UKC

One would have thought, even if supporting Bob's rants, such sour grapes should never have been published.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-agm-article-bob-pettigrew-reply?s=5

In reply to Offwidth:

My primary response from looking at that was amazement ...


... that anyone nowadays would use a fixed-width font!

As for the content; life's too short so just this once I think I'll pass.

In reply to john arran:
Maybe its a sympathetic copy from quilled blood on vellum?

In reply to john arran:

Fixed width fonts are the only sensible choice. If you are writing code.

In reply to Offwidth:

It’s good to see he’s still clinging on to the dillusion that the motion - which, lest we forget, caused far more damage than it did good - influenced the setup of the organisational review, which was in fact agreed by National Council several months before any of this began.

It’s also good to see he’s siding with Grough, because if he’d have taken a look at our own report, or the options of the great many people that posted on our forums, or the opinions of those that took their time to express their views at the area meetings, he might not have liked what he’d heard.

In reply to Offwidth:

He requested it be published. I'm afraid my sympathy levels for Bob are non existent, but this is really pathetic.

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

He only had several months notice of the area meeting date, he couldn't possibly have planned that far ahead and attended...

In reply to Offwidth:

Name-calling is generally (and rightly) disparaged as the tool of those whose arguments are lacking, but in this case we've definitely exhausted all other options. So; what an enormous piece of shit. I don't generally look for vengeful wrath in my advisory bodies, but I'm genuinely quite disappointed that he hasn't been stripped of his honourary membership, never mind kicked out.

In reply to Offwidth:


For anyone that isn't already aware of the facts (and there are yet-to-be-discovered Amazonian tribes that are), bear in mind:
- this arsehole didn't bother attending the meeting
- the review it mentions had already been instigated by the BMC
- over 90% of the climbing community think he's a first rate tosser for the way in which he conducted himself before, during and after the event. This is merely the latest evidence of that.

Bob, if you're reading, please go stick yourself where the sun don't shine and never come back. There's a good chap.

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:


However the review now being conducted has a much wider scope that the 'organizational' review originally mooted: it's now also looking at the entire scope of the BMC's activities. So, in that respect, the discussions of six months ago did have an effect.

In reply to john arran:




Hey Bob, the ‘60s called, they want their system font back......

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

We could send it back then ...


by Courier

In reply to Offwidth:
I can't get this image out of my head of a naked Bob Pettigrew being walked through Hathersage whilst Rob Greenwood rang a bell and shouted "shame" over and over.

I don't know why I felt the need to share that mental image

In reply to Offwidth:

I stopped reading when I got to "sport climbing, widely recognised as aided rock climbing"

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Yes, I'd not read it before and that really spoilt it, because I found little to argue with otherwise.

In reply to Offwidth:

It just occurred to me that "Roberts response" sounds as though it should be a climb at Birchens.

In reply to Robert Durran:
Maybe you haven't been paying attention. A slightly different motion and set of arguments, yet again, on top of the fact the second version of the motion which was actually presented at the AGM was building on support he garnered after his distribution of a series of articles containing misinformation and lies, in private. He declined to attend his area meeting to explain why he was presenting the motion or to supply information to the BMC for Summit; then had the nerve to claim his voice was being excluded. Even in his presentation to the AGM he complained he didn't have enough time (despite an exceptional extension to presentation times) after filling the time he had with a lengthy pompous exaggeration of his personal importance to climbing and the BMC and making his usual unnecessary personal insults to Marco Scolaris. It seems to me that whatever side of the arguments you are on it's obvious he has behaved very badly indeed and made a complete hash of his case and this latest letter is yet more sour grapes after losing the democratic argument for the nth time.

In reply to Offwidth:


No, it's just not something I've been following. I was only going on the link in the OP which I read to see what the fuss was about. Thanks for putting me in the picture.

In reply to Offwidth:

The saddest thing to me is that several people for whom I have the greatest respect (though now less so) should have sided with this self-important, deluded twerp.

In reply to Offwidth:

Well said. He had so many opportunities to put forward a coherent argument but spurned them all.

Unfortunately his tactics did succeed in wasting lots of people's time and putting a good man under intolerable stress

In reply to Offwidth:

Ok, now we've got all that out of the way with can we go back to the re-branding as Climb Britain - when is it being rolled out?

In reply to Jim Nevill:


I totally agree.

In reply to Rob Parsons:
You might be correct that its scope has somewhat expanded in light of the MoNC but Bob seems to think that it triggered the whole thing which is patently untrue.

In reply to Offwidth:

It's absolutely right that the BMC should allow him a right of reply. However I have to say I don't think these incoherent ramblings do much to support his case or restore his reputation. Besides the Climb UK fiasco, he seems to have an entire portfolio of grudges, but I am still none the wiser what most of them are about, or why I should be expected to share his concerns.

He is right that the Motion was crystal clear. What was not clear, because he never bothered to explain it to us, was what were the policy decisions he claimed had been willfully and deliberately withheld from members at the 2016 AGM. The wording of the Motion he sets out in his reply is not the one which was circulated to the membership prior to the AGM and on which proxy votes were cast.

At the time I thought it was a bit rich of him to complain about a lack of transparency while refusing opportunities to explain his case to the membership at large (rather than to a few of the senior clubs). To then say (quoted in the Grough article, which he claims tells the real truth) that he was not allowed an opportunity to present his case is both shameful and mendacious.

In reply to Howard J:
A right of reply to what though? He refused all previous BMC attempts to garner clearer imformation and it seems to me the BMC press report was nothing like as unevenly handed as he claims (and many of the 300 or so proxy votes supporting the MoNC were probably based on Bob's dishonest circulated letters). I'd say he had used up his chances and the BMC report reflects the vote and as much as Bob has further damaged his case with the latest letter, it sets an unfortunate precedent for those pushing future minority issues that repeatedly fail to come even close to achieving democratic success. This 'need to hear both sides of the argument' fallacy is too common these days and is only deserved where there is real (ie publicly open and reasonably close) debate. As for more clarity, there was of course the first version of the motion (still linked on UKB... see below) which contained much misinformation and a couple of plain mistruths (and in the earliest draft sent to the BMC included three names of climbers who hadn't even seen the motion and certainly disagreed with it when the BMC contacted them) . A link to a further dishonest letter on a club site was later closed down.

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,27926.0.html

In reply to Offwidth:

Luckily I copied the letter, from Leo Dickinson to the Vagabond Club, here it is.

"Letter from Leo Dickinson re. BMC
Posted by Stephen Boote on 5 March 2017
To members of the Vagabond Mountaineering Club


Bob Pettigrew - a former President of the BMC has proposed a motion of
no confidence in the current BMC Executive Committee. He is an
honorary lifetime member of the BMC and was awarded an MBE for
services to Mountaineering.

'Please spread the word far and wide to your own club members. But
they must be members of a BMC affiliated club, or individual members!
And they must act speedily since the deadline is fast approaching.

Please encourage any club members to come to the AGM (DETAILS ON THE
BMC WEBSITE)

The reasons for the proposed vote of no confidence in the current BMC
Executive Committee at the coming AGM are as follows:-

a) The BMC Executive committee, headed by CEO Dave Turnbull
attempted to change the name of the BMC to “Climb Britain” without
either debating the issue within the membership of the BMC or putting
it to a vote of its members. Don’t forget if you are in a Climbing
Club you are automatically a voting member of the BMC.

Why ? Well its all tied up with promoting climbing into becoming an
Olympic sport. This undercover re-branding exercise cost the BMC
£25,000 ….yes... thats an awful waste of money and representative of
what we are complaining about. Remember the whole reason for the BMC
is exactly what it says on the box - 'British Mountaineering Council'
- established to represent mountaineers,climbers and walkers in the
great outdoors - not to cow tow to the Olympic Committee. The late Ian
McNaught Davis held his nose in horror when he first got wind of the
intentions of Marco Scolaris…

Who? Well apart from having an Italian wine of the same name and
according to Wikipedi, was 'an active boulder’, he has somehow become
the President of the IFSC and he appeared to be trying to steer our
‘BMC’ into colluding with the Japanese Alpine Club regarding the name
change to Climb Britain in order to gain influence within the
International Olympic Committee (IOC).

What the fk is the IFSC ??? . The International Federation of Sport
Climbing is an organisation which Scolaris invented of which he is its
first and apparently lifelong President whose first action was the
immediate distancing of ‘his IFSC ‘ from the UIAA in 2006 and whose
sole intention appears to be getting Sport Climbing into the Olympics.

This is an excerpt from a recent interview with Marco Maria Scolaris.

Question to Scolaris…" for those few who haven’t yet grasped it
fully, what does it mean for the sport climbing competitions movement
to be a part of the Olympics?

'The legitimacy of climbing as a sport now opens the doors to further
development of this discipline, which must of course be in line with
climbing’s core values.'

What core values does this share with ‘our BMC’ and mountaineering?

Its empire building pure and simple and our current BMC executive
seems to be in agreement.

So why has our esteemed leader Dave Turnbull decided to ride
rough-shot over its members and attempt to take ‘our’ BMC in a
direction that it appears, are not the wishes of almost everyone we
have spoken with? That is one reason to turn up at the AGM and ask him
to account for his actions as he appears not to share his vision with
grass roots membership.

Marco Maria Scolaris allegedly wants to “supplant the UIAA with the
IFSC” and have future competitions on natural rock. Stanage - Dovedale
?

There is another issue in the current debacle that on the face of it
appears to be unhealthy and it is this,

Salaried members of BMC staff are encouraged to attend Area Meetings
in a voting capacity - is this constitutionally acceptable?

Finally are the accounts in a healthy condition?


The proposal and response."

In reply to Offwidth:

I've come late to this. Can I have a single sentence summary?

In reply to Offwidth:

Bob Pettigrew clearly has a diagnosable condition - i.e. he is mentally unwell. He should not be indulged and his honorary membership should be removed.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Oh, what mental illness do you think he has, and what are your reasons for thinking this?

If he actually has a mental illness which is so severe it's making him delusional, or preventing him from being able to control his actions, then that would be one of the few situations in which I'd think think his honorary membership *shouldn't* be removed -- it would seem cruel to punish him for the effects of an illness.

However, nothing I've seen or heard of suggests mental illness, just spite, destructiveness and considerable manipulativeness. Plenty of awful behaviour is carried out by people who have no "diagnosable conditions" at all.

Speaking as someone who *is* "mentally unwell", I'd really appreciate it if people thought twice before throwing the label round as a way to dismiss someone.

In reply to slab_happy:

As you ask, the symptoms are that he is delusional, narcissistic, dishonest, manipulative, socially disfunctional and is still living in an era when black people & women knew their place. In a nutshell he probably has delusional and paranoid disorder - a type of psychosis in other words.

I'm sorry to hear that you're mentally unwell and I wish you well in your recovery. You have clearly recognised and accepted whatever illness you have and are maybe seeking help. Bob is the complete opposite and, as a consequence, is doing his level best to destroy the BMC. Of course his behaviour should be punished - why on earth should he be "let off"?

In reply to Frank the Husky:


Are you referring to something in particular via that remark? If so, what?

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

im still perplexed as to why ukc is willing to plug mr scotts tour? he was a very big name behind this and ,potentially, had the influence and (now lost?) respect to influence peoples opinion on this motion. i think names like his and bobs should be wiped away from the climbing community.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:
However, the Vagabond were good enough to give me a right of reply; not sure whether they published this or just withdrew Bobs letter / statement when they realised what it really was.
The committee member I was in communication with was really unhappy with the Vagabond being dragged into this....

In reply to DaveHK:


Pompous pseud, unable to accept the loss of the privileged position of the senior clubs (and one in particular) to speak exclusively for climbers generally, attempts to undermine the BMC and its democratic mechanisms by a damaging and vexatious Motion of No Confidence based on a visceral fear of competition climbing laced with hints of xenophobia, sexism and breathtaking self-importance.

In reply to elliott92:


I've often wondered whether anyone has ever gone along to one of these and - assuming they have a Q&A - asked Doug Scott what his gripe really is.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


Do you think he literally believes the (provably false) claims he's making? Or is he just being dishonest (to others and possibly himself) and ignoring evidence that doesn't fit in with his world view? Which plenty of sane people do.


Narcissism is (in its most severe forms) a personality disorder, which is not the same thing as a "mental illness" in the ordinary sense; the diagnostic criteria for personality disorders involve fixed and enduring patterns of behaviour (causing distress or impairment etc. etc.) which aren't explained by the person having another mental illness.


Those things are being a crappy human being, not having a mental illness. Do you seriously not think sane people can ever be dishonest or manipulative?


He seems perfectly capable of surviving in society, and conducting social relationships with others (like all the social interactions he's been using to spread misinformation).


That's called "being a bigot". Again, it has nothing to do with mental illness.


Nope. If he was psychotic, he might believe that Marco Scolaris was trying to insert thoughts into his brain through the fillings in his teeth, for example. I've not heard anything about him having beliefs which are floridly bizarre or incoherent like that.

He may well be "paranoid" in the colloquial sense, but that doesn't make him psychotic.


Well, *I* don't think he should be!

But if you're right and his behaviour is genuinely the result of a psychosis, then it's a terrible illness which is not his fault and which is is probably causing him great suffering (and it's notoriously difficult for psychotic people to recognize their illness, because it messes with your brain's ability to do that); and his actions will have seemed reasonable and right to him on the basic of the distorted information his brain is feeding him. Punishing him for the results of a disease he can't control would be cruel.

I, however, haven't seen any indications that he is actually psychotic; he's just a spiteful, dishonest and destructive [insert expletive of your choice].

Mental illness is an illness, and these conditions have precise diagnostic criteria. They're not just terms you can throw around to dismiss someone because you don't like their behaviour.

Plenty of sane people are dishonest, manipulative, bigoted, narcissistic and so forth. And plenty of us mentally ill people aren't.

It's really insulting to people who actually have mental illnesses to claim that someone must have a mental illness just because they're behaving awfully.

Or, to put it more concisely: calling Bob Pettigrew crazy is an insult to crazy people.

In reply to Offwidth:
Interesting this. 3800 or something views, but apparently the same people on about the same old things.

Since the last furore I have spoken to Dave Turnbull on the phone and found him courteous with time for an individual and prepared to listen and give an intelligent non rushed reply. He also bought me a cup of tea, in my book that puts him up a few notches.

I have attended 2 area meetings. Found the people passionate and prepared to listen, but was amazed how few key players there were 4 or 5 at the North West area, about 6 or 7 other people seemed to be attending, but I sensed they would not be back or not very often.

The key players seem very passionate about their issues and the BMC in general, and it does worry me that so few people are shaping things. If just a few of the 3800 view attended, they would soon run out of chips and sarnies. But is that not the way of all social groupings, clubs, councils or even the government, most people just want to get on with their life and leave someone else to run things.

Personally I am still ambivalent about the BMC, I doubt I will be a regular attender at meetings and I would not like to get further involved.
But I would encourage more people to attend the odd area meeting as the attendance numbers do seem woeful.
Not sure how the BMC can do this, but I think its something they should do.

In reply to J1234:

Maybe thats the NW. Peak averages over 50.

On the Doug Scott issue, his bad behaviour is not yet public (unlike Bob's and to a lesser extent Leo's, due mainly to leaks). Again the opinions held are not the real problem here.... it's the dishonest, secretive undemocratic behaviour (ironically complaining about BMC democratic openess) , its vexatious attacks and legal threats, it's complete disrespect for some hard working officers and volunteers.

In reply to Offwidth:



Are they there for the BMC meeting per se or for the talk lecture or other attraction. Also you say over 50 as if thats good. This is the Peak, near Sheffield, for many climb central. 50 in that context is nothing to boast about, IMHO

There is some good discussion on this thread and we would be more than happy to host a response from Bob Pettigrew should he wish to reply.

I would ask though that people refrain from personal insults which don't help the debate. Please stick to the issues.

Thanks

Alan

In reply to ripper:

Funny you should say this. I went to a Doug Scott lecture last week and was surprised when there was no Q&A session. I did wonder at the time whether this was to avoid any awkward questions regarding the BMC motion of no confidence. Audience members were given the opportunity to bid for signed prints of Scott, Bonnington and others though!

In reply to Offwidth:


I agree, but he claims it was biased, and I think it was tactically right of the BMC to allow him to respond to it, without further comment. If they had not, it would just be something else to add to his list of grievances. By publishing it, Bob has simply succeeded in drawing further attention to his deviousness and self-importance.

In a democratic organisation people are entitled to dissent, even if they are wrong. What I find unforgiveable is the underhand way he went about it, refusing to engage with the membership as a whole but spreading misinformation via his cronies. Details only emerged as a result of leaks, such as the Vagabond club letter. Contempt for the electorate might seem a strange way to go about a campaign, but given the low level of interest at most AGMs it might have been possible to get this motion passed on quite a low turnout, had the wider membership not been mobilised against it.

I very much doubt whether Bob has gathered any new support for his views as a result of this latest missive, and has probably only succeeded in damaging his reputation further.

In reply to Howard J:
Without the campaigning on UKC and UKB, and a few climbing walls against the undemocratic dishonest moves behind the motion, (ie if we just relied on internal BMC debate) the voting may well have been very close. When I asked one of those who signed the original motion if they realised the detail of what they were signing (ie the detail that was in the motion at that time, including say all the paranoia about the JAC, as it's detailed on that UKB thread link) they refused to speak about it and just waffled on about the Olympics. Given the three who hadn't even signed and didn't support it, I still suspect some signatories found out the details of the original motion after their names were added and in that, some may well have been duped. It also shows how vulnerable the BMC is to such plotting in the future and how everyone who really cares about democratic openness in the organisation needs to remain vigilant.

I disagree about his right of reply for the reasons I gave above. The BMC shouldn't be in the business of allowing members (who disagree with a massively larger majority democratic view) to endlessly 'dig bigger holes'. The only right of reply on such news items is to ask the BMC to correct factual inaccuracies, otherwise lost motions to the AGM will keep 'regurgitating' long after the vote.

The Olympic issues are still very contentious and won't go away; yet many who disagree with the BMC votes on this have remained entirely honourable in their behaviour, including most speakers expressing concerns 'from the floor' at the AGM.

In reply to J1234:

I travel from Nottingham and have never regarded Sheffield as 'climb central'.

In reply to Offwidth:


neither do, but many do. Anyway, it would possibly good for the BMC, if more went to area meetings. More than 10 and more than 50.

In reply to Offwidth:


I used to live in Nottingham and moved to Sheffield because it is ‘climb central’

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


So did I

In reply to Offwidth:

Perhaps it should not be described as a "right" of reply. However I think that tactically the BMC were wise to let him dig himself a deeper hole. If they had not then he would just have yet another reason to complain, at least they've shot this particular fox. That may not stop him from misrepresenting it of course.

I agree entirely about his secretive undemocratic behaviour.

In reply to spenser:

It was best he didn't, but leaving
M on the shit was a Bastard trick!

In reply to Offwidth:

Grough has a 'opinion piece' from someone about the AGM (and the BMC generally) which I think is very unfair but others may not agree.

In reply to lucozade:
It's not as bad as I thought it might be... and certainly better balanced if you also read Steve Long's response.
The one thing the article doesn't really address, for me, is the complete lack of any real explanation of what the Troublemakers' gripe really was. Again, as all the way through this sorry episode, I can only conclude that it's nothing much more than a nostalgic wish for things to be like they were in a 'golden' past, which just isn't relevant or even possible in the modern world.

In reply to lucozade:

....and what a load of romanticised waffle and much more inaccuracy. On the motion the BMC "Suits" stuck to fact, which is hardly deflecting behaviour and in contrast Bob perambulated and insulted a few (like Marco) but never really got to any clear position. It neglects to say other BMC 'grandees' spoke and strongly criticised the process of the MoNC and advised voting against it. 'Well meaning troublemakers' simply don't collect proxy votes in secret based on misinformation. On a few of the worst of the other points raised : quite a few of those speaking on behalf of the BMC have pretty impressive climbing CV's (to imply otherwise is childish) and when BMC officers answer the phone to key volunteers, voices still get recognised. One accurate point is the writer was right that he was out of touch.

https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2017/10/09/the-death-of-mountaineering-on...

In reply to Offwidth:

I thought Bob had written that article, with a ghost writer to make Bob a tad more palatable!

In reply to Offwidth:

Was the Phil Bartlett not one of the original signatories of the motion or have I miss-remembered? I can't seem to find the list of signatories now but his name rings a bell.

The article was a bit of a duffer anyway but if he was a signatory of the motion then it is positively shameful.

In reply to IainWhitehouse:

Looks like you're right
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=659398

In reply to Offwidth:

By eck, I’ve read some some bollocks on this subject but that piece sets a new standard.

So anyone female or under 70 is one of the ‘suits’, whilst Bob Pettigrew and his cohorts, most of whom are members of the Alpine Club, represent the common man ?

The only bit that made sense was the final paragraph, in which he refers to the discontent amongst certain members of certain clubs. This battle was undoubtedly the latest stage in the struggle to stop the BMC being a democratic, broad church. The elite clubs lost their power over the BMC, their members no longer subsidised by the rest of us.

Rehan described it as an attempted coup d’etat and I think he was right. Bob and Doug had failed to reverse the changes when the latter lost the presidential election to Rab. Now they tried to capitalise on the discontent caused by ClimbBritain.

These rebels aren’t the scruffy anarchists the author of that piece claims, they are reactionaries who believe that climbing belongs to an elite group of men

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

If Bob wants to create an account on UKC (I can only imagine the username he might choose) and join in the discussion he's free to do that. However, I can't help thinking it will cause more problems than it solves, for reasons I've already mentioned. He has a track record - in this particular business - for being dishonest and secretive (see the posts by Offwidth and others) and is reluctant to admit that he might have got things wrong, or has caused any damage (which it is widely acknowledged that he has).

In the run up to the Peak Area meeting when this was being discussed, Rob Greenwood tried repeatedly to get Bob to come along and present his case to some very engaged and well informed people but he steadfastly refused to do so, despite living less than 30mins away. A refusal to engage in open debate is never a good sign.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I am waiting for Bob's next MONC for the 2018 AGM

In reply to IainWhitehouse:

Not on the submitted version, but appears he was an original signatory. http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1441

In reply to Frank the Husky:



I am well aware of both these facts and agree fully with what you say. I just wanted to make sure that the invitation was there. I think the chance of him taking us up on the invitation is in the realm of flying pigs, but we would be more than happy to host such a reply if there was one.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I wonder what you would do if he tried to use your invitation to continue to libel Marco for instance. Most likely refuse to allow it and become the next target.

Before the MoNC I used to quite like Bob, in a passionate fighter of lost causes sense, but I realise now that I made a mistake: given all the dishonesty and undemocratic behaviour demonstrated in the last year I think he is dangerously out of control. We have lost a good BMC president and much time and energy in the organisation that could have been focussed on useful stuff, some good people have had to fend off legal threats and too much politics around the Olympics has become a lot nastier and is not going away anytime soon.

In reply to Offwidth:

>We have lost a good BMC president and much time and energy in the organisation that could have been focussed on useful stuff, some good people have had to fend off legal threats and too much politics around the Olympics has become a lot nastier and is not going away anytime soon.

A bit rich given that you've resurrected this issue with your original post. If you hadn't posted the link the issue would have died. I can only conclude that your OP was a malicious shit-stir.

In reply to Zoony:


Wrong.
If Bob had accepted that the MonC was defeated comprehensively, and not resurrected his malicious, paranoid grudges, the issue would have died. If he insists on pursuing his perverse, idiotic agenda, then this is the probable outcome. If you really need to be schooled in shit stir identification, contact bob - he's pretty good at them.

In reply to Zoony:

Hi Bob!

In reply to Ian W:

My point is that this thread is giving him the oxygen to keep his grudge going, not that I believe for one moment that he is aware of it, nor even UKC, so all the insults fall on deaf ears.

In reply to davidbeynon:

Wrong, I'm afraid Bob hasn't upgraded from the type writer

In reply to Zoony:


A point you didnt make until this post.......see other thread re request for identity and my thoughts on discussing things with people who have opened accounts purely to comment on MonC subject threads, whilst hiding behind anonimity.

In reply to Zoony:

I'm not sure if you've met Steve, he's an all round nice bloke who has made significant contributions to the BMC's Peak area over a sustained period of time. If you look at the thread titled "15 grand?" or the one about the BMC funding speed climbing you will see lots of examples of grumpy old men who are unhappy that climbing has changed since the '60's, Bob Pettigrew just happens to be one of the more vocal grumpy old men.
Just because the vast majority of active climbers and mountaineers in the UK view Bob as a threat to their interests as members of the British Mountaineering community does not mean that his views should be confined to private meetings and those who seek out his views, all that means is that those who might actually be able to do something about his gripes don't know about them until he proposes a motion of no confidence.

In reply to Zoony:


In your opinion, history will judge that this thread ensured that Bob, petty, grew?

In reply to Ian W:

I am sure posts on UKC would be a lot more civil and constructive if posters had to use their real identities. A policy change that UKC might like to adopt. As someone else said on the other thread - there is to much playing the person not the ball

In reply to Zoony:

Well.........?

Are you going to increase the personal civility ratio?

In reply to Offwidth:

I see Stephen Venables has copied Phil Bartlett's letter on his Facebook page. Recommending it as an 'annoyingly fair and balanced piece on the recent infamous BMC AGM'.

In reply to spenser:

I’m not condoning Bob’s actions, and I’m not someone who is stuck in the past, but I’m not along in having concerns about how the BMC is run, in particular the apparent lack of transparency.

A lot is said about the role of the area meetings, but in my experience these are not really representative of the wider membership and we also do not get the opportunity to discuss topics being considered by the National Council and therefore cannot be held up as democratic.

Hopefully the review will resolve these concerns.

In reply to captain paranoia:
Stephen (who also signed the MoNC) is another hero of mine whom I'm sorely disappointed with. I just don't get why those who signed and supported the MoNC have not now disassociated themselves with what is obviously in hindsight the secret spreading of misinformation in an attempt to unfairly garner proxy votes in a way that undermines BMC democracy. The hypocrisy in the MoNC in accusing the BMC of lacking democratic openess just looks breathtaking.

Its a bit rich to be accused of shit stirring in this given the huge damage dishonestly done to the organisation (and people who work for it) that I'm passionate about and have devoted thousands of hours of volunteer time to; and quite ironic given Phil's weasle defence of those who signed the motion is they are just 'well meaning troublemakers'. Its on the record here and elsewhere that I urged people to at least listen to Bob's concerns before he did what he did dirty tricks wise on the MoNC. Graeme A and others warned me at earlier BMC meetings.... wish I'd heeded their advice.

In reply to Zoony:

National Council (democratically elected representatives of areas) make recommendations to the AGM where all BMC members have a right to vote on policy. Many democratic organisations have only delegates who vote or limited classes of membership or just those who attend. The BMC has full access to voting by attendance at the AGM or by individual proxy votes, for individual, family members, and club members. Hence, you are spreading more misinformation by questioning the democracy of the BMC in the way you do. Over the years I have disagreed with quite a few policies suggested by the BMC exec and some where I voted and my vote was in the minority.... all pretty much inevitable in a properly democratic organisation. I'd hope that the democratic values we share, especially those on access work, would be enough to smooth over the lesser areas where we inevitably have some disagreement.

In reply to Offwidth:


The underlying issues have not gone away so its hardly surprising that the signatures have not disassociated themselves, and your comment about unfairly garnering proxy votes is not supported by the actions Bob took, he didn't take the opportunity to present his case when the voting papers were sent out, relying instead to hope to win the day at the AGM. I keep hearing you claim the BMC is democratic and open, but this isn't actually true as the Area Meetings aren't representative and there is little consultation with the membership to get their views which is where this all started with the Climb Britain fiasco.

You also accuse Bob of ignoring people on the UKC forums, but he probably wasn't/isn't even aware of them, and I'm sorry to tell you but the UKC forum is a very small fish bowl.

In reply to Zoony:

Ukc may be a small fishbowl, but it's a lot bigger than a bmc AGM or the back room conniving of the '30'

In reply to Zoony:



What a load of hypocritical nonsense. What he hoped to do was subvert the democratic process by packing what he expected to be a small meeting with his mates thus carrying the day. You argue that the BMC is undemocratic because the area meetings are poorly attended and thus unrepresentative but are happy to exploit this in the case of the AGM. It was like some sort of dodgy union tactic from the 1970s.

I haven't met a UK climber in the past five years who is unaware of the UKC forums even if they largely ignore or dislike them. If he wasn't aware of the discussions on UKC then it just shows how completely out of touch he is with the current climbing world.

In reply to Zoony:

Sorry Zoony but man/woman the f&&k up and post who you are or f**k off as being yet another troll (see Rupert's post on t'other thread).

In reply to Postmanpat:
Wow, I have just liked a post from the Postman

Although I would delete 'climbing' from your your last sentence "If he wasn't aware of the discussions on UKC then it just shows how completely out of touch he is with the current climbing world."

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


You'll learn to love it

In reply to Zoony:

The Area meetings are as representative as the members want them to be; they are held regularly throughout the country, and people have the option to be involved or not. Even if you choose not to attend, minutes of all meetings are available, and while the system of member involvement is not perfect, it is fully open to those who want to be involved. It maybe doesnt appear so to some, but they tend to be the ones who dont know what they want, but do know what they dont want.
Bob absolutely knows of UKC. he was given every opportunity to explain himself, but chose not to. Rob Greenwood, of this parish, tried manfully to get Bob to an area meeting, and given he is employed by UKC, and makes no secret of the fact, I would find it astonishing if Bob could pass a lie detector test whilst denying knowledge of the existence of UKC.

speaking of openness, why are you still hiding?

In reply to Postmanpat:


The feeling will soon pass, dont worry......

In reply to Zoony:

Well I guess the 300 odd proxy votes for the second shorter version of the motion discussed at the AGM were a miracle (one of the largest numbers on record, even if dwarfed by the thousands voting against by proxy, partly thanks to open debate on the internet) and nothing at all to do with the secret distribution of letters, including the original longer version of the motion, to various sympathetic friends, that was leaked (as some of those he thought were automatically on his side, in fact objected to his actions).

After the issues broke on the internet he or Doug could have made amends at that point (by apologizing for any misinformation in the distributed letters and sticking to the issues) . He could have made his case at the area meetings, he could have made his case in Summit when invited to do so by the BMC; he could have avoided private accusations and threats in letters to the exec; but no he chose otherwise. He waited until the AGM to provide detail and then re-raised issues that hardly matched the motion under discussion: issues that were largely back on the discredited territory of the original version of motion, ie related to misinformation about the way the BMC handled the Olympics. He took Rehan's scalp and I think still aims to take more. His actions, those of an honorary member of the BMC, were a blight on BMC democracy.

Concerns on the underlying issues have been held honorably and acted on openly and democratically by many BMC members without lowering themselves to Bob's underhand tactics. It is perfectly possible to support similar concerns and be disgusted with what Bob did.

The information I've consitently been told (including by one of the signatories of the MoNC) is that those behind the plot were fully aware of the internet discussions. Any claim otherwise would almost be beyond belief.

In reply to Offwidth:


Correct, I was one of the 300 and it was as a result of what I read on the internet.


Why should he if that's what he believes

He could have made his case at the area meetings,

Yes, but he chose the Alpine Club as a founding club of the BMC

he could have made his case in Summit when invited to do so by the BMC;

This would have helped his case, do you know for a fact that he was given a reasonable opportunity to do so?

he could have avoided private accusations and threats in letters to the exec; but no he chose otherwise.

No one should make threats, but again do you know for a fact that this is the case as I've not seen these letters published anywhere?

He waited until the AGM to provide detail and then re-raised issues that hardly matched the motion under discussion:

In my opinion this demonstrates Bob's incompetence rather than underhandness

issues that were largely back on the discredited territory of the original version of motion, ie related to misinformation about the way the BMC handled the Olympics. He took Rehan's scalp and I think still aims to take more. His actions, those of an honorary member of the BMC, were a blight on BMC democracy.

I'm as sorry as anyone that Rehan felt it necessary to resign after winning the vote. Clearly no winners here.


I'm glad to hear you say this as I'm one who still has concerns but does not agree with Bob's tactics, the difference between us is I think its incompetence rather than underhandness, but I guess we'll never agree on that.

In reply to Zoony:


But that simply is not democracy.

The entire membership of the BMC CANNOT attend the AGM; they would never fit in the venue, for one thing. Therefore, in order to achieve a democratic, transparent vote , all members need to be made aware of the contents of, and the arguments supporting the MoNC.

Leaving it to the AGM would not have been democratic; it would have taken us back to the 'decisions made in smoky backrooms' by an elite.

And Bob wouldn't have wanted that, would he..?

Or would he? My suspicion is that is exactly what he wanted; to wrest power away from the great unwashed non-entity plebian climbers like me, back into the hands of 'top men', like himself and his jolly good chums at the Alpine Club.

In reply to Zoony:
Yes I know for a fact he was contacted by the Peak area and asked to present (other meetings existed if the Peak one diary clashed) and was asked at least twice to submit material for Summit and that both he and Doug wrote threatening private letters to the exec.

I have no idea how Bob thought 'presenting to the Alpine Club' (whatever that means: I have many friends in that club and they heard of no such presentation) could be a correct proceedure for dealing with a BMC MoNC. The club and its leadership got a lot of flack by association and although I think they should have met formally and denounced what Bob had done, they still were said to be supporting the BMC Exec immediately prior to the AGM (still, a concrete public statement would have been nice).

Sad to see you are still not commenting on the misinformation and secrecy. The original motion and Leos letter are public and linked in this thread and the content was disected online for accuracy. The fact these letters were distributed reasonably widely is also clear. I never said all the 300 recieved a letter from Bob or those who were directly supporting him but a good number clearly did.

I also really wonder why you felt the the remaining issues were so serious as to require resignation of the exec. The Climb Britain process was admitted to be a mistake and was put to the membership, rejected and a full apology was made.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Ha. This would be a nice problem to have. Before the MoNC cropped up we were brainstorming how to attract enough attendees to ensure we achieved quorum.

I know that's not your point BTW.

In reply to Zoony:


I thought you said that the issues had gone away until Offwidth resurrected them by forcing Bob to submit his article to the BMC and then posting a link to it?

In reply to Offwidth:

A couple of points:

Bob and other signatories to the MoNC were also invited to the SW area meeting to explain their views. None attended.

One of the signatories told me that he attended the AGM, listened to wha Bob had to say, then voted against the motion!

In reply to Offwidth:


Venables was Alpine Club president from 2005-2007, with another of the signatories - Paul Braithwaite - succeeding him from 2007 to 2010. Given that the Alpine Club threatened to leave the BMC on a number of occasions in that period I'm not surprised they were keen on regime change at the BMC, by fair means or foul.

These guys carry a fair amount of gravitas, their mountaineering exploits are legendary. But with great power comes great responsibility, as someone famous once said. We don't want a witchhunt of Bob's supporters, but it would be nice if one of these luminaries gave their reasons.

In reply to Offwidth 08:46:

You mention Bob Pettigrew “presenting” to the Alpine Club. Following demands from members at the Alpine Club AGM in November 2016, the Alpine Club called a Special General Meeting held on 1 April 2017 to discuss the problems of the BMC. The outcome was a vote in favour of supporting an independent review of the BMC, hardly an endorsement of the BMC Executive but short of supporting the motion of no confidence.

If you read the text of the motion of no confidence attached to the Right of Reply above you will see that it was all very clear and simple. There is a call for a vote of no confidence based on the failure of the Executive to inform the 2016 AGM of important policy matters. This was never a matter for the National Council Area Meetings. The motion related to a failure to inform the members at the 2016 AGM. The motion had therefore to be brought up at the 2017 AGM, not discussed at Area Meetings.

The facts of the failure to inform the 2016 AGM in regard to the re-brand exercise are also clear. There was an obvious failure to do so and those involved should have resigned at the time. It is worth considering that at no stage did the membership as a whole, at an AGM, ever have the chance to vote on the matter of the re-branding.

The shambles of the phoney consultations in respect of the recent “partnership” deal with Cotswold that has concerned so many members and small independent suppliers, illustrates that the attitudes of the Executive which gave rise to the re-brand disaster have not gone away. Without a full disclosure of all the facts of the deal with Cotswold, including the money, timing and sight of the contract, members remain in the dark and unable to form a considered view about the costs and benefits. The Cotswold deal is another important policy development that the members present at the 2017 AGM were not fully informed about and asked to vote on.

It is to be hoped that the Wigglesworth Review will recommend new democratic structures to ensure that in future the membership will have the benefits of greater transparency in respect of the activities of the directors working on their behalf. The members need real power to hold directors and the CEO to account at the AGM. The National Council is not fit for purpose and was flagged by Sport England in 2016 as not in accord with the Companies Act 2006.

Without such reform many people may share Phil Bartlett’s view that the BMC has become irrelevant to their needs. It may not be just Sport England money that is at risk. The role of the BMC as a representational body will be undermined, with dire consequences for its long term future.

In reply to gallam1:


It was either so simple as to give no detail of what the objection was, and therefore impossible to vote for, or so rambling, unfocused and incoherent that it was also impossible to vote for.

The fact that the proposers were not prepared to present their case in public, or discuss it in public (with the general membership, prior to the AGM) also meant that it was impossible to vote for.

I'm not prepared to believe that the failure to properly argue the case in public was due to incompetence. I am fairly certain that the entire private campaign, and refusal to argue publicly, was entirely deliberate, intended to exploit the limitations of AGM attendance by filling it with cronies. A despicable, underhand, and thoroughly dishonourable way to behave.

In reply to gallam1:
More misinformation and conflation of issues.

The first (more complex and dishonest) version of the motion originally submitted to the BMC (where some signatories were not even asked if they agreed with it) is all in the public domain, clearly shows there was no 'simple' motion to start with, and Bob, despite numerous opportunities, kept any further information from the general membership until the day of the AGM (all we had to go on, to understand his position, was leaks) whilst fully briefing and lobbying his friends. At the AGM the simple story was not the one Bob told ...it all got a bit muddled as we heard a lot of his heroic exploits in climbing and the problem seemed mainly due to the Olympics and an Italian, who for some reason can't be trusted as he has a girl's middle name. How anyone can try and spin all this as democratic and neccesary behaviour is beyond me.

I'm less clear about the detail of the discussions between the BMC exec and Alpine club around the indepedant review but I'm sure others can comment. I was informed this was underway before the MoNC. The problems in BMC governance arising from its unusual and complex structure have been discussed at length here on UKC (mainly by Rupert Davies, who was a VP in 2016) and in various BMC meetings, including the AGM. Talking of the companies act issue, although true, is a bit rich as if the BMC became a company pure and simple it could become more more opaque in its dealings (like many companies are). The BMC wants to retain a membership led structure, with some charity links whilst being a registered company, and there is no easy structural governance solution to this.

The accusations of keeping information from the 2016 AGM were answered numerous times on previous threads and at at the AGM.

The Cotswold issue is irrelevant to the MoNC and seeking such deals was democratically agreed policy.

Finally Phil (who of course was involved with the MoNC), joining various other sad old men in spouting doom laden predictions about the BMC relevance: in my opinion the organisations main functions around access and their relevance are unchanged (if anything strengthened as we purchase more access threatened crags), the democratic input has never been stronger, and I for one will be glad to see the back of dirty deals in smoky rooms (a few of which I witnessed as a young climber in the early 90s). The MoNC was in effect more like a 'coup' attempt for a different vision of the BMC. Like previous BMC votes on the Olympics, Bob's side lost. In such politics, the honesty of future decisions rely on persuading the voting public, not bypassing them.

In reply to gallam1:


I must take exception to this statement, Simon Lee presented the proposed "affinity partnerships" to the SW area meeting on 25th March 2017, the following motion was passed.“The meeting shows support for the development of Affinity Partnerships and Commercial Endorsements providing the sponsors do not influence the BMC’s policies.”
The motion was carried – 19 for, 0 against, 6 abstentions. (See http://community.thebmc.co.uk/Event.aspx?id=3844 ).
I believe there were similar consultations at other area meetings.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

I can further confirm there was a a NE meeting earlier in the year, and a presentation by Simon at the same round of meetings as the SW one. Similar sentiments were expressed; that there is no objection per se, as long as the BMC policy / decision making is not influenced by the affinity / commercial partners.

In reply to Ian W:

What gallam1 means is that Simon didn't go and tug his forelock in front of Bob and his mates and beg permission to talk to any chain of shops that wasn't named after a famous climber

In reply to gallam1:

"It is hard to find amongst the troublemakers anyone who is intimately involved in the BMC matters of today. And as one of their eminent supporters said to me at the meeting, organisations must take who they can get. If the traditionalists moan that the governing body is composed of nobodies, whose credentials as mountaineers are minor (with the notable exception of the CEO himself) – well, that is because none of the distinguished are prepared to give up their time. Or have already done their bit"

"I might do better if I made more effort to keep in touch"

I quote above two passages from Phil Letter that I think are telling. Essentially, he is admitting that those behind the MonC dont know what is going on in the BMC, and that he himself is writing from a position of ignorance.
The role of the AGM in modern organisations is not what you think it is - surely someone in the AC can update you on modern corporate governance?
Far from being irrelevant, I think the steps the BMC is taking to modernise will stand it in good stead in representing the climbing community of the future; further, I wish they would move a bit faster, but I can see the reasons why they dont.
Sadly, I think that unless the AC is prepared to engage with the BMC and accept the need for the BMC modernising, it is in danger of becoming an irrelevant relic. This will be a very sad event; as i have said previously, the history of the AC and its position in British Mountaineering and Climbing should neither be underestimated nor forgotten, and however well intentioned, the approach of Bob etc is so wrong as to be laughable, and he is damaging the AC's reputation as much as that of the BMC.

In reply to Ian W:

The AC could solve most of the 'Bob and Doug' problem immediately. Formally denounce their actions in the way they handled the MoNC and communications with the BMC exec. Plenty of climbers, not just some of those in the AC, hold legitimate concerns about BMC actions and nearly all follow open and democratic routes to raise these. I find it really worrying that there is an attitude we should forgive such dirty, damaging, undemocratic and dishonest behavior based on their past acheivements. This is the sort of deferential attitude that leads to poor people going to jail for the same crimes as those which 'respectable' people mearly end on remand.

In reply to Zoony:



It was not incompetence. Bob set out to use the usual low turn out at the AGM to his purpose. Keep the subject off the radar of the mass of the indifferent membership. Quietly bring thirty odd friends and supporters; especially those able to bring proxy votes gathered from private briefings full of half-truths; and pushing a MONC through would have been easy.

In reply to gallam1:



The members were consulted on the principle of commercial endorsement in the round of area meetings in April prior to the AGM via a paper which you can find here http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=2449

I attended as many of the April meetings that I was able to in order to gain feedback. Those I attended were the South West (as Mark mentioned above) North West, North Wales, South Wales, Peak and London/SE which was a pretty exhausting schedule.

The feedback from the meetings helped inform me on guidelines on how to approach Commercial Partnerships on such things as a preference for UK companies, partners not to influence policy (as Mark and Ian mention) and smaller independent retailers to be continued to be able to promote their discounts to members on the BMC website.

The policy on commercial endorsement was then voted on at the National Council meeting which was held the day following the AGM which was appropriate as National Council is our policy making body (the AGM is for statutory matters and such things as submitted motions).

The policy was approved unanimously by National Council and the area reps would have fed this back at their next round of meetings. In addition I added this article to the website in July: www.thebmc.co.uk/why-the-bmc-needs-commercial-partnerships

Simon Lee

In reply to gallam1:

You express opinions that are very close to those of Mr Pettigrew. I don't for one minute think that you are him, because your "article" is well written and coherent. However, I'd like to know if you're one of the 30 signatories of his letter.

Who is "gallam1"?

In reply to Offwidth:



Old men struggle with their mortality. Men who have previously had "Heroic Status and Heroic Mission" and are now faced with the demise of both tend to react badly and tend to act poorly.

In reply to Frank the Husky:
Gallam can't be Bob because his posts are not written in block capitals and do not start with lengthy sermons on his own triumphant plods up snowy hills.

Keeping up with all this bullshit is absolutely exhausting. Every time you look there's a fresh set of lies to be dispelled. It looks inevitable that this year's AGM will have another ill-thought out motion - probably this time seeking to capitalise on some perceived outrage at the Cotswolds deal.

Stephen Venables - he of the brave brigade of dinosaurs, awash on a sea of their own irrelevance - often posts old photographs to Facebook of himself and his friends climbing some snowy hill or other. Imagine if some coffin dodger had told him then that he really ought not to be doing that: that that's not what mountaineering is really about. He ought to be sticking to traditional Lakeland gullies, or wet gritstone chimneys, or some other more proper fare. I'm sure he would have told them to f*ck off and mind their own business. How ironic and sad that he has become a leading force in the campaign to cage bright young things bursting with talent and prevent them from enjoying climbing in their own way. Shame on him, and shame on Bob Pettigrew and the other signatories of the motion.

In reply to Will Hunt:

I couldn't agree more. That's the best summary of this whole depressing, moronic business I've yet read.

In reply to DaveHK:


It's pretty simple really.

The BMC want to change their name so they can help Marco Scoloris and the IFSC run their aid climbing competitions at Stanage.

In reply to stp:

What's really put the cat among the chickens is the prospect of drug testing in recreational climbing. Anyone caught cheating will have their UKC logbook wiped clean.

In reply to danm:


You raise a good point. It'll start with speed climbing on speed and, before you know it, performance-enhanced grade debating will be an Olympic sport?

In reply to Will Hunt:

I don't think we've met Will but we've both been pretty vocal with regards the MoNC. I firmly agree that keeping up with the grumps of Bob over the last 9 months has been quite time consuming. The ill feeling which prompted Bob to raise the MoNC certainly does not seem to have gone away.

I have a variety of friends who are of a similar age to Stephen (I'll point out I am only 25 so rather younger than them) who I have met through 2 of the mountaineering clubs of which I am a member. The more photographically inclined amongst them post some cracking photos and stories of what they were doing "back in the day", they're able to offer all sorts of advice, beta (and even home made gear) for routes and would happily do so if I asked for it. Off the top of my head I can think of at least 10 who actively encourage people my age to go climbing (trad/ sport mostly, admittedly very few of them boulder these days) and many of them have been granted a new lease of their climbing lives by the advent of sport climbing. I can think of 2 who hold Bob's attitudes and have never seen either of them doing any actual mountaineering related activities other than drinking beer in a hut or at an AGM. It's worth remembering that most of Stephen's generation (at least within climbing anyway) are actually very nice people and still continue to make a valuable contribution to the community (much of which may not be visible outside mountaineering clubs).

I wholly agree that Bob and his Co-signatories should be ashamed of the MoNC and the way they conducted themselves about it. I think that Bob and co are so disconnected from the active mountaineering communities in the UK that they wouldn't actually see enough evidence of anyone climbing to actually criticise them!

In reply to spenser:

Yours and Will Hunt's assessment seem like a fair interpretation to an outsider. Time to let 'him' wander off I think

In reply to spenser:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing all old farts, just those who seek to prevent the young from developing the sport.
Fortunately in Yorkshire, our climbers-of-a-mature-vintage are not only very happy to see the sport develop but are moving and grooving with the times. Paul Clarke keeps finding new boulders to develop on the moors. Angela Soper's been showing the boys how it's done for decades and was always rocking the Super Vet category in the Leeds Wall comps. Dave Musgrove is STILL contributing to guidebook production. Bob Larkin is still putting up new bolted routes on the lime.
All of this development and yet, despite the fears of stick-in-the-muds, there's still no bolts on the grit or in the mountains and trad climbing is still happening.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

I would like to thank Simon Lee for his response and to say that I agree with what he wrote and that I am sorry that he has found himself in this position. There is no reason to question his role or professionalism. My criticism is aimed at the CEO and the directors.

The problem is that as Simon says the consultation was “on the principle of commercial endorsement”. The devil is always in the detail of these arrangements. The membership was never consulted on the detail of the Cotswold deal. We need to see the contract and to understand what money is being received and what is wanted in return, before we can determine the costs and benefits of the deal. You never get something for nothing, at least not in Yorkshire.

The claim has been made that the deal with Cotswold is covered by commercial confidentiality. Does this mean that the revenue from Cotswold deal will not be reported by the BMC directors in the Accounts for 2017? How will BMC deliver its end of the deal in secret? Surely, now the deal has been signed it will be necessary for the Executive to present the entire Cotswold package to the BMC AGM in April 2018 seeking the approval of all the members present. Should the vote fail to approve the deal, then it will need to be terminated. Is there provision for this to happen? Will all the money have to be re-paid? Can Cotswold claim compensation?

It is for these reasons that I suggested that nothing appears to have changed since the fiasco of the re-branding exercise. It is why so many people are anxiously waiting to see if the Wigglesworth review will answer the key question of how do members hold the directors to account at the AGM, even if this means that the AGM should be held in the Manchester Convention Centre rather than some mountain hidaway.

For those such as Offwidth and Ian W who seem to be having difficulty understanding the Companies Act 2006, unfortunately I cannot let them have my copy, but if they go to www.legislation.gov.uk they will find that they can download a pdf copy free of charge. The BMC is a company limited by guarantee.

In reply to gallam1:



Do you think every commercial deal should be discussed and approved by the entire membership? Should i have submitted the Berghaus kit supply deal for GB Climibng Team for scrutiny for example?


Given your in depth knowledge of the companies act, I am confident you are also au fait with financial reporting requirements. It'll be there, but wont say "Income from Cotswold deal - £6.27"


I would suggest that the key question for the organisational review is not how members hold directors to account at the AGM, but how the bmc organisation shouldd be changed to address present and future organisational issues. The methods of holding directors to account at General Meetings is held within the Companies Act, as it has always been. I think you need to think more in terms of the actual issues the BMC faces rather than the one that one of your mates has dreamt up as cover for a decade old personal grudge.


No difficulties, thanks mate. Its part of the day job, but thanks for the offer of help.

And as I have asked various others - who are you? If you are embarrassed by what you say / write, then pm me; I wont reveal your identity, but would be much happier dealing with open, honest, and therefore accountable people rather than those hiding behind anonymity.

In reply to gallam1:

This issue was covered in a previous thread and my main answer is here: https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=670130&v=1#x8627052

" In answer to curious speculation that there isn’t a licence fee attached to this partnership I can assure you that yes of course there is and that it is a very healthy sum to boot. The specific amount of the licence fee is confidential for what I hope are obvious reasons but it is a sum that reflects the high value that Cotswolds puts on this relationship and the high value that the BMC Executive places on the prestige attached to our endorsement, which by the way we have no hesitation in making - Cotswold's offering closely matches that of our members activities and they have great emphasis on customer service.

No organisation is 100% perfect (I know we arent !) but my recent experience is that Cotswolds is a great organisation run by nice people and is continually striving to be even better. The BMC has a longstanding relationship with Cotswolds stemming back 20 years from when it was much smaller and Jerry Gore was Marketing Director and it is fantastic that it has culminated in this new Partnership.

By buying through Cotswolds and Snow & Rock with a discount you are also supporting the BMC finances (at a tricky time) and all the good work that is done with the money - and get a discount and special promotions. I think it is nice that hard working volunteers get a small thank you for their great work with a permanent 20% discount. The better our finances the more potential we have to do the range of work representing the interests of climbers and hillwalkers. "

It was appropriate to consult the membership on the general principle of commercial endorsement as it was a way of using the BMC brand (for want of a better expression) that had not been carried out before and the members in effect own the BMC brand. The aim was clearly stated in this consultation was that I was seeking to have the BMC have a recommended retailer partner. This was put out to the areas as described above and then approved as a policy by National Council. Once the policy was approved I was then suitably empowered to approach large retailers to negotiate a partnership deal. Having done so this was presented to the Exec for approval. This is the process as the BMC is currently constituted ie National Council decides on policy, the Exec board executes policy.

In short the basis of the contract is founded on the principle of commercial endorsement and the Exec decided that the specific contract presented was sufficiently financially advantageous to enter into the partnership.

These contracts almost always have a confidentiality clause so as not to broadcast the information to other partners they have contracts with and of course competitors. I can understand that some members are curious to know such things as this and maybe other confidential matters such as individual officer salaries but that does mean they should be publicised.

The Exec board are entrusted by the (majority of) members to deal with confidential matters and judge whether certain decisions are in the best interest of the BMC. The Motion of No Confidence was defeated which confirmed confidence in the Executive was maintained to carry out such decisions. I can understand that you are not part of the consensus in this respect. An AGM is for many things but not everything - it is not an appropriate platform for the detailed examination of confidential contracts. https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-memorandum-and-articles-of-association

I would also add that the interruption in Sport England funding means that we facing a six figure loss this year. Growing commercial income provides an alternative funding stream that makes us less reliant on Sport England funding and improves our financial stability to carry out the work the BMC does. The more money, the greater the potential to represent the interests of upland hillwalkers and climbers of all types.

With regard to your question as to what Cotswold Outdoor and Snow + Rock get in return the answer is greatly increased sales through being endorsed by the BMC and us promoting their offerings in our digital and print media. This is mutually beneficial in many ways. For example we had a spike in new members signing up in September (taking us to a new high of 85,000 !) and that is almost certainly attributable to people being nudged to join to take advantage of te introductory 20% discount at Cotswold Outdoor and Snow+Rock.

In reply to gallam1:


However that wasn't the motion which was eventually put to the membership. Even if it had been, it fails to explain what the "important policy matters" were. For those of us who don't follow the minuitiae of BMC politics, how were we expected to form a judgement on whether these were of sufficient importance to justify an MONC?

Bob's refusal to engage with the wider membership suggests we weren't expected to worry our pretty little heads with such matters and should leave it to the grown-ups in the 'senior' clubs. If it hadn't been for the internet campaign to generate opposition, and had been left to the handful of people who usually attend AGMs or bother to vote, the MONC might very well have been successful. In an earlier age probably would have been.

In reply to gallam1:

>Bob's refusal to engage with the wider membership suggests we weren't expected to worry our pretty little heads with such matters and should leave it to the grown-ups in the 'senior' clubs. If it hadn't been for the internet campaign to generate opposition, and had been left to the handful of people who usually attend AGMs or bother to vote, the MONC might very well have been successful. In an earlier age probably would have been.<

This is an important point. Bob knows how committees work. He knows about AGMs and voting. He gathered 300 votes. Some of these may have come as a result of the matter leaking into public view; but I suspect he already had what he considered sufficient attending and proxy votes to win. Something over 270 would normally carry the day at BMC AGMs. This is the strength and weakness of the process. All members get a vote but most members can't be bothered to vote. A calculating man can manipulate this.

In reply to Howard J:

It wasn't the clubs it was some club members. Most clubs were firmly against the MoNC and only a small number were 'frightened rabbits' who stayed neutral to avoid upsetting senior members. I'm not aware of any club that formally supported the motion.

In reply to Offwidth:

I personally think the BMC have gone above and beyond in their responses to a number of things (since 'Climb Britain' !) To be honest I feel far more supportive of them now, probably because of this MONC nonsense. I feel the BMC have been pretty open and clear to the extent that it feels like anyone stirring the pot is likely to be doing so for nefarious reasons! Time to move on. Far better to do what you can and build up where you are rather than knock down others!

In reply to Offwidth:


This is a very important point. It's easy to get carried away with the notion that the clubs speak with one voice, and that that voice is a very conservative one. What I quickly learnt on the clubs working group (where I was the token IM) was that a lot of clubs wanted to be more supportive of the BMC and didn't just expect it to provide liability insurance at cost price. I also discovered later that some of the more - shall we say 'difficult' - club reps didn't enjoy as much backing from their clubs as they thought they did.

In reply to lucozade:


Same here, to the point it's moved my position from thinking I should volunteer for something to actually doing it!

In reply to Offwidth:


I didn't mean to suggest the clubs themselves, rather that Bob was trying to whip up support among members of a few senior clubs and seemed to deliberately avoid putting his case to the hoi polloi.

In reply to ukb & bmc shark:

As I said before I have no issue with the work you have done on the partnership deal with Cotswold. My questions are addressed to the CEO and the directors. Of course it was right for you to engage in a consultation process on the “general principle of commercial endorsement”. My concern is that now a deal has been concluded it is being wrapped in commercial confidentiality and kept from the members.

In practical terms how do the directors intend keep the facts hidden? Ian W, in a thread above, made mention of financial disclosure requirements. We all know that the directors are under a legal duty to disclose all the material facts of the financial position of the company and for these facts to be confirmed by the auditor in the annual accounts. So why not agree now to make the full details of the contract available to all the members at the AGM in 2018 and seek their approval in a vote, rather than have the information leak out of the Accounts?

What has been demonstrated in the Cotswold affair is tokenism in respect of consultation, without all the facts being made available to members. To claim that this is in some way expedient due to the financial problems of the BMC is even more alarming. Has the BMC really become the sort of organisation that embraces and promotes secret deals with commercial interests?

The wider concern is the attitude of the CEO and the directors towards the members at the AGM. It goes to the heart of the governance problems at the BMC which were flagged by Sport England in a letter to the BMC in mid-2016 in connection with the new Code of Governance. In fairness to all concerned the problem is to some degree a consequence of out-dated Memorandum and Articles of Association which enshrine the National Council. This matter should have been addressed by previous directors some years ago.

We can expect to see the Wigglesworth review make recommendations on re-drafted Articles of Association that will conform to the Companies Act 2006 and ensure that in future directors will be held accountable to the members at the AGM. This will require the AGM to be larger and more representative. It will have to be held in a more convenient and larger venue. The directors will have to ensure greater transparency of information for the members prior to the AGM and be required to explain in detail and justify their actions over the previous year.

Without these governance reforms we can expect to see more efforts by the CEO and the directors to operate behind closed doors, in presumably smoke-free rooms, making deals, adopting policies and engaging in token consultations with the membership, safe in the knowledge that they will never be called to account. Not the BMC many of us would care to be members of in the future.

In reply to gallam1:


Because such contracts are confidential. They contain commercially sensitive information that Cotswold wouldn't want their competitors to see, and that the BMC wouldn't want other potential commercial partners to see. That's how business works.


I think it's safe to assume that compliance with the Companies Act doesn't require publication of unredacted commercial contracts.

In reply to gallam1:
can you perhaps explain what you think is wrong with the CEO's attitude with detail and support. Just quit this vague wishy washy smear campaign.

If anyone has a problem with attitude to the membership it is Bob and friends.

In reply to gallam1:

Can you name any large companies that give details of their commercial contracts, amounts and all?

I think you'll find that company or public sector accounts don't give those details so why are you calling for the BMC to disclose them?

In reply to Michael Hood et al.:

Maybe it's time to leave the little shit-stirrer to talk to himself. He's (for it surely is a 'he', despite the anonymous handle) surely heard all the reasonable arguments before on other threads, and chooses still to ignore them in preference for his own prejudicial bias. So what's the point of continuing to feed the flame?

In reply to wbo:

The writing style of gallam1 is similar to that used by Doug Scott? I have not made any public statements since I resigned as President of the BMC at the 2017 AGM. Assuming no change in my thought process I intend to go to the Alpine Club AGM and make a few comments if allowed to do so.

Rehan Siddiqui

In reply to Rehan:

Gallam1 has mentioned in his only other post that he has a two sons aged 10 and 7. Assuming this is correct, does that exclude Doug Scott as a true identity for the incessant whinging and continual ignorance of anything but their own prejudiced stance?

In reply to gallam1:


I'm not sure what information requires greater transparency from the directors but I would have appreciated a lot more transparency from the group behind the MONC instead of their cloak and dagger approach.


Coudl you expand on what you actualy mean by this? I'm baffled, I was not at the AGM but have met the CEO and some of the directors out and about and can't square their friendly out going attitude with statement above.

There appear to be a lot of accusations being thrown about but little to back them up.

In reply to Offwidth:

One has to wonder if Bobs actions have actually raised interest in BMC matters and maybe engagement, so in the end some positives will come from this.

In reply to galpinos:


I presume he is referring to decision by the Exec around the time of the 2016 AGM to register various domain names.

Bob and his cohorts still believe that any new names being considered should have been announced at a public meeting prior to registering those names and before the national council had even been consulted on the issue.

In reply to J1234:

Some positives perhaps, but I'm afraid I don't feel that the intolerable stress that Rehan was put under, and the subsequent loss to the BMC from his resignation, is acceptable collateral damage.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I believe that you are misconstruing matters.
I think you will find that it wasn't the REGISTERING of names that was the problem (as after all you have to obtain them before you can even think of using them), but the IMPLEMENTATION of one particular name without consultation.

In reply to fred99:

Nope, Bob was claiming that the registration of the domains before the AGM meant that the decision to rebrand was also made before the AGM. That was not the case so Bob was talking tosh. Again.

In reply to fred99:

What Graeme said.

Here's the "smoking gun" thread where it was originally raised (and then utterly demolished): https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=660774&v=1#x8525028

In reply to J1234:

Lots of boulderers, sports climbers and even a few predominantly indoor climbers joined to help the fight against the MoNC... delightful irony. The BMC has also improved the communication of what it actually does (to members and the general public... I'd like to see this improved further) maybe better than it would have done otherwise. So yes maybe more people know about the good work the BMC does partly thanks to Bob, but on the other hand last year the BMC lost a lot of time and energy and a good President and we have an ongoing small minority who feel very angry about the BMC (more than would have been angry if Bob and co didn't put forward the motion in the first place).

In reply to Rehan:



Can I hold your coat?......

In reply to La benya:


Given some of the things he believes, it is entirely possible he thinks he has 2 kids aged 10 and 7.

In reply to Ian W:

This sentence is one I found in Bob's communication.He says the BMC proposed to call itself governing,rather than representative.

''The change in status from Representative Body to a Governing Body,
a prospect anathema to the majority of mountaineers, and inimical to
the concept of 'Freedom of the Hills".

If this is true,what does the BMC mean by ''governing body''?

In reply to paul mitchell:
It simply isn't true.

The BMC is a representative body for climbers, hillwalkers etc. There is an arm of the BMC that looks after comp climbing in the UK on behalf of the UIAA and the IFSC, and the National Team(s), where the concept of governing body is more appropriate (application of comp rules / standards etc).

None of this will change after the organisational review, the aim of which is to discover and recommend an optimum way for the BMC to be managed so that it can continue to represent its members in the best way for the forseeable future whilst adhering to corporate governance best practice.

Please note, Paul; very little of Bobs statements have any basis in fact. He has been proven to be a liar (threads passim, ad nauseam), but continues anyway.

In reply to Ian W:


That's one aim, but it's not the only aim. What you've described was the initial - as it were, 'technical' - scope.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

So what other aims are there? As opposed to what may have to change to achieve that aim.

In reply to Ian W:

I am referring to the overall scoping aspects referenced in the survey sent out to all members. As Wrigglesworth has since written:

"It will be important for the membership of the BMC to debate and reach agreement on a detailed and comprehensive aims and mission statement. "

That clearly goes some way beyond mere(?) 'technical' matters of organizational structure and governance.

Of course, we all have to wait for the report to be published in order to see how it all ends up.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Yes, i see what you are getting at - and I agree that the scope of the review is all-encompassing - i was just trying to answer Paul Mitchells very limited point. Whatever happens though, the BMC will still be a representative body - a membership led body has to be, doesn't it?

In reply to Ian W:


Sure.

My reply was merely to remake the point I made earlier in this thread (see https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=672258&v=1#x8647952 ). Namely that the scope of the review did indeed change after all the discussions of early this year: before that, it had the more limited (but obviously still important) technical scope to which you referred.

(Edited to fix in-line link)

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I'm sorry, I wasn't being precise.
Bob was of that view, but others who were against the rebranding didn't necessarily have a problem with the BMC obtaining the rights to other names, but did have a problem with the way it was implemented.

In reply to fred99: Isn't lack of 'precision' a common occurrence of this whole dismal tale?

Perhaps 'the others' should have stated that , or are we assumed to be telepathic about exactly what people are complaining about

In reply to fred99:

So would you agree that the MONC was founded on falsehoods and misconceptions ?

And that many of those who supported knew this, but were merely using it as an opportunity to give the BMC a good kicking ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

No I would not - after all I'm not psychic.

One thing that has somewhat depressed me about the entire matter is that our former President apparently voted against the rebranding in committee, loyally (and silently) agreed with the majority, took the flak, and then felt the need to resign - but those others on the top table who wanted it, but kept their heads down (and let him take the flak), are still around.
When there is a need for group loyalty it should cut both ways - others should have helped shoulder the flak.

In reply to fred99:




By top table, do you mean Exec or Nat Council?

It was approved by Nat Council (Exec don't have the power to do that, when it was presented, DT and RS didnt really express a personal opinion), with exec given the job of implementing the rebranding. It isn't true to say that others kept their heads down, but some of "the flak" surrounding the MonC was pretty unpleasant and personal (and utterly contemptible). When it is so targeted so directly, it is hard for anyone else to take the heat off the target.

In reply to fred99:


Lets just be absolutely clear.

None of the "top table" - be they on the Exec or NC - acted in bad faith over the renaming. The accusation of collusion with the Japanese and IFSC was baseless and ridiculous.

Rehan did not resign because he was ultimately responsible for a mistake.
He resigned because he was doing voluntary work for the BMC and the demands of that work were having a major detrimental effect on his business and on his family life.

The problem is not that other volunteers did not shoulder the flak. The problem is the flak itself, caused by certain people behaving dishonestly.

In reply to Offwidth:

Can the next BMC T-Shirt design please just have:

BOB'S A KNOB!

printed across the back and front, in big letters?

In reply to ripper:

It be be the start of a line:

Doug's a Dick

In reply to ripper:




Congratulations! You have just produced the winning entry in the new BMC logo competition!!

(see the BMC logo thread)

In reply to Offwidth:

Bob's Motion Collapsed...or just shorten it to BMC

In reply to fred99:

In reply to fred99 13.33 Wed.

Your observation about taking responsibility goes to the heart of the problem at the BMC. The attempt by Ian W in his subsequent post to obscure matters and protect the CEO, does not accord with the recorded facts.

The Executive Committee is made up of the President, three Vice Presidents, The Treasurer and the CEO. Over the period 2015 to 2017 the following people held these posts. President- Rehen Siddiqui; Vice President- Nick Kurth; Vice President-Mina Leslie-Wujastyk- replaced in April 2016 by Vice President- Emma Flaherty; Vice President- Rupert Davis; Treasurer- John Simpson; CEO- Dave Turnbull.

These same people also comprised the directors of the company, The British Mountaineering Council Limited, a company registered in England and Wales, with each elected officer being a director and the CEO holding the post of Secretary to the company.

These same six people sit as voting members on the National Council together with representatives from each of BMC Areas of England and Wales. Additionally, up to five more members may be co-opted.

This flaw of governance, created by the Articles of Association, blurs the distinction between the executive elements of the BMC and those charged with its policy direction. The Executive Committee and the directors are the same people. As elected officers and directors, they sit in the National Council where they find themselves having to sit in judgement and vote on their own actions, taken earlier as directors and members of the Executive Committee. Being voting members of the National Council they are well-placed to influence the votes of other members on the National Council. The elected President chairs both entities.

I would ask everyone with a spare moment to look back at the Minutes of the National Council Meeting held on 18 June 2016, available on the BMC website.

Item 5.1.8. records the report of the Yorkshire Area Group Meeting for June, at a date not shown but clearly before 18 June 2017, given by James Rowe, one of the Yorkshire Area Representatives. Item 5.1.8 reads “The meeting generally supported the idea of re-branding of the BMC, but expressed concerns about the lack of specific information”.

So, in Yorkshire, in June, the issue of re-branding was so hot on everyone’s lips that it was discussed at an Area Meeting. This discussion is just a couple of weeks after the AGM which was held on 16 April 2016, at which no mention was made of the re-branding by the CEO or the Executive.

Item 7.2. Commercial Development and Branding. The CEO made a recommendation in favour of re-branding the BMC, reporting that this matter had been agreed by the Executive Committee on 18 May 2016, four weeks after the AGM.

This recommendation was put to the vote of the National Council and there were 18 people for and 1 abstention, presumably the President, Rehen Siddiqui. For Ian W to claim that Dave Turnbull did not take a position on the re-branding recommendation is not supported by the facts of the voting numbers or the information in the Minutes.

The members of the Executive at the time of the re-branding decision were President- Rehan Siddiqui; Vice President- Nick Kurth; Vice President- Rupert Davis; Vice President Emma Flaherty; Treasurer John Simpson; and CEO- Dave Turnbull. As members of the Executive Committee they all recommended the re-branding to the National Council. Of these people only Rehan Siddiqui had the integrity to subsequently stand down, a year latter at the 2017 AGM.

It might be worth reflecting that three of the members of the Executive at the meeting of June 18 2016, Kurth, Flaherty and Turnbull still sit on the current Executive and some of the area representatives on the National Council are also the same.

The date of the Executive decision on the re-branding exercise was 18 May 2017. We know that this decision was the culmination of an extensive programme of work by the CEO, staff and external consultants, yet it is claimed that it was not considered to be an issue for the members at the 2016 AGM held on 16 April 2016. A couple of weeks later the re-branding exercise is common knowledge in Yorkshire!

Following rejection of the re-branding exercise at Area meetings the project was dropped. It was never taken to the members at the AGM. And the only man who has refused to support the scheme resigned in obvious distress, leaving all the other members of the Executive who have not been rotated out by the end of their terms, free to carry on, which they did without even looking back.

There is not only a failure of governance here.

In reply to gallam1:

That's an awful lot of words to say nothing new.

In reply to gallam1:
Just two points:

1. The committee has already recognised that some aspects of the traditional structure don't fit with the requirements of company governance and the current review is addressing this. My understanding is that this was planned long before the 2017 AGM.

2. Rehan did not resign because of any wrongdoing, he did so as a result of the stress and unreasonable demands on his time and the impact on his family caused entirely by the Motion of No Confidence. To imply otherwise is offensive and entirely typical of the cynical dishonesty employed by the plotters throughout this sorry affair.

In reply to gallam1:

Who are you?

In reply to gallam1:

Yes, who are you, Gallam1?

So many conspiracy theories, yet so shy?

You wear your pseudonym like a security blanket. Come out of your self imposed shadow, and my respect for you will soar.

As things stand, I just see a sad, embittered individual, unable to accept the democratic outcome of the MONC vote, desperate to perpetuate arguments long since resolved.

Come on Gallum1. Shed the disguise and prove me wrong, why don’t you?

Neil

In reply to gallam1:

You seem to be sorely mistaken on the matter of responsibility, Rehan didn't resign because he felt he should do so out of honour due to having been president at the time of the attempted rebrand, he resigned due to the enormous and unnecessary amount of stress he was placed under by the motion. You need to remember that the man has a family to look after and a business to run as well as hopefully some climbing of his own to do, from what was said at the AGM and the conversation which I had with his wife on the evening of the AGM after the motion had failed clearly all of these had been heavily impacted upon, indeed I remember several people questioning whether the president role could remain a volunteer position if they could be expected to deal with that kind of behaviour from members.

Further up the thread Bedspring stated that the MoNC had probably encouraged some people to get involved with BMC matters, he is indeed right, I turned up at the AGM and felt somewhat ashamed of the number of young people who had bothered to turn up, there couldn't have been more than 5 people less than 30 in the room and I had only turned up as I felt obliged to fight Bob's motion as it threatened a lot of the work I had been doing in support of the Oread committee up to that point. I am now beginning to attend area meetings where possible and am in the process of organising a Peak Climbing Festival for next year (no, there are no plans to grid bolt stanage as part of this, just to get a group of people together, go climbing, have some beer and a bit of a laugh while hopefully spreading the load away from the usual honeypot crags). I am also planning on organising a meet in the Lakes/ Yorkshire Limestone to coincide with next year's AGM and attempt to get some more members of my local club to come along to the AGM.

I agree that the BMC dropped a bollock with regards the name change and am confident that the organisational review will help to ensure that if there are future bollock dropping incidents they will be rather less significant. More significantly than any perceived or actual failure of governance I see a very significant and quite frankly appalling failure of common decency both in the proposers of the motion and in yourself for repeatedly raking over the issues raised as part of the MoNC under a veil of anonymity. Go on, do the decent thing and tell us all who you are, if you're embarrassed to put your name to your views then perhaps you should rethink the merit of voicing such views in the first place.

Kind Regards
Spenser Haydn Gray

In reply to spenser:

Unlikely he'll come out - I've already asked him to pm me with a promise i wont reveal his identity (a promise i will keep). And now i'm being accused of shielding Dave T? And obscuring matters? f I have obscured anything in my responses, please let me know! And as for shield Dave T - He's a big boy now and as CEO doesnt need shielding. He gets paid to lead the organisation.

Gallam1 - you are pretty low class.

In reply to gallam1:


So just to be clear:

16th April - AGM
18th May - Exec decides to recommend re-branding
18th June - Yorkshire Area meeting is told re-branding is being considered, but no details yet

This is not a failure of governance, this is exactly how it should be

The reason why no details where available in Yorkshire was that it preceded the National Council meeting, at which the Exec's recommendation was to be considered. NC members should be sent details of the agenda for the next meeting, so they can get a feeling from the area if they feel it necessary. For reasons that are blindingly obvious to all but the tin-foil hat brigade, they would not have been given details such as the proposed name.

So at the end of June the NC approves (overwhelmingly I believe) the decision to re-brand. What then ? Wait 9 months until the next AGM before going public ?

The MONC was cynical ploy to harness the backlash against the re-branding into sabotaging the BMC, and specifically the BMC's involvement with the competitions, the Olympics and the IFSC. Since the decision to support the Olympic bid was taken in 2009, Bob, Doug and the other malcontents have had 7 AGMs at which they could have put down a motion to oppose it.

That would have been the honest thing to do.

In reply to gallam1:

The way you name people and accuse them of wrong doing from your position of anonymity is very telling. It tells me that you a coward and a bully.

In reply to Offwidth:

Nothing personal Gallam but can we just leave things here and move on in life, if only for your own sake. You've had your say and been more than adequately responded to. "You have stayed at this mountain long enough"

In reply to lucozade:

Yes - time for everybody to move on.

In reply to Greenbanks:

Sigh! Absolutely. But will they?
Gallam1: you didn't include Hillary Clinton and the Remainers as dastardly plotters in hand with the BMC to foil the noble Brexiteers, Donald Trump and the mis-represented Daesh. Missed opportunity there I'd say.
Yes I'm being sarcastic, it's no more than you deserve!

Lets keep talking to him even though he doesn't seem to be responding, telling him to give it a rest, saying that the thread should stop now whilst actually continuing it. Oh bugger, I seem to have joined in.

In reply to gallam1:


Presumably you would have liked to have seen more blood spilled on the carpet over the re-brand issue? Given that the AGM voted their confidence for the board I don't see why anyone should have stepped down at that particular point. Whether anyone should have stepped down beforehand is a moot point.

Clearly a membership revolt to a policy decision in a membership organisation is a serious matter. However, it was demonstrably shown by Martin Wragg in his analysis that the decision making was exactly in accordance with current governance and not a secret plot. Furthermore the implementation of the policy was postponed and then (following area consultations) withdrawn by National Council and the Board and apologies offered for not consulting with the membership more directly. After this there wasn't a public demand from the areas for anyone to step down. In fact I don't recall anyone even demanding it online.

How do you deal with mistakes once owned up to? On a more general note I am firmly of the opinion that a healthy organisational culture should to some extent make allowances for mistakes. One that punishes you every time you put a foot wrong leads to overly risk averse behaviours, finger pointing, arse covering, slopey shoulders (Rob G's favourite), reluctance to experiment and overall stifles change, invention and growth.

The actual reasoning for changing the organisations name is still sound and remains a (now probably toxic) issue. The British Mountaineering Council has become an inadequate name for an organisation representing far more than mountaineering and it may be that following the governance review recommendations that we no longer have a council. Climb Britain wasn't perfect as a description of the current organisation but it was an improvement.

The attempt at renaming wasn't the issue - the issue was firstly that the breadth of consultation was too limited (as admitted) but also secondly from not anticipating that it would be received so badly. What excites people and goes viral can be difficult to guess and influenced by many factors not least timing and presentation and can catch the most sophisticated organisations out .The hindsight monkeys will of course claim that the reaction was inevitable - but then hindsight is an exact science whereas foresight isn't.

Having reversed the decision and apologised for the mistake the board was on the back foot and vulnerable to being challenged by longstanding opponents even though the members as represented by the Areas, as far as I can detect, had essentially forgiven them.

Good governance of itself does not absolutely guarantee good decision making. It should help but it doesn't guarantee. Conversely a poorly governed organisation might make excellent decisions. You say we are poorly governed but that structure includes a National Council drawn from the areas who represent the rank and file of the membership and on paper *should* have been extremely well placed to anticipate members reactions on issues. As we know they didn't and voted almost unanimously for the rebrand. Personally I'm ok with that. They made a call - got it wrong - lets move on. However, you can't ignore the part that National Council played in this in order to entirely lay responsibility entirely at the Execs feet on this matter as it was not the case that they made the decision on their own.

In reply to Neil Foster:

See https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=672969&v=1

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Nice one, "Sherlock" Kemball !

Unmasked at last.......

In reply to Ian W:

JR found out gallam1's identity yesterday!

In reply to Ian W:

I cannot claim the credit!

In reply to Mark Kemball:

I really wish I hadn't followed that link. The recipe for "Prilk" will stay with me.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Yeah, but I couldnt be arsed to give credits to all concerned......sorry and all that, JR.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I knew about 6 months ago from interest on the original MONC thread (it did only take one google query), but objectively I wanted to respect their right for it not to be shared publicly given it wasn’t actually gallam1 that had posted their (assumed) real name. I was sure, given that it was a simple google search, that others had worked this out too and had decided to do the same with respect to privacy.

In reply to all the UKC sleuths:-

Nice one.....!

In reply to gallum1:-

So, Matt Gallagher, not only do we know you are an embittered individual with no respect for the democratic process, but perhaps the most remarkable thing I have learned is that you aren’t even a member of the BMC, in any of the different membership options.

About the best remaining explanation I can think of for your destructive behaviour is that you are a troll, plain and simple.

Well I hope you crawl back under your bridge, which is clearly the best place for you.

Neil

In reply to Neil Foster:



So how could he be monc signatory?

In reply to ukb and bmc shark 12.39 Friday

It was a pleasure to read a rational response to a posting, addressed at the issues raised rather than the motives of the poster.

We may differ over whether or not elected members and the CEO should have resigned in late 2016 after the re-branding disaster but I agree that to expect any resignations now would be overly optimistic.

In my post I was responding to the point made by fred99 about the irony of the fact that the only person to have resigned in the whole affair was the one person who had refused to support the re-branding. I believe that the elected members and the CEO should have taken responsibility for the re-branding disaster at the time and offered their resignations. Had they done so, the MONC could have been avoided.

We agree that the change of name itself was not the real issue. The failure came in not recognising that a change of name had to be a matter for the members at an AGM or EGM, “consultations” alone were never going to cut it. As I said earlier the failure of governance was inherent in the Articles of Association which allowed the confusion of the roles of the Executive with those of the National Council. The fact remains that the Executive made a clear recommendation on the re-branding to the National Council and those who did so have to accept responsibility for the failure. Sharing the blame does not dilute the responsibility.

We disagree over whether or not good governance is important. You suggest that good governance is not a guarantee of good decision making. From a private sector perspective a good decision implies a profitable one. In a member owned institution like the BMC good decisions are not so easily characterised. Good governance is every bit as much about preventing bad decisions, of which the re-branding was a classic example, as encouraging good ones, as measured intangibly by member satisfaction.

Good governance at the BMC demands that that the members appoint the directors by a vote at an AGM and hold them accountable at the AGM. There is no place for the fudge of Executive and National Council with some people sitting on both bodies and the President chairing both entities, comfortable as that might be for the participants.

The fact that this structure is contrary to the requirements of company law is a further issue that the directors should have dealt with much earlier. Fortunately the Wigglesworth review will address this and other issues of governance at the BMC.

It is to be hoped that the adoption of the Wigglesworth recommendations will avoid future problems, including those surrounding the secrecy of the commercial partnership deals with which the BMC is now involved. In my view such secrecy has no place in the conduct of the affairs of a member owned, representational body like the BMC, even or perhaps especially, if there is a funding shortfall

In reply to gallam1:

So, is Neil Foster correct that you're not actually a BMC member?

In reply to gallam1:

Persistent, give you that.

But I'll also give myself a Dislike for saying it too.

In reply to Neil Foster:

And for Neil Foster, John Arran and everyone else who would rather not discuss the issues here is a poem to cheer you up:

There once was an oyster
Whose story I tell,
Who found that some sand
Had got into his shell.
It was only a grain,
But it gave him great pain.
For oysters have feelings
Although they’re so plain.

Now, did he berate
The harsh working of fate
That had brought him
To such a deplorable state?
Did he curse at the government,
Cry for election,
And claim that the sea should
Have given him protection?

No – he said to himself
As he lay on a shell,
Since I cannot remove it,
I shall try to improve it.
Now the years have rolled around,
As the years always do,
And he came to his ultimate
Destiny – stew.

And the small grain of sand
That had bothered him so
Was a beautiful pearl
All richly aglow.
Now the tale has a moral;
For isn’t it grand
What an oyster can do
With a morsel of sand?

What couldn’t we do
If we’d only begin
With some of the things
That get under our skin.

In reply to gallam1:
So that explains all these in-vain attempts to find some new piece of grit... pearl envy. Please stop supporting Bob who is trying to find his grain by dismantling the pearl that is the BMC, when there are beaches of grains representing real problems out there in the big bad world. Do good work, don't dismantel it.

In reply to gallam1:


The appointment of BMC Directors is confirmed or reconfirmed at the AGM

In reply to gallam1:

I take it that the answer to my question is "yes", then.

In reply to slab_happy:

As above if he isn't, surely the whole monc was out of order!?

In reply to MG:

If his name is Matt Gallagher, he wasn't one of the signatories. There was a Rodney Gallagher, not a Matt.

In reply to slab_happy:

Ah!

In reply to gallam1:

An excellent response. Well done for persisting against the onslaught of cyber-bullying

In reply to Zoony:


Yes, 10/10 for persistence. Rather less than that for having any point worth persisting with.

In reply to Zoony:

No Zoony - the only cyber bully round here is gallam1, who has hidden behind a cloak of anonymity to spread malicious and damaging mistruths about the BMC.

Remarkably, he isn’t even a member, hence my earlier comment (probably rather too generous) that he must clearly be a troll.

Now, if you want a sensible debate on any of the issues which concern you, Zoony, tell me your real name and I’ll debate you until you lose interest (and probably beyond).

Insist on hiding behind a pseudonym and I’ll treat your posts with the contempt they deserve.

Neil

In reply to Neil Foster:


Is that true?

If so, then the MoNC was, in yet another sense, improper, since it would not have been supported by the required number of member signatories...

In addition to those who were listed as signatories, but who actually had no idea about their involvement...

In reply to captain paranoia:

Matt Gallagher (gallam1) was not a signatory of the MoNC.

And yes, remarkably it (the fact he isn’t even a BMC member) is true....

Neil

In reply to Neil Foster:

I was going by Keith Ratcliffe's observation here:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=672969&v=1

In reply to Neil Foster:

Not that any of it matters, since the MoNC was seen as the devious, underhand nonsense that it is, and roundly defeated.

In reply to gallam1:
Sorry gallam1/Matt but you are the one that appears to not be willing to discuss anything. You write long diatribes that don't directly answer anyone's points.

Neil's point that you might not be a BMC member is a pretty easy point to discuss, a simple Yes or No. So come on, discuss this very simple point.

In reply to captain paranoia:
Matt Gallagher not a signatory but Rodney Gallagher was.

In reply to Zoony:

True cyber bullys, like bullys anywhere, rely on a degree of secrecy of their actions to carry out behaviour most people would regard as unacceptable. In the case of the internet, anonymity is very much part of that, as the consequencies seem distant when hiding behind a pseudonym (not true of course, as many who have been prosecuted for things like death threats online have found).

In reply to Offwidth:

As far as cyber bullying goes he has been more sinned against than sinning on this thread