UKC

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2094305/Menna-Pritchard-26-defends-...


This has all the trappings of a good old fashioned UKC flaming.

Female climber.
Limestone
No Helmet.
Single Mother.
Daily Mail.

Chuck in a pair of crampons and axes and we have our selves a 1000 threader.


You couldnt make it up.

I understand Menna may be a UKC member. For what it is worth I don't see the harm in what she did. I don't see how this is news. Least of all front page material. Utter crap from the Daily Mail as per usual.

I hope the article hasn’t affected her too much. I can't imagine what it is like to be burnt at the stake by the media for an innocent act which has been misunderstood by some hack.

In reply to myth: Forgot to add top roping to the list. Criminal behaviour.

In reply to myth:

ah classic daily fail. I love how suddenly H&S is important for them once they can attack a single mother.

In reply to myth: You forgot to mention the tat.

In reply to myth: I wonder where she has her chalk bag

In reply to myth:

A non-story. The only validity in any of the moaning comments is that around the helmet for her and none for the child - but you can't actually buy them can you?

Anyhoo, it's a touch self-indulgent, but nothing more than that. Many of the comments flaming her were pretty shoddy.

In reply to myth: I don't agree with the little un not having a helmet, and hopefully she wouldn't lead with her on her back!!

but otherwise, as long as the backpack is secure then good on her.

In reply to myth:

Usual pap from the Maul, but admittedly I did have a a twitch looking at how chossy it was and that her gonk did not have a helmet. Anyhow, maybe that's just my clmbing style, which seems to unleash most of the crag onto an unsuspecting belayer.

In reply to myth: Petzl make childrens helmets so no excuse tehere.

My other concern and it seems to have been overlooked so far is that the child is in a backpack not a safety tested climbing harness. A backpack wasn't designed or safety tested for the stresses of a climbing environment.

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against children climbing but this isn't a child climbing is it?

Cx

In reply to myth: No self-centered attention seeking going on there, nothing to see, move along.

In reply to John Rushby:

I thought you always made sure to stop some of it with your face.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

lol - yeah, there is something in that article that shouts crystal healing and reki.

but I'm so crap I gave my cat away to Marc C, so I am not one to ask about responsible childcare

In reply to Mikkel:

I try to catch it with my teeth.....

In reply to John Rushby:
I try to catch it with my teeth.....

The cat?

In reply to myth: I'm sure the DM didn't just happen to find this story. I suspect she or someone she knows got in touch with them and told her "story". I don't think there is a story here at all - what she does in her time with her child is up to her but it is certainly not newsworthy, regardless of whether or not she is unecessarily exposing her child to risk.

In reply to myth: My favourite things about this article are:

Having the word "TODDLER" in capitals - because it's SO SHOCKING.

The phrase "scales sheer rock faces".

Marvellous.

In reply to myth:

i am outraged that i cant pronounce the childs name.

In reply to myth:

It's three cliffs bay - not a lot of chance of rockfall. Also, screw the mail. horrible journalism.

In reply to myth:

Ignore that - there's far more interesting news stories in the side bar on the DM website:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2093887/Rise-teeny-bikini-demand-...

E

In reply to Reach>Talent:

The time it staged a dirty protest in my kitchen I almost caught it with my boot end......

In reply to myth:

This is absolutely disgusting behaviour for any responsible parent and shows a complete lack of regard for the child. I mean honestly, naming her Ffion, what a horrible thing to do.

In reply to myth: If you read the article however, it is all very ME ME ME, MY physical and mental wellbeing, what I want to do!!!!!

Well sorry to be a lone voice here, but she is hardly an experienced climber (in her own words she's only recently taken this up) and taking a 2 year old climbing without a helmet is being a selfish f*ckwit!!

In reply to Dave 88: Ffion? She'll marry Will.i.am Hague, then she'll be sorry.

In reply to Goucho: I meant to add, that if she doesn't feel her 2 year old child needs a helmet - then why the f*ck is she wearing one!!

In reply to Goucho:

I'm with you - we made decisions when little Ent was a baby and none of them was top roping with her in baby bjorn without a helmet.

There was one on supertopo a while back - and they did get flamed - multi pitching - kid had no helmet, parents did ha ha!!

What is the point? apart from mum and dad showing off?
What does the kid get out of it?

E

In reply to Dave 88:
Quite so.

"Hello, I'm a Daily Mail reporter. I'd like to write an honest, balanced, non-judgemental article about you."

"Oh yes please, I know I can trust you..."

Two parallel universes collide...

In reply to Enty:



That is what I was going to say. I don't think it was dangerous, but I do wonder why? Absolutely no benefit other than attention seeking.

In reply to Clears:

I dont think the back pack will be getting too stressed on a top rope climb.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

I don't doubt it, some friend hey.

In reply to Enty:

Awesome.

In reply to Jim at Work: Oh, so the photo for which she is posing, was fabricated by the Daily mail was it??????

I suppose her daughter was really wearing a helmet, but they retouched it out in Photoshop!!!!!!!

In reply to myth:

Yeah, I'll join in with the folk that think the lack of a helmet is an issue. Even if it was only a bike helmet I'd be a lot more comfortable with it. Seems strange that the adults feel the situation merits wearing a helmet yet don't see a need for the kid to have one.

I dare say the back-pack thing is not rated but I can imagine applying a bit of common sense to accessing its security "might" have ended in it being judged as alright. I'll leave my jury out on the back-pack.

Other than that fair play to her... happy climbing.

In reply to myth: At least clicking the worst rated comments provides some amusement.

Most of the DM readers would clearly shit themselves if they saw the young school kids on Mer de Glace during the summer.

In reply to myth: All the DM posturing aside, I find this rather disturbing. I am a keen climber and also have a two year old. I can't wait until I can start taking him out climbing, but this makes me sick. I have a child carrier and even though my son wouldn't necessarily fall out if you tipped it upside down, there isn't much to stop it slipping off your back or to stop my son wriggling about to the extent that you lose your balance. I can't bear to imagine the consequences of a slip or fall, even on top rope.

THe DM refused to print my comment that it is one thing to headpoint but to get beta from a 2 year old should involve the ethics police

I wonde what Fiend's take is on this ?

In reply to Goucho:

My personal opinion:

- Its three cliffs so practically no chance of a rock fall, its all very solid rock there.
- She's on a top-rope, so no danger of sustaining any injuries in a fall.
- Can't quite figure out which route it is, but it looks quite easy. Possibly one of the diffs left of Initiation Flake, so the chances of her falling off are pretty tiny.

If it were me, I'd probably get the child a helmet, but given all of the above, the chances of injury seem pretty miniscule so I have no real issues with the kid not having a helmet in this restricted case (if she does it regularly then she should probably get one though).

As for "why is she wearing a helmet when she doesn't think her child does", I would say that it makes sense to wear one if you've got it, no matter how small the risks. Also, maybe she was leading some harder stuff without the kid earlier on and hadn't bothered to take the lid off? I dunno about anyone else, but when I go climbing I automatically put my helmet on withyout even considering how easy the stuff I'm climbing is going to be.

When I'm climbing with people who don't have helmets, I don't think to myself "I must take my helmet off now so that people aren't judgemental if the daily mail publish a picture of me", even if I'm climbing really easy and solid stuff that truely isn't at all risky.

In reply to myth:

I think you're all missing the point....

So what if Ffion is only a toddler, what has she ever done on grit?

In reply to Steve Hill:
- Its three cliffs so practically no chance of a rock fall, its all very solid rock there.

Is that 'practically' or 'no chance' - make you're mind up.

- She's on a top-rope, so no danger of sustaining any injuries in a fall.

So, if the mother slips off a move, with a little bit of slack, catches her foot as the rope comes tight, and twists round, and into the rock, her daughter hits the rock first, and she presses daughter further into it. Or she has a freak accident and somehow flips upside down. Now I know these are unlikely, but one thing I've learned over decades of climbing, is that freak unusual accidents do happen, and you can never make the sport 100% guaranteed no injury safe!!!!

And if you think your comment regarding her wearing a helmet makes sense, then you must be her husband!

In reply to myth:

Hopefully the DM will never come to Norway and see parents downhill skiing with infants on their backs. They would run out of CAPITAL LETTERS in their efforts to show just HOW BLATANT AND APPALLING THIS IS!

And the kids don't even wear helmets.

In reply to myth:

Read it, shrugged, moved on. Struggling to actually give a shit one way or the other.

Probably no more dangerous than folk who take their kids on bikes in those little child seat things or in bike trailers.

In reply to John Rushby:

+10.

Awesome.

In reply to myth:

I think there's much overreacting. I probably wouldn't choose to toprope with a toddler on my back, as I don't think either of us would gain much from it, and would restrict movement, but taking your toddler onto outdoor pursuits is neither new nor outrageous.

From reading the rest of the article she's taking her daughter out walking a lot - that's a good thing surely?

In reply to Toby S:

<Like>

In reply to Goucho:


This is not a contradiction: "practically no chance", "almost no chance", "extremely small chance" are all common English language phrases meaning the same thing.

There is, of course, a tiny possibility of a rock fall, but assuming no one is above her this really is small - any rocks she pulls off would tend not to fall onto the climber's own back (and hence the child's head). They've already been up and set up a rope, so would presumably have checked the area where the rope runs for loose rocks to prevent them being dragged down by the rope.

Are you now going to start demanding that any child walking along a beach anywhere near the cliffs must wear a helmet incase a rock spontaneously dislodges itself? How is this much different?


I'm assuming a competent belayer. Much the same way as we don't demand that children wear helmets as passengers in a car just in case the driver is incompetent.


I can't think of a reasonable way that a climber could flip upside down on a top-rope with a competent belayer - it would require a lot of slack in the system.

And you're right, it would be a *freak* accident. There is risk in anything - I think you are overestimating the risk inherent in this activity.

Would you take the child for a walk down to the shops? Isn't that terribly risky and anyone doing so should be condemned by the media? I mean, the child could fall over and bang their head (or if in a carrier, the parent could fall over and land on the child!). Or the child could be hit by a car while crossing the road with their parent!


You can never make *life* 100% safe! Whilst I agree that it is important to prevent undue risk, wrapping children in cotten wool and trying to eliminate all risk is crazy - you'll fail - it's impossible to eliminate all rick. And while you're failing, you're also sucking all the fun out of life.


So you're saying that it would be more sensible for her to remove her helmet in any situation where she believes there is a negligable risk? If you just lead an HVS and are now going to top-rope a solid 10 metre high mod, would you bother to remove your helmet? I certainly wouldn't - when I go climbing my helmet goes on my head when I get to the crag and doesn't tend to come off again until I leave, no matter what I'm doing (even when I'm sat at the top eating my lunch)

In reply to myth: Anyone posted on the DM Comments page "what has she done on grit" yet?

If not i call dibs.

In reply to myth:

Soz - tried to do that one as well..

In reply to Steve Hill: No, what I'm saying is there's a big difference between wrapping your kids in cotton wool, and taking a 2 year old climbing without a helmet!!!

And that's nothing to do with 'sucking the fun out of life' its bloody common sense!

As for the rest of your comments regarding falling over whilst walking to the shops etc, well they are just to stupid to be worthy of a comment.

In reply to myth:

Last spring we had a nice little UKC debate on toddlers and babbies at crags. The OP turned out to be a journalist and wanted to know about 'climbing with babies, with particular reference to carrying them WHILE climbing.

I put my views on taking my (then) 6 month to the right type of crag, while my wife and I climbed, often with a third person. Via UKC I was contacted by anther journalist wanting to interview me about 'climbing with my baby'. Given my distrust of the media I declined as I had a strong suspicision I would be mis qouted / edited.

I wonder if that thread, the emails I recieved and this story are connected?

So young mums sense of adventure taken out of context and mispresented to create news?

Until I can hear an unbaised and open statement from the mum I have no opinion other than I hope my boy does not grow up to become a journalist!

In reply to Goucho:

"Now I know these are unlikely, but one thing I've learned over decades of climbing, is that freak unusual accidents do happen, and you can never make the sport 100% guaranteed no injury safe!!!!"

You need to calm down and think about what you said in the context of a game that tackles risk on purpose. I'm with your general view but resorting to the 'freak accident' argument is pretty sad for a proper trad climber.

In reply to myth: the daughters name disturbed me fffffffffffion

In reply to Offwidth: Engaging in a sport which tackles risk on purpose, is fine when you make that choice yourself.

But we're talking about a 2 year old, with no say in the matter, and my main criticism has been the lack of a helmet.

It's totally irresponsible, and I refer to my original comment - the parents are f*ckwits!!!

In reply to Goucho:


Not at all. I would estimate the risk from top-roping an easy climb with a good belayer on good rock with no one above you knocking rocks down to be minimal, even without a helmet.

Similarly, I would estimate the risk from walking down to the shops with your child, walking on the beach near cliffs, or driving with your child in the car to be small. But the risk is still there and no one condemns parents who do these things or demand that they put helmets on their kids heads.

At what point do we draw the line? Where is the risk too much? I don't think the risk from climbing in this situation is significantly more than the risk from many other activities that parents routinely do with their children, so why should it be treated differently?

In reply to Simon Wells: Look at the photograph - a 2 year old climbing without a helmet - even though mummy is nice and safe in one - that's the bloody issue here, nothing to do with journalism - thats just a red herring.

In reply to ClimberEd:


There is one benefit...

If the party is two adults and a toddler, and the adults decide to climb in the common way - leader puts rope up, second follows, both descend together - then they either take the toddler up with them, or leave it to die horribly on the beach while they are at the top. (2 year olds can do that, you know!)

Our family bottom-ropes in these circumstance, but I have carried a small child up longer scrambles. Good luck to them.

In reply to myth:

Daily Mail bashing aside (a worthy occupation) it does seem a daft thing to do.

In reply to Steve Hill: well, if you think that taking a 2 year old 'rock climbing' without a helmet is perfectly acceptable, then good for you - it says so much about you.

Still, as the man falling off the skyscraper said - "So far, So good".

In reply to Goucho:


Says the man who points out he had a beer and spliff at the top of the Salathe Wall. Think of the children!!!!

In reply to Mike Mead:

I wouldn't ask why if they were both finishing at the top, but she is being belayed from the beach (it looks like)

In reply to myth: WIN - Got a what has she done on grit comment in. 14:40

In reply to TobyA:
Think of the children!!!!

I think the Daily Mail have it in for those dirty pediatricians as well, so don't think too much.

In reply to myth:

I know 3 Cliffs quite well, I've climbed there with my kids on a number of occasions. A few points:

Other than the sensationalist headline, the Daily Fail article mostly quotes the climber rather than heading off on an editorial rant.

3 Cliffs is pretty stable and rockfall with no one above you is unlikely.

My kids have seconded routes there with, and more recently, without a helmet, I'm happy that risk of head injury from falling rock there is so small as to be negligable.

Personally, I wouldn't climb with a 2 year old in a carrier on my back, I just don't think the kid would get anything out of it. Rather leave it a year or 2 and let them climb themselves. If it was their first climb or they were very young, I'd get them to wear a helmet due to the risk of them headbutting the rock!

This seems more a case of the mother climbing with the kid in a carrier for her own vanity rather than anything educational for the kid, and for that reason alone, it seems a bit pointless.

At 3 Cliffs, the general public, including TODDLERS, are normally wandering under the arch when climbers are climbing Scavenger. There's as much risk from falling rock there as there is anywhere else along the main cliff. No one suggests that they wear helmets to be on the beach, and they're also at risk of a falling hex or cam if a leader fumbles a gear placement, not something that little'un in the baby carrier was at risk from if the climber was toproping (which in itself is a crime! ;0))

In reply to Goucho:


So there would be no issue if mummy wasn't wearing a helmet? Why does it make a damned bit of difference whether mummy is wearing a helmet or not - taking the helmet off wouldn't improve the child's safety.

If you have a problem with the child not having a helmet, say *that* - whether or not the mother is wearing a helmet is irrelevant.


I already stated my opinion: if it were my child, it would be wearing a helmet. Given the fairly minimal risk of rock fall, it seems reasonable for someone to take a child climbing in this type of situation without a helmet as a one-off, but would certainly advocate a helmet if the child is taken climbing regularly.

At the end of the day, top-roping can be an exceptionally safe activity and I question the motives and intelligence of anyone who condemns a parent for taking a child to a very safe but unusual environment whilst saying it is ok for parents to take their children to more mainstream, but similarly safe, environments.

I see parents unnecessarilly exposing their children to far more risk than this all the time... they are probably the same people who are ranting in the Daily Fail comments about how terrible this is.

In reply to myth:

I'm confused - I don't want my hard-earned taxes to go towards lazy council social workers to have pensions and go on strike etc, but I want lots of children taken into care. Help! What should I think?

In reply to Steve Hill:


I can. Being top heavy with a high mounted backpack would be somewhere near the top of the list of risk factors. Easily solved with a chest sling or harness. Perhaps she uses one, she's an instructor after all.


There's a difference between doing something practical/necessary with a small inherent risk and something pointless that increases the risk significantly (especially where there is no obvious reward/benefit).


It strikes me as either foolish attention seeking or were I to be a bit more charitable I'd suggest she possibly hasn't fully thought through or understood all the risks nor weighed them against the limited rewards, perhaps through inexperience, perhaps through over-enthusiasm. Or perhaps I'm underestimating the rewards of climbing with her toddler in tow <shrug>

It's her kid, her choice I guess but it does seem a little foolhardy to me.
jk

In reply to ClimberEd:

In that case you are right and I should have paid more attention. Maybe

Still, they're just having a bit of fun on rock. No more justification needed in my book.

In reply to myth:

Chapeau sir!

In reply to Enty: Totally agree with Enty. Also this woman did choose to post her photo, doesn't seem to have objected to this article having given an interview & I don't see that the article really slams her anyway - read it carefully it's like a PR jaunt for her.
I think she's showing off & being very selfish with the kid on her back. No helmet just shows how stupid she is.

In reply to Mike Mead:

They are bottom roping though - so no need. Unlike the american multi-pitchers talked about in this thread here:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1615320/Parents-would-you-lead-mult...

Mysteriously, all eveidence has been removed.

E

In reply to myth:
When the Num Num toddlers go abseiling down Grim Wall, I always put tuppaware bowls on their heads for safety reasons.

In reply to myth:

Nicely done

In reply to Steve Hill:

>"Why does it make a damned bit of difference whether mummy is wearing a helmet or not"

The fact that she is wearing one suggests she feels there may be some risk which is being mitigated by wearing a helmet. Which immediately begs the question, why does she not feel the same risk needs mitigation in respect to baby?

If she was not wearing a helmet there would be no suggestion that the activity included any risk that a helmet could mitigate.

In reply to Goucho:

Your right the picture may well be a red herring. Lets see what the mum says? Big paper can laugh all the way to a libel court with a student single mum she'll be able to get a barrister to sort them out........

In reply to myth:

OMG she has TATTOOS!!!!!!!

In reply to myth:

Is this Callum Nicoll?
- Devils Avacado., Just over there boy bach., 31/1/2012 15:02
Click to rate Rating 3
Report abuse


Made me chuckle.

In reply to Simon Wells: It's a shame you're not as concerned with the parental integrity of a mother safeguarding her 2 year old child, as you are with journalistic integrity!

In reply to Jimbob11:

Just had another look at the photo. Is the baby holding a Personal Locator Beacon?

In reply to JLS:


Or she was already wearing it from some other climbs she had done without the baby and hadn't bothered to take it off?

In any case, there is *always* some risk that could be mitigated by wearing a helmet - if you've got one, you may as well wear it, even though the risk isn't enough to warrant bothering if you haven't got one.

In reply to Goucho:

I don't see why you think its acceptable to resort to insults. Menna is most definately not a "f*ckwit" as you see fit to call her. Nor do I see from which lofty perch you feel you have the right to question her actions. At least Ffion isn't sat in front of the telly sucking on chips!

In reply to Goucho:

Then you should read the article again. Mummy left daddy before Ffion was born. Why do you think daddy is a f*ckwit, f*ckwit?

N

In reply to Goucho:
One ! and one ? would have done.
my point was that they seemed to deserve each other.

In reply to Arcticboy: The lofty perch of common sense, a parent and grand parent, and decades of considerably more climbing experience than you or Menna.

Anybody who takes their 2 year old child climbing (did she ask to go, instead of building sandcastles on the beach or paddling, or is this all about mummy doing what she wants to do?) without a helmet - are you aware just how fragile the skull of a 2 year old is - is a f*ckwit, so if the cap fits.....

And for the record, I am in fact sat on a chair in my garden overlooking the Med, with a plate of olives, cheese and a rather fine glass of Merlot.

In reply to Niall:

Nah, that's a Hilti she's holding.......

In reply to Nigel R Lewis: Well if you're going to be pedantic, then I retract my comment about daddy being a f*ckwit.

In reply to myth: she will regret that later if she realises it was dangerous

In reply to Goucho:

I wasn't being pedantic. You made a very clear statement which I asked you to explain.

You haven't explained, but I'm guessing from your retraction you were just plain wrong. I suppose an accusation of pedantry on my part might be easier than admitting your error. Or is it only a conditional offer of retraction IF I become pedantic at some stage in the future? (That last sentence might be judged as pedantry)

N

In reply to Goucho:

Sorry, none of that gives you any right to start slinging insults around.

I am a parent so you can't wave that around like some sort of get out of jail free card for making crass, unpleasant comments.

Why is your position by the Med of any relevance to this discussion? Or are you just trying to show off in some misguided way?

In reply to myth: They will probably go into more details and arguements in the second part of the feature in tomorrow's Mail,which incidentally shows another photograph of her going down some rapids with the tot tied to the front of her Kayaka.
The -its too dangerous- arguement is clearly nonsense as she was only top roping for heavens sake and if she did encounter any difficulties on any of the routes she could have jammed the kid into any awkward off-widths as extra protection.

In reply to Goucho:

I'm not lauding the mothers responsibilty I just thing you are overstating things by a long way. These are easy low angle slabs on a top rope. I'd be more worried about kids not strapped in in a car. Worse still the indolence, anger, lack of respect and ideological clap-trap many kids face from their parents.

In reply to myth: I'd give her something, but it's not a flaming.

In reply to Arcticboy: It was just demonstrating that you were wrong about me being sat in front of the TV eating a bag of chips - just as you are wrong in your defence of your friend.

Your loyalty is admirable, but miss-guided.

And remember, my criticism is the lack of a helmet (something your friend Menna obviously felt was required for her, but not her 2 year old).

In reply to Goucho:

When did I accuse you of sitting in front of the TV?

You are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to disagree with it.

You are not entitled to throw insults around, that along with your "holier than thou" attitude is why I am criticising you.

In reply to Offwidth: Well if you think taking a 2 year old up a cliff (it's angle or grade or potential objective risk of stonewall, is irrelevant) without a helmet is nothing to worry about too much, then you surprise me.

In reply to Arcticboy: Pray tell me, what is holier than thou, about saying that taking a 2 year old up a rock climb on your back without a helmet, is bloody irresponsible.

In reply to Goucho:

I wouldnt do it. If I was there I might question it. It's clearly not good practice but in the grand scheme of things with kids dying in their millions worldwide no its not that big an issue. I'd be more concerned with a parent that regularly got angry in front of their kids about trivia.

In reply to teflonpete:

>No one suggests that they wear helmets to be on the beach,

I don't know about that - I remember seeing a school/scouts/whatever group out for a walk going past the Roaches, and all solemnly wearing helmets.

As for attention-seeking and what does the kid get out of it, and so forth, I suspect those who know the child are best placed to know what if anything the kid gets out of it. My daughter top-roped one of those Diffs near Chalkstorm when she was two or three (without a helmet - ooooh); I guess you'd have to ask her what she got out of it, but my impression at the time was that she thought it was fun.

Bit pathetic to pose for the Daily Mail, but whatever. Nothing to see here, move along, in fact.

jcm

In reply to Arcticboy: I'm in Yorkshire and she is a bad parent here too.

1. Not much future in outdoor Ed as she will now be the moron that did a Michael Jackson in the Daily Mail.
2.As said above mummy helmet ....good, baby no helmet ....Bad.
3.Look at me, Look at me, Look at me risk my child so I can be in the paper...
4. Child Harness ....Good, top loading backpack ....Bad

In reply to Offwidth: I agree with all those other issues, and in that context, it probably ist worth getting worked up over....but that's not what we're discussing here, and making comparisons doesn't lessen the stupidity of this.

In reply to Steve Hill:
I would estimate the risk from top-roping an easy climb with a good belayer on good rock with no one above you knocking rocks down to be minimal, even without a helmet.
>
Well no one above you....unless of course you count the photographer

In reply to Offwidth: Yes, once we've identified the most important issue in the world we can just have one thread to rule them all. Until then this one seems to be about a woman top roping with her child.

Forgive me for I have sinned: I have let my then 7 year old son rock climb while he was not wearing a helmet. I even got pictures showing me wearing one while belaying him - and he was like 10 m off the ground! I made a mistake and I'm sorry.
Will I make it to the Daily Mail?

In reply to Enty:

I could have done without that bikini one.

In reply to all:

I wonder how many of those who've commented negatively on this thread actually read the Daily Mail, or are they just content to sound like the idiots who've left comments on the DM site.

In reply to Sir Stefan: The question has to be...why were you wearing a helmet???

In reply to myth:

I must be bored to have done so much (about 7 mins) research on this. However....

Story is not just Daily Mail. It also appears on the Sun website (at least). Pix are copyright of Hook News. Search of Twitter and Google turns them up to be a freelance agency that offers £200 - £2,000 to buy women's real life stories to flog to magazines and papers.

If you sup with the Devil.......

In reply to Arcticboy: I did...three times...funny, the 2 year old still wasn't wearing a helmet after i'd finished.

But on a serious journalistic note, the article should really have been titled ME ME ME ME...It's all about MEEEEEEEEEE!!!

In reply to Goucho:

I couldn't have put it better although i would add that anyone thinking it is ok to strap a child onto your back and go climbing is a total arsehole.

In reply to Goucho:

It's second nature to me wearing a helmet while rock climbing as it's a potentially dangerous. I had even brought his helmet with us to the crag. It just slipped my mind putting it on his head.

In reply to Goucho:

I'm sure you're right but I don't really get the thought process behind self-publicising this. Surely it's effectively ended her career as an outdoor instructor? Naive or just nuts?

In reply to jkarran: She states she's an instructor but she works like 2days a year not even instructing just babysitting groups cos she ain't qualified or experienced therefore not got a clue what she's doing

In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King:

Would you carry a child on your back up some wet or icy stairs? If so at what point do you transform from a normal responsible person to being an arsehole. It's just bad practice and lots of people are getting disproportionatly worked up about it (hence the market for such newspapers as the Mail that specialise in major scandals like this and straighter bananas for people that want to get angry).

In reply to Offwidth: You don't half come up with some bloody stupid comparisons!

In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King:

Seconded,what was she thinking.

In reply to myth:

I must say that i think every person above that is ambivalent towards this woman (and man by the look of the belayer on the photo)and her actions and don't care are probably stupid. There's quite a few of you too so i seriously won't be posting or replying to any requests for climbing partners on this website in the near future.

Seriously worrying.

In reply to workingclasslass:

Lol. Is that they mean when I see gear shops selling "screamers" ?

In reply to Goucho: The question I would like to ask her, is why does she wear a helmet?

In reply to Milesy:

Handy to have a tot on your rack for those difficult off-widths,wedge the tot in,thread sling,karabina,clip on and and onwards and upwards.I think she shows excellent potensial for a beginner who cant afford a decent rack yet.

In reply to violentViolet: Yes i would say it is a good thing, thanks for asking...

In reply to workingclasslass: Haha. Very good workin.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


FWIW, the agency contacted me to get a comment from the SWMC. I sent them packing and told them to hassle the BMC instead.

In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King: Yes, I think so too.

In reply to workingclasslass:

Also they grow. You hit that off-width and its too big and just can't protect it, a few cow n gates and a month later your rocking.

In reply to myth:

Yeah, I reckon it's the VD/Diff routes to the left of Intiation Flake. It's pretty solid. It's a wierd article, obviously written with her knowledge. It isn't news. Us discussing it validates crap like that as newsworthy. There is an article on there about a photoshopped picture fer crying out loud.

In reply to mattrm:


I think the sight of a mother climbing with a toddler on her back probably comes into that category. This thread with 124 posts and 2820 views (and counting) seems to confirm that.

Michael Jackson may have argued he was never going to drop the kid off the balcony and it was never in any danger but it did not stop the story and pic going round the world.

In reply to myth:

Has no-one pointed out that it's a disgrace; ruining the child's chances of the onsight...

You guys are stupid!
thats not a child its one of the custom chalkbags made by OCD! http://chalk-bags.com/

In reply to myth:

Have to agree that it isn't a sensible thing to do to go climbing with a toddler in a backpack especially without helmet or any form of straps to hold it in, but am I the only one to notice that the child doesn't appear to have any footwear on either.

Surely there is some risk that if the climber falls the child's feet are the likeliest part of it's body to come in contact with the rock. I would also be concerned that he/she could push herself up with her feet and be unstable. Having carried my own children in backpacks up to the age of three and a half (hiking not climbing) I know this is possible but it is easy to deal with when your own hands are free, not so when you are climbing.

The kid is at far less risk than those whose parents total commitment to them is sitting next to them while they couch potato/net surf/text and who feed them a diet of Kentucky Fried Grease and McShiteburgers each day.

In reply to myth: That guy belaying should put his shirt back on, it's mid wales FFS.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Which was the point I made John, a young kid on a top-rope actually climbing would probably think it was fun, my daughter did when she was 4. That's a bit different to effectively being sat in a rucsac looking at the back of mum's helmeted head and the ground being a bit further away!


Yeah, pretty much how I feel about it.

I think her actions are pretty hard to defend really

She's on top-rope to why not leave ffion on the belayer's back? We've established that the risk of rockfall is pretty low.

Howeever, the picture in todays Metro appears to show that the rucksack has no shoulder straps for the toddler (or at least she hasn't got one on her right shoulder). Given the increased likelihood of inverting while wearing a heavy pack and absence of anything obvious holding the child in from above, I would be more worried about the toddler falling out...a helmet won't help much then...

Even if she doesn't fall out, an inversion could be pretty serious. A two-year-old's head is a lot more vulnerable than an adult's, after all. And I have certainly squashed my pack pretty hard once or twice with slips (although admittedly probably on lead...)

In reply to myth:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-16812023

She's gaining publicity, with a better written article.

In reply to myth:

"My main motivation is keeping it fun for her and if she ever gets scared I'd never force her to try to do anything. She even has her own helmet and ropes."


Erm...put the helmet on then!

In reply to myth: the story only works cos most people dont understand that top roping is mostly safer than walking on the floor

didnt see the mail article, a colleague showed me the article in the metro which was pretty non critical and gave the lady the authorative say

fair play imo. my mate that i climb with just had a baby so we may be doing somthing similar sometime soon

In reply to myth: The story has just been on 5Live. She'll be on the telly by the end of the week

In reply to myth:

Her picture looks very familiar. I'm sure she posts on here.

In reply to EasyAndy:


The metro doesn't really do journalism, though. Mostly it's PA reports or churnalism - reprinting of press releases and prepared stories. It's probably the closest to what the Hook agency would have put out for her in the first place.

In reply to Damon482:

You could argue she is levelling the graphs. One of the most irresponsible things to do in the UK is to have a child when you are poor.

http://childdeath.ocbmedia.com/public_docs/Information%20Sheet%20-%20Patter...

Of course the mother's detection of concern in her child is so sensitive that her senses and physicality are enhanced enough to easily rip that 2a crux.

For Goucho, my icy steps scenario is a little odd but I thought of it as it happened to me last year. I physically caught a woman with a baby in a back carrier when she slipped, with her feet shooting forwards, off said steps. She didnt even thank me... must be the advance guilt, as she was certain to appeared with lurid headlines in the local Evening Post.

I've been facinated with risk all my life, including the often hysterical views attached to it. My siblings and I played pretty free in the countryside when we were kids but with strict parental instructions not to do anything too silly, and we were punished when things went wrong. Others parents thought we were crazy: climbing trees, testing out derelict buildings, playing in farms and would scream at their kids facing the slightest visible danger (yet their kids sometimes sneaked out and were with us); oddly horse-riding was sometimes the concerned parents sedate safe alternative... others prefered their kids safer indoors, fat and unfit. Yet the worst accidents I had were falling out of an upstairs bedroom window as a todler when playing safely indoors (I was very inquisitive); and coming close to drowning in chest high water under adult supervision in the local river. Despite all the youthful danger I faced it turns out that the statistical riskiest things my generation did were in our late teens.. especially taking up riding motorbikes and starting to smoke ...by then parental control was wearing thin and the most disciplined parents often had the most rebellious kids. Personnally I could see the obvious health risk in smoking and given the teenage carnage on the roads chose not to partake much beyond learning to ride a motorbike. I guess in climbing as an adult I still play the same childhood games, it's a little irresponsible but life enhancing stuff, crucially with the risk largely within my control. I'm annoyed by the idiotic media view of my game; I'm annoyed by the innapropriate and disproportionate safety attitudes some have; I'm especially annoyed by 'climbers' that dont get it and should know better, who spread hurtful media blame whilst remaining basically uninformed: I'll do my bit and try and challenge all of this. I'll also try and catch those slipping on metaphorical icy steps and I need no thanks for this and feel no anger for the causal irresponsibilities. I don't see myself as heroic nor those making small mistakes (slippers or blamers) as arseholes; we are all just human, muddling our way through life and we should all just help each other where we can.

So lets end the bile in this thread towards a woman who, at most, made a small mistake in the scheme of things and move on.

In reply to captain paranoia:

*Buys hat*

*Puts new hat on*

*Raises it to the Captain*

In reply to various:

Failing to care about the situation apart from a high degree of disgust at a lot of people getting off on sticking their noses into someone else's life..

Her life, her kid. Her decision.

Not a f8cking thing to do with anyone else.

A lot of folk on this thread should be concentrating on their own problems rather than spending time and energy worrying about the percieved failings of others.

In reply to BelleVedere:



FWIW I think it's a lovely portrait!

In reply to John_Hat: Could you give us a list of stories appearing in the papers that you've decided people shouldn't comment on? I'm sure nobody wants to upset you by talking about something they shouldn't.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Well, pretty much anything in the Mail for starters....

In reply to John_Hat: Jawohl! Please post your list of approved sources.

In reply to Offwidth:


<
My favourite example of weird attitudes to risk is something I saw in the States. People would ride up to the stables on bikes and wearing helmets, remove helmets, put on stetsons and then climb on a horse. Twice as tall and infitiely less controllable. As the locals would say: "Go figure!"

In reply to John_Hat:

exactly!

just the other day i saw an article about a man being arrested for taking his toddler on the back of his motorbike. okay the kid didnt have a helmet on and they were breaking the speed limit, but surely the whole point in having a child is so you can do what you want with it?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Oh, stop being a pillock

A general point about people being a little less worried about other people's lives and a little more worried about their own is hardly controversial.

In reply to EasyAndy:

but surely the whole point in having a child is so you can do what you want with it?

Precisely. And if it all goes horribly wrong you can just make another one.

In reply to John_Hat:


My thoughts exactly on what is, at best, a pathetic non-story. There are far too many, er, 'perfect' people commenting negatively on this thread.

FFS, I once saw a very famous (and competent) climber solo Brant Direct in his trainers with his baby son in a carrier on his back. Was he censured and villified in the national press and by his peers? Was be heck! We all thought he was incredibly stupid and reckless but at the end of the day it was his business and had absolutely nothing to do with anyone else.

Dave

In reply to Dave Williams: And yet you've come on here to tell us he was stupid and reckless, even though it had nothing to do with you.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

We're (mostly) British - we like nothing better than a spot of passive-aggressive tutting.

In reply to Steve Hill:

Her wearing a helmet does say something about her own risk-assessment attitude. She has chosen to wear a helmet for some reason or another - either because she thinks that it will protect her from some danger, or because she simply hasn't bothered to consider the risk/lack of risk and has just automatically put it on.

Neither of these reasons fills me with confidence.

As others have said, my main concerns would be:

1. Why? Why why why? Why not leave her child at the bottom to play, with another adult? What is the kid getting out of being lugged up a route?

2. The child isn't strapped in, has no shoulder straps. If she gets loose, then there is a chance of her falling.

3. If the woman swings to one side or another, she might squish her child against the rock.

I'm all for getting children involved in taking part in 'risky' activities, so that they can develop their physical skills, their own risk assessment skills etc, but I see no advantages at all in lugging a child up a route? Maybe I am missing something here?

In reply to myth:

Is this UKC's finest ever troll do you think?

Not only does it have nearly all the favourites but she hasn't even had to post at all. She's done it via the Daily Mail.

11/10 I say.

In reply to Offwidth:
Beautifully put. Lets all move on.

In reply to Dave Williams:


Errr....which is what everyone has been saying so far on this thread.

Confused???

E

In reply to Dave Williams:

Not entirely his business - it was his child's too but they can't say no or make an informed judgement.

In reply to Eric the Red:

+1

health and safety, toproping, the Daily Mail; squabbles and name calling; and even lots of people posting to let us know how uninteresting they find it...

maybe even 12/10

cheers
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Got me thinking - it is a belter if it is.

E

In reply to Enty:
Yep, it must be up for a TOTY

(Troll of the Year award)

In reply to Jim at Work: Well if it is, she and whoever else is involved, deserves a medal....corker if it is....and i'll certainly feel more of a jerk than normal...

In reply to Eric the Red:

If it is a troll, how on earth is anyone going to beat it? She got into the Daily Mail and everything!

In reply to myth: Hhave you seen the comments??

"Single mother, student at 26, unemployed, sounds like a typical British woman these days. How much of my taxes is she receiving to fund her lifestyle? Stupid woman.
- theyneverprintmycomment, neverland, 01/2/2012 10:45"

In reply to Tall Clare:

Well, if she done all the above PLUS she'd been top-rope / dry-tooling TPS (then claiming it to be 'definitive HVS') I think she'd be unbeatable...

In reply to Dave Todd:

Its E0

In reply to myth:

Surely Honnold has to hit back now? Honnold + Orphan in string bag + Solo of Moonlight Buttress.

In reply to myth:

My comment on the article only got a -9 rating. I'm either getting too subtle or I'm losing my touch.

On the other hand "What has she ever done on grit?" got +12.

Just in case anyone was wondering, it's an Ergo sport carrier and the little girl is quite secure in it I'm sure.

Cheers

Toby

In reply to myth:

Also, I think I mentioned it before but this is a fairly common sight on the slopes here in Norway. Always gives me the heebie jeebies when I see it but most other folk don't seem fazed.

youtube.com/watch?v=NjVoW3cdXsU&

In reply to BruceWee: You just have to watch the faces of the kids as they scoot about giant inflateable Penguins on teeny ski's to see how much fun skiing can be for kids.
You also have to watch how many people fall awkwardly on chair lifts to realise this is no place for a child to be... The woman in your clip is also a selfish moron.

In reply to myth:
Wouldnt raise an eyebrow out here in the Dominican Republic. Saw a guy riding a huge bike with his young daughter (6?) on the back clinging on. Neither had helmets.

Yes, slightly crazy but worth realising that risk assessment is a cultural thing, here it is almost non-existant!

In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King:

Another one? READ THE BLOODY ARTICLE!
Why do you think the parentS are f*uckwits? There is absolutely nothing in the article about the father of the child, other than the mother left him before the baby was born.
Why do you think he's a f*ckwit, f*ckwit?

N

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

So it's the first E12? Or is it a T12?

In reply to muppetfilter:

Quite possibly you're right. Like I said though, it's fairly common and I haven't seen any newspaper articles about it.

My point wasn't so much that what a parent decides to do with their child is safe or unsafe but more that people take risks in one form or another with their children all the time.

I guess I'm just wondering why this particular photo has gained the wrath of the Daily Mail reading nation when there are so many other examples out there of potentially dangerous activities.

In reply to BruceWee: Its potentially much more dangerous to have a parent who reads the Daily Mail.

In reply to Bellie:

What about a parent that sells their story to said rag

In reply to Toby_W:

D'oh, I've been beaten in the sling identifcation game. The shame.... But yes, rather more secure and more importantly stable than the average framed backpack carrier.

I want to know how she keeps a toddler in a sling for the duration of a climb (even one as short as 3 Cliffs) - mine would both have been out and scrambling on their own.

Oh, and there's a BBC version if you can't stand the DM...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-16812023

In reply to Nigel R Lewis: If you read my earlier post, you'd see I have already addressed my incorrect inclusion of the father in the 'f*ckwit' category.

Glad to see that your priorities are good though...more annoyed about my incorrect inclusion of the father, rather than a 2 year old without a helmet - well done you!!!!

In reply to Toby_W:


We've taken our young boys to crags from a young age and they now do a bit of climbing on a top rope and go to the Works.

My few observations:

- It does seem very strange that she wore a helmet top roping at Three Cliffs Bay, but she didn't put one on her daughter (and yes I have climbed there)

- I wouldn't normally let our kids do stuff at a crag without them wearing a helmet; though they do go to the Climbing Works without one and they have not always worn a helmet at bouldering areas, admittedly when they were smaller and didn't get off the ground, (so maybe I'm not that consistent about helmets)

- When ours were small, I wouldn't have considered ever putting them in a backpack and climbing (even if I was only top roping); though to be fair, we did carry/man-handle James in a car seat to some fairly difficult access crags in Spain when he was under six months old (so again maybe I'm not that consistent).

- I have a friend who allegedly went soloing at Stanage with his lad on his back. I thought he was out of order, he didn't think so.

- I have hand-over-hand belayed our oldest up short bits of rock without me being tied on. Stopped this now as he got a bit heavy!. So again maybe I'm not that consistent.

- We have an Ergo Carrier and I wouldn't want to use one to strap a baby on my back and climb

- I generally worry whether getting them into climbing is the 'right' thing to do. Lost too many friends over the years and I remember all the stupid stupid things I did and got away with. My parents hated me climbing, so I could be destined to be a hypocrite.

- I'm wearing a flak jacket

I think the "My kid, my descision" argument is unacceptable. One has a legal responsibiliy to make sure their kid wears a seat belt even if you don't think you're going to crash. Just because you have produced your offspring doesn't mean you can put it danger.

The whole helmets for bottom-roping debate is one that will go on for years, but carrying the child on her back presents it to other dangers besides the ones from rock fall. Although serious injury to the child is unlikely. She could well fall off in an uncontrolled manor and crush the child between her and the wall.

I personally don't think it is sensible.

In reply to Carolyn: I read that. She comes across as ... a bit needy, tbh. That wouldn't matter of course, but maybe using her child to seek attention isn't such a great idea for either of them.

In reply to Goucho:

And if you'd read MY post you will see it's not addressed to you.
The things that should give it away are the phrases "Another one" and "In reply to Formerly known as Pylon King."
Do try and keep up.

Personally, I'm not really that annoyed about either issue. I did form the opinion though that you were possibly prone to knee jerk reactions and that was why you f*uckwitted without cause. Well done you!!!!

N

In reply to myth: Agree its a non story apart from the brats lack of a helmet. That said the amount of young mothers I see leaning over their kids prams with a fag in their gob is probably more detrimental to the childs health...

In reply to Carolyn:

Or The Sun - http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article4099403.ece

In reply to myth:
When I were a lad in Sparta they used to chuck us out to fight with wolfs. Harsh but fair

In reply to Kipper: Suprisingly measured for the Sun, and the first few comments wouldn't be out of place here.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Then they bummed you (true story)

In reply to myth:
Do folks know if the Ergo Sport Carrier is is suitable for base jumping with baby?

In reply to birdie num num: Is that the same as the Ego Sport Carrier?

In reply to birdie num num:

Yeahn they are fine. Just double check any buckles and put a beanie on the little squirt to keep their head warm.

In reply to Kipper:


I am in the process of "gritting" that comment section too.

In reply to myth:

Got it.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think you may be on to something there. She may have some weird type of attention disorder comparable to Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

In reply to peetay:
>. She may have some weird type of attention disorder comparable to Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

Get with it,its now called fabricated or induced illness syndrome.

In reply to Big Jonnie:

Lol. Do you work for the NHS? There's got to be a psychiatric term in the DSM-5 to explain this woman's problem. Anybody?

In reply to myth: Does anyone know what grade the climb, with the one picture of her and her child, was?

In reply to myth: She's an attractive lady, so therefore I forgive her. Shame about the tattoos, though.

In reply to Lady Jane Grey: Mod / Diff? - my money is on Left Corner 1.

In reply to myth:

DM and its readers are all bloody horrible human beings. The BBC shouldn't be wasting time putting this on its website either, it's not exactly news.

In reply to Dave 88:

like it

In reply to Talius Brute: I read the DM, yet you do not know me so therefore how are you qualified to judge me?

In reply to toad:


Someone I know put it quite well I think: the "journalists" (in the loosest possible sense of the word) probably saw her blog and phoned her up offering her money for the story. She could either accept the money and sell the the story, or she could decline the money and they would probably just make it all up and run the story anyway. So accepting the money was probably the right call (or maybe she declined and we're all commenting on a made up story)...

In reply to Steve Hill: There have been many positive arguments put forward uopn this thread as to why you should choose to put your child in a position of risk. Personal development and growth being foremost amongst them...
To prostitute your childs safety for cash is actually morally abhorent to most well balanced people.

In reply to nomadman:

Because the DM is a hateful, sexist, racist, scurrilous paper. It was founded on that basis in fact. Northcliffe designed it as an imperialistic paper marketed with competitions, prizes and promotional gimmicks, aimed at the then mass market of newly literate lower middle classes. And it remains true to its birth.

Nothing personal, but you don't have to read it, in fact I recommend you stop.

In reply to birdie num num: No how ridiculous, you must carry your child on the front whilst base jumping, unless you don't want a parachute that is

In reply to Talius Brute: IIRC one of Northcliffe's original strategies was to ensure that the DM always had a 'Daily Hate' - a tradition proudly carried on today.

In reply to myth:

imagine she was drytooling...

In reply to Carolyn:

Ey up, what do you think about this?

Whilst I have to agree it's a bit of a storm ia tea cup, I do think it was probably a little irresponsible as it looks like toddler could, potentially, fall/wriggle out of the pack? I also seem to recall a fair bit of loose rock there, particularly at the tops of the routes. Mind you, I have a feeling I kmow where it was on the crag and, if so, it was a shorter route than it looks from the photos and so the chances of anything happening were v small I'm sure.

In reply to muppetfilter:


True, but the fact is she probably didn't. The way most of these stories come about is the "journalists" scrape blogs and facebook for interesting looking photos, then build a story around it.

The choice is more "accept money and get to put your side of the story" or "don't cooperate and we will write the story anyway".

In reply to Offwidth:

If i had to then yes, the same as i may have to take my child in the car somewhere. The difference is that SHE DOES NOT NEED TO CARRY THE CHILD UP A ROCK CLIMB - she is doing it as a leisure activity - she is a ARSEHOLE.

In reply to Offwidth:

The same as pregnant women climbing are ARSEHOLES

In reply to davidbeynon:

My suspicion is that this was a press release/agency story that got away - hoping for something more like the metro/BBC narrative, but forgetting the need for an angle from the more git-like elements of the press. Considering the uncritical coverage quackery and new age nonsense gets in the Mail, maybe she should have been promoting this as a cure for infant colic or something

It would certainly be interesting to know the genesis of the story (much more interesting than the story itself).

In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King:

Bloody hell, don't hold back.

No one has died, at worst it was a mis-judgement. Also, she seems to have enough support to suggest that it's not a stark case of black and white.

In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King:

No they aren't, and that isn't the 'same' thing at all

In reply to myth:

Am I alone in suspecting that she doesn't -actually- climb with her baby, and that they just set this up as a joke shot by sticking her on a toprope and having her scramble a few feet up a moderate with the wean on her back until the photo was taken, then thought it would be funny to see how people would react to it?

I mean, she isn't even wearing shoes.

In reply to myth:
Fine work mate, this one really does have legs! It's helped my day at work all week.
by the way, all that negative criticism of the DM is a bit off - look to the right for the good news: 'Boris on ...terror hit list'

In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King:

Climbing as a mother or father with young children?
High risk climbing with families and friends that love you and will be devastated if you die?

Just wondered how far your ARSEHOLE will stretch?

In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King:


Get real, you're being the ARSEHOLE here.

In reply to myth:
come on guys,ease up .i sympathise with ffiooooon .i TOO got flamed after buying my toddler his first wing suit at 12 months.the kid loved it .admittingly he did'nt want to try it initially but a gentle shove and he was flying with the birds.

In reply to colina:
Looking at the pic again, as someone said she is not wearing any shoes!i'm wondering has she taken the picture on a flat piece of rock (think batman and robin scaling a building here!)

fantastic wind up if it is !

In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King:

"Easy going, open minded kind of guy..."

tee hee

In reply to myth:

There's an insightful, well-researched and relevant piece about this in today's Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/9054426/When-its-best-to-leave...

Writing about the journalist's own experience of falling off a horse she says "statistically, I’m unlikely to come to harm twice".

This is good news for those of us who have already taken a fall.

In reply to colina:
I don't think that is her foot, but that of the kid.

In reply to Turdus torquatus:

I always fall off the route at the start. The chances of falling twice are much lower.

If you look closely the grommet is holding her pof.

In reply to Turdus torquatus:

Just be thankful climbing is only a pastime that you can give up with only fleeting regret.

I'd be completely f*cked if I had to give up my morning cuppa because some boffin decides coffee is carcinogenic.

In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King:

Yeah - I guess the chance of the baby falling out of its carrier is about the same... *snigger*

In reply to tlm:

As compared to the fact that when I've taken an uncontrolled top-rope fall on a wall where there wasn't an arete to end up bouncing off, I've often tended to end up falling forwards but upright and faceplanting the wall, rather than backwards?

In reply to Neil Williams:

(My point being that that might cause injury to a baby inside the mother, particularly if, because they were climbing easier than usual routes, there was a big hold to fall onto).

In reply to liz j: possibly liz but the babin must have got a very big foot

In reply to colina:
Troll baby? Or a hobbit?

In reply to JonC:

You want a sensible answer? How ridiculous!

I suspect it's a one off for a photo, much like dressing a kid up in white lacy outfit for a photo for grandma, and given the climb in question not a whole lot more risky. Can't imagine you'd chose to do it on a regular basis, unless child is a whole lot more placid than mine.

Bit weird, but I can't get excited about it......

But then I climbed in both pregnancies, so am obviously utterly irresponsible and should be ignored

In reply to Carolyn:

Shouldn't that be you have been described as a passage that allows the movement of worthless unpleasant material to the outside world

Can't a mother who climbed during pregnancy start a new thread about this point. I understand why some mothers are careful (increasingly so as the term progresses) but the view expressed was pretty outrageous.

In reply to Carolyn:

If you went climbing with Simon whilst pregnant it probably *was* totally irresponsible given the 'tottering pile of choss' routes he seems to enjoy climbing....

In reply to Offwidth:

Shall I gather my troops first?

I think it just comes down to male pride. It's bad enough for some blokes to be outclimbed by a woman. An obviously pregnant one is so much worse

Does make chimneys mighty awkward, mind.

In reply to Carolyn: did'nt realise women climbed hard stuff ? (just putting on my crash helmet)

In reply to colina:

Nah, we don't - but we do climb harder than most blokes with supersized egos!

In reply to Neil Williams:

Most pregnant mums resort to full body harnesses.
Babies are tucked inside a protective bag of amniotic fluid, surrounded by a wall of muscle and fat, and a bag of skin.
Doctors recommend that you continue to exercise when pregnant.
A top-roped fall into a wall is no worse than falling over onto a floor.
Women shouldn't waterski when pregnant.

http://www.bodyresults.com/e2pregnancyexercise.asp
http://www.pregnancy.org/question/can-i-continue-indoor-rock-climbing-throu...

In reply to Carolyn: nice one !

In reply to the disappearing post from Rockcat:

Maybe people are not so concerned with the BBC report because it is a lot more balanced than the Mail's (and many climbers posting here)? The Mail are not messengers, they are proselytising.

In reply to Offwidth:

The BBC post for reference

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-16812023

In reply to Anonymous:

CALLUM?

In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King:

It's "an ARSEHOLE", get your grammar right.

Oh, and it's you who is acting as an arsehole.

In reply to myth:

Hey UCK could run a story on this: Clots With Tots

In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King:

Maybe they should stop driving and travelling in cars too?

In reply to Formerly Known as Pylon King:

Do feel free to speak you mind sir, come on, don't hold back behind that facade of deference, humility and politeness....

In reply to liz j:

Who would we have left to moan about for bad driving......















...if arseholes stopped.

And if anyone is still interested, here is the route in question - check out Menna's note.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=8344

In reply to JonC: Does the comment O/S stand for 'On Sight' or 'On Smack'

E

In reply to Goucho: "On Shoulders"

In reply to JonC:

Thanks for that, as I know it. The route is a Mod slabby staircase. To invert or similar on something like this on a TR would require trying quite hard. Never mind the baby though she does TR onsights grrrr.

In reply to myth: If I ever hump a baby into my goose I shall insist that it is taken climbing, walking and if possible fell running as soon as it can clamber, toddle and fall over.

Not before.

R