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