/ NEWS: Millstone 'Winter Climbing' - Fools With Tools?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
UKC News - on 07 Dec 2010
Fools with tools? Millstone drytooling last weekend., 4 kb

British Climbers Unite Against Irresponsible Behaviour:



Nineteen year old student Calum Nicoll and his climbing partner spent last weekend at Millstone, climbing on established classic rock climbs using ice axes and crampons.

The rock has been severely damaged.



Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=59279
Toby S - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Good article that Jack. Fools with Tools indeed.
balmybaldwin - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Toby S:

shame the other tool hasn't been named yet!
jon on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Well done Jack. Hopefully that might just hit home.
Rampikino - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Solid article. Nice one.
Monk - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

A very good article. The only minor negative is that I am not sure it is fair to say that Millstone has been "severely damaged". Damaged, most definitely but hopefully the routes are still climbable in summer conditions. Obviously I am not condoning the actions of Callum and pal, but over-hype can sometimes have the opposite effect to the one you were hoping for.
Eddie1234 - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: I've just read this article and think its got a very valid point, but what does the fact that he's a student have to do with anything apart from creating more animosity towards to students and university mountaineering clubs?!
BALD EAGLE - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Good work Jack!
JLS on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Hear, hear.
ChrisHolloway1 - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: Nice one Jack, a good read
Ander on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:


I'm must hoping that Callum has taken this as a learning experience- along with any others out there who don't understand the ethics of the games we play.
Ramon Marin - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Very good reflection indeed, nice one Jack
jon on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Eddie1234:
> (In reply to UKC News) (...) but what does the fact that he's a student have to do with anything apart from creating more animosity towards to students and university mountaineering clubs?!

If you read his blogs and practically all his posts on UKC you'll see that he is outspoken and thick skinned. You can imagine his effect on a university club full of gullible freshers. Maybe by just alerting his fellow students to how mis-guided he has been might convince them to be less in awe of him. Anyway, he IS a student - so what's wrong with stating that? I suppose Jack could have said 'currently unemployed climber... '.

Hoppo on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Nicely summed up.
In reply to UKC News: I would like to thank the photographers for the use of their photos - of the climbing and the damage.

And I would like to thank Dave Mc, Dave T and Dan G for speaking to me.

And I hope we can continue responsible use of the crags, they are their for all climbers.

No ill will against anyone, and lets hope that we can all learn and look at our ethics and opinions and why we have self imposed 'rules'.

Happy climbing! I think I'm off indoor bouldering!

Jack
James Oswald - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:
WHY THE HELL DOES IT MENTION THAT HE IS A STUDENT?
Not all students are like this at all. Calum's behaviour doesn't represent all students. Why is it relevant?
This just gives students an unfair representation.
Would you mention the fact that he was a 19 year old shelf stacker? No you wouldn't. It isn't relevant at all.

On a different note - a very interesting article. I personally think that dry tooling on popular crags like Millstone is terrible. However when does a crag become "unpopular / esoteric" enough to condem dry tooling? Would Rivelin quarry be ok?
Good article and sorry for the ramble about the mention of students but it is irrelevant.
Cheers
James
footwork - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Franco is friends with him on facebook! :O
The Pylon King on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

It's the smug look of the belayer that gets me.

Is it possible to fine them or sue them or something?

or get the stocks out again!
SamChessell - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: Great article, there's a time and a place for axes and crampons, which should never damage the crag. However, i would like to agree with Eddie1234, the fact that he is a student shouldn't come in to it. As a member of a university climbing club myself, our top priority is always to be respectful to the crag and all other climbers.
James Oswald - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Pylon King:
Not at all.
James
ads.ukclimbing.com
rockfrog70 - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: I am confused by the comments that Millstone along with other low lying British Crags are termed as Summer Crags! I know that personally myself and other keen Rock Climbers use these Crags all year round, and will be Climbing Trad in the Peaks later this Week, If we do come across any of these half wits dry tooling, they will get more than a gentle request to cease their thoughtless actions!
ERU - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to James Oswald:
> WHY THE HELL DOES IT MENTION THAT HE IS A STUDENT?

.. Because that is a FACT :P He IS a student. This give us more of an insight into the situation.
loopyone on 07 Dec 2010 - host86-159-102-121.range86-159.btcentralplus.com
In reply to UKC News: Pretty irresponsible reporting naming and shaming the offenders. Hope you've got written permission to use their photo's in such a condemning and one sided article.
Monk - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Eddie1234 and other students:

What's the problem with saying he's a student? Age and current line of work are commonly used in journalism. Would all the plumbers/accountants be offended if it read "19 year old plumber/accountant.."? Of course not.

Al Randall on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to James Oswald:
> (In reply to UKC News)
> WHY THE HELL DOES IT MENTION THAT HE IS A STUDENT?

Because he is. He is also British and 19 which is equally irrelevant other than it helps to paint a fuller picture.

Al
Monk - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112:
> (In reply to UKC News) Pretty irresponsible reporting naming and shaming the offenders. Hope you've got written permission to use their photo's in such a condemning and one sided article.

Since when do you need permission? Newspapers, particularly tabloids, would be quite dull if that were true. A photo taken in a public place is perfectly fine to use. Considering your stance on the other thread ("whatever isn't illegal, is just tough for everyone else"), I think you are being a little hypocritical here.
James Oswald - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to ERU:

.. Because that is a FACT :P He IS a student. This give us more of an insight into the situation.

It is completely irrelevant. It wouldn't have been mentioned if he was a lorry driver etc.
It gives no useful insight and reinforces the anti-student attitudes which (often unfairly) prevail on here.
James
CharlesE - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: I know the guys and they have told me that they won't be doing this again. Neither of them have been climbing for very long and they didn't know why what they were doing was wrong. They do now. If you see them out on a mountain soon please have the good sense to wish them a good day out, now that their lesson is learned.

Good article, it strikes the right balance between debate and decision.

CE
Toby S - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112:
> (In reply to UKC News) Pretty irresponsible reporting naming and shaming the offenders. Hope you've got written permission to use their photo's in such a condemning and one sided article.

They dont need permission.
wilkie14c - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
We had a dry tooling 'incident' at Denham quarry a couple of years ago. The damage is still visible. Any Lancs climbers will be able to back this up and you may remember it yourself? It was the subject of a thread at the time. Any damage done during this recent event may well take years to blend in. Very sad.
Horse on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112:

Why is it irresponsible and why do UKC need any permission?
MG - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112:
> (In reply to UKC News) Pretty irresponsible reporting naming and shaming the offenders.

In what way is it irresponsible?

Ewan Russell - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: I think you shouldn't just say a student, I think minimum should mention what uni he is at and would be better to show him up/his club for his lack of respect to current ethics and traditions. Im sure his club disagree with what he has been up to but they should come on here and express that. Just a shame as though its not the intention of the article it does make all students sound like they like going out top-roping and dry-tooling on three star classics. Where as in facts its probably just 2.
Owen W-G - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to MG:

Is this article and thread the UKC equivalent of sticking young Callum in a pillory and hoying rotten veg at him?
Alexandre Buisse - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to CharlesE:
> (In reply to UKC News) I know the guys and they have told me that they won't be doing this again. Neither of them have been climbing for very long and they didn't know why what they were doing was wrong. They do now. If you see them out on a mountain soon please have the good sense to wish them a good day out, now that their lesson is learned.

Well then, they might want to stop posing as badass climbers and start listening to what other more experienced people have to say, especially when several ask you to stop immediately.
Horse on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to The third:
> (In reply to UKC News). Im sure his club disagree with what he has been up to but they should come on here and express that.

They have on the other rather longer thread.

Enty - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to James Oswald:
> (In reply to UKC News)
> WHY THE HELL DOES IT MENTION THAT HE IS A STUDENT?
>

so all us pre 1990's students can go "tut tut told you so" ;-)

E
ERU - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to James Oswald:
> It gives no useful insight and reinforces the anti-student attitudes which (often unfairly) prevail on here.

He's still a student tho ...

Anti-student attitudes are often based on facts believe it or not. People don't make things up. Some are working towards being shown to be towing the line but most don't. I was a student twice and involved in over 4+ uni clubs. I'm appalled at the stuff I saw now! Sorry young people do stupid things ... as is this case.
Toby S - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to ERU:

He's not a student.. he's a very naughty boy!

.. sorry.
Owain - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112: I totally agree with you there. This may cause serious consequences to the offenders as I doubt they gave permission for this article to reveal their identity.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Gareth H - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: Struan Chisholm an 18 year old student from Cambridge is apparently the other climber (belaying in the photo)

Gareth
Toby S - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Owain:
> (In reply to tatty112) I totally agree with you there. This may cause serious consequences to the offenders as I doubt they gave permission for this article to reveal their identity.

You're being just a little bit hysterical. Again, they didn't need to give their permission for their photos to be published. How do you think newspapers get by?
James Oswald - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk:
> (In reply to Eddie1234 and other students)
>
> What's the problem with saying he's a student? Age and current line of work are commonly used in journalism. Would all the plumbers/accountants be offended if it read "19 year old plumber/accountant.."? Of course not.

No, not all plumbers/ accountants wouldn't care. But plumbers and accountants are not negatively (and often falsely) accused of other examples of anti social behaviour at the crags. You don't get numerous threads on here talking about groups of plumbers monopolising classics at popular Peak District crags.
Plumbers and accountants aren't negatively stereotyped by the climbing community for their antisocial behaviour. Students are. This unfairly reinforces that often untrue stereotype.
James
Adam Lincoln - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to CharlesE:
> they didn't know why what they were doing was wrong. They do now.

So they know it now but not when told in person at the crag?
Oliver Houston - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to James Oswald: Relax James, any sensible reader will know not to tar all us students with the same brush!!! It may not be relevant, but then if everything irrelevant was left out of every article, there'd be very little left in the papers...

Also it may be worth mentioning he's at a London university, hence has no normal access to rock, so is obviously unaware of the ethics and how to behave at crags!!! Not an excuse, but a factor.

Personally I'd hope the university club, and the perp would both issue a public apology and a reasoning as to how anyone let him loose in the peak with his tools... with so little knowledge of what's acceptable.
matthewtraver - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Good piece. You've handled a very contentious issue in a mature manner that will hopefully allow the individual's in question to learn from their mistake.

Even if their manners were less than savoury and their decision-making even poorer, I must admit I feel a wee bit sorry for these guys, even if it was necessary to make an example of them! I am certainly not trying to condone what's happened. Hats off to the self-policing ability of the climbing community!

A public statement and apology would go a long way for them in taking full responsibility. Everybody f*cks up in their lives in different ways, everybody has a lapse in judgement and character malfunction from time-to-time... they were just in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with a bad idea and poorly informed.
Horse on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Toby S:

And it is not like the Callum and his mate are denying it, quite the opposite in fact.
Nik Jennings - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to James Oswald:

> On a different note - a very interesting article. I personally think that dry tooling on popular crags like Millstone is terrible. However when does a crag become "unpopular / esoteric" enough to condem dry tooling? Would Rivelin quarry be ok?

Would this be the Rivelin Quarry containing several of the best E5 and above lines on quarried grit? I think it would be safe to assume that dry-tooling here would not be a great idea.

Has anyone checked Monopoly for damage? The idea that someone would try and dry-tool such a route is staggering. It would be very easy to completely destroy this route with a couple of axes.
kipman725 - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to The third:
> (In reply to UKC News) I think you shouldn't just say a student, I think minimum should mention what uni he is at and would be better to show him up/his club for his lack of respect to current ethics and traditions. Im sure his club disagree with what he has been up to but they should come on here and express that. Just a shame as though its not the intention of the article it does make all students sound like they like going out top-roping and dry-tooling on three star classics. Where as in facts its probably just 2.

Our president has responded to this in the other thread, our ethics are excelent:

Hi everyone,

I didn't want to comment on this thread as I feel it is neither a rational debate nor constructive, however, since people have tried to bring our club in to it I'd like to clarify a few points:

1) Calum is indeed a current member of Imperial College Mountaineering Club, however so are around 80 other individuals.
2) Calum has come on previous ICMC trips and has drytooled on occasion on some of those trips. However, these two occasions were an established dry-tooling route at Winspit & some horribly loose unclimbed choss in an old quarry near Holyhead Mountain. We would consider both of these acceptable.
2) ICMC has no control whatsoever over what activities individuals choose to participate in in their own time.
3) ICMC was unaware of these events until this thread as said events did not occur on a club trip or use any of our equipment.
4) ICMC does not condone the use of ice tools outside of recognised venues such as White Goods/Chalk Cliffs or traditional mountain crags when in appropriate winter condition.

We have spoken to Calum and told him our views on his actions but I think he still believes that he has done nothing wrong. We are powerless to change the point of view of individuals. As his actions did not occur on a club trip or use any of our equipment I don't feel it is appropriate to "life ban" or anything else. However, this behaviour will not ever be tolerated on any of our trips.

I hope this clarifies ICMC's stance on this.

Alistair
Adam Lincoln - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to James Oswald:
> Would Rivelin quarry be ok?

No!
malky_c - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: Quality! UKC turns into Daily Telegraph. Talk about sensationalist...
flaneur - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Owen W-G:
> (In reply to MG)
>
> Is this article and thread the UKC equivalent of sticking young Callum in a pillory and hoying rotten veg at him?

There is an element of that in the long thread but I thought this article was well-judged. It acknowledges that this is not a completely black-and-white issue, 'ethics' not law, whist making it clear that the vast majority of climbers think that this is completely unacceptable. Sadly it seems that some people don't 'get it' and this needs to be spelt out. Which this article does very well.

In reply to Owain:

> This may cause serious consequences to the offenders as I doubt they gave permission for this article to reveal their identity.

Callum identified himself in the long thread. His partner did not. Jack has identified Callum but not his partner in this article and UKC have been moderating vigorously every time his partners name appears. It is easy to find on the other climbing website though.

figfour - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Nice, and balanced opinion, I'm interested to see this as a indictment of these 'fools' on the front page alongside the news article of the first winter ascent of Satyr, an established summer line. Yeah, it's in the mountains but its clear from the photos of this that there is not enough ice on the route to totally protect it from picks / crampons, but where are the close up pics of damage to this route?

I'm not on the pro tooling side of this argument, I'm just curious where the line is drawn! Is it back to the age old bolts / trad dichotomy where it's based on the 'feel' of the crag or some other equally nebulous concept?

Venues like Birnam Quarry are being touted as the solution to this, but when it was first 'developed' as a DT crag there was an equally strong outcry!
Eddie1234 - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Oliver Houston:
>
> Personally I'd hope the university club, and the perp would both issue a public apology and a reasoning as to how anyone let him loose in the peak with his tools... with so little knowledge of what's acceptable.

See expecting his university club to issue an apology is completely unrealistic, its quite obvious this was nothing to do with a unvierstiy trip and the person was out on his own, would we expect your employer to issue an apology if you did it?
ERU - on 07 Dec 2010
> Plumbers and accountants aren't negatively stereotyped by the climbing community for their antisocial behaviour. Students are. This unfairly reinforces that often untrue stereotype.

Joe Brown was a plumber. I know his occupation and climbing habits, which were also published, from the media. Same here really. I'd like to know other climbers occupations too. Their activities, before and after a event, are up to them I guess? I'd like the history books to see these two publicly apologise - that would be a start. I'd also suggest he was thrown out of the club asap.
Adam Lincoln - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to kipman725:
> As his actions did not occur on a club trip or use any of our equipment I don't feel it is appropriate to "life ban" or anything else.

If he still feels he has done nothing wrong, i can see the only fair action would be to ban him from the club, or until he accepts he was wrong and says sorry! Otherwise it looks like you are just condoning his actions.
The New NickB - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Owain:
> (In reply to tatty112) I totally agree with you there. This may cause serious consequences to the offenders as I doubt they gave permission for this article to reveal their identity.

Read your local paper, it will be full of names of people who have not given permission to be named. Likewise the photos require the permission of the person taking the photograph not the person in the photograph if taken in a public place.

If the article or in fact anything written states they did something that they did not do, they have redress, but given the photographs, that is unlikely to be the case.

They are clearly a pair of muppets, but muppets with thick skins, perhaps this will make them think a little.
AlistairB - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to The third: Oh wait, you mean that they should post like they already have done here:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=436389&v=1#x6152842

And here:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=436389&v=1#x6152946

Yeah, they should definitely do that right away. Oh wait. The opinions of the club have been made quite clear on this, it's not our fault if you haven't read them.
James Oswald - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Nik Jennings:
"Would this be the Rivelin Quarry containing several of the best E5 and above lines on quarried grit? I think it would be safe to assume that dry-tooling here would not be a great idea."

Sorry! I couldn't think of many esoteric Peak district crags as I don't tend to go to them!
James
The New NickB - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to ERU:
> [...]
>
> Joe Brown was a plumber. I know his occupation and climbing habits, which were also published, from the media. Same here really. I'd like to know other climbers occupations too. Their activities, before and after a event, are up to them I guess? I'd like the history books to see these two publicly apologise - that would be a start. I'd also suggest he was thrown out of the club asap.

Joe Brown wasn't a plumber. Often stated but not true.
ERU - on 07 Dec 2010
> Joe Brown wasn't a plumber. Often stated but not true.
Your right! "Tradition has it that Joe was a plumber by trade. This is not true, Joe and Archie were always general builders. However, Joe did have two brothers who were plumbers, so he would get advice on plumbing jobs from them, becoming a proficient plumber in his own right. "
Monk - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to James Oswald:
> (In reply to Monk)
> [...]
>
> No, not all plumbers/ accountants wouldn't care. But plumbers and accountants are not negatively (and often falsely) accused of other examples of anti social behaviour at the crags. You don't get numerous threads on here talking about groups of plumbers monopolising classics at popular Peak District crags.
> Plumbers and accountants aren't negatively stereotyped by the climbing community for their antisocial behaviour. Students are. This unfairly reinforces that often untrue stereotype.
> James

I think that you are being overly sensitive. I was a student for a very long time, and I am still involved with a student climbing club. The best thing we can do for the image of students is to get out there and show that we do know how to behave. Are you offended by people mentioning students in a positive light? Many of our top climbers have been students, and several student expeditions are featured on UKC. Just because this particular pillock happens to be a student is neither here nor there, but it does add a little more to the article. I bet you know what Dave Birkett does for a living, for example, as it is often mentioned in articles on here, despite being wholly irrelevant to his climbing.
Owain - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Toby S: Yes, Toby they may not need permission but using these two 'students' to be made an example of is not right. They are going to get ripped apart by the climbing community and bear the brunt of a long going problem that mixed climbing has produced.

Fultonius - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to James Oswald:
> (In reply to ERU)
>
> .. Because that is a FACT :P He IS a student. This give us more of an insight into the situation.
>
> It is completely irrelevant. It wouldn't have been mentioned if he was a lorry driver etc.
> It gives no useful insight and reinforces the anti-student attitudes which (often unfairly) prevail on here.
> James

As much as I don't like students getting a bad name - I was one once. Newspapers quote people's occupations all the time. When I was (unfortunately) in the paper last year it said "##### #####, an Engineer from Glasgow....."

So I wouldn't get so wound up about it.
Monk - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Owain:

Today's news is tomorrow's chip packet.

This will be pretty much forgotten in a few weeks.
kipman725 - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Adam Lincoln:
> (In reply to kipman725)
> [...]
>
> If he still feels he has done nothing wrong, i can see the only fair action would be to ban him from the club, or until he accepts he was wrong and says sorry! Otherwise it looks like you are just condoning his actions.

How is this condoning someone's actions? we are not a political party we are a group of individuals who climb together.

Regardless he cannot be banned for anything apart from gross safety issues and even then not without very extensive paperwork/procedures.
ERU - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Owain:
> They are going to get ripped apart by the climbing community and bear the brunt of a long going problem that mixed climbing has produced.

What's wrong with that? Lads i've already sourced the robes:
http://www.kkklan.com/robes.htm

Do you think we can get a bulk buy deal?
Jim Hamilton - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

I see in a typical journalistic way, you have spelt his name wrong !
Adam Lincoln - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to kipman725:
> (In reply to Adam Lincoln)
> [...]
> Regardless he cannot be banned for anything apart from gross safety issues and even then not without very extensive paperwork/procedures.

Bringing the club into disrepute? (Granted it wasn't on a club meet) Surely he should still be accountable?

Monk - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Adam Lincoln: And other "ban him" folk:

I'm not sure I agree that the club has anything at all to do with this. They have done nothing wrong. As for banning him; surely it is better that he mixes with other climbers who may have more traditional ethics than sending him out to forge his own path with a major grudge?

subalpine - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: where's Mick Ryan scuttled off to? i'd like to know what he thinks..
Alex Ekins - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112:
Hope you've got written permission to use their photo's in such a condemning and one sided article.

There is no legal obligation to obtain written permission.
Al Randall on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk: He is being held accountable within the limited resources of an unregulated sport. The club may need to be held to account as well. Aren't clubs supposed to educate, encourage and nurture their members. If he wasn't an experienced climber on joining I would say that the club went wrong somewhere especially if it is affiliated to the BMC.

Al
Monk - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Al Randall:
> (In reply to Monk) He is being held accountable within the limited resources of an unregulated sport. The club may need to be held to account as well. Aren't clubs supposed to educate, encourage and nurture their members. If he wasn't an experienced climber on joining I would say that the club went wrong somewhere especially if it is affiliated to the BMC.
>
> Al

Clubs are predominantly a gathering of like-minded people to facillitate getting out there and climbing. Regardless of that, I refer you to the second part of my post - isn't it better to keep him within the folds of the club so that the good practice of his peers may rub off on him?

It may be a lost cause though - have you seen any posts from Fishy1? I always thought he was a troll...
biped - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to James Oswald:

I agree with you re mentioning that he is a student, but I'd just leave it as the argument is being deflected. The point of discussion here is not really Jack's journalism but whether wee Calum is a visionary hero driving the next great leap in British climbing forward or an immature wee fanny who has followed through while pishing on his chips.

Calum, if you're reading this, it is ok to pish on your chips, but not on everyone elses.
jpm102 - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Adam Lincoln:
> (In reply to kipman725)
> [...]
>
> If he still feels he has done nothing wrong, i can see the only fair action would be to ban him from the club, or until he accepts he was wrong and says sorry! Otherwise it looks like you are just condoning his actions.

The club he is part of has a strong trad ethic and appear to be disgusted by his actions. Callum's club also has some experienced and responsible climbers. Surely it is more useful he remains in the club, where he can be educated and influenced by his peers rather than allowed to roam the crags, unsupervised, axes in hand.

kipman725 - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Adam Lincoln:


we have never tried to impose ethical standards on club members outside of club meetings. Imagaine been told you cannot solo a route because you could die and that's not fair on your parents/dependents?
Oliver Houston - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to kipman725: Ok, you know him then, if you can't teach him, then at the very least hold him to account!

Or offer him up to someone who will... (Sorry I assumed he was on a club trip).

In reply to whoever said it: No I would not expect my employer to apologise for my behaviour (I am also a student), however the university code of conduct states that I can be kicked out of uni for unacceptable behaviour in/outside of uni (maybe some employers have a similar system), something about bringing the university into disrepute I think!!!
nolan - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Fortunate for them that I didn't catch them or it wouldn't have just been the rock with scratches on it

Red mist, they aint seen nothing yet!
Al Randall on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to kipman725:
> (In reply to Adam Lincoln)
>
>
> we have never tried to impose ethical standards on club members outside of club meetings. Imagaine been told you cannot solo a route because you could die and that's not fair on your parents/dependents?

Educating members about traditions and ethics is not imposing standards though is it?

Al
loopyone on 07 Dec 2010 - host86-159-102-121.range86-159.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Monk:
> (In reply to tatty112)
> [...]
>
> Since when do you need permission? Newspapers, particularly tabloids, would be quite dull if that were true. A photo taken in a public place is perfectly fine to use. Considering your stance on the other thread ("whatever isn't illegal, is just tough for everyone else"), I think you are being a little hypocritical here.

1. In the other thread I am merely trying to point out that it's not as clear cut as everyone seems to think. In this case the two perpetrators of the offense are being officially named, shamed and held up as hate figures for the climbing community
2. The way the article is written sets them up as 'hate' figures and reduces UKC to the level of tabloid gutter press
Gary morgan on 07 Dec 2010 - 95.177.21.50 whois?
In reply to UKC News:
The most surprising thing for me is how restrained most people (on this thread) have been both in word and deed. I often read threads where people get pilloried and verbally abused for having a strong viewpoint but actually damage nothing at all. When 2 young lads start taking their ice picks to a premier peak trad climbing venue and then carry on after being challenged I would have predicted a more serious confrontation shortly after?
I am not sure I would have been able to watch without escalating the challenge? Messy for sure and far from ideal but we can't just write about it afterwards? I suspect the boys tools would have been politely removed from them if they had met a less democratically minded group.
I hope the rock damage fades fast.


TradHolden - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: These boys deserve the lynching they are getting. Someone should get a full apology out of them and post it on here, along with a promise that they will think about their actions more in future. If boys like this carry on, certain routes will be ruined by the time my grand kids and great grand kids are on the rock. Polish is bad enough!!!
mkean - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk:
It may be a lost cause though - have you seen any posts from Fishy1? I always thought he was a troll...


I'm starting to wonder if he has actually gone the whole hog and turned his entire existence into one massive internet troll, next month I hear he is providing proof of the existence of God and headpointing a spate of new E0 routes: Just think years from now people posting "What grade is TPS?" could get told to stop 'doing a fishy'.
petealdwinckle - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to kipman725:
>
> Our president has responded to this in the other thread, our ethics are excelent:

That's fantastic, what about your spelling?

Great article; name and shame and above poster that commented that Millstone was no place for axes and crampons was, IMHO, quite correct. I believe that for the majority of posters there is an obvious place for them on this occasion that would prevent a repeat "offence" by these individuals.
Al Randall on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112: What utter nonsense. The pair carried out an act that was considered to be despicable and rightly condemned by the only means available to a non regulated activity like climbing. Despite all the utterances on here they will not be physically abused and I trust that they now appreciate the harm they have done and change their ways. That should be the end if it and all will be forgotten by the rest of us in a few days.

The longer people keep making excuses for them the longer this will last. Do them a favour stop being an apologist on their behalf.

Al
Irishonthewirral on 07 Dec 2010 - 5e0012f0.bb.sky.com
In reply to TradHolden:
> (In reply to UKC News) "These boys deserve the lynching they are getting". Someone should get a full apology out of them and post it on here, along with a promise that they will think about their actions more in future. If boys like this carry on, certain routes will be ruined by the time my grand kids and great grand kids are on the rock. Polish is bad enough!!!

Are you for real??
wilkie14c - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to mkean:
Ah good old fishy, never did get the dragons to back his home made boots or the ben nevis burger van. Shame really.
Its no wonder the odd climber loses his way, there was probably more snow and ice on Embankment this weekend than there was on Kinder Downfall last winter yet plenty of folk were here on UKC saying how cool the winter climbing was!
allysingo - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112:
> (In reply to Monk)
> [...]
>
> 1. In the other thread I am merely trying to point out that it's not as clear cut as everyone seems to think. In this case the two perpetrators of the offense are being officially named, shamed and held up as hate figures for the climbing community
> 2. The way the article is written sets them up as 'hate' figures and reduces UKC to the level of tabloid gutter press

To be fair, from the original thread on this subject, as I understand it Callum named himself (and asked his mate to smile for the camera) He has responded to the thread in a bit of a unrepentant manner, almost a bit cocky really. He's not been named and shamed by UKC.
kipman725 - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to petealdwinckle:

bad - engineer with broken inline spell check
deepsoup - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112:
> In this case the two perpetrators of the offense are being officially named, shamed and held up as hate figures for the climbing community

One of them is named, but not, unfortunately, shamed - his one contribution to this thread was depressingly unrepentant.
Hate figures? Get real - there's a pretty big gap between thinking someone is an utter tool and actually hating a person.

Regarding the photos - one of the risks you take when you do something embarrassingly crap in a public place is that someone may take a photo of you and publish it.

The New NickB - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to ERU:

I remember a story, I think in Feeding the Rat, about Joe and I guess Mo A having a he'll of a time plumbing a bath, which would question his proficiency. But I guess that wasn't entirely representative of his career.
johncoxmysteriously - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112:

>1. In the other thread I am merely trying to point out that it's not as clear cut as everyone seems to think.

No you aren't. You're pointing out that there will always be idiots and that it's hard to stop them, that's all.

jcm
deepsoup - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to blanchie14c:
> there was probably more snow and ice on Embankment this weekend than there was on Kinder Downfall last winter yet plenty of folk were here on UKC saying how cool the winter climbing was!

Yeah right.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=161189
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=133586
johncoxmysteriously - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to The New NickB:

There's some quote by Nat Allen getting very indignant about Joe's plumbing. Something like 'I'm a plumber, and [someone - Don?]'s a plumber, but Joe's a jobbing builder.'.

jcm
Owain - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to Owain)
> [...]
>
> Read your local paper, it will be full of names of people who have not given permission to be named. Likewise the photos require the permission of the person taking the photograph not the person in the photograph if taken in a public place.
>
> If the article or in fact anything written states they did something that they did not do, they have redress, but given the photographs, that is unlikely to be the case.
>
> They are clearly a pair of muppets, but muppets with thick skins, perhaps this will make them think a little.


I have changed my tune after reading the 'offenders' comment.

Yes they are a pair of muppets, I wouldn't say thick skinned just thick in general and they deserved to be named and shamed!

At the end of the day he doesn't to see anything wrong with dry tooling in these crag areas so he needs to be educated. The UKC article is probably the best way to do so and a gang beating on top just to make sure.
wilkie14c - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to deepsoup:
It was tongue in cheek aimed to demonstrate how confusing ethics and traditions can be. I was on the downfall myself last winter but as a gritstoner, I felt dirty using tools on grit and had to have counselling afterwards :-p
Toby S - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Owain:

Ah good, you have seen the light. :-)

I'll be having a word in his lug hole if I seem him back in Inverness any time soon. I might buy him a pint afterwards if he concedes he was out of order.
McBirdy - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

I simply can't see how the club are happy for him to remain a member. If he doesn't publicly apologise and promise to never do it again he should be banned. Period.

It's a bit like the Tory party not minding what their MPs do in their spare time. A great and valid principle, but if it turns out that they are actually fiddling with children or embezzling charity funds then suddenly it become relevant.

It doesn't reflect well on the club at all that he's still welcome.

Ben
Owain - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Toby S:
> (In reply to Owain)
>
> Ah good, you have seen the light. :-)
>
> I'll be having a word in his lug hole if I seem him back in Inverness any time soon. I might buy him a pint afterwards if he concedes he was out of order.

slash him
ads.ukclimbing.com
Ewan Russell - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to AlistairB:
Chill buddy, Most people wont have read the whole of that thread(I did get round to reading nearly all of it after I posted on this and saw those replies). Im not intrested in getting in some kind of argument. Just feel its a shame that students get a bad name becasue of two idiots and by the same token you probably feel upset that ICMC is getting a bad name. Perhaps you should request that jack geldard includes your clubs reply on that news thing to distance his actions from your club.
Not trying to be rude mate, just honest.
In reply to James Oswald:
> (In reply to ERU)
>
> .. Because that is a FACT :P He IS a student. This give us more of an insight into the situation.
>
> It is completely irrelevant. It wouldn't have been mentioned if he was a lorry driver etc.

How come we know that all prostitute murderers are lorry drivers then?
Owain - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to wayno265: It's in the bible
SuperstarDJ - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Good article.

I just wanted to add my support for the views expressed in it. I hope the guys who were dry tooling at Millstone do show more respect for the overwhelming majority view and don't do any further damage to the venue.

David Millington
arthur kneegus on 07 Dec 2010 - cpc1-shef1-0-0-cust406.barn.cable.virginmedia.com
In reply to blanchie14c:
> (In reply to mkean)
>
> Its no wonder the odd climber loses his way, there was probably more snow and ice on Embankment this weekend than there was on Kinder Downfall last winter yet plenty of folk were here on UKC saying how cool the winter climbing was!

I take it you didn't get up there last Jan/feb then ? ......
Conor1 - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to napoleon:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Franco is friends with him on facebook! :O

Made me chuckle:)
nrhill on 07 Dec 2010 - 5adafbf0.bb.sky.com
In reply to UKC News:

Outstanding bit of outrage there... tut-tut lads. It's good photo though.
Trefo - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: I'm all against damaging rock that has some of the best summer climbs on but would like to show my disappointment at two areas of the article. Firstly, I don't think its fair to name these people. We all know that some Sheffieldite, who's believes he can tell anyone and everyone what do, will latch onto these people and try and cut their testicles off. Surely education is better than screaming anger and vigilantism.

Secondly, while it is, perhaps, irresponsible. There is nothing that you, or I can do about it. A free country and all that? The only thing I can possibly think of is the land owner reporting to the police, who then may prosecute criminal damage. But I doubt that.

I also feel that perhaps, toproping and polishing does as much damage as very occaisonal dry tooling? So you can ask ask and ask, but if they won't budge of the route, its not your place to get angry.
Trefo - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Ben Darvill:
Ummmmm-David Chaytor-Labour
Jim Devine-Labour
Eliot Morley-Labour

I rest my case.
Somerset swede basher - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

I saw the pics of the damage done to the cracks but does anyone know if they did any damage to monopoly? Its thin at the best of times without losing any more! Would be interested to know.
steveej - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: I can't believe there are people on here actually defending these two clowns.

We have a limited amount of rock in this country and it needs to be looked after - simples!

There is a place for dry tooling in the UK and there are plenty of choss heaps dotted around the country that are perfectly suited to this activity. Millstone is NOT one of them. This isn't 'Astro Physics' its Common Sense.

I know people from Imperial College Mountaineering Club have been on here and made their excuses, but the fact is, that these clowns represent ICMC (club trip or not).

It is therefore not unreasonable for people to have the opinion that ICMC contains f*&kwit dry-toolers who go about trashing classic rock climbs - Very damaging to their reputation. A very ethical club, containing not very ethical members - hmmmm!



In reply to Trefo: Your grammar provides an insight to the clarity of your thinking.
Al Randall on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: I'm not sure who are the more deluded. Those who think that these guys actions require some form of physical punishment or those who believe that someone who threatens it would actually do it. Lets keep this in perspective. The offenders have been vilified, there is not much more anyone can or should do about it. An apology for the damage done to our tradition, ethics and the rock would be nice though.

Al
Calum McLellan - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Gareth H: I know both these people (Calum and Struan) and would like to add the Struan is NOT the other climber. I dont know the other climber but imagine it is someone from imperial.

Calum
The New NickB - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Al Randall:

I don't know that anyone really wants more than an a degree of contrition and an acceptance that it is not an acceptable thing to do.

A small proportion of the population like to present themselves as the hard man and feel the need to threaten violence for virtually everything. Usually best ignored.
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to Al Randall)

> A small proportion of the population like to present themselves as the hard man and feel the need to threaten violence for virtually everything. Usually best ignored.

Reminds me of a fishing forum I used to frequent where a number of people were openly discussing stabbing eastern Europeans for taking coarse fish from the rivers for food. Unbelievable.
gingerwolf - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Eddie1234:
> (In reply to UKC News) I've just read this article and think its got a very valid point, but what does the fact that he's a student have to do with anything apart from creating more animosity towards to students and university mountaineering clubs?!

couldn't agree more
He's an idiot, regardless of being a student or not!
JJL - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to wayno265:

> Reminds me of a fishing forum I used to frequent where a number of people were openly discussing stabbing eastern Europeans for taking coarse fish from the rivers for food. Unbelievable.

Ah. Is that wrong then (to eat fish caught in rivers here)?

If so, I should probably go and apologise ...
N.Gibson - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Good article Jack.
This Calum chap sounds like a bit of an arse. Hope he dosent come any further north.

Also, been some top stuff on this site recently. Nice work
In reply to JJL:
> (In reply to wayno265)
>
> [...]
>
> Ah. Is that wrong then (to eat fish caught in rivers here)?
>
> If so, I should probably go and apologise ...

Not in my view (or legally in most cases). I think there's a strong element of xenophobia involved. I was using it as another example of a disproportionate response.
ads.ukclimbing.com
AlistairB - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to steveej:

I actually think that would be a fairly unreasonable assumption however everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how flawed.

Just because you have an opinion does not make it correct. History shows that casting aspersions on a group of people based on the actions of a minority is pretty effective at breeding intolerance and starting wars but useful for little else.

I have no idea who the other guy is either but I can confirm that he is not from Imperial.
nrhill on 07 Dec 2010 - 5adafbf0.bb.sky.com
In reply to wayno265:
> (In reply to Trefo) Your grammar provides an insight to the clarity of your thinking.

No Wayno265, it provides an insight into the quality of the writing. Don't be simple.
Phil Payne - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

I don't in any way condone what these guys did, but I definitely don't agree with this article. Did they break any actual laws? No, so why treat them like criminals? Writing a sensationalist article is not what I expect from UKC and calling them fools might just be considered as libellous.
Franco Cookson on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne:

Totally agree. You wouldn't expect articles written by the editor to be "naming and shaming" top ropers.
In reply to Phil Payne: I think it needs to be untrue to be libellous.

In reply to nrhill:
> (In reply to wayno265)
> [...]
>
> No Wayno265, it provides an insight into the quality of the writing. Don't be simple.

I disagree.
steveej - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to AlistairB: wait until you get a job in the real world and you start noticing the clause in your employment contract that talks about your behaviour representing the firm you work for, and that you have a responsibilty to uphold the reputation of the firm that you work for. Regardless of whether you are in work, or drinking in the pub after work. You can then start telling the highly paid Partners of the firm of your beliefs on starting wars and see how far it gets you (or alternatviely, you can eat your words).
Franco Cookson on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to steveej:
> (In reply to AlistairB) wait until you get a job in the real world

why try and put people down? Students live in the real world, they are just studying so that they will one day so comfortable with themselves that they won't have to try and belittle people.
Ewan Russell - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson: I thought that was the point of the article? I was going to take some pictures of top ropers and send them in to ukc in the future.
Al Randall on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne: Who is treating them like criminals, that's disgraceful. Are they being fined or sent to prison? Get a grip. They are being condemned verbally on a climbing forum by others who disapprove of their activities, that is all. Thank god we don't have laws and rules but we do have a finely honed set of "guidelines" that most people respect and abide by. Bringing libel into the argument is dangerous.

Al
Phil Payne - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to wayno265:

I can tell you that if this article had been written about me, I would certainly be seeking legal advice about pursuing a claim for defamation of character.

Just what has UKC become???

Oh wait, there's another thread about that...
Al Randall on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:
> (In reply to steveej)
> [...]
>
Students live in the real world

A lot of their responses on here causes me to have some serious doubts. Mind you that applies to others as well so perhaps you have a point.

Al
steveej - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson: I'm not be-littling anyone. The fact is, as a club member, they represent the make-up of the club. People will form opinions of the club based on the actions of people that are members of the club. Is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp Franco. Thats a question for you not be-littling you
Franco Cookson on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to napoleon:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Franco is friends with him on facebook! :O

Yeh, not too sure why. I've never met him, just tend to 'accept' anyone who seems to be a climber.
Franco Cookson on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to steveej:

I grasp the concept thanks, but there's no need to suggest that people at university have never lived 'in the real world'. Just comes across like you're insecure.
Al Randall on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: There is a little bit of me that wants to keep this thread going to make it the longest one on record just so that it does indeed work as a punishment and deterent and get the message across that this type of action is unacceptable to the majority of the climbing community. Are we anywhere near yet??? :-)

Al
Bruce Hooker - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne:
> (In reply to wayno265)
>
> I can tell you that if this article had been written about me, I would certainly be seeking legal advice about pursuing a claim for defamation of character.
>

As the article presents simple facts, backed by photographs and witnesses and that even the culprit has admitted the truth of what he is being accused of in writing then I think he would just be wasting his money if he followed your advice :-)
AlistairB - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to steveej: Ignoring the massively cliche "you're a student, you don't live in the real world" jibe, how is that even slightly relevant? The number of similarities between an employer and a recreational club are basically zero. You haven't even suggested what we could do other than writing not one but two independent statements deploring his actions. So please be constructive and give us some suggestions?

Also, you'll be pleased to know I worked last summer and various government information classification levels were part of my employment contract, had I gone spraying this information around I would of course have been fired. And in addition we had a code of conduct to follow. This unfortunately does not magically make your analogy any less inapplicable.
Horse on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne:

On what basis?
Monk - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne:
> (In reply to wayno265)
>
> I can tell you that if this article had been written about me, I would certainly be seeking legal advice about pursuing a claim for defamation of character.
>

On what grounds? Calum has actually posted on the original thread, and has identified himself. There is nothing libelous in this article - they were there top-roping with ice tools. There is photographic evidence and an freely given admission to support that. And I think that it is fairly reasonable to describe someone who wilfully goes against a long-standing and widely understood ethic as a little foolish.

ads.ukclimbing.com
deepsoup - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:
> Totally agree. You wouldn't expect articles written by the editor to be "naming and shaming" top ropers.

Surely even you're not thick enough to believe the top rope has anything to do with the opprobrium this pair of young twunts have attracted?
steveej - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson: No suggesting anything Franco, merely highlighting the fact that people associate the bad deeds of individuals with the clubs they belong to.

Insecure? only when it comes to women Franco. Big climbs are only big for the people who haven't done them.
In reply to Al Randall:
> (In reply to UKC News) There is a little bit of me that wants to keep this thread going to make it the longest one on record just so that it does indeed work as a punishment and deterent and get the message across that this type of action is unacceptable to the majority of the climbing community. Are we anywhere near yet??? :-)
>
> Al

Bloody cold out!
Coel Hellier - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne:

> I can tell you that if this article had been written about me, I would certainly be seeking legal
> advice about pursuing a claim for defamation of character.

And the person you asked advice from would tell you you didn't have a chance. Defences against defamation include that it was true, and that it was an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact. Thus, making correct statements about the dry-tooling events is not actionable, and nor is expressing opinions about the wisdom of those activities nor expressing opinions about the character of the culprits, such as calling them "fools".

> Just what has UKC become???

I popular place where people can discuss things and express opinions. Sorry, some of the people complaining about these two threads are just being silly; the public comment about these events, including naming those responsible, is entirely legitimate.
liz j on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne:
> (In reply to wayno265)
>
> I can tell you that if this article had been written about me, I would certainly be seeking legal advice about pursuing a claim for defamation of character.
>
There is absolutely nothing in the article that could be considered 'defamation of character'. The article details the facts, as have been verified by several different people, and indeed by Callum himself, although he didn't actually admit to climbing the crack lines. The damage is there to see, the photos are there to see. There is nothing in the article attacking his personality, so there is no defamation.
steveej - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to AlistairB: see my post to Franco. People make links and associate people with the groups they belong too. Gordon Brown does bad - Labour is bad. Catholic Vicor feels up kiddies - the catholic church is bad. Imperial College Mountainerring Club member drytool's up classic peak district rock climb? You are clearly not in the real world.

I'm embarrased for you that your supposed to be representing Imperial yet seem to be lacking some 'Reality' to your posts.

Regards

Steve
Ex Student

Phil Payne - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to liz j:

I'm no lawyer, which is why I'd seek legal advice. I'm sure there might be a case, if as a direct result of this article, the people involved suffer from some sort of abuse or threats. I can only imagine the amount of abuse they will get next time they are recognised when they are out climbing.
AlistairB - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to steveej: Steve, what actually is your point? I asked you how we could do anything more than completely disown his actions and you ignored it in order to make further petty jibes. I'm only posting here because I want to know what we can do to demonstrate to people that this does not represent our club in the slightest. I have no interest in point-scoring over individuals like you seem to be here for.

Also, I find that the level of reasoning that "Catholic Vicor feels up kiddies - the catholic church is bad" frankly horrifying. You are aware that similarly crude levels of reasoning have lead to acts of terrorism, several wars and even genocide? Then again, this is the "real world".
Martin Davies on 07 Dec 2010
banned profile 74 on 07 Dec 2010 - 64.49.125.91.rb3.adsl.brightview.com
In reply to skygod78:
> (In reply to UKC News) Just looking at the the photos of the "horrendous" damage done by the dry toolers, Have a good look at the crack lines, i would say that they look pretty badly polished and rounded, but thats ok because it was caused by rock climbers in stickies.
>
> YOU LOT NEED TO GET A GRIP!
>
> LOSERS


i think theres a difference between gradual damage over 50 years and obvious damage caused immediately,dont you think?
Graeme Alderson on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne: Abuse for something that is true, documented and admitted. How on earth can that be actionable. BTW my brother is a lawyer and I am sure he will be glad to charge you £200 to tell you you are wrong.
banned profile 74 on 07 Dec 2010 - 64.49.125.91.rb3.adsl.brightview.com
In reply to Phil Payne:
> (In reply to wayno265)
>
> I can tell you that if this article had been written about me, I would certainly be seeking legal advice about pursuing a claim for defamation of character.
>
>
how is this thread defamatory?for something to be defamatory it has to be false doesnt it?well the photo's dont look to be lying do they?the guy has pretty much admitted that its him dry tooling int he photo's so where is the defamation?
McBirdy - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to AlistairB:

So perhaps you could clarify - under what circumstances would someone be banned from your club? Or do you just allow anyone to be a member irrespective of whether they chip, bolt trad routes, dry-tool up classics etc. Just what sort of club are you running down there?

Let's be clear here - we're not talking about an over-reaction to a simple mistake by a young climber. Hell, I'm sure we've all been there. We're talking about an unrepentant so and so who seems to be almost enjoying the reaction he's provoked.

Ben
Phil Payne - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

You brother is a lawyer??? What has that got to do with the price of fish? My brother is a computer programmer, but I haven't got a clue how to program!
Coel Hellier - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne:

> I'm sure there might be a case, if as a direct result of this article, the people involved
> suffer from some sort of abuse or threats.

Hmm, "I'm sure there *might* be a case" is rather ambiguous. Are you sure there would be a case or not? Clue: there wouldn't be.
Coel Hellier - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to steveej:

> People make links and associate people with the groups they belong too. Gordon Brown does bad - Labour is bad.

It's a bit different if an elected leader does something bad, compared to just one random member with no special status doing something bad.
franksnb - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to AlistairB: well you would throw him out of the club, after the tar and feathers.
Gambit - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: Great article especially the comments from Dave McLeod. UKC has shown itself to be a real force for good in this respect. Dry tooling (as that is what it is) on classic low lying crags is basically a mean minded activity that shows little respect for others and reflects badly on the characters of the individuals. Its like someone wearing crampons in the house and explaining when challenged that shoes wear out the carpet too, it just doesn’t add up.
steveej - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to someguyfromaustria: lol this is getting ridiculous
Graeme Alderson on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne: Well if you are in the habit of consulting lawyers when you haven't got a cat in hells chance of winning you might as well give my family some money :-)
ads.ukclimbing.com
Michael Gordon - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Gambit: Fully agree.
steveej - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to AlistairB: I'll spell it our for you, seen as you can't seem to grasp logic too well......members of your club who go about damaging classic rock climbs represent your club in a very poor light. I dont have to suggest to you anything. Its your club committee's decision....so...what are you as a club going to do about it? Nothing by the sounds of your earlier posts. Very ethical club that Imperial College Mountaineering Club. No wonder student clubs get a bad rep.
Iwan - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to figfour:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Nice, and balanced opinion, I'm interested to see this as a indictment of these 'fools' on the front page alongside the news article of the first winter ascent of Satyr, an established summer line. Yeah, it's in the mountains but its clear from the photos of this that there is not enough ice on the route to totally protect it from picks / crampons, but where are the close up pics of damage to this route?
>

Good point, well made.
Will Mc - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112: to bloody right, i dont condone their actions in anyway, but clearly little thought has been taken about the detirmental effects this may have on the named climbers social lives. Almost as irresponsible as the actions themselves.
Coel Hellier - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Will Mc:

> ... clearly little thought has been taken about the detirmental effects this may have on the named
> climbers social lives. Almost as irresponsible as the actions themselves.

Let's supposed for the sake of argument that these UKC threads did have a detrimental effect on the named climber's social life. Would that not be a good way of deterring future such actions? What is wrong with holding people accountable for their behaviour?
Jonny2vests - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to Will Mc:
> (In reply to tatty112) to bloody right, i dont condone their actions in anyway, but clearly little thought has been taken about the detirmental effects this may have on the named climbers social lives. Almost as irresponsible as the actions themselves.

Lol. I'm crying into my tea about the damage to his social life. Shutup.
ERU - on 07 Dec 2010
> but clearly little thought has been taken about the detirmental (SP=detrimental) effects this may have on the named climbers social lives. Almost as irresponsible as the actions themselves.

You mean he might be found out by chicks for talking shite on his blog and therefore get less sex right?
joan cooper - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: Now that these 2 lads have been thoroughly verbally pillioried and dismembered might it be a good idea if someone who is well versed in the ethics and techniques of rockclimbing took them under their wing and teach them from the basics what the sport is all about. It is obvious they have not had the advantage of a personal mentor nor have they had the opportunity of being"apprenticed" to an experienced climber as was often the case in the "old days" Even Mo Antoine was known as "the apprentice" for a while.Not everyone has the advantage of parents grandparents or even great grandparent who were climbers and mountaineers Is it time to offer help?
AlistairB - on 07 Dec 2010
Dear everyone who suggests we throw Calum out of the club. What will this actually achieve? Or do you all just have some desire to see "justice being done" and can't think of any other possible punishment that could actually be imposed?

There are two reasons why I will not throw Calum out of the club. The first is that our constitution only allows for this under gross breaches of safety policy. Our club is not a dictatorship and the decision is not for us or the comittee to make. If you think that I'm going to go before our Union and explain that I want to throw someone out of my club for something that they did in their own time that some people on the internet don't agree with, you are mistaken. They'd tell me that was no grounds whatsoever for dismissal and send me packing.

Secondly, I prefer to think that by climbing with people who do give a f**k about ethics, he might learn something and eventually come round to our way of thinking. This point was made by several posters in the previous thread. To me that would seem far more likely to prevent similar incidents than us throwing him out and leaving him to go climb on his own all the time with no guidance at all from more experienced climbers. You do realise 2 of our committee just today have sat down and had a long discussion with him about his actions and why they are unacceptable? This is education not punitive justice here.

But no, you people are just a medieval pitch-fork mob baying for blood. You don't want to see anything positive come from this at all, you just want to see Calum hung out to dry. That's fine but people like you are a disgrace to the climbing community. I like to regard climbers both known and unknown to me as reasonable, kind & generous people but every day people on here show that to be less and less true. Which is a shame because climbers in the flesh have never been anything less than what I expected of them.

In reply to steveej: Oh, my bad, the 6 of us on the committee will just pop over his house tonight and snuff his lights out. That'll solve it. Sorry for not thinking of that earlier old chap. And sorry for not sharing your form of logic, you are aware that logic is defined as "the study of arguments"? I've studied your argument and concluded it's nonsense, thus I have a rather good grasp of logic.
biped - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to joan cooper:

I suspect that if they showed the tiniest bit of humility they would have no trouble finding willing mentors, both in clubs, their local climbing communites and on here. Pete MacPherson has stated elsewhere that he would happily take time to advise Calum, if Calum didn't assume to know it all anyway.

Sure, there are a few on here who are enjoying the slagging a bit too much, but that doesn't mean the poor dears should not be made aware of the error of their ways. They aren't being burnt at the stake, they are being pilloried on an internet forum. They may even be enjoying all this; I remain unconvinced about whether the aim of the Millstone trip was to climb or to start the ball rolling on an almighty troll.
David Hooper - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to AlistairB:
Alsitair

Thanks for taking the time to reply and to your colleagues for the "sit down" with Callum.

Can you at least persuede him to man up and have the moral courage to come on line and explain his actions/ apologise or whatever he deems appropriate.

I really do think a public statement from him would go a loing way to resolving things.

Cheers

David
banned profile 74 on 07 Dec 2010 - 64.49.125.91.rb3.adsl.brightview.com
In reply to PierreB: oh dear,a french person replying to a thread involving ethics
archiecb - on 07 Dec 2010
In reply to AlistairB:

I believe that as a club with good ethics you should distance yourself 'as a club' from him.
With specific regard to his remorseless outlook upon the situation.

If you go into a meeting with the students union with that argument then of course you are going to get told to jog on.
If you went in with some desire to remove the problem member from the club then I actually think you would get along alright.

There is no reason that you cant remove him from the club
- as a club -
there is no need to make it personal after all.
You can still provide him with guidance if he is at the uni. If that is your desire.
But as I said before, his remorseless nature would disincline me (personally) towards helping him reintegrate.
steveej - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to AlistairB: stay off the drugs, they're bad for your health.
Jonny2vests - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to AlistairB:

First of all, stop being so melodramatic, nobody is having a go at your club.

So he is in the club then? Its just I got an email this morning (from your web editor) stating that he wasn't.

You're not actually trying to tell me that the union wouldn't let you throw him out are you? If you told them he'd upset half the climbers in the UK and needed to be taught a lesson, they'd believe you. Having said that, I happen to agree with you, let him stay and hopefully learn by example.

Jon (UNUMC)
PierreB on 08 Dec 2010 - . whois?
In reply to steveej: I would say that your government is right to be cutting funding to higher education, it was clearly wasted on you!

Hey man, if I find any crampon scratches of yours in Cham I'll kick your ass next time you come here. After all, you're just a dry tooling Englishman who can't climb very hard just like your mates in the photos. You like guilt by association huh?
steveej - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to jonny2vests: Thanks Jon, after listening to AlistairB it is no suprise Uni clubs get bad attention. A case of the blind leading the blind me thinks.

Glad you've comeon hear and stated some rational thoughts.
David Hooper - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth: Its a troll - lots of new users registered today for the various Millstone threads - maybe Callum having a laugh?
Wiley Coyote - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne:
> (In reply to wayno265)
>
> I can tell you that if this article had been written about me, I would certainly be seeking legal advice about pursuing a claim for defamation of character.
>
>
You would be wasting your money.
Firstly there is the defence of "justification" ie that it's true. The photos and Calum's own contribution on a different threat would seem to clearly demonstrates that.
Secondly there is a defence of "Fair comment" which simply means that the opinions expressed could be reached by a fair minded person on the basis of the known facts.
Thirdly, and contrary to popular belief, abuse is not of itself defamation. It is simply that, abuse, and not actionable in law.

Jonny2vests - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to PierreB:
> (In reply to UKC News) Haha, stupid English....

You're mother is a hamster and your father smells of elderberries you stoopid eenglish nicompoop.

Registered yesterday + goading comment = Troll.
ads.ukclimbing.com
ERU - on 08 Dec 2010
> Dear everyone who suggests we throw Calum out of the club. What will this actually achieve?
I'm sitting here thinking that you believe that a rapist should be allowed to roam about unchecked for some reason... I'm also sitting here wondering why on earth you are defending someone whom should be doing it themselves?

> There are two reasons why I will not throw Calum out of the club. The first is that our constitution only allows for this under gross breaches of safety policy.
I believe he has brought your club and uni into utter disrepute. In fact he is giving ALL students a pretty bad name. I was a young person in a club once and mentioned I was going to chop some bolts and climb a route on trad. The club swiftly turned around and said i'd be binned if I did but they wouldn't stop me. The club made a good decision here.

> Secondly, I prefer to think that by climbing with people who do give a f**k about ethics, he might learn something.
From what i've seen this dude don't care what you are teaching him. If you were in fact 'teaching' him he would be posting an apology under his own user-name. Not have a personal spokesperson whom only cares about the image of their club.

> and eventually come round to our way of thinking.
... so we await that apology?

> You do realise 2 of our committee just today have sat down and had a long discussion with him about his actions and why they are unacceptable? This is education not punitive justice here.
There is no apology to date .. so therefore didn't listen to you at all. What next? Ignore it and hope it all goes away?

> But no, you people are just a medieval pitch-fork mob baying for blood.
People caring for what they believe in is actually a good thing imo.

> That's fine but people like you are a disgrace to the climbing community.
What on earth did YOU think the response would be?

> I like to regard climbers both known and unknown to me as reasonable, kind & generous people but every day people.
In fact history has shown them to pretty selfish people.

> thus I have a rather good grasp of logic.
You've missed the boat here me thinks ....


PS: I'm still not 100% sure this isn't a hoax! Those photos could have been anywhere...
Darren Jackson - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to The Thread:

COME ON THEN! LET'S GO!!!...

I'm quite willing to come round to your gaff and kick seven shades out of any f@cker who fancies it. Just give me an address, I have all the motive that I could possibly require.... In fact, I'll punch yer gerbil.

steveej - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to PierreB: I'll be at UCR, Bristol, tomorrow, feel free to pop down and put your money where your mouth is.
Darren Jackson - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ERU:
>
> I'm sitting here thinking that you believe that a rapist should be allowed to roam about unchecked for some reason...

Just when I thought that this thread couldn't get any more deranged...

Congratulations. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to equate dry tooling with rape?


Jonny2vests - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ERU:
> [...]

> PS: I'm still not 100% sure this isn't a hoax!

So Jack Geldard is hoaxing us? We're well past the 'is it a hoax' stage, keep up :-)

> Those photos could have been anywhere...

Not really. Definitely Millstone.
Jonny2vests - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Darren Jackson:
> (In reply to ERU)
> [...]
>
> Just when I thought that this thread couldn't get any more deranged...
>
> Congratulations. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to equate dry tooling with rape?

Yeah, not a great analogy that was it.
Wiley Coyote - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to kipman725:
> (In reply to The third)
>
> We have spoken to Calum and told him our views on his actions but I think he still believes that he has done nothing wrong. > Alistair

Is it just me or does anyone else think their taxes are being wasted trying to teach this muppet anything at all?

ERU - on 08 Dec 2010
> Congratulations. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to equate dry tooling with rape?
A good metaphor for Gritstone being raped too :P As judging by the reaction here - it has!
You can try to turn it around all you want. . the point being you are not taking any action ... none... You say it has nothing to do with the club yet vehemently come on here acting as his mouth piece. What is really being done to make this prat see sense? I don't think a cup of tea and chat is working.
David Hooper - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:

Insulting Callum and threatinging violence adds nothing to this thread - you do the seriousness of the issue a dis service.
Darren Jackson - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ERU:
>
> A good metaphor for Gritstone being raped too ... I don't think a cup of tea and chat is working.

Your metaphor was crap. I've got sod all to do with his club and I'd sooner act as Calum's codpiece than his mouthpiece...

You could do with a nice lie down and deep breaths... And a cup of tea.
ERU - on 08 Dec 2010
> You could do with a nice lie down and deep breaths... And a cup of tea.

According to my 'Arguing on the Tinternet for Dummies' book you are resorting to insults and therefore loosing.

This guy needs to see the light and apologise for a daft act. The end. The question is ... how do the people around him or the community get this done?
bomb on 08 Dec 2010 - host86-175-112-132.wlms-broadband.com
In reply to David Hooper:

Don't be so bloody daft, doing the seriousness of this issue a disservice? And like I said I didn't threaten violence. I'm taking it extremely seriously actually. The guy is an arrogant little shit of the highest order and you lot all going softly softly on him will have no greater effect than me being honest and saying that I despise him.
Darren Jackson - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ERU:

Insult?... As insults go, my comments weren't exactly scathing were they now?

People seem to be losing track of the fact that we're talking about a young bloke who acted stupidly and arrogantly. Yes, he was in the wrong. Yes, he ought to learn the error of his ways. Yes, he ought to apologise that he's put so many peoples backs up... That's all fine. It's the other stuff along the lines of threatening his physical well-being and calling down plagues of locusts and pestilence for all eternity that I have a problem with. Callum ain't the only person who needs to get a grip where all this is concerned.
kipman725 - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to jonny2vests:
> (In reply to AlistairB)
>
> First of all, stop being so melodramatic, nobody is having a go at your club.
>
> So he is in the club then? Its just I got an email this morning (from your web editor) stating that he wasn't.

>
> Jon (UNUMC)

I am the Webmaster and I have never even emailed you, nor received mail from you. Are you sure your not getting confused with Outdoor?
Harry Holmes - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: the rock doesnt feel any pain and in a few years you will hardly be able to tell anyone tooled there. im not saying go and do it but its all getting abit england world cup bid around here
Harry Holmes - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to naffan: and by england world cup bid i mean everyone blaming one person/a small group of people for something that was probably going to happen anyway
Harry Holmes - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to naffan: i should point out im as disapointed as the next person that we didnt get the world cup but thats not really the point
Darren Jackson - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to naffan:

Psssssssst.... We got your drift. Stop mentioning the World Cup will ya? ;-)
Harry Holmes - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Darren Jackson: it can be arranged
banned profile 74 on 08 Dec 2010 - 64.49.125.91.rb3.adsl.brightview.com
In reply to David Hooper:
> (In reply to beastofackworth) Its a troll - lots of new users registered today for the various Millstone threads - maybe Callum having a laugh?

yeah I know i just like to feed them atleast once.
ads.ukclimbing.com
r0x0r.wolfo - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to steveej: The university club would also look like idiots for bowing to pressure to take action based on something they had nothing to do with. But more importantly, the club is soveign on club matters and should make its own decisions on member policy; reputation be damned or else condone kicking people out due to rumour and heresay.
hilty - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: i would have loved to see these t##ts and shoved their ice pics up their a@#ess, silly boys
Michael Gordon - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to AlistairB:
>
> But no, you people are just a medieval pitch-fork mob baying for blood. You don't want to see anything positive come from this at all, you just want to see Calum hung out to dry. That's fine but people like you are a disgrace to the climbing community. I like to regard climbers both known and unknown to me as reasonable, kind & generous people but every day people on here show that to be less and less true. Which is a shame because climbers in the flesh have never been anything less than what I expected of them.
>
> In reply to steveej: Oh, my bad, the 6 of us on the committee will just pop over his house tonight and snuff his lights out. That'll solve it. Sorry for not thinking of that earlier old chap. And sorry for not sharing your form of logic, you are aware that logic is defined as "the study of arguments"? I've studied your argument and concluded it's nonsense, thus I have a rather good grasp of logic.

Not the most friendly of uni clubs are you?
Dave Garnett - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Darren Jackson:
> (In reply to ERU)
> [...]
>
> Just when I thought that this thread couldn't get any more deranged...
>
> Congratulations. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to equate dry tooling with rape?

Sounds more like a catastrophic failure of foreplay.
Jonny2vests - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to kipman725:
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> I am the Webmaster and I have never even emailed you, nor received mail from you. Are you sure your not getting confused with Outdoor?

Dunno. Is that the name of another club?

This guy signed as ICOC web editor, which means nothing to me. Looks like I emailed the wrong club, hey ho.
Al Evans on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to The New NickB:
> (In reply to ERU)
> [...]
>
> Joe Brown wasn't a plumber. Often stated but not true.

No, it was Joe Cocker who was the plumber (or at least a gasfitter) he fitted my mums gasfire :-)
Fredt on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to naffan:
> (In reply to UKC News) the rock doesnt feel any pain and in a few years you will hardly be able to tell anyone tooled there.

...as long as nobody else ever tools there.
silhouette - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to T-P-F:
> This Calum chap sounds like a bit of an arse. Hope he dosent come any further north.

He's from Inverness.
Ian McNeill - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to silhouette:
> (In reply to T-P-F)
> [...]
>
> He's from Inverness.

so that is a insult is it ?

victorclimber - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: i happen to think bolts stuck in the rock for Sport !!!! climbing is not right,but because lots of folk do it its ok .so leave the kid alone he,ll get fed up of dry tooling !! and go on to be a responsible bolter ...
lummox - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Ian McNeill:
> (In reply to silhouette)
> [...]
>
> so that is a insult is it ?


LOL ! I think it was simple statement about where he comes from...
Monk - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to AlistairB:
> Dear everyone who suggests we throw Calum out of the club. What will this actually achieve? Or do you all just have some desire to see "justice being done" and can't think of any other possible punishment that could actually be imposed?
>
> There are two reasons why I will not throw Calum out of the club. The first is that our constitution only allows for this under gross breaches of safety policy. Our club is not a dictatorship and the decision is not for us or the comittee to make. If you think that I'm going to go before our Union and explain that I want to throw someone out of my club for something that they did in their own time that some people on the internet don't agree with, you are mistaken. They'd tell me that was no grounds whatsoever for dismissal and send me packing.
>
> Secondly, I prefer to think that by climbing with people who do give a f**k about ethics, he might learn something and eventually come round to our way of thinking. This point was made by several posters in the previous thread. To me that would seem far more likely to prevent similar incidents than us throwing him out and leaving him to go climb on his own all the time with no guidance at all from more experienced climbers. You do realise 2 of our committee just today have sat down and had a long discussion with him about his actions and why they are unacceptable? This is education not punitive justice here.
>
> But no, you people are just a medieval pitch-fork mob baying for blood. You don't want to see anything positive come from this at all, you just want to see Calum hung out to dry. That's fine but people like you are a disgrace to the climbing community. I like to regard climbers both known and unknown to me as reasonable, kind & generous people but every day people on here show that to be less and less true. Which is a shame because climbers in the flesh have never been anything less than what I expected of them.
>

Excellent and well formulated response. Nice to see some rational thinking on this thread.

Jonny2vests - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to victorclimber:
> (In reply to UKC News) i happen to think bolts stuck in the rock for Sport !!!! climbing is not right,but because lots of folk do it its ok .so leave the kid alone he,ll get fed up of dry tooling !! and go on to be a responsible bolter ...

Arfle barfle gloop?
wolverine - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:
If this gets so much attention,surely there should also be a report on the ALFORD ABSEIL CLUB!
Simon Caldwell - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to AlistairB:

> Dear everyone who suggests we throw Calum out of the club. What will this actually achieve? Or do you all just have some desire to see "justice being done" and can't think of any other possible punishment that could actually be imposed?

Well said.

Presuming that Callum is also a member of the BMC, do people think that he should be thrown out of that as well?

Personally, if I were a member of a club that expelled someone for something like this, then I would resign from that club. And no, I don't think these lads should have done what they did, I'm a grade IV punter anyway, and have no interest in dry tooling at any crag wherever it is and whatever its history.
IainRUK - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Toreador: I'd also be reluctant to be in a club with a committee member who uses the term 'my club'....a club is a club because of its members. I think the general stance is right however.
franksnb - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: where is the next club meet and is callum, going? thanks
Toby S - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Ian McNeill:
> (In reply to silhouette)
> [...]
>
> so that is a insult is it ?

No, but if you'd said he was from the Black Isle... now that's an insult :-)

Dave Garnett - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to deepsoup:
> (In reply to Franco Cookson)
> [...]
>
> Surely even you're not thick enough to believe the top rope has anything to do with the opprobrium this pair of young twunts have attracted?

Actually, I think it does have something to do with it. Not that I approve of them trying to lead Monopoly but thrashing around on a toprope on well-protected cracks maximises the damage and consequent outrage without any compensating respect that what they were doing was in any way difficult or bold.

Dry tooling a hard route at Millstone is deeply provocative, selfish and antisocial. Dry tooling an easy route on a toprope is also rather pathetic.
Toby S - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Darren Jackson:
> (In reply to ERU)
>

> People seem to be losing track of the fact that we're talking about a young bloke who acted stupidly and arrogantly. Yes, he was in the wrong. Yes, he ought to learn the error of his ways. Yes, he ought to apologise that he's put so many peoples backs up... That's all fine. It's the other stuff along the lines of threatening his physical well-being and calling down plagues of locusts and pestilence for all eternity that I have a problem with. Callum ain't the only person who needs to get a grip where all this is concerned.

Well said that man.

For the record Pete Mac and other Inverness climbers have offered advice to Callum, he has so far ignored pretty much all of it.

jon on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to James Oswald:
> (In reply to ERU)
> (...) the anti-student attitudes which (often unfairly) prevail on here.
> James

James, if you feel there is an anti student attitude on here, ask yourself why.

ring ouzel on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Toby S: I always take Pete's advice! In fact I'll be in his shop today for a word.
Scott_M@c - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Look at the state of those pics, idiots!
Hoppo on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to AlistairB:

> Dear everyone who suggests we throw Calum out of the club. What will this actually achieve?

Your club will regain some credibility within the wider climbing circles.

> Or do you all just have some desire to see "justice being done" and can't think of any other possible punishment that could actually be imposed?

Suspend him until he 'sincerely' apologises for his actions?

> There are two reasons why I will not throw Calum out of the club. The first is that our constitution only allows for this under gross breaches of safety policy.

Does swinging axes at a top rope not strike you as being somewhat unsafe?

> Our club is not a dictatorship and the decision is not for us or the comittee to make.

Who's is it then?

> Secondly, I prefer to think that by climbing with people who do give a f**k about ethics, he might learn something and eventually come round to our way of thinking.

I don't know this guy, but looking back through his posts you can build up a good idea of his personality and I don't think that is going to happen any time soon, and will be a waste of time and effort.

> In reply to steveej: Oh, my bad, the 6 of us on the committee will just pop over his house tonight and snuff his lights out. That'll solve it. Sorry for not thinking of that earlier old chap. And sorry for not sharing your form of logic, you are aware that logic is defined as "the study of arguments"? I've studied your argument and concluded it's nonsense, thus I have a rather good grasp of logic.

Very poor!

Personally I think that what Calum and his friend did was very stupid. All that's needed to start putting this incident to bed is a sincere apology and admission of a lesson learnt. I somehow doubt that will ever come.
Toby S - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ring ouzel:
> (In reply to Toby S) I always take Pete's advice! In fact I'll be in his shop today for a word.

I thought he'd banned you from the shop because of your behaviour last time? Last I heard he's still cleaning the sticky spots.
James Jackson on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Hoppo:

> Does swinging axes at a top rope not strike you as being somewhat unsafe?

And this is different to seconding an ice pitch how?
Hoppo on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to James Jackson:

Good point, I didn't really think that one through did I?
anonymouse - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to AlistairB:
> Dear everyone who suggests we throw Calum out of the club. What will this actually achieve? Or do you all just have some desire to see "justice being done" and can't think of any other possible punishment that could actually be imposed?
>
> There are two reasons why I will not throw Calum out of the club. The first is that our constitution only allows for this under gross breaches of safety policy.

Very wise. But do you not think that climbing in such a way that one attracts a baying mob of pitch-fork wielding yokels constitutes a gross breach of safety?

> Secondly, I prefer to think that by climbing with people who do give a f**k about ethics, he might learn something and eventually come round to our way of thinking.

It clearly hasn't worked so far. Or if it has, he must have started out on his first grit expedition with a set of heavy chisels, a sand blaster (wire brushing's too slow) and a drill. Oh and a bucket of fluorescent paint to mark the holds.
jon on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to anonymouse:

I think actually that keeping him in the club is probably the best solution. Imagine if he was thrown out, and say banned by UKC - it would make him very bitter and probably all the more unrepentant. Then think of the damage he might just do with no-one knowing about it - until it was too late. If you read his blog or look back at most of his previous posts on here, particularly the one where he insults Pete Macpherson you'll see he clearly doesn't have a clue about climbing. So far better to educate him, no?
phleppy on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: After reading many posts about this i cant understand anyone defending these lads actions or anyone with the same ideas.
Surely anyone caught practising this ridiculous method of climbing should suffer the repercussions of their actions & theres no doubt about that. Permanant damage HAS been done, whats the point in that really!
Frankie boy - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to AlistairB:
> Dear everyone who suggests we throw Calum out of the club. What will this actually achieve? Or do you all just have some desire to see "justice being done" and can't think of any other possible punishment that could actually be imposed?

What you have to realise is that being part of a club, and being known to be part of a club means that you partly represent that club whenever you are out doing that activity, either when with the club or when out on your own.
I know you have talked to him, but it appears he doesnt give a toss. In still having him in the club whilst it is apparent that he thinks such actions are ok, you are effectively seen to be condoning his views and actions.
I personally would not want to be near, let alone part of any club that would allow this.
EeeByGum - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ERU:

> Anti-student attitudes are often based on facts believe it or not. People don't make things up. Some are working towards being shown to be towing the line but most don't. I was a student twice and involved in over 4+ uni clubs. I'm appalled at the stuff I saw now! Sorry young people do stupid things ... as is this case.

If he were black, would it have been ok to say "The black climber", noting that you almost certainly wouldn't say "The white climber"?

If he were a muslim, would it be ok to say "The muslim climber", noting that you almost certainly wouldn't say "The antsiest climber"?

It sounds to me like you have a prejudice against students which I think is a shame given that the majority of students are thoroughly decent people.

You are a white male who clearly enjoys canoeing. I am sure that some of the group of people who share those traits are not very nice. Following your line of arguments, it would be perfectly reasonable for me to assume that you aren't very nice either?

Any articles written about you should clearly indicate in no uncertain terms that you are a white male canoeist, even if the article is about your religious beliefs for example?
Frankie boy - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to phleppy:
Hear hear.
I know as rock climbers we all have an effect on the rock - polish etc, but the fact is that it is relatively small.
Dry tooling such a route destroys it much quicker.
It not only ruins the route, it could potentially jeopardise any access agreements due to the damage done. I wouldnt let people climb on my land if I saw them doing stupid stuff like that on a cliff.
Lets face it, theres a reason why there is no leading to be done on southern sandstone. dry tooling on cliffs I would expect could be just as damaging to other crags.

That said, fair play to the people who witnessed their activities and managed to keep their cool. I for one, would not have been very restrained.
bull2010face - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

YOUR'RE WILLING TO RUIN THESE GUYS' LIVES BY POSTING THEIR PICTURES ON THE

INTERNET AND BRANDISHING THEM ''FOOLS'', BUT YOU WON'T PUBLICISE THE FACT

THAT A FAMOUS AND ''STRONG'' CLIMBER SUCH AS RICH SIMPSON IS A LIAR!!??

you're a really nice nice guy jack ;)
Monk - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ticktockdublin:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> YOUR'RE WILLING TO RUIN THESE GUYS' LIVES BY POSTING THEIR PICTURES ON THE INTERNET AND BRANDISHING THEM ''FOOLS'',



Perhaps a slight overstatement?


> BUT YOU WON'T PUBLICISE THE FACTTHAT A FAMOUS AND ''STRONG'' CLIMBER SUCH AS RICH SIMPSON IS A LIAR!!??
>
> you're a really nice nice guy jack ;)

There's no evidence that he is a liar, yet. Only an absence of proof. This article on drytooling is based on evidence. Rich Simpson claims are only speculation. If UKC did brandish him a liar, they would have to have some evidence or it really could be libel.
Simon Caldwell - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Frankie boy:
> being part of a club ... means that you partly represent that club whenever you are out doing that activity ... when out on your own.

No it doesn't.
rlines - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ticktockdublin:

I'm very concerned that a group of internet entrepreneurs feel that they can be judge and jury on the matter. The climbing community extends beyond those who work for UKC. Last year, a well known lakeland climber was praised for climbing and therefore scratching Botterils slab. I understand this is on a mountain etc., but I mention it to bring some balance in the discussion.

Going on and publishing pictures and a means of contacting the people in question is very tricky ground for UKC to tread in my opinion. These people, who are admittedly misguided are ultimately operating within the law and have been heckled on UKC to the extent that their personal wellbeing is compromised by the thuggish mob mentality.

I don't condone the actions of the climber, but this witch hunt is surely wrong also?

Wry Gob - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Jack, a very interesting development, and article, one which is worth a quick tuppenceworth.

I would firstly agree that it's a real shame to see folk dry tooling grit, as I would if it were any other good quality, established local outcrop. However I don't think for a minute we can expect a quick cyber wrap on the knuckles to prevent this from happening more widely. The fact is that dry tooling is now an accepted sport in its own right. Fact is also that there is a whole generation of 'indoor climbers' who really have no clue as to what outdoor ethics are all about (or at least a very limited understanding). With groovy images all over the internet of famous and unknown climbers alike craking on dry rock with ice axes and crampons we have to expect that young climbers fresh out of the climbing walls won't know where to draw the line.

I recently posted somewhere else on this site that I've decided against going dry tooling on a local sport crag here in Aberdeen, despite the guy who bolted it saying he didn't mind as nobody used it. My feeling was that a good proportion of the people that really like dry tooling might not understand why it was acceptable at the venue in question, but not elsewhere. I think these latest developments at Millstone pretty much vindicate that.

I remember, ironically, Stevie Haston back in the early 90's ranting about how "perverse" he saw the pursuit of tooling up dry rock. It seemed so impossible to disagree with that sentiment at the time. For me personally it still is, but for thousands nowadays it just isn't.

Yours with a strong sense of inevitability

Guy
footwork - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Toreador:
> (In reply to Frankie boy)
> [...]
>
> No it doesn't.

I would say it does. People always ask where you're from, it makes conversation on cold belays and walk ins. So if I say I’m from Leeds University then I would say the person would assume I am from the Leeds Uni climbing club and whatever I do will somewhat make an impression on the person as to what people are like in the club.

It’s just human nature.


Simon Caldwell - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to napoleon:
> if I say I’m from Leeds University then I would say the person would assume I am from the Leeds Uni climbing club

But the same assumption would be made even if the Leeds Uni climbing club had expelled you...
ads.ukclimbing.com
robw007 - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Some of these dry toolers are damaging some of the better routes in the Furnace aswell - especially on a Monday night!
Jonny2vests - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to rlines:
> (In reply to ticktockdublin)
>
> I'm very concerned that a group of internet entrepreneurs feel that they can be judge and jury on the matter. The climbing community extends beyond those who work for UKC. Last year, a well known lakeland climber was praised for climbing and therefore scratching Botterils slab. I understand this is on a mountain etc., but I mention it to bring some balance in the discussion.

No, we've been through all that. Dave Mac talks about 'venues' in the article and the other thread discusses it at length. Millstone is a non-winter venue and its grit. Very different to tons of established summer/winter routes in the Lakes.
>
> Going on and publishing pictures and a means of contacting the people in question is very tricky ground for UKC to tread in my opinion.

Anyone who can use google could find them anyway.
Jonny2vests - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to robw007:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Some of these dry toolers are damaging some of the better routes in the Furnace aswell - especially on a Monday night!

Yeah, I noticed that - stoopid route hogging weirdos :-)

bull2010face - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk:

It's not appropiate for Jack Geldard to outline Calum in the way that he has. It is 'mob-ism' so to speak and posting Calum's name and picture shows that Geldard has the mentality of an aggravated, immature and bullying schoolboy. Doesn't matter what Calum did, it's a personal attack on him. This is the internet and Calum is no doubt well known by now. This will affect him in what he does in climbing in the future. Geldard thinks it's ok to attack him for a simple mistake but ironically leaves RS alone even though he might have conned the entire climbing community. I'm not judging RS and laying down the law saying he's terrible. It's hypocrisy that's all. RS may have done far more damage knowingly.
IainRUK - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ticktockdublin: In general this thread is overly harsh. I guess in todays world a mistake by a youngster is punished so much more harshly than it would have been even when I was Calums age a dedace ago. I know UKC or at least its predecessor was around a decade ago, but it wasn't nearly as well viewed.

I do think the RS situation is different. There is little evidence either way. Many think he may have lied, but my undestanding is there is no definitive proof either way. I think its quite a different situation..but yes the RS is situation is potentially more dangerous, but we should keep in mind that its possible he could be telling the truth on some of his accounts, if not all. Many of us seriously doubt his running exploits, but I don't think anyone can definitively say he lied.
Monk - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ticktockdublin:
> (In reply to Monk)
>
> It's not appropiate for Jack Geldard to outline Calum in the way that he has. It is 'mob-ism' so to speak and posting Calum's name and picture shows that Geldard has the mentality of an aggravated, immature and bullying schoolboy. Doesn't matter what Calum did, it's a personal attack on him. This is the internet and Calum is no doubt well known by now. This will affect him in what he does in climbing in the future. Geldard thinks it's ok to attack him for a simple mistake but ironically leaves RS alone even though he might have conned the entire climbing community. I'm not judging RS and laying down the law saying he's terrible. It's hypocrisy that's all. RS may have done far more damage knowingly.

I don't doubt that RS may have committed the greater offence. But there aren't any photos of him not doing what he says he has. If he is lying then he has been smarter than Calum by not actually getting caught yet - we only have speculation regarding his climbing claims (the other sports are a different matter, but are not really newsworthy on a clilmbing site). As a news site, it is perfectly reasonable for them to name the individual in a news story. That is what journalists do. How often do you see news reports that "an unnamed man" has been caught redhanded doing something? The perpetrator is nearly always named if that information is available.
Pursued by a bear - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ticktockdublin:
> posting Calum's name and picture shows that Geldard has the mentality of an aggravated, immature and bullying schoolboy.

I thought it showed he had the mentality of a journalist. The schoolboy mentality in this incident lies with those upon whom he was reporting, I believe.

T.
rustyclimber91 - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: Dont get me wrong, the act of tooling on these famous crags is bad; however, I believe the way UKC has gone about the dispersal of this information is completely and utterly wrong. Unless calum wanted the million odd users to know about him and his mate then they would not have asked them to use their names. Mr Geldard has gone off on one at these boys I believe. It would sufficed saying "two young students". Punishing someone infront of the whole Climbing and mountaineering community is slightly harsh in my view.

Rust out.
JJL - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk:

> If UKC did brandish him a liar, they would have to have some evidence or it really could be libel.

Possibly - although in UK law, the burden of proof in libel is on the defendant.

So - if someone did call him a liar *and* he raised a libel action, then he'd have to provide evidence of his claims.....which, perversely, would actually help rather than hinder his reputation...

Personally, I don't believe a lot of his claims - and would be happy to say that to him directly.
Jonny2vests - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ticktockdublin:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
>...BUT YOU WON'T PUBLICISE THE FACT
>
> THAT A FAMOUS AND ''STRONG'' CLIMBER SUCH AS RICH SIMPSON IS A LIAR!!??


ANY EVIDENCE? I'M GLAD YOU'RE NOT IN CHARGE.
Scott_M@c - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ticktockdublin:

Totally Disagree.

If I ran my ice axes down the front of some statue or iconic building I'd expect to end up on the news too.

Sure the lads messed up but they've got to deal with that now and people have a right to know what happened. They're adults not kids so should face the music like the rest of us.

If I met Calum in the Alps, or Scotland in future, I'd not judge him directly based on past experience. Sure they **ucked up and that would be on my mind - but they've got a chance to do something about it and thats what I hope most people would judge them in future. Perhaps an apology/acceptance of lessons learned on here would be a start. At the end of the day though, they've only got themselves to answer to, but its pretty narrow minded to ignore the uproar this has caused.

I hope the lads will realise why they caused offence, appreciate the publicity it caused, and sort themselves out in future. Its bollocks to suggest they're climbing is limited in future based on this. They're climbing is only limited by what they achieve in the mountains etc.
DougG - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ticktockdublin:

> Doesn't matter what Calum did, it's a personal attack on him.

Nonsense. It self-evidently does matter what he did, and it's an attack on what he did, not a personal attack.

In reply to ticktockdublin:
> It's not appropiate for Jack Geldard to outline Calum in the way that he has. It is 'mob-ism' so to speak and posting Calum's name and picture shows that Geldard has the mentality of an aggravated, immature and bullying schoolboy. Doesn't matter what Calum did, it's a personal attack on him. This is the internet and Calum is no doubt well known by now. This will affect him in what he does in climbing in the future. Geldard thinks it's ok to attack him for a simple mistake but ironically leaves RS alone even though he might have conned the entire climbing community. I'm not judging RS and laying down the law saying he's terrible. It's hypocrisy that's all. RS may have done far more damage knowingly.

Have you actually read Jack's news item?

Can you quote which bits from it you are referring to in your statement above?

Alan

MHutch - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to JJL:
> (In reply to Monk)
>
> [...]
>
> Possibly - although in UK law, the burden of proof in libel is on the defendant.
>
> So - if someone did call him a liar *and* he raised a libel action, then he'd have to provide evidence of his claims.....which, perversely, would actually help rather than hinder his reputation...
>
Your first statement is correct. Your second completely contradicts it, and is wrong. The 'defendant' in a libel action is the person publishing the defamatory material, and the burden of proof falls entirely on them.

Monk - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to JJL:
> (In reply to Monk)
>
> [...]
>
> Possibly - although in UK law, the burden of proof in libel is on the defendant.
>
> So - if someone did call him a liar *and* he raised a libel action, then he'd have to provide evidence of his claims.....which, perversely, would actually help rather than hinder his reputation...
>


I do agree with you, but it would be a big risk for UKC to take to publish claims in the absence of evidence that he didn't do what he claims. If RS does have evidence, then it's going to be costly to UKC.
Franco Cookson on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk:

Not if they only publish the facts. Why not just present them and get some opinions from proffessionals in each discipline suggesting the unlikeliness of the claim.
Monk - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:

That's a fair point. I was more responding to ticktockdublin who wants them to publish that RS is a liar. A story on the perceived controversy ought to be ok, but doesn't get us any further than where we currently are on the forums.
Justin T - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to rustyclimber91:

What Calum wanted became pretty much irrelevant in my view when he went on a two-day rampage at Millstone in the face of decades of history, all available advice on the situation he could have easily found for himself AND dispensed to him by experienced passers-by at the scene. When multiple random strangers point out you're doing something unacceptable you have to be pretty bloody-minded not to take the hint, and you therefore accept the consequences. When you also unrepentently pose for pictures while in the act it's not hard to guess what those consequences might be.

Mr Geldard hasn't "gone off", he's stated the facts and presented the evidence clearly and left the audience to draw their own conclusion.
Franco Cookson on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk:

Makes it read by more people and acts as a historic record. If he comes out and proves it then fine, if he doesn't want to that's also fine, but he can't blame people for doubting him. Branding him a certain liar is harsh and foolish, but the facts would lead a reasonable person to come to that conclusion.
EeeByGum - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Scott_M@c: Gosh - after a tirade like that, I hope for your sake that you never make a mistake that others judge to be worse than murder. I would of course assume that in such case, you would stand by your word and take the wild accusations based on nothing but one persons word and a couple of photos on the chin before doing the decent thing, bowing to peer pressure and topping yourself.

At least that seems to be the way this thread is heading. Given that we haven't heard the other side of the story I am amazed at how quickly people are able to judge this case.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Coel Hellier - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ticktockdublin:

> posting Calum's name and picture shows that Geldard has the mentality of an aggravated, immature
> and bullying schoolboy.

What utter tosh, newspapers publish pictures of people with information and commentary about them all the time.
malky_c - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Pursued by a bear:
> (In reply to ticktockdublin)
> [...]
>
> I thought it showed he had the mentality of a journalist. The schoolboy mentality in this incident lies with those upon whom he was reporting, I believe.
>
> T.

You're correct. Unfortunately it was from the 'News of the World' school of trash journalism! These 2 (3?) threads are bad enough without the site admin chipping in with this hatchet job.
Monk - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to EeeByGum:

> At least that seems to be the way this thread is heading. Given that we haven't heard the other side of the story I am amazed at how quickly people are able to judge this case.

We have heard the other side...

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=436389&v=1#x6151512
Eric9Points - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Wry Gob:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>

> Yours with a strong sense of inevitability

I don't think it is Guy.

Let's face it a couple of hyper keen but silly wee boys did something very stupid last weekend. When they were challenged they got all defensive and aggressive and all Hell broke loose on the interweb. At the same time thousands and thousands of other keen winter climbers didn't start scratching their way up rock climbs last weekend. Why not? Because they know better. I doubt whether there's a single climber in the UK who has internet access that now isn't aware that climbing on established crags with crampons and axes is not the done thing.

I think that the climbing community just needs to make sure that the message that you don't scratch your way up routes on your local crag should be made loud and clear. Guidelines on dry tooling or perhaps "training for mixed climbing" (they didn't think they were dry tooling) should be published by the BMC and MCofS along with some editiorial stuff in the next edition of their respective mags. Further, I wonder if guidebooks should include DT or mixed training venues to make it clear that there are places where this is acceptable and by default, places where it isn't.
Offwidth - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Thanks for this article, especially to the contributers. Sometimes on the forums, with the jokes, trolls and loud shouting of minority views, you wonder if the message of the vast majority of climbers is getting through. Gritstone is simply too delicate for dry tooling, so although it may not be a huge issue if done quietly in a manky quarry with no listed routes (there are plenty of these if you look) when its done on a classic route on a classic crag we need to get the message out loud and fast: dry tooling gritstone routes like this is not acceptable. Callum, like others castigated in the past for damaging rock, will I'm sure get over it and improve his climbing ethics. Another side of this is that we are all lucky those who confronted him were nice and polite: some get very hot-headed about such issues and some nasty violence could have resulted... its not just about theoretical niceties with ethical breaches this significant.
Wry Gob - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Wry Gob)

"I don't think it is Guy."

Time will tell.

"I doubt whether there's a single climber in the UK who has internet access that now isn't aware that climbing on established crags with crampons and axes is not the done thing."

On the contrary, it seems to be a great way to make a name for yourself in the time it takes to set up a top rope...
gethin_allen on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Calum McLellan:
> (In reply to Gareth H) I know both these people (Calum and Struan) and would like to add the Struan is NOT the other climber. I dont know the other climber but imagine it is someone from imperial.
>
> Calum

In this case Sturan wants to get himself on this thread quickly and shout about it. He must be pretty pissed off that Calum hasn't posted up to clear his name, what a good friend he must be to Struan.
robw007 - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Offwidth:

Completely agree with this. The measure of response shows how significant - potentially - this is. Without sending out a clear message that this is unacceptable then where would it go next?

As mentioned above it may help put this issue to bed if Mr Nicholl comes on here and apologises - he may then demonstrate an understanding of the depth of feeling out there and get closure on the matter.
JJL - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to MHutch:

Good golly, Miss molly - you're right.

This thread has baked my noodle.
Frankie boy - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Toreador:
If it doesnt then how come the club he is in has had so much involvement in this thread?
How come there has been so many statements of "he should be banned from the club" or statements why he shouldnt be banned from the club.
Fact is that he is a member of the club, and even indirectly, the club has ended up being involved one way or another.
Now it may seem quite irrelivent, but if somewhere down the line something happens and that club is in the news or anything, theres bound to be someone who says "Oh yeah, thats the club with that guy who goes round drytooling and wrecking rock".

So, in being part of a club, it does sometimes have further implications, whether intended or not.
Simon Caldwell - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Frankie boy:
> If it doesnt then how come the club he is in has had so much involvement in this thread?

So has another club that he isn't in!
Frankie boy - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Toreador:
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one then.
phiiH - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

unfortunately this is a case of double standards, when and where is it ok to climb a route in winter conditions. It's not ok to climb a summer quary route in winter, when you can head to the lakes and scotland and climb summer classics in winter conditions. If the value of the rock is placed so high surely a old quary has less value ( a hole created from explosives ) than natural rock. If feelings are that high then no one should climb the classic aid routes such as london wall out of protest, way more damage was created through this style of climbing.

The problem is that there is now a precident set through our peers that mixed climbing is ok, wait for a bit of hoar and frozen turf and a route is fair games, VD to E8.

On this particular day at millstone was the crack iced up with hoar frost, maybe? is this any different to a mountain route in condition.

Consider the senario that Millstone did offer good winter climbing would it be left alone? The reason nothing goes on in winter is because it's crap.

however on this day these two lads thought different.

So when and where is it ok to climb a winter route?

For Though!!

Stuart William - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ERU:
> (In reply to James Oswald)
> [...]
>
> He's still a student tho ...
>
> Anti-student attitudes are often based on facts believe it or not. People don't make things up. Some are working towards being shown to be towing the line but most don't. I was a student twice and involved in over 4+ uni clubs. I'm appalled at the stuff I saw now! Sorry young people do stupid things ... as is this case.

People may not make things up but they do exaggerate. There may be a minority of clubs who endorse behaviour like that but the image given to the rest of the world is that all students behave like that which is simply not true. I think maybe you were just involved in the wrong clubs. Or maybe it was your influence in those clubs that caused the appalling behaviour you witnessed. And "towing the line" has nothing to do with it, all the student climbers I know hold stronger ethics in relation to the sport than anyone else I've ever met, not because they want to be seen to be following a good example, just because that's what they truly believe and they have an incredible amount of respect for the fragile environments we so love to climb.

fotherington on 08 Dec 2010 - host86-182-121-167.range86-182.btcentralplus.com
I think its fine.
After all, one can agree with calum for climbing on the rock wearing crampons - it is a perfectly excellent adventure. Also, you should see all the other things this guy does - he is a climbing genius! I heard he makes shoes out of plywood all by himself.

If it was not allowed, there would be a big fence or at least a sign. Then again, the poor chap might well find reading a bit difficult. Yes that must be it.

Yes, a hard time must not be given to the guy, as climbing on a rock wearing metal shoes is just the same as climbing a metal thing wearing rock shoes and nobody complains then. I think we should all follow his example.
wilkie14c - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Offwidth:
At last the voice of reason. I haven't really taken part in this discussion/debate/lynching as I was waiting for the initial anger to settle. Perhaps its time to express my own views for what they are worth. There are more issues that need discussion here than just tooling at Millstone.
fotherington on 08 Dec 2010 - host86-182-121-167.range86-182.btcentralplus.com
I am glad that you agree with me, and that you deem me 'the voice of reason'.
Three cheers for Calum 'shove it up ye' Nicoll
Jonny2vests - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to phiiH:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Loads of stuff that was done to death on the other thread

Mate, you are way behind the curve, all of those arguments were put to bed long ago on the other thread and then again in the article. Read them both, then come back.
PeakDJ on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to jonny2vests:

From Callum's blog - priceless:


"4th week - Stanage - ... Got trapped on top of the deliverence boulder after climbing up in the dark and not being able to see the holds to get back down, had to ab off, using Duncan as a convienient anchor on the other side of the boulder."



Geoffrey Michaels on 08 Dec 2010 - cnag4.gotadsl.co.uk
In reply to UKC News:

UKC doesn't represent "British Climbers". Indeed the vast majority of climbers I know never post on here. There may be many, but claiming to be representative is way off the mark.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Horse on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Geoffrey Michaels:

Where was that claim made?
MG - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Geoffrey Michaels:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> UKC doesn't represent "British Climbers".

No, but opinions expressed here are representative of the opinions of British climbers.
Geoffrey Michaels on 08 Dec 2010 - cnag4.gotadsl.co.uk
In reply to MG:

Yes, very different to "British Climbers Unite..." Glad we sorted that one out.
Duncan Campbell - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to fotherington: it was in reply tooffwidth not fotherington.....are you calum?
balmybaldwin - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to CharlesE:
> (In reply to UKC News) I know the guys and they have told me that they won't be doing this again. Neither of them have been climbing for very long and they didn't know why what they were doing was wrong. They do now. If you see them out on a mountain soon please have the good sense to wish them a good day out, now that their lesson is learned.
>
> Good article, it strikes the right balance between debate and decision.
>
> CE

Charles, this may interest you (note the date) Calum was indeed well aware of the damage he would cause by tooling up this climb in the condition it was in:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=429129&v=1#x6077358
MG - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Geoffrey Michaels: Yes a bit tabloid that. Maybe next weeks UKC news will be "Dry Tooling gives you Cancer"?
rlines - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to PeakDJ: Abseil down a boulder. So what is is that he had done there to offend/harm or otherwise inconvenience any single person alive?

Seriously, I gave up with these forums some time ago due to the pure venom that flows through some of these posts. Only came back for the excellent coverage of the winter conditions etc. When I came back, I see this hate campaign waged on someone who, from a distanced, outside point of view, scratched a rock.

Although not directly relevant, there are analogies to be observed if you indulge me in a bit of a tangent..

I wonder if we should lay so much hate upon ourselves collectively as oil users for our part in creating the demand for oil that has leaked and destroyed marine environments and ways of life for decades to come? A scratched region on a quarried face is pretty insignificant compared to the Mexican gulf disaster, yet we're all major stakeholders and probably wouldn't give ourselves such a hard time over the leaks etc. More likely we'd blame the oil companies.

So why are we physically threatening a person who has scratched some rock when the world is full of bigger problems for us to solve?

I think the message has been said quite strongly enough regarding climbing snowed up rock on grit or other rock climbing crags. We should now leave him alone and distance oursleves from this spiral of hate.

Monk - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to rlines:
> (In reply to PeakDJ) Abseil down a boulder. So what is is that he had done there to offend/harm or otherwise inconvenience any single person alive?
>
> Seriously, I gave up with these forums some time ago due to the pure venom that flows through some of these posts. Only came back for the excellent coverage of the winter conditions etc. When I came back, I see this hate campaign waged on someone who, from a distanced, outside point of view, scratched a rock.
>
> Although not directly relevant, there are analogies to be observed if you indulge me in a bit of a tangent..
>

All very well, but I'm pretty sure you would react more if I crashed into your car than if I crashed into someone else's car. I am at fault in both cases, but you only have a vested interest in the one. This is the same - there are major tragedies that we all despair of, yet this issue affects our immediate little niche, therefore we react directly.


> I think the message has been said quite strongly enough regarding climbing snowed up rock on grit or other rock climbing crags. We should now leave him alone and distance oursleves from this spiral of hate.

I definitely agree with you there. I particularly dislike the threats of violence. We have all made our opinions known, and there's not much more we can do.
phiiH - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to jonny2vests: Who put these arguments to bed, it appears to me that it is our peers in the upper Echelons of the sport that dictate what to do, at the end of the day it's a bit rock, thats not covered by any laws, byelaws or anything else to that matter. No one else can decide how any individual can climb it.
phiiH - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to rlines: I agree totally, i'll add that over use at popular venues causes a significant amount of damage. Why don't we all stop climbing then our actions won't damage any rock any where ever again
Brendan - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to liz j:
Hear, hear.
Simon Caldwell - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to phiiH:
> over use at popular venues causes a significant amount of damage. Why don't we all stop climbing then our actions won't damage any rock any where ever again

yes, and if you don't like the bolts you don't have to clip them.

oops, sorry, wrong thread.
Jonny2vests - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to PeakDJ:
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
>
> From Callum's blog - priceless:
>
>
> "4th week - Stanage - ... Got trapped on top of the deliverence boulder after climbing up in the dark and not being able to see the holds to get back down, had to ab off, using Duncan as a convienient anchor on the other side of the boulder."

Yeah, I know, I spat my tea out laughing when I saw that. Thought you'd appreciate it.
Jonny2vests - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to phiiH:
> (In reply to jonny2vests) Who put these arguments to bed

Loads of people, not 'our peers' etc, just regular climbers, but they argued convincingly and it was generally the opinion that just because somewhere has 'quarry' at the end, they're not all just holes in the ground. Stanage is a quarry too you know. I'm not going through it again, put some effort in.

> ...at the end of the day it's a bit rock, thats not covered by any laws, byelaws or anything else to that matter.

Yes it is.

> No one else can decide how any individual can climb it.

Sheffield City Council could if they wanted too. Don't take things for granted.

Ok, so there's a few idiots (very few) threatening violence, but the majority are just trying to send a message about what is acceptable behaviour on grit and you're going out of your way to weaken that message. That makes you part of the problem I'm afraid.
PeakDJ on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to rlines:
> (In reply to PeakDJ) Abseil down a boulder. So what is is that he had done there to offend/harm or otherwise inconvenience any single person alive?
>

He'd done nowt to offend or harm anyone, and I didn't say or imply that he has.

I just found his blog amusing - that's all!

When you say you "gave up with these forums", were you off in isolation somewhere trying to grow a sense of humour???

phiiH - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to jonny2vests: Up until this news forum came about i'd never thought about the possiblity of quarrys having much winter possibilities, the more i think about the holes in lancashire, "my hunting ground2, there are many corners and rivens of water that could mean i could get some winter fun in without driving to far, are you telling me i can't do this. This is quarried grit, not an area of geological importance such as Brimham
phiiH - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Toreador:yes, and if you don't like the bolts you don't have to clip them.

oops, sorry, wrong thread.

Correct, use them, dont use them. do it, don't do, essentially it's your own choice.
supersteve - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:
Thought I should add my 2 cent as everyone else has.

Whereas I condone the actions of the two climbers, I am disappointed with UKClimbing's coverage of this. To name and shame them in this way is irresponsible journalism designed to cause a stir rather than solve a problem and educate Calum. Everyone has different opinions of right and wrong (very wrong in this case), but a sit down conversation face to face with Calum, and an anonymous article is the grown up way of dealing with this. The article is totally one sided and should never have been published until the climbers in question had been given a full chance to explain their actions. Personally I hope they sue the website for this.

Steve
GPN - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to supersteve:
> (In reply to UKC News)
> Thought I should add my 2 cent as everyone else has.
>
> The article is totally one sided and should never have been published until the climbers in question had been given a full chance to explain their actions.

Have you read Calum's response?

>Personally I hope they sue the website for this.

And what would they sue for?


mynyddresident - on 08 Dec 2010
Missing the point arn't you? I doubt if people object to climbing some ice that forms in some corner or groove but these are established routes these 'tools' have climbed which they've damaged.
ads.ukclimbing.com
deepsoup - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ticktockdublin:
> This is the internet and Calum is no doubt well known by now. This will affect him in what he does in climbing in the future.

We can only hope it does.
supersteve - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to georgenorth:
Hi George, I can't find any reference to a response by Calum anywhere in the article, just opinions from a few people who were not there. Im not backing him up, I just think the website has criminalised Callum without giving a balanced argument. He could easily sue for misrepresentation of character.

Steve
McBirdy - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to supersteve:

Not sure you have read every post, Steve (which is understandable). This hasn't blown up because of what they did - we've all done stupid things. It's blown up because of their attitude before, at the time and since.

You can trawl the threads if you can be bothered. It might also be enlightening to share some choice sentences from emails sent to me by members of his club:

"I know Calum and he is unlikely to change his actions based on what others think is right or wrong."

"In Calum's opinion there was no particular wrongdoing."

"I have spoken to the lad and told him not to do it on club trips, but aside from this there is little else anyone can do."

"If people are bloody-minded enough to do this kind of thing, they are unlikely to read or care about opinions posted on an internet forum."

"I've discussed various ethical things with Calum before and he simply doesn't see the majority point of view. Short of acts of torture this is not likely to change. He is already aware that the club does not condone this kind of behaviour, however he also doesn't care."

Given that the vast majority of UK climbers (small c) would prefer not to turn up at 3* classic trad routes and find that they've been dry tooled to death I don't think 'the fuss' is unreasonable. No-one has physically stopped the guy going it and I HOPE the threats of physical violence are just talk, but I think climbers are right to express in no uncertain terms that they disapprove of this activity!

Ben
McBirdy - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to supersteve:

That's because you're looking at the 'short' thread. I'll point you in the direction of his response...

Ben
McBirdy - on 08 Dec 2010
David Hooper - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to supersteve:

Hi Steve - it took me 10 seconds to find and copy this for you :

by - Calum Nicoll on - 21:13 Mon
In reply to Gareth H: Hi Gareth

We had a great weekend, hope you did too.

We did no dry tooling that weekend. We got to millstone about 12 ish saturday. Looked at green death, it wasn't in nick. There was a brilliant thin ice line formed roughly going down monopoly. We tried it but backed off very quickly due to water running down behind the ice. Then we had a burn on some route which consisted of thin ice/neve, partener led it and came off about 1/2 way up when the sheet detached. We then went to bed, intending to get up early the next day to take advantage of the cold temps.

Started climbing at 5am the next morning, the overnight rain had washed out the mid section of monopoly but everything was frozen. We top roped some routes, the photo of us on a route you took was completely in nick, it just wasn't very white. The rock was well verglassed due to seepage from the snow above. The crack itself was filled with snow and ice. I found the crux to be ascending the icicle that was about half way up the crack, right in the back, the crack constricts at that point and it's very awkward indeed unless you have child sized hands.


Interestingly, of the people we spoke to that weekend, 2 groups expressed disapproval, one guy on his own said the route wasn't in condition, and another 7 (or 8) groups of people approved.


Calum
Michael Gordon - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

To be honest I'm surprised that some have portrayed the stuff Rich Simpson has/hasn't done as worse than stuff this muppet has done. The former may have lied about some stuff but he hasn't gone out dry tooling grit! He isn't a vandal who has damaged both the environment climbers play in and their enjoyment of that environment.
match - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to phiiH:
> (In reply to jonny2vests) Up until this news forum came about i'd never thought about the possiblity of quarrys having much winter possibilities, the more i think about the holes in lancashire, "my hunting ground2, there are many corners and rivens of water that could mean i could get some winter fun in without driving to far, are you telling me i can't do this. This is quarried grit, not an area of geological importance such as Brimham

Many people's hunting ground. This has come up in the past, including this week at Anglezarke. Basically, there is the odd thin ice line that forms occasionally, and various bits of rock get blobs of snow on. People have damaged rock climbs at Witches, Denham and Anglezarke (off the top of my head) by dry tooling/scratching up something with odd bits of white on. I personally don't think this is acceptable and appropriate, as it damages the surface of the soft sedimentary rocks and leads to increased erosion, along with visible scars. The routes involved have been established summer lines, often very good ones. The fact that the venues are quarried makes no difference - they are established rock climbing venues now, in my view more ethically important than an historical fact about their genesis.

This is NOT to suggest that you can't have winter fun without driving far. There are ice climbs in east Lancs (mentioned in the guidebook if you read carefully) being done at the moment, and in the current conditions I would expect the odd summer-chossfest to be in decent nick. I'd say that people are suggesting you shouldn't practice your winter climbing in established rock climbing venues. At a personal level, I've eyed the ice weep at Wilton before now, but would never get on it, even if fatter, cos I'm just not good enough to climb ice that thin and hard without flailing around and f*cking up the rock (on some classic e3/4?).

Plus, what's wrong with dry tooling on railway bridges, telegraph poles, hanging logs off trees etc. - common practice for the keen bean for yonks and ethically sweet (live trees less so, hooking only perhaps?).
deepsoup - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to David Hooper:
That response was posted by someone claiming to be Calum, but not logged in. Maybe it was him, but probably not.
supersteve - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Ben Darvill:
Hi Ben,
thanks for the link - I would suggest the website add this to the article. And I dont have issue with the forum allowing climbers to express their opinions (one of the great internet tools), but UKClimbing should take more responsibility for providing a balanced article. If they dont get a response from Callum this should be clearly stated.
Steve
supersteve - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to David Hooper:
Hi David,
it's not my responsibility to search for this - UKClimbing should be making this accessible.
Steve
GPN - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to deepsoup:
> (In reply to David Hooper)
> That response was posted by someone claiming to be Calum, but not logged in. Maybe it was him, but probably not.

No. That respsonse was from Calum when he was logged in. There was another response from somebody claiming to be Calum which I think has been deleted.

Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to match:
> (In reply to phiiH)
> [...]

> Plus, what's wrong with dry tooling on railway bridges, telegraph poles, hanging logs off trees etc. - common practice for the keen bean for yonks and ethically sweet (live trees less so, hooking only perhaps?).

Well, you're very likely to find yourself in breach of the law against the owners of such things and places e.g. criminal damage/vandalism. If we lose that perspective as climbers - i.e. just how our actions may be destroying our natural resources - our sport is finished, I believe. (I also think it's in a very bad way indeed if it can accommodate such ideas as 'dry-tooling' on rock-climbing crags, and top-roping with 100m ropes ... both of which I'd scarcely heard about until yesterday.) At this rate, within a matter of years, climbing could all be over as a sport as we now know it - with perfectly justifiable legal bans all over the place - thanks to a new, apparently growing generation of mindless wallies.

In reply to supersteve / Ticktockdublin: You are assuming I have not been in touch with Calum.

And you are assuming he didn't know I was going to publish this article and you are assuming I have 'named' him as the 'perpetrator'.

Non of your assumptions are correct I am afraid.

Calum contacted ME two days before this incident telling me he was going to have some news and asking if he could write the news but then also asking if "one of us" (the UKC staff) would pretend we had written it.

I had no idea what his news was going to be.

I then contacted him after the incident as soon as I realised who had been climbing these routes, and we had several emails in which I was very nice to him, as I am a nice guy (thanks Tick Tock Dublin), and I very politely suggested that in my opinion his actions were wrong, yet I also conceded it wasn't a black and white issue, and asked him for any responses and his thoughts on the matter.

His condescending and very brief replies were not really worth publishing I'm afraid.

He came forward and named himself on the UKC forums the day before I published anything.

His belayer has not come forward and therefore I have not named him, even though I do know his name.

I will continue to report daily climbing news as well as I can, always linked to a forum post where I receive (often negative) instant feedback.

Thanks for your thoughts, always great to hear everyone's views.

Best,

Jack

PS. Tick Tock Dublin, I think you may have accidentally pressed your Caps Lock - that's the big button usually on the left of the keyboard.
Hugh Cottam - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Fine with all that. Only it is about as "black and white" as anything in British climbing can possibly be!
loopyone on 08 Dec 2010 - host86-159-102-121.range86-159.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Convenient this all comes to light now a few days after the event.......
liz j on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
Am I reading that correctly? He contacted you two days before he went and drytooled at Millstone? I can only come to the conclusion that therefore this was a pre meditated act, knowing full well the outrage it would cause. To actively ask you to print a news article about it, he must therefore know that what he did is against all ethics for Millstone. Why else would he ask? Would hardly have been newsworthy if he'd gone to an accepted drytooling area.

Either that, or this is the most elaborate troll in the history of UKC!!!
Pursued by a bear - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112: Indeed it is. It reassures us that Jack does his job appropriately and well when dealing with a controversial topic and someone who sounds as though they covet attention.

I trust that's what you meant?

T.
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112:

Jack is actually telling us about what he was told (privately) before the event. Please wake up.
phiiH - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to mynyddresident: I've not missed the point, to a certain extent i've been playing devils advocate. All this over a few scratches, when i get to climb at millstone it won't ruin my experience and i'll probably enjoy it.

originally i was trying to open up the debate, clearly most people have the same blinkered views and are only interested in berating someone else.
nrhill on 08 Dec 2010 - 5adafbf0.bb.sky.com
In reply to wayno265:

Fair one.
loopyone on 08 Dec 2010 - host86-159-102-121.range86-159.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to tatty112)
>
> Jack is actually telling us about what he was told (privately) before the event. Please wake up.

Gordon, Jack has taken a slating from some quarters for the way UKC has reported this 'event' and now conveniently (without a shred of evidence) he suggests that Callum contacted him and courted publicity for his antics. I'm merely saying it doesn't all add up.
David Hooper - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
"His condescending and very brief replies were not really worth publishing I'm afraid."

Well Jack - this latest revelatin is a turn up for the book - this one is going to run and run.

In the interest of balance and tranparency I think you should publish Calums mails (if it is legal to do so)

Im now getting the impression that Calum is one of these weird fantasists that pop up on UKC now and again and operate on the fringes of our world. Like that Andrew Moorhouse? International rescue bloke and the Rap Jumping UK loon - there does seem to be a bit of a syndrome sometimes :o(

Michael Gordon - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to David Hooper:
> (In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC)
> In the interest of balance and tranparency I think you should publish Calums mails (if it is legal to do so)
>

Why? By the sounds of it his 'correspondence' won't do him any favours.
liz j on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to David Hooper:
Not forgetting Icemonster in his many forms (Mr Rain/Pingod)!!!
petestack - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to tatty112:
> and now conveniently (without a shred of evidence) he suggests that Callum contacted him and courted publicity for his antics.

My first post to either of the Millstone threads (after following both of them from the start)...

Don't see what's 'convenient' about this or what kind of evidence you're looking for, but what Jack says rings absolutely true to me!

> I'm merely saying it doesn't all add up.

Knowing Calum's history here, I'd say it's a simple case of 2 + 2 = 4.
In reply to tatty112:
> Gordon, Jack has taken a slating from some quarters for the way UKC has reported this 'event' and now conveniently (without a shred of evidence) he suggests that Callum contacted him and courted publicity for his antics. I'm merely saying it doesn't all add up.

I got the email as well. It's here in my in box. It arrived on Tuesday last week. I could show it to you but I don't really want to. If it doesn't exist then Calum can deny it.

We didn't publish this information initially since we were hoping that the matter wouldn't explode in the way it has and hence this very damning bit of evidence needn't come forward. However in light of the criticism received over the news report, we now feel that it is worth disclosing.

Alan
liz j on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
Well, Calum, far from being upset by the posts on these threads, must be laughing his head off, as he's done what he set out to do.
Incredible.
supersteve - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
Hi Jack,
thanks for the reply. I was slightly shocked to read these new revelations considering there was no reference to this in the original email. I would expect now to see this added to the article, and on your discression, extracts from the earlier email correspondence. If you are going to publish such a story which you know will create a stir, you must provide all the information, otherwise it is not a balanced argument.
Keen to get your thoughts.
Steve
banned profile 74 on 08 Dec 2010 - 64.49.125.91.rb3.adsl.brightview.com
In reply to supersteve: as far as im aware an email is a private document between the person sending it and the receipient therefore without permission from the sender ukc could be liable for a breach of privacy,hence why they arent publishing any emails :o)
banned profile 74 on 08 Dec 2010 - 64.49.125.91.rb3.adsl.brightview.com
In reply to liz j:
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC)
> Well, Calum, far from being upset by the posts on these threads, must be laughing his head off


you think?i would have though he will be thinking about where and when he next shows his face climbing outdoors incase someone pops him one!
Gordon Stainforth - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Many thanks, Alan and Jack, for disclosing this. I'm sure the vast majority of UKC regulars like myself have no doubts whatever about your integrity. In my opinion this whole episode has shown UKC at its best, really, in that it first alerted thousands of climbers to this aberration, and then got a huge number of climbers to discuss the very serious issues involved.
supersteve - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth:
Are they not in breach of privacy naming and shaming?
McBirdy - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

This is absolutely unbelievable (although I'm not saying I don't believe you). What on earth is going on! Someone needs to have serious words with this tool.

Ben
liz j on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth:
> (In reply to liz j)
> [...]
>
>
> you think?i would have though he will be thinking about where and when he next shows his face climbing outdoors incase someone pops him one!

You think he has that level of rational thinking!!!
deepsoup - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to georgenorth:

Oops, you're quite right. I stand corrected.
liz j on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to supersteve:
> (In reply to beastofackworth)
> Are they not in breach of privacy naming and shaming?

No, he had already posted himself and confirmed that he was indeed the climber in the photos before the article was posted.
Denni on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC)
>
> Many thanks, Alan and Jack, for disclosing this. I'm sure the vast majority of UKC regulars like myself have no doubts whatever about your integrity. In my opinion this whole episode has shown UKC at its best, really


Really! It has reinforced to me that people need to force their opinions onto others and as for the threats of violence, great advertisment for the site.

Might only be a few doing it, but it only takes one.
ericinbristol - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
> Calum contacted ME two days before this incident telling me he was going to have some news and asking if he could write the news but then also asking if "one of us" (the UKC staff) would pretend we had written it.
>

Wow. So all those making arguments about UKC being irresponsible in running an article on this can drop it now.
supersteve - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to liz j:
Hi Liz,
my issue is with UK climbing not reporting the full facts. I hope they amend this.
Steve
ads.ukclimbing.com
ChrisJD on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to liz j:
> (In reply to supersteve)
> [...]
>
> No, he had already posted himself and confirmed that he was indeed the climber in the photos before the article was posted.

And there would be no breach of privacy, even if he hadn't posted.

How do you think newspapers operate?

banned profile 74 on 08 Dec 2010 - 64.49.125.91.rb3.adsl.brightview.com
In reply to supersteve:
> (In reply to beastofackworth)
> Are they not in breach of privacy naming and shaming?

nope because it all happened in a public place and the guy stated who he was etc.

if it was a breach of privacy would pictures of jordan on her phone while driving have been alloyed in the paper?
allysingo - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to supersteve:
> (In reply to beastofackworth)
> Are they not in breach of privacy naming and shaming?

Tut Tut! You really need to do your homework.
Calum quite happily named himself, both during the event and on the forums.
He was not named and shamed by the UKC editors.
Further reading required boy!
jacobfinn on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: Climbers may all be part of one big community, but try to get agreement on anything? Impossible. It's easier stuffing an octopus into a string bag. Or herding cats etc.

To my mind nothing will come from this.

Spleen has been vented.

Callum will probably continue to dry tool.

Discord has simmered between various UKCers.

99% of us agree (including me, even though I haven't got the trad ethic, values etc ingrained in my sport/tooling obsessed psyche, allegedly) that dry tooling at Millstone and all other established trad venues is wrong, and always will be wrong

There will be a growing pressure to explore new ways of climbing, including tooling, and the climbing community will need to accept it if we want to have any say in its development

Climbers are individuals, sometimes bloody-minded so and sos, and we pick and choose when we want to listen to advice from our peers (we've all done it, so don't deny it)

UKC is not a place to come if you want agree on an issue. Any issue. Ever.

A new argument will start tomorrow.

In three weeks the Tools with Fools thread and all the threads around it will be forgotten when we are thrashing our way around our respective neighbourhoods, dry tooling every climbable surface with those new Quarks santa brought for us (but not dry tooling at Millstone or any other trad venue, for we've all agreed that its bad form to do so).

Can we have a new topic to argue over now please? I'm bored of this one.
loopyone on 08 Dec 2010 - host86-159-102-121.range86-159.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Alan James - UKC: Fair enough. Not meaning to come across as doubting of your integrity, but looking at the way some people are being about this whole sorry affair I hope you can understand the scepticism about things.
banned profile 74 on 08 Dec 2010 - 64.49.125.91.rb3.adsl.brightview.com
In reply to liz j:
> (In reply to beastofackworth)
> [...]
>
> You think he has that level of rational thinking!!!

possibly not and he will probably be throwing fire extinguishers off buildings for his next stunt

supersteve - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth:
Hi,
I had (up to this point) trusted UKClimbing to report accurate news articles. This is all looking a bit April Fools now. UKClimbing need to now publish all the information they have to keep themselves credible, before they become like The Sun, or worse (8a.nu!).
Steve
Andy S - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC: I think basically what people are saying, Alan, is that the news article does not have the neutral tone of presenting facts so people can make their own mind up. Instead, it has the tone of someone making a judgement and expressing their opinion.

When someone in a position of influence i.e. someone who can publish an article on their own website to be viewed by thousands immediately, who then passes judgement without a proper 'jury', is going to be met with criticism. It's social dynamics.

When you say "However in light of the criticism received over the news report, we now feel that it is worth disclosing", it sounds like you want to disclose the information with the intent to persuade people that the tone/manner and/or the judgement passed in the original article was justified. This is an entirely different debate and quite frankly, one that most people don't care about.

Wouldn't it be better for you and Jack to get back to just presenting the facts of what was done by these climbers at Millstone Edge?
ChrisJD on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to jacobfinn:


> try to get agreement on anything? Impossible.

> 99% of us agree (including me, even though I haven't got the trad ethic, values etc ingrained in my sport/tooling obsessed psyche, allegedly) that dry tooling at Millstone and all other established trad venues is wrong, and always will be wrong

> UKC is not a place to come if you want agree on an issue. Any issue. Ever.


Err, surely you're contradicting yourself?
allysingo - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to ChrisJD:

He's just not agreeing with himself. UKC is not a place to come if you want to agree on an issue.
McBirdy - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to allysingo:

I'm afraid I don't agree.
ericinbristol - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Andy S:
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC) I think basically what people are saying, Alan, is that the news article does not have the neutral tone of presenting facts so people can make their own mind up. Instead, it has the tone of someone making a judgement and expressing their opinion.
>

Good! This is someone dry tooling at Millstone and seeking in advance it seems to get it publicised. I am glad UKC positioned itself against it.
Michael Gordon - on 08 Dec 2010
jacobfinn on 08 Dec 2010
> Err, surely you're contradicting yourself?

No, I couldn't possible agree with that. See what I mean? I can't even agree with myself.
ChrisJD on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Ben Darvill:


I don't agree that we agreed to not to agree, if we ever agreed in the first place.


Agreed?
Dave Garnett - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Andy S:
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC) I think basically what people are saying, Alan, is that the news article does not have the neutral tone of presenting facts so people can make their own mind up. Instead, it has the tone of someone making a judgement and expressing their opinion.
>
Given that Jack has said that he didn't approve of what was done, tried to educate the perpetrators and received little thanks for his efforts, I'd be amazed if his report of neutral. Why should it be?

Fredt on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

You said that before the event, you didn't know what Calum's news would be, and after the event, you discussed your news article with him.

Did he mention whether his proposed 'news' was going to be about dry-tooling at Millstone? After the event did he still want to make it a news item?

I'm trying to figure if he was blissfully proceeding with his news item proposal despite the reaction he provoked.
McBirdy - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

It seems that you and Jack are not going to post his emails here, although I for one would be interested in what he said.

Perhaps though you could give us your opinion on whether the 'news' that he hoped you'd pretend to report was (in a positive light) his 'bad ass winter ascent of embankment' or did you get the impression that he knew exactly the anger that this would generate and it was this publicity he was seeking.

Ben
In reply to Andy S:
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC) I think basically what people are saying, Alan, is that the news article does not have the neutral tone of presenting facts so people can make their own mind up. Instead, it has the tone of someone making a judgement and expressing their opinion.

I disagree that a neutral, non-judgemental tone would have been more appropriate.

However, in light of the fact that Calum appears to have courted the publicity and "infamy", perhaps it would have been better to ignore him.
In reply to Andy S:
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC) I think basically what people are saying, Alan, is that the news article does not have the neutral tone of presenting facts so people can make their own mind up. Instead, it has the tone of someone making a judgement and expressing their opinion.

I don't think people are saying that.

When the news item was published, the first thread had been running for several days. There was no doubt at that time that the vast majority of people commenting on it were condemning these actions, some articulately, others less so. The tone of the thread and the general opinion was very clear. The news item reported the issue in as neutral a way as possible but by necessity reflected the discussion that had already gone on on the thread - we couldn't ignore that. If you actually read it you will see that it just states facts, the opinions are from notable commentators.

> When someone in a position of influence i.e. someone who can publish an article on their own website to be viewed by thousands immediately, who then passes judgement without a proper 'jury', is going to be met with criticism. It's social dynamics.

Where does the news item pass judgement?

> When you say "However in light of the criticism received over the news report, we now feel that it is worth disclosing", it sounds like you want to disclose the information with the intent to persuade people that the tone/manner and/or the judgement passed in the original article was justified. This is an entirely different debate and quite frankly, one that most people don't care about.

Apparently they do care about it.

> Wouldn't it be better for you and Jack to get back to just presenting the facts of what was done by these climbers at Millstone Edge?

Which is exactly what Jack did.

Alan
Ian Black - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to lummox: With regards to your statement about the posting stuff about the brave Troops in the Sun newspaper. I have never bought the sun in my life despite having served my country... What's the prefered read of the less brave these days?
supersteve - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to allysingo:
Hi,
the issue is this is all information that was not revealed in the original article.
Steve
jazzyjackson on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Incontinent half-wit wanted to play Calum in the big screen blockbuster adaption of this emotive story of rock blasphemy.

Losers are urged to apply with a photo and 6 word essay on why they are perfect for the role.

biped - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Agreed. Picking over jack's article in this context is dancing on the head of a pin type stuff. That he didn't disclose the communique between him and Calum (which has echoes of what Pete MacP said in another recent thread) points to quite a level of journalistic restraint. I think Jack and Alan have got it about right.
Dave Ferguson - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to jacobfinn:
>
>
> There will be a growing pressure to explore new ways of climbing, including tooling, and the climbing community will need to accept it if we want to have any say in its development
>
No there won't, just because a vocal minority think that dry tooling is acceptable doesn't mean the rest of us have to accept it. What these various threads have reinforced is the overwhelming feeling in the British climbing community against dry tooling, not just at Millstone, but elsewhere too, due to the damage it causes. Callum's actions have forced the issue in some ways and rather than come to a consensus the climbing community have very much come out against dry tooling. I for one am very encouraged by that.



In reply to jacobfinn:

> 99% of us agree (including me, even though I haven't got the trad ethic, values etc ingrained in my sport/tooling obsessed psyche, allegedly) that dry tooling at Millstone and all other established trad venues is wrong, and always will be wrong
>

> UKC is not a place to come if you want agree on an issue. Any issue. Ever.
>

I think you've contradicted yourself! I think there's been a striking consensus that dry-tooling Millstone was wrong - the only real discord has been about how it was brought to light.
banned profile 74 on 08 Dec 2010 - 64.49.125.91.rb3.adsl.brightview.com
In reply to supersteve:
> (In reply to allysingo)
> Hi,
> the issue is this is all information that was not revealed in the original article.
> Steve

what information?that jack had spoken to callum?
if your pushing for the emails to be published they likely cant be due to privacy laws.
summitjunkie - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Michael Gordon: Been watching this thread with great interest and just clicked on the links you provided, Michael. I might be wrong, but I feel that there may indeed be a connection between the 'Rad' Butts articles and the postings of young Calum, if not only in the way that both seem to be written by a similarly minded fantasist individual.

Regarding the 'Rad' Butts articles, I've not seen such bullcrap, and so many people suck up to it so quickly, since I myself used to be at Uni and had to listen to similar stories from fantasist dick swinging sados on a regular basis.

To see that the 'Rad' Butts stories were actually given credance on here is as much beyond belief as the deliberate trashing of an important climb by an egotistical and arrogant arsewipe and his mate. Better stop writing now - words are beginning to fail me....
supersteve - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to beastofackworth:
Hi
I'm not pushing to see the emails or any other correspondence, just a reference to it in the original article and to acknowledge they had been in contact with Callum with reference to relevent correspondence. As before, I fully condone their actions at Millstone, but as a leading media site, UKClimbing have to do better than this.
Steve
In reply to supersteve: I hope you're confusing "condone" with "condemn"!
liz j on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to supersteve:
You fully condone their actions!!!!
jacobfinn on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Dave Ferguson: At the end of the day you'll always get people like Callum doing what they want, without regard to the views of anyone else. So for people like him (and I stress him), it doesn't matter what the climbing community thinks.

For the rest of us - ie people like me - dry tooling is just one several areas of climbing that is of interest. I like my trad, my winter, my indoor. There is a place for dry tooling, as long as it's in an appropriate venue. Newtyle near Dunkeld is somewhere that is ideal for instance. There must be other places that are not suitable for trad and finding and developing those places needs to be encouraged surely.

I don't see a problem in developing the sport as long as its done responsibily and with at least the tacit agreement of the likes of the BMC and MCofS, if not the full support of the climbing comunity (however that is represented).

Anyway, please no flaming me for being pro-tooling. I get the message that many of you out there are not keen on it.
stewieatb on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to summitjunkie:

Err, the Rad Butts articles are spoofs. Pisstakes. Parodies. UKC knew this when they published them.
allysingo - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to supersteve:
Hi Steve,
I think you may be coming at it from halfway through.
I thought that the UKC article was fair enough. Even if there had been some editorial comment (which there wasn't) I think it would still have been fair.
The truth is, the boy did name himself quite happily.
He's had a rough ride from most on here and I have some sympathy.
But let's not weep for him too much, it sounds like he has enough ego for all of us put together. The dust will settle and the thing will be forgotten soon enough.
gingerkate - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to jacobfinn:
> (In reply to Dave Ferguson) At the end of the day you'll always get people like Callum doing what they want, without regard to the views of anyone else. So for people like him (and I stress him), it doesn't matter what the climbing community thinks.

Au contraire, he did it precisely because of what he knew the climbing community would think, that is now clear.

Padraig on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to allysingo:
> (In reply to ChrisJD)
>
UKC is not a place to come if you want to agree on an issue.

I agree!

supersteve - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to wayno265:
Condemn (slaps my own wrist!)
Michael Gordon - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to summitjunkie:

I found those stories quite funny. It's not so funny when characters like Rad come to life though.
bobert - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Denni:
> (In reply to Gordon Stainforth)
> [...]
>
>
> Really! It has reinforced to me that people need to force their opinions onto others and as for the threats of violence, great advertisment for the site.
>
> Might only be a few doing it, but it only takes one.

Softlad!

fionn on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

My theory ...

Calum had the mightily deluded impression that doing "first winter ascents" of classic trad routes at a high profile crag would be a great climbing achievement, a coup, ground-breaking news.. He, per chance, saw this as a means to making a name, status, kudos, for himself in the climbing world. He wanted to be the star of a news story on the front page of UKC. He had it all planned, was going to write the article himself ... wanted it to appear like a credible piece of journalism that had been written about him, did all the ground work ...

Oh, but it so spectacularly back-fired.

Keen, like a dog with two knobs ... but very deluded.

He got his front page. Not in the way he anticipated though.

ads.ukclimbing.com
whistler - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:
Hey guys, couldn't be bothered reading it all so thought I'll process it first into a brief summary. Here's the result!
http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/2854280/Fools_with_tools

Enjoy!
Peace
Denni on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Phil Payne)
>
> [...]
>
> Hmm, "I'm sure there *might* be a case" is rather ambiguous. Are you sure there would be a case or not? Clue: there wouldn't be.


Actually you may be incorrect there. My friend is a lawyer in Brussels and I asked her for a general rule of thumb regarding websites and any libel action as a result of this thread.

From her email:

"The issue of liability for forum providers is a bit sketchy, but, European and UK law states that forum providers are not considered liable if asked by the individual(s) they remove any reference that is considered deflammatory or that states a direct reference to violence to the individual(s).

If they do not remove this information, then the individual(s) have the right to report it. It is also generally considered that although the forum owners cannot be held responsible for individual posts, they do have the option to remove them and if this is not the case, then they could be construed as being supportive of such action"

She reckons it all comes down to whether or not he has broken the law, he hasn't and even if he had, it is not the right of a forum to dictate and report whether he is in the wrong or not.

ericinbristol - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Denni:

"deflammatory"....
Denni on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Eric Herring:

Your point being....
Horse on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Denni:

The original point was about the news article not the forum post(s).
Rat know-all - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:
The photos of the damage to the rock, make a chap wince in anguish, though I am hopeful that even these, err, young chaps have learned a lesson despite the misplaced bravado of their riposte.
Denni on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Horse:

I would say the same applies to all the threads wouldn't you?
The news article has generated enough posts, some still in the vain of the main original post.

I really don't care either way but all the people thinking there could be no repercussions are sadly deluded.

At the end of the day, not my website, not my journalism, not my worry.
Ian Black - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Denni:
> (In reply to Eric Herring)
>
> Your point being....





'Defamatory.' I think he's trying to be a smart arse Denni.
Denni on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Denni:

To Clochette, if you're going to post a childish remark, at least have the courage of your convictions not to delete it.
Denni on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Ian Black:
> (In reply to Denni)
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
> 'Defamatory.' I think he's trying to be a smart arse Denni.


Lol! Hit her where it hurts, her spelling is atrocious for someone who has to write a lot!
liz j on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Denni:
> (In reply to Eric Herring)
>
> Your point being....

That a lawyer is unlikely to mis-spell such an important word as 'defamatory'
clochette - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Denni:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
> [...]

> My friend is a lawyer in Brussels...

Oooh, my dad's bigger than yours.
Horse on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Denni:

The original point made was about the article:

I can tell you that if this article had been written about me, I would certainly be seeking legal advice about pursuing a claim for defamation of character.

Not the threads or posts but the article. If you are going to ask a lawyer a question at least ask the right one.
clochette - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Denni:

I deleted it to change it. I just don't understand where you're coming from.
3leggeddog on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Have I got this wrong?

UKC were informed of Callum's intention to do something newsworthy prior to the event.

Did Callum state what he was going to do in his email to ukc?

IF (and that is a BIG IF) this is true then ukc towers were complicit with the deed and no better than news of the world journos. It shows that ukc values copy over the crags.

It is not the responsibility of ukc to police the crags but a timely leak could have prevented the whole sorry affair.

This post is full of doubts and ifs and buts. I will joyfully withdraw it all when my twisted curiosity is satisfied
Denni on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to clochette:

Not coming from anywhere matey. Haven't really got a view on the whole matter apart from the fact they did wrong.

Just trying to point out that there could be consequences of other peoples actions/remarks, but as usual on UKC, everyone knows better.

Horse on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to 3leggeddog:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Have I got this wrong?

It would seem so.

> UKC were informed of Callum's intention to do something newsworthy prior to the event.
>
> Did Callum state what he was going to do in his email to ukc?
>
From Jack's post this evening:

I had no idea what his news was going to be.
gingerkate - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to 3leggeddog:

> UKC were informed of Callum's intention to do something newsworthy prior to the event.
>
> Did Callum state what he was going to do in his email to ukc?

No he didn't. Jack said that in his post.
clochette - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Denni:
> (In reply to clochette)
>
> Haven't really got a view on the whole matter apart from the fact they did wrong.

Well that's good, I got the opposite impression. Seemed as if you were having a go at people for condemning them.
3leggeddog on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

My apologies then, all is right with the world
ads.ukclimbing.com
Denni on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Horse:
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> The original point made was about the article:
>
> I can tell you that if this article had been written about me, I would certainly be seeking legal advice about pursuing a claim for defamation of character.
>
> Not the threads or posts but the article. If you are going to ask a lawyer a question at least ask the right one.



Hey, take a chill pill mate. We all get things wrong, Thanks for pointing that out to me, I obviously misquoted. I'm big enough to admit I screw up now and again.

Although, same thing still stands though. People need to be aware there are consequences to actions, but then again, I'm probably talking rubbish if you asked the majority of the usual suspects on here.
Denni on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to clochette:

Maybe it came across that way, pretty pants when it comes to expressing myself on t'internet.

Apologies for the childish comment by me, never a clever thing to do.
Den
gingerkate - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:
Jack and Alan, might it be worth putting a link in your OP to Jack's post? Or something like that. I think quite often people read the initial post/article, then reply without reading the whole thread, and your revelation is essential information.
Dave Kerr - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Ed Boyter:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> He got his front page. Not in the way he anticipated though.

That's not a bad theory.

mark s - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: if the tool had come on here when the original thread appeared and said he was sorry and didn't realise what impact he was doing would have,the whole thing would have blown over by now.
Its the way he comes across as an arrogant cvnt with no remorse that has angered people.as someone else said he seemed to have some dillusion abot him becoming a star,well it was never going to be from his climbing.
I hope his friends and people he climbs with never let him forget this one.can't imagine climbing partners wanting to climb with him now.
Wonder if he is going to try this stunt again
Coel Hellier - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Denni:

> Actually you may be incorrect there. My friend is a lawyer in Brussels and I asked her for a general rule
> of thumb regarding websites and any libel action as a result of this thread.

Nope, I'm not wrong. Shall we restore some context? You said:

>> I'm sure there might be a case, if as a direct result of this article, the people involved
>> suffer from some sort of abuse or threats.

Note that it was about the UKC news *article*, not about the threads in general. Note that the article is *not* libelous. It makes statement of fact that are defendable as true (and if they're true they're not libel), and it reports opinions (and, again, libel law does not prevent you expressing opinions). Please also note that the UKC article does not ask for or encourage violence. Thus your opinion that "I'm sure there might be a case, if as a direct result of this article, the people involved suffer from some sort of abuse or threats." is simply wrong, whatever your lawyer friend thinks.

> She reckons it all comes down to whether or not he has broken the law, he hasn't and even if he had,
> it is not the right of a forum to dictate and report whether he is in the wrong or not.

Sorry, that's utter tosh. Regardless of whether a law has been broken, we all have a perfect right to express an opinion (on the internet or otherwise) about the rightness or wrongness of someone's conduct. For example, we are perfectly entitled to express the opinion that Nick Clegg is acting extremely badly to break his promise about voting for tuition fees, regardless of whether any law has been broken. Are you really saying that a political blogger could not express an opinion on the rightness of that???

Sorry, Denni, you and your lawyer friend (if you are quoting her correctly), seem as lacking in a clue as Calum. And the point of insulting you like that is to make clear that insulting you is not a breach of your human rights and is not actionable! And that you should not go whining to your mummy and your lawyer about it! Sorry for being snotty in that wording, but the modern fashion for running to lawyers about the mere expression of (shock, horror) an opinion is ridiculous! It's as bad as the modern fashion for 'elf 'nd safety' and CRB checks for everyone.
Dave Kerr - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to whistler:
>

I love the 'wrongfranco'!
bomb on 08 Dec 2010 - host86-175-112-132.wlms-broadband.com
In reply to UKC News:

In response to the What Has UKC Become? thread...

With this article Jack and Alan have shown that the commercial side of climbing can still have an opinion, and that the UKC chiefs still actually care about their sport. I was totally chuffed with Jack's article, pleased that Alan has handled this the way he has. I was getting concerned that the frankly disgusting lukewarm tut-tuts and even defence of these clowns was indicative of the state of climbing in this country, where we hold our ethics and history so strongly, and where in the past acts like this have been widely condemned. Regardless of whether you tool or not, how anyone can even begin to suggest that trashing a first class and historically important trad crag with such disregard is anything but shocking is beyond me. For people STILL to be sitting on the fence when the culprit has the gall to come on here and gloat is just unbelievable. I just cannot believe that this is turning into a debate about whether Jack's report is somehow libellous. And for those of you who keep piping on about all the bigger stories happening around the globe, I say this: slating people for getting worked up about localised issues is all very well if you are yourselves taking action to stop any of the major injustices going on around the world. I very much doubt this is the case, so until then you can quite happily stay sat behind your computers moaning that everyone is missing the bigger picture, whilst you drown in your own self-righteousness and never do anything about anything at all on any level ever. And finally in answer to the original question, I'll tell you what UKC has become, it has become a breeding ground for sanctimonious, pompous, uber liberal weekend warriors who simply cannot fathom what it means to be truly and utterly passionate, dedicated and defensive of something which means as much to them as climbing means to some of us. In no way are Alan and co to blame, and they have my absolute sympathy for having to trawl through the miles and miles of crap that gets posted on here, and I sense they have their work cut out for them in battling the overwhelming tide of self-righteous, smart-arse, spineless pomposity that has ruined a once great resource.

Slatings welcome: way beyond caring.
David Hooper - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb: Word!!!
gingerkate - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Dave Kerr:
It's a sweet theory and I think Ed Boyter must be a thoroughly nice bloke to have come up with it, but it holds less water than my sieve. Unfortunately.
Dave Kerr - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to gingerkate:

Why?
sihills - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb: brilliantly put.
Enty - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:

Nice.

E
gingerkate - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Dave Kerr:
Everything from his past form, to his top rope, to his attitude to people who remonstrated with him at the crag, to his attitude since ... it simply doesn't stack up.


gingerkate - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Enty:
Yeah, sign me up to the bomb fan club too please.
biped - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:

<round of applause>
Dave Kerr - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to gingerkate:

It does if he is a bit of a fantasist.

Do you think he deliberately set out to create this sh*tstorm?

I concede that that too is a possibility
In reply to bomb:

Superbly put. Thankyou!
McBirdy - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:

Bravo
match - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:

Well put, agree.
ads.ukclimbing.com
McBirdy - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to whistler:
> Hey guys, couldn't be bothered reading it all so thought I'll process it first into a brief summary. Here's the result!
> http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/2854280/Fools_with_tools
>

Hey whistler. Which version of Wordle are you using? I get this:

http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/2854671/Calum
gingerkate - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Ben Darvill:
Oh that is going to get pulled but I am laughing so hard!!!!! :o))))
Talius Brute - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:

Spot on.
steveej - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb: best forum post I ever read, in the world, ever!

gingerkate - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Dave Kerr:
> Do you think he deliberately set out to create this sh*tstorm?

Yep.


David Hooper - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

On and on it goes and still Calum doesnt have the balls and decency to come on here and reply. Very sad :o(
Simon Caldwell - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Ed Boyter:
> Calum had the mightily deluded impression that doing "first winter ascents" of classic trad routes at a high profile crag would be a great climbing achievement...

That's the conclusion I came to as well.
steveej - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to steveej: there are photo's of the two of them, there are forum posts from the clown himself, yet there are still people sitting on the fence / or worse defending him. People complaining about others who are standing up and defending what they believe in.

Some people are spineless. I hope they can live with themselves and their value systems.
Hardonicus - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb: Word up dude.
fijibaby on 08 Dec 2010 - 5ad11a1e.bb.sky.com
In reply to bomb: Another well done.
These aren't 'just bits of rock' as a previous poster put it. They have great significance for many people, they have names!
I will always remember certain climbs I've done, for the struggles, the perfect sunny days, the mates I've climbed with. My father (in his late 60's now) can recall climbs down to individual moves, even if he hasn't been near them in 30 years.
It's obvious that taking axe and crampons to a climb will damage it in some way. If that climb relies on it's sharp edges, and finger width crack then any damage done will be more significant.
I really cannot understand anyone condoning this Callum character in anyway. There is a real danger of a precedent being set. The huge 'anti' reaction to this is heartening. It's an example of self policing within a sport.
So good on you Bomb, UKC, and the original poster.
Callum, take up Ultra running. Keep going and don't come back.
Calum Nicoll - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: I’d like to say that I had no idea that so many folk would be upset by our actions, this was not my intention, and I apologise for this. Mistakes were made. Most of all I regret that ICMC’s highly excellent reputation has been besmirched. They do good work and are great guys.

Cheers
Calum
Franco Cookson on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to steveej:
> (In reply to steveej) there are photo's of the two of them, there are forum posts from the clown himself, yet there are still people sitting on the fence / or worse defending him.


If you include me in that group then don't. I think drytooling at Millstone is wrong, especially on a top rope, but I think people need to explain to calum the ONLY reason. It's got nothing to do with the history of the crag, or it's closeness to the road, it's about Millstones softness compared to acceptable rock types.


In reply to Calum Nicoll: Fair does.
In reply to Calum Nicoll:
> (In reply to UKC News) I’d like to say that I had no idea that so many folk would be upset by our actions, this was not my intention, and I apologise for this. Mistakes were made. Most of all I regret that ICMC’s highly excellent reputation has been besmirched. They do good work and are great guys.
>
> Cheers
> Calum


Is that it?
sihills - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Calum Nicoll: What was your intention then? as you obviously had an intention or you wouldnt have emailed ukc?
bomb on 08 Dec 2010 - host86-175-112-132.wlms-broadband.com
In reply to Calum Nicoll:

Calum what puzzles me most is why you haven't at any point bothered to tell people that Struan wasn't involved? You have let him take a lot of shit, and if as some of your other friends have suggested it wasn't him, then you owe him a colossal apology as well. Also how about an actual explanation of what exactly is going on? Emailing Jack about writing your own news story? If you are completely honest you could actually do yourself a favour, because lets face it your attitude so far has been about as shitty as it could have been, and a half arsed apology just isn't going to cut it I'm afraid.
thin bob on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb: well said.
David Hooper - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Calum Nicoll:
> (In reply to UKC News) I’d like to say that I had no idea that so many folk would be upset by our actions, this was not my intention, and I apologise for this. Mistakes were made. Most of all I regret that ICMC’s highly excellent reputation has been besmirched. They do good work and are great guys.
>
> Cheers
> Calum

and THAT is all you have to say on the matter Calum?

Come on, you are a student, purportedly you have an intellect, you consider things and then write about them at length. They are called essays.

I would advise you to go away, cogitate upon your actions and motivations and them maybe comeback with a more considered and less glib, throwaway response.
bomb on 08 Dec 2010 - host86-175-112-132.wlms-broadband.com
In reply to Franco Cookson:

It has got everything to do with the history of the crag you f*cking ignoramus.
thin bob on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Ben Darvill:
ha haaaaaaaa!! 10 points!
i laffed.
ads.ukclimbing.com
ericinbristol - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> In response to the What Has UKC Become? thread...
>
> With this article Jack and Alan have shown that the commercial side of climbing can still have an opinion, <snip>

A classic post. Bravo.
ericinbristol - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:
> lets face it your attitude so far has been about as shitty as it could have been, and a half arsed apology just isn't going to cut it I'm afraid.

and bravo again

biped - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:
> (In reply to Franco Cookson)
>
> It has got everything to do with the history of the crag you f*cking ignoramus.

And again.

David Hooper - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Calum Nicoll:
> (In reply to UKC News) Most of all I regret that ICMC’s highly excellent reputation has been besmirched.

You regret the above more than this?

http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=161135
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=161134
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=161133
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=161131
McBirdy - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:

bravo again. If you weren't anonymous I might even buy you a pint.
ericinbristol - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:
> (In reply to Franco Cookson)
>
> It has got everything to do with the history of the crag you f*cking ignoramus.

Said like it is.
Coel Hellier - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:

> It's got nothing to do with the history of the crag, or it's closeness to the road, it's about
> Millstones softness compared to acceptable rock types.

But Franco, the whole point of crampons is that they make holes in things, that's what they're designed to do, why you have points of sharpened, hardened steel. They're designed to make holes in ice, which is ok, since it's transient, but rock is not, and there really aren't any rock types that are hard and robust enough that crampons will not damage them. Some rock types they'll damage more easily than others, but no rock would be unmarked by them.
Robert Durran - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:

Awesome.
Franco Cookson on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:
Bowfell, Magic crack, Engineers Slabs, Scafel. They all have equally important history, it's the rock type that is the key issue. Please don't be abusive purely because you are too dense to distinguish between which arguments are valid and which are not.


Shame that you hear the word 'history' and leap on it.
In reply to Franco Cookson:

Franco. Have a little respect & decency. Drop it.
Robert Durran - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:
> (In reply to steveej)
> [...]
>
>
> I think people need to explain to calum the ONLY reason. It's got nothing to do with the history of the crag, or it's closeness to the road, it's about Millstones softness compared to acceptable rock types.

So if Millstone happened to be made of granite, it would have been absolutely ok? You must be joking.

Coel Hellier - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Calum Nicoll:

Calum, your previous claim that 7 or 8 parties told you they approved of your actions on the day, some of us find it somewhat hard to believe, were those 7 or 8 parties an invention of yours to try to justify yourself?
Franco Cookson on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Coel Hellier:


Fair enough. If you believe that it is nearly as serious on mountain crags then there should be a thread slating all mixed climbers.
Dave Ferguson - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:
> (In reply to steveej)
> [...]
>
>
> it's about Millstones softness compared to acceptable rock types.


so what are these "acceptable rock types" Franco?

Arcticboy - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Jack

I'd just like to add my voice of support to the way in which you've handled this from a News point of view.

I am very new to climbing (no, really, check my logbook, i'm crap) and the UKC website is my main port of call for news and articles about the incredible world I'm trying to join. I find as a whole that the articles are well written, informative and informed and interesting.

This article in particular is well written and I admire the lengths to which you have gone to seek opinion.

To those who complain that the article wasn't written in a neutral manner, I ask when did you last pick up a newspaper or switch on the news and see a neutral article? I want informed opinion from news. So thank you Jack for providing that.

As to the actions of the two individuals featured, i'm afraid they are indefensible. I see it like this, there are few if any statues to leading climbers/mountaineers, their legacy is the routes they climbed, they are their memorials. In damaging these routes you are no better than someone who defaces a work of art or pisses on a war memorial.

Apologies for my grammar.

Col
Franco Cookson on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Robert Durran:

I'd winter climb on Millstone if it was granite. How is that any different to gimmer or low lakeland crags? Or is this just some 'peakcentricism'?
Pursued by a bear - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Calum Nicoll: Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement. You made a bad call.

Go away for the Christmas break. Enjoy the festivities and the outdoors and get rid of your angst by trying to go uphill ridiculously quickly and bashing some mountain ice. And the next time you feel the itch, try and make a better judgement call.

T.
Robert Durran - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:
> (In reply to bomb)
> Bowfell, Magic crack, Engineers Slabs, Scafel. They all have equally important history, it's the rock type that is the key issue.

No, the key issue is where the vast majority of climbers agree use of crampons and ice axes is acceptable. There may be some grey areas; Millstone isn't one of them.
Franco Cookson on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Dave Ferguson:

Those with a very low chance of chipping taking place, or where scratches don't vastly increase erosion rate- typically igneous or high grade regionally metamorphosed rocks.
Coel Hellier - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:

> Fair enough. If you believe that it is nearly as serious on mountain crags then there should be a thread slating all mixed climbers.

I accept that there is a valid case for mixed climbing on mountain crags where there has been a tradition of both winter climbing and summer climbing. But axes and crampons do mark and damage the rock, so it's not ok to simply spread tool-use from those mountain crags to low-lying crags, just because it is acceptable on traditional winter-climbing mountain crags.
ads.ukclimbing.com
iceox - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:
Well it isn't.Welcome back Spraylord.
Dave Ferguson - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:
so just to clarify Franco, are there any routes in a mountain environment that you wouldn't use ice tools on, or are they all fair game?
David Hooper - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Robert Durran:

I dont want this thread to go off at a tangent and at an emotional and gut level I disagrtee with Franco.

BUT at a logical level Franco has a point (even if I called him an obnoxious trouble making little Sh*t last night - sorry Franco)- how can we justify scratching up beautiful NATURAL mountain rock (and Ive seen the damage on the trade routes getting worse year after year) and yet get so het up about something that is quarried and man made in the first place?
steveej - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson: i wasn't specifically including you. I know your only 19, but please engage brain before you comment.

1000 rock climbers climb a 'granite' version of embankment 3 versus a 1000 dry toolers climbing a granite version of embankment 3.

What do you think happens in both scenarios?

It is not just about the rock type. It seems to me your happy to piss on your own playground.
Franco Cookson on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Many crags, such as gimmer and Neckband have only recently recieved attention in summer. Other crags, such as Gable and Scafel have only relatively recently seen climbers leave the mossy gullys and get on the classic rock routes. This is a major step that the likes of many highly ethical climbers (such as Birkett) have been at the front of.

You can not credibly suggest that there is a difference between Neckband crag and a granite Millstone. Can all those that are merely resorting abuse actually read my argument, I'm not for one second saying winter climbing on Millstone or grit is acceptable, purely that location has very little to do with it.
bomb on 08 Dec 2010 - host86-175-112-132.wlms-broadband.com
In reply to Franco Cookson:

People were winter climbing on mountain crags from day one Cooky love. Thats the difference. And there's the small fact that they actually come into condition, you know hoar, rime, ice and stuff. Millstone doesn't. I wasn't being abusive because I am dense, I was being abusive because frankly I have had enough of reading your immature, inflammatory warblings, the kind of attention-seeking gumbo spouted by someone who whilst clearly having some talent, is not quite good enough to grab the limelight for the right reasons and instead has to rely on some kind of minor internet infamy to feel like he is playing a significant part in "the scene". Ever since these forums started there have been people like you, you're nothing knew, nothing we haven't all seen before. I was holding off making a reference to your age because I didn't want to appear patronising, but then I realised that most of the 19 year olds I know make you look like a whining little fool, so perhaps you SHOULD grow up and actually start acting your age. It would be a start.
Franco Cookson on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Dave Ferguson:
> (In reply to Franco Cookson)
> so just to clarify Franco, are there any routes in a mountain environment that you wouldn't use ice tools on, or are they all fair game?

It's less to do with the enviroment, more about conditions and rock type. I've never seen any damage cause by winter climbing, only superficial scratching (ugly as it may be). I'm not going to advocate destroying the entire UK winter climbing scene above grade V for the consideration of aesthetics for rock climbers.

I can understand if you think that any winter climbing is outragous if done on rock routes. I can't understand if you think that winter climbing in the lakes is OK, but near sheffield it's not, because that makes you a hippocrite.
bomb on 08 Dec 2010 - host86-175-112-132.wlms-broadband.com
In reply to Arcticboy:

If you have really just started climbing, then my heart warms.
There is hope.
David Hooper - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:

careful what you say about Franco bomb, or you will get an abusive email from Jon Santarelli as I did at 12.45 last night :o(

David,



you accuse Franco of being an "obnoxious ittle shit". i suspect that says
more about you than it does about FC. you're a 55 year old bloke, reduced
to verbally abusing a teenage boy on the internet. i think you're a pretty
f*cked up and spiteful little shit yourself.



feel free to publish this email, unless you are spending your time abusing
other teenage boys. yes, UKC is full of shit, and if you can't recognise
that, then you are part of the problem.



XXX



--
This message was sent to you using a public form at http://www.ukclimbing.com
WARNING: Sender is NOT a registered user. You cannot trust that this message
is really from the person with the email address above.


wilkie14c - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to David Hooper:
You have a good point David and one that I tend to agree with. Rather than just looking at one crag or rock type the whole bigger picture needs to be looked at. Its kind of ironic that the some cracks of millstone were in fact created in the first place by metal spikes being bashed into them. At the end of the day any metal we use in contact with the rock is going to wear it away and alter it, just at different rates/speeds. If anyone requires evidence to back my statement up then think of the many horizontal breaks you find on grit and the 'cam scoops' that have been worn into the rock. Cams are accepted protection as we know but this wear is rapid and obvious. How long has this dishing been happening? well, cams have been in normal use for what 25 years? Thats the answer then. The wear we are all doing to the rock can be accounted for. We all do it to a degree, some more than others. Bigger picture and all that eh...
Franco Cookson on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:

The comments about my climbing ability are fair. I'm average at climbing and it does upset me that I'm not better, but I've only been climbing for 4 years and hope to get better. No rush :-). You're wrong about my reasons for posting though. I post because I love winter climbing and I think people are wrong to suggest that the developments in the lakes are unethical.

I don't really see how i'm being immature. I'm attempting to discuss the reason why winter climbing at millstone is wrong.

Your origional post was well written and spot on. The recent ones against me though, seem abusive and illinformed (perhaps that's just cause they are attacking me though).
bomb on 08 Dec 2010 - host86-175-112-132.wlms-broadband.com
In reply to David Hooper:

I shall look forward to it, he sounds like a charmer.

Bring it on.
bouldery bits - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to David Hooper:

Lolza.

I reckon everyone needs to chill. Let's all go climbing. Maybe ice climbing somewhere that is in condition and we all agree on?
liz j on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to David Hooper:
Now that email IS defamatory!!
Robert Durran - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to David Hooper:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
How can we justify scratching up beautiful NATURAL mountain rock (and Ive seen the damage on the trade routes getting worse year after year) and yet get so het up about something that is quarried and man made in the first place?

The point I was making, is that it comes down to concensus - individuals may well disagree about particular areas or routes. there is clearly an overwhelming concensus that Millstone is unacceptable (history and the rock type certainly help form this concensus). I certainly share your concerns about classic routes in the mountains; to take one example, Savage Slit must be on one the finest rock climbs of its grade in the country but is, in my opinion, a pretty average winter line. However, there also seems to be an overwhelming concensus that all routes in the Northern Corries are fair game for winter ascents. Whether it is reasonable to fight against this concensus, I don't know; one certainly wouldn't win!

jon on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to David Hooper:

So who the hell is Jon Santarelli then David?
petestack - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:
> The comments about my climbing ability are fair. I'm average at climbing

FWIW, it's patently obvious that you're a lot better than that! But ultimately not that relevant to this particular topic. :-)
wilkie14c - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to David Hooper: FFS did you really get that from a UKC'er? And thought everyone was opinioned but cool! I really need to harden up!
David Hooper - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to jon:

Havent a clue Jon - its not a registered user - but JacobFinn appears to have had a similar email stalking problem on this thread :o(

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=423206&v=1#x6004735
bomb on 08 Dec 2010 - host86-175-112-132.wlms-broadband.com
In reply to Franco Cookson:

I never said winter climbing in the lakes is unethical, if this was an argument about that I would back you up. I winter climb in the lakes as well. I also never said you were an average climber. But if you can't grasp the difference between winter climbing on Gable and dry tooling at Millstone, regardless of rock type, then I just give up. Millstone is one of my favourite crags, I live nearby, but if you went tooling at Bosigran, which your "granite is fair game attitude" suggests you may, then I would be just as pissed off. Just actually take some time to think about what you're writing, instead of just looking to wind people up. You know you're doing it.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Franco Cookson on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:


Look at it the other way around. If gable was gritstone, would it be ok? I don't think so. How is Raven Crag Langdale different to Millstone, cause you can see the mountains?
Dave Ferguson - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:
> (In reply to Dave Ferguson)
> [...]
>
> It's less to do with the enviroment, more about conditions and rock type. I've never seen any damage cause by winter climbing, only superficial scratching (ugly as it may be). I'm not going to advocate destroying the entire UK winter climbing scene above grade V for the consideration of aesthetics for rock climbers.
>
> I can understand if you think that any winter climbing is outragous if done on rock routes. I can't understand if you think that winter climbing in the lakes is OK, but near sheffield it's not, because that makes you a hippocrite.

I've argued long and hard that scratching up classic summer rock climbs be it in the lakes or the peak is wrong and if it continues at the pace it is it will come back and bite us on the arse, much like the use of nails did in the 50's. The problem is that big names, Steve Ashworth, Dave Birkett et al in the Lakes are in the forefront of this development and are setting a bad example.

The likes of the crack on gimmer and trespasser groove on esk are not suitable winter objectives. The only reason they are done is that the gear placements are easy to find and they are safe. There are loads of overgrown, mossy, high crags in the lakes that would be much more suitable, but no, the clean summer classics get battered. We will all regret this in 10 years time, but it will take much longer to repair the damage.

I used to think I was in a minority, but since Callum opened this can of worms, I'm not so sure

Franco Cookson on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Dave Ferguson:

Fair reply. I think you may be right.
Arcticboy - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:
> (In reply to Arcticboy)
>
> If you have really just started climbing, then my heart warms.
> There is hope.

Yup, started in March, enjoy the warmth.

C
wilkie14c - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Dave Ferguson:
Well put. I posted my long winded thoughts on the whole issue on 'the other thread' just before Mick locked it. Its still there to read if anyone can be arsed. I feel were we are now was inevitable, we need to act to protect 'our' crags and do what we can to promote tooling in particular areas we have agreed upon. If we do nothing we may find ourselves in a situation where tooling is happening everywhere, we are powerless and have no right to stop toolers and they have every right to contiune.
wilkie14c - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Arcticboy:
Very well put mate.
You do know that climbing will take over your like don't you? It does give a fantasic life though :)
sebrider - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to jazzyjackson: Haha, lol!

This is crazy crazy stuff! I bbought a warthog off this dude...arrived on time etc., but I wonder how much millstone its been bashed into?!

So since Calum is now famous any one want to buy some memorabilia?!
jacobfinn on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to David Hooper: I thought I recognised the name. Maybe Jon Santarelli is the UKC enforcer, sent when anyone steps out of line for posting bad things like when I did about shooting dogs :-)

Anyway, I'm off for a climb tomorrow. With my axes. But it's ok. I'm heading for a mountain crag. Don't think that Millstone is in nick at the mo anyway- JOKE!!!
bomb on 08 Dec 2010 - host86-175-112-132.wlms-broadband.com
In reply to Franco Cookson:

Harrisons is sandstone, I wouldn't tool on that. Beinn Eighe is part sandstone, I have on that.
Bosigran is granite, I wouldn't tool on that. Schneachda is granite, I have on that.
Gogarth is quartzite, I wouldn't tool on that. Beinn Eighe is part quartzite, I have on that.
Reecastle is Borrowdale Volcanic, I wouldn't tool on that. Gable is Borrowdale Volcanic, I have on that.
Stanage is grit, I wouldn't tool on that. The downfall is grit, I have on that.

David Hooper - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to sebrider:

I think Vlad Tepes would have a very apt pairing for Calum and his warthog :o)
David Hooper - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to jacobfinn: Wha did he say in your mail Jacob?
Franco Cookson on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:


You've drytooled on Kinder Downfall?????!!!!
jacobfinn on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to David Hooper: I can't remember. Bit of abuse I guess.
Arcticboy - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to blanchie14c:

Cheers mate, much to the chagrin of the wife it's already taken over my wallet!!
wilkie14c - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Arcticboy:
Its only like that for the first year or so, its mostly petrol and pints once you have all the gear, clothing, dvd's, guidebooks, spare gear, spare clothing, tents, maps, more spare gear etc etc ;-)
Welcome aboard!
bellybutt0n on 08 Dec 2010 - host84-93-82-219.plus.net
In reply to UKC News: come on we can make it to 500 comments/posts before midnight haha
jazzyjackson on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to sebrider:
> (In reply to jazzyjackson) Haha, lol!
>
> This is crazy crazy stuff! I bbought a warthog off this dude...arrived on time etc., but I wonder how much millstone its been bashed into?!
>
> So since Calum is now famous any one want to buy some memorabilia?!



Ayup Seb. Best have it melted and reforged as a crucifix to ward off dry toolers.

; )

Robert Durran - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:
> (In reply to bomb)
>
>
> Look at it the other way around. If gable was gritstone, would it be ok? I don't think so.

Then why is sandstone in the NW Highlands considered ok then?
wilkie14c - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to jazzyjackson:
It must be like owning hitlers missing bollock
Rob Winston - on 08 Dec 2010
In reply to blanchie14c:
> (In reply to jazzyjackson)
> It must be like owning hitlers missing bollock

How could you own it if it's missing?
ads.ukclimbing.com
sebrider - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to David Hooper)
> [...]
> How can we justify scratching up beautiful NATURAL mountain rock (and Ive seen the damage on the trade routes getting worse year after year) and yet get so het up about something that is quarried and man made in the first place?
>
I certainly share your concerns about classic routes in the mountains; to take one example, Savage Slit must be on one the finest rock climbs of its grade in the country but is, in my opinion, a pretty average winter line. However, there also seems to be an overwhelming concensus that all routes in the Northern Corries are fair game for winter ascents. Whether it is reasonable to fight against this concensus, I don't know; one certainly wouldn't win!

I'm glad other people are concerned about this. The damage these guys did to the millstone is accepted on classic mountain routes, its just a case of location. The damage to these routes is only set to increase along with increased standards and numbers of winter climbers; so are our ethics on this something that should be re-considered?

By consensus climbing these routes in condition is accepted by the climbing community so climbers are perfectly just in climbing them. However, these ethics came into being years ago when climber standards and numbers were lower - not the case any more.

One climb that made me realise this was magic crack in Corie An t-Sneachda. This is such a nice classic rock route but it is already showing damage. As a climb it is as beautiful as any classic HVS in the peak (if not better ;)!) - yet we have decided its okay to damage this but not quarried millstone.

Calum - maybe you should climb closer to home where you can trash plenty of classic rock without an instant rise to fame!
rothers on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:
> The rock has been severely damaged.

I'm not entirely sure what this means. All i see is a few scratches on some rock. Are the lines now unclimbable or is this 'severe damage' aesthetic only? If this is the case then how can this result in barely controlled rage in some people, as was apparent in the person who started the other thread who was so angry he had to let his wife talk to them. I just don't understand how people are so emotionally invested in a piece of rock especially since the argument that you are destroying natural beauty doesn't even hold in this case as its quarried rock. Seriously can someone give a rational explanation as to why this is such a heinous crime?
wilkie14c - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Rob Winston:
Only missing in everyone elses eyes, the owner will of course be worshiping it, 'my precious' etc
It even has a song named after it but someone must have it...
Andrew Smith - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson: I think the point is that you may be wobbling across a bit of exposed Gritstone, not actually dry tooling up it to aid upward mobility.
McBirdy - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to rothers:

Is this a troll?

I'll bite anyway.

Because...

Actually, I can't be bothered.

Ben
wilkie14c - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to rothers:
I think we have fallen into a trap over the years. The bottom and the top are anyones, the actual rock is ours. We've paid for the guidebook, we've paid for the gear, we are the only ones who actaully 'use' the rock and now we believe its 'ours' in some way.
Franco Cookson on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Robert Durran:

Is it? I don't really think torquing up classic sandstone cracks is acceptable at all. It would totally destroy the rock.
sebrider - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson: If its up the hill and in nick then yes its in! All of Torridon, An Teallach and several other hills made of some of the worlds oldest (and softest!) sandstone. Fortunately many ( but by no means all) of the routes are not summer lines.
Robert Durran - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Is it? I don't really think torquing up classic sandstone cracks is acceptable at all. It would totally destroy the rock.

There is loads of Torridonian Sandstone (admittedly a relatively hard sandstone) in the NW Highlands. Lots of winter routes on it.
.
rothers on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Ben Darvill:
> (In reply to rothers)
>
> Is this a troll?
>
> I'll bite anyway.
>
> Because...
>
> Actually, I can't be bothered.
>
> Ben

No idea what this means but i was also wondering why summer climbing takes precedent over winter climbing. Educate me please, opinionated users of ukc.
sebrider - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Robert Durran: I used to build dry stone walls with old red sandstone...not not that hard at all!
IainWhitehouse - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> In response to the What Has UKC Become? thread...
....

Well said. Have a wad point.

sebrider - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Robert Durran: I guess it must vary in hardness from place to place and is old red the same as Torridonian - humm no sure!?
rothers on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: Sustainability issues aside. Is it selfish to winter climb and enjoy it or to deny other people that enjoyment? Or perhaps its a bit of both and we should all move on and do some climbing instead of starting a witch hunt.
Robert Durran - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to sebrider:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) I guess it must vary in hardness from place to place and is old red the same as Torridonian - humm no sure!?

I think it is the same. Varies a bit, but alweays seeemed to me harder than, say, Northumberland or Utah sandstone.


McBirdy - on 09 Dec 2010
Okay, maybe not a troll. Someone on another thread started using the putting green/bowling green analogy. I quite liked it so I'll attempt something similar here too:

Imagine that the village green has for the last 100 years been managed as a cricket pitch. The villagers like playing cricket - it's very popular. Then someone moves into the village that's quite keen on rugby. He wants some rugby practice so him and a mate run around the village green tossing a rubgy ball to one another. Cricketers ask them to stop because they are damaging the cricket pitch with their rugby boots. They refuse etc etc etc

Then someone posts picture of the stud marks on the batting square and 'AUser' on UKCricket say "are those tiny little stud marks really SERIOUS damage? And why should cricket take precedent over rugby?"

Do the village cricketers:

a) agree with 'Auser', stop being so petty and invite the rest of the rugby team to come and train, or
b) realise that to not act now it to invite open season for chums with scrums (or in our case pricks with picks) to come and start scratching the much cherished playing surface.

The difference being that stud marks on cricket pitches could be quickly repaired and would eventually disappear altogether. Damage done by pointy metal things is effectively permament and will get worse with every subsequent ascent. Plus, as others have said, on gritstone any damage to the surface of the rock will lead to a greater rate of wear thereafter.

Ben
wilkie14c - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Ben Darvill:
Not a bad comparison. I like the golf one too. Like I've said in another thread, if WE want to preserve OUR ethics and cargs, then WE should act and ensure minority groups are happy too. If we don't we are exposed to losing some of OUR 'assets'
rothers on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Ben Darvill: Fair enough. Can't really argue with rhymes like that. My main point was the sheer amount of hate that people had for these 2 'fools'. Whilst i can appreciate what they did upset the majority of people (which should be enough reason to perhaps not do things like this), is that amount of hate justifiable for what they did?
David Hooper - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to rothers:
No it isnt - some folks on here have been willy waving with threats of violence etc and not shown themselves in a good light. Maybe some folk are projecting their own issues onto these two.

I dont condone what they have done and do not like their (apparent) arrogant lack of contrition.

But hate - no, definately not, I dont want to go there.
beinn_eighe on 09 Dec 2010 - 80.168.129.218 whois?
In reply to UKC News:

I said on another thread that has been stopped now that i would never view ukc again, however , i am as guilty as all you other losers that spend your life on here, its just too addictive and easy to state what you think, as its 99% annonymous.

Since when was the voice of British climbing represented by UKC, Jack and Alan have their own views, as do we all. I think that the article '
Fools with Tools' was highly irresponsible, in sense that it victimised Calum whatever his name is.
How many of you lot have driven above the legal speed limit? Im guessing 100%, therefore stop bitching about this, the blokes a tosser, thats obvious, however he is not going to kill anyone.

There are many more climbers in the UK that dont participate in UKC than there are that do, so the 100 or more who regularly participate in the forums are a tiny fraction, in fact I would say that they are the extremist militant losers of british climbing, as they spend their entire lives on this forum, rather than leading a normal life and visiting once every few days to check for new videos etc....


ads.ukclimbing.com
beinn_eighe on 09 Dec 2010 - 80.168.129.218 whois?
In reply to beinn_eighe:

Just in case it is unclear, I do not condone what these wildlife harrasing losers are, or have done! These are not routes that are suitable for dry tooling!

Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

This thread, the other thread, the one on UKB and the article have done a good job in my mind. The message is clear, clear enough that even Callum seems to have got it now. I'm glad we did this, its been emotional.

J2V
MK on 09 Dec 2010 - cpc1-hari5-0-0-cust41.hari.cable.virginmedia.com
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

> His condescending and very brief replies were not really worth publishing I'm afraid.

Oh go on... :))))
Aly - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to bomb: spot on, good post(s).
Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to beinn_eighe:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> I said on another thread that has been stopped now that i would never view ukc again, however , i am as guilty as all you other losers that spend your life on here, its just too addictive and easy to state what you think, as its 99% annonymous.

Whether its anonymous has nothing to do with whether I post. Jonny2vests is merely a nickname I've had for a long time, my real name is Jon Leighton.

> Since when was the voice of British climbing represented by UKC, Jack and Alan have their own views, as do we all. I think that the article '
> Fools with Tools' was highly irresponsible, in sense that it victimised Calum whatever his name is.

Oh come on, lets not get all teary eyed over Callum's victimisation because it didn't happen. Facts were presented, then Callum himself said sorry, so obviously he doesn't think he's been victimised.

> How many of you lot have driven above the legal speed limit? Im guessing 100%, therefore stop bitching about this, the blokes a tosser, thats obvious, however he is not going to kill anyone.

Random!

> There are many more climbers in the UK that dont participate in UKC than there are that do, so the 100 or more who regularly participate in the forums are a tiny fraction

100 'or more'? Where did you get that from? There's probably loads more that read but don't post. And what makes you think that those that do post are not a representative fraction of the whole?

> in fact I would say that they are the extremist militant losers of british climbing, as they spend their entire lives on this forum, rather than leading a normal life and visiting once every few days to check for new videos etc....

You are a strange one. You need a hug from your mum.
iceox - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to David Hooper)
> [...]
> How can we justify scratching up beautiful NATURAL mountain rock (and Ive seen the damage on the trade routes getting worse year after year) and yet get so het up about something that is quarried and man made in the first place?
>
> The point I was making, is that it comes down to concensus - individuals may well disagree about particular areas or routes. there is clearly an overwhelming concensus that Millstone is unacceptable (history and the rock type certainly help form this concensus). I certainly share your concerns about classic routes in the mountains; to take one example, Savage Slit must be on one the finest rock climbs of its grade in the country but is, in my opinion, a pretty average winter line. However, there also seems to be an overwhelming concensus that all routes in the Northern Corries are fair game for winter ascents. Whether it is reasonable to fight against this concensus, I don't know; one certainly wouldn't win!

All about the above,would you dry tool at the "Pass of Ballater" Doubt it
beinn_eighe on 09 Dec 2010 - 80.168.129.218 whois?
In reply to jonny2vests:

Point proven! Im not the strange one, you obviously feel the need to defend yourself, that is the first sign of guilt!

Think about it!
Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to beinn_eighe:
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
>
> Point proven! Im not the strange one, you obviously feel the need to defend yourself, that is the first sign of guilt!
>

You have a strange concept of proof sir. Do you read the Daily Mail?

beinn_eighe on 09 Dec 2010 - 80.168.129.218 whois?
In reply to jonny2vests:

Actually I read the Telegraph (and the Sun!) thats whay im an expert on trash news
sam820 - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

I have conversed with Calum on a number of occasions (I study at the same university) and have come to a simple conclusion: I'm fairly sure he has mild aspergers.

He is unable to look people in the eye or face them whilst conversing.
He is totally unaware of his own climbing ability or those around him/in the wider climbing community (read his blog).
He obviously cannot grasp the seriousness of what has occurred.
He studies physics at Imperial College.



And in all honesty Franco I agree with 'bomb,' if you spent as much time training as you do bulls**itting on these forums you would probably be famous as opposed to infamous.
Darren Jackson - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to sam820:

... The mind boggles.
Fredt on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to everybody:

Is there any point in this thread any more?

The central issue that keeps the thread alive is the rights and wrongs of dry-tooling at Millstone. The overwhelming opinion is that it is wrong.

We can argue about mixed/winter/tooling/bolting/geology/history/other venues on other threads that keep to the point. Some people keep trying to make and apply rules about climbing, and find that they can't. We are better off using a collective common-sense and wisdom, as has existed for over a century.

All the tangential side-swipes, arguing and personal insulting could also be taken up in other threads.

So that just leaves our pound of flesh. I don't think we're going to get an apology, or even an acknowledgement that what was done was wrong. And why should we? UKC is not the keeper of ethics or history, and our presence here does not give us a right to an apology, the misdemeanor was against the common sense and wisdom of all climbing, and UKC is only a small part of that, with its self-defining philosophies which are not necessarily representaive of all climbing.

It was a good discussion, and I myself am happier that I'm not alone in my views about climbing and concerns about where it is heading. But for me, further debate about Calum dry-tooling at Millstone as a topic of discussion is pointless.
DNS on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Darren Jackson:

I agree; I mean - Physics FFS?
jon on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Fredt:
> (In reply to everybody)
>
> Is there any point in this thread any more?
> I don't think we're going to get an apology, or even an acknowledgement that what was done was wrong.

Actually Calum did issue a brief two line apology last night.
Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Fredt:
> (In reply to everybody)
>

> So that just leaves our pound of flesh. I don't think we're going to get an apology, or even an acknowledgement that what was done was wrong. And why should we? UKC is not the keeper of ethics or history, and our presence here does not give us a right to an apology, the misdemeanor was against the common sense and wisdom of all climbing, and UKC is only a small part of that, with its self-defining philosophies which are not necessarily representaive of all climbing.

Nice speech. Scroll up dude.
Dave Kerr - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Fredt:
> (In reply to everybody)
>
> UKC is not the keeper of ethics or history

No, but the community it represents is. At least in part.
Fredt on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to jon:
> (In reply to Fredt)
> [...]
>
> Actually Calum did issue a brief two line apology last night.

He apologised for 'causing upset by his actions', not for his actions. As I said in my last post, I think the majority here are wanting an apology for dry-tooling at Millstone and an acknowledgement that it was wrong.

Fredt on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Dave Kerr:
> (In reply to Fredt)
> [...]
>
> No, but the community it represents is. At least in part.

If you mean that the UKC represents a part of that community, I agree.
Coel Hellier - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to the thread:

Just an observation about this thread and the other two (now locked) ones. UKC have been moderating these threads to remove criticism of Calum that was insulting and abusive (fair enough). They have not removed posts of the "good on you, Millstone is as much yours as theirs" type from a small minority (and mostly from people who don't climb much). Thus the effect of such moderation will have been to alter the balance of views expressed, making it appear that there is less of a consensus against dry-tooling Millstone than there actually is.

For such reasons, wouldn't post-removal would be better done by leaving a place marker, showing that a post was removed (and perhaps giving a one-line statement why)? This is fairly standard on similar sites on the net. I realise that it might take UKC some coding, but it surely can't be that hard to script something that just replaces the text of a post with a one-line "removed by moderator because ...".
Monk - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
> (In reply to tatty112)
> [...]
>
> I got the email as well. It's here in my in box. It arrived on Tuesday last week. I could show it to you but I don't really want to. If it doesn't exist then Calum can deny it.
>

Wow. I think that this changes things significantly. I was prepared to give Callum the benefit of the doubt that this was just youthful exuberance and a lack of understanding. This seems to indicate that this was a premeditated act designed to court controversy. Is this some sort of uber-troll, or does he have some kind of flawed personality that drives him to crave notoriety?

ads.ukclimbing.com
Denni on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to Denni)
>
> [...]
>
> Nope, I'm not wrong. Shall we restore some context? You said:
>
> >> I'm sure there might be a case, if as a direct result of this article, the people involved
> >> suffer from some sort of abuse or threats.
>
> Note that it was about the UKC news *article*, not about the threads in general. Note that the article is *not* libelous. It makes statement of fact that are defendable as true (and if they're true they're not libel), and it reports opinions (and, again, libel law does not prevent you expressing opinions). Please also note that the UKC article does not ask for or encourage violence. Thus your opinion that "I'm sure there might be a case, if as a direct result of this article, the people involved suffer from some sort of abuse or threats." is simply wrong, whatever your lawyer friend thinks.
>
> [...]
>
> Sorry, that's utter tosh. Regardless of whether a law has been broken, we all have a perfect right to express an opinion (on the internet or otherwise) about the rightness or wrongness of someone's conduct. For example, we are perfectly entitled to express the opinion that Nick Clegg is acting extremely badly to break his promise about voting for tuition fees, regardless of whether any law has been broken. Are you really saying that a political blogger could not express an opinion on the rightness of that???
>
> Sorry, Denni, you and your lawyer friend (if you are quoting her correctly), seem as lacking in a clue as Calum. And the point of insulting you like that is to make clear that insulting you is not a breach of your human rights and is not actionable! And that you should not go whining to your mummy and your lawyer about it! Sorry for being snotty in that wording, but the modern fashion for running to lawyers about the mere expression of (shock, horror) an opinion is ridiculous! It's as bad as the modern fashion for 'elf 'nd safety' and CRB checks for everyone.



You're right, you are being snotty, it is a recurrent theme in most of your ill informed posts. Who is running to a lawyer? I merely asked a friend her opinion as someone who practices law and she gave it.

Are you qualified in that field to prove that is correct, or are you merely answering with your opinion? If you read what I wrote, I was not simply referring to the article but all of the threads and the forum in general.

Here is a scenario for you. What if someone said on here you were a racist? (No doubt you will say that is irrelevant, but this is only a scenario so try and go with it if you can)

UKC kept the thread up and people you then subsequently met call you a racist because of comments they read onhere, I take it you would be ok with that, or would you contact UKC and ask that the person who said it was either banned or the comment removed?
Brendan - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Dave Ferguson:

I completely agree, very good point.
Monk - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Andy S:
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC) I think basically what people are saying, Alan, is that the news article does not have the neutral tone of presenting facts so people can make their own mind up. Instead, it has the tone of someone making a judgement and expressing their opinion.
>
> When someone in a position of influence i.e. someone who can publish an article on their own website to be viewed by thousands immediately, who then passes judgement without a proper 'jury', is going to be met with criticism. It's social dynamics.
>

Err... have you ever read a single newspaper or news website? Every single one has an agenda and a position. The UKC article is actually pretty balanced really. THe vast majority of UK climbers are totally against dry tooling on lowland grit crags. The article reflects this and reinforces it.

Coel Hellier - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:

> You can not credibly suggest that there is a difference between Neckband crag and a granite Millstone.

Hi Franco, I only rarely climb in the Lakes, so I'm probably not a good person to express an opinion on the modern Lakes winter scene, and I can accept that there are some grey areas.

We all accept the long tradition of winter climbs that are on snow, ice and turf. From there it has become accepted, on those winter crags, that it's acceptable to force "mixed" lines that require axe on rock in places along with the sections of ice/snow/turf.

Extending things from there to climbs that are primarily dry-tooling -- albeit on rimed rock -- is dubious, even on those traditional winter crags. It is relatively new, so the effects of it will not yet have accumulated much. But in the long term it is dubious whether it is acceptable. And extending such dry-tooling to outside those traditional winter crags is surely not really on, as the damage will accumulate.

It may be that there is little accumulated damage yet, just because few people as yet do this high-end dry-tool/mixed style of climbing. But for it to be acceptable it needs to be that the damage would still be ok if it were popular and widespread. And I'm not at all sure that it would be.

But having said that, I'm not a good person to discuss exactly where the line should be drawn, since I rarely winter climb.
McBirdy - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk:

I thought exactly the same thing initially too Monk. But the more I learn about him the more I realise that perhaps he's, how can I put this, 'not like you and me'. I think he saw the photos which Mick posted:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=3273

And thought he could bag the first winter ascent of a few routes at Millstone and become an overnight hero. If that's the case it backfired spectacularly.

Did you see this photoshopped photo:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=159042

Or read his blog:
http://northern-frontier.blogspot.com/

I think it's far more likely that we ought to be feeling sorry for him, not for what he's done and his attitude, but for the fact that maybe he just can't help it.

Ben
Jody - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk:

I don't believe the article was balanced, but I don't believe it had to be. UKC is at its core a climbing website not an objective news outlet.

I think with all things considered the article was mild and well argued, I personally would have gone with 'dicks with picks'.
Coel Hellier - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Denni:

> You're right, you are being snotty, it is a recurrent theme in most of your ill informed posts.

Yes, I was deliberately being snotty to make the point that being criticised or insulted on the internet is just par for the course, and not a matter for lawyers. And, see, you're being snotty with that "in most of your ill informed posts" remark. Am I going to run to my lawyer or ask for that to be removed? Err, no. Because I'm not aged 9 and don't need to get all huffy.

> Who is running to a lawyer?

Well in my reply I did slightly mix you up with Phil Payne (sorry for that), who had written: "I can tell you that if this article had been written about me, I would certainly be seeking legal advice about pursuing a claim for defamation of character", hence my "running to a lawyer" remark.

The right to criticise people publically is one I think valuable and necessary in a free society. For example the Simon Singh libel case where he called a group of chiropracters quacks with bogus treatments. We need to be able to say such things. People can then reply to defend themselves if they wish.

> If you read what I wrote, I was not simply referring to the article but all of the threads and the forum in general.

But you said that my previous post was likely wrong, where my previous post was indeed about the article.

> Here is a scenario for you. What if someone said on here you were a racist? (No doubt you will
> say that is irrelevant, but this is only a scenario so try and go with it if you can)
> UKC kept the thread up and people you then subsequently met call you a racist because of
> comments they read onhere, I take it you would be ok with that, or would you contact UKC and ask
> that the person who said it was either banned or the comment removed?

Yes I'd be ok with that. If someone wanted to claim I was racist then they'd be welcome to make the case. And I'd be able to post in reply. No I would not ask for the poster to be banned (what a *ridiculous* overreaction that would be!). If the post contained false factual information, then I might ask for it to be removed, or ask to post my version, but if it's mere opinion then hey, it's a free country isn't it? If someone wants to express that opinion that I'm a racist or any other character defect then ok, I'll cope!
Coel Hellier - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Denni:

> Are you qualified in that field to prove that is correct, or are you merely answering with your opinion?

Yep, I'm merely giving my opinion, and in my opinion the following opinion of yours was totally absurd:

> "She reckons it all comes down to whether or not he has broken the law, he hasn't and even if he had,
> it is not the right of a forum to dictate and report whether he is in the wrong or not."

To say that a blog or website cannot opine on right or wrong is *ludicrous*. As I said: "For example, we are perfectly entitled to express the opinion that Nick Clegg is acting extremely badly to break his promise about voting for tuition fees, regardless of whether any law has been broken. Are you really saying that a political blogger could not express an opinion on the rightness of that???"

Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> (In reply to the thread)
>
> For such reasons, wouldn't post-removal would be better done by leaving a place marker....

Agree entirely Coel.
Erik B - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson: we dont want bolts on mountain crags and we dont want winter ascents of non-winter low level established crags and rock routes, simple, how anyone can argue about this I find utterly bewildering

I think given Calum and his mate's age I think its time to calm down about this and move on and hope the outcry has educated new comers to the sport
Denni on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Coel,
I don't agree with everything you say, happy to admit some of the things you say are valid, but the problem, as with most things, is opinions differ completely and it is difficult totry and argue a point on a keyboard.

The point of the whole matter are the actions of the individuals, one of which has apologised so hopefully the whole thing will die down and in all seriousness, nothing else will come of it should some of the bullies meet him or his oppo on the crags.

Banging internet heads together is something I am pretty pants at, I'm all for opinionated people, I'm pretty sure on some subjects I'm one of them. Always better to have a pint and a chat, then more beer and a few whiskies which will definately ensure it then descends into a full scale fight, it's the only way forward ;0)

Monk - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Ben Darvill:
> (In reply to Monk)
>
> I thought exactly the same thing initially too Monk. But the more I learn about him the more I realise that perhaps he's, how can I put this, 'not like you and me'. I think he saw the photos which Mick posted:

Yeah, reading on a little I realised that he may not actually have being out to cause trouble, and actually thought he could do some new routes. I'm not 100% convinced, but less so than when I first posted that opinion. I would have deleted it if I had realised more quickly, but no point once it's been read a few times.
Coel Hellier - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Denni:

> hopefully the whole thing will die down and in all seriousness, nothing else will come of it
> should some of the bullies meet him or his oppo on the crags.

I suspect that the threats of actual violence are more rhetorical anger-venting than seriously intended.

> Always better to have a pint and a chat, then more beer and a few whiskies which will
> definately ensure it then descends into a full scale fight, it's the only way forward ;0)

Well I wouldn't have worded my post as snottily if I hadn't concatenated you with earlier Phil Payne posts in my mind (sorry!).
In reply to beinn_eighe:
> There are many more climbers in the UK that dont participate in UKC than there are that do, so the 100 or more who regularly participate in the forums are a tiny fraction, in fact I would say that they are the extremist militant losers of british climbing, as they spend their entire lives on this forum, rather than leading a normal life and visiting once every few days to check for new videos etc....

UKC Forums yesterday had 17,064 unique views (Google Analytics approximation of different people)

'Dry-toolers at Millstone' thread had 6747 unique views

News article thread had 3,623 unique views

Alex's photos had 2,866 unique views

I think that the number of climbers interested in this issue is way more than 100, and that the sheer diversity of views shows that it does represent a cross section of something. I can't think of anywhere you would get a better cross-section of opinion.

Alan
Hardonicus - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

[/MickMode]
Denni on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Coel Hellier:

You would hope the threats are nonsense wouldn't you?

Maybe I am Phil Payne as well! No I'm not, anyway, apologies If I was in any way derogatory, I'm not that kind of chap.

Concatenated, never heard of that before, just googled it. Another word for my vocab, you learn something new every day!

Paul F - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Alan, is it possible/practicable to run a poll on UKC into the actions at Millstone?
Franco Cookson on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Erik B:
> (In reply to Franco Cookson) we dont want bolts on mountain crags and we dont want winter ascents of non-winter low level established crags and rock routes, simple, how anyone can argue about this I find utterly bewildering
>
>

Don't we? I think you're mainly correct for reasons stated, but this endless mantra of 'we don't want this....or this.....or this' with no reasoning given is as dumb as the chaps who went out and scratched millstone.
Erik B - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson: well in scotland the majority of us dont, I cant comment on England. In Scotland there is a strong mountaineering tradition of climbing MOUNTAIN routes in both summer and winter, but the key words here are mountaineering and mountain.
Dave Garnett - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:

Would I look hopelessly out of touch if I said that I'd prefer if we went back to the old understanding that ice tools were used, if not exclusively, then certainly mainly, on ice?

Yes, probably I would.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Franco Cookson on 09 Dec 2010
MG - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson: Hmmm. Your're final option is


Winter climbing (on in-condition rock) should be only allowed on in condition ice

Which doesn't make much sense
malky_c - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:
> (In reply to Erik B)
> [...]
>
> Don't we? I think you're mainly correct for reasons stated, but this endless mantra of 'we don't want this....or this.....or this' with no reasoning given is as dumb as the chaps who went out and scratched millstone.


Interesting. I've been trying to put my finger on the reason that I disagree with 95% of the people on this thread, and I think this is it.
silhouette - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Ben Darvill:
> Or read his blog:
> http://northern-frontier.blogspot.com/
>
> I think it's far more likely that we ought to be feeling sorry for him, not for what he's done and his attitude, but for the fact that maybe he just can't help it.

The four of them sound like they'll be the next generation of Michael Gove's.
Robert Durran - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to zzz:
> (In reply to Franco Cookson)
> [...]
>
>
> Interesting. I've been trying to put my finger on the reason that I disagree with 95% of the people on this thread, and I think this is it.

Try to put your finger on the reason any of us climb. It is not rational. Perhaps this is its greatest attraction. we do not really need "resaons" for disapproving of using tools at Millstone; the fact that the overwhelming majority are against it is enough.

Franco Cookson on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to zzz)
> [...]
>
> the fact that the overwhelming majority are against it is enough.



Let's wait until we have the statistical evidence from the poll before we start to draw conclusions as wild as that...
Robert Durran - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to iceox:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
> [...]
>
> All about the above,would you dry tool at the "Pass of Ballater" Doubt it

Of course not. the overwhelming concensus (and, by the way and less importantly, my own opinion) would be against it.

Robert Durran - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Dave Garnett:
> (In reply to Franco Cookson)
>
> Would I look hopelessly out of touch if I said that I'd prefer if we went back to the old understanding that ice tools were used, if not exclusively, then certainly mainly, on ice?

In which case, how would you expect someone to go about climbing a big, steep turfy mountain cliff covered in powder snow and rime? Or would you be in favour of not climbing it at all?
ericinbristol - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to zzz:

Sigh. If you really need a statement of the bleedin' obvious:

I don't want those horrible-looking scratches and damage on a lovely, historic rock climb. Because scratches look nasty. And damage, like holds levered off and accelerated erosion, changes the climb. I am aware that trad climbing does damage but dry tooling does a lot more sctaching/damaging a lot faster. The fact that trad climbing still results in scratches, damage and change means that I am inevitably compromising that wonderful resource too, and so I need to try not to pedal my feet on the holds and try not to cram cams and try to get gear out carefully. And so on. Respect the resource, while knowing, with a certain sadness, that I am taking something away each time. I want something for myself but that is not licence for utter selfishness, utter greediness.

The fact that this is not a statement of the bleedin' obvious to some sucks.





Paul F - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to sjc:

There seems to be some justification offered by it 'being in condition' at the slightest frost.
gingerkate - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Ben Darvill:
I don't buy the first-winter-ascent theory, but I completely agree that he's probably not like most people, in a pretty fundamental way, a way that he can't help, and that's going to be a struggle all his life for him. The whole thing is a sad business. I hope someone has explained to him why it wasn't a good idea, for himself, not for anyone else, and couched that in purely pragmatic terms, which, I suspect, he's more likely to understand.
ericinbristol - on 09 Dec 2010
And objecting really strongly to this occasion matters because it could get worse in terms of numbers and location. Imagine a club meet at the popular end of Stanage of top roping dry toolers. Imagine what classic routes like Manchester Buttress would look like in just a few weeks.
lummox - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:

you really are a deluded boy. Makes for quite entertaining viewing though.
jon on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Eric Herring:
> And objecting really strongly to this occasion matters because it could get worse in terms of numbers and location. Imagine a club meet at the popular end of Stanage of top roping dry toolers. Imagine what classic routes like Manchester Buttress would look like in just a few weeks.

Nail on the head.
McBirdy - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to gingerkate:

Yes, well put.
MikeYouCanClimb - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Robert Durran: >we do not really need "reasons" for disapproving of using tools at Millstone; the fact that the overwhelming majority are against it is enough.

No the majority view is not sufficient to put down a rebellion. zzz has noticed something here. (Take note EricHerring) It is a fact that many extreme views of the minority do sometimes become the majority view over time. It is the length of time it takes for this to happen that is interesting. Calum may have apologised, but there will be others inspired by this thread.

You only have to look at the Green types of thirty years or so ago, the extreme opinions of a few are now mainstream policy.

Same with Climbing, there are always new extreme views, dry tooling is one of them, people try to resist change, but it can change given time!
Dave Garnett - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Dave Garnett)
> [...]
>
> In which case, how would you expect someone to go about climbing a big, steep turfy mountain cliff covered in powder snow and rime? Or would you be in favour of not climbing it at all?

I don't think ice hammers are the way I'd deal with powder, and I have no objection to using frozen turf occasionally but I think my definition of a mountain crag that was in winter condition would be one where the line was predominantly provided with snow and ice deep enough to take a pick.

I know this isn't the current definition, however.
Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to zzz:
> (In reply to Franco Cookson)
> [...]
>
>
> Interesting. I've been trying to put my finger on the reason that I disagree with 95% of the people on this thread, and I think this is it.

No, the reason you disagree with most people is because you are a statistical outlier. Congratulations, you're mum must be very proud.
Robert Durran - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to ClwydTraveller:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) >we do not really need "reasons" for disapproving of using tools at Millstone; the fact that the overwhelming majority are against it is enough.
>
> No the majority view is not sufficient to put down a rebellion.

No,I agree not necessarily. Not if, as you say, the majority view evolves (as it has with regard to bolting on, say, the Cheedale cornice). But that does not refute my point that the majority view should prevail!
Horse on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to lummox:
> (In reply to Franco Cookson)
>
> you really are a deluded boy.

In my less charitable moments I suspect he is miffed at being upstaged by Callum :-)
ads.ukclimbing.com
ericinbristol - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to ClwydTraveller:
> No the majority view is not sufficient to put down a rebellion. zzz has noticed something here. (Take note EricHerring) It is a fact that many extreme views of the minority do sometimes become the majority view over time. It is the length of time it takes for this to happen that is interesting. Calum may have apologised, but there will be others inspired by this thread.
>

It is pretty hard to work out what you are on about. I am meant to take note of the fact that extreme minority views (dry tooling grit classics) can become majority views? Bizarre. That was exactly the point I made - that we need to oppose it vigorously because of the potential for it to end up in mass top rope dry tooling of places like Stanage popular end.


jon on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Robert Durran:

Have you done your 8a yet Rob?
GrendeI on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson: Ok, so a poll would be a good idea, If there was actual options that reflect peoples views.
Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to ClwydTraveller)
> [...]
>
> No,I agree not necessarily. Not if, as you say, the majority view evolves (as it has with regard to bolting on, say, the Cheedale cornice). But that does not refute my point that the majority view should prevail!

Yes. And yes, this is more clear cut than a typical bolting debate.
Franco Cookson on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Hvit ut:

I'll add any question you like. Quite hard to set up a decent poll. Please post a better one on here and i'll put it up.
Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Horse:
> (In reply to lummox)
> [...]
>
> In my less charitable moments I suspect he is miffed at being upstaged by Callum :-)

And Calum also, no doubt, has Red Bull beating down his door for a sponsorship deal.
practicalcat on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to ClwydTraveller:
Reasons should hopefully be based on intelligent reflection and are therefore more meaningful than just following a majority.
I am not a winter climber but I understand that gritstone is vulnerable when its hard outer layer is damaged leaving the softer rock underneath exposed and open to rapid erosion. Gear placements will do this over time (and there is already concern); crampons and axes do it much more rapidly. Surely this should be the reason for disapproving of using tools at Millstone; if the majority happen to agree then that is a bonus :-).
Feeling quite nervous about posting on this highly emotional thread, so will now run away.
GrendeI on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson: current one is ok :)
Franco Cookson on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Horse:

I have been out-trolled, but perhaps he cheating by actually vandalising rocks?
Hardonicus - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:

New Survey for your blog:

Is Franco

a) sh1t talking
b) jive talking
c) scat munching
In reply to Franco Cookson:

> You can not credibly suggest that there is a difference between Neckband crag and a granite Millstone.

How about 600 ft as a difference? And one being surrounded by mountains and one being surrounded moors?

You might also consider that not all winter climbers are particularly comfortable with the idea of Lakes single pitch or lower crags or crags that face south being climbed on in winter. There are grey areas and different climbers may have bigger or smaller versions of such areas according to their own thoughts. You really should get to Scotland more, it might give you a better context.
Roberttaylor - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: This is definitely the best troll UKC has ever seen. 10/10 for effort, originality and daring.

http://northern-frontier.blogspot.com/

How can this blog not be a troll?

MikeYouCanClimb - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Eric Herring:
> I don't want those horrible-looking scratches and damage on a lovely, historic rock climb.
Your view and conclusion only appears valid when it is considered in isolation. Someone else will probably also have the same valid view point on historic mountain climbs, this makes your view hypocritical when looking at the bigger picture of climbing. There are plenty of examples in the UK. If you go to the Alps, some historic routes (on granite, one of the hardest rocks) are scratched to hell. You may not agree, but it is fact, as with that other controversial topic "bolts", they generally are on a different timescale to us in the UK. Lets not get in to the bolt debate right now though.
alex - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to..

We popped in yesterday. It does look a right mess near the bottom. But as you can see, it's in perfect condition for winter ascents:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=161389

Phil Payne - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Coel Hellier:

I never said that I condoned dry tooling at Millstone, I don't, and I would myself had had words with anyone that I saw doing it to advise them that they should maybe pick a different venue for dry tooling activities.

What I did say is that I would seek legal advice regarding the article and this subsequent thread if I had been in Callum's position. When I say 'seek legal advice' I mean actual legal advice from an actual qualified person in the field of libel, not the opinion of someone who thinks they know the law like yourself.

Of course, the legal advice may well turn out to be to drop it and there's no case, but it could equally be that there could be a case and might be worth pursuing it further.

I have looked up similar cases and the fact that something is true may not be a sufficient defense. It all depends on the wording and if something is classified as defamatory or libellous. Of course it's not libel if something is true, but could be defamatory.

You should come to my local crag sometime and see the damage caused by about 50 mountain police top-rope dry tooling the entire crag, which they do about 10 times a year. Not only do they chip and scratch all the rock, they won't consider pulling ropes to allow someone else to climb. Then again, it is only a roadside sport venue and ethics aren't quite the same in France.

I can't be bothered with posting on this thread anymore, so will just enjoy the ridiculous responses that this thread is getting.
Franco Cookson on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to TobyA:

The difference in elevation is just under 200 metres I think, which really isn't that massive. Higher peak crags would still be seen as unacceptable, the mountain to moors idea is interesting, but we won't be too sure until the poll comes out. Currently the public are sighting rock type as more important than location.

As I have maintained throughout this thread, those who are against all winter climbing have a legitimate and consistant stance. I note your detail about minor height difference, but I don't think that is what is driving this protection of millstone.

I like the lakes and scotland pretty equally, but I know the lakes better and it's cheaper to get to.
Paul Atkinson - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Monk:
> (In reply to Owain)
>
> Today's news is tomorrow's chip packet.
>
> This will be pretty much forgotten in a few weeks.

that was true when I were a lad and chips came wrapped in old newspaper and wi scraps if you were lucky.

Nowadays it just isn't: chips have gone all hygienic and employers, post doc supervisors, the girl next door have all got Google and they use it all the time. When you're recruiting it's not always east to get it right. Employers can see what's on the CV when shortlisting but they also want to know more about what sort of a person they are dealing with - a decent, rounded, well balanced, sociable and ethical team player with a sense of responsibility? Or not?

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_13/b3977071.htm

fame, glory and t'electric interweb - fickle mistresses all

ericinbristol - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to ClwydTraveller:

Peak grit is almost never dry tooled (and almost never bolted either, seeing as you referred to that) and I am in favour of keeping it that way for the reason fiven. The fact that other places are scratched by ice gear or bolted already does not make that wrong or hypocritical. The fact that other people have a different view to mine does not make mine hypocritical: that makes no sense at all - hypocrisy is about contradicting your own views.
MikeYouCanClimb - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to practicalcat:
>Reasons should hopefully be based on intelligent reflection and are therefore more meaningful than just following a majority.

I would like to think so too, but that is not always the reality.

> I am not a winter climber but I understand that gritstone is vulnerable when its hard outer layer is damaged leaving the softer rock underneath exposed and open to rapid erosion.
All rocks suffer erosion, Millstone grit does not have the soft inner layer like other grit and is quite tough, but it is not that tough to resist metal, even granite erodes over time, the number of people and the equipment used are all factors on the speed of erosion. Cams are eroding grit quite rapidly in places due to the large numbers of people using them.
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I know this isn't the current definition, however.

I don't think it ever has been in the UK either Dave. There is a lovely section I remember from I think a very early SMC Journal, which I suspect I read quoted in Moran's The Scottish Winter Mountains that was described as the first known case of torquing, where (probably IIRC) Raeburn describes stuffing the blade of his presumably super long axe in a crack and allowing his party to clamber up it to escape the climb. It was on the Cobbler, possibly Right Angled Gully. I'm sure one of the Glasvegas posse will be able to tell us if I remembered the story correctly. But anyway, the Victorians were at it as well.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Robert Durran - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to jon:
> (In reply to Robert Durran)
>
> Have you done your 8a yet Rob?

No! Off to Spain a week today to lay siege to it..... It will no doubt be awful weather there with the blocking high pressure diverting all the atlantic lows to the south and bringing fabulous weather and condition sto scotland (just like this time last year!)

In reply to Dave Garnett:
> where the line was SOLELY provided with snow and ice deep enough to take a pick.

Actually with my slight change this could be the 'golden rule' for anyone who fancies doing some climbing with tools away from mountain routes. Hence Kinder Downfall - great. Swing 'em and enjoy it chaps and chappesses. Embankment 3 - no thank you sir. Wait for the snow to melt and use your 5.10s.
MHutch - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)
>
>
> When I say 'seek legal advice' I mean actual legal advice from an actual qualified person in the field of libel, not the opinion of someone who thinks they know the law like yourself.
>
> I have looked up similar cases and the fact that something is true may not be a sufficient defense. It all depends on the wording and if something is classified as defamatory or libellous. Of course it's not libel if something is true, but could be defamatory.
>
Slight contradictions in your approach today. You prove your own point, though - legal analysis from people who have no professional knowledge of libel law tends to be misleading or inaccurate.
MikeYouCanClimb - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Eric Herring:
>The fact that other people have a different view to mine does not make mine hypocritical:

You are of course right, your view, if consistent across all types of climbing, is not hypocritical, But from the perspective of the “climbing community”, when the opinions of “the many” are taken in to account, they almost definitely are.
In reply to ClwydTraveller: Does anyone not remember the crampon and axe scratches at Earl Crag 8 or 9 nine years ago ? What are they like now ? Personally FWIW I dislike this dry tooling lark both on established rock climbs and Gritstone, granted one must learn the technique but surely there are many small buttresses (devoid of routes)where a sort of 'dry tool bouldering' can take place. The Idwal slabs are now much marred with crampon and axe scratches from climbers doing the classic rock routes in less than perfect conditions. A friend of mine did 'Hope' last winter and did not even touch rock such was the build up, for me that is when a route is in condition. Winter climbing is evolving of that there can be no doubt however the old adage of leave nothing but footprints etc must apply when one is winter climbing :-)
jon on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Robert Durran:

All the best then. You'll get it if you are really determined. Just work it to death so there's no question. Let me know!
Jon
tech - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

I'm in a little bit of disbelief at this article and thread. I've not read it all but it seems that the main people in support of this sort of action are commenting for some strange argumentative attention seeking reason, other than because they really believe what they're saying. This just makes them sad and not worthy of our attention. Plus they probably wouldn't even do what they say anyway.

I find the comment about the article being one-sided quite valid unfortunately. Although I would be far more concerned if it had been written about someone who mistakenly thought that there was no harm in their actions and stopped when told.

What really gets me is that no one took it upon themselves to make them stop. An angry mob is very convincing, and off putting for the leader. I'd have probably kicked there arses. If physical violence or intimidation tactics aren't your way contact the land owner, stand there and moan, bore the crap out of them. If you were there and said something I commend your actions, but please don't accept no for an answer. What would happen it you went dry tooling in Font? Would the French police care if you had a black eye?
Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Phil Payne:

When is it ok to name and shame in your opinion then?

There's proof, Calum has admitted it, named HIMSELF well before the article came out - indeed he sought publicity before the act! And now he's apologised.

He's hardly a victim is he. What do you want man?

> I can't be bothered with posting on this thread anymore, so will just enjoy the ridiculous responses that this thread is getting.

Good. You're position is irrational and poorly thought out.
balmybaldwin - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to jon:
> (In reply to Fredt)
> [...]
>
> Actually Calum did issue a brief two line apology last night.

No he didn't what he did do was provide a "politician's" apology not for the damage he has done, but for the upset he has caused. As far as I'm concerned that is not an apology.
jon on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to balmybaldwin:
> (In reply to jon)
> [...]
>
> No he didn't what he did do was provide a "politician's" apology not for the damage he has done, but for the upset he has caused. As far as I'm concerned that is not an apology.

Yes, hence my wording... brief, two line...

Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to tech:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> I'm in a little bit of disbelief at this article and thread. I've not read it all...

Clearly.

> What really gets me is that no one took it upon themselves to make them stop.

Ever heard the phrase 'informed comment'.
Dave Garnett - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to TobyA:

I'm sure there are loads of examples of knarly old Victorians occasionally hooking a bucket with an alpenstock, but (a) that was long ago and far away when climbing was genuinely esoteric not the mass activity it is now; and (b) it was an occasional expedient, not the whole point of the exercise.
tech - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Ben Darvill:
a) agree with 'Auser', stop being so petty and invite the rest of the rugby team to come and train, or
b) realise that to not act now it to invite open season for chums with scrums (or in our case pricks with picks) to come and start scratching the much cherished playing surface.

c)Possibly the Borough Management Council (BMC) could have a little chat over this matter and suggest some guidelines for the rugby lads (dry toolers), and possibly find a suitable pitch (crags/quarrys) then let the rugby lads know.
tech - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to jonny2vests:

Sorry. I've failed to get the jist of your comments for the waves of sarcasm that they're clouded in. Are you suggesting that someone made them stop? And were you expecting me to read all 600 individual posts? And do you have that much time on your hands regularly because I could do with a belayer?
MikeYouCanClimb - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Allan McDonald (Gwydyr MC):
> Personally FWIW I dislike this dry tooling lark both on established rock climbs and Gritstone

You have a consistent view to outcrop and mountain crags that not many seem to respect on here.

Where it is black or white, the unwritten rules as with Millstone should be fairly clear.

However, the grey areas where people currently practice, can provide the spark for someone, somewhere, to cross the line. As the sport evolves, the boundaries become less clear, the situation changes and more people cross the line. This issue could be a case of a future problem being nipped in the bud, but maybe not, as it could also represent a challenge for some.
timjones - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to balmybaldwin:
> (In reply to jon)
> [...]
>
> No he didn't what he did do was provide a "politician's" apology not for the damage he has done, but for the upset he has caused. As far as I'm concerned that is not an apology.

Can't folks accpet the apology and move on? It seems that in this case he may have apologised for the right thing. He has caused a great deal more offence than damage. Damage to a historic climb is a fairly intangible concept so it is probably the offence caused that is the major issue.
Duncan Campbell - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: Why is Calum using 3 tools!?!?! I thought you just had 2 for mixed climbing?

PS Calum, Although that apology was part way there, you haven't aplogised for the damage to two utterly classic lines that many people have enjoyed for years and many still have to do (me for example).

You made a mistake, many do, even the best; redhead put a bolt on Indian Face, MEdwards drilled cam slots, etc these actions are made WORSE if there is no apology and no admissision that anything has been learnt.

Also as has been mentioned this could jeopardise access to MILLSTONE one of the bes grit crags in the peak. I haven't had the chance to climb there yet and would be unbelievably angry if your actions prevented me from doing so.

In short; learn from your mistake, apologise and don't EVER do it again.

Duncan
jon on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to markmsp:

Do you not detect a sense of humour in that reply. I do. Calum probably didn't.
victorclimber - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to markmsp: best mail on here out of all the hundreds ,lets see them get out of that one ...
Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to tech:
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
>
> Sorry. I've failed to get the jist of your comments for the waves of sarcasm that they're clouded in. Are you suggesting that someone made them stop?

Several people approached them.

> And were you expecting me to read all 600 individual posts?

Well if you're going to criticise, yes, but actually the article tells you most of what you need to know. If you don't have time to read it all, fair enough, but don't then have a pop if you don't know what's gone on.

Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Duncan Campbell:
> (In reply to UKC News) Why is Calum using 3 tools!?!?! I thought you just had 2 for mixed climbing?

> I haven't had the chance to climb there yet and would be unbelievably angry if your actions prevented me from doing so.

Steady on there, he didn't carpet bomb it.
balmybaldwin - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to jon:

Wasn't having a go, it's just one of my pet hates that statements like that are often accepted as an apology (I realise you have the same opinion)
balmybaldwin - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to timjones:

Tim, what I'm getting at is that (excuse the extreme example) if say someone ran over your dog on purpose, which obviously would cause some severe hurt and grief, and then apologised to you for causing your hurt and grief, would that constitute an apology for deliberately running over your dog? or simply the hurt caused?

You often see this with polititians (especially where liabellous or racist remarks are made) you get the "I'm sorry for the offence caused to xxxxx" whereas what you should get is a contrite apology along the lines of "I regret my actions, and I now understand what I said was wrong and for that I apologise"
Hoppo on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to alex:

Fantastic. As it should be done. Actions speaking so much louder than words. Have a 5. :)
tech - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to jonny2vests:

I read the article you burk! Your quotes is correct several people approached them. Did they stop?????

I believe that, "several parties approached the scratch-happy duo during the weekend to voice their concerns over the damage being done to the rock," is the full quote that you're looking for. Please not the "voice their concerns" part.

I haven't managed to find out any actual facts or opinions that you state on this subject, mearly criticism of other peoples points of view. Do you have any original thoughts? Or are they all just regurgitated opinions heard round a table in the students union. Grow a spine and jog on!

timjones - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to balmybaldwin:
> (In reply to timjones)
>
> Tim, what I'm getting at is that (excuse the extreme example) if say someone ran over your dog on purpose, which obviously would cause some severe hurt and grief, and then apologised to you for causing your hurt and grief, would that constitute an apology for deliberately running over your dog? or simply the hurt caused?
>
> You often see this with polititians (especially where liabellous or racist remarks are made) you get the "I'm sorry for the offence caused to xxxxx" whereas what you should get is a contrite apology along the lines of "I regret my actions, and I now understand what I said was wrong and for that I apologise"

I'd accept the apology for the hurt caused with good grace. It would be a waste of time apologising to a dead dog. It would be an even bigger waste of time apologising to a rock!

The modern obsession with the "politicians apology" is just a press trick to get more mileage out of a story IMO.
Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to tech:
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
>
> I read the article you burk! Your quotes is correct several people approached them. Did they stop?????

Yes they did stop. Silly billy. Then they carried on once people were out of sight. Read the original thread.

> I believe that, "several parties approached the scratch-happy duo during the weekend to voice their concerns over the damage being done to the rock," is the full quote that you're looking for. Please not the "voice their concerns" part.

To be honest, your could have been a lot clearer in your first post. There are several ambiguities and its quite hard to follow.

> I haven't managed to find out any actual facts or opinions that you state on this subject, mearly criticism of other peoples points of view. Do you have any original thoughts? Or are they all just regurgitated opinions heard round a table in the students union. Grow a spine and jog on!

Student union? Grow a spine? You're way out of line, but I'm not biting. Read the original thread them come back and eat some humble pie.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=436389
Parrys_apprentice - on 09 Dec 2010

Isn't it time we talked about whether there was a God or something?

In terms of trolling, I am of the opinion from reading this Callum's blogs etc. that he is not simply a troll in the forum sense, but lives his entire life along these objectives. It's a lot of fun if you avoid climbing ethics.

I imagine his next mission will be to set a new route at Curbar touching on XI to enter a grade debate too.
Duncan Campbell - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to jonny2vests: I know, I'd be surprised if it happened, but if everyone dry-tooled at millstone it might happen, I was just trying to put across possible repercusions to his actions. ang how that would effect others.

It was suggested earlier that Calum Nicol might have been influenced by the photo article published on UKC showing Millstone covered in snow - http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=3273
... and the subsequent comments on this thread - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=435972

I can confirm that the email we received from Calum Nicoll 2 days before this article was published (or even the photos were taken) indicates that his plans were already fully formed and he knew exactly what he was going to do.

We had some posts this morning about this which I removed. These posts were removed in an attempt to stop this matter blowing up again especially since this is a dead line of enquiry, and that I have some many other things that I need to do on the site at the moment and can't afford to spend any more time in this bleedin' thread.

On reflection removing them was probably not the best action hence I am posting again now. Apologies to those whose posts were removed - except Franco's which I enjoyed removing.

Alan
Dnmn - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:

A census taker tried to quantify me once. I ate his liver with some Fava Beans and nice Chianti... ffftftftftftf
banned profile 74 on 09 Dec 2010 - 64.49.125.91.rb3.adsl.brightview.com
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
>
>Apologies to those whose posts were removed - except Franco's which I enjoyed removing.
>
> Alan

quality

Rampikino - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:

Poorly formulated poll that serves another purpose.
muppetfilter - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC: http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crag.php?id=10375

Dear Alan since we are pointing fingers at people climbing in a style that is unaceptable and likely to cause damage to the heritage of others I would like to draw your atention to a number of climbs listed on your site on the Historic and fragile Medieval Arcitecture of York.

Yours sincerely,


A concerned York Citizen
Franco Cookson on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
>
> Apologies to those whose posts were removed - except Franco's which I enjoyed removing.
>
> Alan


Bit harsh. You also failed to mention that you banned me for mentioning a member of the 'UKC team' on my blog.
In reply to Franco Cookson:
> Bit harsh. You also failed to mention that you banned me for mentioning a member of the 'UKC team' on my blog.

You don't appear to be banned.

Alan
Dnmn - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Rampikino:
> (In reply to Franco Cookson)
>
> Poorly formulated poll that serves another purpose.

Absolutely correct. The 'purpose' can be inferred by reading in between the lines of the survey. Though I applaud your interest and involvement in this as an issue, you may want to leave this sort of thing to those who knpow what they are doing. Your results, sadly, will be utterly worthless- I'd delete the whole thing and start again.

BTW, did you get ethical approval for this "piece of social research"?

Have you declared your 'interest' publicly anywhere, recently?

;-)


Dave Kerr - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Franco Cookson:

Keep up the good work Franco.

We've all chipped in and bought you one of these for Christmas:

http://dailymash.shotdeadinthehead.com/product_view.aspx?pid=639

:-)
Horse on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Alan James - UKC:
> (In reply to Franco Cookson)
> [...]
>
> You don't appear to be banned.
>
I'll correct that for you:

You don't appear to be banned again, yet .

screenager - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Maybe dry tooling a classic isn't the most responsible thing but what this post has done is name and shame a 19 year old, then allow a lot of abuse to be thrown his way. Have some perspective you have ostracized someone from a community over a few scratches on a bit of rock and it is not like it is a particularly attractive piece of rock. I had no idea the English climbing community were so unfriendly and unforgiving.
ads.ukclimbing.com
davidbeynon - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to rm118:

It may not appear attractive to you, but I can assure you that millstone is an excellent summer climbing venue and the route they trashed is a classic.

The pictures aren't the greatest, but they were taken in the middle of winter.
Dnmn - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to rm118:

'ENGLISH climbing community'??? (My emphasis)

Shurely Shome Mishtake?????
ian Ll-J - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Just been bouldering at the RAC boulders and spotted crampon and axe scratches on a couple of the problems.

This problem is going to spread unless the BMC take some positive action...very sad :-(
biped - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to rm118:
> (In reply to UKC News)
> I had no idea the English climbing community were so unfriendly and unforgiving.

As far as attitudes to Calum's sort of behaviour in this specific case, I can assure that the Scottish climbing community are at least equal, and the Welsh are probably even worse.

Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to rm118:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Maybe dry tooling a classic isn't the most responsible thing but what this post has done is name and shame a 19 year old, then allow a lot of abuse to be thrown his way. Have some perspective you have ostracized someone from a community over a few scratches on a bit of rock and it is not like it is a particularly attractive piece of rock. I had no idea the English climbing community were so unfriendly and unforgiving.

What should we have done then? Given him a nice rub down and a shiatsu?

Don't be slagging Millstone off either. Its an absolute gem of a crag.

And he wasn't named and shamed - he did that himself FFS!!! (for the billionth time).

gingerkate - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to jonny2vests:
> (In reply to rm118)
Given him a nice rub down and a shiatsu?

I had to google that, I thought you meant one of these:
http://puppydogweb.com/gallery/shihtzus/shihtzu_brown.jpg



Arcticboy - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to gingerkate:

and I read "Given him a nice rub down with a shihtzu"

Poor dog.....
WillC - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Oliver Houston:

It's not the responsilbilty of the club to 'babysit' their members. University climbing clubs should be run as equals with no one person or group of people taking responsibility for those less experienced, everyone is adults and capable of making their own decisions. This is especially true as the rest of his club dont even appear to be present.

Anyway, good article although a tad one sided but dry tooling on grit is of course completely against established climbing etiquette. However he is only 19. 19 year olds make mistakes, I should know I make them myself. I am sure he has taken on board the consequences of his decisions and will not repeat them in the future.
Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to gingerkate:
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
> [...]
> Given him a nice rub down and a shiatsu?
>
> I had to google that, I thought you meant one of these:
> http://puppydogweb.com/gallery/shihtzus/shihtzu_brown.jpg

I think thats a better idea.
Robin Warden - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:
in response to this article, I feel that yes the two lads in question were doing lasting damage to a historical climbing venue, but as do the BOLT drillers, with their ladders of metal bolts that line crags world wide. Now if we compare scratch marks at Millstone to ove one thousand three inch drill holes, at say Kilnsy, it starts to put things in to perspective. In my book both acts leave ugly reminders of people who's desire out weighed their respect. Any way hope you all have a great christmas, get some routing done, bouldering too, wkend looking ok, I'm heading for a surf at Staiths, maybe see you there!
Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to WillC:
> (In reply to Oliver Houston)
>
> It's not the responsilbilty of the club to 'babysit' their members.

Well, yes it is. You can hardly let freshers run amuck with a load of club gear and no idea. They have a duty of care as does the union.

> University climbing clubs should be run as equals with no one person or group of people taking responsibility for those less experienced

Hopefully you'll have adjusted that reasoning by the time its your turn to run one. Otherwise we'll be knee deep in bodies before the end of freshers week. :-0

> everyone is adults and capable of making their own decisions.

Yeah, but when the wrong decision can result in death, perhaps guidance is advisable. When you become an adult, it doesn't automatically qualify you as equal in every respect to all other adults. Ask the Army.

> This is especially true as the rest of his club don't even appear to be present.

Obviously if its not a club meet, then people will do as they please.

> Anyway, good article although a tad one sided

Its a very one sided affair.
Jonny2vests - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to landskip:

Bolts are usually placed within a forum of agreement and consensus. A very different issue to this.
Michael Gordon - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Robert Durran:
> (In reply to Franco Cookson)
> [...]
>
> Then why is sandstone in the NW Highlands considered ok then?

I'd say Torridonian Sandstone seems to give lines which are obviously more suited to winter or summer. Some venues are pretty vegetated while many of the smaller crags are very clean.

Summer-only examples:

Cioch Nose (the v-diff classic)
No. 1 Buttress, Sgurr a Chaorachain (Sword of Gideon etc)
Seana Mheallan
Jack the Ripper etc

Primarily Winter examples:

Liathath
An Teallach
Beinn Damph
Beinn Bhan
Quinag
Suilven
Michael Gordon - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to sebrider:
> (In reply to Robert Durran) I guess it must vary in hardness from place to place and is old red the same as Torridonian - humm no sure!?

Old Red Sandstone is different to Torridonian. The former is found on the likes of Hoy and is generally softer and not such good quality.
jacobfinn on 09 Dec 2010
Is this thread still going on? I had a lovely climb today on Eas Anie, in case anyone is interested...
John_Hat - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

I've already posted at least once on one of the other threads, but I would like to commend the editors for running this article.

It is welcome that the "fool" concerned has apologised, and hopefully has managed to see the error of his ways.

That is about all I can manage without saying something that would either get me banned or my post deleted, so I'll leave it there. However I would like to mention that I would really LIKE to say something that would get me banned!!

However if I do ever see anyone dry tooling grit (let alone the bl**dy embankment at Millstone!) in a similar manner I can certainly say that I will enlighten them as to my views in a manner appropriate to the occasion.
James Paul Robinson - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to John_Hat: Apology? i must have missed that, i thought he wasn't bothered.
John_Hat - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to James Paul Robinson:

A one-line apology about half-way down the 600-odd posts on this thread. Missing it is understandable.

Like I say, I could get banned very easily here. I shall choose my words with care.

Let's just say that I remember once taking my dearly beloved to the Embankment once on a rainy day and saying that one day we'd go to one of the most special places in the peak and climb there (I've already done most of the routes apart from the daft ones, she hasn't). We stood there and looked at the rock, sighed a bit, and moved on.

One day - presuming someone hasn't wrecked the routes - we'll go and she'll have the experience of seconding or leading some of the best crack climbs in the peak. It's something for both of us to look forward to.
Jamie B - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to jacobfinn:

> I had a lovely climb today on Eas Anie, in case anyone is interested...

I'm interested; thought it would be thawing. I guess it must have formed pretty well.

AlH - on 09 Dec 2010
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:Pics here mate (hijack)- http://www.pureoutdoor.co.uk/index.php?page=blog
Al
a13x - on 10 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Anyone up for Demo Route tomorrow, I hear its in condition....
tradguy - on 10 Dec 2010
On southern sandstone there is a route called
"Take that Effing Chalk Bag Off, or I'll Nick Your Rope and Give It to Terry 'The Chainsaw' Tullis and He'll Keep It for Ever and Ever"

Imagine what would happen to someone with axes and crampons.

It is far better that climbers educate climbers on what is acceptable (by consensus) than allow people outside climbing to deem what is acceptable.

3leggeddog on 10 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

I don't know where this thread is going now but here are my current thoughts:

There is obviously some damege to the rock, from the photos it looks fairly minor (ducks) no great gouges or flakes removed just some dare I say it, superficial scratching. I doubt the damage will last too long given the outrage it has generated. If every angry/annoyed/despairing poster on here makes the effort to go to millstone, survey the damage, quietly curse and tut then climb the route, the damage will quickly be masked by chalk and rubber and within a couple of years pass unnoticed.

Stop ranting, get in your cars and drive to millstone!
jacobjlloyd - on 10 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News: This is awful to hear. I was joking about the possibility of people doing this while driving up to the lakes on the weekend. I think these guys got of lightly on the day - I know quite a few yorkshiremen might have been inclined to a more physical form of persuasion!
wilkie14c - on 10 Dec 2010
In reply to tradguy:
>
> than allow people outside climbing to deem what is acceptable.

So climbers who dry-tool are outside climbing then are they?

jamescronin - on 10 Dec 2010
Why bother dry tooling there has been loads of ice in Wales for the last week, and I suspect they would have had much more luck climbing that than climbing grit. - Well I did anyway!

As they come from London, would dover not have been a better place to go with the axes, as chalk is realy the only thing (apart from that mad compertition climbing old tyres!) you can get away with dry tooling

What a waste of a pair of axes and crampons
Bruce Hooker - on 10 Dec 2010
In reply to jamescronin:

Chalk on the S coast is.... well, sort of "engaging" - I'm not sure it would suit our erstwhile dry-tooling beginners. In fact I think it would be rather unkind to point them in this direction :-)
David Hooper - on 10 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:

and before Calum and this thread disappear for good.........

surely this must be the most fitting coda for it?

http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=161389
dickie01 - on 11 Dec 2010
In reply to UKC News:
pair of dicks!
ChrisHolloway1 - on 11 Dec 2010
In reply to PeakDJ:
> (In reply to jonny2vests)
>
> From Callum's blog - priceless:
>
>
> "4th week - Stanage - ... Got trapped on top of the deliverence boulder after climbing up in the dark and not being able to see the holds to get back down, had to ab off, using Duncan as a convienient anchor on the other side of the boulder."

epic....
ChrisJD on 11 Dec 2010
In reply to ChrisHolloway1:

Sounds like he'd even have trouble fighting his way out of a paper bag!
Closing this thread now.

Alan

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.