An update from John Goldman on the UKCC:

Many thanks for the continuing interest and support in the Campaign. Progress continues to be made, but as ever, when dealing with the authorities, at a slow pace.
 
Wishing all members well for 2010.
 
John Goldman 7th Dan UBA
Campaign leader Save Independent Judo

 

SAVE INDEPENDENT JUDO
A campaign to maintain the rights of independent judo groups

Campaign office:        
41, Willow Walk
Crediton
Devon EX17 1DD
e-mail johnuba@hotmail.co.uk


Sport England:

Greg Clements
Graham Jones
Simon McQueen

December 30 2009


Gentlemen,

When the UKCC was first mooted, the then Minister for Sport Richard Caborn said it was to be “consultative and inclusive”. It has not been. Our repeated request that independent judo be represented in the “consultative” process has been ignored. The judo UKCC was ill-thought through. It discriminates between those in the BJA and those who choose to remain independent of the NGB.

Present Minister for Sport Gerry Sutcliffe, when referring to the relationship between the UKCC and BJA, speaks of “their (BJA) UKCC” and says “individuals teaching other judo disciplines can qualify to teach or coach the BJA discipline”.

Why would non-BJA people want to teach the “BJA discipline”? Why should they? As a national award the UKCC must be open to all on equal terms regardless of affiliation or “judo discipline”.

Mr Sutcliffe then says, “I sympathise with concerns about the impact on the long-term future of judo clubs and hope that a solution can be found”. Doesn’t quite add up, does it.

When asked what he is going to do about this issue he remains silent.

(click on Read More link below)

From the Minister down, no one heeded our concerns and warnings that the injustices of, and way the UKCC had been developed, implemented and administered, the authorities ongoing fudging and  tinkering, would inevitably result in the current mess. Step by step, as the situation has escalated, no one has been prepared to take responsibility. You have allowed the BJA to do and say what it likes with disregard to the rights of those who wish to remain independent of the NGB.

Subsequently you say you are “to review the stance of the BJA in line with scUK and our own legal team” and belatedly I am informed “Sport England and scUK are planning a review of the UKCC process”.

And what can we expect? Fairness? Unless all parties show a willingness to abandon their entrenched ideas and exclusiveness, difficulties will not be resolved.

In copycat fashion to the BJA, DCMS and scUK, you continue to evade answering genuine questions of concern, contradict each other, often yourselves.

While Sport England promote Sport for All, campaigning to increase participation, you give tacit approval to the way the BJA, NGB for judo, behaves. You allow them to say and do what they like to the detriment of the vast majority of judo practitioners in the UK who choose to remain in organisations outside of the NGB.

These organisations have, for generations, with their fully qualified coaches/instructors/teachers, provided endless enjoyment to millions of young people, in a safe and happy environment, keeping them off the streets and occupied in a healthy activity. The vast majority of these coaches are volunteers working within organisations with all sensible safeguards, required by law and more, in place. (See letter of April 8 2009).

Our genuine complaint as to way the UKCC has been developed, implemented and administered, and the way the BJA behaves, that is both damaging and discriminatory to non-BJA judo people and their continuance in a sport they love, does nothing to promote your campaign to increase participation in the sport.

The BJA in their documentation ‘Access to the UKCC for non-BJA members’, call non-BJA judo practitioners “dissidents”. The BJA CEO Mr McCarthy tells the press, “If these renegades fall off the tree and decide to give up judo rather than join the BJA to obtain the UKCC, we won’t notice at all”.

While Mr McCarthy offensively dismisses non-BJA people on a whim, the government’s Secretary of State for Health responsible for the Change4Life initiative, writes to me personally, as he has done to other independent judo colleagues saying, “We have heard about the work you do in your neighbourhood and I want to thank you for your commitment. I believe that your experience and energy will be crucial to the success of Change4Life.”

And of Sport England? You, along with, scUK and DCMS give tacit approval to the way the BJA behave, who, bent on the control of all judo, happily say they don’t care if non-BJA judo people “decide” to give up judo. “Decide” to give up judo? The truth is that ultimately non-NGB judo practitioners will be ‘forced’ to give up the judo they love because they cannot access the UKCC on equal terms as those in the NGB. Mr Sutcliffe clearly understands this to be so when he says, “I sympathise with concerns about the impact on the long-term future of judo clubs”.

In your attempt to avoid dealing with this real issue, one authority department contradicts the other. While one, in passing-the-buck fashion, says it will be up to local authorities to decide who they employ or deploy as there will be no legal requirement to hold a UKCC in order to teach judo, another department gives the game away saying, “Local authorities will be concerned to ensure that any organisation using their facilities is competent to do so. A UKCC will provide a recognisable seal of coaching competence”.

So what do you expect local authorities to say to those without the UKCC? No prizes here.

Sport England, DCMS and scUK are vigorously promoting the UKCC as the national standard, a benchmark, for coaching qualifications. Simple common sense that tells you local authorities will want staff and those renting their facilities to be of the ‘national standard and subsequently those who don’t attain it will not be favoured by local authorities. If non-BJA people are unable to access the UKCC on equal terms to those in the BJA they will not be able to gain the ‘national standard’ coaching qualification, the UKCC.

This discrimination will lead to further difficulties. Already we are hearing of Sports Centre managers questioning non-NGB people on their qualifications and affiliation.

Your tacit approval of the BJA’s damaging and crass behaviour does not sit comfortably with the government’s Department of Health campaign which includes, encourages and values the expertise and commitment of non-BJA/NGB people. And how does the BJA’s discriminatory actions, and your tacit approval of such, sit with Sport England’s core values of equity and equality?

The present criteria for access to attain a judo UKCC is discriminatory.

The authorities continuing silence, evasiveness, dishonesty and closing of rank over the past four years since I started the Save Independent Judo campaign, has not been and is not helpful.

You have created an atmosphere of deepening mistrust of Sport England by countless thousands of judo and other martial arts practitioners. The Campaign has, as you well know, spread far beyond the ranks of judo with the previous Minister for Sport writing to me, “Your Campaign had raised a number of issues regarding martial arts in general.” At the same time the executive at scUK responsible for the UKCC wrote to me, “I agree that a pathway needs to be found to deal with your concerns regarding the UKCC and it is my opinion this needs to be resolved with, and across the sport of judo” and “There is some learning to do”. At the same time Mr McCarthy, in another intemperate outburst told the press, “As far a we are concerned it doesn’t exist”.

And what have the authorities learned, and what have they done? What pathway? What involvement with and across the sport of judo?

In 2005 I called for a review of the way the UKCC was being developed. Sport England was then adamant, as was the BJA that the UKCC was only for members of the BJA. BJA CEO Mr McCarthy wrote telling me there would be “consequences” for organisations that did not join the NGB. He continued, “It will be imperative that all bodies offering coaching services adhere to the recognised curriculum of the NGB and are also certified by the NGB”. When I complained to Sport England that such actions were unreasonable, unjust, discriminatory and raised legal issues, SE replied, “The BJA is an autonomous organisation. We have no control of the BJA”.

No control! You give an organisation over which you have no control responsibility to develop a national award, (which is then referred to as a BJAUKCC), you give them the go ahead to implement it in a discriminatory fashion, and you sit back as they do and say what they like.

DCMS said the same emphasising that the BJA was a limited company and I should take my complaint to the BJA. What a crass excuse. The BJA is a membership organisation doubling as an NGB. Both you and they choose to change hats to suit. And with no control you readily fill their coffers with countless millions of tax payer’s money? It just doesn’t wash, does it.

Following my complaint and contact with the national press, Sport England are quoted in the press saying, ”There should be a meeting of all parties concerned”. Such a meeting has never taken place and the BJA have been allowed in bully-boy fashion to continue to adopt discriminatory measures towards independent judo groups.

Latterly the UKCC for judo was endorsed and implemented. I have campaigned that the UKCC process had not been “consultative and inclusive” as it was to be when first mooted, and the implementation and administration was discriminatory to non-NGB judo people and raised legal issues.

The Campaign’s insistence that access to the UKCC must be open to all regardless of affiliation, forced the BJA and Sport England to make a U-turn on their rock-like policy that the UKCC was only for BJA members. This was announced in the House by the Minister for Sport who said “Access to UKCC must be open to all regardless of affiliation.”

The then Prime Minister Tony Blair followed this announcement with a public statement, in response to an online petition, confirming there must be open access. 

It is the conditions of that now won rightful open access, the discriminatory criteria laid down by the BJA, seemingly approved by scUK, DCMS and Sport England, that we challenge and demand must be changed.

I understood that the UKCC was a national award. However, it is increasingly being promoted as, and referred to by the authorities, as a BJAUKCC. Is it a national award or a BJA award?

If it is a national award those who wish to remain independent of the BJA;

1.    Have the right and must be able to access the UKCC on equal terms to those in the BJA.

2.    Are not willing to be “competence tested” to qualify in the “BJA discipline” of judo. And why should they?  They have already achieved their hard earned qualifications in the organisation they belong to with evidence that many are of a higher standard than that in the BJA (refer to letter of April8 2009).

3.    Fully-qualified non-BJA judo coaches/teachers/instructors must be able to map their qualification over to the UKCC on equal terms as BJA people enjoy.

In the chaos of the judo UKCC, scUK has written to one judo organisation, who says they are not a ‘Sports’ organisation having teachers teaching traditional judo rather than coaches coaching for competition, that they, “need not concern themselves with the UKCC”.

There needs to be clarity on this matter. It’s one thing saying such organisations need not concern themselves, but local authorities, unless clearly directed by government, would be concerned. To avoid discrimination in the workplace and the hiring of facilities, local authorities and other employers and providers would need to be fully understanding and advised that the UKCC is not applicable and not needed, by those not teaching the “BJA discipline” -  the vast majority of judo population in the UK.

Since you continue to evade answering questions, despite your promises, I have been in contact with the Commissioner’s Information Office who has firstly referred me to Sport England’s Freedom of Information office (FOI). Your FOI office have provided me with information and documentation you would not furnish.

I can now see why you didn’t you want me to see this information?

Some of this information contradicts statements you have made. Despite you writing to tell me a meeting with the BJA was taking place followed by another email telling me it had taken place, your FOI office say that there was no formal meeting with the BJA, only telephone and informal conversations without records. No records, no notes, no recollections? It’s laughable isn’t it and smacks of nothing short of being dishonest. Other examples:

February 9 2009 you told me that you had been, “working with colleagues at both scUk and DCMS and we are in the process of reviewing your (John Goldman) comments and the current procedures in place.”

You have repeatedly evaded answering my enquires as to outcome of your review.

April 8 2009 you wrote to tell me that you, “have put in place a meeting with scUK” at which, you “will ensure that all of your (John Goldman) correspondence and evidence is used and scrutinised.” and that you, “will advise of the outcome.”

You have repeatedly evaded notifying me of the outcome except to say you are taking my enquiries to a meeting with the BJA.

June 24 2009 you wrote to say the meeting, “took place earlier this afternoon – it was agreed that the BJA would be asked to respond directly to SE based upon your (John Goldman) enquiries to date.”

You have repeatedly evaded telling me which of my enquires were put to the BJA. (No one consulted me)



September 23 2009 you wrote, “The issues that you (John Goldman) raised were put to the BJA in a meeting. The RM (Sport England Relationship Manager) has now received a formal response” and that you, “were working to review the stance of the BJA in line with our own internal legal team”.

You have repeatedly evaded telling me who was at the meeting.

You have repeatedly evaded notifying me of the BJA’s response to the meeting.

Your FOI office has now forwarded me a copy of the BJA’s response (September 2 2009) to the ‘meeting’ (“The issues that you (John Goldman) raised were put to the BJA in a meeting). It is a pompous script and does nothing to address the issues I raised with you.

On the matter of  “competence testing” or as Mr McCarthy now refers to  “technical evaluation” of non-NGB judo people wishing to assess UKCC courses, he glibly ignores  issues I raise (that is if they were put to him) saying, “for those interested there is a minor cost”. Minor cost - £200!

Mr McCarthy continues, “To date, nobody has requested this technical evaluation”. No surprises there.

But aside of cost, why would fully qualified non-BJA judo people want to be competence tested? Why would they want to qualify in the “BJA discipline”? Why should they? The BJA’s earlier argument that this is necessary on health and safety grounds is sheer nonsense. (I have dealt with this matter in my correspondence of April 8 2009)

Our complaint some eighteen months ago to scUK that this £200 was an extortionate amount, was taken to the Coaching Standards Group who determined this amount as, “Unreasonably high”. Mr Duffy, CEO of scUK wrote to say he was writing to the BJA on this matter and would let me know their reply. Like you, Mr Duffy has evaded giving me any information or hint of the BJA replying and subsequently thrown in the towel saying “It is impossible to undo what has already happened”, followed by “scUK has done as much as is reasonably possible” and “I recommend that you attempt to resolve this situation directly with the BJA”. “Attempt to resolve”; what an inane suggestion. Attempt to resolve matters directly with an organisation that calls non-BJA organisations “dissidents”, “outlaws and pirates” and “renegades” who, “if they give up judo rather than join the BJA to gain the UKCC we won’t notice at all”!

And the previous Minister gave up too saying, “Finally, I would encourage you to take this matter forward with scUK and the BJA. I am clear that a meeting will prove to be more than beneficial to resolving your concerns than a further round of correspondence”. Apart from the ridiculous suggestion that we take matters forward with an NGB who behaves as the BJA do, how do you take matters forward with scUK an authority that evades dealing with our real concerns and throws the towel in saying they have done everything reasonably possible and I should talk to Sport England!

And so back on the carousel where we started four years ago when Sport England told me the UKCC was not their responsibility and I should talk to scUK!

As you know I have repeatedly called for the UKCC to go back to the ‘drawing board’.

Your FOI office tells me that scUK and Sport England are now planning “a review of the UKCC process”. What does this really mean? And what can we expect? Fairness? As I have repeatedly said, unless all parties show a willingness to abandon their entrenched ideas and exclusiveness, difficulties will not be resolved.

The Minister has said, “I sympathise with concerns about the impact on the long-term future of judo clubs and hope that a solution can be found”

“Sympathy “ and “Hope that a solution can be found”? These are just hollow words.

The backbone of British judo is the vast majority population of judo practitioners enjoying, as the Minister says, “other judo disciplines” than that of the “BJA discipline”, in organisations independent of NGB This is true too of other martial arts. Positive news of intent and action from Sport England and the other authorities, and an assurance of your support for the rights of equality and equity for those who wish to remain independent of the BJA, is long overdue.

Since you have continually failed to forward to me promised information and evaded questions I raise, and offered no comfort in giving any sign that you support the rights of those outside of the NGB, your FOI office has offered, on my behalf, to deal with you directly to establish whether your ‘review’ will deal with the specific issues I have raised.

Wishing you well for 2010.

John Goldman
Campaign leader

Copies to:
Gerry Sutcliffe MP
Pat Duffy scUK
Martin Crick scUk
Lisa Percival FOI
Others