UKC

NEWS: BMC motion of no-confidence defeated

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC/UKH News 24 Apr 2017
BMC AGM 2017, 4 kbThe motion of no-confidence put forward by Bob Pettigrew over the BMC’s executive committee was defeated over the weekend at the AGM. The motion by former president Bob Pettigrew had 30 co-signatures and was loosely related to the BMC’s aborted name change last year, although it has since emerged that there were various other motivations.

Read more
4
 Will Hunt 24 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Can anyone actually confirm that somebody did pour a pint over Bob?! Unbelievable!
 Andy Hardy 24 Apr 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:

Waste of good beer.
2
 Dave Garnett 24 Apr 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:

> Can anyone actually confirm that somebody did pour a pint over Bob?! Unbelievable!

Clearly I left too early!
1
 George Budd 24 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Is it possible to find the notes from Pettigrews speech, if notes were taken? Or could anyone who was there outline his points? Ta in advance
 Chris the Tall 24 Apr 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:

I'm sorry officer, I didn't see anything

(actually that's true - I had my back turned when the alleged incident is alleged to have possibly happened)
 Yanchik 24 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Not a waste - a use. A sacrifice, even.

Y
1
 slab_happy 24 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I'm beyond appalled that some of the supporters of the motion thought it was appropriate to heckle Mr. Siddiqui's resignation speech.

The UKB description indicates that the hecklers included some of the signatories:

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,27926.msg549854/boardseen.htm...
 planetmarshall 24 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

> Siddiqui’s wife delivered an extremely emotional speech....

Presumably she has a name and identify of her own....?

3
 olddirtydoggy 24 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Just looks like a bunch of old blokes babbling about stuff. Powerplay of an organisation that has very little relevance now. I'm struggling to care about all this.
37
 Chris the Tall 24 Apr 2017
In reply to planetmarshall:

Louise - although to be fair she didn't actually identify herself
 slab_happy 24 Apr 2017
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

And yet you need to post on so many of these threads to tell us how little you care.
1
 Tyler 24 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
"Outgoing BMC Vice-President Rupert Davies went on to forensically demolish Pettigrew’s statement, disproving many things that had been stated as fact."

Nice one Ru.

I don't think pouring a pint over someone's head reflects well on anyone
1
 FreshSlate 24 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Wow there's a lot of emotional language in there such as 'accomplishes', I was against the motion but this article seemed to go slightly overboard with the bias.

Edit: To the dislikers, it's supposed to be newstory not an opinion piece. I just prefer more neutral journalism to dailymailism.

Actually sack that! Traitors, enemies of the people...
Post edited at 18:06
12
 Chris the Tall 24 Apr 2017
In reply to George Budd:

He expressed his dislike of the olympics, the IFSC, Marco Scolaris and Sport England, his concern that the BMC would chase medals like the British Canoe Union and then get mired in funding crisis like British Cycling or Swimming. There was some strange point about parents expecting the BMC to train their 8 year olds to be olympic champions.

The main thrust of his argument seemed to be an attempt to prove that the name change was driven by a request from the IFSC in order to curry favour with the IOC and swing the vote in favour of climbing getting the nod for 2020. The proof being that the Japanese Mountaineering Association decided to change their name at the same time.

Let's just say he didn't use his 15 minutes very well
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I have updated the article with a longer excerpt from the speech that Rehan Siddiqui and his wife Louise gave.

Nick
1
 planetmarshall 24 Apr 2017
In reply to FreshSlate:

> ...It's supposed to be newstory not an opinion piece. I just prefer more neutral journalism to dailymailism.

I think that's a fair point, with loaded phrases like "forensically demolished..." it's clearly an opinion piece, even if it's an opinion that most attendees agreed with.
2
 Dave Garnett 24 Apr 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> He expressed his dislike of the olympics, the IFSC, Marco Scolaris and Sport England, his concern that the BMC would chase medals like the British Canoe Union and then get mired in funding crisis like British Cycling or Swimming.

Yes, I couldn't quite work out whether he was more worried that 'Sports Council' funding inevitably led to corruption and mismanagement or that having a governance review had led to suspension of grant funding (actually, is that even true?). Whatever, there was more than a hint of Tea Party paranoia about anything Government-related...

> There was some strange point about parents expecting the BMC to train their 8 year olds to be olympic champions.

... and anything that carried the faintest whiff of inclusion.

 FactorXXX 24 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Waste of good beer.

I assume they would have used Bob's own pint as to use your own would be total madness!
 spenser 24 Apr 2017
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

There were points made from at least 2 or 3 people under the age of 30 (I was one of them) and a fair few more from those under 40 who were present at the meeting, plenty of young people submitted proxy votes too.
 olddirtydoggy 24 Apr 2017
In reply to slab_happy:
I don't really care about the BMC or its issues. I do care that it's dominating these forums and theres very little climbing chatter on these boards these days. Real shame that the BMC is getting more discussion than the very thing we do.
Isn't it all just "xy and z don't like the QWERT and ASDF spits its dummy out because ZXCV wants its own way" It's all nonsense when it results in grown men booing and throwing beer at people. Is this the kind the rabble that I joined when I bought membership of the BMC last year? (Only bought in for the overpriced holiday insurance)
Post edited at 20:49
36
 Dave Garnett 24 Apr 2017
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

> I don't really care about the BMC or its issues. I do care that it's dominating these forums and theres very little climbing chatter on these boards these days.

OK, lots of people got a route in between the AGM and the dinner and I did 12 pitches the following day.
1
 stp 24 Apr 2017
In reply to FreshSlate:

Yeah I totally agree. There seems to be some very damning claims, unsupported by any evidence, and as you say it's totally one-sided. Some more statements or interviews from Pettigrew and co. would have been interesting. It would be much better IMO to let the readers figure out for themselves what to think about this affair rather than the unashamed, biased reporting like this.
8
 olddirtydoggy 24 Apr 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:
So why are they not posting about that instead?
Post edited at 20:50
6
 Misha 24 Apr 2017
In reply to stp:
Agree that some views from Pettigrew's camp would have been interesting. Then again, UKC isn't the BBC, it doesn't have to be impartial.
3
 Andy Hardy 24 Apr 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

Good point, well made.
1
 Postmanpat 24 Apr 2017
In reply to olddirtydoggy:
> I don't really care about the BMC or its issues.
>
The BMC's issues are your issues: access, protection of the climbing environment, safety, promotion of climbers' interests. All these were at risk had the BMC been sent into the turmoil that the MONC promised.
Post edited at 21:09
 toad 24 Apr 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> > The BMC's issues are your issues: access, protection of the climbing environment, safety, promotion of climbers' interests. All these were at risk had the BMC been sent into the turoil that the MONC promised.

Every word of this ^
 Valkyrie1968 24 Apr 2017
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

> theres very little climbing chatter on these boards these days.

Was there ever? As far as I can tell, contributions like yours make up 90% of the UKC forums. The discussions that have taken place relating to the MONC, however, have been a refreshing change of pace; it might just be the fact that all of that ire has been directed towards elderly cretins who have very little grasp of the internet or its communication possibilities, rather than one another, but the sense of unity and lack of petty point scoring have been delightful.
1
 olddirtydoggy 24 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

No they're not. We'll climb without the BMC. They might secure access to crags on private land and buy up places but lets say it all comes crashing down tomorrow, climbing will continue just as it always has.
52
 Misha 24 Apr 2017
In reply to olddirtydoggy:
That's a very short sighted view of the climbing world. Having a national structure for negotiating access is critical in the long term.
 Postmanpat 24 Apr 2017
In reply to olddirtydoggy:
> No they're not. We'll climb without the BMC. They might secure access to crags on private land and buy up places but lets say it all comes crashing down tomorrow, climbing will continue just as it always has.

No it won't; access in all sorts of places would quickly come under threat, but you clearly haven't go a scoobie about the work they do so you aren't really in a position to judge whether it matters.
Post edited at 21:19
 stp 24 Apr 2017
In reply to Misha:

> Then again, UKC isn't the BBC, it doesn't have to be impartial.

No they don't but most of the time I think they are so just for consistency would be nice. It also seems somewhat demeaning to UKC users: as if they may reach the wrong conclusion without UKC to guide them.

6
 Ian W 24 Apr 2017
In reply to Misha:

There were views / prepared statements leaked onto here by various posters; of the "30" only Steve Woollard posted openly. Despite several requests, Bob & co refused to provide information. Of the information leaked, a significant proportion was at best just wrong, and at worst malicious lies. Despite open invitations, only one (Mark Vallance) had the decency to turn up at an area meeting. They have had every chance to get their message out in the open and have positively avoided those opportunities.
And I didnt think they could stoop much lower until I heard some of them heckled Rehan / Lois during his resignation speech. Those people really are pathetic.
 Will Hunt 24 Apr 2017
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

You are an idiot.
8
 Mick Ward 24 Apr 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

> I'm beyond appalled that some of the supporters of the motion thought it was appropriate to heckle Mr. Siddiqui's resignation speech.

Agree totally. OK I wasn't there and can't guage the mood of the meeting. But this seems incredibly crass. And if the poor guy was gutted, into the bargain...

Seems to go beyond any kind of decency or compassion.

Hopefully his standing ovation is some consolation.

Mick
 Martin Hore 24 Apr 2017
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

> So why are they not posting about that instead?

Because you can go climbing anytime (unless like me you live in Ipswich). This is one of the most important issues to face our national body in my time as a climber. If you don't like it dominating the forum you don't have to read the threads or post on them.

As was mentioned elsewhere, without the coverage this has received on UKC it's entirely possible the motion would have passed, against the wishes of the membership, and to the great detriment of the work the BMC does on our behalf.

To be fair to you personally though, I did peek at your profile and discover that you have also posted on many recent climbing-related threads.

Martin
 AlisonS 24 Apr 2017
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

> I don't really care about the BMC or its issues. I do care that it's dominating these forums and theres very little climbing chatter on these boards these days.

Why bother clicking on it then? Just ignore it like I ignore the multitudinous boring gear threads. Or trot off and start some climbing chatter ones. And do try and make them interesting!
 Greasy Prusiks 24 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Absolutely ridiculous to waste so much BMC time with such a poorly thought through MONC in my opinion. It must have been a huge drain on the people who are working on actual climbing issues like safety and crag access to have this hanging over them.

To then heckle the resignation speech of someone who just showed you the courtesy of a fair, uninterrupted and democratic airing of your views is an absolutely embarrassing way to behave.

I'm glad the BMC can move on now and put this behind us.

Edit: I'm really sorry to see Rehan Siddiqui resign. Just wanted to thank him for all the work he did.
Post edited at 22:11
1
 FreshSlate 24 Apr 2017
In reply to stp:

> No they don't but most of the time I think they are so just for consistency would be nice. It also seems somewhat demeaning to UKC users: as if they may reach the wrong conclusion without UKC to guide them.

Yeah I think that's a fair point. I think the style is down to the author's personal feelings bleeding into the piece.

I'm sure that they could write a great piece defending the BMC and making arguments against Bob's motion. However, taking a swing at certain groups and calling them petty seems unbefitting from the first announcement of this news from UKC.

It would be fine if it was titled, "Opinion: BMC motion rightfully defeated" rather than "NEWS:"

4
 BrainoverBrawn 24 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
When a day on the hill is over and the pub is too small for everybody to fit in the wet clothes pile is so big that everyone smells a bit like olddirtydoggy. I'm surprised though that it was so crowded that everyone was talking to the olddirtydoggy. However it was quite a day so no wonder there were votes and resignations and cafuffle. That some are so able and dignified as to keep access as a serious issue to be taken seriously when I would just get removed without their support I am proud to be able to read and write about them.
Post edited at 22:38
 olddirtydoggy 24 Apr 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:

Thats not very nice. I've not come on here insulting anybody, I've just got an opinion thats different to yours so please maintain a respectful manner.
20
Pan Ron 25 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Haven't really followed this, but it sounds like a sad affair all round.

Ironically, I feel particularly sorry for this Bob Pettigrew chap. Clearly on the wrong side of the argument, well and truly trounced in his attempted coup and having caused a pretty grievous experience for a large number of people who shouldn't have had to endure it.

In one sense I hope that he realises what he's done, but in another I'm quite concerned for his mental wellbeing if he does have that epiphany.
1
 Neil Morrison 25 Apr 2017
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

So get posting on that kind of topic, I wait with baited breath for your exciting inputs and insights. I would agree that the behaviour sounds appalling but think you might be missing the relevance of the BMC in a host of areas, not least access to the crags and mountains or in relation to safety. In respect of holiday insurance they are no more expensive than other providers and can be cheaper plus it is only overpriced until you have to use it!
 Dave Garnett 25 Apr 2017
In reply to David Martin:

> ...but in another I'm quite concerned for his mental wellbeing if he does have that epiphany.

He didn't seem very troubled by self doubt.

Pan Ron 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> He didn't seem very troubled by self doubt.

No, he doesn't. Which is no doubt the exact short-coming of personality that got him in this mess. But it may just be his saving grace now he finds himself swimming in the sh1tstorm of repercussions. Not a crowning achievement for anyone, let alone a gentleman of advanced years who would hopefully have realised by now he's better off at home enjoying a Scotch.

I blame Brexit.
2
J1234 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:

> You are an idiot.

To be honest I am not liking you.
You seem to have joined the BMC because of this issue, until than you maybe had no interest. 97% of the people are just not interested and challenge its worth, one comes on here and you call them an idiot. You also have been pretty strong about Bob Pettigrew, who I am not the greatest fan of, however he was not made an honorary member for no reason, and I would guess its because he put in lots of time and effort over many years.
So Will Hunt when you have put some time and effort into the BMC and maybe climbing in general through clean ups and guidebook work, attending area meetings, AGMs and club stuff, let us know.
But when people come with alternate views, do not call them idiots, its debate, you may disagree, but in there somewhere they may have a point.
19
 stp 25 Apr 2017
In reply to David Martin:

I imagine that denial, self justification and being part of a group of people who all agree with him will help him avoid being too troubled over it.
 stp 25 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

Well said and sadly a point that seems to made repeatedly on these forums.
5
 Will Hunt 25 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

> To be honest I am not liking you. You seem to have joined the BMC because of this issue, until than you maybe had no interest.

I've been a member since 2007 with a bit of a gap when I left university.


So Will Hunt when you have put some time and effort into the BMC and maybe climbing in general through clean ups and guidebook work, attending area meetings, AGMs and club stuff, let us know.But when people come with alternate views, do not call them idiots, its debate, you may disagree, but in there somewhere they may have a point.

I'll let you know now then. The only thing on your list I am not currently involved with is attending the AGM, which I generally vote on by proxy. I'll not apologise for questioning the intelligence of somebody who believes the BMC is an irrelevance when it is so glaringly obvious how much they contribute to climbing in Britain.

2
 Michael Hood 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:

Questioning someone's intelligence is different from calling them an idiot. One is part of debate the other is an insult.

Whilst your zeal about this is admirable, I suspect people are questioning your choice of words rather than your views.
1
 slab_happy 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Mick Ward:

> Hopefully his standing ovation is some consolation.

In case you've not seen, from https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=662655 -- Ian W's proposing him for honorary membership. Obviously it's not going to make up for the shit he's been through, but it seems like a good and proper thing to do.
 Dave Garnett 25 Apr 2017
In reply to David Martin:
> I blame Brexit.

I'm not going to fall for that one, but there did seem to me a sadly familiar theme of anything foreign being bad, any government involvement being suspect on principle, a wistful yearning for the way we used to do things properly and, of course, an unshakeable conviction that by being born an Englishman, one had won first prize in the lottery of life.
Post edited at 09:13
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I'm not going to fall for that one, but there did seem to me a sadly familiar theme of anything foreign being bad, any government involvement being suspect on principle, a wistful yearning for the way we used to do things properly and, of course, an unshakeable conviction that by being born an English gentleman, one had won first prize in the lottery of life.

Fixed that for you
 aln 25 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I don't know anything about the workings of the BMC but this article is very obviously biased against Bob Pettigrew. Journalism my arse
15
 GrahamD 25 Apr 2017
In reply to aln:

This apparent witch hunt does, I think, detract from a very real concern that some people still have and which, I suspect, BP was alluding to: That is I am not confident that the BMC was not being dragged in a direction I disagree with.

So taking individuals out of this, I abstained because, hand on heart, I couldn't say I actually do have confidence in the BMC and its objectives right now.
 Dave Garnett 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Fixed that for you

Well, yes, although he's not actually that posh really. Nottingham High and Loughborough, geography presumably (FRGS) and eventually a school inspector. Not exactly a scion of Empire.
 Andy Say 25 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

All,

Have a look at https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2017/04/23/bmc-president-rehan-siddiqui-d... for a much fuller and more detailed report.
 The New NickB 25 Apr 2017
In reply to David Martin:

> Ironically, I feel particularly sorry for this Bob Pettigrew chap.

I feel a lot more sorry for Rehan Siddiqui
1
 Andy Say 25 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

> You also have been pretty strong about Bob Pettigrew, who I am not the greatest fan of, however he was not made an honorary member for no reason, and I would guess its because he put in lots of time and effort over many years.

"Bob has been a BMC stalwart and staunch advocate for the freedoms of mountaineers for well over 50 years. He is one of a rare breed of mountaineers with a virtually unprecedented passion and encyclopedic knowledge of British mountaineering history, its administration and its literature. Bob has dedicated his life to the mountains and mountaineering and his MBE is extremely well deserved." BMC website. 2015.

 Jamie Wakeham 25 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

> ...a very real concern that some people still have and which, I suspect, BP was alluding to: That is I am not confident that the BMC was not being dragged in a direction I disagree with...

That's a perfectly reasonable point of view, and there are sensible and proportionate ways to express it and to call for action.

This bat-shit motion was categorically not one of them. It's been enormously destructive, and would have been much more so had it passed. I'm not surprised people are angry with its instigator. I would be even if he'd acted with utter honesty and propriety throughout, and he has not.

1
 Vybz 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:

It's almost as if you wrote bedspring's comment so you could show off how much you actually do!

Are you currently helping out with your 3rd or 4th guidebook Will?
1
 AlanLittle 25 Apr 2017
In reply to David Martin:

Not to mention Doug Scott as tragic hero: glorious climbing career, totally praiseworthy work on behalf of poor local people in mountain areas, former well known hippy anarchist etc etc ... yet now striving to go down in history as a cantankerous old reactionary. The irony.
1
J1234 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:

> I've been a member since 2007 with a bit of a gap when I left university.So Will Hunt when you have put some time and effort into the BMC and maybe climbing in general through clean ups and guidebook work, attending area meetings, AGMs and club stuff, let us know.But when people come with alternate views, do not call them idiots, its debate, you may disagree, but in there somewhere they may have a point.I'll let you know now then. The only thing on your list I am not currently involved with is attending the AGM, which I generally vote on by proxy. I'll not apologise for questioning the intelligence of somebody who believes the BMC is an irrelevance when it is so glaringly obvious how much they contribute to climbing in Britain.

Most excellent. Now think on this youth, in 50 years you maybe a "Bob Pettigrew", how will you feel if some youngster is dissing a lifetime of work and effort. Disagree yes, but show respect for other opinions.

as Mark Twain said “When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”
15
 Chris the Tall 25 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

>You also have been pretty strong about Bob Pettigrew, who I am not the greatest fan of, however he was not made an honorary member for no reason, and I would guess its because he put in lots of time and effort over many years.

Bob was BMC president from 1976-79 and was made a honorary member in the mid 80s. Henry Folkard has suggested that Bob has only been to 1 or 2 of the Peak area meetings in the last 20 years, but I'm afraid Henry is mistaken on this -
he may not have shown much interest in access, but he has spoken whenever the olympics or the primacy of the clubs was on the agenda.

Both the UKC article and the spilt pint (for which there was a retaliatory glass of claret, allegedly) are demonstrations not just of anger that Bob has done so much unnecessary damage , but also at his frustration for refusing to go public with his case prior to the AGM. There was a general feeling of "Is that it ?" when he spoke.

Yes it is right to raise your concerns about the direction the BMC is heading, to hold the exec to account, but there is a constructive way to do, or you can be destructive, and Bob choose the latter. There is also the small matter of honesty.

And the problem is that Bob has succeeded. Not in his main aim of stopping British involvement in climbing at the olympics, or taking revenge on Marco Scolaris, and not by winning a vote, let alone an argument.

But he has succeeded in ending Rehan's presidency, simply by being such a nuisance that Rehan can no longer continue his voluntary work for the BMC without jeopardising his commitments to his young family and the business he and Louise run

Now I don't know how much effort Bob had to put in as president back the '70s, but the BMC was a more smaller organisation back then. And unlike Bob and Doug, I don't want to see the BMC revert to being merely a umbrella organisation for the clubs. I want a BMC that's active, diverse and inclusive.

The BMC has lost a very good leader in Rehan. More than that, the very notion of an active but voluntary president is now in question. I see Stuart Maconie is the new president of the Ramblers - great author, great DJ, but I wonder how many committee meetings he'll be attending ? Is that where the BMC is heading ? Because as soon as you start paying someone to do the job, there will be the inevitable complaints that they are only in it for the money.
1
 GrahamD 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

I agree with the 'ways and means' comment you make, but I would hate what looks like a witch hunt right now to deflect from the fact that there are genuine concerns (maybe a silent majority, maybe a grumpy old minority - don't know) which shouldn't simply be discredited along with the failed MONC.

A defeat of the MONC is just that - a defeat of a heavy handed (mis)use of the democratic protest (I'll pass making judgement on that - I'm not sure the issues would have been as thouroughly aired without the MONC). What it isn't is an endorsement or mandate for the actions of the BMC in terms of setting a direction of the organisation.
 La benya 25 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

That didn't sound like an apology to Will for calling into question his credentials....
J1234 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Stuart Maconie. Interesting, years ago he was active on UK.Rec walking forum. Very very intelligent bloke who has come from the grass roots, my first instinct is he will be good.

I am leaving this now.

Saw you on Nemoricon last year from Camel, done both now, both good routes. Aint climbing a small world
J1234 25 Apr 2017
In reply to La benya:

It wasnt.
9
In reply to Dave Garnett:

His airs and graces would have you think he was a gentleman, (mis) quoting Latin, and his general demeanor.
2
 Dave Garnett 25 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

> I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”

Well this old man has not learned so much that he didn't try a breathtakingly inappropriate crack about Scolaris that managed to be both racist and sexist - not only is he foreign but did you know his middle name is Maria?
1
 Chris the Tall 25 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

> Stuart Maconie. Interesting, years ago he was active on UK.Rec walking forum. Very very intelligent bloke who has come from the grass roots, my first instinct is he will be good.

Oh I agree - but I suspect he will be more of a celebrity figurehead that an an activist like Rab, Scott or Rehan. I could be wrong.

>I am leaving this now.Saw you on Nemoricon last year from Camel, done both now, both good routes. Aint climbing a small world

Given how little I have climbed in the last 5 years this would have been a very rare sighting! And down at the bottom of the crag I got chatting to 2 other English blokes, then realised I'd climbed with one of them 5 years earlier.

J1234 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Sorry 2 + 2 = 5 this time

Lets see about Maconie
1
 Chris the Tall 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

I'd forgotten about that "Maria" comment - WTF ?

As I said, he didn't use his 15 minutes very well
 La benya 25 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

Maybe you should try it, seeing as you were wrong, and the whole point of your post was to chastise someone for casting aspersions. That, and you came across as a tool.
4
 Offwidth 25 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:
Most people are attacking Bobs recent duplicitous actions not his past record or even his opinions. Its pretty obvious he knew what he was doing (with all the secrecy, dishonesty and damage involved) and still says he is unrepentant in that Grough article and has lied again (the BMC asked him several times for him to submit something in more detail to better inform the membership). As far as I'm concerned such actions must have consequencies. I don't believe we can have an organisation where people in honorary positions behave in that way. The same applies to Doug but the rest have nothing like as clear evidence of dishonorable behaviour and most of the 29 have none really at all (some might have been duped).

Quite a few people in the AGM spoke up in support of Bob's concerns (and everyone had to contribute something new.. there was no time for overly similar responses) but said they would be voting agaisnt the motion or abstaining. The BMC as a membership organisation isn't going to suddenly transform, as is very clear from the rebrand mess.
Post edited at 11:55
 toad 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> and still says he is unrepentant in that Grouse article

Apt bit of autocorrect/ Freud there
 Jamie Wakeham 25 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

I think you're absolutely right - there were and still are important discussions to be had - but once the governance review had been announced, he should have pulled his motion. To have continued in this bloody-minded way just shows him to be a wrecker.

On a tangent, is it known who the heckler(s) during Louise's delivery of Rehan's speech were? I'd like to make sure they're not on my christmas card list either.

 Offwidth 25 Apr 2017
In reply to toad:

Fixed... fat fingers, faulty eyesight and tablets 'knowing' what you want to say.
 Offwidth 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Leo was one. I'd forgive the heckling to be honest... heat of the moment in a very emotional situation. His letter on that club website was worse in terms of dishonest pre-meditation, but it got pulled.
 Jamie Wakeham 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> Leo was one. I'd forgive the heckling to be honest... heat of the moment in a very emotional situation.

...fair enough. I wasn't there. Doesn't sound like very edifying behaviour though.
 Ian W 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

REgarding Leo's letter to the Vagabond, i got wind of it and contacted them asking to be able to put something out there to refute the worst of the misinformation. They (the Vagabond) were more than happy to do this, I sent them a response (with evidence where necessary), which they were happy to publish, and then decided to pull the letter. From a short exchange of emails with one of their committee, it seemed to me they were highly uncomfortable with the whole thing.
mysterion 25 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This reads like comedy. Was there someone turning while carrying a plank as well?
 Will Hunt 25 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:
> You also have been pretty strong about Bob Pettigrew, who I am not the greatest fan of, however he was not made an honorary member for no reason, and I would guess its because he put in lots of time and effort over many years.


I don't deny Bob's historic contribution to climbing, but that doesn't excuse his recent actions. Mick Ryan has mentioned on Facebook that there has been nastiness on both sides of the argument and it may appear to be so. I personally don't condone chucking a quarter of a pint over an octogenarian, but it sounds like Bob returned fire with red wine so did at least give better than he got.
If Bob and "the 30" had come forward with sensible arguments then they could have been discussed and debated on their own merits. As it happens, what little rationale there was had to be leaked, and it then transpired that Bob's arguments were mostly founded in misinformation and falsehoods. To debate his assertions at face value would have been to accept them as truths, so unfortunately any case against the motion necessitated accusations of lying - which is never pleasant. Bob's refusal to debate with ordinary members then compounded this. When it appears that somebody has attempted to stage a coup and holds the opinions of the "little people" of the membership in contempt, it starts to be difficult to say nice things. I do feel a little sorry for Bob that his debate sparring partner had to be Rupert Davies. To go up against such an intellectual heavyweight without much ammunition must have been uncomfortable.

I've seen in some places that folk are saying "at least the BMC are now taking a look in the mirror". I can't agree that any good has come of this. A governance review was already in the pipeline. The whole saga has been regrettable. Hopefully now everybody can move on.

As an aside, my response to your post this morning is a cause for personal embarrassment because it sounds like I'm proclaiming myself to be some sort of saintly missionary. Nothing could be further from the truth when you compare me to the great and good stalwarts of the climbing community who really do put the hours in, but to say that I've only joined to vote on this issue and that I've made no volunteer contribution to climbing is unfair so I felt I had to offer a defence.

As a further aside, thank you for drawing that Mark Twain quote to my attention. Brilliant!
Post edited at 12:40
 Dave Garnett 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> From a short exchange of emails with one of their committee, it seemed to me they were highly uncomfortable with the whole thing.

Yes, I wonder how happy the Wayfarers were with Bob's product placement.
J1234 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:
Thanks for taking the time
Passions have been aroused all round. Lets hope the boil has been lanced, we can all move on and work together
Post edited at 12:56
 Chris the Tall 25 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

From the comments section of Grough

https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2017/04/23/bmc-president-rehan-siddiqui-d...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Robert Pettigrew, MBE Former president and Hon.Member BMC

24 April 2017
Parsons is wrong.
First I have no stance against either competition climbing or its elevation to an Olympic event, nor have I denied that it has been debated in the BMC. But that was nine years ago and only in a National Council debate, not the AGM - the ultimate authority.
That is important, as was dramatically demonstrated by the change of name fiasco, and the waste of £75,500 -not "Sport England" money but Taxpayers' money. Moreover, nine years ago it was merely a distant prospect. Once the IOC made the decision in August, 2016 it emphasised the change of status from a Representative Body, preferred by the majority of the mountaineering community, to a Governing Body -abhorred by the mountaineering community. Such profound changes in the ethos, values and traditions cannot be left to either the limited forum of the National Council, even less the Executive Committeel it can only be sanctioned by the ultimate authority -the grass roots membership through the AGM. RP

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

First of all the olympic decision was taken after discussions and votes were held at every area meeting, and after a presidential election in which it was a major point of contention
Secondly Bob and his cohorts have 8 years in which they could have raised a specific motion concerning this at an AGM

This was pointed out by several people including myself at the AGM, but he keeps on trotting out the same old rubbish

He also remains convinced that the name change represented a change from the BMC as a representative body to a governing body . Was this the story he told to his 30 friends to convince them to back him, that this was a dire crisis that required drastic action ?

It is of course, more rubbish. There was no change of status, the BMC remains first and foremost a representative body.

And yes technically it is also a governing body, and has been for several decades, in 2 very specific areas. Indoor climbing competitions and ski mountaineering competitions. That's because international competition requires a governing body - it doesn't mean that the BMC is suddenly going to tell you how to climb or how to ski.
 Martin W 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> Have a look at https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2017/04/23/bmc-president-rehan-siddiqui-d... for a much fuller and more detailed report.

And a clarification from BP himself. Is he correct to say that: "Once the IOC made the decision in August, 2016 it emphasised the change of status from a Representative Body...to a Governing Body"?
 Michael Hood 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall: Damn, I was so hoping the BMC was going to tell me how to climb - anything to help me improve my woeful punterism

 d_b 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

Approach bottom of route, ascend to the top*, return to starting point in a safe and appropriate manner**.

*or traverse.
**except sea cliffs.

That'll be 50 quid.
 Will Hunt 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

He really is opposed to National Council isn't he? Everything must be decided at AGM level. Let's compare the two shall we?

Regular area meetings, held outside of 9-5 office hours, at a venue that is probably reasonably local to you. Comments can be submitted by email. Everybody, or very nearly everybody can reasonably have their say. Then your NC rep votes on behalf of their area.

AGM. Once a year, held on a day when you may well have other commitments (as I did this year). Attended by very few people, as much as anything due to logistics. Comments can presumably submitted by email to the chair, but there may not be time to read them. Of course, as we know, Bob prefers not to offer up his arguments until he gets in the room.

It just seems so plain that his motivation is to make decision making in the BMC less open to ordinary members. It makes me really cross.

Yours sincerely

Will Hunt, BSc (Ind), former president of the LUUMC, individual member of the BMC, member of the Leeds MC, met Princess Anne once.
 Andy Say 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

> ...fair enough. I wasn't there. Doesn't sound like very edifying behaviour though.

It was an initial reaction to what the supporters of the motion took to be a 'bit of afters'; having a go at those behind the motion after its defeat. At the time it was unclear that it was going to lead to Rehan's resignation. All heckling had stopped by that point.
 Neil Foster Global Crag Moderator 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:

> .....met Princess Anne once.

Judging by Bob's deferential fawning when describing anyone with an honour and the associated initials, I'd be extremely cautious about admitting to that, Will.
 Michael Hood 25 Apr 2017
In reply to davidbeynon: Surely £42.50 after applying my 15% BMC member's discount

Also, for sea cliffs, are you suggesting I return to the starting point in an unsafe and inappropriate manner

 Dave Garnett 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> It was an initial reaction to what the supporters of the motion took to be a 'bit of afters'; having a go at those behind the motion after its defeat. At the time it was unclear that it was going to lead to Rehan's resignation. All heckling had stopped by that point.

I think that's a fair summary. It was all a bit emotional and there was some confusion as to what was going on, since the AGM had technically closed.
 d_b 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Michael Hood:

I know people who claim that sea cliffs are inherently unsafe and inappropriate, so it may be redundant. For the record I'm not one of them.
 Offwidth 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Ian W:

We had lots of 'uncomfortable' clubs yet very few decided to formally advise their members to vote against the motion (this was perfectly feasible on the grounds of various combinations of: lack of clarity in the written motion, dishonesty, secrecy, disproportionality, untimeliness and certain institutional damage). I sympathise with their situation... these 30 included big well respected names in mountaineering and such nasty behaviour might transfer to a vocally opposed club... but many should have been braver. It was nothing to do with having perfectly valid concerns with BMC governance and everything to do with the dishonest way the motion was handled and presented by some of its lead proposers.
1
 slab_happy 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

That's good to know.
 Jamie Wakeham 25 Apr 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

Agreed - I'd found the idea that someone had heckled Rehan's wife as she gave his resignation speech one of the most distasteful apects of the whole thing, so I'm relieved to read this.
 Chris the Tall 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Jamie Wakeham:

Given Rehan's obvious emotion and distress, it would have been the decent thing to allow Louise to read his statement uninterrupted. Yes it contained some harsh words - an accusation of an attempted coup and of personal attacks that clearly made certain people rather uncomfortable - but given the tactics used and the damage caused I don't think this was unfair.

 Ramblin dave 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> We had lots of 'uncomfortable' clubs yet very few decided to formally advise their members to vote against the motion

I'm in two clubs, and on the committee of the smaller one. Neither of them advised their members to vote either way, although the one I'm not on the committee of had a "please look at this and take it seriously" email sent round by a member.

Personally I don't have a problem with this - it's not to do with possible nasty behaviour but with the fact it'd be presumptuous for the club committee to act like it's in a better position to judge the situation than the members are themselves. We could probably have reminded people that it was happening and pointed them to the arguments so far (eg the leaks plus the responses to them), but from chat in the pub etc I got the impression that most people were already aware of it anyway.
 Will Hunt 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I agree with this. I've no problem with clubs officially drawing attention to important votes and encouraging their members to have their say, and even advising what the committee's opinion is - but I think to formally advise members to vote one way or the other is a little too far and a bit reminiscent of block voting (not that I was around when that was a thing).
Post edited at 14:39
 Ian W 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> From the comments section of Groughhttps://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2017/04/23/bmc-president-rehan-siddiqui-d... Pettigrew, MBE Former president and Hon.Member BMC24 April 2017Parsons is wrong.First I have no stance against either competition climbing or its elevation to an Olympic event, nor have I denied that it has been debated in the BMC. But that was nine years ago and only in a National Council debate, not the AGM - the ultimate authority.That is important, as was dramatically demonstrated by the change of name fiasco, and the waste of £75,500 -not "Sport England" money but Taxpayers' money. Moreover, nine years ago it was merely a distant prospect. Once the IOC made the decision in August, 2016 it emphasised the change of status from a Representative Body, preferred by the majority of the mountaineering community, to a Governing Body -abhorred by the mountaineering community. Such profound changes in the ethos, values and traditions cannot be left to either the limited forum of the National Council, even less the Executive Committeel it can only be sanctioned by the ultimate authority -the grass roots membership through the AGM. RP>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>First of all the olympic decision was taken after discussions and votes were held at every area meeting, and after a presidential election in which it was a major point of contentionSecondly Bob and his cohorts have 8 years in which they could have raised a specific motion concerning this at an AGMThis was pointed out by several people including myself at the AGM, but he keeps on trotting out the same old rubbishHe also remains convinced that the name change represented a change from the BMC as a representative body to a governing body . Was this the story he told to his 30 friends to convince them to back him, that this was a dire crisis that required drastic action ?It is of course, more rubbish. There was no change of status, the BMC remains first and foremost a representative body.And yes technically it is also a governing body, and has been for several decades, in 2 very specific areas. Indoor climbing competitions and ski mountaineering competitions. That's because international competition requires a governing body - it doesn't mean that the BMC is suddenly going to tell you how to climb or how to ski.

And interestingly, one of the reasons UK Sport are reviewing the possibility of giving us funding is because we dont yet comply fully with the governance requirements for a governing body......

 Ian W 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Martin W:

> And a clarification from BP himself. Is he correct to say that: "Once the IOC made the decision in August, 2016 it emphasised the change of status from a Representative Body...to a Governing Body"?

No he absolutely is not correct.

The BMC will (hopefully) remain the representative body for all climbers / walkers / mountaineers. Within that corporate body there will also exist a section that acts as a governing body for competitions held in Great Britain, and for the team of athletes that represents Great Britain in international competitions. We are currently (well, until a delaying obstacle was put in the way.....) looking at how this can best be organised so as to satisfy the requirements of all.

 Ian W 25 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

And on the subject of clubs; I also have no problem with any of the clubs involved - as it is individual votes only, it will always be up to the individual to listen to arguments for and against and make p their minds, so I think it is inappropriate for clubs to form a "club view". My only direct contact was (as i said above) with the vagabond club, who handled things just fine. Unfortunately for the clubs, the actions of a few seems to have tarnished some of those clubs who were, and should be, an important part of GB mountaineering.
 Tobes 25 Apr 2017
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

> . Is this the kind the rabble that I joined when I bought membership of the BMC last year? (Only bought in for the overpriced holiday insurance)

You know you didn't even need to join the BMC to get that insurance. Membership of MCOS for example would still entitle you to the BMC endorsed insurance.

 Andy Say 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Tobes:

> You know you didn't even need to join the BMC to get that insurance. Membership of MCOS for example would still entitle you to the BMC endorsed insurance.

Is that a coded 'so sod off'?
 Tobes 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> Is that a coded 'so sod off'?

Ha ha, no! But I can see how that sounds now.

Just highlighting a common 'misconception' regarding the insurance policies on offer and membership requirements.
 Offwidth 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:
I would normally agree in the case of most contentious motions but this isn't about the motion this is about very very bad behaviour with real and serious impact from important names in climbing, some of whom have BMC honours. Clubs could have rightly spoken out against that bad behaviour AND remained neutral on any potential real issues of no confidence around the rebrand. They might even have forced Bob to submit a case to the BMC (to inform the membership of the issues) or possibly even withdraw it (as there wasn't the evidence for one really beyond the rebrand and that was clearly a symptom not a cause). I think people are tying themselves in constitutional knots trying to avoid causing offence when we are all reduced if we don't call out such dishonesty and wrecking for what it is. If ordinary nobodies in the BMC had produced a MoNC in this way they would have been universally castigated. Maybe its my republican instincts but nobody should be above criticism in this way.

I'm not blaming the clubs but I do think they could have considered this approach (brave though it would be).
Post edited at 17:21
1
 Lemony 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> I'm not blaming the clubs but I do think they could have considered this approach (brave though it would be).

On which note, I'd like to praise Steve Blake's strong condemnation and recommendation to oppose which he sent out to NMC members. Good work.
In reply to Will Hunt:

> AGM. Once a year, held on a day when you may well have other commitments (as I did this year). Attended by very few people, as much as anything due to logistics.

"It was standing room only as about 170 members of the British Mountaineering Council packed into the room where the organisation’s annual meeting was taking place"

Out of a membership of 83000-ish?

As I said earlier in the debate, IMHO, the AGM should be a rubber-stamping formality, with all real debate performed offline, in advance. For decisions to be made on arguments presented only at an AGM capable of holding 170 members would a nonsense of democracy.

The issue of internet debate and voting came up during the Individual membership furore in 2001 (or thereabouts). I still think it is a valid means of democracy. I cannot attend local area meets, because none are sufficiently local to me that I can get to them in a reasonable time and cost.
1
 Mick Ward 25 Apr 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

> In case you've not seen, from https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=662655 -- Ian W's proposing him for honorary membership. Obviously it's not going to make up for the shit he's been through, but it seems like a good and proper thing to do.

Have just got back (been travelling/climbing/travelling/offline all day) and seen this. Thank you very much indeed. Have been ruminating, the way you do on long journeys, on your own, and feel worse and worse about his treatment. It seems as though he's behaved utterly honourably all the way down the line and, as you say, got a ton of shit from certain quarters. Even if one disagreed re policy/practice, unless the person's behaved dishonourably, surely you treat them with courtesy and respect, at the very least?

I know we're in this weird Brexit/Trump world where everything seems to have gone awry and askew but doesn't that mean there's even more need for decency - especially in our own little climbing world?

Will read these threads tomorrow and hopefully understand more. I remember him from decades ago, as a kid at Stoney. Awful to think of him ending up with so much shit on his plate. But at least it seems he grew up to be a good guy and, in the end, that's what really matters.

Mick



 AlisonS 25 Apr 2017
In reply to Mick Ward:

That's how I feel too Mick; you've said it very well. Whoever the president was, they would have had to handle this and Rehan was the one we chose. He did it very capably and I am sorry it was at at such a personal cost. We have lost a good leader and it's all very regrettable.
All of us are losers in this strange vindictive world.
Pan Ron 26 Apr 2017
In reply to AlisonS:
> Whoever the president was, they would have had to handle this and Rehan was the one we chose.

I'm not usually one to play the race card, but is it possible this president was unique in his likelihood of having to face this though?

Much of the no-confidence motion seemed to rail against modernity, inclusion, change, and the end of a traditional self-image of how climbing in the UK is represented. A dark-skinned chap with a foreign sounding name (despite being UK born) embodies all that change and probably makes an easier target.

I'm not saying the no confidence motion was implicitly racist. Or even if it was that this is in some way a bigger problem than the weak substance of the underlying complaints. But a latent discomfort with perceived outsiders might be yet another contributing factor for things getting so out of hand.

The vitriol aimed at the president sounded somewhat similar in tone to that used against London's Mayor by individuals quite open about their specific opposition to a "Muslim" Mayor.
Post edited at 06:56
8
 james mann 26 Apr 2017
In reply to David Martin:

This isn't a sensible line of discussion. For all of the 29s faults in the running of their motion, racism or religious intolerance aren't two of them.

James
 elliott92 26 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Is the doug Scott involved, THE doug Scott? Shame if it is
In reply to james mann:

Well apparently Bob Pettigrew made a comment about Marco Scolaris that was seen as racist and sexist.
1
 Rob Parsons 26 Apr 2017
In reply to David Martin:

> The vitriol aimed at the president ...

What 'vitriol' are you referring to?
 Offwidth 26 Apr 2017
In reply to james mann:
Actually I think there are real issues here. In some circles the very practical active attitude Rehan had to inclusivity was an unwelcome focus and very much linked to sport England (where inclusivity in structures is a funding condition).

I'd put Graeme's point stronger. The 'Maria' quip Bob made about Marco Scolaris at the AGM was something that would have pissed people off in a public BMC meeting in the 1970s... pretty much the entire AGM audience recoiled..... he is clearly a sexist dinosaur.
Post edited at 08:34
 Offwidth 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
He was publicly heckled in a presidential presentation (and some walked out), I know for a fact he has recieved nasty personal emails. Emotions are high and this has led to very bad behaviour from some big name climbers supporting the motion and from some in response.
Post edited at 08:36
 winhill 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> The main thrust of his argument seemed to be an attempt to prove that the name change was driven by a request from the IFSC in order to curry favour with the IOC and swing the vote in favour of climbing getting the nod for 2020. The proof being that the Japanese Mountaineering Association decided to change their name at the same time.

This is how the news was reported on one sports website:

"Japan and British mountaineering groups set to change names to reflect climbing being included on Olympic programme"

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1040189/japan-and-british-mountainee...

It's possible the journo added 2+2 to get 5, but his bio on the page says he got a first in sports journalism!

So the most likely answer seems to be that the IFSC put out a release or notice that larged up the Olympic bid again, perhaps not cognisant of the trouble such a statement would cause the BMC.

The notices on the IFSC website are still up, the BMC one doesn't mention the Olympics but the JMA one does.

Of course if you changed'to reflect' to 'prior to' it would suddenly become more accurate.
 Chris the Tall 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I'm not sure if the comment 'his middle name is Maria' was racist, sexist, homophobic or all three. It was certainly pathetic and irrelevant.

Rehan stated aim was to ensure that the BMC was inclusive. In Bobs view this amounts to the BMC becoming evangelical - I think he used the word proselytising. Personally I feel this is elitist rather than racist, but then again I'm a middle aged, middle class, white male
 Chris the Tall 26 Apr 2017
In reply to winhill:

Interesting- thanks

2+2 = 5 - or rather if you are looking for evidence of a conspiracy, you can always find coincidences
 Misha 26 Apr 2017
In reply to elliott92:

> Is the doug Scott involved, THE doug Scott? Shame if it is

Yes but not that surprising. A few years back he stood against Rab Carrington for President on an anti-Olympics platform.
 spenser 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

I was really confused by the Maria remark, looking at the Wikipedia page for Marco Scolaris it would indeed appear that his middle name is Maria?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Maria_Scolaris
I thought the groans were simply that Bob was dragging up the whole Alan Blackshaw/ Marco Scolaris thing again, what am I missing?
In reply to james mann:

> This isn't a sensible line of discussion. For all of the 29s faults in the running of their motion, racism or religious intolerance aren't two of them. James

It's a very sensible line of discussion. Wincing at the thought that someone at the BMC AGM might be racist or religiously intolerant is your business, but that's no reason to shut that debate down. You cannot be certain that racism and religious intolerance were the motivating factors for the motion from some of the 30 people - you simply hope that's the case.
 john arran 26 Apr 2017
In reply to spenser:

What could be the reason for mentioning his middle name (when there's no possible ambiguity about his usual names) except to make a point by doing so? And what point could there possibly be except a sexist one?
 Ian W 26 Apr 2017
In reply to spenser:

> I was really confused by the Maria remark, looking at the Wikipedia page for Marco Scolaris it would indeed appear that his middle name is Maria?

Maria is sometimes used as a masculine middle name in certain countries, including italy. Its certainly not so common these days, but is not particularly unusual, especially in his age group.

Quite why it was brought up, I dont know. Its nothing more than his name!

 spenser 26 Apr 2017
In reply to john arran:
I thought Bob was just trying to avoid talking about him by his other names given that he'd been told not to. It didn't really occur to me that referring to someone by a feminine middle name really could be used to make a point...
Ian, that's probably why I was confused by the whole thing, names don't really have a great deal of meaning to me.
Post edited at 10:30
 Will Hunt 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

Well I for one am glad that this is all over so that we can get back to the good old days of disagreeing with each other.
 Ian W 26 Apr 2017
In reply to spenser:

>I thought the groans were simply that Bob was dragging up the whole Alan Blackshaw/ Marco Scolaris thing again, what am I missing?

I think you are right, here. I wasnt there, so cant say definitively, but Bobs first draft motion included the lies / misinformation etc regarding Marco / the IFSC etc. This was then "refined" into the actual MoNC, based on the alleged lack of consultancy / secrecy surrounding the rebrand. As a result, I suspect he was being asked to stick to the point, rather than bring in things which weren't part of the MoNC.

 Offwidth 26 Apr 2017
In reply to spenser:
It's nothing like the first time Bob has been regarded as sexist or seemed to struggle to treat women with due respect for their position in the organisation. Its also hardly common to see him actively trying to avoid mentioning the surname Scolaris and he mentioned it as well anyhow. If it was innocent it was very stupid and he should have publicly apologised immediately.
Post edited at 10:49
 Dave Garnett 26 Apr 2017
In reply to john arran:

> What could be the reason for mentioning his middle name (when there's no possible ambiguity about his usual names) except to make a point by doing so? And what point could there possibly be except a sexist one?

Exactly. I really think it was an infantile joke about Scolaris having a girl's name. As Offwidth says, pretty much everyone was incredulous and then there were groans of protest. I don't suppose Bob had any idea why.
 spenser 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

I hadn't realised he had form for being sexist as well as proposing MoNCs (this wasn't his first MoNC either, the last one got one vote and the club's president continued with the AGM once the motion was voted down).
 Andy Say 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> This was then "refined" into the actual MoNC, based on the alleged lack of consultancy / secrecy surrounding the rebrand. As a result, I suspect he was being asked to stick to the point, rather than bring in things which weren't part of the MoNC.

I actually told Bob before the meeting that if the motion was about governance; member engagement, consultation, decision-making etc he wouldn't win but he might strike a chord. The National Council, after all has also asked for a review. But I also tried to make clear to him that the minute he mentioned the Olympics or Scolaris he would lose the meeting.
 Derek Ryden 26 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

So 2.5 cheers for democracy, and a happyish end to a sad affair. But...... I've been busy since the weekend and only just got round to chasing up the result of the vote. First place I looked was the BMC web site, and I can't find any reference to it. Compared with a whole article and over 100 comments on UKC, it does make me wonder whether the BMC is as slick as it needs to be.
 Offwidth 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Derek Ryden:

I think they are likely catching up on urgent matters delayed by the MoNC and sorting out arrangements around Rehan's departure. This isn't all situations normal: the motion did real damage as several here predicted it would.
 deepsoup 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
> But I also tried to make clear to him that the minute he mentioned the Olympics or Scolaris he would lose the meeting.

So you don't think he'd already 'lost the meeting' well before it started with the way he'd refused to engage with the membership as a whole choosing instead to email selected groups?

How ridiculous that the only way most of us saw what he was saying was when it was 'leaked' on here. Of course it also didn't help that his case was full of misinformation, misunderstanding and even outright lies, nor that it was absurdly pompous.

On a local level, I think he also lost a great deal of respect when he refused to show his face at the Peak area meeting. As one of the signatories(?), despite his poor health Mark Vallance clearly felt obliged to do his best to put across BP's point of view as he understood it. It was not easy to hear and understand everything he said, but it was abundantly clear that he found the whole thing quite arduous and stressful. I doubt I was the only one present who thought it particularly spineless on BP's part to stay away and leave Mr Vallance to carry the can.
Post edited at 11:49
 Andy Say 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Derek Ryden:

> So 2.5 cheers for democracy, and a happyish end to a sad affair.

Not so sure about the 'happyish'. There's a few folks who have damaged their reputations and a really decent guy who has had his, and his family's, life mucked up seriously. I'd say sad end to sad affair myself.
In reply to Offwidth:

The result and Rehan's resignation were reported on our Facebook page and Twitter feed. I'm sure the team will have something on the website soon, but as Offwidth suggests, it's all pretty busy at the moment.
Alex Messenger, BMC 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Derek Ryden:

Our report is up now:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bombshell-at-bmc-agm

Apologies for not being quite as quick as we would have liked on this occasion. We were tweeting and facebooking live from the AGM and would have liked to post our article on Monday.

Although we're usually very responsive, we're not a news organisation and (even normally) there's not much spare capacity in the system.

Alex Messenger
Head of Marketing and Communications, BMC.
 Ian W 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Derek Ryden:

> So 2.5 cheers for democracy, and a happyish end to a sad affair. But...... I've been busy since the weekend and only just got round to chasing up the result of the vote. First place I looked was the BMC web site, and I can't find any reference to it. Compared with a whole article and over 100 comments on UKC, it does make me wonder whether the BMC is as slick as it needs to be.

How much slicker than "live news feeds" do you want them to be?
 galpinos 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> ........ and sorting out arrangements around Rehan's departure.

Do you know the mechanism for this, is it candidates to be voted on at an EGM?
 UKB Shark 26 Apr 2017
In reply to galpinos:

> Do you know the mechanism for this, is it candidates to be voted on at an EGM?


My understanding is that an Acting President will be drawn from the current VP's and then a timescale and process for electing a new President will be decided leading to an EGM for that purpose.
In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

Can I propose Bob as President and then no one vote for him!
1
 ripper 26 Apr 2017
In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

> My understanding is that an Acting President will be drawn from the current VP's and then a timescale and process for electing a new President will be decided leading to an EGM for that purpose.

All of which, of course, is yet more time, money and grief that need not have been incurred
In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

What about Shark for President. Yeah, let's here it for the Shark
Alex Messenger, BMC 26 Apr 2017
In reply to

Following the National Council meeting on 23 April, three volunteers are sought for a new Governance Review Group:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/volunteers-sought-for-bmc-governance-review

 Chris the Tall 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> What about Shark for President. Yeah, let's here it for the Shark

I don't think a current employee of the BMC could run for an elected position

Whereas an ex-employee, particularly one with close links to the IFSC, would be the ideal choice to complete the transformation of the BMC into a proper governing body.

And you'd get the support of the grammar purists as well....
 d_b 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

If he was seconded to the position he could be a loan shark.
 Ian W 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Can I propose Bob as President and then no one vote for him!

No you bloody well can not. If there is even the remotest danger of him getting in...........
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Is Shark an employee or a consultant?
 deepsoup 26 Apr 2017
In reply to davidbeynon:
> If he was seconded to the position he could be a loan shark.

If nobody wants to second him, he'll have to be the lone shark.
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Conflict of interest with the day job though Chris. Otherwise of course I'd jump at the chance
 tonanf 26 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Inclusively is only important when the organisation or activity seeking to be inclusive and thereby representitive, is a body which is representitive and answerable to the whole community.,I. E. The police, medical profession, teachers.
No one ever campaigned because their race, religion, sex/sexually stopped them going climbing. I think the drive for inclusively is the result of problematic statistical analysis.

(Just my thoughts)
15
In reply to Chris the Tall:

I missed off the '?' at the end of the first sentence so I'd be doomed. Doomed I tell ye.
1
 Dave Garnett 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> No you bloody well can not. If there is even the remotest danger of him getting in...........

Yes, learn from history... Jeremy Corbyn.
 Nevis-the-cat 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

I wouldn't listen to Bob, purely on account of his red neck tie.

The only things that can wear an handkerchief around the neck are Dexy's Midnight Runners and labradors.
J1234 26 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I have just looked at the picture of the vote in The Grough and women are in the minority in the room, but most of them have their hands down for the vote against the NoCon, I wonder why?
7
 lithos 26 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

two at front are in BMC t-shirts, perhaps not all were eligible ?
 Chris the Tall 26 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

There were a number of votes taken during the meeting and my guess is the photo was taken during one of the non-contentious issues

If that picture was taken during the MONC vote then the photographer should be banned from future events !

However I'm pretty sure I can explain why at least one person there had her hand down - she was exercising proxy votes as well as her own, and these are counted separately.
 Nevis-the-cat 26 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Bob's stuck in the 70's.

The BMC cannot remain a parochial special interest group. with 76,000 members it is impossible to use AGM to make policy. You allow working parties, listening to Area Reps to formulate ideas and policy, put it to the membership by email, post, Facebook, little paper inserts in Climb and / or pigeon then go to AGM for formal ratification only. You don't discuss the entire issue again.

Whether people like it or not, you can't run a representative body with various investments, concerns and responsibilities to 76,000 members and beyond, like a squat dwelling Marxist Leninist collective

Of his many claims was this taken from Grough..

He pointed out that Climb Britain was registered for use on 3 March, more than a month before the AGM.


Well yes, you don't make an announcement about a potential company or body name change then go and register it, only to find someone a bit sharper beat you to it and you now them £50k.

Edited for frankly woeful spellink.
Post edited at 17:03
 Martin Hore 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> I'm in two clubs, and on the committee of the smaller one. Neither of them advised their members to vote either way, although the one I'm not on the committee of had a "please look at this and take it seriously" email sent round by a member.Personally I don't have a problem with this - it's not to do with possible nasty behaviour but with the fact it'd be presumptuous for the club committee to act like it's in a better position to judge the situation than the members are themselves. We could probably have reminded people that it was happening and pointed them to the arguments so far (eg the leaks plus the responses to them), but from chat in the pub etc I got the impression that most people were already aware of it anyway.

Our club adopted a similar approach. The club committee let all members know the issue was important. Individuals (self included) circulated the club membership with the case to vote against, but the committee did not make a formal recommendation. I think a fair number of our members voted, most if not all against. This seemed a sensible approach for the club to take.

I don't think it's fair to criticise clubs who took this approach as Offwidth appeared to imply. I should say though that I've agreed with almost everything else Offwidth has posted on this issue and say thank you to him and all others who've raised the profile on here and help ensure the motion was roundly defeated.

Martin
 Offwidth 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

I was pointing out it could have been done (and how) and although it would have been brave it might have really changed things (especially if the Alpine Club had done this). The dishonest and destructive behaviour around the handling of the motion was always the problem as a MoNC in itself is a fair democratic process and Bob's views are allowed to be aired (except if legally problematic or against rules). Hindsight is a wonderful thing but the very real and significant damage is obvious now and I strongly suspect it's not finished either.
 slab_happy 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

> He pointed out that Climb Britain was registered for use on 3 March, more than a month before the AGM.

Well, I guess we've confirmed that Steve Woollard wasn't bothering to read replies, or he could have told Pettigrew and his fellow signatories that this "smoking gun" turned out to be a damp squib weeks ago:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660774

Dave Turnbull talked through the timeline of the rebranding (registration of possible URLs included) at the Peak area meet (the one Pettigrew refused to attend, despite being specifically invited to discuss the MONC).

Someone commented from the audience to say that they worked with URLs etc. as part of their job and they were honestly surprised that possible URLs were only registered so *late* in the process of researching possible re-branding ideas.
Yorik 26 Apr 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

Absolutely disgusting. politics of the playground and extremely rude. Apart from which Little Sid is one of the nicest guys you're ever likely to meet.
 Steve Perry 26 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Maybe the 80k members should start a petition asking Rehab to stay, what a dignified fella he is.
 Andy Say 26 Apr 2017
In reply to Steve Perry:

> Maybe the 80k members should start a petition asking Rehab to stay, what a dignified fella he is.

To be honest I don't think that would be a favour right now. He needs time off.
 AlisonS 26 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:
> I have just looked at the picture of the vote in The Grough and women are in the minority in the room, but most of them have their hands down for the vote against the NoCon, I wonder why?

I am very happy to answer this one as I am clearly shown with my hand down in the picture in Grough, although I am annoyed by your implied assumptions.

This was too important an issue to leave my vote to chance, so I submitted my proxy vote well in advance in case I was ill or otherwise detained on the day. People who have already voted show up on the database and they are not given a blue sheet. This means they can only vote on "show of hands" issues, although they can still contribute to the debate.

I hope that alleviates any concerns or suspicions you might have as to my opinions and conduct.

Why might more women than men have sent in a proxy in case they couldn't make it on the day? I am sure you can think of lots of reasons.


Post edited at 19:55
In reply to tonanf:

> Inclusively is only important when the organisation or activity seeking to be inclusive and thereby representitive,

I don't want t belong to an organisation that isn't inclusive.

I'm a BMC member, and would not support anything other than an inclusive attitude.
J1234 26 Apr 2017
In reply to AlisonS:
I actually wondered if women are perhaps more radical than men, and not as tied to traditions, a bit less conservative.
ps, there was no implied assumption.
Post edited at 21:21
2
 kevin stephens 26 Apr 2017

Whilst discussing gender roles it it seems poignant that Bob Pettigrew is sporting a Wayfarers Club tee shirt; a mountaineering club that still does not allow female members. No wonder Bob's no confidence motion was not sympathetic to the BMC's inclusive policies
Post edited at 21:33
1
 toad 26 Apr 2017
In reply to kevin stephens:

> Whilst discussing gender roles it it seems poignant that Bob Pettigrew is sporting a Wayfarers Club tee shirt; a mountaineering club that still does not allow female members. No wonder Bob's no confidence motion was not sympathetic to the BMC's inclusive policies

Bloody hell, I didn't know that. Are any other clubs similarly restrictive? I'm aware of the Pinnacle Club, but maybe that is a special case?
 AlisonS 26 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

> I actually wondered if women are perhaps more radical than men, and not as tied to traditions, a bit less conservative.

You think not voting against the MONC would be more radical and less tied to traditions?
J1234 26 Apr 2017
In reply to AlisonS:

Possibly, just noted something in a picture and wondered, bit sad when someone cannot ask a question. There is one glaring assumption I suspect you are making though
 tonanf 26 Apr 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

I want to be part of an organisation that doesn't need to make a point out of being I clusive as that suggests it had previously been exclusive. Climbing is free, free attitude, access, no club fees (unless you want).?
3
 BarrySW19 26 Apr 2017
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Waste of good beer.I assume they would have used Bob's own pint as to use your own would be total madness!

The best option would be to use your own pint, but run it through your kidneys first.
 AlisonS 26 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

I'm glad you asked the question. Others may have read incorrect things into that picture.
In reply to tonanf:

I think it is inclusive. And I want it to stay that way. Some others don't seem to agree.

I'm not a fan of positive discrimination, or going out of the way to enforce demographic flattening. But I do believe in a community that is open and welcoming to anyone who wants to join.
Post edited at 23:36
1
 Misha 26 Apr 2017
In reply to john arran:

> What could be the reason for mentioning his middle name (when there's no possible ambiguity about his usual names) except to make a point by doing so? And what point could there possibly be except a sexist one?

Presumably to make fun of him, with an undertone of sexism. At the end of the day, it's just ignorance. A quick google shows that Maria is an Italian male middle name (but is not used as a standalone male first name). Another example of an Italian male name ending in 'a' is Andrea, which can be a standalone male first name. The name which springs to mind is Andrea Oggioni, who was one of Bonatti's climbing partners. You'd think Bob would know that and hence wouldn't be surprised that Italian male names can end in 'a'.
James Jackson 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> OK, lots of people got a route in between the AGM and the dinner and I did 12 pitches the following day.

You clearly didn't drink enough after the AGM. I (vaguely) remember climbing in Cheddar after the Bristol AGM back in 2004(?). Managed one pitch and then gave up.
J1234 27 Apr 2017
In reply to AlisonS:
And I am quite upset you suggested I was implying something.
Questions are what should be asked, always.
Further to the replies, if the reasons are that people are carrying proxies, then I think I can see someone who is carrying proxies with a hand up, however my eyes are not that good, and the photo is a bit like "Wheres Wally", so could be mistaken.

I would also agree with Chris the Tall in asking if that photo should have been taken and published.

Here is another question, as the BMC is part funded with public money, why do I see not one Non-white face in that photo. I know Rehan was president, but he is kind of an exception and a very rare case.
Post edited at 07:49
14
 slab_happy 27 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

> Here is another question, as the BMC is part funded with public money, why do I see not one Non-white face in that photo.

That would be the kind of question that (public money or not) leads people to think "you know, we should try to make the BMC (and the climbing community) more inclusive".

There's certainly nothing inherent about skin colour or ethnic origins that makes people uninterested in climbing, so if some people (who might have been passionate climbers) don't ever get into it because they don't ever see it as something that people like them might do, or they try and are put off by negative attitudes (or the subtle effects of always being the only non-white face in the room) -- that's a loss, to them as individuals and to the climbing community.

That would be the sort of thinking that Pettigrew really doesn't like.

And having a President from an ethnic minority background who's actively committed to inclusion would be a great opportunity for positive change, but they succeeded in getting rid of him.
1
 Offwidth 27 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:
Climbing in terms of racial inclusivity is improving fast, especially indoors. In terms of our AGM. I'm struggling to think of anyone non-white other than Rehan and his family... but it's easy to assume and miss the Ross Barkleys. I think there was some nasty implied tokenism in some circles about him becoming president: this was clearly b*ll*cks from the immediate standing ovation of a very well informed AGM audience. If he felt he could continue with the sacrifices the voluntary role currently entails the membership would have him back by a huge majority. Like slab_happy I think we have lost a great role model from the President's position but any of his likley successors will almost certainly follow his lead in improving inclusivity.
Post edited at 08:42
1
J1234 27 Apr 2017
In reply to slab_happy:
Please stop focusing on climbing, this is one of my major objections of the current BMC. I climb, a lot, but I also do a lot of Hill Walking and ethnic minorities are under represented their. One reason I am led to believe is that many migrants or non anglos or call whatever is the PC term this week, do not know where they are allowed to go, so rather than cause offence and get in a row stay clear. This where the BMC could reach out to communities and educate and show possibilities. Then if they want to take it up, thats their choice.
Now I have to install a DPC so bye for now
Post edited at 08:41
9
 Andy Syme 27 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

Firstly I'm pretty sure that wasn't 'The Vote' shown in Grough.
Re people not raising their hands, a number of us at the front were proxy voters so we were asked not to raise our hands in the vote, but hand in our proxy papers afterwards. So the fact Lynne and others aren't raising their hand does not reflect their support or not for any given motion.
 johncook 27 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

The BMC have been and are reaching out to 'non-regular' communities to encourage them to join the outdoor world. The results are positive but slow to show. This outreach has been discussed at area meetings.
I used non-regular as it covers many people and avoids listing them, or picking a non-pc word, which is getting very difficult these days
 Andy Syme 27 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

I'm not sure the 170 attending the AGM are a true representation of the membership (there was a predominance of over 50s, but as I remember the membership age stats Dave T showed in his talk the majority of members are under 50).

I agree there were relatively few 'non-white faces' but as the BMC doesn't take stats on ethnicity I have no idea if this is representative either. I hope we never do take such stats as ethnicity seems irrelevant to whether people want to walk/climb/mountaineer; though maybe we will be forced down that line.
 slab_happy 27 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:
> Please stop focusing on climbing, this is one of my major objections of the current BMC. I climb, a lot, but I also do a lot of Hill Walking and ethnic minorities are under represented their.

Apologies, you're right. I was thinking about climbing because that's my particular interest, but obviously this is just as true with hillwalking as well.

There was a really good interview which I can't find right now (maybe it was in Summit?) with Fida Hussain, a BMC volunteer who's been working specifically on getting people from ethnic minorities in Rochdale involved in hillwalking.

> many migrants or non anglos or call whatever is the PC term this week

I believe that "people from ethnic minorities" has been a fairly standard and inoffensive term in the UK for some while, so you're probably fairly safe with that ...

Many people from ethnic minorities are British-born, so obviously they're not "migrants" (and for that matter, plenty of migrants are white).

> This where the BMC could reach out to communities and educate and show possibilities. Then if they want to take it up, thats their choice.

Yup. I think that's exactly what the BMC (under Mr Siddiqui in particular) has been making a big push for, and I hope that it's work that will be continued.
Post edited at 09:17
In reply to Andy Syme:

As per my presentation at the AGM - the average age of BMC members is 42.
 GrahamD 27 Apr 2017
In reply to J1234:

> This where the BMC could reach out to communities and educate and show possibilities. Then if they want to take it up, thats their choice.Now I have to install a DPC so bye for now

Strongly disagree. I see the role of the BMC as to make it possible for all people of all backgrounds to enjoy the climbing / walking of the UK by ensuring sustainable access. I do not see it as the role of the BMC to 'encourage' participation and especially targeted participation. Encourageing participation in an activity is the role of the communities concerned (if that is what they want to do)
 UKB Shark 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

> As per my presentation at the AGM - the average age of BMC members is 42.


The answer to life, the universe and everything
In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

Were you 42 when you started trying the Oak?
 JR 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Misha:

> What could be the reason for mentioning his middle name (when there's no possible ambiguity about his usual names) except to make a point by doing so? And what point could there possibly be except a sexist one?

> Presumably to make fun of him, with an undertone of sexism. At the end of the day, it's just ignorance. A quick google shows that Maria is an Italian male middle name.

Without wanting to defend Bob's position, given Bob's affinity for religious and latin contexts I took it to be a reference to a "holier than thou/mother of god" attitude, but it certainly wasn't clear.
 UKB Shark 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Were you 42 when you started trying the Oak?


Just turned 43. Clearly where I went wrong
 Mark Kemball 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Median, mean or mode?
> - the average age of BMC members is 42.

 Andy Say 27 Apr 2017
In reply to JR:
> given Bob's affinity for religious and latin contexts I took it to be a reference to a "holier than thou/mother of god" attitude, but it certainly wasn't clear.

Sexism, racism, homophobia and now religiosity? You're all wrong. Bob was channelling Rodgers and Hammerstein - youtube.com/watch?v=s-VRyQprlu8& - using 'the abbey' as a metaphor for the broad church of mountaineering. Now. Let's go and climb every mountain........
Post edited at 11:53
 Ian W 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Mark Kemball:

Given there are 82k members probably all 3.......
Noo Noo 27 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I'm pretty uncomfortable with the article if I'm honest. It should have been impartial but ended up being more like a WW2 propaganda splurge.

Being new to climbing I've little idea of what is going on here or what was at stake but surely the purpose of this site is to simply report the facts rather than let the author froth at the keyboard with what is in reality their own opinion.
10
 The New NickB 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Noo Noo:

Like any media (UK broadcast media excepted), it is up to the editorial team to decide what position they take on issues. They obviously live and die by those decisions, but they have no requirement to be impartial. Do you expect the Guardian or the Telegraph to be impartial.
 Andy Say 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Noo Noo:

If you want advertorial then stick with UKC. If you want news reporting (albeit NOT about the latest 9a onsight) then try https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/

7
 Mark Kemball 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Noo Noo:

Given I've been following this for some time, I don't think it was a particularly biased report.
In reply to Andy Say:

To be fair to UKC this news item wasn't advertorial, it did however reflect the bias/slant of previous articles, so shouldn't have been a surprise.
 nastyned 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> If you want advertorial then stick with UKC. If you want news reporting (albeit NOT about the latest 9a onsight) then try https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/

Thanks, that's a much better report than the UKC one.
 Offwidth 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

I thought the duty of open media was to be unbiased in reporting facts and critical of those who distort facts. In this case, Grough gives equal weight to those presenting facts and those plotting in the shadows presenting lies and misinformation. It's an old propaganda tool to accuse those you oppose of your own sins and to favour the media that will promote such distortions. Now we have the internet everyone can do their own fact checking and make thier own minds up. From the vote and what was said about it most of those following this MoNC seem to believe it was Bob and co who were guilty of dishonesty, lack of openness and distortion of democracy. The only public verifiable facts we have all point that way. Hence in a true open media sense I think UKC are the ones who have it right, not Grough.
 Mike Stretford 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
> If you want advertorial then stick with UKC. If you want news reporting (albeit NOT about the latest 9a onsight) then try https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/

Sorry, but the quality of the Grough article is consistent with the rest of the site, poor.

Besides the layout and poor writing ect..... it's like a football 5-0 drubbing being reported as a game were the loosing side played better.
Post edited at 16:19
 Chris the Tall 27 Apr 2017
In reply to nastyned:
If you read between the lines, you can hear the reporter screaming "Is that it ? Is that all you've got ? You do irreparable damage to the BMC, put a bunch of volunteers under intolerable stress and cause an honest man to resign and for what? A series of misconceptions, conspiracy theories and a grudge against someone for having the middle name of 'Maria'"
Post edited at 16:21
 UKB Shark 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Maria!
I'll never stop saying Maria! ,
Suddenly I've found
How wonderful a sound
Can be!
Maria!
Say it loud and there's music playing,
Say it soft and it's almost like praying.
 leon 1 27 Apr 2017
In reply to ukb & bmc shark:
Blondie's version of Maria is more appropriate

Maria, you've gotta see her
Go insane and out of your mind
Post edited at 17:30
 George Budd 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Only just seen someone replied to me. Cheers mate

So it sounds like he was just kicking up a fuss for the excuse of kicking up a fuss. I'll definitely be sad to see Siddiqui go, it looked like BMC was picking up speed. Hopefully his replacement is just as progressive
 toad 27 Apr 2017
In reply to ukb & bmc shark:
How do you solve a problem like Maria?
 UKB Shark 27 Apr 2017
In reply to toad:

> How do you solve a problem like Maria?

Launch a scolaris missile
 Andy Say 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> I thought the duty of open media was to be unbiased in reporting facts

And letting the audience make up it's own mind? ' Now we have the internet everyone can do their own fact checking and make thier (sic) own minds up.'
1
 Offwidth 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

Come off it Andy. Bobs facts were hard to find and when they surfaced were usually shredded. Any media that doesn't pick this up is totally biased. Its a modern piece of 'media' idiocy that you have to treat opposing views equally. Bullshitters just shouldn't get to have equal standing and fact checking is sadly in decline. I'd trust any population average who are paying attention to get this sort of judgement right where debate on facts real and pretend is extensive. UKC is such a grouping, even though a few here are so stuck ideology they wouldn't regognise a fact if it bit them in the arse.
mysterion 27 Apr 2017
In reply to toad:

> How do you solve a problem like Maria?

An Italian bloke has middle name Maria and that's sexist... err racist... err... These ideological puritans don't even know why they are enraged any more, they just ARE
5
 Andy Say 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> Come off it Andy. Bobs facts were hard to find and when they surfaced were usually shredded. Any media that doesn't pick this up is totally biased.


Whatever takes your fancy. A report that boils down to 'person A came out with a load of crap and our chap soundly trounced him' may well fan the flames of righteousness. I'd prefer to be able to read what was said and what the result of the vote was.
2
In reply to Mark Kemball:
Mean I think
 Neil Anderson 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Ian W:

Is not the leadership of the most misguided and botched rebranding, with a complete like of consultation of the membership, not sufficient evidence that the BMC was not well run last year without long speeches ? Perhaps this sorry mess afterwards could have been avoided if resignation from the top,( the CEO perhaps? ) had followed swiftly after the branding was reversed.

Perhaps we also have reached a tuning point where the 'sport' aspects of climbing have to plough a separate furrow to the more 'pastime' elements of climbing. Both of equal merit and enjoyment, but can a broad church organization like the BMC really manage in the future quite often opposing requirements and views ?
24
 Neil Anderson 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

But what you could have done is circulate the concept that the BMC was looking to both visit who it is and who it represents/should represent etc; and suggest that the outcome of that might be a rebrand to reflect a wider audience etc, if that's what the consultation leads to. This would have managed expectations.
 Offwidth 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

Whatever takes your fancy. Fact checking remains my priority and where that fails, not giving a platform to the bullshitters. Not everyone has your experience of BMC affairs to realise that Bob was largely talking nonsense. To the unaware it becomes another argument on almost equal terms, even wiith the vote (people are more often than not rightly suspicious of power these days). Why do you think he lied again in the final article about the BMC not giving him a fair oportunity to get his view out to the membership after they explicitly contacted him for this to try and get more detail in Summit?

Even if you support their concerns the lies, secrecy and damage have now left us with much more difficulty in fixing real issues about where the BMC are heading. The MoNC was always more coup attempt than an open and honest airing, then sensible problem resolution.
2
 La benya 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Neil Anderson:

Well done, you've jumped into the debate about 6 months to 10 years in the past
 slab_happy 28 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

> I see the role of the BMC as to make it possible for all people of all backgrounds to enjoy the climbing / walking of the UK

Yes.

> by ensuring sustainable access.

... but there we disagree, because I think there's more to it than that.

I think there's a problem if *technically*, everyone has legal access to climb at certain crags or walk on certain hills, but in practice, people from certain groups tend not to do it because they don't think it's possible or allowed, they don't ever see people like them doing it, they don't ever think of it as something that "people like them" might do, and so on.

I didn't start climbing until I was 34, and it was because before then I didn't have the faintest idea that it was something that a weird geeky non-athletic clumsy woman who'd always been "bad at games" could *possibly* do. It literally didn't occur to me.

It was only having a few internet friends who were geeky bad-at-games women who also happened to rock climb that made me think it might possibly be something I could do.

And climbing's changed my life, and sometimes it saddens me that I missed out on it for so long, and I'm aware that I nearly missed out on it altogether.

So of course I wonder how many other people there are out there who are ready and waiting to fall in love with climbing -- but don't yet have that glimpse that it might be possible for them, or who may never have it.

No-one's talking about press-ganging people into climbing or mountaineering or hill-walking against their will! Just ensuring that people have a chance to get that glimpse (and that the BMC and the climbing/mountaineering/hillwalking communities are welcome places for the people who *do* get hooked).
 GrahamD 28 Apr 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

I understand there is a debate to be had here (and I think the personalisation of the MONC debate has rather detracted from it). I see two seperate questions:

Should people be encouraged into one or more facets of the activity we call climbing ? In general, I would say sure but climbing isn't any more worthy than, say, football and I'm not that fussed that we don't push people towards it. If people want to get involved with encourageing people into the activity then volunteer for local clubs, the scouts aor whatever. All good and positive.

Secondly does the BMC have a role in this ? this is where I think the differences really arise. I don't see it as the role of the BMC to promote any facet of climbing - merely to facilitate it
 Chris the Tall 28 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

Valid question for which there is no easy answer - how about you start a new thread ?
 Ian W 28 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

THe BMC aren't promoting climbing, or suggesting non climbers should start climbing. What they are doing is pointing out to to ever increasing number of climbers that there is a representative body for them. The change is coming because of the increasing number of climbers, the type of climbing they do is changing, and hence the make up of the climbing community is changing, and the representative body therefore has to change or risk losing relevance to that climbing community.
 GrahamD 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> THe BMC aren't promoting climbing, or suggesting non climbers should start climbing. What they are doing is pointing out to to ever increasing number of climbers that there is a representative body for them. The change is coming because of the increasing number of climbers, the type of climbing they do is changing, and hence the make up of the climbing community is changing, and the representative body therefore has to change or risk losing relevance to that climbing community.

Assuming you think that a representative body can and should represent all facets of the broad church we call climbing. I don't. Its like having a representative body for 'Ball Sports'. It doesn't make sense.
1
 Mike Stretford 28 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:
> Assuming you think that a representative body can and should represent all facets of the broad church we call climbing. I don't. Its like having a representative body for 'Ball Sports'. It doesn't make sense.

So you think we should have another representative/governing body for indoor climbing/competition climbing?

I do see a potential danger with that.
Post edited at 12:34
 Ian W 28 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

> Assuming you think that a representative body can and should represent all facets of the broad church we call climbing. I don't. Its like having a representative body for 'Ball Sports'. It doesn't make sense.

No it isn't. Ball sports are all competitive, with different rules. Climbing is predominantly a non competitive pastime, with an offshoot that is competitive. However, the majority of competition climbers also are hobby climbers, so the boundary is blurred. IMHO, at the moment the reasons for competition climbing staying within the BMC outweigh the benefits of leaving, and this is something I have put a LOT of thought into over the last couple of years.
 johncook 28 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

You don't get as much crossover in 'ball sports' as you do in climbing. Very few footballers play netball, few volley ball players play rugby etc etc. Most climbers climb indoors and out, trad and sport, hill walk and mountaineer to a greater or lesser extent, and as such a single strong body is the optimum, as opposed to individual small weaker bodies for each sub group.
 GrahamD 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> No it isn't. Ball sports are all competitive, with different rules.

One facet of climbing is becoming this.
1
 GrahamD 28 Apr 2017
In reply to johncook:

Plenty of people play rugby, squash and cricket. Probably go running as well.
 GrahamD 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> So you think we should have another representative/governing body for indoor climbing/competition climbing?I do see a potential danger with that.

Personally - yes. But I see the counter argunments. For competition I think there should be a governing body, setting out rules/laws of the game, looking after competition and teams etc. Pretty much like any sport.

For outdoor enthusiasts I think a representative body is appropriate. Their role is totally different. It is about conservation and access.
 David Lanceley 28 Apr 2017
There’s a quote from one of Bob P’s favourite sources that might provide a postscript for this sorry story.

Let us admit it fairly, as (BMC) people should,
We have had no end of a lesson: it will do us no end of good

Rehan’s resignation for Gilderoy’s kite perhaps?
 Mike Stretford 28 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

> Personally - yes. But I see the counter argunments. For competition I think there should be a governing body, setting out rules/laws of the game, looking after competition and teams etc. Pretty much like any sport.For outdoor enthusiasts I think a representative body is appropriate. Their role is totally different. It is about conservation and access.

You've got the IFSC to set the rules so you'd end up with a UK sport climbing body.... as you acknowledge, there are counter arguments and I think they become pretty strong when you consider there'll be 2 'climbing' organisations lobbying for influence.
 Ian W 28 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

One facet already is; I should know, I'm Chair of the Competition Committee and Chie Judge for National Level Comps held in th UK
 GrahamD 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> You've got the IFSC to set the rules so you'd end up with a UK sport climbing body.... as you acknowledge, there are counter arguments and I think they become pretty strong when you consider there'll be 2 'climbing' organisations lobbying for influence.

What influence ? they would do totally different things. They are not competing over anything
3
 Ian W 28 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

There would be massive crossover at least in the short term; Sport England fund much of the youth effort, and that includes some comps, such as the YCS, and much of the training and youth committee (Grass roots development). Trying to completely separate all the shared parts would be a logistic nightmare, and there is synergy in shared services at the moment. Not to say this situation will last forever, but not yet thanks.
 Mike Stretford 28 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

> What influence ? they would do totally different things.

I think you've got a very idealized view of the world. In the world I'm familiar with 'UKSC' would morph, expand and eventually clash with the BMC.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'What influence'? You do know organisations like the BMC do need to lobby?

 Andy Say 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Offwidth:
> Why do you think he lied again in the final article about the BMC not giving him a fair oportunity to get his view out to the membership after they explicitly contacted him for this to try and get more detail in Summit?

'Facts' are, unfortunately, elusive, squiggly things that are always open to interpretation. That is what keeps most academic historians in a job .

' They didn’t give me the opportunity to put my side when Summit was published with this hysterical call to ‘save our BMC’' is what Bob Pettigrew ACTUALLY said. He didn't mention 'fair oportunity (sic) to get his views out' without qualification. You made that up.

The BMC contacted Bob twice (as far as I know) PRIOR to the publication of the issue of Summit referred to.

Can you not see that the two things are not mutually incompatible and it is perfectly possible that both statements are 'the truth' (subject to forensic examination of correspondence)? The use of the word 'lied' in your post is therefore potentially defamatory. **

And much of what Bob Pettigrew said with regard to the BMC, as one example - details of the re-brand process and information provided to the 2016 AGM - are, actually, uncomfortably, true.* And acknowledged as such by the BMC. You can, and I can, interpret away as much as we like but the registration of the ClimbBritain URL prior to the AGM as an example is an irrefutable fact. Why it was registered then and why the AGM was not informed at all about any potential rebrand is the province of historians rather than you and I. They can determine cock-up or conspiracy: participants seldom can! (And both are uncomfortable, aren't they?)

I feel that this particular raking over of the coals is a dead end so I'm not going to debate it any more. What is done is done.

The priority now is for the BMC to develop as an organisation that seeks to represent all of its members, to reach out to those that are not members and prioritises engagement with, and respects the will of, its members.

Over and out.

Andy Say

* I am not in the slightest concerned, in this post, with BP's feud with the IFSC and its President. I've heard his story; I've heard other stories from reputable sources. I've no way of independently verifying either version so I'm ignoring it.

Edit ** Unless you can prove that there was no correspondence between Bob P and the BMC subsequent to the publication of Summit to that effect? I know that there was phone communication.
Post edited at 16:37
9
 GrahamD 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> I'm not sure what you mean by 'What influence'? You do know organisations like the BMC do need to lobby?

Absolutely they do "Working for climbers, hill walkers & mountaineers" to quote their website.

 GrahamD 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> There would be massive crossover at least in the short term; Sport England fund much of the youth effort, and that includes some comps, such as the YCS, and much of the training and youth committee (Grass roots development). Trying to completely separate all the shared parts would be a logistic nightmare, and there is synergy in shared services at the moment. Not to say this situation will last forever, but not yet thanks.

Its not insurmountable, though, is it ? I would be worried if access negotiations were so intertwined with YCS funding that they couldn't be separated. They could still share facilities. Having different Profit/Loss centres in an organisation is pretty normal.
 Andy Say 28 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:
> I don't see it as the role of the BMC to promote any facet of climbing - merely to facilitate it

The 'old' argument was that you can't really promote an activity that could kill you. But that doesn't stop rugby, for example.

But I would generally agree. The BMC should support and encourage initiatives that give people the opportunity to 'try'. Subsequent to that it has to be up to personal choice.
Post edited at 16:32
 Andy Say 28 Apr 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

> I would be worried if access negotiations were so intertwined with YCS funding that they couldn't be separated. They could still share facilities.

They do, Graham. It's called the BMC and it inhabits a little church on the outskirts of Manchester
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> So you think we should have another representative/governing body for indoor climbing/competition climbing?
> I do see a potential danger with that.

I was in favour of a separate body for competition climbing until someone pointed out the danger of "what if the competition body decides they need to bolt all grit routes?"

It was then immediately obvious to me that we need one body, representative of all climbing, but governing competition climbing.
 Offwidth 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
"'Facts' are, unfortunately, elusive, squiggly things that are always open to interpretation. That is what keeps most academic historians in a job ."

Indeed, thats what is so special in this case. It's rare to see such blatant lies and clear misinformation.

' They didn’t give me the opportunity to put my side when Summit was published with this hysterical call to ‘save our BMC’' is what Bob Pettigrew ACTUALLY said. He didn't mention 'fair oportunity (sic) to get his views out' without qualification. You made that up. - The BMC contacted Bob twice (as far as I know) PRIOR to the publication of the issue of Summit referred to. - Can you not see that the two things are not mutually incompatible and it is perfectly possible that both statements are 'the truth' (subject to forensic examination of correspondence)? The use of the word 'lied' in your post is therefore potentially defamatory. **"

No I can't see it as anything different. Bob was invited by the BMC to put his case in more detail for the membership at least twice and declined the opportunity. He was asked by the Peak Area and others and just ignored them. Even after Summit there would have been no problem to include this on the BMC website. Ru responding to the motion had no idea what Bob would say until he said it. It's utterly disgraceful this happened in a democratic organisation. There was never any lack of opportunity for Bob to put forward the detail of his case. He simply did not try and avoided attempts from the other side. He did distribute it to likely supporters. So what he says in the news article in Grough is just not true (ie a lie). In contrast, numerous accusations he made about Scolaris and a few things besides were actually defamatory, being provably untrue.

"And much of what Bob Pettigrew said with regard to the BMC, ....are, actually, uncomfortably, true."

You can't wipe out the dishonesty of lies and mis-information by the fact that some truths sit alongside them. No one ever said everything in his arguments was untrue, so that's just silly. Bob's thrust in drafts, letters and the AGM presentation were never aimed mainly at the Rebrand it was presented as a symptom in his concerns, not the cause of the MoNC

" the registration of the ClimbBritain URL prior to the AGM as an example is an irrefutable fact."

Normal practice and fully and convincingly explained as such, including the timing. Dragging this up again and again is idiotic.

"why the AGM was not informed at all about any potential rebrand is the province of historians rather than you and I."

I disagree as the BMC explained and apologised and it would have had little long term negative effect (it arguably led to a, reassertion of the traditional and democratic nature of the organisation... something I saw as mostly positive) . In contrast, Bob by the way he handled this MoNC has caused real, significant and unnecessary damage to the organisation (and is affecting its function right now) through secrecy and dishonesty, and the damage (and plotting) is probably not even finished yet. Action is required in my view... you may disagree but as you say he is a mate of yours. Its an ongoing issue for the members for now and lets see how the governance review and democracy pans out.

"The priority now is for the BMC to develop as an organisation that seeks to represent all of its members, to reach out to those that are not members and prioritises engagement with, and respects the will of, its members."

At least we can agree on this!. I seriously wonder though if this is possible without dealing with such dishonorable behaviour from the BMC honoured leading lights of the MoNC. What's to stop a MoNC reboot?
Post edited at 17:49
1
In reply to Andy Say:

> You can, and I can, interpret away as much as we like but the registration of the ClimbBritain URL prior to the AGM as an example is an irrefutable fact. Why it was registered then and why the AGM was not informed at all about any potential rebrand is the province of historians rather than you and I

Oh, FFS. This has been identified as bollocks of the first order by anyone who knows anything about corporate branding and domain names. You grab the domain name as soon as you even think about any possibility of a rebrand.
 Ian W 28 Apr 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:
> I was in favour of a separate body for competition climbing until someone pointed out the danger of "what if the competition body decides they need to bolt all grit routes?"

You are taking the piss with this one I trust?

Although disappointingly, the UIAA continue to promote and sanction competitions on natural rock.
This is something the IFSC and BMC are dead against.
Post edited at 18:10
 Chris the Tall 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

>' They didn’t give me the opportunity to put my side when Summit was published with this hysterical call to ‘save our BMC’' is what Bob Pettigrew ACTUALLY said. He didn't mention 'fair oportunity (sic) to get his views out' without qualification. You made that up.The BMC contacted Bob twice (as far as I know) PRIOR to the publication of the issue of Summit referred to. Can you not see that the two things are not mutually incompatible and it is perfectly possible that both statements are 'the truth' (subject to forensic examination of correspondence)?

No - these two statements are mutually incompatible unless you are trying to claim that BP was merely asked for his gardening tips.
1
 Andy Say 28 Apr 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Oh, FFS. This has been identified as bollocks of the first order by anyone who knows anything about corporate branding and domain names. You grab the domain name as soon as you even think about any possibility of a rebrand.

So it's untrue that the URLs were registered before the AGM? I appreciate that there may well be a reason 'why' but the fact isn't actually bollocks as far as I know. I think you misunderstand me and my post.
3
 La benya 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

I'm glad you said it. I couldn't get my head around that one.
The two statements are at odds, so one side is lying. There seems to be proof that that is BP. So to call him a liar and/ or give his side less air time/ weigh seems obvious.
 La benya 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

The fact is true but by bringing it up again as a fact with equal weighting in the argument is to ignore all the debate that he gone previous.
 Andy Say 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

C'mon Chris. Think intelligently. The BMC asks Bob to submit a statement BEFORE the publication but gets no response ; Bob says a request to put to case AFTER the publication was not responded to are NOT necessarily incompatible.
4
In reply to Andy Say:

> So it's untrue that the URLs were registered before the AGM? I appreciate that there may well be a reason 'why' but the fact isn't actually bollocks as far as I know

It's true that the domain names were registered before the AGM, yes.

It's true that this is proof that a re-brand was being considered, as part of the review being performed on the wider issue of the BMC's engagement.

It's bollocks that this was proof that a decision to rebrand had already been taken.

I was as critical of anyone about the need to rebrand, and the trite nature of the proposed brand. But sanity prevailed. I'm happy with that outcome. It did not, and does not warrant a MoNC.

> I think you misunderstand me and my post.

Yes; I'm struggling to see you do anything more than continue to support Bob Pettigrew's stance in requesting a MoNC.
 Offwidth 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
I'm sure someone from the BMC staff will be along soon to confirm this is plain nonsense. As far as Im aware (I asked) Bob never contacted the BMC at any stage after Summit asking them to include his statement. The first time the BMC knew what was in it was when it was presented ito the AGM. Why would Ru prepare for his BMC response keeping useful information a secret from himself? This is Alice in Wonderland logic. Anything we have from Bob, in public, prior to his presentation, is via leaks.
Post edited at 18:40
 La benya 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> C'mon Chris. Think intelligently. The BMC asks Bob to submit a statement BEFORE the publication but gets no response ; Bob says a request to put to case AFTER the publication was not responded to are NOT necessarily incompatible.

How was bob intending to publish his account in a magazine AFTER it had already gone out?

That's like turning down cake when someone offers and then getting in a huff when all the cakes been eaten.
1
 Chris the Tall 28 Apr 2017
In reply to La benya:

I think Andy is trying out for a role in Trump's press office.....
 Chris the Tall 28 Apr 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> So it's untrue that the URLs were registered before the AGM? I appreciate that there may well be a reason 'why' but the fact isn't actually bollocks as far as I know. I think you misunderstand me and my post.

I believe around 30 URLs were registered around that time, some before, some after the AGM. To anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the internet this is no more of an issue than Marco Scolaris' middle name
In reply to Ian W:

> You are taking the piss with this one I trust?

No. Whilst thinking might be currently well aligned, who is to say how the organisations might diverge in the future?
 johncook 28 Apr 2017

In reply to the thread;
I think BP has achieved one of his aims. After reading this thread people who had in the past more or less agreed with each other are now arguing, falling out, name calling etc. Perhaps this was his aim; to get the staff,volunteers, etc to fall out so that a counter organisation could step in and take over, ie a coup!
The rebranding is in the past and an admitted mistake. The MONC is now in the past apart from the catching up required at the office after all the upset. We all as a community should be working together to re-establish the BMC good name and to back the 'management'. Hopefully we will soon have a new committed president to take over from Rehan, who will be as passionate as him and who will get the organisation moving in a suitable direction.
BP must be really enjoying seeing his plan to destabilise the BMC come to fruition, even if only on this forum!
Lets all pull together to ensure his defeat is complete!
Post edited at 22:31
 UKB Shark 28 Apr 2017
In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

> My understanding is that an Acting President will be drawn from the current VP's and then a timescale and process for electing a new President will be decided leading to an EGM for that purpose.

Sorry. My understanding appears to be wrong. The Acting President doesn't necessarily have to be drawn from the VPs as I was previously given to believe.
 Chris the Tall 28 Apr 2017
In reply to johncook:

> After reading this thread people who had in the past more or less agreed with each other are now arguing,

On the contrary, Offwidth and myself are agreeing with each other far more than either of us are comfortable with. I just hope someone starts a TPS thread soon
 simondgee 28 Apr 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Lots of circular arguments which makes for entertaining insight but a fundamental question I have.
I don't know the ins and out of the articles and governance BUT...if 1 person and 30 signatories can force a vote and precipitate a shit storm over X ...can this happen in future over Y...e.g.given that there are 80,000+ members what is to stop recurrence of MONC or Motions to have other votes forced...presumably anybody with rash idea and a bunch of mates can submit such under the current articles?
Separately, having read such, I do find it strange that the review of governance is not being carried out someone/a body that is independent of the BMC especially given the sensitivity of the whole thing.
In reply to simondgee:

> Separately, having read such, I do find it strange that the review of governance is not being carried out someone/a body that is independent of the BMC

I thought he was independent; a former judge, a climber, but never a member of the BMC. Why do you think he's not independent? Because he's being paid by the BMC? Who else should be paying him?

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=661216#x8537257

https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/news.php?id=9355
Post edited at 00:07
 simondgee 29 Apr 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

ta for link...i just assumed (from a different description) that he was a BMC member ...certainly the other 2 posts are being drawn from BMC membership...having some experience of something similar, our requirement was for independent review drawn from outside our industry to ensure zero bias as we were contracting the the review
 Offwidth 29 Apr 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:
OK .. just for you.... I disagree about the amount you say we disagree (except maybe on 3PS

We have also both sought change in aspects of BMC structures and operations using fully open and democratic methods and based on verifiable facts.

I hope you also believe the secrecy, lies and misinformation we have seen around the recent MoNC bring the organisational process into disrepute and rule changes must be made to stop future submissions of this type. Supporting information must in future be provided to inform the membership (through Summit and the BMC web page) and some reasonable degree of fact checking should be made. If the internet campaign against the motion hadn't happened, Bobs 350 proxy votes (many of whom will almost certainly have been duped) might well have led to the MoNC being passed. The AGM was the best attended ever and only about 10 of the 160 people there voted for the motion.
Post edited at 09:53
 gallam1 30 Apr 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

The Chair of the review is to be Ray Wigglesworth QC of 18 St John Street Chambers, Manchester, who may be far from independent of the BMC. In addition he has never been a Judge, but was in the 1990’s a Recorder in Manchester. His experience is in criminal law and he has no experience of running reviews of entities like the BMC. Indeed, he is already seeking volunteers to deal with issues related to commercial law due to his own lack of experience.

Those of you who were present at the BMC AGM will have heard Rupert Davies, BMC Out-going Vice President speak against the motion of no confidence on behalf of all the BMC directors. In his presentation Rupert Davies said "We are instigating a ground-up review, it will be independent, it will be arms length....." (See the report by Alex Messenger of the BMC website)

What Rupert Davies did not say was that the review was going to be conducted by his senior partner from 18 St John Street Chambers, Ray Wigglesworth QC. Not only are they in the same Chambers but they share HMRC as a client and have worked closely together on a number of cases over the years. And of course Rupert Davies was a member of the Executive Committee at the time of the re-branding exercise and the 2016 AGM.

See the Linkedin entry for Rupert Davies, Barrister, 18 St John Street Chambers (www.uklinkedin.com) where Rupert Davies describes himself as the Vice President of the BMC. You may also wish to look at the website for 18 St John Street Chambers www.18sjs.com

I hope you will agree that in these circumstances Ray Wigglesworth QC may have a conflict of interest. But more importantly the BMC and Rupert Davies himself should have declared their relationship with the chair of the review. The appointment of this chair of the review makes a mockery of the notion of "independent" and "arms length", although I doubt that Ray Wigglesworth QC and Rupert Davies actually share an office. It also brings in to question the procedure under which the chair of the review was selected. Who were the other candidates? How the selection was made and by whom?

In addition to the chair of the review not being independent there remains the question of the content and scope of the terms of reference. One would have thought that by now the directors of the BMC would have understood the importance of an open and transparent approach in regard to these matters. Why the secrecy? When can we expect to see the terms of reference for the review on the BMC website?
38
 AlisonS 30 Apr 2017
In reply to gallam1:

I fail to see the conflict of interest. There are an awful lot of people involved in the BMC in some way or another and unless you get someone in from Australia it is always going to be possible to find connections between individuals if you look for them. The key thing is whether Mr Wrigglesworth has had any previous direct involvement in the structure of the organisation.
Of course he is going to delegate and seek the expertise of others. No-one is an expert in everything. That is basic good practice.
Why do you think the process is not going to be transparent? It is very early days so far.
I think we have to be careful not to create a situation in which everyone who becomes involved with the structure of the BMC gets hounded to the point where they feel forced to resign. That really would give an impression of deliberate manipulation.
1
 RupertD 30 Apr 2017
In reply to gallam1:
Ray and I were in the same chambers before he retired. He has now left. We were in seperate departments and practiced mostly a different area of law. The only overlap was that I still do a small amount of civil proceeds of crime work and when I started out I did some criminal law for a short period. I have never worked on a case with him and we have never had any more contact (before last weekend at the agm) than occasional (a few times a year maybe) conversation in a corridor mostly about where we had been on holiday. This is how I knew he is a climber. For the purposes of full disclosure I once watched him in court about 9 years ago.

Barristers in independent practice are self employed. Ray and I practiced independently. He has never been my boss. He was not a senior partner. Whilst we both have acted for HMRC we did different work for different departments.

I will likely have no contact with him at all during the review process. I am no longer on the exec and have no plans to be again in the future. I am unsure as to what way you might be concerned that I may influence the governance review or why I might even want to. The review is intended to look at governance structures for the future. It is not reviewing past decisions or any decisions I may have been involved with.

Ray is an ex QC and a judge (a Recorder is a judge). His job is to be an independent tribunal.

I would like to remind people that the review is for governance of the body that represents climbers, which for most of us is a hobby. The relationship I had/have with Ray would not be enough to prevent him sitting as a judge in a case I was acting on. It is often the case that barristers sit as judges in cases in which barristers from the same chambers act and represent clients. This is necessarily the case as it is a small legal world. This can be the case even in the most serious of criminal matters and would not be enough to show bias.

Finally, as a matter of law, the review can only ever make suggestions as to the final structure of the BMC. Any changes will have to be voted on at an agm or egm. Therefore even if everything the review suggests is unacceptable the members can still reject it.
Post edited at 15:14
 climbwhenready 30 Apr 2017
In reply to gallam1:

Oh for &#^! sake.

You can't get much more independent than bringing in a QC who has nothing do to with the BMC.

Why don't you go climbing?
2
 RupertD 30 Apr 2017
In reply to gallam1:
Also I would like to point out that this level of distrust in volunteers is toxic. The BMC relies on volunteers. They work for free. For you (if you are a member). They are doing free stuff for you. My view, and it is just a view, is that when people are doing free work in their spare time you cannot hold them to the same (or even higher) standards than people that are paid to do the same work or there is a risk that they will stop doing it. You can nit pick the BMC forever. Its not perfect. But it is an organisation with a soul that comes from the fact that it is run to a large degree by member volunteers. If their work is constantly undermined becuase it falls short of that which might be achieved by full time professionals then there is a real risk that people will stop volunteering. As Dave Turnbull stated at the agm dinner the role of BMC president is already on the verge of being unviable in its current incarnation as the stress and time demands are very high for a volunteer role. It will be a shame if it changes.
Post edited at 15:54
In reply to gallam1:

Fairly strong stuff. Care to put your name to what you have said?
 Brass Nipples 30 Apr 2017
In reply to gallam1:

Is that you Bob?

In reply to Lion Bakes:

No Latin, so unlikely.

No mention of our betters (Alpine Club, Wayfarers Club etc), so unlikely.

Plus a quite long and detailed post so again, unlikely.

Plus it was on that infernal modern internet thing, so unlikely.
 Ian W 30 Apr 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:

> No. Whilst thinking might be currently well aligned, who is to say how the organisations might diverge in the future?

My comment on taking the p*** was aimed at your quote:-
I was in favour of a separate body for competition climbing until someone pointed out the danger of "what if the competition body decides they need to bolt all grit routes?"

There is no danger. Comps are for artificial surfaces. Unless you are the UIAA. Then natural rock is fair game. I am dead against this.
 Ian W 30 Apr 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

But full of conjecture, errors, misinformation and jumped-to conclusions, so possible..........
In reply to gallam1:

The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

Hopefully Rupert has convinced you of how wrong you are. if not then maybe you'd like to speak directly with someone in the BMC office about your concerns.
 gavmac 30 Apr 2017
In reply to gallam1:

"One would have thought that by now the directors of the BMC would have understood the importance of an open and transparent approach in regard to these matters. Why the secrecy?"

Well that is ironic given your hidden profile.

 Mick Ward 30 Apr 2017
In reply to RupertD:

Thank you for your posts. A welcome injection of sanity.

Mick

P.S. Can you really do one-armers off the rafters ad infinitum (as Tony Shaw suggested to me, many moons ago?)
In reply to Ian W:

> Comps are for artificial surfaces. Unless you are the UIAA. Then natural rock is fair game. I am dead against this.

I'm glad to hear it. But, as I said, who is to say what might happen in future, or how others might feel; as you say, the UIAA hold a different opinion to you.
 Ian W 01 May 2017
In reply to captain paranoia:
> I'm glad to hear it. But, as I said, who is to say what might happen in future, or how others might feel; as you say, the UIAA hold a different opinion to you.

My preference would be to put some pressure on the UIAA to stop their involvement. We cant prevent individuals / groups organising stuff, but if the national bodies / UIAA / IFSC frown on such things, then maybe they will disappear.
As our national body and the IFSC already frown on such things, at least we can be seen to be consistent in our approach.
Post edited at 10:25
 john arran 01 May 2017
In reply to Ian W:

I have a little inside knowledge of this and, while I recognise that one or two UIAA endorsed events in the past may have overstepped the mark by a good margin, the understanding now seems very much to recognise that a competitive element can responsibly exist as part of a festival-type event, maybe like the BMC's Stanage Boulder Bash, but that care is vital to ensure none of the damaging elements of crag comps are present, such as cordoning off routes or chipping holds. I can't see a problem in principle with recognising the team that has climbed the most or the hardest routes over a festival weekend, obviously in places where environmental considerations aren't significant. There was one like that a couple of years ago in South Africa and it really brought the local climbing community together. Clearly wouldn't work or be appropriate everywhere.
3
 Andy Say 01 May 2017
In reply to Mick Ward:

> Can you really do one-armers off the rafters ad infinitum (as Tony Shaw suggested to me, many moons ago?)

Rupert can do pull-ups with his parietal lobe...
 gallam1 01 May 2017
In reply to RupertD:

I am sure that we are all grateful for the details that you have now provided on the extent of your relationship with Ray Wigglesworth QC over the last nine years, whilst you shared Chambers with him at 18, St John Street.

Such a full disclosure would have been welcome at the time of your presentation to the AGM on the matter of the motion of no confidence. In addition to your statement about the review being “independent” and “arm’s length” you could have added that the proposed Chair of the review was well-known to you, as you had been sharing Chambers with him for the last nine years. No doubt the members present would have welcomed that information at that time.

As to the degree to which this previously undeclared relationship which Ray Wigglesworth QC enjoyed with a Vice President of the BMC might impinge on his independence in conducting the governance review, this must be a matter of opinion.

More importantly Ray Wigglesworth QC will have to form his own views on whether or not the failure to disclose his relationship with a serving Vice President of the BMC at the time he was being considered for appointment, will impact his ability to serve as Chair of the governance review. This is a matter for him alone.

What is clear is that we have here yet another example of BMC management being less than frank and open with the membership at the AGM.

Finally I wish to point out that you have made no comment about the terms of reference of the governance review, in respect of which the membership remains entirely in the dark. Why are the terms of reference not on the BMC website? Do you think they should be?
44
 gallam1 01 May 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

There are 8-9 responses to my original post. Rupert Davies is the only person who appears to be making any attempt whatsoever to respond to the issues raised. Ad hominem attacks generally reflect poorly on those who attempt them and are usually taken as a sign that there is a deeper problem.

I suggest that you and the others in question stick to playing the ball and not the man. That way we will be able to discuss the issues in question, which are of genuine concern to the members of the BMC, in a calm and rational fashion.
25
 Lemony 01 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> What is clear is that we have here yet another example of BMC management being less than frank and open with the membership at the AGM.

Or alternatively, an extremely clear example of someone trying to use a bit of rhetorical slight of hand and misinformation to try to make their own unreasonableness seem more reasonable.
 gavmac 01 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:
Yes, yes. But when someone is talking pish, regardless of how eloquently they put it, should be called out for talking said pish.
Post edited at 22:20
 Steve Wetton 01 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

You lost. Get over it!
1
 spenser 01 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

By the sound of things it's a bit of a stretch to describe Ray as "well known" to Rupert from the description which Rupert has given. I'd imagine that the pool of people who have the legal experience to chair the review, the knowledge of climbing (and wider mountaineering) necessary to understand what BMC members want, had never been a BMC member and could be quickly identified as suitable potential candidates by the BMC prior to the AGM was probably quite small.
By my understanding Rupert left the executive at the end of the AGM (saturday lunchtime), National Council didn't vote to accept Ray as the chair for the review until their meeting on the Sunday morning.
I hope that provides some food for thought.
Spenser Gray (don't bother digging for dirt on my involvement with the BMC, I'm just a member of a couple of clubs upgraded to individual membership and have attended one area meeting and one AGM).
 Chris the Tall 01 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

If this review was an investigation into impropriety or misconduct, then your expose would have had some relevance. However it has been made perfectly clear that this is a review of way the organisation operates and of it's articles of association. Sorry to disappoint those who are hoping for witch hunt.

But I suspect you know this. So why is it that you use the anonymity of the internet to undermine the integrity and motives of someone who has put in 3 years voluntary effort as a BMC VP ? I doubt if it's personal. Rather I think that you have come to the conclusion that you would rather see the BMC fail than head in a direction you don't like. We all know how heavily the BMC relies upon volunteers, so let's suggest that they are all corrupt and self-serving.

Whoever you are, you should be ashamed of the dishonesty of your tactics
 AlisonS 02 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:
> There are 8-9 responses to my original post. Rupert Davies is the only person who appears to be making any attempt whatsoever to respond to the issues raised. Ad hominem attacks generally reflect poorly on those who attempt them and are usually taken as a sign that there is a deeper problem.

People are entitled to express their opinions as are you.
The offence is not that you asked the question but the confrontational way in which it was delivered. That's why some people have responded in kind.
Of course Rupert is in the best position to answer the detail of your enquiry. It was directed at him and he has the knowledge to deliver an informed response. You could of course have emailed him directly and resolved your question privately; but by posting on an open forum you have invited comment. You may not agree with everyone's opinions but they are entitled to express them and they are each just as much your equal as a lawyer or a judge.

However you are right when you say there is a deeper problem and it is this:
We voted overwhelmingly for a president who was intelligent, inclusive, hardworking and wise. Now we have lost him because of a failure in process that allowed a small minority to sledgehammer the system and did not protect volunteers. An organization that has broad and overwhelming support has been challenged and has responded in a measured and conciliatory way, even though it has sufficient mandate not to have to need to.
The concern now is that despite the overwhelming vote of confidence, a small minority will continue to needle away and undermine the principles of democracy and inclusiveness until it has destroyed the very ethos of the organisation many of us care about and support. The end result if this continues, will be fragmention, or a reduction in the number of volunteer posts in favour of professional officers with greater powers of governance. Neither of these is particulary desirable.
I am beginning to wonder if the BMC in its paradigm of inclusiveness and dialogue has become too nice. Maybe it is time to say enough is enough. It's not possible to please everyone and those who shout loudest are not always the best to listen to.
Post edited at 01:15
1
 RupertD 02 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:
The review is regarding the organisational structure. It is nothing to do with the rebrand, or looking at past decisions. It is not a review of me or my actions or the exec at the time I was on it. I am no longer a VP or on the exec and I will have no influence on the review. I see no conflict of interest because I have no personal interest in the outcome of the review. It cannot personally benefit me in any way.

The independence of the review is independence from those that may have a stake in the outcome - the National Council and the exec. I have no stake in the outcome being on neither of those bodies. An independent body does not necessarily mean that there are zero connections, it means there are no connections of bias. A connection with a past officer in the organisation that has no interest in the outcome is not one that shows bias, because that officer cannot benefit in any way from any particular outcome.

If you disagree, rather than making vague suggestions of conflict of interest, please state what organisational structure would have personal benefits for me such that the Review ought to guard against being influenced from making recommendations in favour of that structure.

Finally, as noted above, the final reason there need be no concern is that the Governance Review has no power to unilaterally change the articles of association, it can only make suggestions that need to be ratified by the members at an AGM or EGM. In that respect the Review has no more power than you do, if you are a member. You could, if you felt strongly enough, make your own suggestions for a new governance structure, suggest redrafts for the articles and put together a motion to be considered at the next AGM alongside the Review's own suggestions.

As to why the terms of reference have not been published, I don't know. I'm not privvy to the decisions. At a guess they haven't been finalised yet as they need to be finally agreed by National Council who have not done that yet, being composed of volunteers that have spent the last week working in their day jobs after spending the previous weekend in meetings. The BMC has never moved fast for that reason. See my post above about the dangers of constantly needling volunteers for not working hard enough, for free, for you.

Finally, you are obviously concerned about the future direction of the BMC. Why don't you volunteer to help.


Post edited at 07:48
 Ian W 02 May 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

The terms of reference have not been published because they have not been finalised (or at least hadnt by the end of last week).

 Ian W 02 May 2017
In reply to john arran:

> I have a little inside knowledge of this and, while I recognise that one or two UIAA endorsed events in the past may have overstepped the mark by a good margin, the understanding now seems very much to recognise that a competitive element can responsibly exist as part of a festival-type event, maybe like the BMC's Stanage Boulder Bash, but that care is vital to ensure none of the damaging elements of crag comps are present, such as cordoning off routes or chipping holds. I can't see a problem in principle with recognising the team that has climbed the most or the hardest routes over a festival weekend, obviously in places where environmental considerations aren't significant. There was one like that a couple of years ago in South Africa and it really brought the local climbing community together. Clearly wouldn't work or be appropriate everywhere.

Some valid points, but I think that given peoples opinion on what is acceptable differ, the only way to fully protect crags is to not have a grey area at all. However, it is certainly "off topic" here, so we could /should either debate it offline or even in a different thread?
Post edited at 08:59
 RupertD 02 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:
> Such a full disclosure would have been welcome at the time of your presentation to the AGM on the matter of the motion of no confidence. In addition to your statement about the review being “independent” and “arm’s length” you could have added that the proposed Chair of the review was well-known to you

As you are aware, at the AGM I was responding, on the fly, to a motion for which I had no idea of the detail beforehand. I was speaking off the cuff with a time limit. Before I stood up I had no idea that I would refer to the review at all. Had I had the opportunity to plan more, I may have given more detail about the relationship or I would more likely have concluded that it was a) not relevant to the "independence" and "arms length" of the review, because the "independence" and "arms length" I was referring to was from the executive and national council of which I would not be a member, b) not finalised in any event as Mr Wigglesworth's chairmanship either would, or would not be, voted for in a future meeting to which I would not be party, c) not the best use of the remaining few seconds of my response to the motion which was not about the review but mostly about whether the BMC should support the olympics.
Post edited at 09:15
 La benya 02 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

There are around 1500 QC's in the UK. how many as a % do you think have any knowledge at all of climbing?
As a very general guess, around 10% of the population participate in climbing of any kind. So you could assume that 150 QCs would be involved in some way with the mountains. How many do you think have the time or inclination to volunteer their (very expensive) time? 10% again?

So you've got the option of 15 people with the required skills, experience and qualification to chair something like the review across the entire country. and you're moaning about the one chosen being known to a BMC member, who is also one of those 15 people. i went to cheddar gorge at the weekend to climb. i live in London and nearly always climb at Portland.... i saw 4 separate people i have previously met while climbing. its a small world, get over it. Otherwise you're assuming everyone is out to bring down the western world, or something equally insidious, when they're not.
 Will Hunt 02 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

There isn't really a need for other to address the supposed issues that you have raised, because Rupert's responses have satisfactorily shown that your assertions are without substance.

I would suggest that, if you are to make any further contribution to this discussion, you identify yourself. It would be useful for future debates if ordinary BMC members can see who it is that are grinding their own axes on the volunteers who give so much to the BMC.
 Rob Parsons 02 May 2017
In reply to La benya:

> There are around 1500 QC's in the UK ... So you've got the option of 15 people with the required skills, experience and qualification to chair something like the review across the entire country. and you're moaning about the one chosen being known to a BMC member, who is also one of those 15 people.

Your argument's not correct: Rupert can't be 'one of those 15 people' since he isn't a QC.

(I'm not trying to make any other point!)
 UKB Shark 02 May 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Your argument's not correct: Rupert can't be 'one of those 15 people' since he isn't a QC.(I'm not trying to make any other point!)

You are missing the point though, since its not not Rupert but Ray Wrigglesworth who is chairing the review. I don't know who the other 14 QC's might be
 slab_happy 02 May 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Why have the terms of reference not been published before they've been agreed???

Why was Bob Pettigrew not allowed to express his views in an issue of Summit after it had already been published????

What about the shocking revelation that possible URLs were registered exactly when the BMC said they were registered, at a point in the rebranding research when it would be completely normal and standard to do this??????

Look, if anyone in this discussion is actually a Time Lord, I think they should be required to disclose this (in case of possible conflicts of interest at some point in the multiverse).

Otherwise, it might be helpful if we could all agree to operate within a framework of causality and linear time ...
 d_b 02 May 2017
In reply to slab_happy:
Most of the arguments for the MONC seem to disregard causality so why shouldn't the BMC?

Also: I have it on good authority that all the 15 hypothetical QCs are regenerations of one another.
Post edited at 12:52
 La benya 02 May 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Ah ok, apologies. I thought he was. It still doesn't change the rest of the argument a whole lot. Basically, there ain't many people to chose from and those that there are are likely to be known by people in the climbing community, especially someone else in the legal world.
 ripper 02 May 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

So given that Rupert Davies has either answered, demolished or shown to be irrelevant every point raised (mainly the latter, obviously), what are the chances that he'll receive a 'thanks' from Gollum for his clear and helpful explanation? or even a 'sorry' for what has been shown to be little more than shit-stirring?

PS for the sake of transparency I've never met Rupert, as far as I know (although as someone above said climbing's a small world so it's possible). I am however also an individual BMC member so am declaring that as a possible conflict of interest, even though it clearly isn't one)
 Rob Parsons 02 May 2017
In reply to RupertD:

> The review is regarding the organisational structure. It is nothing to do with the rebrand, or looking at past decisions.

On the other hand, since the terms of reference of the review haven't been published yet, we don't know exactly what it will cover.

Certainly we can expect it to cover the 'technical' matters of governance mentioned in, for example, the Wragg Report (and also alluded to by yourself in previous threads); but perhaps it will (should?) have a wider remit.
Post edited at 14:03
In reply to gallam1:

Why are you hiding behind your keyboard?

It would be good if you added your name to the bottom of your posts.

All the best,

Tom Ripley
 RupertD 02 May 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:
> On the other hand, since the terms of reference of the review haven't been published yet, we don't know exactly what it will cover.Certainly we can expect it to cover the 'technical' matters of governance mentioned in, for example, the Wragg Report (and also alluded to by yourself in previous threads); but perhaps it will (should?) have a wider remit.

The review I am aware of is intended to consider the future decision making structure of the BMC.

But you're right. It might be that in the week since the AGM the purpose of the review has been completely changed and that the composition of the review team may have to be, or perhaps has been, changed in light of that. But then that wouldn't be the same review that I was referring to, or aware of, and I have no knowledge of it.
Post edited at 14:38
 Martin W 02 May 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Regarding the two statements:

1) 'They didn’t give me the opportunity to put my side when Summit was published with this hysterical call to ‘save our BMC’

and

2) The BMC contacted Bob twice (as far as I know) PRIOR to the publication of the issue of Summit referred to.

I suppose that if you understand BP's phrase "when Summit was published" to mean "after Summit was published" rather than "during the process of Summit being prepared for publication" then statement 1) would not conflict with statement 2). Such a reading of statement 1) would not be paradoxical if you accept that the BMC could, for example, have offered him the opportunity to have a statement published on the BMC web site.

This is how spin doctors make their money.
1
 ripper 02 May 2017
In reply to Martin W:
sorry, I have literally no idea what point you're trying to make here

1
 Ian W 02 May 2017
In reply to Martin W:

And further, there was a permanent open line for communication, which Bob P chose not to use at any time, and under any circumstances. So there was ample opportunity for Bob to get his message out before / during / after publication, and even if it missed publication of summit, there is, the website, or even UKC / UKB / Grough etc etc etc

 Offwidth 02 May 2017
In reply to Martin W:

As far as I'm aware ( I asked BMC staff at the AGM and was told this) your slant and Andy Say's slant on your Point 1 is not true. Bob never contacted the BMC at any time wishing to make his arguments public, prior to his 15 minute delivery at the AGM. Can someone from the BMC please confirm this, as it clearly needs a proper formal denial.

If it were true I'm sure Bob would have released email evidence by now as the 29 and their cronies seem to want to drag up as much continuing mud as possible after democratically losing the MoNC 2500 to 350, despite secretly collecting proxy votes based on lies and misinformation.
 John Gresty 02 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

I read out your original post to two people who have good knowledge of the Manchester legal mafia, and quite frankly they thought that you were talking rubbish.

John Gresty
 Andy Say 02 May 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> Bob never contacted the BMC at any time wishing to make his arguments public, prior to his 15 minute delivery at the AGM. Can someone from the BMC please confirm this, as it clearly needs a proper formal denial. If it were true I'm sure Bob would have released email evidence by now

I don't know the detail of the phone conversations between Bob Pettigrew and Dave Turnbull but such conversations were held, DT was quite open about that at the NW area meeting. There might be no email 'evidence'. And it's not a 'slant': it's simply accepting an assertion as true until such time as it is demonstrated to be false!
 ripper 02 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> I don't know the detail of the phone conversations between Bob Pettigrew and Dave Turnbull but such conversations were held, DT was quite open about that at the NW area meeting. There might be no email 'evidence'. And it's not a 'slant': it's simply accepting an assertion as true until such time as it is demonstrated to be false!

It's been asserted, repeatedly, that BP ignored various and repeated appeals to provide a summary of case for publication. Yet you seem to want to accept those assertions as false even if they are proven to be true?
1
 The New NickB 02 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

Dave Turnbull's assertion or Bob Pettigrew's assertion?
 Andy Say 02 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> I am sure that we are all grateful for the details that you have now provided on the extent of your relationship with Ray Wigglesworth QC over the last nine years, whilst you shared Chambers with him at 18, St John Street.Such a full disclosure would have been welcome at the time of your presentation to the AGM
To be fair Rupert was responding to the motion of no confidence rather than dealing with the governance review.
> Why are the terms of reference not on the BMC website? Do you think they should be?
Possibly because they have not yet been drafted? I would guess they will form part of an interim report to the next National Council meeting. I'm sure minds will be focussed by the possible loss of Sport England funding unless the BMC comes up with a structure which ticks their (Sport England's) boxes as 'Good Governance'. But my understanding is, as Rupert says, that any proposals would have to be accepted by National Council and ratified by an E/AGM.

What's that Chinese curse? 'May you live in interesting times....'
 Andy Say 02 May 2017
In reply to ripper:
Aaaaaaarrrrgggggh!
What I believe is that Bobby P was asked by the BMC for a statement that could go in Summit. He refused. The 'Save our BMC' issue of the magazine went out (along with a lot of a e-newsletters). Subsequently Bob asked if he could put his side as a response, possibly in conversation with Dave Turnbull. Quite possibly it was just too late. He obviously believes that request was refused.

That's me accepting ALL the assertions as true!
Post edited at 16:07
4
 Offwidth 02 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

I'm fully aware there were phone and email conversations between Bob/Doug and various people at the BMC (some of the content I heard about sounded shameful even compared to the letters that have been leaked but will probably 'never see the light of day'). Yet I was told Bob never volunteered any supporting information for the MoNC for public publication through the BMC office prior to the AGM; private communications are just that, private. As others have said, Bob could have shamed the BMC, up front before the AGM, or at the AGM, if the BMC refused to publish after Summit, so even if I hadn't been told, I would have believed he was almost certainly talking shit.
 Ian W 02 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

And breathe..........
 Andy Say 02 May 2017
In reply to Ian W:



I normally pride myself on clarity of expression. I'm obviously doing something wrong?
 Andy Say 02 May 2017
In reply to The New NickB:
And Uncle Tom Cobley's assertions. I don't see any conflict between what DT and BP have said as such.
And going through life believing 'they' are telling lies unless proof is provided does seem such a negative outlook, don't you think? Lets start with a belief in the innate goodness of people
Post edited at 16:19
1
 La benya 02 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

you are
 Andy Say 02 May 2017
In reply to La benya:

> you are

What?
 Offwidth 02 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
The innate goodness of someone who has secretly gathered proxy votes based on lies and misinformation (from failed fact checking of content of leaked letters in the public domain), with the organisational damage it caused (of which Bob was warned of in advance by the likes of Sir CB) is clearly highly questionable (unless he mentally disabled). In the meantime I'll believe those I know in the BMC on whether Bob tried to submit supporting information after Summit, for the reasons I've already given (I feel I can trust them and it beggars belief that Bob wouldn't have made more of such a refusal before the AGM or at the AGM).
Post edited at 16:37
 Chris the Tall 02 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> I normally pride myself on clarity of expression. I'm obviously doing something wrong?

Your hypothesis seems to be that BP wanted his case to be published prior to the AGM, but that Dave Dastardly refused to listen to or read anything from him, in order to be able to claim he didn't know the case for the MONC, and in order that Rupert could start his rebuttal at the AGM with a similar claim.

Do you imagine a phonecall between DT and BP in which the former hangs up before the latter can get to the crucial part of his argument....

"And do you realise his middle name is Maria ? Dave? Dave ? Are you still there ?"

P.S. Pity there was no other way for BP to give his arguments a public airing, such as area meetings or websites. Or were they all part of the conspiracy of silence as well ?
 d_b 02 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

I think La Benya is stating that he or she is not a solipsist, and that you definitely probably exist.

A valid philosophical position but not entirely relevant.
 galpinos 02 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> Lets start with a belief in the innate goodness of people

That would be my normal position but I'm afraid BP has eroded that goodwill in the manner than he, and some of the other signatories, have behaved.

He appears to have been given umpteen opportunities to put his case forward and declined, it seems improbable that he would have had a change of heart and been denied the opportunity by the BMC?
 La benya 02 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> Aaaaaaarrrrgggggh!What I believe is that Bobby P was asked by the BMC for a statement that could go in Summit. He refused. The 'Save our BMC' issue of the magazine went out (along with a lot of a e-newsletters). Subsequently Bob asked if he could put his side as a response, possibly in conversation with Dave Turnbull. Quite possibly it was just too late. He obviously believes that request was refused.That's me accepting ALL the assertions as true!

I think your issue is trying to justify/ argue that this is a sane thing to do...?
And by believing all the assertions are true, your kind of taking a big ol' glub of bullshit from someone. That's not a credible stance to take. that isn't the way things would have gone down had this occurred between two sensible parties. you either believe that one or both parties isn't sensible and that things occurred this way, or that one party is lying.
History would suggest its Bob, and hes just trying to save face/ continue the lie.
 La benya 02 May 2017
In reply to davidbeynon:

That's way too high-brow for me (googles solipsist)
 d_b 02 May 2017
In reply to La benya:

It's the default mode of philosophically inclined teenagers I think.
 Andy Say 02 May 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:
> Your hypothesis seems to be that BP wanted his case to be published prior to the AGM, but that Dave Dastardly refused to listen to or read anything from him, in order to be able to claim he didn't know the case for the MONC, and in order that Rupert could start his rebuttal at the AGM with a similar claim.

Oh c'mon Chris. I suggested no such scenario. Just read what I've posted and take it literally without imagining a devious subtext. Please.
I know there was a phone conversation between BP and DT on 2nd April, Dave reported such at the area meeting. At that stage it would most probably not have been possible to do a pre-AGM mailshot if such was requested. I dont know! Bob says he asked, I don't know anyone saying he didn't. There's a hell of a lot of supposition going on and, to borrow a phrase, playing the man not the ball.
Post edited at 17:04
1
 La benya 02 May 2017
In reply to davidbeynon:

seems a safe bet
 Andy Say 02 May 2017
In reply to La benya:

> I think your issue is trying to justify/ argue that this is a sane thing to do...?And by believing all the assertions are true, your kind of taking a big ol' glub of bullshit from someone.

Oh dear.
I am NOT trying to 'justify' anything. But can you not see that it is quite possible that the assertions (re. publication of information ONLY) are quite possible all true. 'You' seem to passionately wish that there is a clear case that someone is telling porkies. I'm suggesting that maybe (in this specific case) no-one is.

But if you wish to believe that Bob Pettigrew is evil personified and nothing he says can be trusted then that's up to you.

2
 La benya 02 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

OK Andy.
 Chris the Tall 02 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> ' They didn’t give me the opportunity to put my side when Summit was published with this hysterical call to ‘save our BMC’' is what Bob Pettigrew ACTUALLY said.

Right, I've gone back to the start of this nonsense to try and work out what point you are trying to make

Most of us feel that BP is lying in that statement - that he had plenty of opportunity, both prior to publication of Summit, and prior to the AGM, to furnish either the BMC or other media outlets with his case for the MONC. I think we can all agree that he only stated his case privately - to his friends and certain clubs. So the question is whether the BMC gave him an opportunity.

If he declined to supply them with a statement then he is lying. If he did supply a statement but the BMC refused to do anything with it or even read it then they are lying.

So the only possible middle ground is that he offered to provide a statement, subject to conditions that weren't met. I don't think the BMC would have refused to publish it on the web, but maybe he insisted on a mailshot to all members. Or that the BMC send round a secretary to take down his thoughts with a quill pen whilst he bathed ?

So unless you believe in some such far-fetched scenario, someone is lying.
 Andy Say 02 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

It might be worth recapping a few salient points about my stance in this thread.
1 I post under my own name; I'm open about who I am. It would be cool if more people did so.
2 I was at the AGM and voted against the MoNC.
3 I know Bob Pettigrew quite well and, before the AGM, told him that if he had substantive complaints about the way the BMC was governed he might be listened to. If he went off on a Scolaris bash he would alienate the audience. And the MoNC would fail anyway.
4 Bob blew it by focussing on things external to the BMC than had little credibility.
5 I have been a member of the BMC for over 30 years as an 'obligation', NOT for insurance or any sense that I wanted to benefit from the BMC.
6 Having observed the workings of National Council for around 14 years I have few illusions about it being a paragon of democratic governance.
7 I think the next couple of years will be very difficult for the BMC as Sport England seek compliance with THEIR model of good governance which is based upon 'Board primacy' and will relegate National Council to a subordinate role.

Just my take on stuff you understand......

Andy Say
 Andy Say 02 May 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Hey Chris,
I know that it is attractive to see the world in a pretty polarised way. Where there is a difference then someone is right and someone is wrong! And where there is an apparent confusion then someone is telling the truth and someone else must, by default, be lying. The real world is seldom so cut and dried. Nuances and misrepresentation abound.
As I suggested way up the thread all we can hope to work out is 'what happened' but subsequent historians may be needed to explain the 'why'.
1
 slab_happy 02 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> Subsequently Bob asked if he could put his side as a response, possibly in conversation with Dave Turnbull.

Is this a thing that Bob Pettigrew's actually claimed somewhere -- specifically, that at some point *after* Summit was published, he changed his mind about refusing to provide a statement, and asked Dave Turnbull to publish his side of things in some form?

Or is this something that you're hypothesizing he *might* possibly mean, as a way of making his statement potentially not false?
 Andy Say 02 May 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

I'm on a phone so struggle to do things like providing links.
But if you look at the grough report it is certainly suggested, by Bob, that he asked. It may have been at a very late stage? I dont know! Short of anyone actually coming? out with a definitive statement about the communications I don't know....
 UKB Shark 02 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> I'm on a phone so struggle to do things like providing links. But if you look at the grough report it is certainly suggested, by Bob, that he asked. It may have been at a very late stage? I dont know! Short of anyone actually coming? out with a definitive statement about the communications I don't know....

Here you go:

https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2017/04/23/tearful-bmc-president-rehan-si...

Bob Pettigrew said after the meeting that he did not regret tabling the motion of no confidence. “I’m unrepentant,” he said. “I expected to be pretty heavily defeated. They didn’t give me the opportunity to put my side when Summit [the BMC’s quarterly membership magazine] was published with this hysterical call to ‘save our BMC’.

 Andy Say 02 May 2017
In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

Thanks.
 La benya 02 May 2017
In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

> Here you go:https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2017/04/23/tearful-bmc-president-rehan-si... Pettigrew said after the meeting that he did not regret tabling the motion of no confidence. “I’m unrepentant,” he said. “I expected to be pretty heavily defeated. They didn’t give me the opportunity to put my side when Summit [the BMC’s quarterly membership magazine] was published with this hysterical call to ‘save our BMC’.

Again, who in their right mind turns down the chance to say their bit, and then gets pissy when the opposition does just that in their own publication. Also, it's seems an interpretation to think that he wanted to get his message out AFTER reading summit. That quote can be read that he was never asked at any stage, and was willing to give them his side previous to publication. Which would be a lie.
1
 UKB Shark 02 May 2017
In reply to La benya:

Out of interest do you know who or what is he quoting when he says this this hysterical call to "save our BMC" ? I know of the independent facebook campaign called "Vote to save the BMC" but it sounds like he is referencing something else (in Summit?) - or maybe it was it just a rhetorical allusion?. Tricksy stuff.
 Rob Parsons 02 May 2017
In reply to Ian W:

> The terms of reference have not been published because they have not been finalised (or at least hadnt by the end of last week).

I'm confused about this now. https://www.thebmc.co.uk/volunteers-sought-for-bmc-governance-review (published 26.4.17) says:

"Volunteers are sought to take part in a BMC Governance Review. The review aims to update the constitution of the BMC to ensure that it is ready to meet any future challenges.

"This independent review will be led by Ray Wigglesworth QC. Ray – an active climber and mountaineer – was appointed as the Chair following the BMC National Council meeting on 23 April 2017.

"The National Council voted on the terms of reference and constitution of the committee, but left two places vacant, giving Ray the discretion to appoint two persons who would be willing to volunteer and sit on the Governance Review Group."

That final paragraph seems to imply that the terms of reference have indeed been finalised.
 La benya 02 May 2017
In reply to ukb & bmc shark:
I assumed there was some article somewhere with that title. I haven't a clue though. I hardly see how the BMC suggesting it would quite like to be saved is hysterical...?
 Chris the Tall 02 May 2017
In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

There was absolutely nothing in Summit and I rather suspect bob doesn't do Facebook, so I presume he is referring to Martin Wraggs piece.

Alternative facts
 Ian W 03 May 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

There were a few emails still being batted about on the subject last week ( i get copied in because i'm on NC as an observer). There wasnt anything substantive on the ToR's now that i've reread some o them, so they are pretty well there.
Anyway, its "find a management and decision making structure that will allow the BMC to function properly as a member led organisation whilst complying with applicable company laws, codes of best practice / good governance".

Thats what NC / Exec set up, and is what is needed.
 UKB Shark 03 May 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Alternative indeed if he was describing Martin's pithy analysis as hysterical
 Andy Say 03 May 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> "The National Council voted on the terms of reference and constitution of the committee, but left two places vacant, giving Ray the discretion to appoint two persons who would be willing to volunteer and sit on the Governance Review Group."That final paragraph seems to imply that the terms of reference have indeed been finalised.

As someone who was at that meeting I would say that National Council discussed and agreed the membership of the review group, subject to two external volunteers being added at a later date. I recall no vote on Terms of Reference.
 gallam1 08 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
Thank you for confirming that at the National Council Meeting on 23 April 2017, there was no detailed consideration of the text of the terms of reference for the proposed governance review, and importantly that there was no vote on acceptance of the terms of reference at that meeting.

When taken together with the posts from Ian W. I think we can all agree that the terms of reference for the review had not been formally agreed prior to the approval by the National Council of the pre-selected chair of the review, Ray Wigglesworth QC. Cart before horse, perhaps?

This position is also contrary to what the BMC management indicated in its release calling for volunteers for the review. No doubt the same BMC management is also responsible for writing the Minutes of National Council meetings, so all may not be lost!

What we seem to have here is another example of the democratic deficit at the heart of the way the BMC runs its affairs. We have a governance review being run by a Chair who may not be “independent” or “arms length” from management, appointed prior to the acceptance by the National Council of his terms of reference and without the terms of reference being formally approved.

And of course this says nothing about the need to share the terms of reference with the membership at large.
32
 La benya 08 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

Cool. Who are you?
 john arran 08 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> What we seem to have here is another example of the democratic deficit at the heart of the way the BMC runs its affairs.

What we seem to have here is a gutless anonymous detractor clutching at straws in a pathetic attempt to pick tiny holes in the ordinary working operations of a large organisation, and failing in the attempt to paint them in as sinister light as possible for reasons unknown. If those reasons had genuine merit he'd surely be happy to put his name to them; as it stands it looks to be either a personal vendetta or a dinosaur nostalgically yearning for life life to return to the way it was before the last ice age.
1
 spenser 08 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

Given that you've been so highly critical of the BMC in this thread I think that the least you could do is to say who you are. If you're going to criticise how the VOLUNTEERS who run the BMC are doing so then please stand up and volunteer to make your own contribution, if not stop mouthing off behind an anonymous username and accept what people are doing.
 Mark Kemball 08 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

I do not find your arguements convincing, the fact you are choosing to remain anonymous does not help.
 Ian W 09 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> Thank you for confirming that at the National Council Meeting on 23 April 2017, there was no detailed consideration of the text of the terms of reference for the proposed governance review, and importantly that there was no vote on acceptance of the terms of reference at that meeting.When taken together with the posts from Ian W. I think we can all agree that the terms of reference for the review had not been formally agreed prior to the approval by the National Council of the pre-selected chair of the review, Ray Wigglesworth QC. Cart before horse, perhaps? This position is also contrary to what the BMC management indicated in its release calling for volunteers for the review. No doubt the same BMC management is also responsible for writing the Minutes of National Council meetings, so all may not be lost!What we seem to have here is another example of the democratic deficit at the heart of the way the BMC runs its affairs. We have a governance review being run by a Chair who may not be “independent” or “arms length” from management, appointed prior to the acceptance by the National Council of his terms of reference and without the terms of reference being formally approved. And of course this says nothing about the need to share the terms of reference with the membership at large.

There is no further need for debate on the terms of reference; they are as far ranging as is necessary to find a suitable decision making structure, as I said upthread, to allow for the running of the BMC. That point has been discussed and agreed on by Exec and NC many moons ago.
The timing of the appointment of a chair is irrelevant in this process. If the chair doesn't want to agree to them, he/she can easily say no. We needed a cart and a horse, we have both, why does it matter what order you get them in as long as both are suitable for the task in hand?
Similarly the volunteers. Its a non-issue.
The writer of the minutes is not part of the BMC management, but a BMC employee. Also a non issue in any case, as minutes are agreed by the relevant body at a subsequent meeting, so if anyone has a problem with them, they can speak up.
We have a review being led by a chair who is independent enough, and knowledgeable of the subject at hand. If you dont believe Rupert when he tells you of how he knows Ray and the "depth" of their relationship......Rupert has been open and public and concise in his views and arguments, whereas you are anonymous and relying on guesswork and innuendo.
And finally, the ToR's are pretty open. Why is there a need for a referendum style vote to take place on the detail of the ToR's? The confidence of the membership in the Exec was tested at the recent AGM, and the vote went approx 8:1 in their favour. Seems like a decent mandate to me in an openly democratic forum, despite the less than open methodology employed by those against the Exec.
If you dont like it, then please leave the BMC.






 gallam1 09 May 2017
In reply to Ian W:

You will have seen that today the BMC put the terms of reference for the review on their website. This is a most welcome development. Anyone who wishes to debate them is, at last, free to do so.

It now remains only to determine whether or not these terms of reference were approved and voted on at the National Council meeting on 23 April 2017. Perhaps you can throw some light on this matter given your role with the National Council.

You say that the chair of the review is “independent enough”. It appears that you are lowering the bar from where the BMC set it some weeks ago, as being “independent” and “arms length”.
23
 toad 09 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

any chance you might either own up to who you are or (preferably) shut up and shove off? You had your vote, you lost and this endless muddying of the waters is starting to annoy now

(I'm a punterish climber and hillwalker member with no other BMC involvement)
 ripper 09 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

just stop with the sad, desperate attempts to stir shit where none exists, will you? please??
 Ian W 09 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

The independence bar remains exactly where it always has been. Ray W clears that bar adequately. Independent in this kind of case means that he will not benefit (or lose out) from the review itself.
I didnt attend NC (or the AGM) as I was working in London that weekend, so cant throw any light on the matter. Im not sure a vote would be needed on 23/4 as the requirement for the review was agreed many moons ago. Perhaps only a progress update would be required. The ToR's for the most part are obvious within the overall scope.

Anyway, Mr Gallam, in line with many others, I am getting a little tired of the anonymous sniping and nit picking. If you have any genuine questions, feel free to send me a pm, but with your name on it. I wont grass you up or reveal your identity; but I shan't be responding to you further unless you identify yourself.

as upthread; the MonC was defeated. To get change, you need to be honest and open in your aims. I have done that myself a few times at NC meetings, and found the response from the BMC hierarchy to be positive to such an approach. Try it; you might be pleasantly surprised.
Kipper 09 May 2017
In reply to toad:

> any chance you might either own up to who you are ...

http://www.pof.com/viewprofile.aspx?profile_id=45010935
 Brass Nipples 09 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:


Are you gollum?
 Rob Parsons 09 May 2017
In reply to toad:

> any chance you might either own up to who you are or (preferably) shut up and shove off?

Who are you? Who is anybody here? The Internet doesn't really work like that, does it?

But, really, the objections to posters on grounds of anonymity on this site are completely illogical:

1. Such objections are only ever made when the person posting takes a contrary view: nobody has ever (to my knowledge anyway) objected to an anonymous post with which they agree.

2. If the person posting as 'gallam1' had posted under another more plausible-sounding name - e.g. let's say 'Susan Fisher' - nobody would have made any objections relating to the anonymity of the post. But the situation would be unchanged.

With all that being the case, why not simply address any arguments being made, or any questions being put - that's assuming you choose to reply at all -, rather than just telling someone to 'shut up and shove off'?

4
 Mark Kemball 09 May 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Who are you? Who is anybody here? The Internet doesn't really work like that, does it?But, really, the objections to posters on grounds of anonymity on this site are completely illogical

However, Rob, many of the posters on this thread (and previous threads on the MoNC) have made a point of saying who they are and anonyimity has been an issue.
 Lemony 09 May 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> With all that being the case, why not simply address any arguments being made, or any questions being put - that's assuming you choose to reply at all -, rather than just telling someone to 'shut up and shove off'?

People have, repeatedly. At this point it looks like a bizarre vendetta rather than reasoned argument. At that point the person's identity becomes relevant.

1
 slab_happy 09 May 2017
In reply to Mark Kemball:

Speaking as someone who does choose to stay anonymous online for various reasons (though there are assorted other UKCers who've climbed with me and can vouch for my existence!): I think anonymity is a side issue here.

Obvious paranoid nonsense is obvious paranoid nonsense; gallam1 attaching a real-life name to what they're saying wouldn't make it any more credible or less ridiculous ...

I suppose their anonymity does leave open the possibility that it's Bob Pettigrew wearing a silly hat, but he doesn't seem to do this new-fangled interwebz thing.
 d_b 09 May 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

There is a perception that people have been playing silly buggers, and people on both sides think the other has been dishonest. Personally I put most, but not all, of this down to poor communication & culture clashes rather than malice but it doesn't help the general paranoia level.
 Mick Ward 09 May 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Who are you? Who is anybody here? The Internet doesn't really work like that, does it?

The internet's full of keyboard warriors, stirring shit from the safety of being behind an alias and behind a screen: in other words, the prerogative of the harlot, i.e. power (or at least potential influence) without responsibility.

The internet just gives an easy way of concealment. Let's take a pre-internet example. Years ago, I encountered a guy called Mike on a course I was doing. God, he was a nasty piece of work; he took delight in it. I told him to his face what I thought of him - and likewise. Fair enough. We were never going to be mates.

What wasn't fair enough was a horrible comment about him on a public notice board. It was unsigned. And, as I wrote underneath at the time (and signed myself), it needed to be signed.

The internet just gives an easy way of concealment. It doesn't change responsibility. It doesn't change integrity. It doesn't change humanity.

'gallam 1' needs to say who s/he is.

Mick
2
 slab_happy 09 May 2017
In reply to Mark Kemball:

> However, Rob, many of the posters on this thread (and previous threads on the MoNC) have made a point of saying who they are and anonyimity has been an issue.

Only because someone (who, ironically, never disclosed their own real-life identity, as I recall) started accusing people of wickedly failing to mention the possible conflict of interests caused by their running climbing walls, etc..

This started the trend of everyone disclaiming everything.
 Offwidth 10 May 2017
In reply to davidbeynon:
Silly buggery that led to near grid-lock in important BMC operations and the resignation of a hard working president. Its not victimless and its probably not over yet. If you believe in democracy and openess in the BMC, the way the MoNC was handled was dishonest, secretive, undemocratic and caustic and that's a pretty big deal.
Post edited at 00:25
 AlanLittle 10 May 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> With all that being the case, why not simply address any arguments being made, or any questions being put - that's assuming you choose to reply at all -, rather than just telling someone to 'shut up and shove off'?

Perhaps because of the general perception (which I agree with) that in this case the "arguments" being made appear to be just shit stirring for the sake of it with no constructive intent?

 gallam1 10 May 2017

Quoting Andy Say from higher up the thread:

"I'm sure minds will be focussed by the possible loss of Sport England funding unless the BMC comes up with a structure which ticks their (Sport England's) boxes as 'Good Governance'."

I wonder if the thought has occurred to any of the many people who persist in engaging in ad hominem attacks that I may enjoy an arms length and independent relationship with the very people who will be ticking the required boxes (or not).

My comments have focused entirely on the issue of governance and the relationship between the management and the membership. My priority is to ensure that good governance is observed, for the obvious benefit of the BMC and in particular its members. The issues that have been raised are sensitive, but need to be addressed as a matter of priority. An attempt to shout down legitimate questions of process and conflict does not constitute good governance, although I should mention that I am grateful to Rupert Davies and the few others who have actually engaged in a reasoned discussion.
Post edited at 09:57
10
 Will Hunt 10 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> "There isn't really a need for other to address the supposed issues that you have raised, because Rupert's responses have satisfactorily shown that your assertions are without substance. I would suggest that, if you are to make any further contribution to this discussion, you identify yourself. It would be useful for future debates if ordinary BMC members can see who it is that are grinding their own axes on the volunteers who give so much to the BMC."


This is what I said above and I think it still stands. The issues that you've raised have been either non-existent or trivial. I think it would be useful for you to identify yourself so that we may assess what agenda there may or may not be behind your comments. BMC members are particularly sensitive to this at the moment since the MonC and its supporters have done actual harm to decent people in the pursuit of their own agenda, which they attempted to conceal from the BMC electorate.
 AlisonS 10 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> "I wonder if the thought has occurred to any of the many people who persist in engaging in ad hominem attacks that I may enjoy an arms length and independent relationship with the very people who will be ticking the required boxes (or not).

How can there be an "ad hominem attack" against a ghost? You failure to identify yourself, Sir or Madam, does you no favours and diminishes your credibility.
You expect us to guess what your credentials are and then you claim privileged access to people and information.
Doubtless those of us who enjoy a puzzle will have already guessed who you are. There are plenty of clues.

Please act like the professional you consider yourself to be and be open with everyone about your identity if you expect a fair debate.
1
 Will Hunt 10 May 2017
In reply to AlisonS:

Who do you suspect it is Alison? Or at least, what are the clues?

Didn't we used to be able to look at a poster's IP address?

 AlisonS 10 May 2017
In reply to Will Hunt:

I believe forums should be treated in an ethical manner and that includes not overtly contravening someone else's obvious wish for privacy, even when that person shows scant regard for netiquette themselves.

There are a lot of reasons why anonymity is wrong. The poster may think they are protecting their reputation, but in doing so the many fingers of suspicion can land on innocent parties who are thought to share similar views, have attended the same meetings and write to the same standard of professionalism.
 Andy Say 10 May 2017
In reply to AlisonS:

Hi Alison,
Given that this week we have had opinions from, 'Offwidth', 'slab happy', 'Lemony', 'Lion Bakes', 'Kipper', 'ripper', 'toad', 'spenser' and 'La benya' I would say that on UKC anonymity rools OK? (I realise that some of those might think they are so 'known' to the cognoscenti that they don't need to use their given name....). Cries from any of the above to gallam1 (the Latin accusative singular of Galla - a harsh and bitter wine?) to reveal themselves are a bit pot/kettly?

Kudos to those who have actually posted using their actual name and have a profile that gives a bit more meat on the bone.
1
 ripper 10 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:
ripper - my name's John Ripley, for what that's worth. I have no involvement in the BMC other than being both an individual member and a member of an affiliated club (Warwick Climbing Club). I once attended an area meeting, mainly because a friend and I were at a loose end and fancied hearing the guest speaker, and nabbing a few free sarnies. I voted against the MONC by post, but didn't attend the AGM. Anything else you'd like to know about me?

edit: I don't think I've actually demanded that our friend Gallam should drop the anonymity, just that he/she should drop the pointless sniping
Post edited at 15:16
 spenser 10 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

I've stated who I am earlier in the thread, as far as I'm aware there isn't another individual in British climbing with their name spelt the same way as mine. I'm a member of the Oread MC, CC and Northumbrian MC, former member of the London MC and Loughborough Students MC and have some description of who I am on my profile (possibly a bit out of date) so it's rather more kettle rightly calling pot black.
 La benya 10 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

No one is interested in my real name, as i'm not moaning about the lack of transparency in the BMC (oh the irony). which, i think, is the crux of this argument. focus on that rather than playing devils advocate

However, people need only ask and I will gladly provide my real name. I used to use it but people I didn't know, referring to me by name on here was creeping me out.

Mark
 Andy Say 10 May 2017
In reply to ripper:
> ripper - my name's John Ripley, for what that's worth. I have no involvement in the BMC other than being both an individual member and a member of an affiliated club (Warwick Climbing Club). I once attended an area meeting, mainly because a friend and I were at a loose end and fancied hearing the guest speaker, and nabbing a few free sarnies. I voted against the MONC by post, but didn't attend the AGM. Anything else you'd like to know about me?edit: I don't think I've actually demanded that our friend Gallam should drop the anonymity, just that he/she should drop the pointless sniping

You have to admit that it is a bit anonymous, though? Any reason why you post as 'ripper'?

I wasn't picking on YOU but just picking up on the number of folks on this thread who are, to all intents and purposes, anonymous whilst folks were sniping at a similarly anonymous poster..
Post edited at 15:32
 ripper 10 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> You have to admit that it is a bit anonymous, though? Any reason why you post as 'ripper'?..

It's just a nickname by which many of my climbing friends know me - a derivative of my surname, as I'm sure you can see. When I originally set up my profile I didn't really think there was any need to let strangers know my full name - or any reason they'd be interested. Just that, and a natural reticence about putting too many personal details into the cybersphere.
 gallam1 10 May 2017
In reply to Ian W:
You will remember the President’s statement about the review and the later confirmation at the AGM by a Vice President that the review would be “independent” and “arms length”. It was said in a post above by Rupert Davis that the chair of the review would sit as tribunal.

It is a well established principal that a tribunal must be “independent” and “impartial” (which is another way of saying “arms length”). So, you are clearly accepting a lowering of the bar from the earlier BMC position with your opinion that the chair is “independent enough”.

However, BMC has now appointed the chair and we can do nothing further. It is to be hoped that he will be independent and impartial. But any concerns could, and should, have been dealt with earlier by a full disclosure of the relationship the chair had enjoyed with a VP of the BMC over the nine years prior to his appointment.
Post edited at 15:58
10
 Will Hunt 10 May 2017
In reply to AlisonS:

Fair enough. I had thought it might be Bob, given the affection for Latin. However, the posts aren't written in block capitals and haven't mentioned Bob's MBE or his holiday to Norway, so I've ruled him out.
 gallam1 10 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

Approximately 50% of all the posts to this thread are from pseudonyms. More importantly, about 12 people dominate this thread with around 50% of the posts. Of these 12 about two thirds are pseudonyms. So I appear to be in good company!
9
 Will Hunt 10 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

Rupert has explained at length exactly why his former association with the chair is of no consequence. His explanation stands up to scrutiny and yet you persist in attempting to find fault where there is none and trying to sow doubt in proceedings which are, thus far, without fault. In doing this you have shown that you are either not able to grasp what Rupert has said to you, or else you are only interested in attempting to discredit the BMC, with or without good reason.

I suspect that you are one of the lead signatories of the motion of no confidence. If so, then know that the BMC membership saw through your deceitful enterprise, have voted you down, and aren't particularly interested in any further contribution from you on the matter. Had your actions not been so underhand I would have been inclined to pay heed to your future opinions, however since you have been shown to be a liar and a wrecker, I don't wish to hear any more of your propaganda.
 La benya 10 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

And yet they've all freely given their names when asked for....

And whats your issue with 'independent enough'? The bar for the level of independence has been set, hes stating it has been met, but not exceeded. You seem to want an alien who has never seen a mountain.
 galpinos 10 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> But any concerns could, and should, have been dealt with earlier by a full disclosure of the relationship the chair had enjoyed with a VP of the BMC over the nine years prior to his appointment.

This statement epitomises why people are exasperated. There was no relationship to disclose, when challenged on "their relationship" Rupert explained what interaction they had had, which did not constitute a "relationship", and it was plain to see that there was no reason to claim the appointed chair would cause the tribunal to not be “independent”, “impartial” and “arms length”. However, you keep snipping and banging the drum.......

I must admit I'm surprises they managed to find a QC with an interest in climbing but not a BMC member who was willing to do it at all!

 RupertD 10 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:
> It was said in a post above by Rupert Davis that the chair of the review would sit as tribunal.

No that's not what I said. I said that a judge's job is to sit as an independent tribunal (when judging). The point was that this particular choice of chair is used to acting independently, not that the review chair is sitting as a tribunal.

In fact, the review is emphatically not a tribunal. You will see that if you read the terms of reference and then read the definition of a tribunal. It is not determining a dispute and it is not a court of justice, which is what a tribunal means. It is simply making *suggestions* about how the BMC might be organised in the future.

It is important to consider in what way the review ought to be independent and why. In this case it was considered prudent that the review should be independent of the directors of the BMC, as the directors *might* be seen as having an interest in the outcome because the review may affect the powers they hold. Therefore, even if the chair were intimately related to a past officer of the BMC, it would still be independent because they would not be a current director and therefore have no interest in the outcome of the review.

Independent means: free from the control of the thing it is independent from, and; not subject to the authority of the thing it is independent from. In this case it means the review is not controlled by the directors of the BMC. It does not necessarily mean that there is zero connection at any level. It would be absurd if it did.

Finally, in reality, the desire for the review to be independent at all is probably an unnecessarily extreme precaution, firstly because all the directors are volunteers with limited terms (three years), secondly because, as volunteers, they have no personal financial stake or any other method of benefitting from the outcome and, thirdly, because the review has no instrinsic power to do anything - any suggestions it makes will be subject to a vote by the entire membership.

Given all of the above I'm struggling to understand what concerns you have.
Post edited at 17:59
In reply to gallam1:

> Approximately 50% of all the posts to this thread are from pseudonyms.

Check my profile. It's been like that since about 2000. Not that it will help you much; I'm just a BMC Individual Member, and have been since 2001.

I'm not anonymous, or hiding behind a pseudonym.

I'm not the one moaning about the lack of transparency in the BMC.
 johncook 10 May 2017
In reply to ripper:

I get anonymity on here by using my real name. Most people just know me as cookie! (Similar reasons for the nickname as you, although one or two thought it was something to do with my sanity!)
 slab_happy 10 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> Hi Alison,Given that this week we have had opinions from, 'Offwidth', 'slab happy', 'Lemony', 'Lion Bakes', 'Kipper', 'ripper', 'toad', 'spenser' and 'La benya' I would say that on UKC anonymity rools OK? (I realise that some of those might think they are so 'known' to the cognoscenti that they don't need to use their given name....). Cries from any of the above to gallam1 (the Latin accusative singular of Galla - a harsh and bitter wine?) to reveal themselves are a bit pot/kettly? Kudos to those who have actually posted using their actual name and have a profile that gives a bit more meat on the bone.

I use a pseudonym because I try to protect my privacy online to some extent, for assorted reasons, and I believe in other people's right to do so too. People who've climbed with me know who I am (and I provided my real name and details to Dave Garnett to support what I said about my experience working with a grant-making charitable trust).

However, since I'm not one of the ones demanding that gallam1 reveal their name, I don't think I can be accused of hypocrisy.
 climbwhenready 10 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

1. You claimed that the chair wasn't independent, were shot down in flames, and are now repeating that original claim like a broken record.

2. Your recent comments about how you're Mr "Independent" and "Arm's Length", combined with your claims that the appointed chair isn't, make it sound like you're bitter that you aren't personally chairing the review.

3. There have been worries that the whole MoNC was an attempt at a coup to "take over" the BMC.

Given the above three statements, it should be transparently obvious why people want to know who you are. Your method of argument makes you come across as a member of the BMC30, and desperate for a power grab. If this is wrong, then say so and why!
 toad 10 May 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

I've posted on here for a good while, including a couple of posts where I've asked for help and included contact details. I've posted about work, my outside interests, even my pets.vyou could probably find me in 30 seconds, but I'm happy not to show up with my real name for all the usual reasons.

We know nothing about gallum, which would be fine if this was off belay, but the posted is making some fairly serious points, so we (the punters) deserve to know if he should be taken seriously.
 slab_happy 11 May 2017
In reply to toad:

> We know nothing about gallum, which would be fine if this was off belay, but the posted is making some fairly serious points, so we (the punters) deserve to know if he should be taken seriously.

But I think we can answer that question quite adequately without knowing gallam1's real name. And the answer is "obviously not, they're just shit-stirring in an entirely unconvincing way and trying to generate suspicion out of nowhere".

If they said "My real name is .... {drumroll} ... Alex Smith!", we would not suddenly all go "Oh damn, better take their imaginary and nonsensical concerns about Rupert Davies and Ray Wigglesworth's non-existent relationship seriously, then."
 john arran 11 May 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

And if they said "My real name is .... {drumroll} ... Graeme Alderson!" we'd all laugh heartily at having been so well trolled!

Anyone else notice he hasn't appeared on the same thread as gallum?
 Martin Hore 11 May 2017
In reply to toad:

>I'm happy not to show up with my real name for all the usual reasons.

Can somebody enlighten me what these "usual reasons" are? That's a serious question by the way. I've always used my real name on here. My profile is visible and reasonably revealing. And I've posted on some of the more controversial threads. I don't log my climbs - I prefer to keep my own list - but I don't think if I'm saying something controversial on a public forum I should hide behind a pseudonym. I'd happily say the same things in a face-to-face conversation. If I wasn't happy to do that, I don't think I should be posting them on here.

Martin
 ripper 11 May 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

For me, it's just that I'm no cyber security expert but have a vague awareness that the more personal detail about yourself you put online, the more you open yourself to the risk of identity theft. I assume that's the reason being referred to. Also, as I stated upthread when I identified myself - when I set up my profile on here I never thought for a moment that identifying oneself was particularly important. I still don't, in general, but the specific context of this particular thread is a different matter.
 UKB Shark 11 May 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

Every superhero needs a secret identity
 slab_happy 11 May 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

There are a huge range of reasons (big and small) why people might choose to be pseudonymous on the internet, such as having a stalker, or wanting to express opinions and enter into discussions without causing potential embarrassment to a Highly Respectable workplace, wanting to speak out about highly personal and/or stigmatized experiences while maintaining some degree of privacy, being related to someone famous and wanting to avoid weirdness caused by people's reactions to that, not always being on for the extra share of shit caused by "being female in public on the internet", for example -- or just growing up in the era where we all had it drilled into us *never* to give people on the internet your real name or address.

> I don't think if I'm saying something controversial on a public forum I should hide behind a pseudonym.

It may not be a risk that figures on your radar at all, but some people have found out the hard way that saying something even mildly controversial under their real names on the internet can occasionally lead to a deluge of shit like death threats, rape threats, calls to your workplace trying to get you fired, people turning up on your doorstep, etc. etc.. When it happens, it can happen very badly.

I object in the strongest way to this idea that people who use a persistent pseudonym (technical term: I'm not "anonymous", I'm always slab_happy on here, and I stand by the things I've said under that name) are "hiding" or being cowardly or "harlots"(!) or whatever.

Gallam1 aside, all the "playing silly buggers" in this has been done by people under their real-life names. So I'm not sure why the discussion has taken this sharp left turn into "ALSO PEOPLE WHO USE PSEUDONYMS ON THE INTERNET ARE TERRIBLE."
In reply to john arran:

Sorry, I was in Japan looking at venues for a climbing wall with a certain Italian gentleman. Did I miss something
 Ramblin dave 11 May 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:
For me, the worry wouldn't be that someone on here would figure out who I am in real life and come after me with a baseball bat for not agreeing with them on the grade of Three Pebble Slab. It'd be having to bear in mind that any comments that I make could be found by Googling my name, for instance by:
* a company who I've applied for a job with
* someone who's taking me to court or who I'm taking to court
* someone who's trying to steal my identity
* people who I want to keep my private life away from (not a big issue for me, but a serious concern for police, teachers, social workers, psychiatrists)
* anyone who want to smear me if I get involved in politics or campaigning.

Based on all that, it seems like reasonable caution to be fairly relaxed about stuff that might be used to identify me (I'm the current webmaster of the Cambridge Climbing and Caving Club if you want a cast-iron one) but to avoid using my full name. It's one thing not being a dickhead, but I'd rather not have to think about how everything I write might sound if it was pulled out of context during a hostile cross-examination, for instance!
Post edited at 10:25
 john arran 11 May 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> Sorry, I was in Japan looking at venues for a climbing wall with a certain Italian gentleman. Did I miss something

Nice try gallum, but we're not buying it
 Andy Johnson 11 May 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
It is clear that anonymity on the net can be misused, but I also think in many cases the alternatives are worse (at least in terms of unintended consequences). Its not clear to me whether the owners of UKC specifically wanted to provide anonymity on the forums, or whether it just kind of happened, but I'm always impressed with how well the forums work here in comparison to other sites. Flame wars seem rare, people are mostly polite on-topic, and the community mostly policies itself.

So I think that gallum1, obnoxious as he/she may be, has every right to stay anonymous and trying to unmask them is is wrong. I personally didn't post about the possible Latin origin of their username for that reason.

The forces of light have prevailed in the MoNC. I suggest the best thing to do with gallum1 is to stop feeding the troll and leave him to mutter alone under his bridge.
Post edited at 11:49
 AlanLittle 11 May 2017
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Bet he had a GURLZ middle name too. Har har har
 Martin W 11 May 2017
In reply to andyjohnson0:

> I personally didn't post about the possible Latin origin of their username for that reason.

Hmm, gallum, accusative singular of gallus meaning a cock


































or rooster, ie a male chicken.

Not sure that really gets us anywhere, though. The poster in question's username is actually gallam1.
1
 JR 11 May 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> You will have seen that today the BMC put the terms of reference for the review on their website.

I have to say, it took less time to find out definitively who you are, than to find the link to the ToR on the BMC site!

So here it is, to save others some time: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1461
Post edited at 14:44
 Martin Hore 11 May 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

> There are a huge range of reasons (big and small) why people might choose to be pseudonymous on the internet.............So I'm not sure why the discussion has taken this sharp left turn into "ALSO PEOPLE WHO USE PSEUDONYMS ON THE INTERNET ARE TERRIBLE."

Mine was a genuine question to which I've received some informative answers - thank you. I'm sorry if in any way I've upset slab_happy who has posted very sensibly on the issue this thread is actually about.

I'm fortunate in that I'm past worrying about job interviews or my reputation at work. I do get involved in politics, standing most years in local elections and co-ordinating last year for Stronger In / Remain in Ipswich.

I'm actually quite relaxed about pseudonyms except when people hide behind them to make exaggerated or offensive comments they wouldn't make face to face. Fortunately UKC is relatively well self-regulated in that regard, with a few notable (and almost invariably pseudonymed) exceptions. That's reassuring considering we are all mountaineers or climbers and I might potentially end up trusting any of you at some point on the other end of my rope (and vice versa of course).

Martin


 Andy Johnson 11 May 2017
In reply to Martin W:

For what its worth, the miss-spelling wasn't intentional.
 slab_happy 11 May 2017
In reply to Martin Hore:

> Mine was a genuine question to which I've received some informative answers - thank you. I'm sorry if in any way I've upset slab_happy who has posted very sensibly on the issue this thread is actually about.

Nah, that was mainly a bit of accumulated grumpiness about some of the recent comments in the thread about pseudonymity -- I didn't mean to aim it at you in particular, sorry! Glad you've found the answers informative.
 Chris the Tall 11 May 2017
In reply to slab_happy:

Obscuring your identity on the internet is a perfectly reasonable precaution, but it isn't the same as being anonymous. Most of us want some protection from the overwhelming power of google. Ukc allows people to see your previous posts, your climbing logbook, your photos etc etc - even if you can't always work out someone's real name you can get a idea of whether they are genuine

The notion that the real identity of 'offwidth' is known only to the 'cognoscenti' - as stated by Andy Say - is absurd. You can find out a lot about him from his profile, and he has been posting under that name for at least 15 years.

In my experience abusive, slanderous or just plain nasty posts almost always come from unregistered users such as gallum, or those with minimal, crash and burn profiles. No doubt some have alternate profiles which they don't want to tarnish (shame when they caught!). Either way treat whatever they post with a pinch of salt.

I can however confirm Andy Say is a real person !
 Andy Say 12 May 2017
In reply to Chris the Tall:

> Andy Say is a real person.

Phew! That's a relief. Ta, Chris
abseil 12 May 2017
In reply to Andy Say:

> Phew! That's a relief. Ta, Chris

Andy Say is a robot who's been taught to say "Phew!" You heard it here first.

SORRY ANDY
 d_b 12 May 2017
In reply to abseil:

You don't have to talk to robots in ALL CAPS. Not unless YOU ARE SECRETLY A ROBOT YOURSELF!

For the record I AM NOT A ROBOT 01010001101.
Removed User 12 May 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

So...is gallum1 actually Robot Pettigrew
 Offwidth 12 May 2017
In reply to Removed User:
If we are going to madly speculate, Gallam is an old aftrican kingdom so mabe he is the fictional, multi-talented but fallen colonialist, Kurtz.

It doesn't really matter to me who they are... what is said is the issue, and the accuracy of that.
Post edited at 13:39
 Andy Say 12 May 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> If we are going to madly speculate, Gallam is an old aftrican kingdom so mabe he is the fictional, multi-talented but fallen colonialist, Kurtz.

I'll stick with accusative masculine singular of 'the rooster' that crows.
But no; it's not Bobby P, not a single reference to Kipling....
abseil 12 May 2017
In reply to davidbeynon:

> You don't have to talk to robots in ALL CAPS. Not unless YOU ARE SECRETLY A ROBOT YOURSELF!For the record I AM NOT A ROBOT 01010001101.

I am also not a robot beep beep shutdown error cancel
Signed
Abseil
Number 2887300121BZ
 ripper 12 May 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

> If we are going to madly speculate, Gallam is an old aftrican kingdom so mabe he is the fictional, multi-talented but fallen colonialist, Kurtz..

The horror!

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...