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

Good afternoon to you all,

Below is a reply, from Martin Crick, to my email of June 24. Although Martin's approach signals that he, as an individual, is wanting to see resolve, he refers to being bound within these ever mysterious "constraints".

SCUK know they have blundered - the originators of the generic foundations of the UKCC never considered the diversity of the martial arts. Had they done their homework they would have quickly discovered that a generic coaching qualification for a named activity such as judo does not fit in with the way that these sports/arts with their differing styles, systems and even language, have always been run.

Having said the above, I know of no teacher/instructor/coach of the martial arts who does not continually look to improve standards and ensure that best practice and measures are in place for the well-being and safety of participants. I know of no organisation that, if not already doing so, would not wish to meet National Occupational Standards (NOS). The NOS are generic and are the units which the UKCC use. Coaching qualifications within the NOS are about coaching practises, management and development. They are not about techniques. Perhaps had the authorities said everyone should have a “Sport and Recreation UKCC” we would not be facing the problems we are today.

SCUK say, “we are taking active steps to begin to try and resolve the judo situation.” With no sign of a genuine willingness by the authorities to put right the mistakes they have made, these words fall hollow..

The best SCUK chief executive Pat Duffy can offer is, “It is impossible to undo what has already happened.”

Subject: RE: UKCC. 
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 08:20:47 +0100
From: MCrick@sportscoachuk.org
To: johnuba@hotmail.co.uk
CC: PDuffy@sportscoachuk.org; paulinejharrison@btinternet.com

Dear John

 

Thank you for your response.

Whilst I accept that this is an ongoing issue I cannot accept some of your assertions that we have not taken active steps. We DID write to Scott McCarthy asking him to publish access arrangements forthwith. I spoke to their UKCC lead officer and asked her to take it up with him.

I also know that Rob Burles at the DCMS spoke to him on the same lines. Pat Duffy's decision to ring him directly is therefore taking this one stage further. I have also alerted the Coaching Standards Group the BJA's failure to publish this and have asked them to address it.

My comment about them looking at developing a policy is in addition to that. Those are active steps; things may not be happening as quickly as you would like but there are constraints within which we have to operate.

Best wishes

Martin

 

My reply this afternoon to Martin:

 

Dear Martin,

 

I of course acknowledge you have taken steps with regards to asking the BJA to publish full details of arrangements on access to the judo UKCC for non-BJA people.

 

However, you said SCUK, “have taken steps to begin to try and resolve the judo situation.” I took that as read. Surely you could not of meant any steps taken were confined merely to asking the BJA to publish arrangements of access?”

 

So what steps have SCUK taken to begin to resolve the judo situation Martin?

 

In my letter to you of May 22, and other communications, I raise a number of issues on arrangements for access including that of “BJA recognised equivalent” grades.  In response you did not deal with the wrongs of this matter but quoted from “the relevant passages of the Qualification Specification” adding, “if there is any doubt about this please contact the BJA for clarification.” As you now know it was as fruitless to suggest I contact the BJA, they don’t even reply to your CEO.

 

I would have expected the matter of “BJA recognised equivalent” to be one of the issues to deal with as you, “ begin to resolve the judo situation.”

 

Another matter that I would expect to be included in the “resolve of the judo situation” deals with existing qualified coaches. In my letter to  Burles, December 12 2007, and in other communications, I raise this matter of mapping over of qualifications.

 

The BJA has made provision for an assimilation process for BJA coaches to map over to a level 2 UKCC. What about fully qualified non-BJA coaches? In May 2007 SCUK said coaches would be given, “Every opportunity to map over their qualifications to the national UKCC standards.”

 

The above are just a sample of the many issues of accessibility and applicability that must be addressed , to ensure that equality, equity and rights for all prevail. Have SCUK taken these issues on board; taken them to the BJA as part of their action “to resolve the judo situation”?

 

As you surmise, nothing of course happens as, or as quickly as one would like. However with, so many issues that need addressing, is the campaign (and SCUK, who don’t seem aware of the BJA arrangements and are awaiting full publication too) to sit back and  wait and see what the BJA dish up and then complain?

 

Under the circumstance such an approach does not seem reasonable or productive.

 

I appreciate your clarification of involvement by your Coaching Standards Group re judo: you have asked them to address the BJA's  failure to publish arrangements on access to UKCC.

 

You also say the Coaching Standards Group are actively giving consideration to the general question of accessibility re sports currently outside the UK Coaching Framework. Since judo is within the framework, I do not see how does this action helps in resolving the judo situation.

 

I repeat, as always, a willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue to ensure there is resolve.

 

Good wishes,

 

John