UKH

Access to Wright's Rock Area lost for the summer now lost due to idiots not following BMC agreed access arrangements. Utterly depressing and follows on from Wildcat access being lost due to failure to follow agreed access arrangements there.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/RAD/View.aspx?id=5412

Total idiots at Wrights. Insane levels of selfish behaviour when the landowner has tried to accommodate access in a reasonable way.

How were people breaking the access agreements?

Not following:

Continued access to this crag is dependant on climbers maintaining a low profile and adopting a strict leave no trace ethos. In addition, make sure you follow these few simple rules:

Access is only permitted on Fridays, Saturdays & Sundays

Only use the gate to cross the fence and access the crag

Strictly no dogs - dogs have worried livestock and if this happens again, climbing access could be banned

Daytime access only - no climbing after dusk

Minimise noise - stay low profile

Maximum group size of 6

This is so frustrating, Wright's is an brilliant crag. I actually met the landowner when he first moved in who seemed reasonable and friendly and see his point if view as the crag is almost in his back garden. Allthough it was mildly irritating to loose this as an after work venue it was a small price to pay for continued access and its not like their aren't loads of other good bouldering venues nearby! 

The Churnet is one of the closest areas to SE England with good outdoor bouldering. It is a popular venue for folk new to bouldering outside. I know these people as I sometimes climb with them. Most of them don't know about the BMC RAD. They primarily use "The App" as they call it - digital RockFax - sometimes augmented by what can be gleaned from the UKC database. 

I don't subscribe to digital RockFax but there is enough information visible in the free version to have a productive trip to Wright's. Nowhere in what I can see on the RockFax app for The Churnet in general or Wright's in particular is there any mention of access arrangements.

This is a major omission and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a primary reason behind people not following access requirements. 

I've just looked on my Rockfax app - I can't find any mention of access. Other crags with access issues seem to have a dedicated section on access (e.g. Chapel Head Scar) or are just not in the app at all (Eastwood). I assume access details on the app are not dynamically updated. In this way the app is no different to print guides that can only list access arrangements at the time of printing, but I wouldn't be surprised if the average app user is more likely to assume that an app is up to date, compared to a print guide.

I have no idea how many of the people breaching the access arrangements were led there by the Rockfax app, but I wonder if it would be possible in a future update of the app to include a dynamic link to the the access update banner on the UKC page.

My usual question after this type of incident...

Was there clear signage at the location to indicate what the agreed access conditions were?

Lots of climbers have never even heard of RAD, let alone check it before going bouldering.  If this kind of information is only in a place where people have to go looking for it, then some people aren't going to see it and this will happen again.

Yes signage was there.

For any  regular outdoor climbers who  have never heard of RAD,  it's really down to them not giving a shit. If they care about access they would have come across it and understood the importance from multiple sources: guidebooks, the BMC, MT, web forums and logbook pages. Maybe the Rockfax Ap crag pages needs a tweak but I'd be amazed if the overall Ap information on checking  access doesn't include it (I don't have the Ap so can't check right now).

"The Churnet" - really??

one of the closest areas to SE England with good outdoor bouldering. It is a popular venue for folk new to bouldering outside. - herein lies the problem. Londoners in the wild who don't understand how the outdoors works and what an access agreement is.

"The App"- could also be 27 crags, which also does not have access info.

This is a major omission and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a primary reason behind people not following access requirements.  - agreements like this have been in physical guides for decades and are routinely ignored. I don't think the lack of their availability is to blame, rather a skills gap in knowing to look for them.

Time after time this happens on crags where people clearly do know where to look for access information... such people get challenged sometimes by their community (Kilnsey parking being a good example).  Blaming Londoners new to the outdoors seems blatantly unfair to me: I simply don't believe inexperienced outdoor climbers are even the biggest problem in causing or risking most bans.

If climbers care about access they should check RAD directly or through UKC logbooks: it takes a minute and aside from minimising access risks it could in a practical sense avoid a time wasting change of plan on arrival at the crag. If climbers spot an issue not detailed on RAD, post here and copy to the BMC.

Maybe I'm over extrapolating from my experiences of the place, but every time I have been to Churnet there have been large (over 6) groups of Londoners with dog(s), speakers, and general noise. I was annoyed at them and I was there to climb, not having it forced on what is essentially my garden.

Yes, I agree. But if you don't know that's a thing to do, it's quite difficult - hence why I said skill gap, not lack of information. 

RAD is a confusing mess for some areas, particularly Pembrokeshire.

The BMC could definitely make it more user friendly, how much of a difference this would make I don't know.

Good, glad to hear that there was some signage.  Disappointed that it's been ignored.

I'm not sure not that they don't give a shit, it's often the case with younger climbers that they're just unaware of any of the concerns around access etc as they aren't in spaces where these issues are discussed - they may not own a guidebook as someone in their group has one and they all share, and they almost certainly don't spend any time on internet forums, the BMC website, RAD, logbooks etc.

Not knowing about something isn't the same as not giving a shit.  The BMC needs to works on it's social media outreach to help address this everything they do is a bit old hat.  It's like the social media strategy of an organisation 15 years ago.

I'm sure they know that and are always working with local area access teams on tweaks. On the IT side there are Council reports of updates said to done soonish on RAD front and back ends.

My preference would be more paid access staff in the BMC but that would need to be funded by more climbers and hillwalkers joining the organisation.

I'm sure some local areas could easily have improved communications that would help on the access front. It's been especially frustrating to me at local area meetings to see circulation lists sometimes blocked by GDPR issues that don't apply (according to my  friends who consult on the subject). Even where central BMC communications work perfectly (they don't always) it won't link to local partners and other stakeholders amd local key non member volunteers or prospective members who previously had normally received local invites and communications (like our Peak newsletter).

I'm speaking from personal experience and significant knowledge of the venues from a couple of decades plus of guidebook and access work.

On the former point, Lynn and I are not shy, we nearly always challenge politely when we witness serious issues (an armed forces abseil instructor threatened her with a complaint to the BMC once, on her challenging his choice of line down a classic hard slab reliant on pebbles.... soon after the forces  organisation agreed to desist from using that line). Occasionally newer climbers apologise (we, so far, never ever had a problem with such responses) but by far the  majority of those we challenge clearly knew the issues and sometimes replied aggressively. Challenging dog owners on dog banned crags gave rise to the most emotive responses, followed by challenges to instructors.

On knowing crags very well, quite a few bans happened where inexperienced climbers were very unlikely to go.

I know inexperienced climbers do cause problems sometimes, I'm sure that will include some at Wright's,  but I really doubt it's the main issue.

I strongly disagree.  I climbed for a few years, outdoors, before being aware/involved/interested in the BMC or UKC.  It was even later before I first heard of RAD.  For instance, I never knew nesting restrictions were a thing.  I assumed I was either allowed on the land or not.

I would suggest the most common path is where people first go out climbing with other people, who they know, who are more experienced.  Then maybe they buy their own kit and guidebooks and start going on their own, or with their new beginner friends.

I do my best to check what I can now, but I can understand why many others might not.

I'd suggest your experience is very rare in modern times even though it maybe was less so then. I'd add RAD didnt exist then. The rise of volume and quality of online information and improvement in guidebook information is simply hard to avoid. It's in the front of nearly all guidebooks and on most key crag descriptions, its on online resources, especially UKC logbooks (excepting maybe 27 crags...someone said its not linked anywhere on there... but I haven’t checked) so how do current newish climbers find what to climb without ignoring a highlighted section on access, that pretty much always mentions RAD?

I'd never blame those who are really new to the outdoors who genuinely don't know. I'd say more experienced friends are sometimes guilty of neglecting to emphasise access when introducing new climbers. Whatever,  the BMC work has been pretty vital and significant for over half a century snd obvious for anyone experienced who didn't live as a soloing hermit away from any climbing media.

Allthough that is all well and good and i don't disagree, in this case there are several bloody obvious signs on the approach to the crag and this really is a case of climbers not giving a sh*t. There's not a lot the BMC can do if people behave like this.

I feel really sad for the Churnet, its somewhere I have enjoyed as a, allthough sometimes esoteric, beautiful place over the years, but it has gone from a minor venue where you would never see anyone to being incredibly popular over the last 5 years and is being trashed as a result.

Organisations such as indoor bouldering walls that make money from climbing also have a duty to promote good outdoor practice and yet no wall/chain that I am aware of actively does this.

Alternatively, could additional paid access roles in the BMC be funded by shifting the emphasis in the organisation from supporting competitions/coaching (I count 6 paid roles on the BMC website) across to access roles? Or are the competitions related roles funded by ring-fenced sources that can't be re-prioritised?

Same, I'd been climbing for years before I even went anywhere near the BMC, UKC or any of the other sources Offwidth mentions.

Ring fenced for comps related funded staff, with a fixed contribution on top of all grants required from the sport governing body (the BMC in this case). Some critics argue that the BMC shouldn't be involved with such funding, but they lost votes by large majorities in BMC formal AGMs. Some of these seem to forget there are other Sport England funded posts in the BMC that relate to development and are nothing to do with comps.

Most BMC access work is 'self funded' by a small army of local and national volunteers and other work is cash funded from ACT the internal charity (Mend our Mountains being their biggest area of activity).

Yes I know who you are and all that you've done over the years.  

Who said anything about inexperienced climbers?  I'm talking about young, experienced climbers who started indoors and whom now climb outdoors and can probably outclimb you or I by quite some margin.  There's a huge and ever growing quantity of them, and they don't hang out in the same online spaces as you or I.

The BMC, and those involved in running it, are starting to look increasingly out of touch in the modern world and they're just not reaching enough young people effectively enough.  That's a problem that they need to address.

I applaud you on your wife's actions to inform others, but you are but two people, and only reaching the very tip of the iceberg - the BMC needs to get real and get into the spaces young people are so that they.

Think about it - what the No1 social media platform for young people today?  TikTok.

What's the BMCs TikTok feed like?  It's not on there. 

It's a good point, hopefully reasonably easily fixed, but it doesn't justify walking past the local signage.

The last annual report available was for 2021  (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=2147)  and shows the BMC contributes £327k towards comps and £453k towards access and conservation including management of owned sites. I’ll leave it to you to decide if you think that is an equitable split but each time I’ve questioned it I’ve been told it’s what the membership want. 

I agree the BMC needs to respond to the climbing community as a whole and is certainly looking at how to do that better for younger climbers. That doesn't mean you are right. It's really hard to not notice access being a major issue these days for any relatively experienced outdoor climbers, and the debates pretty much always links to the BMC and  RAD  (very much unlike when I started when we relied more on club info, signs and paper guidebooks).

Lynn and I don't only challenge older folk like us. The Kilnsey parking evidence and that of other more obscure crags showed clear poor behaviour despite knowing the issues.

Which doesn't include ACT funding and freely given volunteer time for Access etc.

Which is a bit like saying because the fourth sector provides food banks the govt can cut welfare spending!

If I was including other sources I’d have also pointed out that GB comps gets £500k grants as well but I was limiting myself to that which comes out BMC ‘income’ (for want of a better phrase). 

 Londoners in the wild ....

Hangings too good for em eh?

Well they need to stop looking and start doing something, and quick.  This page on the (dated, naturally) website hasn't been updated in over 3 years ferchrissakes https://www.thebmc.co.uk/social-media-and-the-bmc 

Laughable.

Never said you did only challenge older folk.  Classic counterpoint to point that's never been made.  You do that a lot.

I don't know what the local signage said, or what the specific breaches of access rules were. So take the below with a pinch of salt. 

If the local signage mirrored what was put on the RAD I think it was misleading. I think most people would interpret "Maximum group size of 6"  as saying not to go with more than 5 of my mates. 

What the owner actually wanted was no more than 6 people at the crag, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

If the sign did indeed say "Maximum group size of 6" I think any discussion about the right medium for disseminating access info is not relevant in this case, since the access info itself might have been incorrect.

FYI, the BMC is in the process of having a site re-build. I think everyone agrees the current site looks very dated!

The re-launch of the site should coincide with a lot of info/push across social media (no idea about TikTok though!). The BMC staff do seem to understand that their reach is not what it could or should be and are working to remedy that. They may seem out of touch due to the arms of the BMC with whom you interact but I would hope that they don't seem that way to "the youth".

(Volunteer at the BMC, not a paid staffer!)

Great news, the site rebuild is long overdue and I hope they see this as an opportunity to be able to tie in the relaunch with an overhaul of their presence in the digital space.  

I'm glad that they have recognised that they have an issue and I hope that they can come up with a good solution to remedy that. 

My main point in our multiple debates on this subject is these two numbers did not fairly represent the comparative work done by the BMC in the two areas and I think that is what matters. The BMC does a whole load of stuff representing many activities where most participants are not even members, but it is still democratically accountable to its members as a membership organisation. If members want change they should raise issues at area meetings and ask questions at the AGM (as some regularly do).

One thing I will say is every time the subject comes up in BMC meetings, I am clear these two comparative numbers on the accounts are very important to some members.

Good point. It's been partially updated today. The UKC logbook page is also updated although I'd prefer the access button to be red rather than Amber for now.

I totally agree.  I know the sign and it’s very obvious.

The point I was trying to make was that I did not agree with Offwidth’s view that climbers who didn’t read RAD didn’t care.  I wasn’t being specific to Wright’s Rock.

New climbers, experienced climbers, doubt local climbers . But who ever you are, you chose to walk past signs and ignored the rules. You then got defensive when challenged by the land owner. 

On behalf of the people who use the churnets climbing and respect it, 

Thank you very much. 

The climbing in the churnet has changed alot since the early 2000s . I doubt the next 20 years will be positive for the area either 

The local signage says "No more than 6 people IN TOTAL on this nature reserve at any time", and has to be passed when approaching the crag. I had already offered to producer an even larger sign with further detail on the rationale for the rules and a BMC logo, but this had yet to be agreed.

Your point about the RAD wording being misleading is valid though. This was written at the time Rob agreed the rules with the landowner and I assumed they had agreed the wording together, so hadn't tinkered with it. I should have checked and amended though, as it's ambiguous at best.

However, it seems that the latest issues have been at least in part due to people staying too late at the crag. I'm not aware of there being a breach of the number rule this time. I don't know all the details yet though.

Jon

If you are aware of RAD (by whatever means including not knowing it is called RAD but a logbook link) and didn't read it, how would you be aware of any access agreement? Now, assuming the climber is unaware,  experienced or not, arriving at a sign and ignoring it is normally  bad. However assuming the sign was misread and the climber meets the climber friendly landowner: why would someone who made a series of genuine mistakes start getting defensive and not apologise and leave. None of your argument makes sense for the problems at Wright's.

There is a good reason inexperienced climbers might not know about access issues and how to avoid them.  In my experience, meeting them on the crag, such people apologise say they will check in future (and I'd trust them). My issue is with experienced entitled idiots who don't care,  and as I said there is overwhelming evidence these people exist and have risked or lost us access on numerous occasions at multiple venues and denying this or digging for viable excuses seems weird.

Talking about our experiences when RAD didn't exist (nor did most other online information) seems largely irrelevant. The world is different now. 

The thread has been useful in highlighting, for people who care, how to avoid similar problems in future and why RAD use (directly or through logbooks) is important. Plus, if we regain access, for better wording on RAD and signs. My worry is the number of idiots seems to be growing and they still won't care.

GDPR issues were definitely causing frustration for tech committee, a WhatsApp group has worked well to mitigate these issues.

I wasn't referring specifically to Wright's with my reply - it was just your view that every experienced climbers would be aware of RAD (in general) and my view was that I think many people would not have been aware, including some climbers many years into their climbing.

I'm not happy about access being revoked and I fully expect that it was because some people have been repeatedly breaking the rules.  I definitely wouldn't want to defend any rulebreakers.  Even if they missed all the online and written access info, the sign it clear and unmissable.

I was very much looking forward to climbing there someday.  I went once and it was damp, so had a walk round and went elsewhere instead.

I have spoken to one well known slightly older climber, about loss of access at a different crag. His attitude at that time was that when he wanted to climb there he would take a pair of wire cutters to the barbed wire fence. My response was to tell that if he did I would print his name in block capitals on this site, send it to the BMC, and inform every one I knew, what he had done, and I have a big mouth!

So far he has not been there, but there are people, experience and well known, who have the attitude that it is a free country and if they want to go on land it is their right!

Hope fully negotiations for Wrights and the other crag are successful. Good luck Jon with the negotiations.

Sticking the knife in a bit but I note that website is lacking responsive design features that I would expect on any modern website. It's designed to be viewed on a desktop but, as of last year I believe, the majority of web browsing now occurs on smartphones.

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/crag_access/wrights_rocks_access_lost-759...

It's an attitude that's not completely unreasonable in certain contexts, but bouldering in someone's back garden is not the Kinder Mass Trespass.

There is. undoubtedly, a significant cohort of primarily indoor climbers who are starting to dip their toe into outdoor climbing, and don't have much (if any) understanding of the subtleties of access.  Of that cohort, a fair percentage will be young, boulderers, and from the SE, so I can se how an area like the Churnet is going to be particularly vulnerable.

I've just downloaded the relevant area on the RockFax app, and yes, you can get all the way to the problem descriptions without any hint of a suggestion that there are any access issues at all.  If this is your only source of information, you're going to drive there with no clue that there's a problem.

Not that this is any excuse whatsoever for seeing the signage at the crag, and choosing to ignore it.  But it's easy to anticipate that a certain type of person is going to think that they've just driven for three hours to get here so they're damned if they're going to turn around just because there are already six people here.

As someone about to open a bouldering wall in the SE, what do you think I should be doing about this?  Genuine question.  I'm thinking about running indoor-> outdoor trips to introduce people who've not climbed outdoors, and that's an obvious way to talk to them about access and the importance of checking the RAD.  But beyond that... posters?  Leaflets?  Not sure how much attention they'd get.

I applaud your will to improve the situation. I hate to sound like a grumpy old man but there's definitely a cohort of 'strong but clueless' venturing out for early trips. I was one once (bar the strong bit). 

Everyone at your wall will be going through some sort of induction probably, ideal to mention 'the outdoors' then. Captive audience, wanting to get signed off. BUT 70% may never climb much outdoors, so probably the wrong time in their trajectory. I think the best you can hope for is 'come and talk to us when you're ready to go outside'. And keeping feeding that information gap on your socials, posters, staff briefings, etc. 

Here in the North West, we have plenty of local sandstone that's super vulnerable in the damp. You'd be surprised how even some regular outdoor climbers don't really get the problem. Keep hammering away, even at the risk of being the fun police. The rock deserves it. It's mindset shift from indoors to outdoors 'this stuff is here to entertain me, when's the next reset' > 'respect the rock, immerse yourself in climbing culture, the rock doesn't grow back'. I'll bore off now.

I suspect this is a big part of the problem in some places. Because it's an attitude that's fairly deeply embedded in parts of the community, and it's appropriate in some circumstances. Not here, evidently. But the line can sometimes be unclear.

We all know that there are crags where access is "banned" and the guidebook says the routes are only included "for the historical record" but they're regularly climbed at and it doesn't cause a problem. Sometimes the landowner thinks they'll reduce their liability by stating there's a ban but doesn't really care. Sometimes it's a genuine attempt at a complete ban but it's so unreasonable that nobody respects it and there's nothing to lose because the door's completely shut anyway.

For the parts of the community that are familiar with that, it's hard to know what words to use to say "no, we really mean it on this one".

And again, I don't think that should apply here. It's clearly a very different situation. But maybe people aren't recognising that, and I don't know how you change that. The BMC signs should make it pretty clear though, so maybe I'm being too charitable and people are just awful.

We already decided it was the Londoners' fault so it's highly likely.....

I might be able to help getting some stuff.. email me through UKC. Will certainly discuss getting some support generally. Helping indoor climbers who want to go outdoors transition ethically is a focus at present.

Always nice to have an easy scapegoat, but life is rarely that simple.

I think you’ve raised a really good point there. If a group are going climbing outside and they’ve no clue that access issues/agreements are even a thing it’s really going to reduce the likelihood that a sign is going to turn them round after a long drive. 

If they at least knew it’s a “thing” they would have it on their radar, maybe have a plan b, maybe be a bit more like likely to sack it off as a bad job.

That’s why these conversations need to be had , and access issues referred to in spaces where they hang out online; and in real life in your upcoming bouldering wall. 

I think you’re right to be thinking about it, and there no one strategy that will work, but just drip feeding over many different mediums so everything you mention, plus online, plus in person etc. it’s about putting it in peoples minds via osmosis rather than a sledge hammer… Make them feel like looking at RAD IS something it’s occurred to them to do rather than something someone told them they ought to?!

I know... I climbed with a londoner at Windgather last week.... she sang on lead!... volunteered to organise wall discounts for poor climbers from minority ethnic backgrounds... had very different priorities from the average poster here.... just not 'one of us'

I think that it's probably a combination of indoor climbing becoming a thing in it's own right, and bouldering having such a low equipment requirement. 

20 or 30 years ago, climbing walls were where you went because you couldn't go outside, and the cohort of climbers who only climbed indoors was small. And if you wanted to climb trad outdoors, you'd want to join a club or at least apprentice yourself to an experienced climber. 

Now we have a lot of people who are getting really strong indoors, and when they decide they'd like to try this weird outdoors thing, well, they've already got their shoes and they've downloaded the RockFax app. That's all they need. There's no particular pressure on them to make the shift to outdoors via an experienced climber. So it's not surprising that the necessary culture of respecting the rock itself and the access issues is not getting handed down.

Offwidth - I'll drop you a line when I get a moment.

It doesn't help where RAD clearly states (another closed crag) that access is banned but then suggest that climbers ignore the ban, and climb anyway 😂

It also doesn't help that there are numerous "banned" according to RAD and this site, then when you jump on the logbook for them you see a bunch of recent ticks and comments about what a great time people have had on the route.

Would tend to make people think access is officially banned, but y'know, actually fine.

I grew up skateboarding, there was no park anywhere near where I lived so we skated spots where skateboarding was banned all the time, got kicked off by security and police all the time, and kept going back.  We didn't care, we were already banned, what were they going to do, ban us again? 

There was no chance the police would arrest us, they couldn't be arsed.

Perhaps some people take the same approach to climbing?  

Of course they do, which is sometimes the reasonable response. Context is key.

Disused quarry, go for it.

Overlooked by somebody's garden, maybe not, especially if there's a sign detailing when it's ok and when it's not.

Exactly!  There, that wasn't so difficult was it?

There are ~1700 crags in England alone on the RAD. One access officer (with help from area reps), along with many other tasks keeps these up to date. It's helpful if you spot errors like this to email the local area rep or the access officer as they're undoubtedly unaware of the mistake, and they'll then correct it. 

Artificial wall climbing is a thing in itself now.  Most people at walls probably never go outside.  It's not just about winter training any more.

So what? Banned can mean many things, from an owner worried about liability who doesnt formally want climbers there but 'turns a blind eye', through to an area where climbers could damage a rare and important ecology. As someone said above: context is everything.

That's up to the individual and the context. Actually fine at one end of the spectrum to a disaster for the climbing community at the other.

What kids do who can't travel is a bit different from climbers crossing the country in cars. Still, if you lost a handy small venue where skating was tolerated, by being an arse, I bet it would have pissed off your mates.

You can't be arrested for just trespassing.

Where climbing on the banned crag has no additional access risks and no other concerns like ecology,  there are few problems. Where the banned crag has important ecology that can't be disturbed or say rare and delicate geology, there are big concerns and the community would likely suffer. Arguably, where the landowner is the only issue, the most sensitive and important crags for using RAD are those that risk a ban if agreements are breached or those where a negotiated solution to a ban looks possible soon.

At the risk of provoking ire, it doesn't seem surprising that climbers have broken the rules when they are so elaborate. A lot of people seem to be concerned on here to disparage other climbers whilst lauding the "reasonableness" of the landowner and fretting about his garden looking onto the crag...

Well, there are some trees in a dell below the yard of my rented house which are full of beautiful birds, including owls and woodpeckers. And the dell often gets filled in the daytime with teenagers bunking school, or else regularly by some sort of "forest school" type event, where adults put up tarps and play loud games with children. And the birds disappear and I can barely sit in the yard and quietly mope due to the racket: "fill the bucket, fill the bucket" or teenage boys rapping along to grime tunes. But, see, I don't own that land so I have to just tolerate the existence and needs of other human beings...

Oh to own vast swathes of land and just cancel people left, right and centre! And claim that my intolerance was actually out of concern for nature and, after all, hadn't I been generous in allowing people to use the dell providing they were absolutely silent and walked in single file without loitering...? Oh to be a landlord! What a joy that would be...!

Yes I get it.  Some places are banned but fine, some places are banned but not fine.  That's exactly my point.  The question is how we get that message out to people who aren't on here, don't go the BMC meets and aren't on anyone's radar.

Not sure people wo aren't aware of access issues etc are going to fully cognisant of the nuance and caveats you've outlined.

RAD alone can't get that message out as a) Not everybody goes on there / knows about it and b) says they're all banned.  There no "banned but you're ok to ignore that" category on there I don't think?!

And no, you can't get arrested for trespass, but the section something or other public order is the old bill's go to for nicking you for, well nothing really, and they're not shy of using it when they're in the mood.  Seen them do that to many times.

Well, after the Revolution we can put you in charge of defining what reasonable public access might be, but, until then, we are stuck with people having a perfect right to prevent people they don't know climbing in their garden.  I think even Nick Hayes might not have a problem with that.

As it happens, I have a public footpath running through mine. 

What could reasonably be considered someone's garden will need some thought before we get anywhere near a revolution given Labour's recent policy announcement.

Thanks for the reminder, Dave, of another great benefit of being a landlord: having a ready and willing army of sycophants to defend my every edict. "Well, you pour your bleeding heart out all you like, but CWitter had a perfect right to ban those girl guides from using the dell: don't you realise he could hear them singing Frère Jacques from his kitchen?!"

What argument are you making? That the landowner shouldn't object to people climbing in his garden? That he should move somewhen else?

How about people just don't be dickheads?

I think his point is more towards the concept of 'garden', as opposed to land owned. Or at least with regards what a normal person would think of when talking about someone's back garden.

For illustration, second photo here shows 'the garden'. https://www.staffordshire-live.co.uk/news/burton-news/gallery/heres-what-wo...

Wright's rock is about twice the distance from the edge of the photo in the woods (nearly in line with the navigation arrow)

Still, his land his rules i guess

(Edit)

Snippet of the description in the sales brochure:

Outside

The garden and grounds adjoining the house extend to about 2 ¼ acres and are partly enclosed by stone walling and the remaining with dog proof fencing. There are in and out drives, both with electrically controlled entrance gates and a side drive leads to a levelled area which was used as a site for a temporary mobile home whilst the new house was in the course of construction. This area might now be suitable for an agricultural or stable building for example, subject to any necessary planning consents.

The Land

This lies to the west of the house and extends to about 15 acres with undulating grassland and wooded areas which include a large Rock outcrop known as Wright’s rock. It provides an excellent amenity and leisure area as well as being ideal for walking with dogs, but could also provide grazing for livestock as previous owners have done. A footpath crosses the land.

They have to use something to climb and everything modern (apart from maybe 27 Crags) links to RAD and the nuance is often clear enough on the information given....and if in any doubt there are always a majority of places that are not banned at all. As I say again, I don't buy there are large numbers of recently experienced climbers in 2023 ignorant of access issues, unless they are like Mr Magoo or climbing detached from climbing social media and relying on someone even more experienced (who should be talking about it). 

New inexperienced outdoor climbers sometimes mess up on access  (especially bringing a dog where they are banned ) but they will rarely do so on crags where that is important that are without signage.

Just look at all the UKC debates...I think too many people overblow a scale of problem that is really small in reality (risks to access of new climbers to the outdoors) and talk down another (a tiny minority of experienced idiots) that are evidenced (by local access reps) as really causing us major access issues on few venues. I see the main problem with climbers new to the outdoors being around poor practice  (but again the BMC, climbing websites, clubs, instructors and even many walls try and do their best to educate)

That certainly puts in into perspective. I suspect even the most obnoxious boulderers have less of an impact on the landowner than the girl guides below CWitter's back door.

I appreciate the work that access reps do and that diplomacy can be difficult, and I also appreciate that it's important not to inflame things on public forums like this. However, some of the attitudes on display in this thread leave me feeling a bit mucky - the right to roam was hard fought for and won by people who weren't prepared to bow and scrape and doff their caps. The idea that 17 acres of land surrounding a house can be considered a private garden is frankly pretty disgusting considering how little private space so many millions of people in the country have.

Mentioning gardens in debates about access feels like a bit of an underhand tactic, an appeal to emotion. After all, most people have very limited outdoor space of their own, if any, so the idea of having ramblers passing through what little they have is quite alarming. Making the implicit comparison between a 17 acre estate and a patch of lawn out the back of someone's house is completely disingenuous.

Obviously none of this is a defence of poor behaviour from climbers or anyone else, but as a matter of principle I don't think any one person should have the right to exclude others from such a large area of land.

That's possibly being a bit unfair to the landowner who already allows ramblers, detectorists and anglers onto the land. The issue with climbers specifically seems to be the numbers being incompatible with setting the area up as an SSSI.

Steady on, old bean.

All things in moderation. Including literacy.

Nail. Head. Well aimed!

I mean... you're kind of disproving your own argument here, aren't you?

How so? Spell it out for me.

I mean, for a start, it's not a garden in any meaningful sense of the word

Granted, but the landowner claims to be creating a nature reserve in the area. What do you think he should do? Just put up with antisocial behaviour, no matter how obnoxious? What would you do in his place?

In this case there was access - pretty good access - but it got spaffed for everyone because some berks decided their lamping sessions were more important

Could you explain to me how someone standing in front of a Boulder, having borrowed their mates book and looking at the relevant page (like I mentioned upthread) links back to RAD?

It may do at some page at the start of the book but they’re not going to see that, much less, see it, get out their phone, look up said Boulder then tell their mates that they all have to leave as this thing they’ve never heard of says they have to. Hardly mister Magoo is it?

Even if they did, could you explain to me how they’re meant to tell the difference between the banned but actually ok places, and the banned but not ok places? Is there some kind of indicator on RAD that makes this clear to the uninitiated?  

Also UKC threads are no indicator of the wider climbing community at all. It’s small unrepresentative sample of climbers. A small percentage of a small percentage. You might as well say look how much the British people wanted brexit by pouting to support for it at a Conservative party conference.

F uck me. Glad I wasn't there.

Anti-what now? What actually happened? Dates and times please. The thing I find obnoxious is that people like you seem to get so much pleasure out of knifing other climbers in the back, calling them dkheads and going all New Labour on their asses ("antisocial behaviour is clearly a scourge... blah fking blah")...

And I also find it obnoxious that someone can own this land in the first place. Hey, I have to put up with people being loud and obnoxious all the time, but I don't have the privilege or illusion of thinking I get to dictate how other people behave in my neighbourhood. My local park, 2 mins walk away, hosted a 3-day festival... Man, I just had to put up with that sht...

Get over yourself.

And, by the by, when I say people like Planet Marshall are sticking the knife in climbers backs, I also mean Natalie Berry and UKC for placing the blame on "rule-breaking climbers", rather than reporting this story in a neutral and objective way. Utter disgrace.

*polling for

Not pouting to, bloody auto correct!

If that's the banned crag scenario it clearly not at Wright's and the person who owns the book should know better.

No it's not, its an inexperienced climbers with someone who should know better.

It doesn't matter. If in doubt don't visit banned crags and go somewhere else nearby. It's hardly like thats a major disadvantage anywhere in the UK.

Not even worth a comment.

I think maybe you should take a break from social media for a bit.

Does that mean that she was on lead vocals?

17 acres is hardly an estate or large area of land. It works out at a roughly 260m x 260m square of land, so more like a field. 

I'd take the point if this was some estate with hundreds/thousands of acres of land but this would be the size of a typical smallholding near me. 

You’ve answered none of the questions save from couple of vague “should know better” assertion without explaining why or how they should. 

Just unsubstantiated opinion really….

I have sympathy for what you say where landowners are being entitled shits who won't negotiate. Jim had what looks like pretty honourable intentions for his land, that could accommodate some climber visits and tried to set up a workable arrangement, then tried again.

https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,31415.50.html#msg665434

https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,31415.50.html#msg677191

I did see on the BMC's Instagram 'Reels' (Instagram's answer to Tiktok) a video about 'inclusivity in the outdoors'. Albeit an important issue, I am surprised that access (especially to contentious bouldering crags where often young people go) doesn't play a more prominent role on the BMC's feed. This is the most likely place where young people would see such information. If we want the outdoors to be more inclusive, we need to makes sure the outdoors is still accessible-to anyone.

Yeah there’s not much in there re this. And their attempts at trying to make the kind of content that is popular on these kinds of platforms are embarrassing.

I mean really? Who put this out and thought yeah, that’s decent that, probably go viral it’s so funny https://www.instagram.com/reel/CpNisU6Adsq/?igshid=ZWQyN2ExYTkwZQ==

Even the message it’s trying to get across is cringe “Don’t be whack”

What do the mean by that? And “whack” is from when? Like the mid 90s?! 

Just so, so laughably bad.

I prefer my opinions to be substantiated. In the case of losing access to crags I know, bad behaviour from experienced climbers, who should know better, are the main issue we face for now, as evidenced by local access volunteers who dedicate masses of their time to such work.

I am confused how the points you seem to be trying to get over on this thread relate to Wright's... a rare venue with access sensitivity, where newish climbers actually visit and where some information on RAD might not have been ideal; this is because the local access view is clear: too many climbers were ignoring signs, some arguing with the landowner; locks were broken and signs on the crag were removed.

I never blame those new to the outdoors. I'm even sympathetic to newish good outdoor climbers, who for some reason, genuinely (if mysteriously) have never been aware of access issues. Climbers like these don't seem to be the problem, from those who know best on why access is lost.

There you go, giving people like this names and humanising them.  Class wars only work if landowners fit into some lazy, working class climber-hating stereotype!

Just when I was warming to you, you go and spoil it!  

Some good discussion there and here. And we all owe you and everyone who's ever worked on this stuff a big thanks.

My 2p: If we filter out all the stuff we can't affect and debates about what size garden makes one 'the landed gentry' and distill it down to feasible changes that might have a positive effect, what I'm taking away is that some things that could potentially make this better are:

• More prominent access notifications on rocfax app and UKC crag pages
• Some delineation in banned crags on the RAD between "It's f****d. Ideally stay away, keep a low profile, move on if you get collared and don't give climbers a bad name, but there's nothing to lose." and "There's still hope here, don't ruin it". Obviously with better wording.
• A giant wall round the M25

Any appetite? What are the downsides? I think we should crack on with #3 anyway....

That said, looking at hoghton and this, it may be that we just can't have nice things.

Second point is a difficult one to achieve. The BMC can’t on one hand have a database indicating to people it’s ok to go climb at venues where it’s banned, and at the same time negotiate access agreements with landowners whom expect the agreements to be adhered to.

Not sure what the solution is.  Maybe spin RAD off as a separate entity, update the UI (it’s poor anyway) and remove BMC branding then be more explicit about what’s “banned” and what’s really banned.  This will never happen.

M25 wall a more likely proposition, though the natural barrier presented by the line of stationary cars may negate the need for a wall at some parts of the circuit.

Late-ish Friday night posting - the creative juice are flowing and we get accusations of people not only knifing climbers in the back, but enjoying it whilst they do the knifing. 

I've been thinking about that line this morning and on reflection have decided its bollocks, and that you are - by yelling at fellow climbers and criticising them - playing into the hands of anyone who wants to restrict climbing access. We don't live in a socialist idyll - a shame, but we don't. We do live in a country where there are laws that include property rights and environmental protections. Some of them are crappy or are used badly but they are where we are and can potentially be changed by campaigning. 

Within those laws and norms there was access to this crag. Now there isn't. The people who didn't follow the access rules have done nothing to increase the chance of more open access to all for all crags. Rather they've just lost access for everyone else to this crag. I can't really see them as some savagely oppressed vanguard of the proletariat. More just dicks. 

Well a bad football manager, when their team has lost, will say something along the lines of “we can here with a plan but the players didn’t stick to it, then individual errors cost us and we lost the match”

A good football manager will see their players not sticking to the plan and making those errors and look at why they happened - are the players clear on their instructions, have they been trained right, are they tired, is their mindset correct, have I created an atmosphere in which standards have been allowed to slip, are there off the field issues etc. they will do everything they can no not foster an atmosphere where the team will be allowed to fail again.

Do you want to be Steve Bruce or Pep Guardiola?  

Whilst there are no doubt discussions to be had about the rights and wrongs of private ownership, and about the extent of public rights of access to land, for the time being we have to live in the world as it is and not as you would like it to be. In that world we have to recognise that in many places where we climb we have to rely on the tolerance of the people who own them.  Most of the time we are tolerated, and the number of places which are restricted is relatively small (and many restrictions are to protect birds or other environmental reasons). 

In this case the landowner was willing to allow climbing, subject only to some reasonable conditions which were clearly signed. Ignoring those conditions wasn't a political protest which might ultimately lead to better access for all, it was a selfish act which has rebounded against not only the perpetrators but the whole climbing community.

Quite apart from the loss of this venue, it sends a message that climbers can't be trusted to adhere to access agreements (when in fact the vast majority of climbers respect them).  That really doesn't help the BMC to protect our interests when negotiating with landowners.

For information needs... I think we are broadly where we need to be: the core being a well linked database that is updated as efficiently as reasonably possible;  backed by guidebook and Ap summaries; emphasised on public news and discussion on climbing webites; and many local volunteers talking to landowners and placing signage where appropriate. From a system quality perspective, enhancement is always an ongoing process but overblowing minor issues and misrepresenting major issues (especially those outwith the system as being due to the system) really doesn't help us improve access.

As an example of misrepresentarion, where is there any evidence that wording on banned crags on RAD is causing real access negotiation problems? 

The idea of removing BMC branding seems nuts: the BMC is a membership organisation working on behalf of all climbers, spending member's money to help maximise access subject to reasonable constraints. What possible benefits could come from hiding this?

As part of enhancement that isn't already planned: on particularly sensitive crags, where known pressures mean access could easily be lost, I think we may benefit from having a new category on RAD to highlight such crags; and if this can be done,  for the UKC logbooks and Rockfax Aps to also emphasise this category.

On education, there are already many resources that emphasise access related issues but the evidence from those local access volunteers, who would know best, is this isn't the main problem on risking or losing us access. The most common problems are down to a small minority of entitled experienced climbers who should know better.

Although I get the climbing humour, I don't think the London points are even slightly fair. There is no evidence I'm aware of that those risking or losing us access on sensitive crags are more commonly from London. Blanket blaming groups of climbers who don't even seem to contain more problem climbers than average helps no one.

If there were prizes for terrible analogies that would deserve one.

No there isn’t any evidence for that as a) I was talking about a hypothetical situation that could arise if the BMC RAD database were seen to be indicating users can go climbing at some banned venues, which it currently does not 

and b) I’d have to be involved in access negotiations to have such evidence, which you and I both know I’m not. A silly question that.

I’m not suggesting merely removing BMC branding I’m suggesting the BMC does the access negotiation and the info is published by a third party, allowing it to be more candid. Like I said though, this will never happen. 

Lastly I don’t think you did get the climbing humour. I’m a Londoner. It was a joke.

Says it all....well done UKC.

youtube.com/watch?v=w41a3Ri7sYg&

I think there's scope for a "Rob Greenwood brushing holds in slow motion" channel.

This is really good. Well done Rob and UKC.

I'd like to add that, having spoken to the landowner, one of the things that really seemed to have irked him is when he's approached "climbers" who have been breaking the agreed access, they haven't left but instead tried to enter philosophical debates with him about land ownership and have said they'll happily climb until the police come etc... It doesn't take many of these encounters to really knacker a relationship.

One thing that really annoys me at popular crags is when huge groups turn up to areas that are already occupied by others and proceed to set up there regardless and crowd everyone else out. Relevantly this happened to us and another couple at Churnet sharing a small block amicably yesterday. 

Presumably the wankers who take that attitude will continue to climb at the crag, irrespective of the withdrawal of the access agreement?

There are some selfish bastards around.

I see what you and everyone else is saying, but my perspective is that people in this thread are accusing climbers of getting the crag banned by allegedly failing to follow some very restrictive rules, rather than putting the blame where it belongs with the landowner who feels entitled to deny access to an important asset enjoyed by many people... people who usually don't actually own and therefore have access to open space (even a garden). When even those forums and bodies that claim to represent climbers are so quick to turn on other climbers it's really telling and chilling. Imagine if the Tories get in, instead of Labour, and give landowners the right to prosecute trespassers... It seems that more than half this thread will be clamouring to prosecute other "selfish" climbers...

Sure, respect access agreements because we don't live in an ideal world - and also, sometimes there are good reasons for agreements, e.g. protecting the environment, rare plants, birds, or other users. But, if a landowner denies access to a crag we should be able to call this by its name, rather than pointing fingers at each other and blaming Londoners, novices, indoor climbers, beanie wearers, students, people who are against private ownership, socialists, and "dickheads".

Jim - apparently - is the one who decided to block access and in my view that is wrong, even if some over enthusiastic boulders occasionally bend or break the rules.

Doesn't bother me as long as people are being friendly, encouraging and allowing everyone their turn.  But then I'm quite a chatty fella who likes talking to people and having a laugh at the crag. 

However, I appreciate that some people are from Yorkshire.

Please read this and Howard J's posts.

And banning those that do follow the agreements will solve this how?

those that are going to do this will still do this regardless.

So, we should stick to the access agreements, but be careful not even to criticise people who break them, resulting in loss of access for everyone.

I don't know what the specific incidents were that finally precipitated the current ban but I can imagine how I would feel if I saw people trespassing outside the terms of a specific agreement - especially if they were there after dark and shining lamps about.  Perhaps you don't know what that all too often means in rural areas, and the sort of people usually involved.  My first action would be to call the police.  

The landowner doesn't feel entitled to deny access, he is entitled to.  Regardless of your opinion of the rights or wrongs of that, that's the law. 

However I'm on board with "rather than pointing fingers at each other and blaming Londoners, novices, indoor climbers, beanie wearers, students, people who are against private ownership, socialists, and "dickheads".  

But that doesn't mean that it's the landowner who is at fault!

I see what your saying and I'm not trying to annoy you, but the fact that people can't even admit that it is the landowner's fault that we can't access the crag because the landowner has decided to restrict access... says a lot about our political instincts and ideological blindspots.

To take a parallel example, imagine there is an inner city playpark used by children and some teenagers vandalise it. The council puts up a notice: due to persistent vandalism, this park is closed. Obviously, what the teenagers have done is not laudable, but deciding not to fix and reinstate the park, which is relied on by families with small children (and perhaps to provide some more suitable social spaces for the teenagers) is the council's fault. Attitudes on here are no different to commentors on the local newspaper story, demanding the teenagers are found and locked up or banned from going outside, or simply declaring that teenagers comprise a generation of selfish blah blah blah...

I find it really troublesome that climbers are so willing to defend the rights of private property owners.

Anyway, I'm not winning any friends and allies so I'll leave it at that and hope that Starmer doesn't immediately backtrack on right to roam legislation the minute the reactionary press declares "communist legislation leaves defenseless landowners open to sheep rustling and dogging in their back gardens"...

Sigh...

RAD entries aim to be factual, informative, and advisory. They lay out the facts on the ground, they may also give additional advice, and/or request certain actions are followed. The RAD is to explain the access situation as it is, and provide an individual with the information they need to make informed choices, with as clear an understanding as possible of what the consequences of their choices will be. Entries should be read with this understanding.

In this case the RAD included the rules as requested by the landowner, and stated the consequences of not following them.

Yeah, I understand what you’re getting at too, the way that the discussions on here have centred on “bad apples” in the climbing community rather than the restrictive landowner may seem slightly at odds with whose side climbers are on.

That said I dont think the park analogy applies as although the situation at Wrights is f****d, the BMC isn’t cursing the climbers and I’m sure the reps are doing what they can to try and reinstate it, though I think they may have a tough task on their hands.

Personally I don’t think the landowner has done anything wrong, he tried to make it work and got shafted. 

We can blame the landowner, we can blame the climbers. Me, I blame the culture and the communication. Where have we gone wrong in U.K. climbing culture and messaging where people thought it was fine to break the rules, and then when they got rumbled, try and argue with the landowner that they knew better than him?

Not sure your posts on this matter will have helped in that regard, but I appreciate the point you were making.

I know it's only Monday, but I think the title of self-important unrealistic unaware bollocks post of the week has been claimed.

T.

I thought climbing culture has always been viewed, even celebrated, as a bit subversive.

It's all good being subversive when there were a few hundred climbers in total. Now there's 10's of thousands, and with them the increase in pressures on venues such as this, where there wouldn't have been issues previously.

I find it highly ironic that you’re making out the landowner to be ‘entitled’ in the negative sense, yet fail to see how ‘entitled’ (also in the negative sense) you are by expecting free access to what would be every scrap of rock on every bit of land across the land.

It’s not even an important asset, it’s not a place that’s widely walkable or accessible on public transport for many so anyone visiting is highly likely to be driving. There are thousands of problems within 10-20 miles on crags where your right to climb is legally protected under CRoW. It’s a backwater and it’s loss is not even a minor scratch on the proverbial rock that we have. It’s only importance is in the mind of those who do (have!) visit. 

I think that view is probably a bit nostalgic, and maybe even rose tinted. Perhaps climbers view themselves that way, and maybe fifty years ago when climbing was a niche activity, the preserve of (exclusively male, obviously) Yorkshire plumbers and Cambridge graduates.

I wonder how many of the hundreds (thousands?) of people who pack out the Manchester Depot every week know that they are part of "climbing culture"?

That's because the clear evidence from local access officers is the behaviour of a small number of climbers has been the main issue (up to and including refusing to leave private land.... a potential waste of police time and must be close to aggravated trespass). A tiny minority of climbers would support such behaviour.

It's not done any such thing... I can see it open next year but with even more complex access. Many of the BMC volunteers I know are very unhappy with climbers refusing to leave when breaching an access arrangement agreed with someone who wanted climbing to continue on his land. Unlike your weird hypothetucal views on bans, not criticising such behaviour makes a concrete difference: future access negotiation on private land could be severely hindered.

Agreed.

I blame those who, have clearly done something wrong: a few bad apples. It's stuff all to do with UK climbing culture as a whole, it's a tiny selfish sub culture within climbing.

I see them as unhelpful but at least they are coherent.

No it doesn't, it's not some ideological battle at play here....

You seem to be completely missing the point that the landowner here has worked with the BMC and been providing access to his land but it's been spoilt by a small dickhead minority who haven't done the climbing fraternity any good at all....there are plenty of other spots in the area if you want a late night session and are in a larger group...

For reference - I said the BMC isn't cursing anybody, not is.

You're once again arguing against a point that hasn't been made.  You're consistent, that's for sure.

I do admit my prose is poor. Dyslexic and very busy at work, replies are often typed on my phone and not checked, I'll take that.

I think dismissing it as a few bad apples is disingenuous and lazily dismissive at that, to be honest. It’s the same old trope trotted out by the shooting community every time a raptor disappears (every other day it seems!) but I think it’s clear in both cases poor behaviour is actually more widespread than we’d like to admit internally. 

I think you may well be numerically right simply as a percentage.....that said I've done many stupid climbing related things when I was a youth ....but it was usually well out of the way and definitely not arguing the toss on some land like this....

There are just lots of climbers in easily accessible venues nowadays....a small minority ruining it for the rest just like people out camping, mountain biking etc ...a small but irritating minority...

I'm arguing a lot of BMC volunteers are cursing them. I certainly am.

Without trying to rewrite the entire political landscape, people could simply ask themselves: “have I made things better, or worse?”

So when I said the BMC, isn’t cursing climbers, and you replied, confusingly, with “they’ve done no such thing”

What you meant was the volunteers are cursing climbers (which goes without saying).

I’d stop questioning the coherence of other peoples posts mate…

Bizarre whataboutery to compare access bans with illegal wildlife persecution. 

Numerically,  game keeping has huge evidenced problems of illegal action, on many estates, and on aspects way beyond raptor persecution; it may be a minority of gamekeepers doing this, but it must be a sizable one. Prosecution of such illegal behaviour is incredibly difficult.

If the idiots who caused the ban at Wright's were more than a tiny minority then that would be evidenced on widespread venues on private land as well, and a lot more venues would be banned. It's very easy for a once sympathetic lanowner to become so frustrated that they ban climbing.

I wasn’t comparing them, I was explaining it was the same tired excuse used and lack of acceptance of self criticism within a community. Different things. On a Facebook group I was questioning some climbers less than desirable behaviour a while ago, and was met with a barrage of ‘oh but what about MTB’ers they do x, y and z’ and the like. It just showed what reluctance there was to accept that climbers, as a whole, can do any wrong - let alone discuss it and improve the issue. Confronting a landowner with ‘oh but what about the MTB’ers’ when they question your behaviour as a climber wouldn’t fly, it’d look petulant and childish. We should be acknowledge and confronting issues to give outside influences as little ammo as possible. 

Yeah right... like your earlier exceptionally childish post that got deleted.

Gamekeepers' relatively common bad and illegal behaviour, widely organised by landowners on too many estates, is sadly very hard to prove in a prosecution. This has no sensible analogue to what happened at Wright's: where such shitty behaviour from climbers is rare and a ban (from someone who was a friend) is easy.

When I first read this news I thought " how can climbers be so selfish/ignorant to let this happen" 

The more I think about it I bet it's bullshit and it's just the entitled landowner using climbers as an excuse to close access to somewhere climbers have used for a very long time. 

I'm starting to get why you are so abrasive and obnoxious in 90% of your posts.

Maybe instead of "thinking about it" you could actually *find out* and you will soon discover that this is bollocks.

What post was that? 

Again you are still trying to make out like I was equating gamekeepers with badly behaved climbers, but I’m not. See past your own bias.

I guess you were there when whatever happened then? 

My revised thought must be wrong if you witnessed it. I do apologise 

I appreciate your feedback. Next time people post that their fellow climbers are "dickheads" who have "selfishly fked it for other climbers", through some minor and understandable misbehaviour, I will just do what you and everyone else does and round on them mercilessly, rather than sticking up for principles such as equality, fraternity and liberty.

Arguing that we should live in a societal construct that we definitely don't but only as and when it suits you with someone who's asked you to leave their garden isn't "understandable" behaviour, it's being a dickhead.

Go visit a national trust garden, then when it gets to closing time instead of leaving, dig yourself in, get your megaphone out and stick up for principles of equality, fraternity and liberty there. Let me know how it goes, especially whether anyone thinks you're a dickhead.

I don't see you sticking up for the majority (as acknowledged by the landlord) of climbers who have abided by the access arrangements, would like to climb at Wright's Rocks, and now cannot.

Your sense of "fraternity" for them seems decidedly lacking.

I suggested precisely that it was wrong for the landowner to block climbers from the crag, despite it being a minority of climbers who break his onerous access agreement. I'm not quite sure why you continue to fail to understand this. I anticipate that you will reply that the landowner "had no choice" because "dkheads were lamping in his garden". I presume you feel repetition is a substitute for thought.

Wright's Rocks is not a garden; wanting to climb at Wright's is understandable. Leaving when the landowner gets annoyed would definitely be advisable; suggesting that access is valued and you want to continue climbing there is also understandable and fair, if unlikely to make the situation better. Banning climbers is understandable but not fair; it is the wrong decision.

Of course, I see the very obvious point that breaking an access agreement is likely to lead to loss of access... But, my point from the start to the finish has been that the access agreement was overly onerous; that it's not fair that a landowner can ban climbers due to them breaking such an agreement; that people who don't own land don't get to ban people for irritating them; that climbers, whilst understanding the realities and necessary compromises of the situation, should be able to see that the fault here lies with a society thay allows some people to block access to important assets simply because it causes them minor disturbance; and that the instinct to blame "selfish" individuals is wrong, when it is this basic inequality that is at the heart of this.

I shouldn't have posted the original comment or any subsequent replies, knowing that most posters are just after a scapegoat to kick against, like frustrated children or violent mobs, but it irks me to be misrepresented. With that, I'm really off  because there's no point in me writing or reading any more in this thread, most of which has constituted nothing more than people virtue signalling by blaming other climbers and parroting the landowner's rationale for banning climbing.

Good luck everyone, enjoy the climbing season.

Banning climbers is perfectly fair, when they were more than accommodating in engaging and providing access voluntarily in the first place. What would be unfair is if a new landowner came in, refused all olive branches and stuck a massive fence up around the place.

It’s not an important asset. Stanage is an important asset. It’s a highly privileged asset that pretty much requires a vehicle to visit unless you’re very local. 

It's a piece of land attached to someone's residence that they want plants to grow in. How is it not a garden?

Property is theft.

I hereby sequester all of your private climbing equipment, and will DM you the address to which to send it. At your expense.

Life isn't fair.  We exist in a world that is not equal.  I don't think it's at all 'fair' that I have MS.  Nothing I can do about it though.  You think it isn't fair that some people own land and can stop you and others playing out on it with your friends.  Nothing you can do about that either, besides suck it up, move on and play somewhere else.

Describing things in terms of them being 'fair' or 'not fair' is to use language more suited to kids growing up, not discussion between adults.  

And that's something I can agree with you about.  

T.

Because it isn’t is it?

Regardless or not of whether you agree with the point C Witter is making, Wrights Rock isn’t in the garden of the house, you’re talking absolute rubbish to suggest it is.  Nobody with common sense would see it that way.

The house has a garden, and it also has some land in which Wrights rock is. Look, here’s the sales particulars. The garden and land are both described, in separate paragraphs, because they’re not the same thing https://media.onthemarket.com/properties/3025599/doc_0_0.pdf

FWIW I don’t particularly agree with C Witter’s feelings on this, but I’ll not sit here and see someone talk utter nonsense and not get called out in it by others just because they too don’t agree with him.  

 

The obvious answer is for the BMC to buy it. 

I very much doubt the owner is in a position of needing to sell, therefore wouldn’t be selling at anything like the going market rate as it’d come with unwanted consequences. Good use of BMC funds? Not many would agree.

Blimey, people didn't really think it was a serious suggestion?

I've DMd you Jamie