an independent view for the leisure industry
Dear Sir
Letters of significance in reverse order of receipt
26 January 2012
Don't let facts get in the way
Can you implore Row Z to get his facts right. The two fat lads from Stoke actually contested their ‘world championship’ final (PDC version) at Alexandra Palace which, whilst being down south, is definitely not in Frimley Green.
One hundred and eighty!
Iain Maclaren
20 December 2011
No surprise: BP’s sponsorship of the arts
Sandy Nairne, Nicholas Serota and the other cultural panjandrums can squawk all they like: taking sponsorship money from BP is wrong and breaches any code of ethics worthy of the name. How can this country’s most revered publicly-funded arts establishments continue to allow themselves to be supported by an oil company with a terrible legacy of damage to the environment, to communities and to the lives of many people? The cynical atrocities of oil corporations in their pursuit of wealth and power at the expense of people, wildlife, landscapes and ecosystems is being legitimised by the arts establishment. It sullies the arts and undermines the four institutions.
At a time of economic restraint there are legitimate debates to be had about replacement funding for the arts but crimes against the environment are crimes against humanity and oil money is an expedient too far. As the world, and indeed Tate, have learned to flourish without support from slavery, tobacco and alcohol, we and they must learn to emerge from the culture of fossil fuels. It is time to halt the tyranny of oil patronage and cleanse the oil stains from art.
Nick Reeves
Executive Director,
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
5 August 2011
Plans for planning: a builders' charter and a public threat
There can be no argument that planning is in need of overhaul. But that does not justify a national planning policy framework (NPPF) proposal that puts building above all other considerations, especially environmental ones. And neither does it justify what will become the default response to almost every developer’s planning application: agreement to build. The NPPF is a builders’ charter crafted by Eric Pickles and by Vince Cable to serve the interests of the construction industry, and is a gift to developers with sharp elbows and the gift of the gab. The NPPF proposals are another tuition fees and forests blunder. They will remove the independence of planning and put it at the service of Vince Cable’s business department. Planning will no longer exist to safeguard the interests of the public or the environment and will put considerations of profit above those of people, spaces and places.
Nick Reeves
Executive Director,
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
4 July 2011
The art of Chinese dissent
It is a relief to know that artist and campaigner Ai Weiwei has been released from prison, albeit under the strictest of bail conditions. Yet Nobel Prize winner Liu Xiaobo remains incarcerated. Heaven knows what beastly programme of thought realignment he is being submitted to. Ironically, two of China's most prominent naysaying dissidents have become better known because of the Chinese government's actions to silence them.
The world of art and culture reacted with predictable noisiness. But nothing louder than a 'tut'. The best that the luvvies could do was sign a few petitions and proffer displays of indignation at smart parties.
We are told that Mr Cameron raised the issue of China's record on human rights with premier Wen Jiabao before he signed a £1.4 billion trade deal. Although China's attitude to human rights is deplorable, the Chinese leader was right to remind the world that Britain has a few issues of its own that verge on the hypocritical. Britons are not so squeamish about China's land and resource grab, or its human rights record, that they aren't eager to consume vast quantities of imported Chinese products. That said, if China wants the benefits of being part of a free market global economy it must learn to engage with its crtical friends in the West and realise that cultural icons like Ai and Liu are an asset to China and not a threat.
Nick Reeves
Executive Director,
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
9 March 2011
Making trouble with Mervyn King
Having read your piece, Making trouble with Mervyn King, I’m moved to offer my services. I will heed the call to arms and happily join you, Mervyn and others at the gates of Downing Street at the appointed time and day. Just let me know.
Cameron’s “transformation of public services” is a continuation of an old ideology that goes back to the 1980s and CCT. It’s nowt but a re-branded Thatcherite / Nicholas Ridley obsession with the dismantling of the public sector through privatisation, under the cloak of Big Society.
On another day I might have been sympathetic – generous, even. I might’ve believed that a grafting-on of outside management, including charities, to perk up public service staff to provide services more innovatively, might be a good thing. But now that we know that corporations, charities and community groups will have the legal right to tender for any public service, except catching rapists and murderers and shooting-dead innocent tube travellers (with bids that undercut existing costs by means no more innovative than a monstering of pay, terms and conditions), I wonder that I’m typing this instead of taking to the streets. Cameron’s assault on the public domain is wrong and wrong-headed.
Meantime, people of other nations are demanding more power and freedom. In the UK, the government is mobilising to make sure we have less of both. Hard won freedoms and the right to public services provided by accountable public servants are being sold cheaply. The things we voted for have been ignored, and things we never asked for are coming to pass, fast. Your call for an election now is right. An election in four years time will be too late.
Nick Reeves
Executive Director,
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
Read the editorial, Making trouble with Mervyn King, in the March 2011 issue of The Leisure Review
3 February 2011
Coaching in the spotlight
It is good to hear that he has “a passion” to improve sport. Translating this to improve coaching which is the principal function of the organisation (as in their title) is what I wanted to hear in response to the question. What you were implicitly asked was: “Why you, when it’s clear you are not a coach and appear to know nothing about coaching?” I'm not sure we got a response to that. We got to know a bit about his background instead. I think the readers wanted more clarity about what skills he brought that were relevant to coaching and could move coaching in the UK forward again.
Secondly, I would take issue with the fact that he thinks that the “role of active, skilled and qualified coaches is recognised”. It will take more than a Coach of the Year ceremony for that to happen. A key to turning this round related to your last question (which I will come to). We have always been “begin[ning] to address the perceived value of coaches” ever since I became a national coach in 1976. Coaches at all levels want to see real progress not another review à la Coaching Matters (that at least seemed to be a start but what happened?). It was, however, really good to hear a commitment to support coaches, coach educators and mentors. We need to build on some of the good work done here, including the work done by SCUK, especially in some of the more recent audits and research undertaken into coaching.
It is clear that Chris has a handle on the fact that we need coaches to work in different contexts (eg social inclusion agendas). What I wanted to hear was how he might think he can offer new approaches in training and education in order to do this. NGBs [national governing bodies] could be resistant since they are not necessarily in this business and their coach education schemes are not generally geared to it either. Indeed there is a tension in the funding for NGBs related to providing the next generation of 'excellence' in performance. Not really addressed by Chris.
His response to the question of “drop out” in coaching, which he raised, is one of our major challenges since this is key in relation to the “value” of coaches. If coaches were valued more, and tangibly so, I doubt if there would be the same drop out. I really think his response to the lack of a CEO for such a long time was not the best. Coaches genuinely felt for the first time that we had a champion in the last incumbent. Having a temporary incumbent in place who is not a coach is not helping to ‘champion’ coaches and coaching. This comment should not be construed or dismissed as a personal attack on the current temporary post holder.
I would take issue with Chris as to the lack of direction and commitment to the Coaching Framework. There is a lack of direction and commitment, partly because even in its new phase it is mentioned less and less, and not for the reasons Chris stated. There is a genuine concern ‘out there’ that it has just lost momentum and indeed we know some NGBs have pulled out.
Finally, I think Chris did himself and coaches a disservice in responding in such a manner to your last question. If these voices (demanding at times) were about an independent voice for coaches “off and on for more than 30 years” then why has nothing been done? If he does actually say he values coaches and coaching then a response about trying to sort it (again) would have been more appropriate. SCUK is not necessarily the body for this in terms of it being ‘under them’; we don’t want foxes guarding the hen house. However, we do want SCUK to help (along with NGBs) as this will make for a more transparent and empowered coaching environment. What are people so afraid of when coaches say they want their own independent voice? Every move over the last 30-40 years to get such an organisation off the ground has been obstructed and one wonders why. Control of the voice of coaches is still with us since some see power and influence (however minimal) transferred elsewhere as a dilution of their own power. However, I will watch with interest to see if what I personally failed to achieve in my coaching lifetime can be achieved by others with regard to an independent voice.
Dr Hamish Telfer
Read the interview with Chris Baillieu in the Feb 2011 issue of TLR.
Sexism in the Sky: the silence continues
Messrs Keys and Gray were well and truly ‘gated’ for their off-air blokish behaviour, and the media spinned and spinned. Over a period of days almost everyone with a foghorn and sharp elbows took a stance and wanted a say. But where were the guardians of sport on this? The panjandrums, the quangos and the governing bodies have all been strangely silent on a mode of behaviour that is endemic and hardly a surprise.
Nick Reeves
Executive Director,
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
20 December 2010
Localism you can trust
As community-based, independent ‘not for profit’ bodies – many of them employee-owned – with a sound and sustainable capacity in running buildings, managing people and organising a wide range of activities, Sporta members can play an important role in putting the ‘big’ into the ‘Big Society’.
We can offer a viable model to inexperienced and under-capitalised community groups or potential co-operatives seeking to challenge large private sector companies that claim only they have the capacity to deliver contracted out public services. The Big Society will require a kaleidoscope of provision and it is important that we build capacity in tune with social commitment and social enterprise. Effective local arrangements will vary from place to place. In many instances, local organisations will find that partnerships with sporta trusts can provide a secure base that will enable them to develop their capacity without the need for costly capital investment and professional competence in dealing with copious regulations.
Our members are established social enterprises that are businesslike and innovative in their delivery of accessible and affordable services. As well as operating major facilities, such as swimming pools, gyms, sports grounds, stadiums and theatres across England, Scotland and Wales, sporta members run a number of community programmes and often offer informal support to other smaller community bodies. As major local service providers, they already play a leading role in local strategic partnerships with both councils and private sector organisations.
There is now potential for sporta trusts to play an even bigger part in the Big Society as hubs, hosts and advisers for newly forming grassroots organisations. Our members are used to engaging with the many people who come through their doors seeking to enjoy themselves and make their lives fuller, healthier and happier, so they are well placed to support the expansion of genuine co-operative and community-based provision.
Craig McAteer, chair of Sporta
14 December 2010
A word on equality in sport
Just a brief response to the feature on equality in sport. I am a sports development professional and the chair of a sports club, and we like to think we have a good attitude to equality.
Equality should not be done for the sake of it. Our club is in what is called a super-diverse area of Birmingham and in order to serve the sporting needs of that community, and our original mission, aims and to have the best team we can, we need to be ‘actively equal opportunities’ – in terms of race, culture and ethnicity – and this is something that we have strived hard to do. If you are running a canoeing club in Shropshire then there will be less pressure to look at race, as it will be less of an issue. In order to serve the sporting needs of the people in your catchment you may need to look at things in a different way, perhaps developing more women’s sport, considering family activity or childcare, if this will help you to be a better and more successful club, rather than just because you should. It is also important to be realistic about the capacity of a club to do this, and this capacity will only become clear once the mentality of the club is ready to consider these kinds of new activity.
Race is actually one of the easiest to deal with as it only requires an attitude within the club and a minimum amount of cultural awareness (not fear). Aston Sports Club was founded to use sport to break down ethnic and cultural divides in the area – and all it requires is a welcoming and open-minded, colour-blind attitude from the volunteers running the club. Where someone comes from is not an issue and we understand that during Ramadan, for example, we have some people that can’t play or they can’t perform well because they are not eating or drinking during daylight hours (and yet we have always put out a team – thirsty or not). The key to this is to be relaxed about race and culture, and treat any new person who arrives at a club with respect. While this may be easier in a traditionally multi-cultural area like Aston, the trick is still the same in a rural area where perhaps there may be only one or two families from BME backgrounds. If the club is open and welcoming, and there is some recognition that new members, especially those who are from a different race from the rest of the club might feel more awkward, then the club can overcome this easily.
Sadly many clubs are suspicious of outsiders. Imagine the village pub that goes quiet when the out-of-towner comes in; many clubs are the same. Remember that there is diversity of many types and young people who are not related to club members may equally be viewed with suspicion. Clubs that have this open and welcoming mentality will welcome the young and old, the new and established member, the white and the black, the male and the female, those with specific needs, the gay and the straight equally (this last point I believe will be one of the biggest challenges, something that we, as a club and the whole of sport and society, are still working on).
Developing new sections for specific groups means committed volunteers and leaders, as well as this attitude shift – but first is always the attitude shift. I am not sure how to change this attitude across the UK but I think some greater education of sports development professionals would be a good start – and the demystification of equalities skills.
Just tell them to relax. It is all about being open and welcoming to all.
Matt Kendall
Chair
Aston Sports Club
3 December 2010
Campaigning for sport: time to join us
In the four weeks since The Leisure Review published Steve Grainger’s response to the Gove attack on the SSP programme a great deal has happened.
A national campaign has been launched and is quickly building momentum.
There are 17,959 members of the Facebook Group named ‘Save School Sport Partnerships’. 804 people are following @saveschoolsport on Twitter including MP’s, top athletes and interested reporters. Young ambassadors are leading the collection of signatures across the country for a petition to ‘Save Our School Sport Partnerships’. The petition will be presented to parliament on
7 December following a demonstration of 2012 young people. The aim is that this petition will include 1,000,000 signatures.
At a local level young people, parents and teachers are contacting their local MP to express their concerns over the cut. Local media have covered the issue with articles in the local press and coverage on local news.
Nationally there has been fantastic support by the media. On the TV we have seen reports on Sky News, the BBC and Channel 4. In the papers we hit the front page of the Observer. There have been further supporting articles in the Guardian, The Sunday Times and The Daily Mail.
Olympic and Paralympic athletes have supported the campaign. Darren Campbell has been a fantastic ambassador for SSPs in a number of interviews on the BBC. Gail Emms wrote a letter to the prime minister supported by 75 Olympic and Paralympic athletes urging him to order a U-turn.
The campaign has also reached international levels. The cuts featured in an article in the Los Angeles Times. The decision by the government has been criticised publicly by the Australian sports commissioner and the Canadian Olympics committee chief executive.
The pressure is building on the government to U-turn their decision. They have shown a complete disregard for the successes of School Sport Partnerships. Their carefully selecting of facts and continual misuse of data to mislead the uninformed is shameful and has rightly been subject to wide criticism.
Our plan is to continue the campaign until a solution can be found for School Sport Partnerships to be sustained as we think sport has the power to change lives and should be accessible to all young people. I invite your readers to join us.
Sarah Price
Competition and Events Manager
Sedgefield SSP
3 November 2010
Leaders step forward
Martyn Allison's article [After the spending review: what do we do now? TLR Nov 2010 issue]
is insightful and challenging. He makes the point very well – now is the time to change fundamentally the basis of our decision-making. We need to rise above the silos. We need to work out what is needed by people who use our services. We need to really have a look at the lack of joined-up approaches that we have. We need to broker new , meaningful and lasting commitments to innovation and partnership working, not rhetoric and sound bites. The question is, can we do it? I believe there is real talent across our sector. I believe we have the capability to paint a brighter and better future – and along the way redefine what the system for sport and physical activity looks like. Leaders step forward!
John Byrne
CSP Director, Leicester-Shire and Rutland Sport
27 August 2010
Community sports development in the Big Society
I completely agree with Steve De Wint [Community sports development services: a new vision for delivery, TLR August 2010] on enhancing and raising the profile of the capacity-building potential and role of sports development, as I'm sure would all directors of county sports partnerships [CSP]. It is also very consistent with the Big Society mantra of our new coalition government, which interestingly does not seem to make particular mention of the potential of or for sport. On this basis and given that two thirds of adults say they have no time to volunteer in their communities, I wonder if the Big Society might actually have an adverse impact on sport unless sporting bodies can be encouraged to look beyond their individual sport (and the sporty) to take a genuinely broader interest in their community. They will need more than the sports development capacity-building skills that Steve talks about to achieve this but if it could happen they truly could be at the heart of their communities.
On the other foot, it does seem to me that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport messages are more about direct delivery or the bums-on-seats end of the sports development market, through, for example, new schools Olympics. If we are to deliver on both agendas we will need to keep our multifunctional roles alive.
I notice that Steve has a slight side swipe at the policy of investing heavily through NGBs [national governing bodies of sport] and I would like to put on record that I am pleased that the new coalition government have not scrapped this strategy. Over the last few years we have seen so many changes of strategy in our sector that people have got very dizzy with it all and I have seen many talented people leave frustrated as a result. We need a certain amount of stability to give organisations time to learn and adapt, and to give individuals a chance to grow; ours is very much a people business, which Steve alludes to in his article. It will take more than one or two government administrations to see the changes really take root in our 'local' clubs and sporting associations. With sport moving up the political agenda, the concern is that it could be used as a stick to beat each other with so I for one am pleased that we can continue to concentrate on supporting NGBs to deliver their plans in our localities.
Chris Child
Partnership director
Energize Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin
22 June 2010
The arts: tainted by association
The media’s forensic examination of the impact of the unfolding environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico has largely ignored an issue very close to home and a sector that is keeping its head down. BP is a major sponsor of the arts in the UK, yet the arts community has been quiet on its poisonous relationship with BP.
The erosion of public funding of the arts has forced arts institutions to seek commercial sponsorship wherever they can, and some have been very successful. The support of big business has been a success story resulting in a plethora of block-buster exhibitions and performances that have opened up the arts to a wider audience. But how embarrassed are those institutions that have a close and high-profile association with BP? How do arts institutions like the Tate justify their continued relationship with a company with a track record of breaches of environmental and safety regulations and is the cause of one of the biggest environmental disasters in history? Talk of contractual obligations that must be adhered to simply won’t do. It is the job of art institutions, and artists, to take a lead by making sure they are not corrupted by association with businesses that don’t act responsibly or ethically. Meanwhile, Lord Coe is doing his best to justify the London Olympics' relationship with BP and doing a predictably horrible job of it.
Nick Reeves
Executive Director,
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
1 June 2010
Taking issue with Adrian Christy
As an experienced operator of leisure centres that have hosted over 50 international events across more than 30 different sports, I am well aware how seeing top level sportsmen and women competing within their local facilities is a major selling point for the general public. But sports now seem to focus on major venues like the O2, Sheffield Arena and Birmingham NEC. What happened to taking these events to smaller venues like Huddersfield Sports Centre, which could easily fill a sports hall with 1,700 enthusiastic local people?
With that in mind it’s not surprising that most leisure centres, which are between 0% and 30% funded by their local council, have to seek outside funding and become ‘leisure’ operators in order to reduce costs. Antiques road shows, dog shows and wedding fairs are all events that help keep the prices down for our customers. These centres have had to diversify in order to survive and many have not received lottery funding, which is – like rocking horse muck –- very hard to find!
I recall that, many years ago, the Badminton Association tried to put a levy on facilities for the number of courts they have, which failed miserably and probably knocked the sport back.
I am old enough in the tooth to still have the scars from making bar staff redundant because the local badminton club, using the sports hall from 7 – 10.25pm, would rush into the bar and order two pints each, but complain when we took the glasses from them at 10.50pm so the centre could close. And asked to plug a kettle into the sports hall socket to make tea and provide the opposition with sandwiches whilst the café stood empty.
Sports halls were built to 10m high specifically for the odd shuttlecock that was lobbed into orbit. So perhaps, instead of bemoaning his outrage and knocking innovative leisure operators, Adrian Christy should assist badminton in reinventing itself – a bit like cricket with the 20 - 20 game – so there’s some high impact and excitement that creates a sustainable flow of people, using everyday plastic shuttlecocks that don’t require feathers yanked from some unfortunate live goose in China!
Ian Kendall
CEO Oldham Community Leisure and North West Representative for Sporta
31 March 2010
A football fan asks: MUST we?
So, Nick Reeves wants me to support MUST? [Letters, 11 March 2010]. When I can see copies of the letters that MU fans (including Nick?) sent to their Board saying that taking the manager and best players from the Baggies just because they had the money was wrong, I'll think about it. Mind you, amazingly enough, the Albion were using their own relative riches in the late 19th century to do much the same thing (not from MU, though but, as I think they were playing in Norwich City's used strip in those days!).
Much as where many clubs are at now is to be deplored – not least as there's absolutely no chance of most clubs doing anything much any more – it's a bit much when such complaints come from people who were happy enough to see their club leading the big battalions in taking the lion's share for decades.
So, let's see MUST arguing for a system that doesn't guarantee that they become even more ensconced at the top: proportionate allocation of all income except gates and merchandise, perhaps, to all levels of the game; some sort of draft that favours less successful clubs; quotas for home produced players; salary caps – maybe MUST is for all of this, in which case fine, but it certainly isn't being advertised.
David Albutt
Policy Officer, CLOA
11 March 2010
Raising the standard for community football interests
I know it's a big ask, but lifelong allegiances must be suspended – for just a moment at least. I urge football fans everywhere to welcome the MUST campaign and follow the lead of Manchester United's supporters. It’s time to reclaim professional football from the money-men, from big business, from the millionaire footballers and from fatuous self-regarding pundits.
Lest we forget, football’s roots lie in those working class communities that were mostly hell-on-earth and where the rich got richer on the backs of men, women and children who toiled and slaved for not much more than bugger-all.
Most of the clubs we know today were founded by local church leaders and philanthropists with the sole aim of improving the quality of life of those without hope or opportunity, to provide respite for exhausted bodies and minds, and to facilitate social interaction. The founders of the game had a high moral purpose – they had values and vision. They could see that the clubs they created could and would become the vehicle for community cohesion and healthier lifestyles.
But, gradually, the sport has been hijacked from those it is meant to serve. Blighted by cynicism on and off the pitch, an afternoon of football is no longer affordable for many people and is synonymous with the greed that has created global economic collapse. At last capitalism is in the dock. And those who control the game – the owners, the governing bodies, some managers and many of the top players – have been exposed for alienating the public and for bleeding football dry.
If the sports minister is serious about involving supporters in the running of clubs then he must order a root and branch review of the game and how it is run. But there can be no argument that it’s time to give the clubs back to the people. One radical way of doing this is to establish clubs as charitable trusts, constitutionally established to serve the needs of local communities. Those who seek to profit from the game must be run out of town for good. The green and gold scarf of MUST should be adopted by all true lovers of the game and its history as the standard and the mark of a wider campaign to reclaim football. Those who wear the colours are its standard-bearers.
Nick Reeves
Executive Director,
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
[See Mr Reeves' article on this subject in the December 2007 issue of The Leisure Review.]
3 March 2010
A downhill slide towards sporting self-congratulation
Is democracy a barrier to timely action on climate change? According to a recent online poll 62% of those who responded think so. And, according to another poll, more people believe in angels than climate change. Meantime, Bono has written another editorial for the New York Times telling us how to live our lives. Does he, I wonder, remove his stupid sunglasses when he’s drafting these self-regarding pearls of wisdom? It’s vital that we know.
But, get this: Olympic gold medallist Amy Williams is giving up on public transport and has headed straight for a car show room. The slippery slope to celebrity status will surely lead to an OBE, telly ads (Fox’s glacier mints, the new suckie health-sweet, is my bet), Strictly Come Dancing with Brucie on the Beeb and a seat on the board of some self-appointing, self-defeating quango. Then, the ultimate – an Amy Williams Action on Climate Change Foundation.
Nick Reeves
Executive Director,
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
28 October 2009
Art and the environment: cashing in on the greenwash?
Independent newspaper art critic, Tom Lubbock, in his wonderfully pithy review [Independent, 'Who’s fooling who? 14 October] of Damien Hirst’s new paintings at the Wallace Collection, tells us what most of us already knew. If you’re famous enough and wealthy enough you can get away with almost anything. I don’t know if the artist claims to be an environmentalist of note, as well as a painter worthy of our attention, but I recall that it was the Independent’s sister title, the IoS, that recently tried to convince us that Damien Hirst is not only a leading green but among Britain’s top 100 environmentalists. Remarkably, Hirst was ranked higher than those with a much greater claim to recognition, and who have been campaigning on green issues for years. If a serious newspaper wants to showcase green leaders and have its Top 100 list taken seriously, it should avoid the self-regarding famous who can afford to buy the green-dream and celebrate the work of real environmentalists instead.
Nick Reeves
Executive Director,
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
5 October 2009
Researching Youth Sport – or a review of the blindingly obvious!
I read with interest your summary of the above conference, and I’ve got to say I read it with an increasing sense of despair. I’d like to summarise the bits I remember from the piece:
1) The view of talent in society – enjoyment decreases the further you advance in sport because of the way society deals with successful sports teams and individuals.
2) Gifted and talented – the hawthorn effect is alive and well
3) Reflective Practice – if you think about what you do it can change your views and behaviour for the good – even better if you can get your team to think about what they can do to improve.
4) Families – the family unit picks up the tab for performers in sport – financially, emotionally and socially.
5) LTAD [long-term athlete development] – rather than developing the science to support the development of the player pathway spend your time presenting the argument that insufficient evidence means it can’t be true.
Surely if we are going to make progress as a nation the scientific community need to be a bit more applied in its research; a bit more solutions-driven and a lot more positive in the way they present. Identification of a problem is nearly always the easiest bit to achieve. What I need to know as a coach/manager is the best way to solve the problem.
My challenge to science is to stop playing semantics, tell me something I don’t know, and when you do make sure it aids the solution rather providing further proof of the problem.
Richard Ward
23 September 2009
Sport Unlimited
I felt it important to respond to the article published in latest edition of Leisure Review regarding Sport Unlimited. The suggestion that Sport Unlimited is “...another high-profile, low substance, headline-grabbing initiative” is unfair. Sport Unlimited aims to engage those harder-to-reach less-sporty young people in a range of non-traditional sports and is an important element of the drive to offer all young people five hours a week of high quality PE and sport. Sport England, as part of their lead responsibility for community sport, are working hard to position Sport Unlimited to achieve the greatest impact and I wish to correct the assertion that the Youth Sport Trust is somehow not supportive of Sport Unlimited or that we see this a purely as a Sport England responsibility. Furthermore, the Youth Sport Trust has not declined to speak at any Sport Unlimited events. In fact, we are working in partnership with Sport England to ensure that school and community sport work together to meet the needs of all young people.
Steve Grainger
Chief Executive
Youth Sport Trust
Sport Unlimited 2
I read your article “Hyperbole Unlimited” in the September edition of the Leisure Review with concern, not only with regards to the number of factual errors contained within the piece, but also due to what I consider to be its misleading nature. I thought it would be useful to clarify several points I felt were misrepresented in your article.
Firstly, it would be worthwhile to point out that Sport England and the Youth Sport Trust work closely in partnership to support the delivery of the Government’s ambition to get children and young people doing 5 hours of sport a week. The Trust covers school-based activities, and Sport England is responsible for club and community sessions.
Our partnership working model is strong, and the two organisations champion each other, through a robust and collaborative working relationship. Furthermore, the Youth Sport Trust has never refused to speak at a Sport Unlimited event organised by Sport England. In fact Sport England and the Youth Sport Trust often actively share the stage, mostly recently at a national event in July to outline the work and achievements of Sport Unlimited to date.
I also consider your assertion that the five hour offer can only be delivered in schools to be flawed. Whilst schools have a vital role to play, the offer will only become reality through a mixture of both school and community provision. What’s needed, and what Sport England and the Youth Sport Trust are seeking to deliver, is a wide menu of provision which is accessible, attractive, affordable and appropriate to the needs of all children. I believe that Sport Unlimited provides these requirements in an effective and measurable way.
Sport England is proud of what Sport Unlimited has achieved in its first year and I am confident the scheme will deliver the required number of participants set out in our joint objectives. To reiterate, the scheme aims to get 900,000 young people along to these taster sessions and at least a third (300,000) to commit to their chosen sport once the ten weeks are up. So far, independent monitoring, including validation checks, undertaken by Sheffield Hallam has confirmed that Sport Unlimited is effectively reaching out to the harder to reach less-sporty youngsters. In the first twelve months over 200,000 young people accessed the high quality taster sessions, and over 177,000 completed their ten week courses.
I am assured by the quality of our monitoring undertaken by Sheffield Hallam and would be prepared to investigate and challenge any examples of false and / or misreporting as mentioned in your article.
It is also important to clarify that the County Sports Partnerships’ leadership of Sport Unlimited is not funded from Sport England’s core grant as you incorrectly reported. Each Partnership receives an additional grant for delivery of the programme. In addition, results are not just based upon the volume of youngsters who participate in the course, but also the sustainable effects that this delivers. This has been demonstrated by the encouraging early transition figures, reported by Sheffield Hallam, showing a third of youngsters, who completed their 10 week courses, continue their participation via clubs and other vehicles.
The real key to success behind the scheme has been to ask young people what they would like and then to do all we can to provide it. It is through partnerships and initiatives like these that Sport England is confident that we will deliver a lasting sporting legacy for 2012.
Mike Diaper
Executive Director for Children and Young People
Sport England
24 July 2009
Saving Greenwich Park
I read with interest your article in Water and Environment Magazine: Can Games be Green? [reprinted in August issue of The Leisure Review].
I belong to a protest group NOGOE (No to Greenwich Park Equestrian Events) and wanted to follow up on your excellent article about the London Olympics. Our case for opposition is complex and can be read on our website: www.nogoe2012.com . Our key messages are to do with potential environmental and archaeological damage to this World Heritage Site, and waste of resources in building temporary facilities that leave no legacy for the sport.
Interestingly the London 2012 website makes a big play about green credentials in respect of the Olympic Park in Stratford. However all these green principles are being blatantly disregarded in relation to Greenwich Park: constructing a new course, building a massive stadium, additional water and sewage for stabling 200 horses, etc - all facilities that already exist in equestrian venues near London. We did a special feature on this issue in our 18 April Save Greenwich Park blog.
I hope this stimulates some ideas for an article in your own magazine.
Sev D'Souza
NOGOE Media Relations
6 April 2009
Who's the Dada now?
Just when I thought we’d blown the popular myth that Picasso is the greatest artist of the twentieth century, and that we’d moved on to the Dadaist trickster, Marcel Duchamp, the National Gallery tries to revive it. With some aplomb I must admit.
Nick Reeves
Executive Director,
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
15 December 2008
Taking issue with access
In an otherwise generally well-balance magazine I was a bit surprised by Mr Owen’s one-sided article on access to rivers.
Mike’s presentation of the Salmon and Trout Association as a bunch of toffs who have “outbursts” on their website about canoeists is not very fair. Where are his links to the S&TA website at the bottom of his articles?
He seems to be putting across the view that everyone should have a right to cross someone’s land to get into a river free of charge! Most of the fishing done on rivers in this country is paid for. Angling clubs rent and buy land, and their members have to pay for the privilege of using those rivers. Most angling clubs expect their members to turn up for work days to carry out repairs to the banks and clearing the rivers.
The S&TA doesn’t suggest that access should prevented at all. It only states that those that want to use the river for their leisure pursuit do so in a way that doesn’t damage the environment, stop others from enjoying their legal activity and all groups make a fair contribution to the upkeep of the waters.
If Mr Owen ever wants to go out fly fishing I’ll happily take him.
I’ll even lend him some tweed breeks.
Oliver Booth
Derbyshire
5 December 2008
Museum mystery
I was wondering if anyone in the extended leisure community could answer this question for me: why is it whenever my peers and I visit one of the many art galleries in and around Manchester, the other people in the gallery (most especially those in uniform) look more than perplexed, check what the weather outside is like, and finally appear to come to the conclusion we're in there looking for people to mug and spend the rest of our time there keeping at least 8ft away from us at all times? (Hint: I'm closer to 20 than 30...)
Helen Rose
6 August 2008
Floam-flecked and challenging
There’s nothing like the subject of ISPAL to provoke a foam-flecked rant. Like your previous correspondent on the subject, Vanessa Bone, [see correspondence below] I too regret that there is no longer a professional body pushing hard for an integrated approach to leisure that includes the arts, heritage and libraries etc. And I wonder what the ‘P’ is doing in ISPAL? Just what is ISPAL’s remit?
Nick Reeves (former FILAM)
Executive Director,
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
7 July 2008
Sport England’s new direction
I've been out of sport development for a couple of years but at least some habits never change. From the sidelines I witness the launch of another strategy but this time it’s not my job on the line. It’s much more important than that – it’s sport and physical activity up for grabs. Will this plan deliver? It might, indeed I hope it does. The high-level principles are hard to fault and it makes the right sort of noises (especially for the chief executives of national governing bodies – I bet they've already been out to order their new car).
But the omens aren't good. For English sport to develop – I mean truly develop (you know: make progress, offer better opportunities than it used to, be better here than in other countries, etc) – there needs to be a consistency of purpose over a long period, an enduring approach and philosophy, and one that lasts. The evidence shows, to me at least, that four years isn't enough. It’s not enough to grow an athlete; that takes fifteen years. It’s not enough to develop a sustained participation base; that takes decades. Why? Because the ‘systems’ that underpin sport are complex, they are cultural and they need time to work through.
So I’ve a few questions for Sport England. What proportion of the next four years will be spent developing sport (versus time spent reorganising)? Will the plan be maintained if we get a new government or a change of chief executive? How long will the national governing bodies and the other delivery organisations get to sort themselves out after Sport England has completed its reshuffle?
If your answers aren’t “100%”, “yes” and “enough time” respectively, the plan won’t work.
So to sum up I’d like to thank those involved in the strategy for a well-written and nicely published document (if only strategy writing was an Olympic discipline). Your real challenge is to be patient, have faith and maintain direction – not to find a scapegoat and write another plan.
Richard Ward
2 July 2008
Sport England's new strategy: what are the odds?
Is the fact that county sports partnerships (CSP) are not mentioned (in the executive summary at least) due to the fact that they are such an integral part of the delivery system in England and therefore a ‘gimme’? Or should CSP colleagues be actively looking at ways to reduce the formation of beads of sweat from accumulating on the forehead?"
With the exception of that rather worrying omission, I broadly welcome the 'pure sports development' approach of the strategy and just hope that we can now be left to get on with implementing its aims and objectives with no further alterations until at least after London 2012. What are the odds of that happening?
Ian Jackson
Senior Competition Manager - Suffolk
9 May 2008
The question of the 'C word'
And whilst we’re on the topic of conferences, is it just me, or is this summer’s annual beano by ISPAL giving some of us former ILAM aficionados every justification for staying away? As a culture wallah, I would still fetch up over the years to meet with a diversity of people beavering away in leisure. Indeed, most times I could also enjoy the opportunity to ‘address the nation’ (sorry that’s bore the pants off) on a range of inter-disciplinary topics (Cultural Strategies, Cultural Pathfinder…). The chance, too, to hear the occasional inspiring session from a keynote speaker (and I have great memories of Huw Irranca-Davies talking about the value of the ‘c’ word) was a major draw.
So imagine my disappointment on opening the ISPAL envelope urging my attendance to find that 2008 is going to be devoted to ‘Forecasting the Future of Leisure’, with a totally sporting diet of events, and not a nod to heritage, arts, libraries... Absolutely nothing there for someone even of my catholic tastes (and, yes, I love lots of sports – can watch people do them for hours on end, especially those hunky blokes with baby bonnets and funny-shaped balls). I can’t be the only one, can I, who is so vexed with the replacing of an organisation that wasn’t broken with one that only has three wheels on it?
Yours more in sorrow than in anger
Vanessa Bone
Partner,
Creative Cultures
(and a former FILAM)
15 February 2008
The ruck: a considered view with a Malbec perspective
John Eady's letter regarding the 'neutering' of the ruck in rugby union sparked a debate amongst some colleagues and friends. We had a similar conversation over several bottles of a rather powerful Argentinian Malbec (Co-op's finest) and came up with various ideas, some similar to the team fouls idea and some so ridiculous that even rugby league administrators would find them hard to adopt.
However, some relevant points came out:
1- If the team foul approach was in place, would teams put minimum bodies into the ruck area? This would clutter the midfield and give us very much a hybrid rugby league game.
2 - If the referees used the yellow card in the way it was intended to be used (for persistent foul play), then they would probably issue enough cards for this to happen naturally. But they don't, so why would they support a rather more contrived foul structure?
3 - In the recent ARC championships in Australia they used some ELVs [experimental law variation], one of which was the use of hands in the ruck ONLY by players on their feet. The general consensus was that this produced much quicker ball, more people competing at the ruck and so more space in midfield. After a few weeks the number of yellow cards per match dropped to an average of 1.2 per game (less than the Premiership and National 1). Would this be better than a 13 v 12 game?
I appreciate the frustration that Mr Eady (possibly a scrum-half?) has with the the current situation but the laws only work if supported by the players AND the officials.
Richard Thomas
Hudson Global Resourcing
1 February 2008
Are the Surrealists in charge of the art world?
The British Council, the body responsible for promoting the very best of our culture abroad, is to close its art department. This came as something of a shock to me and I’m still trying to find out why. And, was any one consulted on the closure? It would seem not. Public consultation is deeply unfashionable right across government. You only have to look at the Government’s position on airport expansion to know that. It thumbs its nose at local people and climate change by announcing its decision to build new runways then has the cheek to consult. How barmy is that?
But we’ve been here before. You may recall the Government’s decision, a few years ago, to dispose of the Regional Arts Boards (aided and abetted by Arts Council, England) when (to the discomfort of our arts panjandrums) they got too big for their boots. A decision was made and leaked before the formal public consultation got underway, rendering the consultation impotent and therefore pointless, and the whole business of public consultation held to ridicule.
With many of our public galleries and museums pretending to offer free public access, with the Natural History and Science Museums pretending not to be amusement parks (my feature article in your pages, Mad About Museums, refers), with public funding of the arts in turmoil and now the British Council’s arts programme under threat, I’m convinced that arts policy in this country has been outsourced to the Surrealists (yes, there are groups still active in London and around the world) who have de-camped to the Treasury and the DCMS. Because this is the kind of mind-bending lunacy that Andre Breton and his chums would have been proud of.
Nick Reeves
Executive Director
Chartered Institution of water and Environmental Management
Change the rules or bring back the ruck!
Despite England reaching the final of last year’s Rugby World Cup it was a disappointing tournament in that rule changes designed to make the sport more palatable to a wider TV audience, in particular the neutering of the ruck led to defence-dominated games in which sides were not effectively penalized for slowing down 2nd phase ball. While understanding the need to ‘sanitize’ the game, without corresponding measures to counterbalance the advantage given to the defending team, the more attractive facets of back play and ball handling will disappear. Our suggestions are:
A structured ‘team fouls’ process for offences such as slowing the ball down, handling or offside at the ruck (and related ‘professional fouls’). After the first transgression, yellow cards would be issued for each and every subsequent offence, even if it means the offending team being reduced to 12 or 11 players for a brief period of time.
A change in the offside line at the ruck from behind the rear feet to one metre behind the back foot – allowing slightly more space for the attacking team to develop greater forward momentum.
Drastic? Maybe but unless something is done soon, rugby union’s transition to rugby league with lineouts will be virtually complete!
Responses on a (email) postcard please…
John Eady
Chief Executive
Knight, Kavanagh & Page
30 November 2007
Is it just me...?
Having just returned from the Scottish Sports Development Conference, which saw two days of high-profile speakers, good-quality training sessions, innovative case studies, motivational speakers and all in all a very well-run event, as a normally optimistic person why is it that rather than feel the usual after-event elation, I am feeling a little down and despondent?
Here are three possible explanations. First, an ‘unwell’ minister for communities and sport left MSP Keith Brown to deliver the ministerial address. After six months in power, with the Commonwealth games in the bag and an unparalleled profile for sport and physical activity, would the new government announce a new vision accompanied by new commitments and new resources? Unfortunately not.
Rather depressingly, the ministerial address seemed to be an almost identikit/groundhog day speech from that delivered to the VOCAL conference three months earlier, leaving delegates to ponder whether this new administration has yet to grasp the magnitude of those things that are holding back participation in sport and physical activity in Scotland. Perhaps more pertinently, when it does figure these out, will it be prepared to do anything substantive about them? I’m thinking of the poor state of grass-roots facilities infrastructure, lack of specialist PE teachers, the loss of £12m in funding in the run up to the 2012 Olympics and the slow, ponderous decision-making process and snail-like implementation; it has taken almost five years (and still counting) of trying to implement two hours of high-quality PE in schools.
In what is becoming a traditional annual mantra, “we recognise the important role sport has to play in creating strong communities... etc”. The big ideas transpired to be more community clubs, opening up access to school sport facilities (nothing wrong with these but not necessarily new or big ideas) and, oh yes, scrapping SportScotland. Although there was little flesh on the bones of the last statement, the writing appears to be on the wall as the ‘bonfire of the quango’s’ gathers pace.
The second explanation? The potential abolition of SportScotland will mean the dismantling of strong partnership arrangements with local authorities built up over a number of years, a new funding distribution mechanism that may or may not work being introduced and the sweeping away of an agency that provides ‘open door’ guidance, advice, support and advocacy for the public sector and sports governing bodies. Whilst SportScotland may have some shortcomings, there does not appear to have been any assessment (robust or otherwise) as to whether or not this is a good idea, nor an alternative coherent strategy for how these functions will be picked up. Will this really benefit sport in Scotland going forward or is the Scottish government just taking a punt?
Finally, and I guess most worrying, is the apparent industry malaise and general indifference to all of the above. We need to be wary that we do not get drunk on the fantastic success of the 2014 Commonwealth Games bid and assume that all is well with the world. Unfortunately we don’t have a strong, active and respected professional institute or campaigning body to provide an alternative response to a shrug of the shoulders. And it shows.
This year’s conference was entitled ‘Challenging the Culture’. Perhaps ‘Revolutionising the Culture’ may be apposite for 2008? Let’s rediscover some of the passion and fire that have accompanied sports development conferences of yesteryear and encourage a new generation of outspoken voices who demand that politicians who bask in the glow of sporting achievement should grasp the moment and take bold and historic decisions to bring about the step change improvement that is still desperately needed.
Tim Dent
Director, The Sport and Leisure Consultancy
Parks and health: the killer fact
Reading Ken McAnespie’s letter [TLR 26 October], I was reminded (not that I’d really forgotten) that parks also have a special part to play in healthy living and that much more should be done to make the case. I read something recently which spoke robustly of the health benefits of parks (which are being ignored) and is worth noting. The killer fact is this: what the NHS spends on treating MRSA-type diseases, which they give us, is about the same per annum as the value of the output of the entire landscape sector. But, more to the point, the NHS gets a boost of around £45 billion per annum while parks continue to suffer budget cuts imposed by a government that fails to recognise the health benefits of good parks and green spaces. If the NHS could clean up its hospitals the savings could be used to promote their contribution to the healthy lifestyles that would prevent many serious illnesses and take the pressure off our hard-pressed health services.
Nick Reeves
Executive Director
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
26 October 2007
Positioning the role of parks
Those involved in one-off projects are regarded with respect. Those who are left behind to caretake are not. Historically, more enlightened societies respected the role of the caretaker or keeper. Nowadays we seem to assume that it is a demeaning sort of role and something that anyone can do. But worse than this, within the parks world even the designers and the managers are still seen as caretakers and maintainers.
An architect designs a building and the landscape, and moves on to another, leaving behind either a great asset or a monstrosity. The landscaper or parks manager rarely has a say in what it looked like in the fist place but is expected to manage and maintain it regardless. Who is the party that earns the more money and is generally the more respected by society at large? After all, how hard can it be to guard or maintain something that doesn’t change? But therein lies the rub. What we are ‘caretaking’ does change. It alters with the season, it alters with fashion, it alters through natural growth, it alters with legislation, and so on.
Sadly, what we have not been able to achieve in the past twenty years or so is to convince the purse string holders that the role is not just a maintenance role and that the management aspect of it is extremely diverse and complex. It is, and always has been, a role which includes the management of the land, but more than that it includes management of conflict (dog walkers v footballers, bowlers v young children) and the management of staff. And the skills required to fulfil the role are just as extensive.
I have been involved with local government and the private sector for around thirty years and I cannot think of another area of work that has such a widespread portfolio. Nor do I know of many jobs that require such widespread knowledge. That is not to disparage other lines of work, they too are valuable, but it is vital that we manage to convince the right people (namely those who decide how much is going to be spent on any given service as opposed to another) that it is the respect and position within the ‘job hierarchy’ that is wrong. Correcting that is where I believe our efforts within the industry would be best placed.
Ken McAnespie
KMC Consultancy
5 October 2007
Museum access: a continuing debate
I write in response to Vanessa Bone’s letter in which she responds to mine on the vexed question of museums and galleries funding and free public access. Ms Bone kindly invites me to live in the real world and to accept (presumably) that it’s fine (and therefore dandy) for museum and gallery directors, backed by their self-important trustee boards, to charge – pretty much regardless of ability to pay – for access to one-off exhibitions in order to subsidise their permanent collections (much of which is rarely seen).
Well, actually, it is not okay by me and I for one urge that we aspire to a different sort of reality and one that the residents of the very worst of our sink estates might welcome. But, in any case, I can’t possibly allow Ms Bone to deprive me of my dream of (really) free public access to all publicly owned museums and galleries regardless of whether the exhibits on display are part of the permanent collection or temporary ‘block-busters’.
I note Ms Bone’s well-known and oft-rehearsed point that our public museums and galleries have been starved of cash by successive governments (aye, and by philistine governments at that) and that our curators must shrug their shoulders, accept meagre funds and become commercial. But I, in turn, suggest that the public should not continue to accept this mad, sad state of affairs. We (the cultural sector et al) should campaign more robustly (although any sort of campaign would be good enough for now) on the case for universally free access to all of the collections held in trust for the public and to all of the temporary exhibitions hosted and organised by publicly employed curators. It might require that some of us actually do something (but, never mind, it’ll be cathartic and we’ll feel all the better for it). Something very British like writing letters to the press and to our local MPs perhaps. Which is fair enough. But, I’ve got something else in mind involving direct action of the sort beloved of those two great radical journalists and politicians of yesteryear, John Wilkes and William Cobbett. Men who thumbed their noses at other people’s reality in the interests of a fairer and more inclusive world.
Nick Reeves
Executive Director
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
For Wilkes, Liberty, the 45 and Cobbett
21 September 2007
Free access no myth
I, too, would like to commend your brave new venture – makes a refreshing change from the tedious Leisure Opportunities with its exciting spa ‘n’ brewers agenda.
Really must take issue with the writer of the first letter to your publication, who needs to live in the real world, frankly. Yes, our national museums and galleries are free and attracting more visitors than ever – but in exchange for this more open access policy, just how big was their increase in Government funding? You guessed it – absolute zero!
Given the huge amount of both temporary and permanent collections which you can still see in the National Gallery, National Portrait Gallery and both Tate Galleries free, gratis and for nothing, I do not begrudge them charging as much as they can possibly grab for the odd show. How else, Mr Reeves, do you think they can make some money to cross-subsidise the stuff they have to give for free?
And don’t get me started on the huge range of community activities they put on, for schools and groups from deprived neighbourhoods. Damned good value at twice the price, I say!
On Saturday 9 September I did not go to the Dutch portraits but instead enjoyed the ‘Work, Rest and Play’ exhibition in the National Gallery and had my senses well and truly assaulted at the Beck’s Fusions pod in Trafalgar Square – both even more interesting than dead people in oils and FREE.
Vanessa Bone
Creative Cultures
7 September 2007
The myth of free access
Firstly, congratulations on The Leisure Review, a title worthy of camparison with John Wilkes's North Briton.
However, I write to debunk the myth that our nationally funded museums and galleries are charge-free zones. They are not. A visit to the National Gallery's new show of 16th and 17th century Dutch portraits costs an adult a tenner. Not a huge amount for me but I was saddened to see on my recent visit to the show a number of people turn away having convinced themselves that ten quid was better invested round the corner in one of Soho's many boozers. After all why pay to see one of Frans Hals's smirking buxom trollops when you can ogle scores of the real thing just a few yards away in Greek St for much less?
Apart from catering for a metropolitan cafe-culture elite (like yours truly) I was under the impression that the real point of such exhibitions was to 'get at the sinners' and to educate and illuminate an art-sceptical public. Fat chance of that while museum and gallery direrctors continue to discourage the proles with a charging policy that is more illuminating than the art on display.
Nick Reeves
Executive Director
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
Letters in The Leisure Review
As befits the ethos of a traditional magazine in a modern publishing format, we bring you The Leisure Review letters page. What it lacks in interactivity, we hope it will claw back in interest, vigour and wit, providing a reassuringly retrograde answer to the irritatingly instantaneous world of the weblog.
If you have views, comments or quizzical musings on the state of the leisure industry, its future or your role in it that you would like to contribute please e-mail the editor via the contacts page with 'for publication' in the title line. If we think that it may be of interest to readers across the wide world of leisure, recreation and culture we'll include it on the letters page.