UKC

Inconsiderate 'hiking' group

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This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

I had the misfortune of sharing a campsite in Glenshiel with an 'instagram based hiking group' last Friday night. Worst night on a campsite in 40 years experience of campsites worldwide.  According to the warden the group had requested to book the whole site but somehow my booking had got through as had that of a family who were having their first holiday in 2 years.

Having been on the site for 2 nights already i arrived back Friday evening after a long day taking in Mullach Na Dheirgain and Sgurr nan Ceathreamhnan and their 6 associated tops (with a long drive south the next morning) to find a bit of a party kicking off, but was assured by the warden that they were off to the Forcan Ridge the next day so wouldn't be too noisy for too long. So we went to the pub and left them to it. Back at the campsite after kicking out time we were met with 30-40 folk in full party mode with music and wine flowing freely. I had a quiet word with someone in the group who seemed to be a group organiser to maybe keep an eye on time and volume in consideration of others on the site.

As it turned out music finished at 2, general noise finished about 4.30 and both started up again at 7 (gotta hand it too them for stamina). Neighbours in the house next to the campsite complained about the noise. I found out in the morning that the family on the site were scared to use the toilet block as the mother had been verbally mocked by some of the group on the way to the toilet block, and the daughter had apparently walked into the female toilet block to find 3 blokes drinking whilst sheltering from midges.

So why am I writing all this? Probably for a number of reasons. (1)  I'm astounded that so many people can be so self-absorbed and inconsiderate (probably group/herd instinct). (2) Just want to be sure that I'm not a complete grumpy old git. (3) Giving a bit of a heads up for anyone one coming across a 'hiking scotland instagram based group' on a campsite if they have plans to sleep.

As a final point, I have to say the campsite owners were excellent in their response after being alerted in the early morning. Moved quickly to get the group off for following night, and gave out handmade chocolates as a goodwill gesture. This was fully in keeping with my overall experience of the wardens and owners, really friendly and nothing too much trouble. I'd really recommend the site.

3
 65 25 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

This is why I now partly hate summer.

Name and shame the group. 

Which site was it? Good for the owners though it should have been addressed earlier. I'd have been asking for a refund or refusing to pay.

3
 profitofdoom 25 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

You're not a "complete grumpy old git" IMO

(Excellent rant by the way)

But it's great to hear about the campsite owners' response

 Luke90 26 Jul 2022
In reply to 65:

> Name and shame the group. 

He pretty much did.

www.instagram.com/p/CgcTAxXDbWo/

Edit: UKC's auto-formatting is completely garbling the link. It tries to turn part of it into an emoji and then gets even more confused if you include HTTP at the front. If you're on Instagram, just search for 'hiking Scotland'.

https://tinyurl.com/yeyk52yd

​​​​​​You totally shouldn't click on shortened URLs posted by random internet strangers, they could lead anywhere, but it's the only way around UKC formatting the link incorrectly. I promise it's just a link to Instagram. Though some of you might think that's the worst case scenario.

Post edited at 02:22
 Petrafied 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

The group, which from the photo look a decent bunch, had, from your own description, appeared to have done the decent thing by booking the whole site to avoid inconveniencing anyone else.  That you and another couple had managed to also book subsequently seems to be the fault of the site owner.  Surely your ire should be reserved for them (instead of, oddly, praising them).

And what's with this "Instagram group" thing and refering to them as hikers in quotes?  They seem perfectly reasonably equipped as hikers, judging by the photo. Such sneering really smacks to me of elitism.  Shame your night's sleep was interrupted, but camp owners fault, not the people who had reserved it.  I'm thinking they should be complaining about you, not the other way around.

Dislikers feel free to dislike.  In fact I'll revel in it (geddit?).

Post edited at 05:24
97
 jasonC abroad 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Petrafied:

As house next to the campsite complained it suggests that even if they had the whole site someone would have still been disturbed and put out by their behaviour,  which can be described as anti-social.   It does not matter how well equipped they didn't have the whole site and there were other people using it, they should have done the decent thing and kept the noise down and not verbally abused the mother.   I struggle to see how you can defend these people, they are clearly out of order.

 DaveHK 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Petrafied:

Cock up by campsite owners perhaps but the decent thing would have been for the group to moderate their behaviour when they found out others were there. 

In reply to Petrafied:

> The group, which from the photo look a decent bunch, had, from your own description, appeared to have done the decent thing by booking the whole site to avoid inconveniencing anyone else.  That you and another couple had managed to also book subsequently seems to be the fault of the site owner.  Surely your ire should be reserved for them (instead of, oddly, praising them).

> And what's with this "Instagram group" thing and refering to them as hikers in quotes?  They seem perfectly reasonably equipped as hikers, judging by the photo. Such sneering really smacks to me of elitism.  Shame your night's sleep was interrupted, but camp owners fault, not the people who had reserved it.  I'm thinking they should be complaining about you, not the other way around.

> Dislikers feel free to dislike.  In fact I'll revel in it (geddit?).

And that excuses the abusive behaviour to the people not part of their group?

1
 felt 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

Red socks? Tick

Mallet? Tick

Bee-keeper's hat? Tick

XM3s? 

In reply to Petrafied:

The quotation marks were used to identify the description of the group as a direct quote from the bloke I spoke to. 

 LakesWinter 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Petrafied:

Petrafied, were you in the group?? 

2
 Root1 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

This is why I like to camp wild. Mind on occasion I have had similar issues whilst doing that.

In reply to Colin Scotchford:

The responsibility lies with the campsite owner. As upsetting as it may have been for you,sometimes some,if not all of us like to party. 

Try ear plugs or joining the fun next time.

You can't blame the group,they went away expecting to party and blaming Instagram is like blaming the telephone,the letter or simply speech.

Events like this are all part of life's experiences,such it up and take your pleasure from your complaints, the trip has given you something to talk about.

77
 S Ramsay 26 Jul 2022
In reply to DaveHK:

> Cock up by campsite owners perhaps but the decent thing would have been for the group to moderate their behaviour when they found out others were there. 

Presuambly they should then have been in line for at least a partial refund if they had to change their plans due to the campsite owner not providing the agreed exclusive use of the campsite?

7
 ScraggyGoat 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

No, the group showed no consideration to the local residents, and probably also breached the campsite rules that they had agreed to when making the booking and probably the terms of planning consent for the campsite.  
The fact that the campsite manager moved them on tells you that their behaviour was not agreed to or tolerated.

1
 midgen 26 Jul 2022

I'm not sure I'd be singing the praises of the owners so much after making such a ballsup. Allowing groups to book your entire site when you have residential property adjacent is irresponsible, and then to allow single bookings on top is just incompetent. That was the root of the problem, this group appears to have done the responsible thing when wanting to have a social in the evening, by booking a whole site.

Notwithstanding some poor individual behaviour, but really, it all could have been avoided if the site owners hadn't screwed up their bookings.

15
 wercat 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Events like this are all part of life's experiences,such it up and take your pleasure from your complaints, the trip has given you something to talk about.

No they bloody aren't

I find getting some of the ringleaders disembowelled and hung upside down from trees sobers the survivng members of noisy groups when they see the corpses the next morning.

There is a reason why sleep deprivation and noise are used as ways of breaking down people mentally (ie torture) for interrogation

Post edited at 09:29
16
In reply to wercat:

Yeah, yeah and I guess you have never disturbed anyone.

Your piety deserves a pastry hat.

56
 wercat 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I have a lifelong aversion to disturbing people at night - I've always regarded it as a personal failure if I've done it.  nothing to do with piety, that's your comment.

I far prefer stealth

Post edited at 09:50
4
 MG 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Yeah, yeah and I guess you have never disturbed anyone.

> Your piety deserves a pastry hat.

Not ruining other people's holidays is hardly "piety", it's just decent behaviour that almost everyone seems to manage.  The few who don't are grossly anti-social - perhaps you should have a think about how you behave if can't see this currently

2
 The New NickB 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Regardless of exclusive use, the campsite will have conditions of use, which will include consideration of local residents and may be linked to the planning permission in place for the site. They would clearly be in breach of at least three rules that would be in place at any sensible site.

 Tyler 26 Jul 2022
In reply to DaveHK:

> Cock up by campsite owners perhaps but the decent thing would have been for the group to moderate their behaviour when they found out others were there. 

They probably did, because most people are reasonable in situations like this, but if you have a party of 10s of people who have been drinking already it’s impossible for them to moderate their behaviour to meet what the OP would want/expect from a quite weekend away n the west coast of Scotland, they’re incompatible which is why the group booked the whole site so they could do their thing.

13
In reply to MG:

Woah, easy there.

Neither myself or the party ruined anyone's holiday. The campsite owner took an exclusive booking and then reneged on it.

Those at the party were behaving as they expected to behave.

Getting upset because others are enjoying themselves doing what they booked to do is folly.

Threads like this draw out all manner of extremist views, mine is live and let live. Every action has an impact. 

60
 65 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Tyler:

The proximity of private residences to the campsite is liable to land the campsite owners in hot water with the local authority if the site is rented out to big anti social groups. I suspect and hope this event is a one off. 

 sandrow 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Those at the party were behaving as they expected to behave.

Which involved disturbing people who lived next to the site and that's OK in your book? Your neighbours must love you...

3
 Tyler 26 Jul 2022
In reply to 65:

> The proximity of private residences to the campsite is liable to land the campsite owners in hot water with the local authority if the site is rented out to big anti social groups. I suspect and hope this event is a one off. 

Yeah but that’s between the site, the local residents and the local authorities. Nothing to do with the OP nor the large group using the site.

1
 ScraggyGoat 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Tyler:

No, it is to do with the large group as well,  as they broke the terms of their contract with the Campsite, those terms were written for the benefit of other campsite users, the local residents and compliance with what ever planning terms the campsite operates.

It exactly this sort of behaviour that makes campsite owners think ‘bugger the hassle’ I’ll sell for building, or turn into a holiday park with weekly lets only, or no longer accept tents, or prevent groups/late entry - as many sites have. I can think of numerous sites that have gone through one or more evolutions in this process.

This site was one of the few that opened all winter and had a relaxed late entry policy. Both of which are very useful to walkers and climbers.  It’s just changed hands, no longer opening in winter and with more restrictive entry arrangements (but still practical). If the new owners get hassle they may change their business model as above.

The nearest alternatives are the Morvich site which has very restrictive policies and high prices, the next nearest site is small and after that your left adding to the road side ‘dirty damping’ perception.

People being ‘dicks’ on site affect more than the owner, other guests and locals.  People being dicks longer term affect the availability of practical and useful facilities for w/e climbers and walkers.

1
 Howard J 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

Most campsites I've stayed on have rules and regulations, which these days can usually be found on their website when booking.  These invariably insist on a period of quiet at night, typically between say 10pm and 8am.   

Booking the entire site should not remove the obligation to comply with the rules, which may be there not only for the benefit of other site users but also nearby residents.  Noise carries a long way at night.  If a large group wants to party into the small hours, a campsite is not the place. This shows poor planning from the outset, and an all too common lack of consideration for others.

 TMM 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Woah, easy there.

> Neither myself or the party ruined anyone's holiday. The campsite owner took an exclusive booking and then reneged on it.

> Those at the party were behaving as they expected to behave.

> Getting upset because others are enjoying themselves doing what they booked to do is folly.

> Threads like this draw out all manner of extremist views, mine is live and let live. Every action has an impact. 

The error made by the campsite in relation to the exclusive booking impacted on three parties staying at the site. Under those circumstances some compromise on all sides might help. Just because one group decided to act like they still had exclusivity clearly had a negative impact on the others.

That's a long way from a 'live and let live' approach.

 abr1966 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Threads like this draw out all manner of extremist views, mine is live and let live. Every action has an impact. 

Tend to agree with this....especially when drunk but tend to agree with the OP when sober!

I recall many great party nights on the Red Squirrel where it was the norm but I'm sure there were also people there who were less content with this...

I was on a site last summer in Norfolk when a load of pi***d up blokes came back and it irritated the hell out of me...

It's a shame there aren't sites for both...

1
 Bulls Crack 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

Seems to be fairly common in UK camping culture  

Not at a regular campsite but I tried to spend a night last September at the lovely Cwm-llwch under Pen-y-Fan. There were a 3 or 4 other parties there, beautiful peaceful clear night but  they cranked up the music from about 11 until....I don't now when since  left about 2:30 am and moved  a mile away. What the f**k for.? Beautiful peaceful spot which the farmer kindly lets folk use if they don't cause problems.....

 ScraggyGoat 26 Jul 2022
In reply to abr1966:

Where a campsite has neighbours being a noisy piss-head isn’t on.  Where a campsite is large, with no neighbours and you can isolate yourself there is more flexibility.

if you want a group ‘sess’ campsites you can walk well away from others down the beach are best, particularly as in summer in the evening there may be an offshore breeze to further decrease the noise, and everyone’s happy (including the midgies).

1
 Ridge 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Bulls Crack:

> Seems to be fairly common in UK camping culture.

TBH I dread Mrs Ridge suggesting getting the tent out for that very reason. I'd rather stay at home than listen to noise from inconsiderate people on a campsite.

 DaveHK 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Tyler:

> > Cock up by campsite owners perhaps but the decent thing would have been for the group to moderate their behaviour when they found out others were there. 

> They probably did, because most people are reasonable in situations like this, but if you have a party of 10s of people who have been drinking already it’s impossible for them to moderate their behaviour to meet what the OP would want/expect from a quite weekend away n the west coast of Scotland, they’re incompatible which is why the group booked the whole site so they could do their thing.

So they tried to do the right thing then did the wrong thing.

 Tyler 26 Jul 2022
In reply to DaveHK:

No, they may have done the right thing in moderating their behaviour but there is probably no compromise which would have suited a large group of young people’s desire to have some fun with a middle aged hill goer’s desire for peace and quite. Which is why the group of young people booked a campsite for their exclusive use and why the hill goer booked a campsite in the remote north west of Scotland. 

9
 Ouroboros 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Tyler:

> No, they may have done the right thing in moderating their behaviour but there is probably no compromise which would have suited a large group of young people’s desire to have some fun with a middle aged hill goer’s desire for peace and quite. Which is why the group of young people booked a campsite for their exclusive use and why the hill goer booked a campsite in the remote north west of Scotland. 

The group should have been able to have fun within the agreed campsite rules, the others should be prepared to accept noise within the rules as being the expectation of a campsite.

It seems the group was possessed of a sense of entitlement, believing they could do what they wished for as long as they wished regardless of others or the agreed rules. Which is why they were required to leave the following day.

 Jamie Wakeham 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

Quite apart from the behaviour of the group, I can't see how the response of the site warden could be described as excellent.  They've taken a booking for the whole site, and yet also sold pitches to two other parties.  The correct response to this should have been an offer to relocate you and the family - because their site is fully booked - or, at the very least, partial refunds all around because no-one is getting what they paid for.

 Hutson 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

While it was very poor of the owners to renege on the agreement that they had exclusive use of the site, the group must surely have broken some rules/requirements to be asked to leave the next day - exclusive use doesn't necessarily mean do as you please. Last year I camped at a 'nearly wild' site in early spring, mid-week, and the owner told me I had it to myself but mentioned the woman in the house not far away could hear if we made lots of noise - fair enough.

All-night noise on campsites was a really big problem when people weren't able to travel, thankfully seems slightly less bad now. in 2020 I camped at a woodland site that advertised itself as 'peaceful' only to find the two upper fields were hired out to groups who had loud sound systems which went on all night  - around 3am they were crashing drunkenly round our tent looking for firewood (pulling branches off trees) - I texted the owner who seemed to take the 'so what?' stance which is fine but I'll never go there again.

Having only started wild camping this year I can definitely see the benefits.

 kinley2 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Those at the party were behaving as they expected to behave.

I guess we can't expect to have had 12 years of Tory Government without the ghastly entitlement and self-importance rubbing off into the general public. Hell, someone is voting for them.

True children of Boris, metaphorically and, given his fecundity, possibly actually.

Did they claim it was a work event the following morning?

11
In reply to kinley2:

There could well be a thread on some other forum where complaints are being made about a grumpy,party pooping ”climber".

35
 kinley2 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> There could well be a thread on some other forum where complaints are being made about a grumpy,party pooping ”climber".

Entirely possible that there's a thread bemoaning the ghastly campsite owner who kicked them off (we bought the place for the night), and some ghastly plebs that moaned at us about the noise (what do you expect on a campsite we bought), and some locals that complained about us (they shouldn't live so close to a campsite).

Low rent, low cost Johnsonesque Tories do seem fairly prevalent these days, even in Scotland.

Post edited at 17:48
8
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

Hi Colin et al.,

First of all, apologies you and your family didn't have the experience you wanted at Glen Shiel on Friday, I assure you we were as disappointed to see you there as you would have been to see us. I think we can agree that issue lies entirely with the campsite owners - who are actually very receptive, honest and good people - mistakes happen.

I am a member of the "hiking" group and thought I'd just jump on to clarify a few points, online forums have a danger of becoming an echo chamber and when people start throwing "tories" and other insults about it's probably worth me clearing a few things up. Incidentally our group is 95% young Scottish people with a strong pro-indepence stance, not many tories here i'm afraid - try camping in Lake District perhaps. 

This forum seems intent on painting us as a inexperienced, inconsiderate and poorly educated group with little regard for others or the environment. This is simply not true, we count Munro completists and competent mountaineers amongst us, not to mention a few doctors, chartered professionals, teachers and more. In fact to balance things out, we even let a few members of the Police join - two of whom were in attendance this weekend. Also this isn't some closed group, the hikes are openly advertised to those wishing to experience a ridge scramble in the comfort of a group setting. 

Words like "apparently" are being thrown aboot like an empty tracksuit, conjecture will help no one here. I did laugh when someone mentioned the local residents (who had no issue this year or last) I suppose its a good way to get your point across though. 

In good faith we had booked the entire campsite knowing that other members of the public wouldn't want to witness our terrible dancing or listen to the Spice Girls on repeat, this wasn't to be. Sorry.

We weren't moved on, we actually stayed up later on the Saturday night. We invited an Austrian couple to come join us as they were trekking the Cape Wrath trail and were looking for shelter and food, they were disappointed to find that the site was full but we made space for them and privided them with a hot meal. The generosity and spirit of our group tends not to get advertised enough. 

I am disturbed to hear that a woman had been mocked by one of our group, if she is able to provide a description of events we can ensure this individual isn't invited back.

Also, to find that male members would shelter in the female toilets when the male toilets and kitchen were next door doesn't seem likely. But again if any description can be given then please do so.

I won't be taking part in any further discussion on this group as I'm washing my hair tonight. However if anyone does wish to discuss further or provide more detailed on the incident above I would be very receptive via email.

Steventhebruce@gmail.com for any further correspondence. 

Again, sorry your weekend wasn't what you hoped, I genuinely hope the rest of your trip involved more sleep!

Lang may yer lum reek,

Steven

73
 65 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Steven the Bruce:

If members of your group are pro independence then gony ask them to behave because they give the rest of us a bad name, or maybe they could move to Benidorm.

I’d wash my hair too if I had any, but I wouldn’t use it as an excuse to fart in a room then leave.

Someone on this is telling porkies re being invited back and about the local residents. None of us know who, not yet anyway.

5
In reply to Steven the Bruce:

Well done.

When incidents such as the one described happen,the OP would have been better off approaching the group,introducing himself and asking to join the fun. Won't be sleeping anyway so why wind yourself up about it.

65
 Robert Durran 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

I think their use of the word "hiking" is sufficient to condemn them no matter what their behaviour was like.

11
 ScraggyGoat 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Steven the Bruce:

WTF about being pro-independence has any bearing on your behaviour? Are you suggesting it excuses piss poor attitude, lack of consideration to the resident locals and general disregard for the contract with the campsite you entered into. That just smacks  of entitlement ‘it’s my country I’ll do what I want attitude’ ….. to which of course you can’t it doesn’t matter what political colours you support, society require at times all of us to moderate our wishes for the benefit and courtesy to others. 

Definitely one side is telling porkies and the odds on it being your group with a reply like that are quiet high. With Shiel been small, it wouldn’t take much to find out……sounds like 65 could find out, and I could probably as well. 

If you don’t know how to behave I suggest your group stays at home, because as I posted above incrementally events like this make things harder for hillwalkers, climbers and others over time as campsites close, more people then are seen dossing (the perception rightly or wrongly in the Highlands is roadside campers are often ‘dirty’) and calls for regulation mount.

Post edited at 20:03
12
 Graeme G 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

That and some of their Instagram feeds……

 Grubblack 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Steven the Bruce:

Steven, I was there with Colin, the family were separate and were with 2 children. The mother told me that her daughter had found 3 guys in the female loos.  Perhaps they had gone in by mistake due to drinking, none the less this is a safeguarding issue. I see no reason why she would make this up and I don't feel she should have to prove it.  The mother was verbally abused by some female members of the group and had felt very intimidated she told me.  Don't think she stopped to ask their names. Colin and I didn't know this family and had only said hello before this incident.  My understanding was that the group you were with, had tried to book the whole camp site but this was not possible due to others already there.  So, whoever booked it knew the group would not have sole use.  The house that complained was near to the cafe/chocolate shop and was in ear shot of the site. Perhaps if the party had ended at a reasonable time others would have been more understanding.  It says quiet by 10pm in the wash up room. 

If a group is organised then surely someone is in charge of it, thus holds some responsibility...? A member of the group was heard to say..I have forgotten my waterproofs..

Keep wild places wild.

2
In reply to 65:

Well in relation to someone telling porkies. The owner told me on Saturday morning that the local residents had complained. He also pointed out that they had not complained on 2 previous visits by the group. Regarding asking the group to leave on Saturday, when I left the site on Saturday morning the owner was phoning a member of the group with the intention of asking them to leave.

 Andy Hardy 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Steven the Bruce:

"washing my hair" sounds like *quality* trolling.

1
 65 26 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

I didn't doubt you.

 Darkinbad 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

Reminds me of my first ever "unchaperoned" climbing trip, when a schoolfriend and I camped at the Plough Inn, Hathersage. We put up our tent in the middle of an empty field and went off to climb at Millstone. When we returned, a biker weekend was in full swing around our tent. So we spent the evening timidly sipping our newly-legal beers in the pub before settling in to listen to a night of rousing camp-fire favourites such as "Bestiality's Best, Boys" and "The Good Ship Venus". They were a friendly enough bunch, though (which was perhaps not entirely the case here).

 Petrafied 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

Ah - looks like I was right, two sides to each story.  Bit disappointing to you I'm guessing.  

Interesting that in a "he said, she said" scenario that so many are sticking by their condemnation of the other party.  A touch of cognitive dissonance in action?

48
 DaveHK 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Petrafied:

> A touch of cognitive dissonance in action?

With yourself you mean?

2
 Siward 27 Jul 2022
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> WTF about being pro-independence has any bearing on your behaviour? Are you suggesting it excuses piss poor attitude, lack of consideration to the resident locals and general disregard for the contract with the campsite you entered into. That just smacks  of entitlement ‘it’s my country I’ll do what I want attitude’ ….. to which of course you can’t it doesn’t matter what political colours you support, society require at times all of us to moderate our wishes for the benefit and courtesy to others. 

The reference to political persuasion was a response to the typical ukc behaviour of automatically equating bad behaviour with tories. Bizarre. 

3
 Justaname 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

IME many campsites have 'Strict' no noise policies after 10pm, however they are very rarely enforced, or if they are then action is taken the morning after, which is pointless IMO.

We recently stayed at a campsite in Edale where warden's do a walkaround at about 1030pm and have a friendly word with anyone still up, they don't tell you to go to bed, are happy for you to stay up, but to be mindful of others. Seemed to work.

 druridge 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Justaname:

I guess a whole load of us have found an instagram group we want nothing to do with...

1
 Neil Williams 27 Jul 2022
In reply to Howard J:

> Booking the entire site should not remove the obligation to comply with the rules, which may be there not only for the benefit of other site users but also nearby residents.

That's between the site, any planning considerations and the local residents.  If you're not booked on the site on that occasion and you don't live within earshot of it then it's none of your business.

Some rules logically may be different for a full site booking.  It will depend on the site.

As I see it this is the fault of the site owner who failed to offer the contracted exclusive booking (and is thus in breach of contract), and failed to deal with the situation they had caused.  They should be criticised, not praised.  It might for instance have been that the exclusive booking was for Safeguarding reasons - a youth group might for instance have a big problem on turning up.  If you aren't going to ensure exclusivity when it is booked and paid for, don't offer it.

Post edited at 16:11
5
 Luke90 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Luke90:

The link is broken again but it's because they've deleted the post from Instagram.

 Holdtickler 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

I wonder if there is a niche for campsites that are happy for people to have a bit of a party. People have been socialising around campfires since time began to the extent it almost feels like it should be a human right but in our modern overcrowded world we can be very quick to knee-jerk ban stuff for convenience. So many campsites have rules banning groups so it's hardly surprising when they end up "fly camping" and leaving a mess somewhere else. At least on a site, a leave no trace ethic could be enforced.

People camp for different reasons. Some want a cheap quiet nights sleep so they can be up with the sun. Others are on holiday and want to relax and socialise and resent too many rules and curfews. We should have sites (or at least different ones) that cater for all these things. I personally think that cost to camp in this country is often far too high especially on very basic sites for what is provided. Sometimes you feel like you are paying b&b prices for night on an unlevel patch of grass listening to the foghorn snoring in the tent a few metres away.

Back to the OP, sounds like the group tried to do right by booking the site. You may have been an uninvited party pooper in their eyes. Not that it excuses inconsiderate behaviour. 

 Robert Durran 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Holdtickler:

You make some extremely good points. There are so many issues with camping both in sites and not in sites these days. During the summer a lot of the joy and freedom seems to be disappearing, or at least pushed to the outer fringes of these isles. I don't know what the answers are. Too many people and too little space......

 crayefish 28 Jul 2022
In reply to kinley2:

> I guess we can't expect to have had 12 years of Tory Government without the ghastly entitlement and self-importance rubbing off into the general public. Hell, someone is voting for them.

> True children of Boris, metaphorically and, given his fecundity, possibly actually.

> Did they claim it was a work event the following morning?

What a load of irrelevant drivel.  This thread has turned into pure nonsense and speculation.

2
 Fat Bumbly2 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Petrafied:

Booking out the whole site is pretty shabby in itself. 

This is an important staging post for self propelled travellers.

Post edited at 12:23
13
 Offwidth 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Holdtickler:

Hey, people might invent a thing and call it  Rule-free Assemblies Versus Establishmentists

I'm sympathetic to occasional raves and festivals in the middle of nowhere, as everyone there wants to party, but not at all for loud music on official campsites (but having landed in the middle of a campsite rave on Arran I wished the group well and moved the tent half a mile away to get some sleep).

I think Steven has let his Instagram group down and should apologise, and the group should look at tightening up their future events. The campsite owner seems to me a victim of circumstances and I think Colin is right to complain.

Nearly everyone seems to be missing the context that way too many official campsites are infamous for noise on busy weekends and this incident is far from the worse.... the outdoor community needs to act in concert to change this.

Post edited at 12:48
4
 Neil Williams 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

How is the site owner a victim of anything?  The first error seems to be to have failed to honour an exclusive booking, and that is wholly the site owner's error.

If the site owner had either refused or honoured the exclusive booking, this thread would never have been posted at all.

Post edited at 13:57
7
 Offwidth 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

Firstly, that's disputed and secondly mistakes happen: without clear  intent or neglect the owner isn't at fault in my view. The owner also said the group hadn't been a problem in previous years.

The thread could just as well have been started by a outdoor lover living in a house nearby and in any case the lack of a posting doesn't mean an absence of a problem. An official campsite next to residential housing should never be a party venue, unless all the neighbours agree terms.

The future of the site could be affected by rightly disgruntled neighbours. Running a business that is a public good but too often a difficult and thankless task, and hardly a major money-spinner, isn't great either. I've talked to a few owners who have given up on camp sites or had seriously thought about it. The outdoor community desperately needs to self regulate better.

Post edited at 14:09
3
 S Ramsay 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Steven the Bruce:

Lololol, nominally well educated but too blinded by nationalism to care that their preferred policies would cripple the poorest in society, sound like run of the mill Tories to me, just with their allegiance to a different flag

17
 Neil Williams 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

> Firstly, that's disputed and secondly mistakes happen: without clear  intent or neglect the owner isn't at fault in my view.

I disagree.  If one makes an error, that error can create liability.  I would for instance clearly not deliberately crash my car into yours, but it might happen due to an error, and if it did I'd be liable to put right the damage.

I'm not suggesting it was deliberate, but it does suggest a potential flaw in how the site owner manages their bookings.  If a double booking occurs there *has* by definition been neglect, because the (likely informal) processes were inadequate to prevent it.  Or if there's a misunderstanding (i.e. it never was an exclusive booking) it's likely because of inadequate clarity of communications.

Of course, once the group found out it wasn't exclusive they should have moderated their behaviour accordingly (perhaps for instance gone off site to a pub to party?), and pursued a discount from the owner for the loss of utility from having to share the site, which the owner, if a reasonable person, should offer before they have to ask.  And no group should be loud enough as to disrupt neighbours.  But the two situations are clearly very different.

Post edited at 14:13
4
 Neil Williams 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

> Booking out the whole site is pretty shabby in itself. 

> This is an important staging post for self propelled travellers.

If one owns a campsite, one can book it out as one sees fit, subject to the law on discrimination against protected characteristics*.  The remedy if you don't like it is not to camp there.

I'd agree if it was a site in which the community has some sort of ownership, like a National Trust operated site or similar, but this is a private site?

Are we talking about this place?

https://www.glenshielcampsite.co.uk/

If so it says it's under recent new ownership, so this is clearly an important lesson to the owner on how they manage bookings.  It's probably the case that they took the group booking on an exclusive basis but forgot to disable the online booking for those dates or to put some sort of note on against the statement that seems to be there that Cape Wrath Trail walkers needn't book in advance.

* For instance you can't ban "same sex groups" any more as lots of campsites used to in order to avoid noisy stag/hen parties, you can only ban *groups*.

Post edited at 14:21
6
 Andrew95 28 Jul 2022

True story..... 

Last year my partner and I were camping in the New Forest on August bank holiday weekend.  It was really busy and a fair bit of noise (totally expected), but it quietened down and was a chill vibe. 

Woke up the next day to two police cars in the car park, lots of people were complaining and when we passed the time of day to the site warden we got profoundly apologized to and offered a refund.... both of us were really confused and she was surprised we didn't know / how could you have slept though that?   

Turns out in the night some 'lads' broke into the campsite in there cars, pretty much set up an illegal rave and refused to move on, generally gave everyone a hard time and caused some havoc.  The police could not move them on as they were well over the limit by that time but they took there festival sized speakers off them. 

I mean I am not a heavy sleeper by any means. But sleeping though an rave is a new one on me.  

 Neil Williams 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Holdtickler:

> I wonder if there is a niche for campsites that are happy for people to have a bit of a party. People have been socialising around campfires since time began to the extent it almost feels like it should be a human right but in our modern overcrowded world we can be very quick to knee-jerk ban stuff for convenience. So many campsites have rules banning groups so it's hardly surprising when they end up "fly camping" and leaving a mess somewhere else. At least on a site, a leave no trace ethic could be enforced.

I think such sites do exist, but they're fairly rare because they are only viable in the middle of nowhere.  A building keeps noise in to some extent.

More annoying I find is that sites like the National Trust ones have incredibly strict group rules - max 4 adults as a party regardless of the number of separate bookings - and they *do* check and ask you about it, I once had a booking at Langdale and was phoned by the warden to check that I wasn't anything to do with two other arrivals from the same city at a similar time.  Or Gwern Gof Isaf at one point had a maximum party size of 5, so a large family of 6 wasn't permitted (I asked them out of interest when I was booking for me).  It's their right to do this of course, but it does make things hard if you're not all members of a climbing club*, say.

* BMC affiliated I mean, not just an Insta collective.

Post edited at 14:32
 Neil Williams 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Luke90:

> The link is broken again but it's because they've deleted the post from Instagram.

It looks like they've deleted the whole group!  Seems a bit extreme.

 Offwidth 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

It's like you are completely unaware of how many campsites work in practice. What possible liability are you waffling on about when the big booking was adults (other than to those accidentally booked at the same time,  who are publicly defending the owners here)? The responsibility seems to lie with the group, who clearly intended to party in deliberate breach of the site regulations (and apparently in contrast to their previous bookings).

Those rules on those other sites were not always there. Why do you think they have been put in place?

Post edited at 14:59
 danieleaston 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

I assume they've set the group to private/ invisible/ whatever for a few days until the 'heat' (!) dies down

1
 Offwidth 28 Jul 2022
In reply to danieleaston:

I wish the majority of them well but they need to match their needs to a site that can better accommodate them in future. I have no time for men who think it's acceptable to 'hang out' drinking in women's toilets, let alone then (instead of apologising and leaving) being threatening to women trying to use the facilities.

 montyjohn 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

If I was you I would be after a refund form the campsite. It sounds like it was their mistake and they should put it right.

I have a little bit of sympathy for the noisy group, I say a little bit because the idea of staying up all night drinking makes me feel nauseous just thinking about it. Since having kids, I value sleep above most things, but I wouldn't want to get in the way of others enjoying their youthful stamina.

I would be annoyed in your position, but it would be with the campsite owners. It sounds like the group made every effect to keep the site exclusive as not to disturb anyone. The neighbors may be a lapse in judgment, which easily happens after you've had a few.

I would like to think the group would have had more consideration after realising the campsite owners' error, but only one person was likely in charge of the booking, and I can imagine reigning everyone in who have gone there with the intention of having a party and getting drunk would have been an impossible task.

4
 Neil Williams 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

> It's like you are completely unaware of how many campsites work in practice. What possible liability are you waffling on about when the big booking was adults (other than to those accidentally booked at the same time,  who are publicly defending the owners here)?

IF the site did state it was an exclusive booking, they are in breach of contract by it not being so.

It might of course be that the group were also in breach of contract by failing to comply to the site rules.  However two wrongs don't make a right.

Post edited at 15:32
2
 bouldery bits 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Steven the Bruce:

> Hi Colin et al.,.

Incidentally our group is 95% young Scottish people with a strong pro-indepence stance, not many tories here i'm afraid - try camping in Lake District perhaps. 

Thanks for clarifying but why're you having a pop at the Lakes? Get in the bin. 

That's weird PR pal.

 mbh 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Andrew95:

>I mean I am not a heavy sleeper by any means. But sleeping though an rave is a new one on me.  

I was in Brighton when the 1987 'hurricane' struck. I slept right through it and was amazed in the morning to find that all the tree had fallen down.

At a campsite near Roscoff we once were faced with a large family group that began a party that they had clearly planned ahead, with loud amplified music. The y ignored all requests from me and others to turn it down. What effect did they think they were going to have on the rest of us? The campsite owners did nothing and were nowhere to be seen.

Campsites need to have rules and to enforce them, particularly with regard to noise. That way, we can all choose the kind of campsite that we like and be confident that we will get what we have paid for. Henry's campsite at the Lizard says, or at least did last time I looked, that you could play a radio, but if your neighbour could hear it then it was too loud. That doesn't suit everyone, but at least with a rule like that you know what to expect and can choose accordingly.

The group size one is an odd thing. We recently did our first ever extended family camping break, with us, four of our kids and their partners plus two grand kids in five different tents. That's the kind of thing I have cheered to see so many times elsewhere.

 Offwidth 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

I'm sorry but I simply can't regard likely accidental booking errors as equal in any way to noise polution until the early hours, that led to complaints from neighbouring  residents. Nor does it justify in any sense that women were apparently threatened  by men drinking in the women's loos.

It's ironic that 'two wrongs don't make a right' is normally a rebuke for  wrongful conduct as a response to another's wrongful conduct. How did those who complained here or at the site transgress?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_don%27t_make_a_right

7
 Robert Durran 28 Jul 2022
In reply to bouldery bits:

> That's weird PR pal.

It's almost as if he was going out of his way to offend as many people as possible with as few words as possible.

In reply to Neil Williams:

> Are we talking about this place?

I think we stayed there when we took part in the 1989(?) Water Aid Munro Challenge. I remember it being near a petrol station, that also had a cafe, and we walked to the Kintail Lodge in the evening. We had a fairly leisurely start in the morning, having breakfast in the cafe, and turned up at the reporting station about 10am. They thought we were going to be a no-show, but I knew it wouldn't take us long to reach our allotted summit, Saileag, which we did, comfortably in time for the noon deadline; we went straight up to the Bealach an Lapain, and along the ridge: brutal, but effective...

Interestingly, Google StreetView shows pumps still present from the backroad view (Dec 2021), but taken up in the A87 view (May 2022).

The only problem we had was with midges...

 Neil Williams 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

> I'm sorry but I simply can't regard likely accidental booking errors as equal in any way to noise polution until the early hours, that led to complaints from neighbouring  residents.

I don't think it matters whether they're equal or not, we're not trying to offset them.

> Nor does it justify in any sense that women were apparently threatened  by men drinking in the women's loos.

IF that happened it is unacceptable to the point that the witnesses should seriously consider a report to the Police.

1
 Bottom Clinger 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Steven the Bruce:

> I won't be taking part in any further discussion on this group as I'm washing my hair tonight. 

Dear Stephen the Bruce

I recommend Grecian 2000.  And good luck with The Baggies. 


 wercat 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

I think some people misunderstood your exemplary post

 Howard J 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

> That's between the site, any planning considerations and the local residents.  If you're not booked on the site on that occasion and you don't live within earshot of it then it's none of your business.

Of course it isn't, but this is an internet forum.  Minding other people's business is the whole point.

Quite clearly there was a cockup by the campsite organisers, but faced with the reality there should have been some compromise on all sides.  Personally, in a similar situation I would probably tolerated some noise up until around midnight, regardless of what the rules said - possibly even a bit later.  That should be long enough for the group to have a good time and for everyone to get some sleep.  Music until 4:30am isn't acceptable, unless it is a very isolated site in sole occupation, with no neighbours and with the express consent of the owners.

1
 Neil Williams 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Howard J:

That does sound a reasonable compromise.

 Tonker 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Howard J:

Yep,  midnight or even 1am is about tolerable, you could get at least 6-7 hours kip....04:30am and then 'starting up' again at 7am is taking the piss.

2
 Fat Bumbly2 28 Jul 2022
In reply to captain paranoia:

Got hammered by the wee gits when I stayed there - a final munro party for a person of this parish.

 Luke90 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

> It looks like they've deleted the whole group!  Seems a bit extreme.

No, just the post about the weekend that I previously linked. The account is still visible:

https://instagram.com/hiking.scotland?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

2
 CaDM 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Luke90:

No, I deleted the post because you decided to link to my personal hiking page simply for attending a group hike, which lead to people from the forum messaging me. I attended the hike and left the campsite at about 6pm on the Saturday, nevertheless some on these forums feel the need to reach out to me and send me abuse that I frankly don’t have the time to deal with.

PS. As flattered as I am, @hiking.scotland is not some group nor the mastermind of a community, it’s just l’il old me’s personal blog as I try to share my hiking adventures and meet like-minded individuals to share my newly-discovered passion with.

You talk about inconsideration yet reach out and throw abuse at an individual who did absolutely nothing wrong but attend a hike…there’s toxicity in the hiking community and it isn’t the group you’re targeting here.

Post edited at 22:49
2
 Dave Hewitt 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

> Got hammered by the wee gits when I stayed there - a final munro party for a person of this parish.

It's always seemed to be midgy - I stayed there a fair few times from the 1980s onwards. Became fond of the place with its no-frills camping and useful shop/cafe (and great hills available all round), but it sounds like it's changed hands a time or two in recent years - I've not stayed there since said midgy completion occasion (15 years ago, yikes) and I think I've only driven past on one trip since then. As captain paranoia said upthread, adjourning to the Kintail Lodge was the thing to do of an evening - quite a civilised place with good beer and no midges.

 bouldery bits 28 Jul 2022
In reply to CaDM:

>there’s toxicity in the hiking community and it isn’t the group you’re targeting here.

... No one knows what it means but it's provocative. It gets the people going!

 Luke90 28 Jul 2022
In reply to CaDM:

Sincerely sorry that you got abuse, that's not on. Wouldn't have posted the links if I'd realised it was a personal account. The name of the account and the context of the OP made me think it was an organisation rather than an individual. Can't edit my posts at this stage but if you report them the mods would probably remove the links for you.

 CaDM 28 Jul 2022
In reply to Luke90:

Thank you Luke, I appreciate your prompt and honest response. It’s an easy mistake to make - the account name has been known to create some confusion in the past (threw a lot of people off when I started posting photos from my trip to the dolomites!)…will look into getting the links taken down tomorrow.

 fmck 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

I always have ear plugs in the pack. Doesn't matter if it's a noisy campsite or wild camp. Wild camps can be pretty noisy as well. Stormy weather, rutting deer, water cascading during heavy rain, etc. Simple but effective.

Not sure what Glen Rosa campsite on Arran is like these days. Having a door to the toilet cubicle was as posh as it got. Sometimes you had to evict the sheep first.

 65 29 Jul 2022
In reply to fmck:

> I always have ear plugs in the pack. Doesn't matter if it's a noisy campsite or wild camp. Wild camps can be pretty noisy as well. Stormy weather, rutting deer, water cascading during heavy rain, etc. Simple but effective.

The noise of stormy weather, rutting deer and cascading water makes wild camping! The only thing more profoundly cosy than being in your sleeping bag in a tent is being in your sleeping bag in a tent when a loud raging hoolie is blowing outside. Give me that over badly socialised arseholes every time.

> Not sure what Glen Rosa campsite on Arran is like these days. Having a door to the toilet cubicle was as posh as it got. Sometimes you had to evict the sheep first.

It hasn't changed. I hope it never does.

In reply to 65:

Comments like that beg the question,in a field of 30 to 40 party goers and one vocal complainant who is antisocial?

Post edited at 10:51
35
 fred99 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

> I wish the majority of them well but they need to match their needs to a site that can better accommodate them in future. I have no time for men who think it's acceptable to 'hang out' drinking in women's toilets, let alone then (instead of apologising and leaving) being threatening to women trying to use the facilities.

I do hope that none of the "few doctors, chartered professionals, teachers and more" were involved in the Ladies Toilet incident.

However, with the way that many of those who are (supposedly) examples to the "great unwashed" have been acting nowadays, I'm more inclined to believe that such persons were involved.

How times change -

3
 Toccata 29 Jul 2022
In reply to fmck:

> Not sure what Glen Rosa campsite on Arran is like these days. Having a door to the toilet cubicle was as posh as it got. Sometimes you had to evict the sheep first.

I remember those days - cycle to Adrossan after school on Fridays, few cans of smuggled Safeways lager on the boat, pint in Duncan's Bar then handfuls of mushrooms on the way up to the campsite. Caught giardiasis there once.

In reply to Toccata:

This wouldn't be an underage drinking drug user complaining about antisocial behaviour would it?

15
 65 29 Jul 2022
In reply to fred99:

Being one of said professionals myself, plus socialising almost exclusively with similar types, let me assure you that achieving this status does not condemn you to an eternity of quietly discussing the merits of Skoda estates while sipping tea with a raised pinky. Ever been drinking with teachers and/or doctors? Though none of the ones I know would lurk in the ladies loo or antagonise others on a campsite.

When I ran an occasionally rowdy pub, by far the worst groups to try to get either to behave or out the door at closing time were uniformed services. Young off-duty policemen were the worst, closely followed by hen nights though we didn't have many of them. Hairy arsed biker clubs were a piece of cake in comparison. Actually, young farmers were the worst, I never had a bunch of young drunk polis go nose to nose with me because I wanted them out the door before I lost my licence.

What a ridiculous post StevetheBruce or whatever his name was made. "We couldn't possibly have behaved like that because some of us are respected professionals with degrees."

1
 Toccata 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Nah. No bluetooth speakers (or phones) in those days and we never made it past midnight. 

In reply to Presley Whippet:

What in Toccata’s post do you see as anti social? They’ve said nothing to suggest they were impacting anyone else.

If I was hoping for a decent night’s sleep, I’d choose to camp next to teens taking mushrooms rather than a legal piss up any day of the week.

Post edited at 13:24
 Toccata 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Stuart Williams:

We always tried to be considerate. The only time I've been ashamed of my part in a group's behaviour was a night in Back Hill o Bush bothy between Christmas and New Year I think in 89 or 90 when we turned up en mass. We'd cycled up the Merrick via the radio mast/ Benyellary and tried (unsuccessfully) to cycle to the bothy via the dungeon lochs and a lot of snow. Spirits were very high after such a great day. There were four older chaps in the bothy who were initially welcoming but as we proceeded to get pissed and lary, they left around 10pm to walk back to their cars with deservedly unkind words. Even by the morning we realised we'd shamed ourselves and I've never really forgiven myself over it.

1
 magma 29 Jul 2022
In reply to DaveHK:

> Cock up by campsite owners perhaps but the decent thing would have been for the group to moderate their behaviour when they found out others were there. 

maybe they did? struggling to find significant behavioural problems..

3
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> What in Toccata’s post do you see as anti social? They’ve said nothing to suggest they were impacting anyone else.

> If I was hoping for a decent night’s sleep, I’d choose to camp next to teens taking mushrooms rather than a legal piss up any day of the week.

Exactly what I posted, dress the underage drink and drug users up in shell suits and baseball caps and how does the picture look now?

The snobbery in this thread is jaw dropping.

25
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Exactly what I posted,

I don't think it is. You implied Toccata was describing a history of anti-social behaviour, I said that there was nothing anti-social in what they described.

> dress the underage drink and drug users up in shell suits and baseball caps and how does the picture look now?

> The snobbery in this thread is jaw dropping.

I have literally no idea what you mean. The picture looks exactly the same. People taking mushrooms or drinking is not anti-social in and of itself, regardless of their headwear or age.

Post edited at 15:56
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Thought experiment for you.

16 year old smokes a spliff alone in their front room, watches some TV and goes to bed. They can wear a shell suit and cap if you like.

Someone in their mid-30s goes to the pub and gets legally plastered. On their way home they commit a racially motivated assault and throw some bricks through a couple of windows. They can be wearing a nice Ralph Lauren polo shirt and some chinos.

Which one is being anti-social and does your verdict depend on their age or the legality of the mind-altering substance they are taking?

Post edited at 16:02
 Neil Williams 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Stuart Williams:

The first one has committed a low level drugs offence, but isn't acting antisocially because what they're doing isn't affecting others.

The second one has consumed the alcohol legally, but then committed a series of more serious offences which have had serious impacts on others.

Therefore, without doubt, the second is worse.

Post edited at 16:09
1
In reply to Neil Williams:

Entirely agree.

 fred99 29 Jul 2022
In reply to 65:

> When I ran an occasionally rowdy pub, by far the worst groups to try to get either to behave or out the door at closing time were uniformed services. Young off-duty policemen were the worst, ...

I remember back in the early 80's I used to stay late midweek every week in one pub, mainly playing pool, but continuing to drink. The bar in the next room was full - mainly of off-duty coppers !

In reply to Neil Williams:

> Therefore, without doubt, the second is worse.

I took the question to be rhetorical, as the answer was glaringly obvious... But maybe the Whippet will have a different opinion.

 Fat Bumbly2 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Toccata:

That may have been the new year when I shamed myself for not allowing StAUMC throwing me into Loch Eilt.

 Xharlie 29 Jul 2022
In reply to wercat:

> I have a lifelong aversion to disturbing people at night - I've always regarded it as a personal failure if I've done it.  nothing to do with piety, that's your comment.

I share your aversion! On a related note, I consider it a grevious personal failure if, after a day out climbing, hiking, skiing, surfing, sailing or doing any sort of adventure that repays exertion with adrenaline and dopamine, if I'm driving home, any passengers are still awake when we get back.

As a chronic insomniac, I understand the blessing of sleep! Disturbing that of another is uncivil and gifting slumber to another by driving peacefully is symbolic, akin to a gift of food.

 Rich W Parker 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Your first sentence identifies you as an absolute (insert the most offensive adjective here). Selfish and entitled at that. Grow up and develop some semblance of responsibility. Just because a bunch of scumbags decide to do their bidding in private does not make it right. In fact it makes it worse. 

5
 Ger_the_gog 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

Drinking 'till 04:30 and up at 07:00?

Did someone spike their booze with shandy bass?

 fmck 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

This is nothing compared to my experience of the Red squirrel campsite.

Alone and walking back to my tent after a night in the Clachaig it happened. I was suddenly pounced upon by three dark figures. Thinking the usual after pub skirmy I retaliated with all my boozed up might but to no avail. I was quickly pinned to the ground but still prevailed with trying to dislodge them. To my horror this was not what I thought as they gave me the biggest wedgy I have ever experienced. It only stopped when my underpants finally disintegrated and as quick as they appeared they were gone. I got up and brushed myself down and continued to my tent for the night.

Next morning I was aware I no longer had underpants on but just got on with packing for the journey home. Stopping at the Green Welly boot for a piss, etc. I was horrified to discover while at the urinal my underpants hanging out the bottom of my trouser leg. Just how long I had been walking about like that I have no idea but I must of walked through the place like that

 ian caton 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

Camp site at fault. I was on a site in midwales and a school minibus turnef up. Mayhem. The campsite threw them off at 1 am. 

5
 The New NickB 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Comments like that beg the question,in a field of 30 to 40 party goers and one vocal complainant who is antisocial?

Simple answer. The people who aren’t being arseholes.

A quick general comment. You seem to badly read many situations.

 wintertree 29 Jul 2022
In reply to The New NickB:

> Simple answer. The people who aren’t being arseholes.

It’s not difficult, is it?

There’s no suggestion the large group asked the site owners for bounds on acceptable noise that would not inconvenience other people in the middle of the night, and there’s no suggestion the large group undertook any attempt to determine what would be acceptable.  It seems like they erroneously conflated a whole-site booking with a free pass to pose a noise nuisance to others without doing an assessment of who those others were (including local residents) and what was appropriate.

The single most angry I’ve been in my life was when someone up the street was keeping me awake at 4 am with loud noise.  This is comparable to residents around the campsite’s situation.  The site owners did not sign off on the noise levels posed in the middle of the night, they are not to fault on that.

Having thought on this for a couple of days, it seems to me that exclusive bookings are a massive red flag; the only non-arsehole reason I can see for them is for reasons of safeguarding on trips for children or vulnerable adults.  Any other circumstance seems to offer the possibility of the clients taking the exclusive booking as a free pass for douchbaggerry regardless of the wider context.

3
In reply to The New NickB:

> A quick general comment. You seem to badly read many situations.

I suspect a deliberate contrarian stance.

I may be being generous.

Post edited at 23:05
 wintertree 29 Jul 2022
In reply to Steven the Bruce:

> Incidentally our group is 95% young Scottish people with a strong pro-indepence stance, not many tories here i'm afraid - try camping in Lake District perhaps. 

Xenophobic Moron.

4
 The New NickB 29 Jul 2022
In reply to captain paranoia:

You are probably correct. You're not necessarily being generous, it's not a good position to hold. For an adult at least.

Post edited at 23:35
In reply to The New NickB:

Funnily enough, there's a trailer for a BBC Nick Robinson interview with Truss, where she talks about being a deliberate 'trouble maker' in her youth. I suspect that's Truss-speak for "I didn't have supportable opinion on anything because I'm a vacuous fool".

Post edited at 23:54
1
In reply to The New NickB:

This forum on the face of it is all very inclusive, however when that inclusivity actually occurrs it is a different matter.

I would call that snobbery. Not a poor reaction.

A whole mountain has been built out of one man being upset because others were having a better time than him. The OP could have joined the party.

Judge my thoughts which ever way you will,it seems to me the OP unknowingly rocked up at Glastonbury hoping for a good night's sleep. Complain or get on with it, I know what I would have done.

32
 65 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

What the hell are you on about?

> A whole mountain has been built out of one man being upset because others were having a better time than him. The OP could have joined the party.

Now you are making shit up about the OP.  Also, he clearly didn't want to join their party, and nor should he have to. Given that he'd just had what sounds like a massive day on the hill, he was probably too tired to be in an all-night party mood. If the reports of their behaviour plus the manner of posting of StevetheBruce are anything to go by, they sound by and large like an unpleasant bunch of arseholes. Far be it from me to dictate what kind of company you should enjoy, but they sound neither welcoming nor worthwhile to me.

> Judge my thoughts which ever way you will,it seems to me the OP unknowingly rocked up at Glastonbury hoping for a good night's sleep. Complain or get on with it, I know what I would have done.

Glenshiel isn't Glastonbury, and hopefully it will never become so. Good for you, have a biscuit.

5
In reply to Presley Whippet:

A load of middle class professionals on a hiking holiday is hardly a great test of anyone’s inclusiveness. They aren’t exactly an under-represented demographic either on UKC or in the wider hiking/climbing community.

Being inclusive doesn’t mean letting others walk all over you and behave however they want.

Post edited at 00:29
 The New NickB 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

It's Friday night, so I'm not going to judge, but I guess you have had more to drink tonight than I have.

2
 bouldery bits 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> This forum on the face of it is all very inclusive, however when that inclusivity actually occurrs it is a different matter.

I would say we're deliberately somewhat elitist. There is a barrier to entry here in terms of knowledge level (minimal to be fair), interest (niche), and ability to communicate in writing (vital for the form of discourse we have).  

> Judge my thoughts which ever way you will,it seems to me the OP unknowingly rocked up at Glastonbury hoping for a good night's sleep. Complain or get on with it, I know what I would have done.

Not sure how welcome you'd be, but give it a go! 

 Tyler 30 Jul 2022
In reply to wintertree:

> > Incidentally our group is 95% young Scottish people with a strong pro-indepence stance, not many tories here i'm afraid - try camping in Lake District perhaps. 

> Xenophobic Moron.

Have you read the whole thread? This comment was in response to someone writing this nonsense “I guess we can't expect to have had 12 years of Tory Government without the ghastly entitlement and self-importance rubbing off into the general public. Hell, someone is voting for them.

True children of Boris, metaphorically and, given his fecundity, possibly actually.”

I’m pretty certain they wouldn’t have mentioned their politics otherwise and whilst I’m no fan Independence I wouldn’t call their supporters xenophobic morons without other evidence. 

Post edited at 10:43
2
 65 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Tyler:

> I’m pretty certain they wouldn’t have mentioned their politics otherwise and whilst I’m no fan Independence I would call their supporters xenophobic morons without other evidence. 

Is this what you meant to write, or is there an edit in the pipeline?

FWIW, I don't think that's what Wintertree was alluding to. I took it that the "Lake District" comment was what he was targeting. 

Post edited at 10:40
1
 Tyler 30 Jul 2022
In reply to 65:

No, now edited to say wouldn’t! 
> FWIW, I don't think that's what Wintertree was alluding to. I took it that the "Lake District" comment was what he was targeting. 

Again, it’s hard to see that as xenophobic as all he was saying is if you want to see a campsite full of Tories you’re better off looking in the Lake District than one in rural Scotland. Such a response sits somewhere between ‘fair comment’ and ‘poor banter’ and not xenophobia. However, this thread is full of people taking offence on other people’s behalf and trying to paint these people in the worst possible light on scant evidence so you go with xenophobic if you want. 

Post edited at 10:51
4
 Flinticus 30 Jul 2022
In reply to CaDM:

> No, I deleted the post because you decided to link to my personal hiking page simply for attending a group hike, which lead to people from the forum messaging me. I attended the hike and left the campsite at about 6pm on the Saturday, nevertheless some on these forums feel the need to reach out to me and send me abuse that I frankly don’t have the time to deal with.

> PS. As flattered as I am, @hiking.scotland is not some group nor the mastermind of a community, it’s just l’il old me’s personal blog as I try to share my hiking adventures and meet like-minded individuals to share my newly-discovered passion with.

> You talk about inconsideration yet reach out and throw abuse at an individual who did absolutely nothing wrong but attend a hike…there’s toxicity in the hiking community and it isn’t the group you’re targeting here.

Yes there is. I can't imagine the righteous arseholery needed to reach out to you and give you abuse. 

How do they find time between writing to their MPs and peering out their window at the neighbours kids on their noisey skateboards? 

 65 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Tyler:

> No, now edited to say wouldn’t! 

> > FWIW, I don't think that's what Wintertree was alluding to. I took it that the "Lake District" comment was what he was targeting. 

> Again, it’s hard to see that as xenophobic as all he was saying is if you want to see a campsite full of Tories you’re better off looking in the Lake District than one in rural Scotland. Such a response sits somewhere between ‘fair comment’ and ‘poor banter’ and not xenophobia. However, this thread is full of people taking offence on other people’s behalf and trying to paint these people in the worst possible light on scant evidence so you go with xenophobic if you want. 

I didn't think you'd have meant it like that. 

The xenophobic part is arguable, but the moron part isn't. Wintertree was spot on with that. 

Post edited at 12:45
 Siward 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Stuart Williams:

> Thought experiment for you.

> 16 year old smokes a spliff alone in their front room, watches some TV and goes to bed. They can wear a shell suit and cap if you like.

> Someone in their mid-30s goes to the pub and gets legally plastered. On their way home they commit a racially motivated assault and throw some bricks through a couple of windows. They can be wearing a nice Ralph Lauren polo shirt and some chinos.

> Which one is being anti-social and does your verdict depend on their age or the legality of the mind-altering substance they are taking?

I would have the latter's clothes down as antisocial IMHO 

 Tyler 30 Jul 2022
In reply to 65:

> The xenophobic part is arguable, but the moron part isn't. Wintertree was spot on with that. 

Oh totally, when it comes to a conflict of interest between the enjoyment of 20 odd youngster and the enjoyment of a lone middle aged man the youngsters are obviously entitled morons for not yielding, they should know their place.

8
 Robert Durran 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Tyler:

> Oh totally, when it comes to a conflict of interest between the enjoyment of 20 odd youngster and the enjoyment of a lone middle aged man the youngsters are obviously entitled morons for not yielding, they should know their place.

Is it not a matter of right and wrong rather than age or numbers?

 Tyler 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

Of course but the ‘wrong’ in this case was the mix up by the site owners. I’m aware there are some allegations aimed at the group which would definitely be classed as wrong and inexcusable but given the ‘proof’ for some of these turned out to be incorrect (that the group was asked to move on by the site owners) I’m giving the group the benefit of the doubt, it seems more likely that these were misunderstandings rather than wilful bad behaviour.

6
 Petrafied 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Is it not a matter of right and wrong rather than age or numbers?

Quite agree.  The group who had booked the camp site for their exclusive use (something everyone seems to conveniently ignoring) were clearly in the right.

A few years my company booked me overnight into a hotel.  The hotel was quite full, and the room they put me in was directly opposite a function room which that evening was hosting a wedding party.  You know what I didn't do - march up to reception, throw my toys out the pram, demand they all stop and leave, then whine about it on Mumsnet calling them morons when they didn't. 

22
 65 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Tyler:

Do we know they were youngsters? One of the worst nights I've ever endured on a campsite was because of three big guys who looked in their 40s and ignored my polite requests for quiet until they went to bed at about 0200. It was nice of them to leave their car door open though, saved me a long midgie walk to the loo...

Post edited at 13:55
 65 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Petrafied:

Maybe you should go on Mumsnet. This is a site for lovers of the outdoors rather than anti-social party-venue seekers.

4
 Flinticus 30 Jul 2022
In reply to 65:

These groups are not mutually exclusive. I may no longer party but I reseve the right to!

 mbh 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Petrafied:

I would have been pissed off. If I am paying what to me is a hefty sum of money to stay somewhere, then I think the company taking my money should make it very clear, front and centre, not just in the small print, that my stay might be right alongside a party making a loud noise until late in the night. Then I can make my choice. It is not fair to take peoples' money and then do that to them. I would have have hated it.

So it comes back to the camp site. They were at fault for taking bookings and money from mutually incompatible parties and not letting either party know what they were in for.

Post edited at 14:56
 Grubblack 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Tyler:

Interesting to see what the original post has started. Just an up date for many who have commented.  Colin was not on his own, I was with him.  I did email Steven (The Bruce), to let him know what I posted here earlier on, as he requested.   I have not had a reply yet.  Also I contacted the campsite as some people posting seemed to want certain facts checked.  Still waiting on that also.  

The original issue is nothing about age. I wouldn't really have called the party group youngsters. It was about level of noise and music that started about 6pm and continued til about 4 am. It is about awareness and consideration.  We were not the only ones to complain. 

A 12 hour drive the next day is probably not something one would look forward to after a night of disruption.

 wercat 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Petrafied:

Noise in hotels is an occupational hazard.  Noise, except that associated with the locality, when booking a campsite in wild lonely and beautiful spots far from the madding crowd, is definitely not.

Objection overruled

3
 wercat 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Grubblack:

That's 10 Hours of Noize!  Extreme by any accounts unless you've gone to a Festival. I'm not sure I'd have been responsible for my actions if I'd spent 6 or seven hours driving up there to endure that, or just come in after a long day on the hill.

Legally I think it would amount to provocation

Post edited at 17:16
2
 Toccata 30 Jul 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

Coming back to this thread with a different slant, my feelings on antisocial behaviour is that things have worsened in the last 10 years. We live in the White Peak and expect noisy camping every weekend (I actually quite enjoy coming home from work on a Friday to a festival atmosphere). However with the rise of Bluetooth speakers we often have groups with very loud music. I’ve no problem if it stops by 11 but after that we actively stop it. I suspect that the background of noise just pushes up noise levels and when we stop the music suddenly people realise how loud their voices are and the noise soon dies down.

 Andy Clarke 31 Jul 2022
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Exactly what I posted, dress the underage drink and drug users up in shell suits and baseball caps and how does the picture look now?

It looks like it was taken sometime in the late 1980s.

 J72 17 Aug 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

I did try to post this a time ago but it didn’t seem to go through/work.  I remembered reading this after being passed by a pair of young guys on the ridge down from Cairn Toul to Devil’s Point who had a phone out blaring music in what is a still and remote place - very odd! 
 

however, whilst the idea of meeting up with a lot of other people to get drunk and have a good time seems unusual to me, I guess people have a right to do it.  There’s no clear right/wrong in the situation above and it’s all ended up a bit Rashomon.

the most unusual posts here are the repeated ones about how the current make up of the UK Government might be responsible somehow for people’s behaviour whilst camping - in many ways this is much stranger (and less fathomable) than any of the views on the situation described! 

 peppermill 17 Aug 2022
In reply to Petrafied:

Booking an entire campsite does not give a group free reign to do whatever they want and fck everyone else.

1
 peppermill 17 Aug 2022
In reply to 65:

> Being one of said professionals myself, plus socialising almost exclusively with similar types, let me assure you that achieving this status does not condemn you to an eternity of quietly discussing the merits of Skoda estates while sipping tea with a raised pinky. Ever been drinking with teachers and/or doctors? Though none of the ones I know would lurk in the ladies loo or antagonise others on a campsite.

> What a ridiculous post StevetheBruce or whatever his name was made. "We couldn't possibly have behaved like that because some of us are respected professionals with degrees."

Hear hear. Also a high proportion of support for independence means the group couldn't possibly be in the wrong......ha

What an interesting thread this has turned into....

In reply to J72:

> the most unusual posts here are the repeated ones about how the current make up of the UK Government might be responsible somehow for people’s behaviour whilst camping - in many ways this is much stranger (and less fathomable) than any of the views on the situation described! 

Not really; the current Government is dominated by self-centred individuals who think they are above the law and other societal norms. People (the plebs) see this behaviour and think "well, if they can do what the hell they like, I don't see why I shouldn't do what the hell I like as well, and sod anyone else."

I think it's called 'leading by example'. Only the leadership is bad.

Post edited at 18:59
In reply to Root1:

so 'wild-ish' then, really ?

 Tony Buckley 17 Aug 2022
In reply to Colin Scotchford:

Would it be easier to think of them as a wa*king group, full of wa*kers?

T.

* might be a lower-case letter L.  Or not, in this case.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...