UKH

https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/climbing/climber-charles-ba...

Absolutely abhorrant, and long running pattern of appalling behaviour, and lots of big-name climbers don't look good; Honnold & Jorgeson in particular.

Utterly horrible.  

Horrendous.

Such a disturbing read. The numbers of missed opportunities to do something about him are staggering.

The failings fall very heavily on the criminal justice system. It sounds like a lot of people were taken in by him (including the women he abused unfortunately). Hopefully with all the evidence collected together he is prevented from harming anyone else and given treatment to address what sounds like some very heavy mental health issues.

Thanks for posting that. It’s a difficult and disturbing read; the climbing community doesn’t come out of it well. 

"She would come home from work to find her driveway sprinkled with rose petals, placed there by Barrett, ..."

Alarm bells instantly started ringing when I read that. Indicates over the top obsessiveness, to me anyway, not a good sign.

interesting that his early medication made him feel 'loopy' so he self-medicated with weed and alcohol. no mention of crystal meth anywhere in article- super for hard bouldering i would imagine and quite popular in the US?..

https://www.reddit.com/r/climbing/comments/1afv0qh/how_did_this_climber_get...

I actually couldn't finish reading the article, I felt sick. Such a horrendous story and shame some of the bigger names didn't call it out earlier

Lonnie Kauk called it out and got horrendous abuse and harassment. 

I don’t think we should concentrate on people not calling him out over the years.

Vile people like him are often good actors and skilled at covering things up. Hindsight’s a wonderful thing of course. As the article says, the climbing community is no better or worse than the wider public, I think it’s a fallacy to think otherwise. Maybe it is a lesson though, and it certainly made me reflect on a few things I’ve seen / heard.

The part that jumps out to me is how many missed opportunities there seem to have been from police and prosecutors to stop this behaviour. It’s not as if he wasn’t getting arrested etc. That was eye opening.

no excuse, but a high school full of 'gang bangers' isn't a good start to life. didn't know Krakauer had written a book about this ('Missoula')

It's a shame that the victims were not able to access your levels of insight and wisdom of the nature of potentially dangerous men. 

Did anyone else have to fight through a cookie pop-up to reject hundreds of 'legitimate interest' consents to get to the article? Or did you just go 'yeah, whatever'?

Terrible story of failings of justice and associated secure mental health systems (the article, not the cookies). The 'community' thing? Don't see it as any different to the rest of society; no better, no worse. We could all do to improve. I'm wondering if I've ever 'given the benefit of the doubt'.

Krakauer's book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula:_Rape_and_the_Justice_System_in_a_Co...

Its called love bombing. Its well known as a precursor to abuse.

Love bombing is where an abusive partner is bombarding ‘love’ onto their victim and is part of emotional abuse and coercive control. It could include excessive affection, excessive compliments, declarations of love, gifts and praise. It may also be wanting to move quickly into a commitment because they ‘can’t live without you’, showering of gifts or lavish treatment, and promises of a perfect life together.  

I expect it takes experience to understand the difference between head over heels in love and something that is a form of control.

“It was some of the best times of my life,” Hedlund says. “Until it wasn’t.”

Thankfully, Wolverine are publishing a new Bishop bouldering guidebook to replace Young and Barrett's, and it has my blessing as the original author (and researcher) of that guidebook.

Mick

Which is why abusers tend to target younger, more vulnerable people.

Yes read that, very good

The original comment by maggot was mansplain-y and glib, wholly insensitive given the serious nature of the abuses committed.  I should not have rolled sarcasm into my comment, however, it was not appropriate. 

If anyone is mansplaining, its me. So apologies there.

I couldn't get to the end of that read either. The psychology of those around this man is something I want to understand as it serves as a warning to us all that some of us could possibly do the same put in similar circumstances.

"No, not I! I hear us say but a few years ago I can remember a person who worked at a supplier I got on with very well was talked about as having a taste for underage girls. Many of us felt uncomfortable with the rumours as our working relationship with him was excellent, a warm and accomodating person, how could these stories be true? Next thing we hear is he gets 5 years for grooming underage girls. I felt sick. Whilst the rumours were nothing specific which sets it apart from this case, it does highlight that very charming people can in rare cases can be capable of extreme evil. A sobering read and important it's been published.

Perhaps not that rare a case given that the conviction rate for sex crimes is very low? 

Obviously that was a very unpleasant experience for you and your colleagues. I’ve had something similar, although in my case I was not particularly surprised. 

Thank you for sharing.

I'm not sure that I agree that we shouldn't focus on the response by the climbing community. Or that we should reassure ourselves that this is a rare case and climbers are good people.

Yes, people like him can frequently be charming and incredibly manipulative (this echoes horribly of someone I witnessed as a student behaving in some similar ways - again little done about it at all). I agree that an element of this derives from people generally wanting to think the best of other people. These instances are obviously for the courts to decide.

But women surely get disbelieved over offences like this so often, I'm not convinced this is an exception, nor am reassured that if this happened the climbing community would remotely have my back, least of all, avoid commenting on my youth and gullibility.

This terrifies me.

I suspect if we're honest with ourselves we can all think of comments and behaviours that we have witnessed and should have called out but didn't.

Abusers will do or say things in public that seem "off", but there will be ambiguity and it's human nature to shy away from making accusations and/or challenging a social group's perception of what's "banter" and what's definitely not.

This is obviously an extreme and shocking example, but I think we all need to be more ready to speak out.

This bit summed it up for me: 

'Wickwire recalls instances where other climbers lied about their ascents and were quickly banished. “No one would climb with them or believe what they said,” he points out. But when it came to stories about Barrett’s violence against women, people were too willing to look the other way—even after Barrett was arrested and a detailed indictment from a federal investigation was posted online.'

Let's face it, I've had multiple experiences of online climbing comment threads that have left me almost shaking from the pain of realising how much of the community doesn't just not get it - it is actively aggressive towards women who talk about the idea that there might be a societal problem.

I'd say the levels of sexual crime in the UK and the terrible prosecution records are up with the biggest horrific blights on modern UK life. Most people must know perpetrators. I think it's awful and am amazed dealing with it isn't a higher national priority.

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/

As an example:

"68,109 rapes were recorded by police between July 2022 and June 2023."

... other data shows only a small minority of rapes are reported.

"By the end of that 12-month period, charges had been brought in just 2.2% (1,498) of cases."

I don't know any perpetrators and as far as I am aware through talking to family, friends and work colleagues, etc. neither do they.
Do you know any?
 

how would you know? some people are very charismatic...

A politician's answer. Do you know any? I don't. If I did I'd hope I would do the correct thing.

Chances are you do, chances are I do, we just don't know it.

i know of a police officer who abused an activist. does this count?

That was an incredibly tough read. A couple of friends have had experiences with coercive partners and some of the patterns are familiar, especially the love bombing and the victims blaming themselves. I also have experience through work of sexually unacceptable behaviour being ignored through wilful donning of blinkers. 

I thought Honnold explained his side of things honestly, but Kauk is about the only person to come out of this without a bad smell. Climbing culture, especially with reference to the 'Old Guys, comes out looking like something you wouldn't want to be part of. 

For me, Barrett can spend as long as is necessary in jail waiting at the back of the queue for the help he clearly needs, because all of his victims are in more pressing need of help than he is.

Also from that Rape Crisis link:

"1 in 18 men have been raped or sexually assaulted as an adult (1.34 million men in total)

1 in 4 women have been raped or sexually assaulted as an adult (6.54 million women in total)

1 in 6 children have been sexually abused"

You may not know you know who committed such crimes but unless you are a hermit you statistically almost certainly must know perpetrators.

No. Climbers are people, a no better, no worse cross section of society. Excusing as you are is how this went on for so long.

People gain respect and status through being good at something. The celebrity is always seen as a nice guy due to their talents, where niceness is completely unrelated to ability. This happens across society, not just climbing, it is often evident here where he who climbs the hardest holds the most valuable opinion. Whillans, Haston, Burgess, Moon all celebrated and their misemeanors either lauded or ignored. I guess Saville is the ultimate example of using talent as a deflection.

We should focus on the response of the community, the lack of challenge helped allow the behaviour to proliferate.

Ability does not correlate with character, we like to think we are better than the celebrity obsessed gossip column devotees but are we really?

I think you've misunderstood me - I *don't* agree that we should reassure ourselves that 'climbers are good people'. Sounds like we're saying the same thing.

My apologies, I misinterpreted your post.

I'd question those stats. I wonder if I know *any* women who have never been harassed or assaulted. 

No worries.

Equally, I think Honnold gets an unfair ride in this due to his big name status. I am sure there are others of lesser media status who carry greater responsibility.

It works both ways.

Dougal Haston hit and killed someone when drunk driving. He went to prison didn't he? Even if not, hardly a misdemeanor. I'm not old enough to really remember, but was he really lauded after that?

With the exception of Whillans, I don't know what you are referring to in the other cases and I've been around climbing for a bit over 30 years - so I don't think that really proves the point you are trying to make. If you are suggesting they did things that really are only 'misdemeanors', i.e. something not very serious where no one got hurt, then this perhaps isn't the thread to bring it up on.

You are absolutely right, and this isn't an article about climbing. This horrific stuff is so common I'm amazed at this pearl-clutching going on among the UKC fraternity*.

My mother, my ex-wife, my current partner, five family members, at least two friends... That's a lot of women to have suffered abuse, stalking, assault and rape. That's ten women, eight within family. This shit is endemic, and if you've never looked past the tip of your nose, then hoorah for you.

I don't think the half of you are as blind as you declare.

*gendered word intended. 

I don't doubt that at all, but it said one in four had been raped or sexually assaulted, which presumably doesn't include harassment (I presume assault has to be something physical whereas harassment need not be).

You could better say the endemic of sexual violence in the UK (and the poor understanding of that and terrible rate of prosecution of that) is almost unimaginably awful; then all the harassment, coercive control etc, sit on top of those appalling statistics. I think that was the very valid point QotT was making.

In reply to Ennerdaleblonde:

This is by no means just a climbing thing, look at the stuff pro footballers get away with.

If that is the point she was intending to make, it would certainly have been very valid, but I don't think those stats needed questioning in order to make it.

In reply to Ennerdaleblonde:

At the risk of taking this thread away from the important discussion (male violence against women) I think trying to draw a line between Ben Moon doing some shoplifting in the 80s (which he talks about as stupid/ regrettable) and a violent rapist/ sexual predator is a bit much. Not saying he or those climbers in the 80s/90s were saints and the fast road driving in particular is not to be condoned, but it’s a long way from that to saying it forms part of the context for violence against women. I agree bad behaviour needs to be called out especially by friends/ within a small community but by equating lots of other less than ideal behaviours with violence against women I think it takes away from the central point of this case I.e. this guy was known to be violent towards women and many people made excuses/ disbelieved the victims. That’s the main point, not shoplifting some packets of crisps in dole age britain 40 years ago.  

I immediately saw her questioning as deliberately ironic.

To be fair, that would depend on the proportion of men who have committed rape or sexual assault, not on the proportion of women who have been victims. It may well, of course, still be true that we are all statistically likely to know perpetrators. 

Sorry, I'm not even sure what you mean by that. I just took it at face value. I think that if someone starts by saying they are questioning stats, then it is fair to assume they are doing so.

If you care about this national scandal, irony on the terrible progress to improvement becomes second nature.

If every perpetrator is responsible for sex crimes impacting on average 25 seperate women  (or men or children... and not overlapping) that's still of the order of 1% of the population. In practice that assumption is highly unlikely as a large proportion of cases are within relationships/families.

Sorry, I still don't really get why you would not take the statement at face value. Perhaps best to see if Q of T comes back and clarifies.

Yes, I have been trying to guess what the relevant proportion might be. No way of knowing without seeing the actual statistics (if they are in fact known). I was guessing about one in 25 but I might be wildly out.

Yes. Not sure why the back and forth on this - I meant exactly what I said. 

Of course the most minor of the offenses I mentioned does not equate to the horror we are discussing but the principle remains the same. Giving behavioural licence to someone because they are a talented climber, footballer or tiddlywinker is common and should not be.

I suspect there’s often a halo effect going on where people can’t think someone is capable of bad things when they are good at something. 

Unfortunately, yes. And, it was in climbing circles. And like others mentioned, none of us suspected, even though in hindsight there were some things that were off.

"Alarm bells instantly started ringing when I read that. Indicates over the top obsessiveness, to me anyway, not a good sign."

Not sure what's 'mansplain-y' about that to require the level of sneercasm you threw at Maggot.

The number of my many women friends who said they’d been sexually harassed or worse during #metoo suggests 1 in 25 is pretty out and not in the preferable direction. I thought I was ‘woke’ to this kind of thing but it was quite an eye opener.

Just to clarify, my complete guesstimate of 1 in 25 was for the proportion of men who have perpetrated sexual assault or worse (not including harassment short of assault). I have no reason to doubt the Rape Crisis statistic of 1 in 4 women who have been sexually assaulted or worse and that therefore a significantly higher proportion than 1 in 4 will have been sexually harassed or worse, quite possibly, as Q of T suggested, almost all women.

The 1 in 4 figure presumably comes from surveys of women. I imagine getting a reliable figure for the proportion of men who have perpetrated sexual assault or worse would be much more difficult, perhaps all but impossible.

Thanks. So why would you question the Rape Crisis figure of 1 in 4? Or is it that I am wrong to assume that there is a distinction between harassment and assault.

Is there any evidence that pro footballers get away with it more than any other group in society (if that is what you are suggesting)? If anything I wonder whether their public shaming in the press means they get away with it less lightly than many others.

I remember when Maradona died, I heard suggestions that his god-given footballing skills should not be celebrated because of his record of domestic abuse. It's a tricky one, but I'm not sure such "cancelling" makes sense. I actually think the media got it about right and did not minimise the abuse. Probably best not to avoid the facts either way; recognise achievement and talent while not playing down a person's flaws, however bad. I think this is how Whillans should be remembered.

Definitely. When he died his mountaineering achievements were celebrated in national mainstream news. He had gained his celebrity from the very high profile Bonington Everest SW Face expedition two years earlier. I may be wrong, but I don't think there was much, if any, mention of the drunk driving death (I certainly only registered that later).

That’s my recollection as well. There was no mention of the incident in his book. Also I remember reading , I can’t remember where, that he wore knuckledusters on a night out planning to fight and cause maximum damage.

Is there confusion arising between Dougal Haston and Stevie Haston? I knew about the drink driving death, but not the violence.  I have heard from reliable sources that Stevie Haston was violent at times.

Ah, I completely misunderstood you. Yes, getting an accurate figure will be nigh on impossible. I suspect that it is higher than most people think.

He broke someone’s leg in The Padarn. The context is from what I’ve heard from several reliable sources was that the ‘victim’ was a huge & notorious local bully who picked on climbers and had tried to run over one of Stevie’s friends that day. Live by the sword etc.

I think this was raised above more to shine a critical light on how many of the climbing community enjoy this kind of story rather than critique the perpetrators themselves.

Although it’s a valid discussion to have, I find it a bit diversionary in the context of a discussion about the actions carried out by Barrett.

Agree, but the poster appeared to suggest that Dougal Haston had been violent .

I’ve heard he (DH) was partial to a square go when he was younger, but lots of young men are like that. There are stories about him using karabiners as knuckledusters, I don’t know how true they are.

Anyway the thread is in danger of veering off from an important topic into a bunch of men frothing over toxic macho shit.

There are many parallels between the events I raised and Barret, that is why I raised them. Shitty behaviour tolerated and even celebrated due to the offenders status.

Were this not our culture then such events would be challenged more frequently and hopefully less prolific.

I don’t disagree but I didn’t really get your initial “look at what footballers do” other than it looking like whataboutery. Having read your subsequent posts, I don’t think that was your intent.

When you say “our culture” are you referring to the culture of climbers, the UK, the West in general? 
 

FWIW I see no difficulties in having a discussion about what this says about climbing culture specifically and society in general at the same time. The climbing culture one is useful here as it is the context where Barrett acted and more so that most people on here can probably relate to it more intimately than with wider society.

Edit: I won’t be able to reply for a while, maybe tomorrow.

This was not my initial reply and was intended to show that the problem also exists outside of climbing 

All, I used climbing for exemplars as this is a climbing forum. The celebrity halo exists in all walks of life.

Every special interest group likes to think of itself as a cut above normal society, in reality there is no difference.

No need to justify your actions, real life trumps all. Enjoy.

Horrific. Please could you put a content warning on this for graphic description of domestic violence, sexual abuse, childhood domestic abuse (maybe more, I couldn’t finish the article), as Outside hasn’t provided one. Thank you 

The OP won't be allowed to be edited now. And in any case, whilst the actual term "content warning" might not have been used, I think the title and the text of the post are pretty clear on that the article will be about.

There is the title of the thread...

Charlie Barrett sexual abuse scandal

and the title of the article..

How Did This Climber Get Away with So Much for So Long?

That is enough info, surely?

The article went into significantly more graphic detail than I was expecting based on the title. It made me cry. Thank you whoever at UKC put the warning on x

It's a horrific tale and one that expases massive failings by the US legal system.

However I'm not sure that it is fair to pick out and name specific climbers as you have. Especially when one of them has been Frank and honest in their reflections as to how they failed to see what was happening.

At the end of they day we should be able to rely on the law to see the facts unclouded by loyalties and friendships.

True, and my intention wasn't to scapegoat anymore than the article already does.

That being said, I am surprised neither Honnald or Jorgeson have still to make any statement, if only to clarify their ignorance of the situation, or acknowledging how hard it is to come to terms with one of your friends being shown to be a predator.

If it wasn't your intention, saying that Honnold and the other person in particular don't look good, definitely comes acoss as doing what it wasn't your intention to do. 

They might see things as, since they weren't involved other than knowing him as a fellow climber, that they don't have anything to answer for in giving a statement, but will comment if asked about it (which might be said to be a reasonable point of view).

I'm not sure that Honnold will make a statement tbh, he seems to have engaged with the journalist and given a pretty honest account of his knowledge of the situation.  eg.

"Honnold discussed that period with me at length in the summer of 2023. He mentioned that his friendship with Barrett was sporadic—“I would see Charlie once every few years for like a day or two,” he said—and acknowledged that he had a “blind spot” about him like many people did."

There's several more paragraphs in the article.

I'm not sure that Honnold will make a statement tbh, he seems to have engaged with the journalist and given a pretty honest account of his knowledge of the situation.  eg.

"Honnold discussed that period with me at length in the summer of 2023. He mentioned that his friendship with Barrett was sporadic—“I would see Charlie once every few years for like a day or two,” he said—and acknowledged that he had a “blind spot” about him like many people did."

There's several more paragraphs in the article.

So has commented when asked about it. A friend of a friend had to/decided to leave Sheffield after the 'alternative scene' didn't believe she'd been seriously sexually assaulted by a fellow who they'd partied and gone to festivals with etc, it seems Honnald has aknowledged his own blind fallibility and is accepting of reality, there's not a lot more that people can ask of him.

Would be interesting to see the outcome of similar data collection in the uk

I think people can catch us by surprise, and people can be given the benefit of the doubt from whom we know them to know. A friend of some friends, was a few years ago caught by some of those 'pedophile hunters' one can find videos of on youtube. I'd always found him slightly odd, and got the sense there was something hidden about him, a secret, but everybody who knew him much better than me was surprised (and dismayed) when a video of him surfaced on facebook being grilled about the nature of his messages to a decoy, and why he'd turned up at where they'd caught him. I'd ultimately decided that he must be alight and that it was probably just me, since decent friends found him to be okay. It turns out that even if one isn't sure what, it's worth taking note if a person comes across as having something hidden, I'd concluded he was probably just a little bit odd, or that I hadn't got to know him properly yet, it's often human nature to look for the best in people. I can only speak for myself, but I'm assuming it's the same for others as well, but it seems to be that if the 'thinking brain' can be disengaged, that the 'gut feeling brain' does an okay job of weighing people up, whatever it is which knows without one knowing quite how. 

I think the climbing community isn't any different to everybody else in liking to see and think the best.

That's a big leap to be making from one example. Plenty of people are actually just a bit odd without anything untoward going on and plenty of evil people come across as pleasant and charismatic. The lesson from the Charlie Barret story is surely to pay attention to actual evidence of bad behaviour and listen to victim's experiences rather than to start "listening to your gut" and judging harmless people for ways they come across that they're not even in control of. That way lies even more social exclusion for neurodivergent people for no benefit to anyone.

Yeah it is, but I know my 'spidy sense' too, different kinds of odd, essentially that's what I'm saying one should trust, I have neurodivergent friends.

Hippies call it human energy, I'm not sure what the scientific term would be, but it's what one feels, and animals pick up on it, and know who to go to for a lean against.

I entirely get your point about judging people who don't fit in socially, since I never have done.

What I'm attempting to descibe is whatever it is which made me turn down a side road because of the vibe which came from a man sitting on a shop doorway during my teens while circa 20 feet away from him, who got up and ran after me because I'd avoided him, it was something different from love which eminated from him, but I'm getting the sense it doesn't translate well into the written word.

It isn’t sensible to lump all of these individuals and particularly their misdemeanours together in the context of this article. There are perhaps some parallels to drawn with Whillans and Haston’s drink driving incident was eventually prosecuted albeit with a ludicrously short sentence. The Burgess brothers were clearly a wild pair operating around the margins of law for a time when young. I’m not at all convinced that Ben Moon’s shoplifting, which he has openly expressed his embarrassment about, is at all in the same league. Bumped into one of these individuals last year and found him to be very polite and thoughtful. The violence that Barrat was enabled to carry out on various women by law enforcement, the legal system and worse, the climbing community is to be abhorred. Climbers are neither better or worse than any other humans. They should be held to account as any others should be.

James

Whillans, Haston, Burgess, Moon all celebrated and their misemeanors either lauded or ignored. I guess Saville is the ultimate example of using talent as a deflection.

I think it is going down a very dodgy, unfair road if you start judging people based on "spidey sense" or "human energy" rather than the actual evidence of their actions and words.

"Bollocks" probably.

Agreed.

That's an understandable perspective, but have you never had it where you feel immediately at ease with a person? It's essentially that, or rather the oppositie, that I'm trying to describe, the process of getting the sense of a person. Clearly, I'm not doing a good job.

Yes, but I hope from their behaviour, actions and words. Obviously not absolutely immediately though. Having said that, I am sure we all have out ingrained prejudices.

Our ingrained prejudices will have on many occasions served us very well. They will also of course mis-fire. From an evolutionary survival perspective it's generally better to be cautious and wrong (is that grass moving because of the wind, or because of a tiger in there.....? Run! ) than incautious and wrong (shit, it was a tiger....)

Learning not to be a slave to those prejudices is part of socialisation and developing our 'higher selves' that can operate beyond, or in spite of our baser instincts. But they're there for a reason all the same. 

That's interesting, I have nearly immediately felt at ease with people, they've spoken a couple of sentences and I've at that point felt I can trust them to be 'safe' and found them to be, from having felt a 'wamrth' coming from them, while being aware that I was judging them on appearence and shouldn't be. I absolutely agree that we all have ingrained prejudices, and need to self monitor about how we're responding to people. 

But in the case this thread is based on, Charlie Barrett appears to be a very charismatic character who people were drawn to. It's not a case that people's "spidey senses" were firing and people were ignoring them, the women on the receiving end of his abuse were intelligent women drawn to him for his attractive qualities.

I agree that sometimes, people seem "off" but that, for me, is a judgement built on interacting with them, not me looking at them and going on "vibes".

I haven't said anything about judging people to be off from looking at them, and trusting that, so don't ascribe that to me please.

You're right, I have gone rather 'off base' from the person this is about.

I'm not sure I would call that sort of thing a prejudice; more evolved instinct which statistically improves out chances of survival.

I was more thinking of, say, crossing the road to avoid someone wearing a hoody even though I may know that I am statistically no more likely to be mugged by someone wearing a hoody than someone who isn't.

Yes, I agree, if we transfer those instincts to situations where we know, rationally, that they are not applicable.

I found it interesting that when Jimmy Saville entered the Big Brother House, it was the women in the place who felt the most ill at ease around him, it's often struck me that when it comes to survival how much women need to be better at sensing who is safe, in whichever way one wants to term it, it was as he moved about one could see the women's body language change in a way which didn't with the men, except for one or two of them, their postures became less open or at ease.

This does seem at odds with your last post: ".......being aware that I was judging them on appearance...... ".

People give off social cues all the time. I just don't think it should be characterised in terms which just seem like a sort of woo.

It isn't, in that since I was aware of it, I stopped, otherwise I'd be an arsehole, so I don't judge people on appearence, because I check myself for that from knowing that I/one can do.

If somebody is posting about being aware that they're judging on appearence, in the same post as saying they immediately trusted a person due to their warmth, how likely are they going to be basing more weight on the person's appearence, as apposed to their sense of warmth and that they're trustable?

You seemed to be saying the two things were the same.

Maybe you meant that their "warmth" was actually from their words and manner rather than appearance.

Unless we don't have a conscience, we don't (continue to) do what we know we shouldn't be doing.

It's pretty basic English comprehension, I'd have thought? I wasn't judging him on appearence as a finality, because I knew that wasn't the thing to be doing.

If somebody wrote they were being uncharitable and knew they shouldn't be, one wouldn't assume that they'd continued to be...for example. It denotes a sense of self awareness which keeps that aspect in check.

I'd best get back to my uni work. Have good day peeps.

You said you were aware that you were doing so!

I accept that you didn't mean to say that.

How do we know that you said you said you were aware that you were doing so? Or something.

Oops! Now edited.

Agree completely.

However it's always worth remembering that people may give off the impression of 'having something off' or having things 'hidden' for various reasons, none of which may relate to them having malign intent. I'm the hypervigilant weirdo who sits in a pub with his back to the wall and a good view of the exits, but I'm not planning to assault anyone.

I'd have hoped we'd have moved on from equating physical deformity with evil (for example), but obviously people still think they can spot a predator a mile off based on how 'odd' they are. That won't work for the smart ones.

I am afraid this is exactly how Barrett got away with it for so long

"Bumped into one and found him very polite and thoughtful"

It's how abusers get away with it, polite and thoughtful to all but a few.

Another angle on the question is, do you think that you or I would have gotten away with it for so long  as very average punters compared with the celebrity of your choosing?

Before anyone jumps in, please take "it" as generic bad actions. And no, of course not, I do not wish to nor am I accusing James of the same.

...and it is entirely plausible that some of those people may be secret predators too.

Exactly. The crap predators are probably easy to spot (with a lot of false positives identifying socially inept but harmless people).

The really dangerous and prolific ones won't be obvious at all. That's how they get away with it.

You confirmed earlier on that when you brought Ben Moon's name into this you were meaning his shop lifting, not anything else. That's not abuse is it? From what I remember from watching the film, and hearing him on Grimer's podcast, he was a kid and no one knew who he was then - he said he's embarrassed about it now. I remember his business getting broken into and a lot of stock stolen some years back so I'm sure he's completely sensitive to how particularly small businesses do suffer from theft, and I'm sure that is part of his embarrassment. I suspect most of us can think of stupid stuff we did as teenagers that we would hate our teenage kids to do now, that's being human and growing up. It's just not the same as giving a celebrity abuser a pass. He didn't get away with anything because of his celebrity in climbing. It just feels very unfair to lump him in with this case. I know people who shop lifted when they were kids, I don't hold it against them now because I know teenagers do stupid and risky things, not because they are famous (they're not). 

I haven't read Whillan's biography by Perin, just followed the long discussions about him here, so I'm aware of the stories that he was abusive to his wife and to other women. That feels much closer to this recent story, in that it was known about to some at the time, and he was still celebrated for his climbing, at least by many. But I don't personally know the extent of his crimes, and I hadn't even heard the accusations when I first read about his climbing. As I heard more about him as a person (in the 90s I guess), more and more it seemed that he was not (and maybe never had been) seen as a nice person by at least some, and that put a real asterisk next to his climbing achievements. I think it is pretty well known that in the 70s and to great extent into the 80s that there was a huge amount of making excuses for the behaviour of men towards women, children and sometimes to other men, particularly when they were powerful and/or famous. Of course this still happens, but if nothing else it is much more challenged, even if the challengers still face an uphill battle. Barret does seem to have got away with it for a long time - but not any more which is good. If he had been around in the 70s and 80s, maybe he would have never been held to account.

In reply to Ennerdaleblonde:

I'm going to remove this post as I think it's fairly insulting to even bring Ben's name onto this thread. It's impossible to draw comparisons between the two, yet you've attempted just that.

The film Statement of Youth talks about shoplifting for roughly a minute and a half, and ends with an interview where one of them describes how they were now embarrassed about the whole thing. It's disingenuous to describe the film as an hour-long documentary that celebrates theft, and to try and define people's climbing careers by some shoplifting they did in their late teens. Ben also doesn't appear in this section. 

Please refrain from discussing this on the Charlie Barrett thread again.

For me there's a difference between; "heard something via hearsay with zero details" and "hearing something specific"

If someone says "that guys alright... if you're a bloke" there's nothing really at all there you can do anything with. It's alarming. It would be sus. But what can you say? What if that is entirely just hearsay or an impression?

If someone says "he got drunk and knocked his ex [insert name] out" okay well that's pretty specific and almost certainly not hearsay? If I knew someone, even pretty tangentially, and had heard that about them I'd probably want to know more and see if any further action was taken? I don't think that's unreasonable.

I will say I think it's interesting that if you go on that Reddit link those US climbers are taking a pretty hard stance on this, more than I've seen in UK discussions, there's not a lot of sympathy for the big names and how they're involved in this, other than Lonnie Kauk and Krakauer.

Of course. 

Seems like enough to prompt further questions, though, doesn't it.

I think that how specific/detailed it is and whether or not it's hearsay are two different things. A rumour could be very detailed and still complete nonsense. Or good information could be very vague but well enough attested to be worth acting on.

"My mate Dave told me that his girlfriend's sister used to cut the hair of a girl who dated John when she lived in London. John got into a fight with her one night, raped her and tattooed his name on her left foot."

It's pretty detailed, but it's definitely hearsay and I know for a fact that John lived in Glasgow at the time and would have no idea how to use a tattoo gun, so it's clearly nonsense and probably a case of mistaken identity.

"I won't betray their confidence by going into details but I know firsthand from someone John really hurt that he's an abusive asshole."

I've been given no details but I don't need them. If the person telling me is trustworthy, I'd take the information seriously.

That's an interesting point, because somebody could learn about a detailed account being untrue, and then dismiss something less detailed because of that - an account about another person, there's so many elements involved in why a community wouldn't do as much as which might seem to be expected when things are seen in hindsight.

I think I'd forgotten the capicity to be misunderstood on forums, due to what one doesn't say but thinks, and what one does say (or write) but from which the wrong things can be inferred.

It's entirely plausible that what one senses as a 'gut feeling' or has the sense of percieving as 'vibes' or 'human energy' is actually small observations one makes and isn't aware of, and it's also possible to be wrong about somebody being alright because they have a nice 'vibe' (which I have experienced), and to be wrong about somebody coming across as 'funny' when they're harmless (there's somebody I don't quite warm to in my social circle, who other nice people do, and I've put it down to us being too different, I'm very much drawn to warm openness in people, I've been told I'm easy to read so I potentially seek out people like that in turn, and he's somewhat different to that). Also, I'm not suggesting that anybody who does seem 'funny' is going to be a predator, or that, anybody who doesn't seem 'funny' isn't going to be.

All that said, which is quite a lot, I do find it interesting, that when I've done things like while in my teens turning down a side road approx 4 to 6 shops before walking past a person (while rather stoned it has to be said) because the 'vibe' from him seemed amiss, that he got up from taking umbrage at me avoiding him and ran after me (I escaped), and that while also in my teens, I was stopped by a car of strangers looking for the red light distict in Sheffield, and (something I'd not do as an adult) got into their car to take them to where they wanted to be, because my intuition, spidy sense, perception of their vibes, or observations I was unconsciously making, told me that, as far as taking them to where they wanted to be went, I was going to be safe, which is what happened. 

Which has brought me to thinking, that, whatever level of perception it happens to be, whether it's unconscious assesments made which can feel like a gut feeling or one sensing vibes/human energy/using spidy senses, that it's a useful element towards weghing people and situations up, while also being aware of one's capicty to be predjudiced, and to misjudge people because of their social skills (thanks to being neurodivergent or other), and it's something I feel can be unhelpfully readily dismissed (allowing for the caveats mentioned already). 

If we've evolvded a prey species (as well as predators) it's possible that any traits which we've evolved to have from that thanks to other hamans being predators, are still going to be useful, potentially we've evolved to make assesements quickly enough to be able to escape (like with the man I avoided for no reason I can rationally think of other than 'vibe', which could equally be down to subconscious observations).

Watch any series of the TV show The Traitors to see just how inaccurate that "gut feeling" is for identifying whether someone is deceiving you.

We used to call my Grandfather 'Spiderman'.
Not because he had special spider like senses (whatever they are), but more that he needed help to get out of the bath.

Found guilty.

This post from Alan Rubin (who I think works as a public defender in the USA) gives some insight on what might be expected from sentencing.  https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/122976632/climber-charles-barre...

The post from NotSayin Sparrow (contained in a response) further down the thread is well worth a read and reflection.

Trial precis here: https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/professional-rock-climber-convicted-se...