a review of the way the BMC is governed.....?
1
In reply to Andy Say:
The extremely disruptive MoNC was tabled after this was agreed. That tells me that BP was not prepared to trust the review and wanted regime change regardless. That much is unacceptable if the membership doesn't agree. Don't you think?
> But if the National Council of the BMC itself has decided that there needs to be a review of the way the BMC is governed.....?
The extremely disruptive MoNC was tabled after this was agreed. That tells me that BP was not prepared to trust the review and wanted regime change regardless. That much is unacceptable if the membership doesn't agree. Don't you think?
2
In reply to Andy Say:
Maybe you should learn what an acronym is then
The Quiff is an acronym for the Climbing Works International Festival.
IFSC is an abbreviation for the International Federation of Sport Climbing
> Touche! I hate bloody acronyms.....But don't you think, really, that there has to be more to this than geriatric petulance, John?
Maybe you should learn what an acronym is then
The Quiff is an acronym for the Climbing Works International Festival.
IFSC is an abbreviation for the International Federation of Sport Climbing
1
In reply to john arran:
Bob blames Marco for Alan's resignation. Simples. Whereas the reality was that Mac stuck his oar in and Josef had it in for Alan. Once again. Simples.
So yes Andy, geriatric petulance has a lot to do with it as well as wearing rose tinted specs. Read Alan's 'President's Report'
(edit - this was in reply to Andy not John)
Bob blames Marco for Alan's resignation. Simples. Whereas the reality was that Mac stuck his oar in and Josef had it in for Alan. Once again. Simples.
So yes Andy, geriatric petulance has a lot to do with it as well as wearing rose tinted specs. Read Alan's 'President's Report'
(edit - this was in reply to Andy not John)
Post edited at 22:17
3
In reply to john arran:
I agree with what you say John but in this case I hope you will take my word that there is no new information disclosed that we should know about.
It's actually a letter sent to the AC President which has been circulated to AC members. It contains no new revelations and is apologetic about some of what he has said about others.
I am a member of the AC and also a member of the BMC and probably gain more from the BMC. For what it's worth I think the MONC should never have been tabled in the first place after the BMC retracted the name change immediately.
I agree with what you say John but in this case I hope you will take my word that there is no new information disclosed that we should know about.
It's actually a letter sent to the AC President which has been circulated to AC members. It contains no new revelations and is apologetic about some of what he has said about others.
I am a member of the AC and also a member of the BMC and probably gain more from the BMC. For what it's worth I think the MONC should never have been tabled in the first place after the BMC retracted the name change immediately.
3
In reply to john arran:
Of course! I will be voting against the motion myself.
> That much is unacceptable if the membership doesn't agree. Don't you think?
Of course! I will be voting against the motion myself.
1
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
You've been drinking, Graeme.
> Maybe you should learn what an acronym is then The Quiff is an acronym for the Climbing Works International Festival.IFSC is an abbreviation for the International Federation of Sport Climbing
You've been drinking, Graeme.
4
In reply to Andy Say:
Of course I have Andy but not enough to not know that an acronym has to sound like a word. MLTE, BMC are abbreviations. NASCAR or NASA or CWIF (pronounced Quiff) are acronyms.
Of course I have Andy but not enough to not know that an acronym has to sound like a word. MLTE, BMC are abbreviations. NASCAR or NASA or CWIF (pronounced Quiff) are acronyms.
3
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Nope. Sorry but it really isn't.
> The Quiff is an acronym for the Climbing Works International Festival.
Nope. Sorry but it really isn't.
1
In reply to Oceanrower:
Sorry, the CWIF (pronounced Quiff) is an acronym for the C.W.I.F.
Is this not correct and if not why not?
Sorry, the CWIF (pronounced Quiff) is an acronym for the C.W.I.F.
Is this not correct and if not why not?
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
CWIF is an acronym, yes.
An acronym is an abbreviation that can be said as a word.
'UKC' for example is an abbreviation but not an acronym. IFSC the same.
So yes you were right, but writing 'quiff' didn't help you
Good old pedantism.
CWIF is an acronym, yes.
An acronym is an abbreviation that can be said as a word.
'UKC' for example is an abbreviation but not an acronym. IFSC the same.
So yes you were right, but writing 'quiff' didn't help you
Good old pedantism.
Post edited at 08:46
In reply to Graeme Alderson:
Yes, that is correct but
isn't.
Words matter
> Sorry, the CWIF (pronounced Quiff) is an acronym for the C.W.I.F. Is this not correct and if not why not?
Yes, that is correct but
> The Quiff is an acronym for the Climbing Works International Festival
isn't.
Words matter
Post edited at 09:11
1
3
In reply to Frank the Husky:
I don't think I have misunderstood. If their position doesn't stand scrutiny it will fail. Otherwise it actually has a ground swell of support and is legitimate. Either way it is the right of members to raise these objections and to try to suppress reinforces the view that the executive really isn't keeping in touch.
> It's nothing to do with democracy, you misunderstand the situation. It's about someone who has already damaged the organisation - and who refuses to explain himself publicly - accepting that his MoNC was ill conceived as well as riddled with errors and falsehoods. He hasn't offered any constructive way forward and that's a mark of someone who doesn't have the best interests of the BMC at heart. Chuck a bomb in and walk away seems to have been his approach. He should walk the slippery plank!
I don't think I have misunderstood. If their position doesn't stand scrutiny it will fail. Otherwise it actually has a ground swell of support and is legitimate. Either way it is the right of members to raise these objections and to try to suppress reinforces the view that the executive really isn't keeping in touch.
2
4
In reply to GrahamD:
There are lots of ways of characterising it. Here's another: hijacking out-of-date democratic processes to suit the ends of a rarefied minority that somehow gains traction as a protest vote. Other characterisations appply
> I don't think I have misunderstood. If their position doesn't stand scrutiny it will fail. Otherwise it actually has a ground swell of support and is legitimate. Either way it is the right of members to raise these objections and to try to suppress reinforces the view that the executive really isn't keeping in touch.
There are lots of ways of characterising it. Here's another: hijacking out-of-date democratic processes to suit the ends of a rarefied minority that somehow gains traction as a protest vote. Other characterisations appply
11
In reply to ukb & bmc shark:
... such as wasting an inordinate amount of BMC time and energy on an unsubstantiated and petty vendetta, while employing leadership and transparency behaviour far less professional and far less accountable than those they are seeking to discredit.
It should not be the right of any member to waste valuable BMC time without at the very least being prepared to share their grievances with all BMC members.
> Other characterisations apply
... such as wasting an inordinate amount of BMC time and energy on an unsubstantiated and petty vendetta, while employing leadership and transparency behaviour far less professional and far less accountable than those they are seeking to discredit.
It should not be the right of any member to waste valuable BMC time without at the very least being prepared to share their grievances with all BMC members.
10
4
In reply to Andy Say:
I've heard enough (or should I say not nearly enough from the proposers to consider the motion seriously) and have voted against the motion.
> Of course! I will be voting against the motion myself.
I've heard enough (or should I say not nearly enough from the proposers to consider the motion seriously) and have voted against the motion.
4
In reply to GrahamD:
That ignores the issue of votes being solicited through misinformation being spread behind closed doors, in contexts where it can't be fact-checked ...
I agree that no-one should be stripped of their membership (honorary or otherwise) just because they've raised a motion that's been defeated!
However, "democracy" doesn't require that other people forget about it, or refrain from making their own judgements about the behaviour displayed in the process.
If the motion fails, but Mr Pettigrew is happy to keep taking freebies off an organization which he's publicly deemed to be so rotten to the core that a MONC is the only solution, that would say something about his character.
> If their position doesn't stand scrutiny it will fail.
That ignores the issue of votes being solicited through misinformation being spread behind closed doors, in contexts where it can't be fact-checked ...
> Either way it is the right of members to raise these objections and to try to suppress reinforces the view that the executive really isn't keeping in touch.
I agree that no-one should be stripped of their membership (honorary or otherwise) just because they've raised a motion that's been defeated!
However, "democracy" doesn't require that other people forget about it, or refrain from making their own judgements about the behaviour displayed in the process.
If the motion fails, but Mr Pettigrew is happy to keep taking freebies off an organization which he's publicly deemed to be so rotten to the core that a MONC is the only solution, that would say something about his character.
6
6
1
In reply to Frank the Husky:
He has put forward a motion. I assume he will attend the AGM and say his piece. This ganging together of people is not something I am liking. At one time climbers where radicals, now it seems they are a bunch of conservatives (small c).
I am quite surprised at you Frank in asking for him BP to resign. I though you would have been of the, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" camp.
> It's nothing to do with democracy, you misunderstand the situation. It's about someone who has already damaged the organisation - and who refuses to explain himself publicly - accepting that his MoNC was ill conceived as well as riddled with errors and falsehoods. He hasn't offered any constructive way forward and that's a mark of someone who doesn't have the best interests of the BMC at heart. Chuck a bomb in and walk away seems to have been his approach. He should walk the slippery plank!
He has put forward a motion. I assume he will attend the AGM and say his piece. This ganging together of people is not something I am liking. At one time climbers where radicals, now it seems they are a bunch of conservatives (small c).
I am quite surprised at you Frank in asking for him BP to resign. I though you would have been of the, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" camp.
2
5
In reply to Lenin:
Given your vile username it's hardly surprising that you approve of cliques manipulating misinformation and insider kowledge of processes to gain their ends.
Given your vile username it's hardly surprising that you approve of cliques manipulating misinformation and insider kowledge of processes to gain their ends.
3
4
In reply to AlanLittle:
"vile username" interesting perspective on what was a joke, but reflecting on it I could see that some people could see it in the same context as e.g., "Hitler", never considered that. I will think of a new one.
BP has put forward his motion, it would be great if the AGM was well attended, but the proxy votes certain people are going to have in their pocket will go a long way to ensuring that anything said at the AGM will be of little effect.
I do not know BP but suspect he is ill equipped to deal with the Social Media campaign that has been launched against him, maybe that is a good thing.
The point remains I have not confidence in the BMC management.
> Given your vile username it's hardly surprising that you approve of cliques manipulating misinformation and insider kowledge of processes to gain their ends.
"vile username" interesting perspective on what was a joke, but reflecting on it I could see that some people could see it in the same context as e.g., "Hitler", never considered that. I will think of a new one.
BP has put forward his motion, it would be great if the AGM was well attended, but the proxy votes certain people are going to have in their pocket will go a long way to ensuring that anything said at the AGM will be of little effect.
I do not know BP but suspect he is ill equipped to deal with the Social Media campaign that has been launched against him, maybe that is a good thing.
The point remains I have not confidence in the BMC management.
1
3
In reply to Lenin:
That was precisely the analogy I was thinking of, sorry if my reaction was overly harsh.
That was precisely the analogy I was thinking of, sorry if my reaction was overly harsh.
1
In reply to Lenin: Greetings comrade. It's not what he says that I have a problem with, because most of it is bluster and hyperbole, "alternative facts" and a total misunderstanding of what happened over the name change etc - all of which could have been resolved with a personal visit to the BMC High Command for a chat over a brew and some artisan biscuits.
It's the fact that many people have tried to get him to simply turn up and explain himself and he consistently refuses to do so. He's not busy, or ill or otherwise engaged, he's deliberately not turning up. At least when I've caused bother I actually bring my face to the room and allow people to throw things at it.
I don't think this is climbers demonstrating their conservatism, it's just them reacting to bullshit. I would genuinely like to see Bob walk an actual plank because he is a scoundrel. However, in being so he has shown how much positive work the BMC does and how it does actually listen to its members.
And as you yourself once said "A scoundrel may be of use to us, just because he is a scoundrel."
It's the fact that many people have tried to get him to simply turn up and explain himself and he consistently refuses to do so. He's not busy, or ill or otherwise engaged, he's deliberately not turning up. At least when I've caused bother I actually bring my face to the room and allow people to throw things at it.
I don't think this is climbers demonstrating their conservatism, it's just them reacting to bullshit. I would genuinely like to see Bob walk an actual plank because he is a scoundrel. However, in being so he has shown how much positive work the BMC does and how it does actually listen to its members.
And as you yourself once said "A scoundrel may be of use to us, just because he is a scoundrel."
9
In reply to Frank the Husky:
But if he turns up at the AGM is that not the correct forum?
But if he turns up at the AGM is that not the correct forum?
Post edited at 21:01
2
In reply to Lenin:
Not when so few people are actually able to physically attend the AGM and proxy votes have to be submitted before any arguments at the AGM are heard. You could argue that it's not an ideal system but it's the system we have. The secretive manner in which "the 30" have gone about lobbying for their motion suggests rather underhand intentions like stacking the attendance in their favour and hoping not many people use their proxy votes to oppose. (Presumably, a very small number of proxy votes is the norm most years?)
> But if he turns up at the AGM is that not the correct forum?
Not when so few people are actually able to physically attend the AGM and proxy votes have to be submitted before any arguments at the AGM are heard. You could argue that it's not an ideal system but it's the system we have. The secretive manner in which "the 30" have gone about lobbying for their motion suggests rather underhand intentions like stacking the attendance in their favour and hoping not many people use their proxy votes to oppose. (Presumably, a very small number of proxy votes is the norm most years?)
4
In reply to Lenin:
No it's not the right forum if he was honest. Anything he claims so far was known well over half a year ago. The BMC rules allow for an EGM for timely response to such serious accusations.
It seems to me these old so called 'radicals ' are the small 'c' conservatives as they are the ones who want things back the way they were in some 'legendary' good old days. Yet take those rose timted glasses off and even then attitudes to competitions were not what they say it was (in their dishonest leaked breifings).
Like Frank it's not a MoNC I'm concerned with, its the dishonest and secretive behaviour around this one. The Bob I know is a hardboiled BMC political animal so please cut this innocence story, he is perfectly capable of a social media campaign if he wanted that, so he chooses not to (probably as he knows he can't win that way). Anyone who knows Frank and I (and many other serious critics of Bob in these threads) will know we are neither conservative minded people nor BMC 'patsys'.
No it's not the right forum if he was honest. Anything he claims so far was known well over half a year ago. The BMC rules allow for an EGM for timely response to such serious accusations.
It seems to me these old so called 'radicals ' are the small 'c' conservatives as they are the ones who want things back the way they were in some 'legendary' good old days. Yet take those rose timted glasses off and even then attitudes to competitions were not what they say it was (in their dishonest leaked breifings).
Like Frank it's not a MoNC I'm concerned with, its the dishonest and secretive behaviour around this one. The Bob I know is a hardboiled BMC political animal so please cut this innocence story, he is perfectly capable of a social media campaign if he wanted that, so he chooses not to (probably as he knows he can't win that way). Anyone who knows Frank and I (and many other serious critics of Bob in these threads) will know we are neither conservative minded people nor BMC 'patsys'.
Post edited at 21:24
8
In reply to Lenin:
It might be the correct forum in terms of playing by the letter of the (somewhat archaic) rules, or in other words gaming the system by packing a small meeting with your mates regardless of what the 99% of the membership who won't be present might think.
It has nothing to do with actually engaging with any kind of open democratic process however. I'm not suggesting Bob is under any obligation to take part in discussions on here, or that the opinions on here are necessarily representative. But somewhere upthread we learned that he was offered the opportunity to circulate a written statement to the general membership and declined, so it would seem he has no interest at all in any kind of public communication of his opinion or reasons.
Not to mention the fact that he didn't turn up to the Peak area meeting at which he has apparently been a regular attender, instead leaving his sick friend in the lurch.
The whole approach and attitude stinks.
It might be the correct forum in terms of playing by the letter of the (somewhat archaic) rules, or in other words gaming the system by packing a small meeting with your mates regardless of what the 99% of the membership who won't be present might think.
It has nothing to do with actually engaging with any kind of open democratic process however. I'm not suggesting Bob is under any obligation to take part in discussions on here, or that the opinions on here are necessarily representative. But somewhere upthread we learned that he was offered the opportunity to circulate a written statement to the general membership and declined, so it would seem he has no interest at all in any kind of public communication of his opinion or reasons.
Not to mention the fact that he didn't turn up to the Peak area meeting at which he has apparently been a regular attender, instead leaving his sick friend in the lurch.
The whole approach and attitude stinks.
6
In reply to AlanLittle:
I suspect the problem here is there are too many wheels within wheels. I do not know BP, but I do know many of the actors and have seen how things can happen.
Franks go and have tea approach, sounds to me of the the people at the top sorting things out so the commoners do not have to worry their heads about things. I am not keen on that.
I have been told that if NoCon had not been on the agenda and just raised at the AGM it could have had a very good chance of passing.
My standpoint is I think climbing clubs are a great thing but are in great danger. The people I have interacted with or more to the point not interacted with from the BMC head office leave me feeling they have no or very little interest in climbing clubs.
I am also a very keen walker and I do not think that the people at BMC head office are very interested in that.
What I think they are interested in is indoor and comp climbing which is where the money could be and the name change thing was part of that.
Therefore I have No Confidence.
I am not that convinced the whole lot will come tumbling down if the NoCon passes, but if that is possible then there is something deeply wrong with the structure and that needs changing.
* note name change from Lenin.
I suspect the problem here is there are too many wheels within wheels. I do not know BP, but I do know many of the actors and have seen how things can happen.
Franks go and have tea approach, sounds to me of the the people at the top sorting things out so the commoners do not have to worry their heads about things. I am not keen on that.
I have been told that if NoCon had not been on the agenda and just raised at the AGM it could have had a very good chance of passing.
My standpoint is I think climbing clubs are a great thing but are in great danger. The people I have interacted with or more to the point not interacted with from the BMC head office leave me feeling they have no or very little interest in climbing clubs.
I am also a very keen walker and I do not think that the people at BMC head office are very interested in that.
What I think they are interested in is indoor and comp climbing which is where the money could be and the name change thing was part of that.
Therefore I have No Confidence.
I am not that convinced the whole lot will come tumbling down if the NoCon passes, but if that is possible then there is something deeply wrong with the structure and that needs changing.
* note name change from Lenin.
Post edited at 08:09
13
In reply to J1234:
What evidence of wheels? What evidence of dangers to clubs? What evidence is all this extra BMC investment in support for hillwalking is bogus? What evidence for this supposed focus on competitions? What evidence that a MoNC submitted at the AGM would have had a good chance of passing?
The evidence of consequencies of a successful MoNC have been spelt out by the legal advice. Dave and the exec will have untenable positions and the time and effort wasted dealing with this already (small compared to if the vote is successful) has been reported numerous times. This is pretty much the case for MoNCs in the governance arrangements in any similar membership led organisation, so I don't understand how you could possibly think otherwise.
Frank's suggestion was for Bob and co, who very much had that possibility of popping in given their extensive contacts with head office.
What evidence of wheels? What evidence of dangers to clubs? What evidence is all this extra BMC investment in support for hillwalking is bogus? What evidence for this supposed focus on competitions? What evidence that a MoNC submitted at the AGM would have had a good chance of passing?
The evidence of consequencies of a successful MoNC have been spelt out by the legal advice. Dave and the exec will have untenable positions and the time and effort wasted dealing with this already (small compared to if the vote is successful) has been reported numerous times. This is pretty much the case for MoNCs in the governance arrangements in any similar membership led organisation, so I don't understand how you could possibly think otherwise.
Frank's suggestion was for Bob and co, who very much had that possibility of popping in given their extensive contacts with head office.
6
In reply to Offwidth:
What evidence of dangers to clubs?
My perception
What evidence is all this extra BMC investment in support for hillwalking is bogus?
have they, I know nothing of that
What evidence for this supposed focus on competitions?
My perception
What evidence that a MoNC submitted at the AGM would have had a good chance of passing?
A mate of mine who seems to know BMC stuff
The evidence of consequencies of a successful MoNC have been spelt out by the legal advice.
Then things should be changed you should be able to chuck them out
People act on perceptions. I can only say how I see things. You could laugh at me for that or slate me for it, but that would be unwise for remember the one gobshite like me telling you how think, there maybe many others in the shadows thinking the same.
> What evidence of wheels?
My perceptionWhat evidence of dangers to clubs?
My perception
What evidence is all this extra BMC investment in support for hillwalking is bogus?
have they, I know nothing of that
What evidence for this supposed focus on competitions?
My perception
What evidence that a MoNC submitted at the AGM would have had a good chance of passing?
A mate of mine who seems to know BMC stuff
The evidence of consequencies of a successful MoNC have been spelt out by the legal advice.
Then things should be changed you should be able to chuck them out
People act on perceptions. I can only say how I see things. You could laugh at me for that or slate me for it, but that would be unwise for remember the one gobshite like me telling you how think, there maybe many others in the shadows thinking the same.
Post edited at 09:03
2
7
In reply to Offwidth:
Do ever think your domineering, brow-beating approach to matters such as this might be counter-productive when it comes to convincing those who are uncertain?
> What evidence of wheels? What evidence of dangers to clubs? What evidence is all this extra BMC investment in support for hillwalking is bogus? What evidence for this supposed focus on competitions? What evidence that a MoNC submitted at the AGM would have had a good chance of passing?
Do ever think your domineering, brow-beating approach to matters such as this might be counter-productive when it comes to convincing those who are uncertain?
4
In reply to Offwidth:
Posts like these last few seem to sum up what I keep saying; The BMC is very very good at doing stuff, access, working with hillwalkers, the NT, nature England, the Government etc etc , but bloody awful at communicating how good they are to members and non-members alike. I go to Peak area meetings where the good work is openly discussed, and those who go then spread the word. The Peak Area news tends to be read by the same people. Even the BMC web-site does not do a very good job of spelling out how much hard and successful work the BMC does. Instead of having to mess with this MONC, the BMC should really be spending this time on some publicity to let everyone who enjoys the outdoors know how hard they work and how access is really one of the benefits of paying the small annual subscription fee, and getting involved.
Not aimed at you personally Steve, but at all the people who are on this thread who have no idea just what the BMC does, like bedspring, and who don't put the effort into finding out.
Posts like these last few seem to sum up what I keep saying; The BMC is very very good at doing stuff, access, working with hillwalkers, the NT, nature England, the Government etc etc , but bloody awful at communicating how good they are to members and non-members alike. I go to Peak area meetings where the good work is openly discussed, and those who go then spread the word. The Peak Area news tends to be read by the same people. Even the BMC web-site does not do a very good job of spelling out how much hard and successful work the BMC does. Instead of having to mess with this MONC, the BMC should really be spending this time on some publicity to let everyone who enjoys the outdoors know how hard they work and how access is really one of the benefits of paying the small annual subscription fee, and getting involved.
Not aimed at you personally Steve, but at all the people who are on this thread who have no idea just what the BMC does, like bedspring, and who don't put the effort into finding out.
7
In reply to peopleWant to have your say? It's two weeks until the BMC AGM now, and all voting forms must be received by the BMC office by 11am on Thursday 20th April. if you haven't voted yet, these links have all the info:
WHY: It's time to make your voice heard
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/make-your-voice-heard-bmc-agm-vote
WHAT: is the issue
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-17-whats-the-issue
HOW: You can vote
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-proxy-voting-explained
All have links to download pdfs, read the President's statement and how to visit the AGM in person.
There's plenty of time to join and have your say if you're not a member already. It's only £15.72 for the first year and supports our work such as buying Crookrise Crag, supporting Mountain Heritage, our full-time clubs officer, our full-time walking development officer and much more:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/membership
Want updates on BMC work?
The easiest way to stay updated is to sign up to our email newsletter. Every month we'll send you the latest updates on all our work and events:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/newsletters
WHY: It's time to make your voice heard
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/make-your-voice-heard-bmc-agm-vote
WHAT: is the issue
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-17-whats-the-issue
HOW: You can vote
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-proxy-voting-explained
All have links to download pdfs, read the President's statement and how to visit the AGM in person.
There's plenty of time to join and have your say if you're not a member already. It's only £15.72 for the first year and supports our work such as buying Crookrise Crag, supporting Mountain Heritage, our full-time clubs officer, our full-time walking development officer and much more:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/membership
Want updates on BMC work?
The easiest way to stay updated is to sign up to our email newsletter. Every month we'll send you the latest updates on all our work and events:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/newsletters
Post edited at 10:13
6
In reply to johncook:
Exactly!!
> but at all the people who are on this thread who have no idea just what the BMC does, like bedspring, and who don't put the effort into finding out.
Exactly!!
4
In reply to johncook: I don't think I can 'like' this enough, and that if the BMC leadership learn anything from this affair, that improving the distribution of information and News (propaganda ) is sometihng to concentrate their attentions on.
To Lenin/bedspring :- Yes - Clubs, in the traditional sense are in trouble. Blame the internet,social media, but that genii is a long time out of the bottle and isn't going back. Climbing isn't the only place this is happening but the BMC will need to move away from relying on the club structure for anything
To Lenin/bedspring :- Yes - Clubs, in the traditional sense are in trouble. Blame the internet,social media, but that genii is a long time out of the bottle and isn't going back. Climbing isn't the only place this is happening but the BMC will need to move away from relying on the club structure for anything
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Well, if it was technically possibly to submit the MONC unexpectedly at the AGM (I don't know what the rules on this are), then all Pettigrew would have had to do was plan in advance and pack the AGM with a bunch of his mates. Given how few people physically attend the AGM, it presumably wouldn't take that many to ensure you could force a vote through.
And that way, a tiny percentage of the membership would be able to hijack the process and force the Executive Committee to resign, regardless of what the membership actually want.
I wouldn't exactly see that as a triumph for democracy, though ...
Not that his current strategy of circulating misinformation behind closed doors and refusing to engage with any of the ordinary BMC members (if we aren't members of the right clubs) is exactly a paragon of democratic openness, of course. But I suppose it could have been even worse!
> What evidence that a MoNC submitted at the AGM would have had a good chance of passing?
Well, if it was technically possibly to submit the MONC unexpectedly at the AGM (I don't know what the rules on this are), then all Pettigrew would have had to do was plan in advance and pack the AGM with a bunch of his mates. Given how few people physically attend the AGM, it presumably wouldn't take that many to ensure you could force a vote through.
And that way, a tiny percentage of the membership would be able to hijack the process and force the Executive Committee to resign, regardless of what the membership actually want.
I wouldn't exactly see that as a triumph for democracy, though ...
Not that his current strategy of circulating misinformation behind closed doors and refusing to engage with any of the ordinary BMC members (if we aren't members of the right clubs) is exactly a paragon of democratic openness, of course. But I suppose it could have been even worse!
Post edited at 10:57
3
In reply to J1234:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, sorry.
The legal advice seems to be that in the event of a MONC, the Executive Committee would pretty much have to resign. Is that what you want to happen, or not? Is it the Executive Committee you want to "chuck out"? Or are you saying the rules should be changed so that doesn't happen?
Arguably, if the BMC survives, the rules should be changed so that it's not possible to bring a MONC and bring the BMC grinding to a halt for months any time someone can get 30 people out of the entire membership to sign a piece of paper, but at the moment, the rules are what they are.
It's nothing to do with the "structure" of the BMC being faulty; it's because of what a MONC in the entire Executive Committee of any organization means.
Voting for the MONC doesn't mean "I lack confidence in the BMC's current leadership"; it has a specific functional meaning, which would pretty much require the Executive Committee to resign en masse.
It's a nuclear option which would leave the BMC without a functioning leadership for a substantial period of time, and be devastating not only to the organization but also to its reputation and credibility (because it says to the world that there was such a level of incompetence/corruption that a MONC in the entire Committee was the only way to clean house).
As I said, I'm not trying to scare-monger, and I don't work for the BMC or anything, but I work for a grant-making trust and thus have some experience of what stuff like this does to organizations.
I am genuinely terrified that if the MONC passed, there might not *be* a BMC five years from now.
Given that we're talking about potentially destroying the BMC, do you think it might be worth looking at the available evidence to see if it supports your perceptions or not?
You're free to cast your vote however you want, but I think we all have a responsibility to try to make as informed a decision as possible.
> The evidence of consequencies of a successful MoNC have been spelt out by the legal advice.
> Then things should be changed you should be able to chuck them out
> Then things should be changed you should be able to chuck them out
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, sorry.
The legal advice seems to be that in the event of a MONC, the Executive Committee would pretty much have to resign. Is that what you want to happen, or not? Is it the Executive Committee you want to "chuck out"? Or are you saying the rules should be changed so that doesn't happen?
Arguably, if the BMC survives, the rules should be changed so that it's not possible to bring a MONC and bring the BMC grinding to a halt for months any time someone can get 30 people out of the entire membership to sign a piece of paper, but at the moment, the rules are what they are.
> I am not that convinced the whole lot will come tumbling down if the NoCon passes, but if that is possible then there is something deeply wrong with the structure and that needs changing.
It's nothing to do with the "structure" of the BMC being faulty; it's because of what a MONC in the entire Executive Committee of any organization means.
Voting for the MONC doesn't mean "I lack confidence in the BMC's current leadership"; it has a specific functional meaning, which would pretty much require the Executive Committee to resign en masse.
It's a nuclear option which would leave the BMC without a functioning leadership for a substantial period of time, and be devastating not only to the organization but also to its reputation and credibility (because it says to the world that there was such a level of incompetence/corruption that a MONC in the entire Committee was the only way to clean house).
As I said, I'm not trying to scare-monger, and I don't work for the BMC or anything, but I work for a grant-making trust and thus have some experience of what stuff like this does to organizations.
I am genuinely terrified that if the MONC passed, there might not *be* a BMC five years from now.
> What evidence of wheels?
> My perception
> What evidence of dangers to clubs?
> My perception
> What evidence is all this extra BMC investment in support for hillwalking is bogus?
> have they, I know nothing of that
> What evidence for this supposed focus on competitions?
> My perception
> My perception
> What evidence of dangers to clubs?
> My perception
> What evidence is all this extra BMC investment in support for hillwalking is bogus?
> have they, I know nothing of that
> What evidence for this supposed focus on competitions?
> My perception
Given that we're talking about potentially destroying the BMC, do you think it might be worth looking at the available evidence to see if it supports your perceptions or not?
You're free to cast your vote however you want, but I think we all have a responsibility to try to make as informed a decision as possible.
14
In reply to MG:
I'm speaking as an individual BMC member who is seriously pissed off the BMC that I know and have volunteered extensively for is still at risk and you seriously think I should be playing rhetorical 'how to win friends and influence people' games for political purposes? I'm sorry if my obvious strong emotions hurt your sensibilities but am confident enough normal members will decide their position based on the facts and hoping enough of those vote. What on earth might motivate me to try the dishonest and almost certainly pointless task of persuading people who insist on sticking to conspiracy theory 'perceptions'. That sort of behaviour is a strong part of my complaint. Do you see this as a game?
I'm speaking as an individual BMC member who is seriously pissed off the BMC that I know and have volunteered extensively for is still at risk and you seriously think I should be playing rhetorical 'how to win friends and influence people' games for political purposes? I'm sorry if my obvious strong emotions hurt your sensibilities but am confident enough normal members will decide their position based on the facts and hoping enough of those vote. What on earth might motivate me to try the dishonest and almost certainly pointless task of persuading people who insist on sticking to conspiracy theory 'perceptions'. That sort of behaviour is a strong part of my complaint. Do you see this as a game?
Post edited at 12:00
3
1
In reply to Offwidth:
Not "games" but if what you say is true, I would have thought presenting your case in a way that is likely to change waverers minds is sensible, yes.
You're at at it again - there are more options than your current internet blowhard approach, and dishonest - which no one has suggested you adopt. Measured persuasion, for instance.
No I don't think it's a game. I think the MONC is ill-conceived, poorly presented and I will vote against. However, I have sympathy with some of the motivations behind it around governance and the direction the BMC is going. (Climb Britain and Olympics obviously, but also more subtle things. For example, on the website "Indoor Climbing" is listed first, "Mountaineering" last.). These areas would only have to bother me a little more to persuade me to leave, or possibly vote for the motion. Your approach to discussing them pushes me towards, not away from, these options.
> I'm speaking as an individual BMC member who is seriously pissed off the BMC that I know and have volunteered extensively for is still at risk and you seriously think I should be playing rhetorical 'how to win friends and influence people' games for political purposes?
Not "games" but if what you say is true, I would have thought presenting your case in a way that is likely to change waverers minds is sensible, yes.
> I'm sorry if my obvious strong emotions hurt your sensibilities
They don't> but am confident enough normal members will decide their position based on the facts and hoping enough of those vote. What on earth might motivate me to try the dishonest....
You're at at it again - there are more options than your current internet blowhard approach, and dishonest - which no one has suggested you adopt. Measured persuasion, for instance.
No I don't think it's a game. I think the MONC is ill-conceived, poorly presented and I will vote against. However, I have sympathy with some of the motivations behind it around governance and the direction the BMC is going. (Climb Britain and Olympics obviously, but also more subtle things. For example, on the website "Indoor Climbing" is listed first, "Mountaineering" last.). These areas would only have to bother me a little more to persuade me to leave, or possibly vote for the motion. Your approach to discussing them pushes me towards, not away from, these options.
Post edited at 12:16
5
1
In reply to J1234:
I think Frank's point was that if Mr. Pettigrew was genuinely misinformed about what had happened with the attempted rebranding, he could have sorted that out just by asking people he already knows well.
I personally think that, given the number of times Pettigrew's been caught circulating information which is provably false and which he's already in a position to know is false, "total misunderstanding" isn't the problem here and probably never has been.
And of course it's Pettigrew and the other signatories who seem not to want to talk to anyone who's not a member of a select few clubs.
As far as I know, Mark Vallance is the only signatory who's had the courage and integrity to show up at an area meeting (the Peak area meeting, Pettigrew's local, which Pettigrew is apparently a regular at, which he was specifically invited to attend so that he could express his views on the MONC, and which he conspicuously failed to show up at, without as far as I know offering any explanation or excuse).
Given that people have said that Mr Vallance's Parkinson's specifically makes it harder for him to speak when he's stressed, I think even less of Mr Pettigrew for leaving him in the lurch on his own to do that.
I'm not a member of the Alpine Club or the Climber's Club, and that evidently makes me one of the "commoners" Mr Pettigrew doesn't think is worth talking to. Start letting riff-raff like me in and the whole place goes to the dogs ...
(I'm actually a proud prospective member of the Pinnacle Club, and, ironically, various people at crags this weekend probably heard my loud rants about how and why clubs can be important and valuable -- er, sorry, people at Birchens -- but I don't think the Pinnacle features on Mr Pettigrew's radar.)
> Franks go and have tea approach, sounds to me of the the people at the top sorting things out so the commoners do not have to worry their heads about things. I am not keen on that.
I think Frank's point was that if Mr. Pettigrew was genuinely misinformed about what had happened with the attempted rebranding, he could have sorted that out just by asking people he already knows well.
I personally think that, given the number of times Pettigrew's been caught circulating information which is provably false and which he's already in a position to know is false, "total misunderstanding" isn't the problem here and probably never has been.
And of course it's Pettigrew and the other signatories who seem not to want to talk to anyone who's not a member of a select few clubs.
As far as I know, Mark Vallance is the only signatory who's had the courage and integrity to show up at an area meeting (the Peak area meeting, Pettigrew's local, which Pettigrew is apparently a regular at, which he was specifically invited to attend so that he could express his views on the MONC, and which he conspicuously failed to show up at, without as far as I know offering any explanation or excuse).
Given that people have said that Mr Vallance's Parkinson's specifically makes it harder for him to speak when he's stressed, I think even less of Mr Pettigrew for leaving him in the lurch on his own to do that.
I'm not a member of the Alpine Club or the Climber's Club, and that evidently makes me one of the "commoners" Mr Pettigrew doesn't think is worth talking to. Start letting riff-raff like me in and the whole place goes to the dogs ...
(I'm actually a proud prospective member of the Pinnacle Club, and, ironically, various people at crags this weekend probably heard my loud rants about how and why clubs can be important and valuable -- er, sorry, people at Birchens -- but I don't think the Pinnacle features on Mr Pettigrew's radar.)
6
In reply to slab_happy:
It's an unimportant aside, but if Mr P is trying to rally CC members he hasn't done anything club-wide (I'm a member and haven't received anything except as far as I recall a statement from the committee that their recommendation is to vote against the motion)
> I'm not a member of the Alpine Club or the Climber's Club, and that evidently makes me one of the "commoners" Mr Pettigrew doesn't think is worth talking to.
It's an unimportant aside, but if Mr P is trying to rally CC members he hasn't done anything club-wide (I'm a member and haven't received anything except as far as I recall a statement from the committee that their recommendation is to vote against the motion)
2
In reply to AJM:
Wasn't his original letter posted in a Climber's Club private forum, by someone who'd received it from him? Sorry if I've got that wrong.
Wasn't his original letter posted in a Climber's Club private forum, by someone who'd received it from him? Sorry if I've got that wrong.
In reply to MG:
Well I for one am very glad that we've got down to the big issues at long last.
> For example, on the website "Indoor Climbing" is listed first, "Mountaineering" last.
Well I for one am very glad that we've got down to the big issues at long last.
7
3
In reply to Will Hunt:
It's a straw in the wind, not a big issue.
> Well I for one am very glad that we've got down to the big issues at long last.
It's a straw in the wind, not a big issue.
2
In reply to slab_happy:
I believe you're right, but I think it was the recipient's choice to put it there (and I didn't think it was posted there in a supportive light, although i haven't actually checked this) rather than it being directed by Pettigrew, if that makes sense
I believe you're right, but I think it was the recipient's choice to put it there (and I didn't think it was posted there in a supportive light, although i haven't actually checked this) rather than it being directed by Pettigrew, if that makes sense
1
In reply to AJM:
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
And yes, I think it's interesting to note that where club committees have expressed an official opinion, they've all been against the motion.
Pettigrew and other signatories seem to be quite keen on communicating solely to and through a few clubs. But I don't want to give the impression that the clubs are backing him or the MONC, because that generally doesn't seem to be the case at all.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
And yes, I think it's interesting to note that where club committees have expressed an official opinion, they've all been against the motion.
Pettigrew and other signatories seem to be quite keen on communicating solely to and through a few clubs. But I don't want to give the impression that the clubs are backing him or the MONC, because that generally doesn't seem to be the case at all.
1
In reply to MG:
So what's your point then and why bother posting? On the subject of blowhardness you seem the be guilty of the same thing in critiquing my posts, which if you follow your own advice isn't a very wise way to promote change. I can understand people getting emotional and slipping in their measured persuasion about damage to the BMC or dishonest practice to achieve Machiavellian aims but in response to the overly emotional response of one man on the internet. Are you in love or a stalker or what?
So what's your point then and why bother posting? On the subject of blowhardness you seem the be guilty of the same thing in critiquing my posts, which if you follow your own advice isn't a very wise way to promote change. I can understand people getting emotional and slipping in their measured persuasion about damage to the BMC or dishonest practice to achieve Machiavellian aims but in response to the overly emotional response of one man on the internet. Are you in love or a stalker or what?
Post edited at 16:02
3
In reply to slab_happy:
Since the abolition of the block vote, I'm not sure it's the place of club committees to express an official position; that was certainly the view the MAM took at our AGM at the weekend, although there was a fairly lively debate and members were actively encouraged to vote.
> Ah, thanks for the clarification.And yes, I think it's interesting to note that where club committees have expressed an official opinion, they've all been against the motion.
Since the abolition of the block vote, I'm not sure it's the place of club committees to express an official position; that was certainly the view the MAM took at our AGM at the weekend, although there was a fairly lively debate and members were actively encouraged to vote.
2
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Interesting - if they've done the research I'd have thought that providing an opinion for those members who haven't been that involved in prior discussions might be a useful thing to do.
Interesting - if they've done the research I'd have thought that providing an opinion for those members who haven't been that involved in prior discussions might be a useful thing to do.
2
In reply to Frank the Husky:
I feel very strongly that Mssr. Pettigrew should resign his honorary membership. His utter failure to explain his pathetic motion is akin to standing outside the school gates shouting "XXX is a drug dealer", then being completely incapable of offering any evidence for the claim. How can anybody with any honour (yes, I know, an unfashionable term) then expect to have any respect from within the organisation?
More bluntly, he's shat on his own doorstep.
I feel very strongly that Mssr. Pettigrew should resign his honorary membership. His utter failure to explain his pathetic motion is akin to standing outside the school gates shouting "XXX is a drug dealer", then being completely incapable of offering any evidence for the claim. How can anybody with any honour (yes, I know, an unfashionable term) then expect to have any respect from within the organisation?
More bluntly, he's shat on his own doorstep.
5
In reply to AJM:
I gave a summary of what I thought were the main points, tried to keep it fairly even-handed but ended by saying how I would vote. There was another detailed contribution which was also supportive of the BMC, but that's not the same as as having an official position. All club members are affiliated members of the BMC and they get to make their own minds up.
> Interesting - if they've done the research I'd have thought that providing an opinion for those members who haven't been that involved in prior discussions might be a useful thing to do.
I gave a summary of what I thought were the main points, tried to keep it fairly even-handed but ended by saying how I would vote. There was another detailed contribution which was also supportive of the BMC, but that's not the same as as having an official position. All club members are affiliated members of the BMC and they get to make their own minds up.
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:
The position of my club's committee is to encourage members to cast their individual votes, but to make up their own mind on whether to vote for or against the MONC. I would hope that they will individually review the information (or lack thereof) and understand that the motion is foolish, but this is not a forgone conclusion.
> Since the abolition of the block vote, I'm not sure it's the place of club committees to express an official position; that was certainly the view the MAM took at our AGM at the weekend, although there was a fairly lively debate and members were actively encouraged to vote.
The position of my club's committee is to encourage members to cast their individual votes, but to make up their own mind on whether to vote for or against the MONC. I would hope that they will individually review the information (or lack thereof) and understand that the motion is foolish, but this is not a forgone conclusion.
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Yes, I agree that clubs shouldn't be ordering their members to vote a certain way.
But it seems like some (like the AC, if I recall correctly) have gone for saying that members should vote according to their consciences, *but* here is what the committee feel about it -- that's what I mean by "official opinion" in this context.
Yes, I agree that clubs shouldn't be ordering their members to vote a certain way.
But it seems like some (like the AC, if I recall correctly) have gone for saying that members should vote according to their consciences, *but* here is what the committee feel about it -- that's what I mean by "official opinion" in this context.
3
In reply to slab_happy:
.Given that we're talking about potentially destroying the BMC, do you think it might be worth looking at the available evidence to see if it supports your perceptions or not?
Calm down its not really that important. I hope its sunny that weekend, may climb down in wales and make a nuisance of myself at the AGM, could be fun.
.Given that we're talking about potentially destroying the BMC, do you think it might be worth looking at the available evidence to see if it supports your perceptions or not?
Calm down its not really that important. I hope its sunny that weekend, may climb down in wales and make a nuisance of myself at the AGM, could be fun.
8
In reply to Frank the Husky:
I think the idea (as raised on another thread, by somebody in the NW area committee) of having people associated with this motion stripped of their honorary membership/patron/whatever else status, is really a rotten, vindictive, and anti-democratic one. I very much hope that it doesn't happen.
However it seems to me the question is one of intent: if you really think that the motion is simply non-constructive and evil trouble-making, then I guess you might conclude that everybody associated with it (i.e. all thirty signatories: it would be irrational to single one or two out) ought to be expelled. If, on the other hand, you think that the motion might be a genuine expression of unease about the direction of travel of the organization, then you'd probably conclude that there are matters requiring reflection and consideration, and you'd try to ponder those in a non-personalized matter.
> ... My questions is - should Bob resign his honorary membership ...
I think the idea (as raised on another thread, by somebody in the NW area committee) of having people associated with this motion stripped of their honorary membership/patron/whatever else status, is really a rotten, vindictive, and anti-democratic one. I very much hope that it doesn't happen.
However it seems to me the question is one of intent: if you really think that the motion is simply non-constructive and evil trouble-making, then I guess you might conclude that everybody associated with it (i.e. all thirty signatories: it would be irrational to single one or two out) ought to be expelled. If, on the other hand, you think that the motion might be a genuine expression of unease about the direction of travel of the organization, then you'd probably conclude that there are matters requiring reflection and consideration, and you'd try to ponder those in a non-personalized matter.
3
1
In reply to rj_townsend:
It seems to me he doesn't think it is his doorstep any more. In fact, he hardly even recognises the neighbourhood, it's changed so much.
> More bluntly, he's shat on his own doorstep.
It seems to me he doesn't think it is his doorstep any more. In fact, he hardly even recognises the neighbourhood, it's changed so much.
2
In reply to Rob Parsons:
It's interesting to note that at least 4 of the "signatories" didn't want their names associated with the motion when they were asked - perhaps their names were added without their knowledge? It's hard to say that all thirty are implicated, because perhaps even more don't want to be involved anymore, or even to begin with.
Bob is the main mover and he's blown it big time. All he needed to do was actually speak to Dave Turnbull about his concerns, and all this would have been avoided. He has deliberately chosen the most damaging option that did not have the best interests of the BMC and its members at heart, and he should certainly resign.
It's interesting to note that at least 4 of the "signatories" didn't want their names associated with the motion when they were asked - perhaps their names were added without their knowledge? It's hard to say that all thirty are implicated, because perhaps even more don't want to be involved anymore, or even to begin with.
Bob is the main mover and he's blown it big time. All he needed to do was actually speak to Dave Turnbull about his concerns, and all this would have been avoided. He has deliberately chosen the most damaging option that did not have the best interests of the BMC and its members at heart, and he should certainly resign.
4
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Agree 100%.
In response to Rob Parsons' post, starting a monc because of a 'sense of unease' would be a grossly incompetent and disruptive thing to do. You need to be absolutely 100% sure that something is very wrong before you consider it if the implications are people losing their jobs and the whole organisation being affected.
Agree 100%.
In response to Rob Parsons' post, starting a monc because of a 'sense of unease' would be a grossly incompetent and disruptive thing to do. You need to be absolutely 100% sure that something is very wrong before you consider it if the implications are people losing their jobs and the whole organisation being affected.
4
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I agree. The suggestion though was whether Bob and friends, being honourable people, should voluntary step down. To be honest, I don't have any strong opinions on that. It's up to them, but if the motion is defeated will be pretty irrelevant to the rest of us.
> having people associated with this motion stripped of their honorary membership/patron/whatever else status, is really a rotten, vindictive, and anti-democratic one
I agree. The suggestion though was whether Bob and friends, being honourable people, should voluntary step down. To be honest, I don't have any strong opinions on that. It's up to them, but if the motion is defeated will be pretty irrelevant to the rest of us.
1
In reply to Frank the Husky:
As I understand it, this was true with several of the "signatories" on the draft version of the motion, but the signatories on the final version were verified.
Someone mentioned on another thread that one of *those* signatories now regrets their involvement, but if so they don't seem to have identified themselves publicly.
Agreed. Fervently.
> It's interesting to note that at least 4 of the "signatories" didn't want their names associated with the motion when they were asked - perhaps their names were added without their knowledge?
As I understand it, this was true with several of the "signatories" on the draft version of the motion, but the signatories on the final version were verified.
Someone mentioned on another thread that one of *those* signatories now regrets their involvement, but if so they don't seem to have identified themselves publicly.
> He has deliberately chosen the most damaging option that did not have the best interests of the BMC and its members at heart
Agreed. Fervently.
2
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
An NC member has put it more strongly than that in https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660668&v=1#x8536143 ; that's what I was alluding to.
> The suggestion though was whether Bob and friends, being honourable people, should voluntary step down.
An NC member has put it more strongly than that in https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660668&v=1#x8536143 ; that's what I was alluding to.
Post edited at 10:29
1
1
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Which 'at least 4'? If there was any doubt about the correctness of the motion in the terms you're implying, then it should have been thrown out.
As it is, the motion was accepted for the AGM as valid, and all signatories are equally associated with it: that's how things work.
> It's interesting to note that at least 4 of the "signatories" didn't want their names associated with the motion when they were asked - perhaps their names were added without their knowledge?
Which 'at least 4'? If there was any doubt about the correctness of the motion in the terms you're implying, then it should have been thrown out.
As it is, the motion was accepted for the AGM as valid, and all signatories are equally associated with it: that's how things work.
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
You know full well the original motion included people who hadn't agreed inclusion of their names and when contacted by the BMC (process requires confirmation by signature and the original motion was unsigned) said they did not even support it.
I think what is really despicable is if the dishonest practices we have seen around this motion ever gets 'swept under the carpet'. There is no formal mechanism I'm aware of for stripping honorary posts so any departures would have to be voluntary.
We have to have improved information processes and more open discussion for such motions in future and rule changes are needed for this.
As for which of the 29 that's easy. The ones who hold honorary BMC titles who have continued to campaign dishonestly or have written knowingly dishonest letters and kept this up to the AGM without apology. You cant be an honored friend of the organisation and be involved in dishonest practice to undermine it. To me an admission of guilt and apology before the AGM would absolve any of them, despite the very real damage it has caused. Signing the motion itself is irrelevant as its part of the democracy of the organisation and at the time the facts were not clear. However as the campaign continued it has distorted democracy as lies and misinformation visibly outed in the public domain have clearly gone unchallenged in some circles. As a result it is certain some proxy voters for the AGM have been duped and still possible some of those who signed the motion too (though thats looking increasingly unlikely). The hypocrisy of this, in a motion attacking the BMC for its democracy and openess, is rank.
You know full well the original motion included people who hadn't agreed inclusion of their names and when contacted by the BMC (process requires confirmation by signature and the original motion was unsigned) said they did not even support it.
I think what is really despicable is if the dishonest practices we have seen around this motion ever gets 'swept under the carpet'. There is no formal mechanism I'm aware of for stripping honorary posts so any departures would have to be voluntary.
We have to have improved information processes and more open discussion for such motions in future and rule changes are needed for this.
As for which of the 29 that's easy. The ones who hold honorary BMC titles who have continued to campaign dishonestly or have written knowingly dishonest letters and kept this up to the AGM without apology. You cant be an honored friend of the organisation and be involved in dishonest practice to undermine it. To me an admission of guilt and apology before the AGM would absolve any of them, despite the very real damage it has caused. Signing the motion itself is irrelevant as its part of the democracy of the organisation and at the time the facts were not clear. However as the campaign continued it has distorted democracy as lies and misinformation visibly outed in the public domain have clearly gone unchallenged in some circles. As a result it is certain some proxy voters for the AGM have been duped and still possible some of those who signed the motion too (though thats looking increasingly unlikely). The hypocrisy of this, in a motion attacking the BMC for its democracy and openess, is rank.
Post edited at 11:08
4
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I'm passing on information that Dave Turnbull shared at the Peak Area meeting. Dave is always very careful in what he says. There were "at least 4", and you'll either have to take his word for that or assume he's lying, and I'm confident that isn't the case.
> Which 'at least 4'? If there was any doubt about the correctness of the motion in the terms you're implying, then it should have been thrown out.As it is, the motion was accepted for the AGM as valid, and all signatories are equally associated with it: that's how things work.
I'm passing on information that Dave Turnbull shared at the Peak Area meeting. Dave is always very careful in what he says. There were "at least 4", and you'll either have to take his word for that or assume he's lying, and I'm confident that isn't the case.
1
In reply to Frank the Husky:
I'll obviously take your and his word, but something doesn't sound quite right: if that applied to the motion as it is, then the motion ought to have been thrown out as invalid. So I assume the names you and he are referring to might have appeared on a draft version - correct?
All anybody can do in the current circumstance is accept that all signatures on the actual motion under discussion are bona fide.
I'll obviously take your and his word, but something doesn't sound quite right: if that applied to the motion as it is, then the motion ought to have been thrown out as invalid. So I assume the names you and he are referring to might have appeared on a draft version - correct?
All anybody can do in the current circumstance is accept that all signatures on the actual motion under discussion are bona fide.
Post edited at 18:39
In reply to Frank the Husky:
That related to the initial more lengthily worded proposed motion. To my knowledge I don't think anyone has withdrawn from the reworded shorter motion that was formally submitted and now stands.
That related to the initial more lengthily worded proposed motion. To my knowledge I don't think anyone has withdrawn from the reworded shorter motion that was formally submitted and now stands.
4
In reply to Rob Parsons:
As I understood it (having also been there at the Peak Area meeting), that referred to the list of signatories which Bob Pettigrew initially submitted to the BMC.
(This may also be the same list appearing on the draft version of the motion which has been circulating -- don't know.)
But if I recall correctly, after contacting some of those people and finding out that they hadn't signed, Turnbull required that the motion be properly submitted with all the signatories confirming they'd signed (either with a physical signature or e-mail) -- not just a list of names.
So the final list published with the motion in the AGM agenda should be legitimate.
As I understood it (having also been there at the Peak Area meeting), that referred to the list of signatories which Bob Pettigrew initially submitted to the BMC.
(This may also be the same list appearing on the draft version of the motion which has been circulating -- don't know.)
But if I recall correctly, after contacting some of those people and finding out that they hadn't signed, Turnbull required that the motion be properly submitted with all the signatories confirming they'd signed (either with a physical signature or e-mail) -- not just a list of names.
So the final list published with the motion in the AGM agenda should be legitimate.
3
In reply to ukb & bmc shark:
That's my understanding too but the submitted motion doesn't say anything much more than there are some unspecified governance concerns. As a result, the BMC rightly asked Bob to submit more written detail to better inform members (eg in Summit) on the case they were voting for, and he declined to provide this, twice. I didn't mind where in public the full argument was presented but on a vague MoNC dealing with alledged failures in honesty, openess and democracy, it should not be only in secret breifings based on lies and misinformation, led by an honorary member of the BMC and a patron of the BMC. At the AGM the matter will almost certainly be decided based mainly on proxy votes. If the motion isn't withdrawn and is lost at the AGM those two at least should be pressured to resign their honorary positions for their consistently dishonest practice incompatible with their honorary roles. Again, to be clear, this is nothing to do with the submission of the motion and everything to do with the dishonest letters, secret breifings and continued refusal to deal with the membership in public.
That's my understanding too but the submitted motion doesn't say anything much more than there are some unspecified governance concerns. As a result, the BMC rightly asked Bob to submit more written detail to better inform members (eg in Summit) on the case they were voting for, and he declined to provide this, twice. I didn't mind where in public the full argument was presented but on a vague MoNC dealing with alledged failures in honesty, openess and democracy, it should not be only in secret breifings based on lies and misinformation, led by an honorary member of the BMC and a patron of the BMC. At the AGM the matter will almost certainly be decided based mainly on proxy votes. If the motion isn't withdrawn and is lost at the AGM those two at least should be pressured to resign their honorary positions for their consistently dishonest practice incompatible with their honorary roles. Again, to be clear, this is nothing to do with the submission of the motion and everything to do with the dishonest letters, secret breifings and continued refusal to deal with the membership in public.
Post edited at 20:07
7
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...