CAMPAIGN UPDATE

From John Goldman

Campaign Leader

 

The CEO of Sport England has, this afternoon, sent me the following letter.

I do not find her response "satisfactory". She may "have looked into my claim" and listened to "explanations" to reach her conclusions. However, she has reached her conclusion without " discussion" with the Campaign.

Furthermore, she has not answered the questions I raise. Instead she suggests we have a get together with the BJA to chat about name calling! That's it.

At least we now have it on record that Sport England endorses the discriminatory actions of the BJA and the discriminatory measures the BJA has put in place restricting non-BJA people from accessing the national UKCC award on equal terms as those in the BJA.
 

To Mr John Goldman -  Leader, Save Independent Judo campaign
22 April 2010

Dear Mr Goldman,

Further to your correspondence of 16 March, I would like to apologise the delay in my response.  I have however now personally reviewed the issues that you raised, and have reached a number of conclusions.

Firstly, I have looked into your claim that The British Judo Association (BJA), through the introduction of pre-requisite criteria and different fees paid for BJA members and non-members for the UKCC Coaching Scheme, is discriminatory.

It has been explained to me that the charge for the technical assessment of those non-members wishing to participate in the programme is due to the nature of Judo as a contact, and therefore high risk, sport. The assessment is required in order to ascertain the competency of the participant. A simple assessment is undertaken by the governing bodies of a number of other contact sports. It is my view that it is reasonable for the BJA to take steps to assess competency in order to minimise any risk of injury, and I am therefore satisfied with the principle being applied.

We have discussed the level of fee with the BJA, which they have informed me covers the cost of a qualified coach to carry out the assessment. While this is a fixed cost based upon a time-recovery basis, they have suggested that they would be prepared to carry out the assessment sessions on a group basis, thereby reducing the cost per participant, and addressing one of your core concerns. I hope that you will agree that this is a positive and acceptable offer.

You also raised concerns regarding the manner in which the BJA refers to independent clubs in the press and wider public arena. I am keen to see a resolution of the differences between yourself and the BJA on this issue, and I would therefore like to offer to facilitate a meeting between yourself and the BJA at the earliest opportunity. Two of our National Governing Body Relationship Managers would facilitate the meeting, and I would hope that you and the BJA would attend in the spirit of reconciliation.

Finally, I know that you made a request to publish your correspondence with Sport England.  Assuming that you are referring to Lisa Percival’s letter of 7 February 2009, you have our permission to publish this information, including the minutes of our meeting with the BJA.  The permission only extends to information published in full; it must not be amended, abbreviated, summarised or paraphrased.

I hope that you will consider my response satisfactory, and recognise that I have made every effort to investigate and address the issues that you have raised. I do hope that you will accept our offer of a facilitated meeting between yourself and the BJA – the current state of affairs is clearly detrimental to the sport at a time when the opportunities and attention it receives are at their greatest.

Yours sincerely,

Jennie Price
Chief Executive