In reply to Andy Say:
"'Facts' are, unfortunately, elusive, squiggly things that are always open to interpretation. That is what keeps most academic historians in a job ."
Indeed, thats what is so special in this case. It's rare to see such blatant lies and clear misinformation.
' They didn’t give me the opportunity to put my side when Summit was published with this hysterical call to ‘save our BMC’' is what Bob Pettigrew ACTUALLY said. He didn't mention 'fair oportunity (sic) to get his views out' without qualification. You made that up. - The BMC contacted Bob twice (as far as I know) PRIOR to the publication of the issue of Summit referred to. - Can you not see that the two things are not mutually incompatible and it is perfectly possible that both statements are 'the truth' (subject to forensic examination of correspondence)? The use of the word 'lied' in your post is therefore potentially defamatory. **"
No I can't see it as anything different. Bob was invited by the BMC to put his case in more detail for the membership at least twice and declined the opportunity. He was asked by the Peak Area and others and just ignored them. Even after Summit there would have been no problem to include this on the BMC website. Ru responding to the motion had no idea what Bob would say until he said it. It's utterly disgraceful this happened in a democratic organisation. There was never any lack of opportunity for Bob to put forward the detail of his case. He simply did not try and avoided attempts from the other side. He did distribute it to likely supporters. So what he says in the news article in Grough is just not true (ie a lie). In contrast, numerous accusations he made about Scolaris and a few things besides were actually defamatory, being provably untrue.
"And much of what Bob Pettigrew said with regard to the BMC, ....are, actually, uncomfortably, true."
You can't wipe out the dishonesty of lies and mis-information by the fact that some truths sit alongside them. No one ever said everything in his arguments was untrue, so that's just silly. Bob's thrust in drafts, letters and the AGM presentation were never aimed mainly at the Rebrand it was presented as a symptom in his concerns, not the cause of the MoNC
" the registration of the ClimbBritain URL prior to the AGM as an example is an irrefutable fact."
Normal practice and fully and convincingly explained as such, including the timing. Dragging this up again and again is idiotic.
"why the AGM was not informed at all about any potential rebrand is the province of historians rather than you and I."
I disagree as the BMC explained and apologised and it would have had little long term negative effect (it arguably led to a, reassertion of the traditional and democratic nature of the organisation... something I saw as mostly positive) . In contrast, Bob by the way he handled this MoNC has caused real, significant and unnecessary damage to the organisation (and is affecting its function right now) through secrecy and dishonesty, and the damage (and plotting) is probably not even finished yet. Action is required in my view... you may disagree but as you say he is a mate of yours. Its an ongoing issue for the members for now and lets see how the governance review and democracy pans out.
"The priority now is for the BMC to develop as an organisation that seeks to represent all of its members, to reach out to those that are not members and prioritises engagement with, and respects the will of, its members."
At least we can agree on this!. I seriously wonder though if this is possible without dealing with such dishonorable behaviour from the BMC honoured leading lights of the MoNC. What's to stop a MoNC reboot?
Post edited at 17:49