In reply to redsulike:
> Exactly how many of the @70,000 BMC members voted for Audrey Seguy? I think it was a couple of hundred. She, and you are part of my point exactly. The majority of BMC members aren't bothered about competition climbing, most of them if given a ballot (or maybe if they could be bothered) would vote against it. But the balance of power in the BMC at the moment is in your court, at national level and in the Peak area certainly, with Matt as Chair. And I have mentioned it before, many of those involved with the BMC, making decisions on funding have a commercial interest.
Well you should be campaigning for the BMC to have postal & email voting rather than just proxy voting. Widening the democracy of the BMC would get my vote (probably by proxy in the first instance of course).
Well if you want to talk numbers then I am pretty sure that more people voted for Audrey than have ever voted in a BMC VP election. Yes it might have only been a few hundred votes but if people can't be arsed then they can't complain about the outcome of a vote. Not saying you didn’t vote but you get my drift.
You state quite categorically that the vast majority of BMC members would vote against comps. Have you any evidence of this, do you talk to 100’s of BMC members every week, I probably do and I don't believe that, I believe that the vast majority don't give a hoot. The vocal minority that really support comps probably out number the vocal minority that really oppose comps - do you know that the number of BMC/MCofS volunteers who give their time to help comps out numbers all of the rest of the BMC/MCofS volunteers.
The balance of power is in my court!! Is it really? I would be interested to know exactly which BMC National Council members you think I have in my pocket. BTW Matt as Chair of the Peak doesn't sit on the National Council.
> Maybe you are right, the BMC is no longer a mountaineering organisation, perhaps you should raise that and have it removed from the website and BMC literature. The issue is, should you have your own climbing organisation instead of piggy-backing onto the BMC. Of the £70,000 given to competition climbing last year I would like to remove my £1.10 as I am fundamentally opposed to the idea that climbing can be a competition. As for the role of the BMC, you do not need it to gain access to a climbing wall, just money. The question is why should ordinary BMC members stump up more and more money to send climbers abroad to competitions. If the BMC were to withdraw all funding for competitions immediately it could better use the money for the benefit of all members and it would force your hand into creating your own organisation that represented your sport and competition climbing ambitions and those of the commercial organisations that support you.
I am fundamentally opposed to certain things that the Govt do but I don't attempt to withhold a percentage of the VAT I pay on my petrol/beer/etc. I am also fundamentally opposed to some of the things that the BMC has spent money on in the past and continues to spend money on but I don't want to withhold 50p of my membership fee (yes I am a BMC individual member, paid by DD and also take out annual insurance).
You state that you are opposed to the idea that climbing can be a competition. Well wake up and smell the coffee. Competition has existed in climbing since year dot and often at a pretty nationalistic level. GBR won the biggest ever climbing comp back in 1953. I took part in about 50 competitions the other week when I was in Font.
Yes maybe in time the BMC will give up comps and let a new organisation take over. But that will not happen unless the BMC agrees (otherwise UK Sport & Sport England would not recognise the new body, not sure about the situation in Scotland) and at the moment there is no way the BMC will give up comps but not for the conspiracy theory reasons you and others suggest.