/ Bench left on Ben Nevis summit.

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Jamie B - on 08 Jun 2014
I thought I'd seen it all on the Ben track. Apparently not.

Yesterday a group shouldered a wooden bench and carried it to the summit. This was actually quite impressive in a demented sort of way. Somewhat less impressive was their decision to try to cement it into the ground next to the trig point and leave it.

Photo here if you can open it: https://www.facebook.com/glencoeclimbing.co.uk/photos/a.246475548889538.1073741860.189398497930577/2...

Note the carrying batons and the holdall full of rubbish. Not very impressive.

Even less impressive was their behaviour on descent. One of their group became cold and wet as the weather deteriorated. The rest of the group continued downwards, not even waiting for him at the carpark. He was assisted off by a number of better-spirited passers-by, with the unmistakeable symptoms of hypothermia.

The magic of the internet threw up this clue as to the identity of the group:
http://iconosquare.com/p/738190642456269935_16527020

Perhaps the good people of UKC would consider adding to the comments on this link to try to persuade "Wiretime" that going back to pick up the bench would be a good idea.
JamButty - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Done, its gaining momentum.
Unbelievable!!

Party Boy on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:
One of the idiots that dumped the bench can be found here


https://www.facebook.com/ramon.c.valenti?fref=pb&hc_location=friends_tab

I've sent him a message explaining why this isn't acceptable
highclimber - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Wow.
Tall Clare - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Scroll down his page.
Kevin Woods - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Leaving it up there is one thing (just saw the comments on Facebook). Trying to cement it in place is another...
biped - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Jesus wept.
Ridge - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:
Seen it all now :-(
Jamie B - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Tall Clare:

Aha got that. Unfortunately I can't message him and the message I've just sent to his mate will got to his "other" folder and may not be seen.
gethin_allen on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

And what's really adds to the dodgy bench is that that Ramon chap along with Jamie Bell (another name identified from twitter) work as carpenters is seems.
andymac - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Respect for carrying that up there.

Next time hey go up ,perhaps they can carry some 8x2s ,and use their undoubted abilities to put a roof on the old observatory.

Jim C - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to andymac:

> Respect for carrying that up there.

> Next time hey go up ,perhaps they can carry some 8x2s ,and use their undoubted abilities to put a roof on the old observatory.

What they did was nothing in comparison to the guy who took a piano up there single handed.
( not that I'm condoning that either as it had to be removed)

I guess the bench will be burned as they have not removed it.
Jamie B - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jim C:

> I guess the bench will be burned as they have not removed it.

Plans are afoot as we speak to bring the bench back down, possibly tomorrow. Personally I'd sooner see the perps do so, but haven't been able to make contact as yet.

Jim C - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

> Plans are afoot as we speak to bring the bench back down....

In one, or several pieces?
mypyrex - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

I can't be arsed with Facebook and the like but if anyone could paste any comments from the perpetrators I be glad to see them - please.
marsbar - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to mypyrex:
Too right we carried our hand built bench to the peak of Ben Nevis there the now x brawasbaws

What can I say. To them they have made something nice and made an effort to carry it up there to share it with people.

I can see why with our upbringings that we see mountains as special and should be kept natural, but I think we shouldn't be too harsh on them without seeing it from their point of view.
Ridge - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to marsbar:

> Too right we carried our hand built bench to the peak of Ben Nevis there the now x brawasbaws

> What can I say. To them they have made something nice and made an effort to carry it up there to share it with people.

> I can see why with our upbringings that we see mountains as special and should be kept natural, but I think we shouldn't be too harsh on them without seeing it from their point of view.

I take your point re the bench, But I'm distinctly unimpressed by the assorted other bits of crap they left there for other people to sort out.
mypyrex - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to marsbar:

I know what you're saying but I'm more content with the earlier comment about there being plenty of natural benches on ALL mountains. I can't say that when I'm on the hills and need a rest that I have an overwhelming urge to park my posterior on a man made sit upon.
BTW because I can't get Facebook I haven't been able to ascertain the reason behind it. Can anyone enlighten me please?
Jamie B - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to marsbar:

> I can see why with our upbringings that we see mountains as special and should be kept natural, but I think we shouldn't be too harsh on them without seeing it from their point of view.

I absolutely agree that others see mountains from a different perspective, and that naivety is a fair defence. But they lost my support when I realised that not only had they abandoned a toiling team-member, but had driven off leaving him plus girlfriend marooned with wet clothes and no money in Fort William. That's not defensible.

rackandruin - on 08 Jun 2014
ads.ukclimbing.com
Cuthbert on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Not for a second do I support benchgate but we should remember that much of the current thinking around the Scottish hills has been imported from elsewhere. Ask some people who don't work in mountaineering but work in the hills all of the time and I reckon you would get a fairly different view. Most likely "who cares?"

Wet clothes and no money in Fort William is perfectly normal. It's happened to me many times!
Flinticus - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to marsbar:
Our upbringings? What, with learning respect and commonsense and thinking things through.

Do the JMT know?
Post edited at 21:50
Orgsm on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Don't bring it down, just have an overnight bivvy and burn it for warmth.

FactorXXX - on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Amateurs!
They could have at least tried to get it up there in a Model T.
Timmd on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:
> But they lost my support when I realised that not only had they abandoned a toiling team-member, but had driven off leaving him plus girlfriend marooned with wet clothes and no money in Fort William. That's not defensible.

That's the last thing anybody decent would do.
Post edited at 23:23
ewar woowar on 08 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Their logo looks a bit like an arse!
eroica64 - on 09 Jun 2014
In reply to marsbar:

Oh rats. Burn the bleeding thing.
deveyali - on 09 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Just to let you all know, those that carrried the bench up have contacted both the Nevis Partnership and The John Muir Trust and apologised for leaving the bench and the rubbish. It will be removed by next Saterday and the bench donated to a charity garden.

If this is not done the John Muir Trust will follow it up.

And can the John Muir Trust just say thank you to the climbing community for taking action on this and chasing the group. Its great to know that we have your support and help in keeping this mountin as free from litter and clutter as we can

Regards

Alison Austin
Nevis Conservation Oficer
rackandruin - on 09 Jun 2014
In reply to deveyali:
An excellent result and good on the guys for owning up and hopefully resolving this issue
Guy - on 09 Jun 2014
In reply to rackandruin:

http://web.stagram.com/p/677298046541445408_364567765 they don't seem to have much empathy for the countryside.
scottie390 - on 09 Jun 2014
the bench was removed today by me. I sawed it into wee bits, put it in my rucksack and threw it in the bin.

That'll be the end of that then.
davidbeynon - on 09 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:

You threw away perfectly good firewood?
stevieb - on 09 Jun 2014
In reply to deveyali:

Good that they were going to sort it out. Sounds like they were just a bit naive.
Need to work on their teamwork on the descent though.
scottie390 - on 09 Jun 2014
In reply to davidbeynon:

its in the bin at Achintee car park if you want it
davidbeynon - on 09 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:

I might if I was local, but driving up from Bristol for it would be a bit much.
Siward on 09 Jun 2014
In reply to davidbeynon:

On JamieB's facebook link above the perpetrator has now penned a long reply...
Doug on 09 Jun 2014
In reply to Siward:

so, was for charity so therefore OK ...
Jim Hamilton - on 09 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:

> the bench was removed today by me. I sawed it into wee bits, put it in my rucksack and threw it in the bin.

that's a shame, it had a sort of rutic charm - perhaps space could have been found for it in the CIC hut.

Dave Hewitt - on 09 Jun 2014
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

> that's a shame, it had a sort of rutic charm

The bench on High Pike has been there a long time and seems to be generally well liked:
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2231558
jpicksley - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to Doug:

I've just read the facebook comments on https://www.facebook.com/ramon.c.valenti?fref=pb&hc_location=friends_tab and I don't think your comment is fair.

They've acknowledged they made mistakes and have apologised for them. I think they've been rather reasonable in their replies and their attitude now they're realised their mistakes.

As for leaving a party member on the hill, there is usually more than one side to a story and they've put theirs on the facebook link. I wasn't there and didn't see what happened but someone independent of their group who helped them has essentially confirmed that the party member wasn't abandoned.

Perhaps we on ukc shouldn't be so quick to judge and abuse.
ads.ukclimbing.com
PeterM - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to jpicksley:

> Perhaps we on ukc shouldn't be so quick to judge and abuse.

Wouldn't be UKC then. Anyhoo, they seem to following the tried an tested method of 'it's being better to seek forgiveness than seek permission'. Maybe they should have trained for their little jaunt. Asked some people about it. What would have been more impressive worthwhile and less wasteful, considering the fate of the bench and the effort put in to making it, would have been if they carried it up, took photo's, then carried it down and auctioned off their one-off bench that had been to the summit of Nevis. It was quite a naive and idiotic stunt of schoolboy proportions.
jpicksley - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to PeterM:
Generally I agree with you. Clearly they should have been more prepared and thought it through more. But to be fair to them they seem to have acknowledged that. What seems to have upset them is the vitriolic reaction and I tend to agree with them. It doesn't show us up well as a community.
Post edited at 11:10
Milesy - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to jpicksley:

I have spoken to a couple of the lads involved and it does seem their heart was in the right place, and there was a naivety about the thing and they honestly figured their bench would have been a welcome feature on the summit. I have since explained about the sheer number of people who all bring stuff to the summit, none of which can be kept up there, and also explained about the many people who give up their own time and money to go up and volunteer clearing up on the ben (which I have done).

The Bench might have been better placed being taken down into the memorial garden thingy afterwards, but what is done is done I guess now. I think the original FB post should be removed.
rackandruin - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to Milesy: Is the bench actually still there for them to take down on Saturday, or did it get cut up and removed yesterday as claimed? If so will the person who cut it up(or anyone else) be informing those guys not to waste their time and resources by coming back up to remove it?

Milesy - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to rackandruin:

I spoke to the lads and told them that apparantly (as said on this thread) it has been broken up and taken down, but I can't comment on whether the post above is true or not.
jpicksley - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to Milesy:

I entirely agree that the original FB post should be removed.
fmck - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Shame this is over its been a flamin comedy.

Anyone fancy taking a settee up for charity?
rackandruin - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to fmck:

Naw youd only be able to get sofa
Sorry
mike123 - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:
shame to smash it up .looks like a nice bench. surprised its not occurred to somebody local to just go and get it and stick it in the garden. If I lived a bit closer or was up the way ,I d press gang a mate and liberate it, mind I d probably not let on..........
Howard J - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:
They were well-intentioned but incredibly naive, not only in failing to consider the impact of what they were doing but in their lack of preparation for the ascent itself.

However some of the reactions to it have been excessive. I think it is a pity that the bench has been destroyed before the lads had a chance to put their mistake right, which they had already said they were going to do. Would it being up there for a few more days really have mattered? They had put a lot of work into creating the bench and it seems a shame that it can't now be put to a more appropriate use.

I am also trying to make sense of my own reactions to this, compared with the recent thread about sculptures in Fisherfield. I find I am fairly relaxed about the sculptures, considering them to be fairly insignificant in the larger landscape, whereas I share the general view that the bench was inappropriate and should be removed. I can see that there is a difference but I'm struggling to decide just what that is. Perhaps it's because the sculptures make use of local materials and are a creative reaction to the scenery.
PeterM - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to rackandruin:

> Naw youd only be able to get sofa

> Sorry

Once you get your futon the path, it's hard to stop....
Skyfall - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to Howard J:

I agree - this turned into a bit of a witch hunt where arguably there was no need. It could have been dealt with more sympathetically and all parties left feeling fairly happy with the outcome.
JohnnyW - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> Once you get your futon the path, it's hard to stop....

Ah, but the chaise had gone a longue way.....
PeterM - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to losers:

> makes you look more like childish teenagers rather than adults.

Did you actually re-read your post before posting? And I'd also direct you to the whole undertaking in the first place if you are seeking childishness. As for the social media issues, maybe they should get their parents to contact CEOPS for advice.

PeterM - on 10 Jun 2014

Dammit! Looks like 'Losers' mum has made them delete the post I was replying to above.

knthrak1982 on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to PeterM:

Yeah I'd written one too. Too long to try again on the smartphone though. Pity.
abseil on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to PeterM:

But people are springing in to cushion the blow.
mountainbagger - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to abseil:

Hah, armchair mountaineers!
myserable old git - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

There are a lot of old faded portraits in the National Gallery how about repainting them as a project, I'm sure nobody will mind if it's for charity!
PeterM - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to abseil:

As long as they settee to it that it doesn't happen again ( is that the bottom of the barrel I see?)
ads.ukclimbing.com
davidbeynon - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

On the plus side, this whole thing has given me the idea for a business running sedan chair rides up Ben Nevis.

Or maybe the Inn Pinn!
dek - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to mountainbagger:

> Hah, armchair mountaineers!

Applause!! :-)
Dave Kerr - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

What was the charity?
PeterM - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to Dave Kerr:

> What was the charity?

They don't like to talk about it...
Dave Kerr - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to PeterM:

I'd be wanting to keep their name out of it too if it was me. Can't imagine they'd be best pleased.
abseil on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to mountainbagger:

> Hah, armchair mountaineers!

Let me couch it in different terms for you... it's a deepseated problem, but I think I can find some support for what I'm going to table, i.e., put on the carpet.
Andy Say - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to mountainbagger:

> Hah, armchair mountaineers!

Before making such an accusation you might need to conduct a benchmarking exercise.
Mark Collins - on 10 Jun 2014
streapadair - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to Dave Hewitt:

> The bench on High Pike has been there a long time and seems to be generally well liked:


I'll raise you :

http://tinyurl.com/ulrichbench
SecretSquirrel - on 10 Jun 2014
I did actually look up Wiretime to see if I could at least find some more info about what the point of the whole exercise was. Unfortunately Wiretime don't seem to have a website or in fact much internet presence at all beyond a few links google threw up with references to some fancy dress themed fund raising.

They were always going to get slated for having left anything on the summit, but perhaps some of the climbing community might have been more sympathetic if the lads had at least mentioned the charity when posting their photo rather than just a self-congratulatory "look what we done, isn't it great".

I'm still none the wiser what the charity is for!

mattrm - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to SecretSquirrel:

It is possible to figure it out. Someone else on here has figured it.
deepsoup - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to SecretSquirrel:
> They were always going to get slated for having left anything on the summit

The bench? Daft obviously, but perhaps naive is a fair way to describe it.

Leaving their mate behind on the descent? Hm. Harder to forgive, but as someone who seems to know what went on says it was a misunderstanding maybe they deserve the benefit of the doubt for that.

The battens they used to carry the thing up there and the holdall full of rubbish though. How could anyone other than a complete cretin not realise that they were litter exactly? Having schlepped the bench up there it's not as if they could have thought there was a bin wagon around every Tuesday is it?

> I'm still none the wiser what the charity is for!

I saw a FB photo of a sponsorship form saying "Charity to be announced later" on it. Looked a bit fishy to me.

Ah well. If they were genuinely prepared to fetch it down again first chance they had I guess they can't be all bad.

If they really want to raise a bit of cash for their charity maybe someone should suggest a more worthy project for them. I'd chip in a few quid happily enough.
mattrm - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to deepsoup:
> The bench? Daft obviously, but perhaps naive is a fair way to describe it.

> Leaving their mate behind on the descent? Hm. Harder to forgive, but as someone who seems to know what went on says it was a misunderstanding maybe they deserve the benefit of the doubt for that.

It was a misunderstanding as the guy apparently realised that he was going to struggle from half-way up, but continued to the top and then got in trouble on the way down. They then sent someone down for help. After a while they thought that he was going to be airlifted off. So they left him. He was then escorted off (not sure whether it was by the MRT or other walkers).

Also it's a bloody ugly bench. You'd think they could have at least got a nicer bench. Or built a nicer bench.

If I took a bench into the middle of a football pitch (or indeed anywhere a bench wasn't supposed to be) I reckon people would get pissed off quite quickly. So why are they going 'it's ok, cause it's for charity?'.

Am I the only person who's narked by everyone who's saying 'they've climbed Ben Nevis'? It's just a flipping walk.

From facebook:

"Finally, about me being ditched. It was entirely my fault that I ended up the way I was. I did zero preparation, training, had 2 hours sleep the night before and had practically nothing to eat all day. When my back gave in about a third of the way up the mountain, I should have gone back down, but was too stubborn and wanted to continue for the good cause. Despite my better judgement, I pushed on and it was inevitable what the outcome was going to be. The entire way up, we hadn't travelled as a coherent unit. We each travelled up at our own pace and left at different times. When I started to feel the effects and wasn't able to continue, my friends were already too far ahead, just as they had been for the entire trip up. Thankfully, someone who was with us ran ahead and alerted them about my condition and that I was unable to continue. We're not experienced in these scenarios by any means. I personally thought that standard protocol would have been to be airlifted to hospital since I had no idea how bad I was and for a while that's what it seemed was going to happen. That's also the news my friends got which is why they wanted to hurry home and alert the people who care about me. I'm sure anyone who has been up the mountain knows how unreliable the signal is up there for mobile phones. Had we brought some walkie talkies or something of that nature then it would all have been able to have been cleared in a matter of moments. However, we had not expected anything like this to happen, so we didn't bring anything along to communicate. Everyone was just unfortunate enough to get the wrong end of the stick."

Least he admitted it was his own dumb fault.
Post edited at 21:53
maisie on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to deepsoup:

> If they really want to raise a bit of cash for their charity maybe someone should suggest a more worthy project for them. I'd chip in a few quid happily enough.

Or perhaps help them do something similar, but with a less controversial outcome?

If this story goes mainstream, we're going to look like a right bunch of @rseholes. Even more than usual. There'll be very few positive spins on the outdoor 'community', particularly when it becomes clear that it was for a sick kids' charity.

I'm not on Facebook. Is anybody actually saying anything constructive or conciliatory to these guys?

Martin
mattrm - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:
Yeah a few folk are.

They've also got their friends piling on going 'awww they're wonderful'. They still seem to think they didn't really do anything wrong as it was for charity. I can't be arsed to argue with idiots on the internet. There's too many of them.
Post edited at 21:58
maisie on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to mattrm:

> Am I the only person who's narked by everyone who's saying 'they've climbed Ben Nevis'? It's just a flipping walk.

To us, yes. But then we also know that Everest is a circus, there's no such thing as 'abseiling E5' and Very Difficult climbs are nothing of the sort. For these guys, it was unequivocal as a challenge - Britain's highest mountain - and they were doing something that they thought was good for other people. Yes, they should have done more preparation; yes, it's a bad idea to put a bench on a summit (just like it's a bad idea to put a whole cafe on one); yes, they left their rubbish up there (actually, this is probably the one thing they should cop to - anybody would have known this was wrong).

But if you can show me a single piece of malice in their actions, I'll hold your coat. And light your torches. Otherwise, a group of young lads organised a charity event, raised money and had their families and friends come with them. It was a major event for them and they believed in what they were doing. Now, it's going to be unforgettable for all the wrong reasons.

They can't even atone, because someone chopped the bench up. Small wonder that they're left pretty angry.

Martin
Martin W on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to mattrm:
> After a while they thought that he was going to be airlifted off. So they left him.

Sorry, but I still don't think that's the right way to have handled the situation. IMO you don't leave a member of your party behind just because you think someone else is on the way to rescue them: you stay with them until you know that they have been rescued. It's not like there was any significant risk to any of the other members of the party if they'd stayed with him.

> From facebook:

> "Finally, about me being ditched…When I started to feel the effects and wasn't able to continue, my friends were already too far ahead, just as they had been for the entire trip up.

So in fact, they'd basically abandoned him even before he decided that he needed rescuing. Nice.

>> I'm still none the wiser what the charity is for!

> It is possible to figure it out. Someone else on here has figured it.

So what is it? Why should people have to "figure it out"? If it's supposed to justify what they did, just tell us!
Post edited at 22:27
deepsoup - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:
> particularly when it becomes clear that it was for a sick kids' charity.

Is that clear, or did it become "for a sick kids charity" retrospectively?
mattrm - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to Martin W:

> So what is it? Why should people have to "figure it out"? If it's supposed to justify what they did, just tell us!

http://www.chas.org.uk/how_we_help_families/our_hospices/robin_house

I really don't care what charity it's for. It seems like a popular thing these days to do stuff for charity. If you want to give money to charity, just do it. Don't make a big song and dance about it.
deepsoup - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:
> They can't even atone, because someone chopped the bench up. Small wonder that they're left pretty angry.

Of course they can 'atone' if they want, they don't need the original bench for that.

If someone would care to champion them on here they could probably turn their infamy around and use it to generate a fair bit of support for some fundraising effort or other.

Under the circumstances, a small donation to the Lochaber MRT probably wouldn't go amiss either.
ads.ukclimbing.com
petestack - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to Howard J:

> They were well-intentioned but incredibly naive, not only in failing to consider the impact of what they were doing but in their lack of preparation for the ascent itself.

> However some of the reactions to it have been excessive. I think it is a pity that the bench has been destroyed before the lads had a chance to put their mistake right, which they had already said they were going to do. Would it being up there for a few more days really have mattered? They had put a lot of work into creating the bench and it seems a shame that it can't now be put to a more appropriate use.

In reply to maisie:

> They can't even atone, because someone chopped the bench up. Small wonder that they're left pretty angry.

Yep... while I too was angry that they'd taken it up there, inappropriately left/fixed it up there and were naively basking in pride at their 'achievement', I'm also disappointed to see someone I know proudly announcing its premature destruction when they could (now apparently would) have collected it themselves or anyone determined to remove it sooner (and, believe me, I didn't want to see it left there for a moment longer than necessary!) could have made a much more constructive point by bringing it down whole and telling them where to collect it if they wanted it back.

Also hugely dismayed at all this horse-whipping and hanging stuff, which quite simply can't be any kind of considered response at all and for which I can see no excuse even as a 'joke' (which it's not)!
maisie on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to deepsoup:

> Is that clear, or did it become "for a sick kids charity" retrospectively?

https://vine.co/v/MrPt6lznLL9

They had some kind of fundraiser last month, which they linked to the hospice. I agree that it seems to be a lot of effort to find out what they were about, but then if you're going to have a dig at people, you ought to know what they're about, eh? ;-)

I still think if this gets picked up by the media, 'we're' stuffed. And even if not, 'we' haven't behaved with much dignity or tolerance.
maisie on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to mattrm:


> I really don't care what charity it's for. It seems like a popular thing these days to do stuff for charity. If you want to give money to charity, just do it. Don't make a big song and dance about it.

I think you're being uncharitable here....
Dave Hewitt - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to streapadair:

> I'll raise you :
> http://tinyurl.com/ulrichbench

Brilliant - thanks, hadn't seen that before. Re the High Pike bench (and the Ulrichshorn one, for that matter), it perhaps raises the question of how long these things have been there and how attitudes might have changed, particularly in recent years.

I know Ben Nevis probably counts as a special case, given the charity, clutter and clueless punter overload, but say someone had installed a nice stone bench at the summit 50 years ago, might it now be seen as a legitimate part of the summit furniture and an endearing quirk (as with the High Pike one), or would there be cries for its removal, assuming no one had already taken unilateral action against it?

Bob_the_Builder - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

I agree about the media bit looking really bad for the outdoor community, but there are aspects of this story that really should be publicised:

- Stuff shouldn't be left on the summit of the Ben, or any other mountains.

- When people start talking about hanging, they're talking about real people, it is a very bad way to encourage others to see a different point of view. Also really nasty. Be polite when you criticise.

- Never leave a friend behind when they're in a bad way in the mountains. (Airlifted out is standard protocol? Why would someone thing that? This perception should be fixed!)

Hopefully the group were well intentioned and have learned to research their plan next time to ensure it doesn't cause a problem. Maybe a few people on here have learned not to overreact to everything? A measured response usually is more sucessful I find. Flying off the handle (and saying inexcusable stuff) just gets everyone's backs up which is totally counterproductive.
petestack - on 10 Jun 2014
In reply to Martin W:

> Sorry, but I still don't think that's the right way to have handled the situation. IMO you don't leave a member of your party behind just because you think someone else is on the way to rescue them: you stay with them until you know that they have been rescued. It's not like there was any significant risk to any of the other members of the party if they'd stayed with him.

> So in fact, they'd basically abandoned him even before he decided that he needed rescuing. Nice.

Yes, the 'airlifting' thing was ignorant/unthinking...

In reply to mattrm:

> I really don't care what charity it's for. It seems like a popular thing these days to do stuff for charity. If you want to give money to charity, just do it. Don't make a big song and dance about it.

And, yes, I get that when I too get so tired of seeing things (not least involving Ben Nevis etc.) constantly turned into charity stunts...

But the unfortunate way this whole thing's been 'resolved' has merely resulted in polarised, self-righteous anger when some gentle education could have been so much more effective!

PeterM - on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

> Small wonder that they're left pretty angry.

Why are they angry? I'm pretty sure in their posts it was 'mission accomplished'. They had no intention of seeing the bench again. They've been found out to be a bit thoughtless and childish - is this what they are angry about?

maisie on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> Why are they angry? I'm pretty sure in their posts it was 'mission accomplished'. They had no intention of seeing the bench again. They've been found out to be a bit thoughtless and childish - is this what they are angry about?

Thoughtless and childish? Really? A bit unprepared and naive, perhaps. But weren't we all, once? As for having no intention of seeing the bench again, well that was the point - in their minds they were donating it for people to take a rest on. I'm not suggesting they were right to put it up there, but the exclusionist, damning and destructive response with which they've met wasn't appropriate and was responsible for the bad feeling we're seeing now.

They spoke to the John Muir trust themselves; they arranged to go pick it up. This would have allowed them to wipe the slate clean and demonstrate that they were willing to take it on the chin and move on. Somebody else decided to weigh in. They'd probably have spent quite a bit of time and effort building the thing, so just having it smashed up would be a bit of a gutter.

Why are they angry? With the best of intentions, they did something for those less fortunate. They had families, friends and girlfriends there to cheer them on. The whole group probably looked forwards to it for a long while and the experience would have brought them all closer together. Wouldn't you be proud if your kids did something for charity (and you weren't aware of any controversies)? All they've met with is a wall of negativity and an act of vandalism.

I'd say angry would cover it. We've done very little to avoid or offset that, and quite a lot to stoke it. It was in our gift to act with benevolence and educative advice. But a mob went at it instead.

Martin
alexanderjwatts - on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

I'm kind of surprised this hasn't been reported in the Daily Hate yet. Perhaps it has... Any avid Daily Mail readers here that can enlighten us?

"Charity Bench Destroyed by Barmy Enviros!"

"Bench for Sick Kids Vandalized by Internet Trolls"


Not casting stones here.... but it doesn't exactly make our tribe look good.
knthrak1982 on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to alexanderjwatts:

> I'm kind of surprised this hasn't been reported in the Daily Hate yet. Perhaps it has... Any avid Daily Mail readers here that can enlighten us?

Skimmed it. .. seems the passport office is keeping them occupied for the moment. And Oxfam are apparently anti-austerity which has pissed the mail off too. I'll let you know if benchgate turns up.
jimmyr on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

New on site - wow this got a bit heated.
PeterM - on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

> Thoughtless and childish? Really?

Yes. See my post above about carrying it up and down and the auction it off.

Well now they are spared an unnecessary journey - maybe they can donate the costs that would have incurred to the charity. In fact the costs involved in the original debacle could have just been donated, but

Ignorance is no excuse, however youthful. They made a mistake, albeit a well intentioned one. They should learn from it and move on. The vitriol they have received is another issue. They don't have any right to be angry. Maybe they're just hoping the re-action will give them some sort of moral high-ground and hide their original mistake.


fmck - on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to jimmyr:

Next time you see someone screaming at a bench before smashing it up you will know its no Basil Fawlty.
alexanderjwatts - on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to knthrak1982:

Many thanks - I suspect it will emerge at some point (with the appropriate level of moral outrage and insightful reportage).
James Gilbert on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to jimmyr:

> New on site - wow this got a bit heated.

What with this and the 3 Peaks driving thread, maybe Hilltalk is becoming the new Rocktalk ;-)
maisie on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to James Gilbert:

> What with this and the 3 Peaks driving thread, maybe Hilltalk is becoming the new Rocktalk ;-)

What, I'm on Hilltalk?

<backs up nervously>

Erm, can anybody lend me a map and compass to find my way home?

Martin
maisie on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to PeterM:

> Yes. See my post above about carrying it up and down and the auction it off.

Which is no longer possible, is it? It might have been, but some individual intervened, ironically without checking first with the appropriate bods to make sure it was an OK thing to do on the summit of the Ben.

> Maybe they're just hoping the re-action will give them some sort of moral high-ground and hide their original mistake.

No, I don't think so. I suspect that, like most groups of young men who are pleased with themselves, their anger would be to do with being unexpectedly deflated - and perhaps a certain loss of face in front of family and friends. In fact, though, it seems that most of the anger is coming from those around them, who are understandably protective. Had they been allowed to collect the bench, a more positive outcome might have ensued, for both sides of the debate.

Martin
JJL - on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:


> If this story goes mainstream, we're going to look like a right bunch of @rseholes. Even more than usual. There'll be very few positive spins on the outdoor 'community', particularly when it becomes clear that it was for a sick kids' charity.

Not really.

They have:
Named the charity after the event
Left the rubbish up the mountain
Tried to cement the bench into place (OP) - which undermines the "plan to Included a team member who knew he wasn't fit for the walk, but expected a helicopter ride off if he ploughed on

People here have:
Pointed out that the above is inappropriate
Cleared the mess up

Now, remind me what we should be wearing sackcloth over?
maisie on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to JJL:
> They have:

> Named the charity after the event

No, they were always openly raising money for this charity - I've seen at least one piece of evidence for this, dating from 21st May (I put a link up for it, I'll see if I can find it again). But, perhaps unusually in this day and age, they didn't rely on internet presence for their fundraising.

> Left the rubbish up the mountain

Yes, they did. And I've already said that this is one thing they should cop to: I'm not buying that they left it there through miscommunication. I think you misunderstand if you infer that I'm apologising for their behaviour here; my discomfort is in the response they've received from the outdoor community.

> Tried to cement the bench into place (OP) - which undermines the "plan to Included a team member who knew he wasn't fit for the walk, but expected a helicopter ride off if he ploughed on

I don't understand this sentence. I think it may have been accidentally chopped somewhere in the middle.

> People here have:

> Pointed out that the above is inappropriate

Yes. And then some. People on Facebook have apparently talked about the need for gallows and/or horsewhipping; apparently they've also had abusive PMs and phone calls. There's a difference between actually pointing out - constructively - that something is inappropriate and the backlash on here and elsewhere. I think you're trying to downplay the abusive nature of much of the response.

> Cleared the mess up

Now, this is ironic. We're basically arguing here that there's a consensus over what should get left at the summit. This is entirely correct, and in order to moderate and apply that consensus view, we have a bunch of people responsible for contact with interested parties and for enforcing the rules. So if we want to do something, we contact them. Great. I gather that the young men got back in touch and arranged that they'd put things right. This was agreed with the people in charge of such things.

So, give me your views on somebody who - it appears - goes up there off his own bat and destroys some property, without checking first with the authorities in whom we've put our trust. Are the rules only for outsiders, because we're exempt?

> Now, remind me what we should be wearing sackcloth over?

I think you misunderstand the point of sackcloth, and the intrinsic pointlessness of refusing to do something constructive instead. It's not about behaving badly and then doing penance, but about trying to get a more positive outcome than where we are now. You don't feel that it's your obligation to do so and that's fine. That's your prerogative.

Edit: here's the link to one of their earlier fundraising events:

https://vine.co/v/MrPt6lznLL9
Post edited at 17:56
JJL - on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

Some of my post got eaten

Undermines the "plan to bring it back down"
The point about helicopter rides was separate
ads.ukclimbing.com
marsbar - on 11 Jun 2014
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-27762302
In reply to maisie:

I agree with you.

These lads were trying to do something good, they apologised and agreed to make it right.

Meanwhile there are kids out there actually doing stuff wrong. Like the link above for example.

I think its time to let this alone....

maisie on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to JJL:

> Some of my post got eaten

> Undermines the "plan to bring it back down"

> The point about helicopter rides was separate

I wasn't aware that they were going to bring it back down originally - but I'm not on social media, so you might have different info.

The helicopter ride debacle was an absolute cracker, yes. Bearing in mind that it takes several thousand pounds to get the chopper in the air, it would have been deeply unfortunate had the amount they raised been eclipsed by the cost of rescue.

But.

It's false logic to weigh one against the other. Quite a few of us will need rescuing at some point - Hamish MacInnes famously was rescued three times (so I believe) - and we'll likely be rescued whilst doing nothing more edifying than going out for our own enjoyment. Is that better or worse? As to their general lack of preparedness, I think we can shake hands on that one - although it doesn't mean that all the harrumphing and hissing are any more edifying.
As someone who spent years in SAR, working on many occasions with the rescue choppers (including taking the decision to call them out), I can say that they don't see it in financial terms, but value the work highly. The costs are a bit misleading as well, as much of the sum is made up of fixed costs which apply whether the helicopter's in the air or not. But that's a different debate anyway.

Martin
maisie on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to marsbar:

> I agree with you.

> These lads were trying to do something good, they apologised and agreed to make it right.

> Meanwhile there are kids out there actually doing stuff wrong. Like the link above for example.

> I think its time to let this alone....

Apparently, these people were worse. I think it was something to do with coming into our playground without permission. Or something.

But thank you ;-)

yesbutnobutyesbut - on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

> Apparently, these people were worse. I think it was something to do with coming into our playground without permission. Or something.

> But thank you ;-)

You really are posting nonsense now. It was nothing to do with 'coming into our playground without permission'

Where has that been said?
maisie on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

> You really are posting nonsense now. It was nothing to do with 'coming into our playground without permission'

> Where has that been said?

So you're saying you did give permission?

You don't need to answer that, unless you want set the bar even lower than I just did. Although you started it.

But consider this. A group of people who don't know how these things work went to a place which they naturally assumed to be in public ownership. They did something generally agreed to be a bit inappropriate and daft - but with the best of intentions.

Another group of people who do understand how these things work took them to task on this. They felt able to do this because they spend their leisure time in this place. It is, almost by definition, their playground. There is also a definite air of proprietorship, although you'll need to baldly deny this if you wish to argue further. They feel that if the first group had done some research, found out the rules and been officially refused permission for their venture, then they wouldn't have done this thing.

How exactly, without twisting yourself in self-defeating knots, do you suggest that this isn't about people coming into your playground without permission?

Over to you.

Martin
scottie390 - on 11 Jun 2014
They can go back up the ben an clear up the terrible mess they made with the concrete. I removed everything else for them. after having seen how they took the bench up there in the first place, it would endanger other mountain users and the team involved if they tried to bring it back down in the same manner. Charity is not a substitute excuse for ignorance. I do find it odd that the bench that apparently was for charity had no mention of any charity on it, sporting only a corporate company logo. The blame/responsibility of removing the bench is mines and mine alone. If you wanna have a whinge or complain, then please direct this at me and not the wider climbing community.
Wesley Orvis - on 11 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:

Well said well done. You should bill them for your time.
johncoxmysteriously - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Wow. I'm not often left speechless by people's stupidity, but this lot have managed it.

I genuinely cannot understand how people like this reach adulthood with so little ability to consider the consequences of their actions.

jcm
Howard J - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> I genuinely cannot understand how people like this reach adulthood with so little ability to consider the consequences of their actions.

I think that's a little harsh. They appear to have genuinely believed that this would be welcomed by people arriving at the summit. Let's face it, quite a lot of the punters who slog up there every summer might very well have been glad to see it. When it was explained to them why it was inappropriate they understood and immediately arranged to take it down again at the first opportunity and put it in a more suitable location. Instead scottie390 got there first.

My personal opinion is that scottie390's unilateral action was hasty and ill-considered. Just like placing the bench, doing it with the best intentions doesn't make it right. If he or other local climbers wished to help in removing this they could have helped the group to make their second ascent more safely than the first time.

On the whole, I think the Wiretime group deserve to be commended for their efforts for charity. Unfortunately on this occasion they got it wrong, and they deserve to be criticised for their mistake, but not condemned the way they have been. This could have ended with a much better result all round and the bench being used somewhere where it would be appreciated and welcomed.

Ann65 - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:
The words 'definite air of proprietorship' caught my eye – could those words be transposed with the words 'the establishment'.

It would be fun to mess around with history and introduce to this situation the working class crowd that left Clydeside for the hills and countryside decades ago. They didn't bother much about landowners nor the 'established' mountaineering clubs of the day.

Some of that crowd would likely have said, “Aye, well done lads,” and saw them off on their descent, before carrying the bench off to their latest howff as a seat or firewood.
Post edited at 09:08
Jamie B - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply:

Wow, just got back from 3 days beyond the reach of phone signal and find that "benchgate" has gone mental! I've deleted my photo and all the comments associated with it from my commercial FB page as they were getting abusive and unconstructive.

The whole incident does seem to have provoked a lot of thought and a lot of passion, which is never a bad thing. I'd agree that as mountaineers we don't always grasp that not everyone shares our approach to wild spaces, and that naivety was as likely to have been the root cause as crass arrogance. But it does have to be said that various folk tried to persuade the team not to leave the bench, and that the assurances they were given proved hollow.

Having said that if the team had tried to carry it down they'd probably ALL have ended up hypthermic; their kit wasn't the greatest and the weather did deteriorate...

I'll give them respect for pledging to remove it, but realistically it might have taken ages and another "situation" to achieve that. I think Davie's solution was a pragmatic and efficient one, borne of concern for and empathy with the mountain and that it deserves unqualified praise.

The situation with the hypothermic team member is a confused one, and I'm not going to muddy the waters further. When teams are stretched on a mountain chaos reins, as we've seen time and again on bigger hills. Suffice to say that it underlines that some see an airlift as a given for every mountain situation, which is a presumption that clearly needs challenging. In fact the MRT were in phone conversation with those around the casualty and judged (correctly) that he was walking wounded and were content to simply monitor the situation.

Right, off to buy a Press and Journal!
maisie on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390 and Wesley Orvis:

It's wonderful that you two have found each other.

Martin
LastBoyScout on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:
> To us, yes. But then we also know that Everest is a circus, there's no such thing as 'abseiling E5' and Very Difficult climbs are nothing of the sort. For these guys, it was unequivocal as a challenge - Britain's highest mountain - and they were doing something that they thought was good for other people. Yes, they should have done more preparation; yes, it's a bad idea to put a bench on a summit (just like it's a bad idea to put a whole cafe on one); yes, they left their rubbish up there (actually, this is probably the one thing they should cop to - anybody would have known this was wrong).

> But if you can show me a single piece of malice in their actions, I'll hold your coat. And light your torches. Otherwise, a group of young lads organised a charity event, raised money and had their families and friends come with them. It was a major event for them and they believed in what they were doing. Now, it's going to be unforgettable for all the wrong reasons.

> They can't even atone, because someone chopped the bench up. Small wonder that they're left pretty angry.

> Martin

+1

My first reaction to it was "good work, lads" on carrying a bench up there! No, they should have been messing around with concrete or left the rubbish (and no comment on the tired lad), but strikes me they've had a pretty rough ride and it's got out of all proportion. All it needed was a quiet work from the authorities to sort it out.

To the bloke who chopped the bench up (assuming you did) - hope you're proud of yourself.
Post edited at 09:38
Snoweider - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Well said Jamie.

Agree that bench should have been removed asap, well done that man. If chopping it up was the safest way to remove it, then so be it.

Shame it all got nasty on social media. Individuals (not the climbing community) come out badly on that one.

The view that a helicopter rescue is protocol is infuriating and widespread. I've worked a few of these charity events ...not 3 peaks, I have standards ;)... and the folk I work with are astonished when they learn that rescue is not a right, and that MRT are volunteers with jobs.

These boys have been singled out for their stupidity, but many thousands make the same mistakes every day on the Ben. I've had one of my own clients deliberately drop litter on the Ben Path, and then refuse to pick it up, because their taxes pay for bin men. On other occasions my clients (slow, descending) have been physically abused and pushed out of the way by 3 peakers (ascending). One occasion in particular involved a mass ascent by the English Fire Service whose members behaved appallingly towards other people on the hill. For charity.

Not sure what the solution is but when I think about it I get very depressed.

toad - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to LastBoyScout:
> (In reply to maisie)
> [...]
>. All it needed was a quiet work from the authorities to sort it out.
>
>
This ia maybe similar to the guy who expected rescue. Apart from the fairly obvious, there aren't "authorities" in this circumstance, there isn't going to be an official arbiter of what is and isn't allowed. Ethics in the mountain are a consensus. Sometimes bolts are ok, sometimes not. Same goes for benches. It would be hard for someone new to the mountains to get a handle on what is permissible when the community isn't consistent. Sure, this was fairly stupid to our eyes, but there's a cafe on Snowdon and apparently that's ok.
Snoweider - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to toad:

Last time I looked there was quite a lot of information at the start of the path about not leaving junk on the summit, either for good causes or as memorials, and explaining the reason why.
toad - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Snoweider:

I'm not for a moment suggesting they weren't idiots, but there's also a lot of unwritten rules and assumptions about behaviour as well that they wouldn't have known about.

I've come across this sort of thing in other circumstances. Memorials in areas where people are asked to leave no trace, or unofficial events on sites that can't support them, and the answer was always that theirs were "different" or "special" or......"but it's for charity" . Sometimes it takes more than a sign to change peoples minds if they're set on a course of action.

but then look at the fuss when it was suggested putting a sign at the bottom of Crib Goch to prevent idiots getting stuck on the ridge.
JJL - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to toad:

> but there's a cafe on Snowdon and apparently that's ok.

It isn't, of course, but there's not much to be done about it.
Flinticus - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to toad:

In this case, there are authorities: the summit and more of Ben Nevis is JMT property and there is the Nevis Partnership. It's not dependent on what the climbing community consider permissible in this case but the trust and I know the trust wanted the bench removed & relocated off the mountain. However it could have been handled better and has got out of proportion (though I cannot get my head around leaving a bag of rubbish behind).
toad - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Snoweider:
> (In reply to Jamie B)
>

>
> These boys have been singled out for their stupidity, but many thousands make the same mistakes every day on the Ben. I've had one of my own clients deliberately drop litter on the Ben Path, and then refuse to pick it up, because their taxes pay for bin men.
>
> Not sure what the solution is but when I think about it I get very depressed.

me too. I have to say when I read this part of your post, it really struck a chord. The whole attitude that someone else has to be paid to sort out your mess, so that makes it ok is far too prevalent - right across society
ads.ukclimbing.com
Kimono - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to JJL:

> It isn't, of course, but there's not much to be done about it.

Similarly those unsightly huts littering the Alps
Toby S - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Snoweider:
> Not sure what the solution is but when I think about it I get very depressed.

Rude and ignorant people are everywhere. On mountains, in shops, on the roads... The only solution would be a mass extinction event.
Post edited at 11:36
Jamie B - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Snoweider:

> Last time I looked there was quite a lot of information at the start of the path about not leaving junk on the summit, either for good causes or as memorials, and explaining the reason why.

If there's one thing that I've learned over the years, it's that signs don't work unless they're really large, garish and unmissable. I think the Ben will always be littered, and that the local and mountaineering communities simply have to suck that up and manage it, mediated as it is by the tourism, health and holistic benefits.
Ann65 - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Kimono:
There seems to be a fair number of instructor/guide folk pontificating about this - I wonder if any of them remember one of their number suggesting that an Alpine type hut be built at the halfway lochan.
Post edited at 12:44
andrewmcleod - on 12 Jun 2014
If scottie didn't know they were planning to get the bench, and was under the reasonable assumption it had been 'abandoned', then taking, and subsequently destroying the bench might not have been illegal.

Otherwise it could be criminal damage.
fmck - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Ann65:

Yeh can you imagine the outcry if some hillwalker or climber built a building on the Ben. Oh C**p we already have.
Howard J - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Snoweider:


> Agree that bench should have been removed asap, well done that man. If chopping it up was the safest way to remove it, then so be it.

Of course it need to be removed quickly, but they'd already contacted the John Muir Trust and agreed to remove it by Saturday. Was that really too long to wait? The JMT appear to have been happy with that. If they'd failed to do that then chopping it up might have been justifiable, but they weren't given the chance to do that and put it in a charity garden as they intended.

In fairness to scottie390, he may have already been on his way up to remove it when the JMT's message was posted on here. It still seems a bit hasty to me. If any local climbers wanted to assist then helping them get up and down the mountain safely would have been both a better option and a chance to engage with them and help them understand the wider situation better, including mountain rescue. In my opinion.




Jamie B - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Ann65:

> There seems to be a fair number of instructor/guide folk pontificating about this - I wonder if any of them remember one of their number suggesting that an Alpine type hut be built at the halfway lochan.

I'm familiar with the proposal, but can safely assure you that the instructor community is very far from being of one voice on that issue!
James Gilbert on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Howard J:

+1 (just replied basically the same thing, but you put it better).
JaneCart - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

I too disagree with dumping stuff on hilltops - rubbish, grolsch bottles, bogroll festooned poo, I see them all the time. A bench is less offensive but still wrong. However I don't believe these guys were being malicious. They thought it was okay to do and they worked hard. We passed them going up as we went down. They were a long way from the top and were all totally knackered. The Ben was overrun with charity walkers of all sorts on Saturday - by the end of the day we were pretty convinced we were the only 3 on the hill simply out for a walk - most of the charity walkers seemed to have no idea what they were doing except that they were doing it for a good cause.

I'm sorry they left their rubbish behind, and I'm sorry they tried to cement the bench to the ground. But really, was it that bad a thing to do? On the other hand their total lack of experience, probably not helped by being too knackered to think properly, could have had serious consequences for their mate, however hard he is trying to defend them.

Phew.
JaneCart - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Howard J:

Spot on.
JaneCart - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

they may have assumed an airlift was a foregone conclusion as the rescue heli had been out "playing" for several minutes close to the path and waving at the charity team raising money for the RAF Benevolent Fund.
fmck - on 12 Jun 2014
Euge - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to JJL:

> Not really.

> They have:

> Named the charity after the event

> Left the rubbish up the mountain

> Tried to cement the bench into place (OP) - which undermines the "plan to Included a team member who knew he wasn't fit for the walk, but expected a helicopter ride off if he ploughed on

> People here have:

> Pointed out that the above is inappropriate

> Cleared the mess up

> Now, remind me what we should be wearing sackcloth over?



Brilliant... Totally agree.

Euge
maisie on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to fmck:

> Link to BBC report


Hats off to the JMT for being a bit proactive on that one: non-inflammatory and generally educational. Despite what some of us seem to think, they've saved our bacon a bit on this one.

Thanks for the link

Martin
fmck - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Another related link :http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-27810760

I remember the piano one I'm sure some had to rescued due to exhaustion. I remember reading it in the SMC journal at the time.
Snoweider - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Howard J:

Maybe I'm heartless, but I think if you abandon a bench on the Ben, you really have no longer got any say in what happens to it!

To Ann65: I'm not sure what you are implying. Instructor folk have differing views just like other hill folk. They don't claim to have the monopoly on truth, nor do they speak with one voice.

Ann65 - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Snoweider:
I'm implying nothing - what I wrote in my last post is a simple statement that Jamie B responded to - that's fine.

PS - for info, a Land Rover was driven up in the late 50s or early 60s.
Post edited at 15:41
mattrm - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Snoweider:
> Maybe I'm heartless, but I think if you abandon a bench on the Ben, you really have no longer got any say in what happens to it!

Hear, hear. Or indeed any public place. If I dumped a bench in the middle of my local cricket pitch, I reckon they'd get pretty shirty about it. I think they'd be even more annoyed if I dug a hole and cemented it in.

The folks who were talking about harming these plonkers were taking it all too far however. Especially as they managed to put themselves in harms way with out help from anyone at all.

Definitely a sorry incident. I can't see that scottie has done anything wrong by removing it. If it was local to me and I was free I would have given him a hand.
Post edited at 15:42
Snoweider - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Ann65:
I think I took umbrage at the word pontificating, and as one of those pontificating instructor folk, I felt compelled to pontificate further!
Post edited at 15:48
ads.ukclimbing.com
maisie on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Snoweider:

Well, it's hitting the papers now - Scotsman, Herald, Press and Journal. These are publications traditionally sympathetic to the outdoor community; it'll be interesting to see which slant it takes if the rags get hold of it.

Martin
Wesley Orvis - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

yawn..... give it a rest will ya.
Ann65 - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Snoweider:

Sorry about pontificate; but I do think some people are expressing opinions and judgments in a dogmatic way.
Jamie B - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Ann65:

> I do think some people are expressing opinions and judgments in a dogmatic way.

On UKC? Surely not...

KarlH - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

I hate it when people leave stuff on the mountains. Someone left a bloody cafe on the top of that Mount Snowdon. Crazy!
FactorXXX - on 12 Jun 2014
In reply to KarlH:

I hate it when people leave stuff on the mountains. Someone left a bloody cafe on the top of that Mount Snowdon. Crazy!

What sort of benches has it got?
Ann65 - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Snoweider:

This topic appears to be drying up but a quick last comment.

I was thinking about you're reply, also Jamie B's, and wonder if you think those with a professional or commercial interest should identify that interest when posting.

Some will be aware who everyone is but not all, and as with politicians, it's always informative to know where a point of view is coming from.
Snoweider - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Ann65:

I can't speak for others here but I did ID myself has having worked some of these charity events in my first post, and my status as an ML is in my profile for all to see.

I don't pay UKC for a commercial profile.
Aonach - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:
All seems a bit harsh seeing as there is already a bungalow on the mountain. Maybe someone could saw it up and take it back down?
The inhabitants might have stopped befouling the collective water supply but it is still an appaling construction. Give me a bench anyday...

estivoautumnal - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

> they've saved our bacon a bit on this one.

Eh! From what?
Jim Fraser - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:
Maybe twenty years ago, maybe more, there was a lot of fuss about cairns and benches.

A celebrity promoted the idea that there should be a bench every few hundred metres along the path so that weary walkers could rest. I wasn't very happy with that idea.

I wrote at the time (High? Climber?) "There should only be two cairns on Ben Nevis. One to mark the summit and one at the top of of Gardyloo bearing a plaque: 'This marks the spot where the mountaineering clubs of Scotland threw James Saville down Gardyloo Gully.'"

Oh how I regret we never managed to make that happen.
Post edited at 14:00
maisie on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to estivoautumnal:

> Eh! From what?

Well, the fact that you don't know suggests it's worked.

I've got some tiger-repellent cream I can let you have cheap, too.
maisie on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Jim Fraser:

> 'This marks the spot where the mountaineering clubs of Scotland threw James Saville down Gardyloo Gully.'"

> Oh how I regret we never managed to make that happen.

Took me a moment to work it out, but I got there...

It was a good effort: perhaps if you'd thrown him a bit harder. Is there still a plaque there, saying that? More offensive than a ruined building or a small wooden seat, anyday.
Johnny_Grunwald on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:
This thread tells me that 50% of UKC posters are reasonable people who can remember being young and foolish themselves (I'm definitely in that camp). The other half are a bunch of self-righteous and pompous old farts who are, apparently, paragons of virtue; the kind of people who shake their heads at the newspaper and sigh "The country's going to the dogs I tell you!"

Catch a grip, it was a bit of wood, nobody died and it's hardly the precursor to garden centre style displays of outdoor furniture springing up all over Britain's peaks.
Post edited at 14:20
estivoautumnal - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Johnny_Grunwald:

> This thread tells me that 50% of UKC posters are reasonable people who can remember being young and foolish themselves (I'm definitely in that camp). The other half are a bunch of self-righteous and pompous old farts who are, apparently, paragons of virtue; the kind of people who shake their heads at the newspaper and sigh "The country's going to the dogs I tell you!"

> Catch a grip, it was a bit of wood, nobody died and it's hardly the precursor to garden centre style displays of outdoor furniture springing up all over Britain's peaks.

The most sensible thing posted in this whole thread.
estivoautumnal - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

> Well, the fact that you don't know suggests it's worked.

Ok. Thanks for your efforts. I'll sleep well tonight.

Ridge - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Johnny_Grunwald:

> This thread tells me that 50% of UKC posters are reasonable people who can remember being young and foolish themselves (I'm definitely in that camp). The other half are a bunch of self-righteous and pompous old farts who are, apparently, paragons of virtue; the kind of people who shake their heads at the newspaper and sigh "The country's going to the dogs I tell you!"

> Catch a grip, it was a bit of wood, nobody died and it's hardly the precursor to garden centre style displays of outdoor furniture springing up all over Britain's peaks.

Speaking as someone whose piss boils at the sight of dropped litter in the hills, (or anywhere else), I actually agree with you. There was no malicious intent, they were a bit daft and unprepared and clearly didn't think it through. Yes they did dump rubbish, (which does piss me off), but by the sound of it things were going to ratshit as they were beginning to get out of their depth in terms of fitness and being unprepared for the weather. Is that any different from abandoning kit and abbing off tat?
deepsoup - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Johnny_Grunwald:
> Catch a grip, it was a bit of wood, nobody died and it's hardly the precursor to garden centre style displays of outdoor furniture springing up all over Britain's peaks.

Oh FFS, it's "PEAK"!

Oops, sorry, force of habit. Carry on. :o)

On a slightly more meta note, I reckon those who are making a fuss about how much others have made a fuss about the bench are really making far too much of it.
Lusk - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Johnny_Grunwald:
> Catch a grip, it was a bit of wood, nobody died and it's hardly the precursor to garden centre style displays of outdoor furniture springing up all over Britain's peaks.

Get a grip! This is serious thin end of the wedge stuff!!! :-)
Post edited at 15:19
abseil on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Lusk:

> Get a grip! This is serious thin end of the wedge stuff!!! :-)

Errrrrr are you dovetailing in with the other 'wood' puns?? (Excuse my stupidity. I'm tired after working hard making a bench to put on top of Froggatt Pinnacle - it'll be there by sundown tomorrow!!!)
ads.ukclimbing.com
Wesley Orvis - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:
I wasn't particularly bothered too much by the initial stupidity of the bench and didn't bother getting involved, what really infuriated me was when I read the lads responses and so called apologies,

"each and everyone on that day I would class as my brother, oh yes but we left one of our brothers and his bird up there with hypothermia because an heliciopter was supposed to be coming for him" WHAT?

Just doesn't ring true for me.
Post edited at 16:24
maisie on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Wesley Orvis:

So. At which point during this period of righteous indignation did you decide it was OK to insult young women about their looks?

And again, how do you feel that helped the situation?

Take your time.

Martin
Wesley Orvis - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

What part of give it a rest don't you get?
Wesley Orvis - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

> So. At which point during this period of righteous indignation did you decide it was OK to insult young women about their looks?

You read it mate as did most so you know at which point! Right at the point she started swearing and mouthing off at me I thought it was a fair comment it really wouldn't cost that much supplemented by the nhs.
redsonja - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Johnny_Grunwald:

As already said- the most sensible post on this thread. by miles. good for you
maisie on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Wesley Orvis:

> I thought it was a fair comment it really wouldn't cost that much supplemented by the nhs.

Bingo.

For anybody who felt that the response from the climbing community was a model of proportion and restraint, I give you Wesley. Or Princess, as they fairly effectively nailed him.

Princess saw a bad situation developing and waded in with the express intention of being abusive. And part of this abuse was to draw attention to a young woman about her appearance. Some people might feel a degree of contrition about a comment like this, but Princess feels it worth glorying in. What a man; what an ambassador for the climbing community. So when these people talk about abuse, they're not making it up.

Note also the bemusement of Princess when someone who he's told to go away, hasn't.

Princess, it's not OK to say these things. Doing so exposed a side of your character which you don't even have the wit to realise is hopelessly negative.

Take all the time you need.

Martin
malk - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Johnny_Grunwald:

> Catch a grip, it was a bit of wood, nobody died and it's hardly the precursor to garden centre style displays of outdoor furniture springing up all over Britain's peaks.

don't give them ideas- i wouldn't be surprised if this is allowed with biodiversity offsets..
hwm - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

give it a rest eh, you are starting to look like you have a bit of a problem.
maisie on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to hwm:

> give it a rest eh, you are starting to look like you have a bit of a problem.

That's brilliant, Princess. You actually just created a new account to give yourself some support. Priceless!

As I say, take your time.

Martin

(I'm sorry, that's really tickled me)
Cuthbert on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Johnny_Grunwald:



> Catch a grip, it was a bit of wood, nobody died and it's hardly the precursor to garden centre style displays of outdoor furniture springing up all over Britain's peaks.

I have to say that your comment appears to be the most sensible thing I have read on here.
neil9216 - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Johnny_Grunwald:

We'll said mate.


My tuppence worth
No one should be judged on a mistake alone it should be on how they conduct themselves afterwards.
From what I can gather these guys apologised and had offered to remove the bench them selves.
Sensible people can make idiotic decisions.


There's folk out there sellin smack to kids that have not had to endure the abuse that these guys received:

hwm - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

Sorry, Im not wesley and dont agree with how he went about things anymore than I agree with the bench being left up there. The thread was dying nicely but your constant goading is starting to grate a bit.
maisie on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to hwm:

> Sorry, Im not wesley and dont agree with how he went about things anymore than I agree with the bench being left up there. The thread was dying nicely but your constant goading is starting to grate a bit.

Yes, you are, Princess. That you see a challenge to your repellent behaviour as goading betrays you, Wesley.

Again, take your time, Princess. How do you feel you've helped in this unfortunate situation?

Martin
Wesley Orvis - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:
Just got back from 3 hours on the bike mate over Longeddale and whinfell what you done with your night apart from sit on here typing about something quite irrelevant. Get a life mate and get out some time.
Post edited at 21:02
maisie on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Wesley Orvis:

Oh, that's priceless, Princess. Judging from your behaviour so far, you're struggling to run one personality successfully. Are you REALLY going to try to pretend to be two people now? Is that wise? Will they both indulge in a bit of casual misogyny, or are you going for Good Princess - Bad Princess?

It's your own hole you've dug here, you know. I realise it's mean embarrassing you like this, but you put yourself out there.

Martin
Wesley Orvis - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to hwm:

Welcome to UKC it gets better in the winter, sorry you have had to be accused of been me.
maisie on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Wesley Orvis:

Ha ha ha.
AlH - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to neil9216:

Today the bench gate culprits were apparently redeeming themselves by taking a wheelie bin up Ben Nevis which they were filling with litter.
Wesley Orvis - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:
Sorry Martin but your definitely deluded and perhaps mentally unstable too. Good evening.

On another note the sky is absolutely amazing tonight.
Post edited at 22:00
Wesley Orvis - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to AlH:
Can't argue with that. Good on them.
Wesley Orvis - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:
> Oh, that's priceless, Princess. Judging from your behaviour so far, you're struggling to run one personality successfully. Are you REALLY going to try to pretend to be two people now? Is that wise? Will they both indulge in a bit of casual misogyny, or are you going for Good Princess - Bad Princess?

> It's your own hole you've dug here, you know. I realise it's mean embarrassing you like this, but you put yourself out there.

> Martin

You are really funny though I have had a real good laugh at this enjoyed it more than the ride and the beautiful sunset this evening.

Good princess bad princess amazing who could of thought of it love it you really could be a comic if you aren't already
Post edited at 22:05
Milesy - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to neil9216:

> From what I can gather these guys apologised and had offered to remove the bench them selves.
> Sensible people can make idiotic decisions.

Nah all their mates and family were drafted in to back them up on facebook and shout at the "do gooders" and how the fact they raised money for charity made them immune from everything afterwards.
maisie on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Wesley Orvis:

Oh, Princess. Don't you wish you'd actually gone on that bike ride now? I've had a very dull - but necessary - evening of reviewing papers and your antics have really brightened it up.

You'll be pleased to know that I won't be around for a few days, so both of you can rest your heads. I fear you were starting to lose track of which one you were meant to be at any given time, in any case.

Martin

(BTW, while you were 'out', someone kept refreshing your log-in. I bet it was that hwm character.)
Wesley Orvis - on 13 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:
Check strava getting bored now one more time give it a rest. You do have some mouth and talk some complete nonsense.
Post edited at 23:50
Jamie B - on 14 Jun 2014
In reply to AlH:

> Today the bench gate culprits were apparently redeeming themselves by taking a wheelie bin up Ben Nevis which they were filling with litter.

I can confirm this, they have definitely learned from the experience and I now feel a little guilty for having unwittingly prompted what was by all accounts some pretty nasty personal messaging. Some folk on here haven't exactly covered themselves in glory either.

birdie num num - on 14 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Mrs Num Num has always said there should be somewhere decent to park your arse on top of Ben Nevis. There is on Snowdon.
fmck - on 14 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

Your right particularly that Scottie390. Someone should have a word with him about segregating his rubbish. Does he not care a jot about the environment.
neil9216 - on 14 Jun 2014
In reply to fmck:

Fair play to the guys for making an effort. Especially after the abuse they took.
Just a pity hatchet Harry aka Scottie390 could hold the reins in on high horse long enough to let them actually bring the bench down

scottie390 - on 15 Jun 2014
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
Dave Kerr - on 15 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:


Are you referring to yourself or the guys who carried it up there? ;)
Post edited at 22:38
scottie390 - on 15 Jun 2014
In reply to Dave Kerr:

im referring to anyone who isnt/wasnt actually directly involved in the event itself and is therefore a critic.
fmck - on 16 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:

Jeez. Talk about blowing yer own trumpet!

Was it really all about attention seeking?
Lusk - on 16 Jun 2014
In reply to fmck:

Scottie390, The Man in the Arena! :-)

"Someone who is heavily involved in a situation that requires courage, skill, or tenacity (as opposed to someone sitting on the sidelines and watching), is sometimes referred to as "the man in the arena." wiki.
maisie on 16 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:

Holy cr*p. Are you actually trying to use the 'Citizenship in a Republic' speech to justify your actions? Do you even know what that speech is about? How a society might benefit from the collective and individual efforts of its citizens? Mandela used it to inspire; Nixon tried to hijack it to justify his toxic presidency. And you think your actions merit a comparison?

What happened here is that some people made a mistake. They received an unnecessary burden of abuse - from people like your new friend, Princess - but despite that they behaved fairly well in the aftermath. They made arrangements with the people in charge of the situation to atone for their mistake. It was sorted. That means it had been agreed as to how the situation would flow. You jumped in. Nobody asked you to, but you couldn't help yourself; you even managed a couple of defiant, self-congratulatory, entirely lacking in introspection, quotes in the newspapers. And despite it actually not being your problem to sort, despite it being amicably negotiated already, you made a bad situation worse, with vandalism, arrogance, condescending conjecture and then a desperate will to cling to this, the biggest shadow to yet fall across your existence.

But it's not all lost for you: some of the speech might have been written for you last week:

"Of one man in especial, beyond any one else, the citizens of a republic should beware, and that is of the man who appeals to them to support him on the ground that he is hostile to other citizens of the republic..... The man who makes such an appeal should always be presumed to make it for the sake of furthering his own interest."

See, Roosevelt understood you after all.

All the best,

Martin
Dave Kerr - on 16 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:
> (In reply to scottie390)
> What happened here is that some people made a mistake. They received an unnecessary burden of abuse - from people like your new friend, Princess - but despite that they behaved fairly well in the aftermath. They made arrangements with the people in charge of the situation to atone for their mistake. It was sorted. That means it had been agreed as to how the situation would flow.

I agree wholeheartedly with the above. By his knee jerk reaction Scottie robbed the individuals of their chance to make amends which is a real shame for them and suggests that what he really wanted was not restitution but revenge.

A sad state of affairs.



redsonja - on 16 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

totally agree with what you say. the guys could have removed the seat themselves and put it somewhere else. it must have taken them a long time to make
scottie390 - on 16 Jun 2014
Having seen how they struggled to get it there in the first place it would have only endangered themselves and other mountain users if they had tried to remove it in a similar manner. There were also suggestions of setting it alight, which would have damaged some of the rare species of lichen living on the summit area. There was nothing to suggest that anyone was going to remove it. The way I chose to dispose of it, was the safest, cleanest, most sympathetic way to the mountain its plants/wildlife and its users possible. I commend the group for clearing up the mess on the summit and have no ill feeling towards them. its quite simple. you dont just try and cement a bench to a special area of conservation and plead ignorance. I took action for what i believe in, keeping our mountains as unspoilt and natural as they can be. If you dont agree with my actions, fine thats your prerogative, but it doesnt mean your right. of course its much easier to sit in your armchairs and criticise the actions of others than to dare have beliefs of your own you would act upon isnt it. whats done is done. I do not regret my actions and I would do it again. If nothing else my actions have raised the awareness of the issue and a lot more people know now than they did a wee while ago that you dont leave things on Ben Nevis (cos i'll come along with my rusty saw i found in my garage and cut them to bits). I will not apologise for doing what i believe to be right.
abseil on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:

> ...I will not apologise for doing what i believe to be right.

Good for you. I read your first post [that you had removed the bench] and thought, well done / good job.

Next time, if I see you on the way up, it'll be an honour to carry your saw for you. And I'll carry beers for us too.
Jamie B - on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to Dave Kerr:

> By his knee jerk reaction Scottie robbed the individuals of their chance to make amends which is a real shame for them and suggests that what he really wanted was not restitution but revenge.

Not at all. I know Davie well and spoke to him before and after his trip up the Ben, and can assure you that he was motivated by nothing more than a desire to restore the status quo. By accident or design he also managed to send out a strong message; that mountaineers care strongly about wild places and are prepared to work hard to protect them. Surely that's a good thing to get out there?

I appreciate that Team Wiretime learned a lesson too, and were prepared to remove their work. But to be frank they lost the right to expect the thing to be sitting there awaiting uplift when they dumped it there in the first place.

Status quo restored, message sent out, lesson learned (without a back-breaking carry). Who exactly has lost out here?
Mr Ed - on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

Classic UKC. How has it gone from the people being in the wrong here being the people who carried the bench up there to the people being in the wrong being the ones who took it down? Crazy.

Scottie390 well done. You've done everyone a service and I completely agree with your stance. The only thing you've done wrong is engaging with the trolls on here (that aren't worthy of your time or attention) and I sincerely hope you aren't beating yourself up about their reaction. You don't have to justify yourself to probably most of the people on here.

Maisie- you criticise people for "insulting young women about their looks" then use "Princess" as an insult for the rest of the thread- do you not see the irony?

Looks like it should be case closed here.



ads.ukclimbing.com
Howard J - on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:
I find myself a bit torn here. It is clear that scottie390 acted with the best of intentions to remove what everyone here agrees was inappropriate. It is almost certainly true that he was able to do so more effectively and safely than the Wiretime team might have done, given the trouble they got themselves into.

On the other hand, as maisie points out, a solution had already been agreed which would have resulted in the bench being put to a more appropriate use. I'm not sure where the suggestion that it might be set alight came from, the originators had told the JMT that they were going to take the bench down and give it to a charity garden. However by the time this information was posted scottie390 was probably already on his way up the Ben.

We have been left with a good result ie the removal of the bench, and thanks to the JMT taking control of the story in the press it hasn't reflected badly on the mountaineering community - it might have been spun very differently. We could have had an even better result, with the bench being taken down intact and put to an appropriate charitable use, and with the climbing community possibly assisting Wiretime to achieve this safely: win-win all round.

I still think scottie390 was a bit hasty in taking unilateral action. However what's done is done. His actions had a positive effect whereas Wiretime's actions, however well-meant, had the opposite. He acted in what he believed were the best interests of the climbing community and the mountain environment and I respect that.
Post edited at 09:17
fmck - on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to Howard J:

I think your answer nails it on the head.

Mr Ed how tiresome it gets with reading comments like "The trolls" just because they don't agree with your ideals.

Just a thought. Do you think Scottie390 had a wee shot on the chair before chopping it up?
maisie on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to Mr Ed:

> Maisie- you criticise people for "insulting young women about their looks" then use "Princess" as an insult for the rest of the thread- do you not see the irony?

Clearly better than you did, as you're still struggling with it. Ironic really. Why an insult - Princesses are lovely.

> Looks like it should be case closed here.

It was - you just opened it again with an alternate viewpoint. Again with the irony.

Man walks up a path - a path - with a saw and destroys something. Then spends days post-rationalizing his self-righteousness into something pure and noble until he's suddenly the Man in the Arena, and his opponents are small do-nothings. It was a path and a bench and a saw. And an angry, self-important individual who, ironically (you started it), didn't check with the JMT about what was happening on the summit of the Ben before setting out.

Ironic.

Now, in the spirit of the thread, I pronounce that I have spoken and so that MUST be the last word. Because anyway.
maisie on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to fmck:

> Just a thought. Do you think Scottie390 had a wee shot on the chair before chopping it up?

What, up there in the Death Zone? I'm beginning to think that far from chopping it up, he actually tore it apart with his tiny fists of rage. There should be a statue erected on the spot to honour the deed.

Martin
llechwedd - on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

What if, in tearing out the bench from its' concreted holes on the summit, Scottie390 has unleashed some alien virus from the spaceship which lay beneath the surface undisturbed for millenia after it crashed into the (now extinct) volcano?
So much for altruistic behaviour, eh? Too late now, isn't it?
Hope you can live with yourself Scottie!

The next lot of bench 'guerilla high altitude gardeners' might consider this
http://www.tuvie.com/bench-stretcher-for-fast-mountain-recue/



scottie390 - on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

Erect a statue of anyone and i'll cut it into wee bits and carry it off. You're just no getting the message here are you princess?
andymac - on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

This bench sure has caused some fuss .

I would certainly use it if I had just attacked The Ben.

I also wouldn't mind if there was a Costa or Starbucks up there.

Might happen one day.
Bruce Hooker - on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to KarlH:

> I hate it when people leave stuff on the mountains. Someone left a bloody cafe on the top of that Mount Snowdon. Crazy!

You mean Snowdon I suppose, not a climber are you? Are you a friend of the bench constructors on Ben Nevis?

PS. This is a weird thread!
fmck - on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:
Stop avoiding the question. Did you have a shot scot?
Post edited at 21:33
andrewmcleod - on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:
I think you did what you thought was the right thing in removing the bench, and it did need to be removed, but:

a) It isn't your mountain, it's the John Muir Trust's mountain (albeit also to some degree everyone's mountain), and so they should get first shout of what is to be done; if they are happy for a volunteer to remove it that would be fine.

b) Unilateral actions are often unwise; I don't think there was a consensus that the bench needed to be destroyed in the next week or anarchy would break out on the hills. A bit more time and a better solution might have been reached.

PS since I brought it up earlier, I believe you when you say you think that the bench was not going to be brought down and was thus abandoned; for this reason I don't think you were committing criminal damage.
Post edited at 21:36
Sir Chasm - on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to andrewmcleod: Can you criminally damage litter?

3 Names - on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to all:

The Bench needed to come down , it came down.

Whats the problem?

Cuthbert on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to andrewmcleod:

Happy to be educated but I don't think there is such a charge as Criminal Damage in Scotland.

Also, whilst the JMT may own a piece of land, it doesn't give them, or anyone else, free reign to do what they like or decide on a particular course of action. The best way is consensus.

Man I can't believe that we are getting worked up about a bench!
maisie on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:

> Erect a statue of anyone and i'll cut it into wee bits and carry it off. You're just no getting the message here are you princess?

I'm a princess!!!!! Not YOUR princess, but a princess nonetheless. Magic.

I think your tiny fists of rage were pumelling the keyboard so hard that the above came out. Honest, but revealing.

But.

It's not up to you. You need to begin to understand this.

Two questions for you:

1) Are you certain that the JMT support your actions above the agreement it had already reached over the bench?

2) Why did you phone one of the protagonists to ask where you should send the pieces and/or the bill?

Wait. Think.

Martin
andrewmcleod - on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to Saor Alba:

> Happy to be educated but I don't think there is such a charge as Criminal Damage in Scotland.

I did indeed forget you Scots have an independent justice system (unless us Welsh) :P

> Also, whilst the JMT may own a piece of land, it doesn't give them, or anyone else, free reign to do what they like or decide on a particular course of action. The best way is consensus.

Also true.
estivoautumnal - on 17 Jun 2014
In reply to Saor Alba:


> Man I can't believe that we are getting worked up about a bench!

It's absolutely ridiculous. Everything about this thread is just a little bit sad.
r0x0r.wolfo - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

Shut up now it's boring.

Why don't you chalk it up to the best intentions just like you're happy to do with the chaps who brought it up there? What's done is done. He's saved them some effort.
Jim C - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:

> Erect a statue of anyone and i'll cut it into wee bits and carry it off. You're just no getting the message here are you princess?

I think it was out of order to cut it up and remove it.

You should clearly have set it on fire and filmed it and put it on you tube;)


maisie on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> Shut up now it's boring.

> Why don't you chalk it up to the best intentions just like you're happy to do with the chaps who brought it up there? What's done is done. He's saved them some effort.

Bless you for your sense of entitlement to be entertained by me. And then posting dully.

Intention.

That's the key word here, isn't it? The intentions of the original group were good. They did a bad thing. They wanted to return it to be a good thing and had agreed with the JMT how to do that.

This Scottie character removed the bench in a self-interested fit of pique. He then spent days coming up with new justifications for his actions, in the hope that one of them could be retrospectively applied. Eventually, he raised himself (in his own mind) to greatness, for walking and vandalism. Greatness.
Now, he's admitting that actually he would just angrily do the same again. Finally honest, but still missing the points of consensus, diplomacy and positive outcomes. The outcome is to be dictated by his own reaction, not through a consensus opinion.

Still interested in the phone calling, though.
wintertree - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:
Can you try and give an objective view to the readers as to why your views are so diametrically opposed for the "uppers" and "downers" in this?

I feel Scottie should have glued 60kg of lead bricks to the bench so the uppers could redeem themselves twice as much when carrying it down again. As a bonus that might have doubled the risk posed to others by their jury rigged bench porting system, and doubled the number of hypothermic people.

If you cared so much about them bringing it down perhaps you could have offered to get them there sooner after the event, and to explain some basic mountain safety to them?

Personally I feel that "it's for charity" is a motivator and not an excuse, and that the presence of a big company logo on the bench robs it of any slim credibility that it had.
Post edited at 07:54
fmck - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to Saor Alba:

> Man I can't believe that we are getting worked up about a bench!

What don't you understand : someone put a bench on OUR mountain without our permission!

scottie390 - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

What did you do about it? what actions did you take? you obviously feel very strongly about this, so im curious as to what you actually did about it?
scottie390 - on 18 Jun 2014
PS maisie

To suggest I had one of the 'protagonists' phone numbers in the first place, nevermind to give them a call, is an outright lie.
scottie390 - on 18 Jun 2014
Maisie.

LOL, oh my god forgive me. I just realised you are the no1 poster on UKC and some of your comments on other posts are as ridiculous as they are here. Its clear to me now that you are nothing but a super troll and an arsehole in to the bargain. I wont take up anymore of your time, you obviously have much typing (and not a lot else) to do. If you ever manage to crawl away from your keyboard and want a conversation, come see me in person. Inbox me for my address.

LOL
Wesley Orvis - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:

> Maisie.
>
> LOL, oh my god forgive me. I just realised you are the no1 poster on UKC and some of your comments on other posts are as ridiculous as they are here. Its clear to me now that you are nothing but a super troll and an arsehole in to the bargain. I wont take up anymore of your time, you obviously have much typing (and not a lot else) to do. If you ever manage to crawl away from your keyboard and want a conversation, come see me in person. Inbox me for my address.
>
> LOL

Couldn't have put it any better myself, he really is the most irritating person i have come across on UKC.
Post edited at 11:55
Bruce Hooker - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to Jim C:

> You should clearly have set it on fire and filmed it and put it on you tube;)

That would have been more modern.
Bruce Hooker - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:
> This Scottie character removed the bench in a self-interested fit of pique. He then spent days coming up with new justifications for his actions, in the hope that one of them could be retrospectively applied. Eventually, he raised himself (in his own mind) to greatness, for walking and vandalism. Greatness.
> Now, he's admitting that actually he would just angrily do the same again. Finally honest, but still missing the points of consensus, diplomacy and positive outcomes. The outcome is to be dictated by his own reaction, not through a consensus opinion.

This paragraph shows a rather odd slide towards dementia.

> Still interested in the phone calling, though.

You must be the only one who is!
Post edited at 13:04
r0x0r.wolfo - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

You were one of the ones who brought the bench up or their dad?
myserable old git - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to Jamie B:

The bench should not have been there, it was removed, end of story!
Mr Ed - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:
> Maisie.
>
> LOL, oh my god forgive me. I just realised you are the no1 poster on UKC and some of your comments on other posts are as ridiculous as they are here. Its clear to me now that you are nothing but a super troll and an arsehole in to the bargain. I wont take up anymore of your time, you obviously have much typing (and not a lot else) to do. If you ever manage to crawl away from your keyboard and want a conversation, come see me in person. Inbox me for my address.
>
> LOL

+1

kdr001 - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to Saor Alba:

> Happy to be educated but I don't think there is such a charge as Criminal Damage in Scotland.

There is no charge of that name, but damaging or destroying someone else's property could be charged as vandalism or the quaintly-named 'malicious mischief'.
dek - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to fmck:

> What don't you understand : someone put a bench on OUR mountain without our permission!

Well, the selfish barsteward could've just left it situated above the Indicator Wall area? It would've made those winter 'sitting' belays on the plateau so much more comfortable, and nicer for climbers troubled by the dreaded 'Farmer Giles' !
wintertree - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to kdr001:

Is it their property if they've abandoned it in a public area, and in the absent of any agreement transferring ownership to anyone else? I suspect that legally it was closer to fly tipping than property. So perhaps the person who removed it is guilty of transferring waste without a waste transfer licence...

Or just guilty of using common sense and enacting a simple and pragmatic solution :-)
kdr001 - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to wintertree:

If you fix a bench firmly enough on somebody else's land, ownership transfers to the landowner, so there is actually an argument that it belonged to JMT. Generally, abandoned property belongs to the Crown.
FactorXXX - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to kdr001:

Generally, abandoned property belongs to the Crown.

Does that mean that 'Crag Swag' actually belongs to the Queen?
Bruce Hooker - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to FactorXXX:

What about abandoned baby's nappies (used), do they belong to Her Majesty too? If so it's about time she took her property back to Windsor.
kdr001 - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to FactorXXX:

Yes - once the original owner has decided not to try and retrieve the gear.I gather her majesty has done a fair amount on grit...
maisie on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:
> What did you do about it? what actions did you take? you obviously feel very strongly about this, so im curious as to what you actually did about it?

I didn't make it worse. A very small contribution, but not one which seems to have occurred to you, then or since.

If you say you didn't call one of these people with abuse, I believe you. It would have been the action of an abusive moron in any case.

What really tickles me is that you don't seem to have half the introspection or capacity for contrition that the original group does. You're not capable of viewing your actions objectively and you're so desperate to have been right that you can't face any questioning. Compare this to people who were willing to cop to a mistake and put it right, who took a lot of unwarranted abuse and still managed to behave pretty well. I have more time for them because they showed a genuine humility and regard for others - after the event, perhaps, but they got there. You're still vowing to be the masked avenger at the drop of a hat. No experiential learning.

As to being disliked by you, Princess and Mr Ed, thanks. It means a lot to me that you'd come out with it, because I know my worth. And I understand yours. You'll get there, as I say.

Keep going.

Martin
Post edited at 19:29
Jim C - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
> That would have been more modern.

Ok Bruce, he should have set it on fire, got 10 virgins to dance naked around it pagan style and then film it and put it on you tube.
( A good mixture of ancient and modern. )

Edit:- I think someone might see a flaw in my suggestion)
Post edited at 19:33
maisie on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to Wesley Orvis:

> Couldn't have put it any better myself, he really is the most irritating person i have come across on UKC.

Quite possibly. So how would you assess the abuse you threw at a young woman? Are you comfortable with it?

Are you capable of unilateral thinking, or are you destined to always jump in on the coattails of others?

You really do need to take your time

Martin
ads.ukclimbing.com
maisie on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to wintertree:

> If you cared so much about them bringing it down perhaps you could have offered to get them there sooner after the event, and to explain some basic mountain safety to them?

I completely agree: this is a perfect solution and is what should have happened. Positive outcome, good PR which would probably have generated more publicity, and a much kinder response to people who - for better or worse - didn't know any better. I would have liked to take part, but I live a 1,300 mile round trip from the Ben and I was inescapably working all weekend. If a similar thing ever happens in Cornwall, I'll be doing these things.

I'm not diametrically opposed to either side: leaving a bench is dumb as soup but chopping it up in a unilateral act is equally so. People are hardwired to make mistakes, so it's not how they should be judged. Instead, I believe that we should look at how they respond to criticism. In this, 'they've' behaved better than 'we' have. We ought to have more introspection, and just blindly justifying the means through the end - the bench is gone - doesn't do us any service, as a group or as individuals.

If anybody wants to take pot shots because I'm ripping the p1ss out of angry and abusive people, carry on. But using it as an excuse for avoiding introspection doesn't diminish me one jot. Apparently I'm also a princess, and that's just great.

Mobs. Doncha just love 'em?

Martin
scottie390 - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

> I didn't make it worse.

You did nothing, you are nothing and you will always be nothing princess.

Except a troll, a keyboard hardman, you pretend to have morals and views that you believe in but take no action on behalf of them. You tell lies and are abusive, you contribute nothing to anything and berate the efforts of anyone who does.


you can say anything you want, you've probably said it already, many times but it never occurs that nobody actually values anything you say.

'A wise man speaks because he has something to say, a fool speaks because he has to say something'

I'm not conceited enough to suggest that I'm a wiseman, but you most certainly are a fool.
maisie on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:

> You did nothing, you are nothing and you will always be nothing princess.

> Except a troll, a keyboard hardman, you pretend to have morals and views that you believe in but take no action on behalf of them. You tell lies and are abusive, you contribute nothing to anything and berate the efforts of anyone who does.

> you can say anything you want, you've probably said it already, many times but it never occurs that nobody actually values anything you say.

> 'A wise man speaks because he has something to say, a fool speaks because he has to say something'

> I'm not conceited enough to suggest that I'm a wiseman, but you most certainly are a fool.

Oh, what a relief. Thanks for putting that out there, it wrapped up my argument beautifully.

One last thing: if your differentiation for great / not great is walking up a path and smashing a bench, you may be setting your sights a little low. Or not, which is even sadder.

Princess
nw - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:

>

> Except a troll, a keyboard hardman,


Pot, kettle.

scottie390 - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to nw:

Happy to speak to anyone face to face and have stated this several times.
scottie390 - on 18 Jun 2014

Im not gonna waste my time with the few trolls on this post anymore. If you have any problem with what I did or want to dicuss it in person, inbox me and we'll sort it out (i predict an empty mailbox).

Cheers for the support guys!

Davie
Post edited at 23:15
maisie on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:

I have a problem with what you did and wish to discuss it publicly. But you keep throwing tantrums, so of course you're going to have an empty mailbox in this respect.

If you take some time and think about both your initial actions and your tendency to lose your temper, you might see a link. I've challenged your sense of accomplishment and it's perhaps natural that you feel aggrieved about this. But this other lot, you did much worse to them and they were capable of introspection and a willingness to put things right. Compare this to your reaction.

Don't hide; discuss.

Princess
Wesley Orvis - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

Pretty please princess let's just give it a rest..... He did us all a favour
maisie on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to Wesley Orvis:

> Pretty please princess let's just give it a rest..... He did us all a favour

So how are you feeling about abusing a young woman?
Wesley Orvis - on 18 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie:

I thought I had already answered this question for you
maisie on 19 Jun 2014
In reply to Wesley Orvis:

Just remind me.
Rampikino - on 19 Jun 2014
In reply to maisie/the thread

I trust you are not waiting up for a reply.

Very odd thread this one, shows flashes of philosophical brilliance inlaid with childish spats and the occasional rather odd double identity......and a bench.

Not surprisingly it's another divisive event that has got the hackles up and led to some pretty smug and self-righteous opinion along the way.

Personally I think it's within me to accept that the original group were misguided but well-intentioned. It's also within me to accept that Scottie felt/feels that he was doing the right thing - though perhaps being hasty and not expressing himself very well.

The rest has been a bit of an unseemly and unnecessary bit of slanging. Eloquent or not, clever or not, it is still slanging. I've now lost sight of what the point of this thread is other than the feed the spat (troll?) which is very odd when the original event is now long finished. RIP the bench, 2014-2014.
DerwentDiluted - on 19 Jun 2014
In reply to Rampikino:

+1, been bad form all round.
marsbar - on 19 Jun 2014
In reply to Rampikino:

Time for the debate to RIP also in my opinion.

maisie on 19 Jun 2014
In reply to marsbar:

But I have nothing else in my life......




Oh, alright, I'm done. But I may start another thread on the prurience of UKCers who condemn threads but are unable to stay away ;-)

Martin
Wesley Orvis - on 19 Jun 2014
In reply to Rampikino: no double identity although his silence and strange timing to start an account certainly does make it look that way.

FactorXXX - on 19 Jun 2014
In reply to Rampikino:

I've now lost sight of what the point of this thread is other than the feed the spat (troll?) which is very odd when the original event is now long finished.

Isn't that pretty much standard for a UKC thread?
In fact, you could say that this thread sets a benchmark in that respect...
Bruce Hooker - on 19 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:

> 'A wise man speaks because he has something to say, a fool speaks because he has to say something'

That's a good one, who said it?

(maybe it applies to this post?)
gd303uk - on 19 Jun 2014
In reply to Wesley Orvis:

Maisie created the account a kind of double bluff, to carry on with the princess debate ( slanging match)
;)D
nw - on 19 Jun 2014
In reply to scottie390:

Well yeah but we all know that nobody is going to take you up on this 'I predict an empty mailbox' - so it is just more posturing really.

ads.ukclimbing.com
Wesley Orvis - on 19 Jun 2014
In reply to gd303uk:

Cheers for enlightening me, he's too good for me.
fmck - on 19 Jun 2014
In reply to nw:

> so it is just more posturing really.

I think that's what a find so nauseating about this. It seems more an act of attention seeking than anything else. I noticed yesterday we even got the staged picture of him cutting it up posted up. Dear oh!

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.