£25,000 well spent - NOT. Having been through several corporate rebrandings, I think I can say they usually achieve very little, apart from lose people along the way. "BMC" is well understood, so I can't understand/see reasons for ever having wanted to change it.

Please be clear about this - The BMC did not spend it's members money on this name change research. This was Sport England money specifically given for this purpose. It could not have been used for any other purpose and the (some might think odd) use of this money did not detract from the BMC's vital work in areas such as access, safety, participation and representation. Each of the BMC area's representatives voted for this name change, apparently without consulting their area members. If there is a 'fault' in this whole performance, it was the lack of consultation by their own representatives after being blinded by a slick PR presentation. Therein lies the lesson for the organisation - don't get suckered by bullshit.

Mountaineers and climbers in Wales - now is the time to start conversations about a separate organisation dedicated to Welsh needs. Scotland has long ploughed it's own furrow and with Wales heading towards inevitable independence in Scotland's wake, it seems sensible to plan ahead. Hopefully a new umbrella body for Cymru can also embrace a bi-lingual policy so Welsh speakers will finally get a body that recognises, values and encourages a dual language approach.

Mae'n amser siarad am gael sefyllfa sydd yn teilwng I fynyddwyr a ddringwyr Cymru o bob iaith - ewch amdani!

Mr Turnbull said: “A proposed motion has indeed been received by the BMC office although it is not yet clear whether it will proceed to being accepted as a formal AGM agenda"

The height of arrogance from Mr Turnbull and the BMC trying to block the democratic process.

He should let the membership debate and if necessary amend the motion at the AGM and not try to block it

I would like to know how much we spend on the BMC Council, is it value for our money?. What are the wages of the top staff?.
What are the company cars they drive?. What are the state of
our finances. Are we still running at a small profit. What dept if any do we have?. Are we in good hands?. Transparency is what we need in all matters.To attempt a name change without consultation is just wrong.

Hi Owain
FYI on our 1970 filmed ascent of the Eiger, Eric Jones, Cliff Phillips, Pete Minks and leo Dickinson found a cave bivouac at the top of the Second Icefield. Twice we used it as a bivi, once on retreat in a storm and once on our actual climb. We named it the WAC bivouac after the Welsh Alpine Club that we had just formed. Its possibly where Eric got the idea about running a cafe as his tea was well received by all. Its first and only AGM was held at Cobdens Pub in November 1970.

Just so you know the name has been taken but the three remaining members would be open to offers although a name change would have to be put to the executive committee.

leo

Hahaha. Company cars at the BMC. Good joke, most of them roll in £500 bangers.

Remarkable. Talk about missing the point. Yes, the Climb Britain nonsense was a bit of a fiasco, but surely an organisation that had really lost it's bearings would have simply imposed it, not taken soundings and decided that the democratic will was not to change the name?

There are clearly areas where the BMC could work better. It needs to find a new focus, to enter the current political fray and fight the many threats to access and recreation that are rearing their ugly heads. A tory govt that cares only for it's grouse shooting chums needs to be confronted. The BMC should make common cause with all the other outdoor pursuits and fight the underfunding of national parks, the underestimation of the economic impact of outdoor pursuits and their contribution to the health and mental well-being of the nation.

This is a sad state of affairs to get into. Ok so the attempt at rebranding was a fiasco but the senior management of the BMC in Dave Turnbull and Renan Siddiqui worked extremely hard in attendind area meetings all over the country in an attempt to explain things. We shouldn't forget this.

I do agree with the point from (Steve) above that if this motion has arrived in time and has the required number of signaturies - it should be discussed.

Having said that isn't it time for a good but of common sense and meaningful discussion on where we go from here. I think we all agree that the nature of our sport has changed beyond all recognition in the last 15 years or so - the BMC has to try and adapt to encompass all the various activities that members see as important issues. Only in that way will it be a strong organisation to lobby, protect and look after all that we hold dear. Otherwise it will divide and fail.....

Is this another old boys club, never having the guts to take the government and landowners on vital conservation issues.

Terrible Tories increase funding for BMC. Didn't see Grouse Shooting get any Sports England dosh. Love the left rhetoric ... it's like Lycra, so very dated.

In general BMC do a good job but they should be answerable to the membership ( I got lambasted for suggesting this on UKC) They change policies and direction within the confines of the executive e.g. going from totally opposing competitive climbing to spending a massive amount on indoor comps and training etc I believe the focus should be on actual outdoor mountaineering and associated topics and pursuits But I believe any change in direction or proposed large capital outlays should be put to the membership to decide Witness the change in name debacle

It's a fairly understandable turn of events, although I too fail to see how it helps any going forward. Mistakes were made, consultations were more of an information dissemination after the deal was done - as so is the way in many non democratic process driven decisions. But the BMC did do one crucial thing in time. It chose not to go ahead and did listen to it's members, eventually. I don't blame the BMC in trying a new approach and trying to tap into the zeitgeist, but sometimes heads are turned and the money used wasn't members money, but it was an daft enough amount for the average member to wonder how it was justified to be used for something they didn't ask for.... plus that logo was bobbins... Move on & be thankful and proud that the BMC still exists to do do all the crucial work we need it to.

Folks - the money used is "all of our money" in that it came from Sport England and is either Lottery funding or Exchequer Awards funds ( in 2015 they gave out £69 million and £215 million of each source respectively) So if you pay tax and/or have ever bought a lottery ticket of any sort then you have contributed to the funding.

The money could have been used for all sorts of much more worthy purposes had applications been made for such purposes. It is/was a crass waste of money to go ahead without a consultation - any basic PR/marketing company worth its salt would know that good market research i.e. consultation, is fundamental to informing decisions. Those who decided to go ahead with the process as it was do need to be held to account for very poor decision making. BMC members need to have confidence, trust and respect for the eleadership who after all, work on our behalf.

I’m the parent of a mad keen climber (13) and don’t understand the fuss over Climb Britain. Personally, I didn’t mind the name or the name bmc. But my daughter and her friends thought climb Britain was so much better. They climb 7c indoors and are just heading outside but you’d never catch them joining anything called mountaineering council. These decisions should be about the future, not keeping a few grumblers happy now.

Don’t get me wrong. I like the BMC. I’ve been a member for years, there mag is ghreat, I use their insurance. But all this ongoing nonsense about climb Britain and no confidence just turns me off. I don’t want to the member of an organisation that let’s itself be dictated to by a few old dinosaurs. It makes me think they can just be pushed around, so why should I trust them with access issues?

Make the dinosaurs extinct and I’ll renew my membership.

Its the same story with any committee up and down the land. And whilst these middle class twits anguish about his load of b......s surrounding a hobby, the real problems in the world persist. Imagine if the majority hadnt voted for Brexit, it could have been some Belgian beurocrat dealing with this.

My understanding is that the BMC have always been answerable to the membership (in response to Phil Burke's comment above. Go along to an area meeting and make your opinion heard, argue the case. Saying they don't listen to members is ignoring the speed at which they withdrew Climb Britain. Having seen the full motion it has a lot of rhetoric and angst but doesn't actually clarify what it wants.

Any organisation has to have some organisational rules so Dave Turnbull is correct in commenting that it has not yet received the number of sponsors to allow for it to be considered for inclusion on the agenda.

Extract from the Memorandum and Articles of the BMC relevant to this statement:

50.2. All resolutions (motions)* to be submitted to a General Meeting of the BMC shall be delivered to the CEO in writing not less than 45 clear days before the date of the meeting and shall be signed by not less than twenty-five Voting Members as proposers of the Resolution (Motion) and failure to comply with these requirements shall render the Resolution (Motion) invalid.

So the motion has to secure more votes by 8th March in order to go on the agenda.

What's in a name?

So let's analyse Climb Britain.

- many member don't CLIMB as noted
- many members climb at home and ABROAD and BMC have news and articles and makes lots of income no doubt selling travel insurance
- would CB have ceased news items per BMC today -e.g. on Swiss alpine safety for "ski touring"?

The one bit that seems right is "Council" given this fiasco.

I could have told them for £25 that British Mountaineering or vice versa would have worked (well done Scotland!)

Well. For another 25 I'd have told you that British Mountaineering is an equally crap name. I go climbing, I haven't any interest in clambering up peaks with ice in my beard, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Have any of you visited a bouldering wall recently?

It's a shame the motion was not put out earlier as that would have been democratic for the areas to have a chance to discuss this and get more dialogue at area level before the AGM.

In case you have not seen it visit the Website www.ukbouldering.com to see Bob Pettigrews full motion.

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,27760.0.html

I have met Bob on several occasions and this rather confirms to me that this is a frankly odd personal matter that should not be allowed anywhere near our Representative Body. I feel very embarrassed and sad for the leading mountaineers that he has managed to attach to this cause. I have looked up to some of them for many many years and can only hope that Bob has hoodwinked them in some way. This is very odd behavior.

"Is this another old boys club, never having the guts to take the government and landowners on vital conservation issues."

I'm sorry, but your ignorance of the work of the BMC is staggering, or was this a piece of mindless trolling? Ever heard of the CROW Act? Looked into the access work of the BMC? Given of your time as freely and with great purpose as many of us involved with the BMC have done? Realised that the BMC has repeatedly taken on governments, landowners and other vested interests?

Thought not.

The full motion includes an oft repeated comment that the IFSC president Scolaris is an unelected president for life. In actual fact the IFSC statutes state that elections are held every 4 years. So the motion is not accurate and correct in its assertions.

The BMC is no average sports club, it has a major role as a Provider of Counsel on all matters of mountaineering. The name Mountaineering Council says it all, a committee of expertise. It dishes it out in bucket-loads and long may that continue. This is why we have access to crags and much more. So why change a name that has embodied that ethos for over 60 years?
The fiasco is very serious and needs to be discussed with the members at the AGM. Only then can the heat be dispersed and we may get back to the real problem of bringing the whole organisation a little nearer to present day needs.
DT has done a great job over the years but he needs to offer his reasons, thoughts, apologies, to the crew before getting on with the job.
I would be happy to sign Bob's note and get things moving (too late!)

The amount of ignorance being displayed in some of the comments on here is just astonishing. What is clear is that a significant number of the people who have signed the 'no confidence' motion have not got a clue what the BMC does or how it runs.
The addition of Doug Scott's name to the motion is an absurd joke - he is a BMC Patron! I trust that his resignation has already been submitted. How can you have no confidence in an organisation that you represent? If you want a proper manufactured 'scandal' - look no further.
What really saddens me is that many of the people on the 'list' should know so much better about the work of the BMC - maybe it's age that makes people bitter and twisted? All this theatrical swan-song has done is take time, effort and money away from the vital projects and swallow already stretched resources.
If there is one bright note in this all, it is that many ordinary members see right through this ridiculous charade and support the work that the BMC undertake at the behest of it's members. We need to look to the future of climbing, walking and mountaineering - these people are very firmly of the past, and on this showing, should be left there.