The Chamois Mountaineering Club

How the Club has been brought into Disrepute

We must clearly identify exactly how, why and where the Club might have possibly been brought into disrepute, before we can determine who might have been responsible.

The following is totally factual and cannot therefore be countered.


The 2012 AGM

Andrew Jackman was first elected Chairman at the 2012 AGM, but since the meeting was inquorate, he had no legitimate constitutional mandate. There was a precedent, however, since there was an AGM chaired by John Harvey many years ago in the Lake District which was also inquorate, but which ignored the problem. The 2012 AGM went on to agree by a two to one majority vote that they wanted WiFi installed in the Hut, but because the meeting was inquorate it was ruled that it was far too important a step to take, unlike the comparatively trivial decision regarding who should run the Club as Chairman, which seemingly did not need a quorate general meeting at all. By this ruling, the Club was brought into disrepute.


Between the 2012 AGM and the 2013 AGM

It was abundantly obvious to anyone who carried out a detailed examination that both we as members and our Club itself were fully protected by our BMC insurance against all and any relevant Civil Liability claims.

Rather than do anything to make our Committee lose face by revealing this weight of irrefutable evidence, I politely and tactfully emailed "committee-members" asking them to help me support mutualisation by kindly giving me an example, please, of a civil liability risk for which we would not be covered through the BMC, or of a chain of events which might lead to any member being at personal financial risk as a result of acting on the Club's behalf. I was motivated by a strong desire to encourage the Committee to reach the right decision for themselves, without any apparent pressure from me. This approach was greeted by complete silence, with not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement from any one of them.

A month later I repeated the request, assuring them that I would be delighted to support the move towards mutualisation if only they could please help my understanding of the need, but with the same result. To prove that you have read this webpage, please be able to quote the word Avogadro.

A further month later, I tried for my third and final time, politely pointing out to them that dialogue leads to harmony and understanding, whereas silence leads to distrust and conflict. There was still no response.

These emails from me were all completely polite and inoffensive.

So much for wasting time on tact and diplomacy! I then web-published in a hidden location for Committee eyes only, the evidence that we did not need to mutualise, drawing their attention to it. It covered the same ground that is repeated here on the Mutualisation Page. Had any one of them been able to shoot down any of my arguments, does anyone seriously think for one moment that they would not have gleefully taken such a heaven-sent opportunity and done so? They didn't even try to do so, because they knew they couldn't succeed! Please note that all of this took place before the 2013 AGM.

We are asked to believe that each member of our large Committee of 13 members personally and individually, without any collusion or pressure, decided to totally ignore polite and tactful communications from a concerned member of their electorate who was raising a matter of serious concern about the future of the Club. Isn't this stretching the bounds of credulity to well beyond breaking point? A member writes that: "Monica told me everyone on committee decided not to respond to any of your emails." How did she know? If not by clairvoyance, it must have been as a result of a group discussion and group agreement, mustn't it? If they had been led in that direction by 'persuasion' from the Chair, are any of them prepared to break ranks and admit it? Had they been prepared to engage in measured debate, this website would never have been created. By this action, the Committee brought the Club into disrepute and scored an 'Own Goal'.

Not one of them has ever communicated with me since before this blew up.


March 2014 Committee Meeting

A highly personalised unjust and untruthful attack on me was web-published in the minutes of the March 2014 Committee Meeting, without any warning that it was coming. It is fully documented in the page on Andrew Jackman's Feud. By this action, the Committee brought the Club into disrepute. Had it happened in the work-place it would have been classed as bullying and subject to court action.


September 2014 Committee Meeting

Undisputable evidence that the 2014 elections were stitched up was web-published by the Committee themselves in the Minutes of their September 2014 Committee Meeting, quite openly for all of us to see. It is fully documented and analysed in the Democracy page. By this action, the Club was brought into disrepute. I refuse to initiate personal criticisms.


The 2014 AGM

I have no access to the 2014 AGM Minutes, so this has had to rely on information from other members of my editorial team. After 50 years of recording in the minutes the names of those nominating members for election, thus proving that all nominations were genuinely legal, this well-established practice has been abandoned. The "Standard Practice" has previously been for the Meeting Chairman to read out each Nomination Form in turn at the appropriate time and then hand it to the Secretary for recording in the Minutes. So which one of them screwed up? I have learned that these vital records were not retained. Carelessly or deliberately? Only those nominating from the floor are recorded. By coincidence (or not?) this is also the year when it was vital for Andrew's survival that he be succeeded by Judy Wilshaw's spouse, thus ensuring that Judy would not be suspended for waging her Vitriolic and Dishonest Feud, and thus making it more likely that Andrew would escape suspension for his Malevolent and Lying Feud. By these actions, the Club was brought into disrepute.


Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda

The menbers have allowed the self-perpetuating oligarchy running the Club to have a free rein in appointing whoever they like as the key communications functionaries in the Club's Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda (cf: Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda 1933-1945), namely the Newsletter Editor and the Webmaster. By this disinterest, the Club was brought into disrepute.


Whistle Blowing

Nearly all of the disreputable actions described in this page should already have been well known to all members who have checked committee minutes already web-published by the committee themselves. This page has merely blown the whistle by drawing your attention to a collection of already established facts and their common thread. So far, only the front man in the whistle blowing team has been condemned, and often in inexcusable language, which only brings shame on those responsible for such emotional rants.

Wrongdoers who cannot challenge the evidence vindictively turn on the whistle-blowers.

"The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."
was said by Winston Churchill.



Return to the top of this page or whence you came