UKC

Having recently climbed Eroica at Pentire in damp conditions, I wholeheartedly condone the actions of the far sighted individual that placed a bolt in the start of the second pitch to prevent a fall onto the belay ledge, or worse still the potential fall factor 2 onto the belay.

The placing of a stainless steel staple bolt was a far more sensible solution than the replacement of the rusty aid peg with another that would have gone the same as the others and rusted away within a few years. Kudos to the individual responsible.

In reply to ally smith:

Hmm, so this has been here for half an hour, and has neither generated a firestorm, nor suggestions that you are trolling. What is wrong with UKC today?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Thinking precisely the same thing. Like seeing the grenade coming over the wall, but nothing happens!

In reply to ally smith: good news imo

In reply to ally smith: I hope they did something about the start of Darkinbad while they were there - I'd quite like to do it but don't fancy breaking my legs.

In reply to ally smith:

You are spouting utter codswallop, how is a factor two fall going to be worse than falling onto a ledge from any significant height?!

In reply to EddInaBox: I heard you got a fridge?

In reply to EddInaBox:


... if the factor-two fall ripped the belay it would be worse.

In reply to ally smith:

Chinny reckon

In reply to EddInaBox:

Because the belay is not the best and a factor 2 fall directly onto it has the potential to result in complete failure as a worse case scenario.

In reply to EddInaBox:

You'll probably break your legs in that situation too, with the potential that you might knacker your mate up too (rope burn etc) and neither of you be able to get off the wall without an epic. that's why i consider it worse.

In reply to Southern Man: Sorry, it's true. Still felt E4 with the new bolt, and pushing Eng 6b, but that was probably down to the minging conditions last weekend.

In reply to ally smith:

Well good effort getting on Pentire in this shit down here, I've barely got out of my door for all the floods and torrential rain.

There's gonna be some sh*t storm over this one I reckon if it really is true.

In reply to ally smith:
I think the only ethically sound action would be to replace like for like. Of course I don't mean put another broken rusty peg in there, just replace it with a new one. It would last more then a few years surely, and crucially, it would not permanently alter the character of the route for every other budding ascensionist. It's been like that for long enough, so what gives anybody the right to go in there and apply a different set of ethics all of a sudden?
I climbed it a few months back with only the small wires above the belay and yes it was terrifying and not a particularly fun experience. However, it didn't for once second occur to me that the answer was to place a bolt! I think I'd rather never climb a route like that if I wasn't prepared to accept its challenges, rather than place a bolt next to a rusty peg!

In reply to Nige M:

Though now the peg is gone the better way to do it is extend the first pitch and continue until after the crux, belaying at a reasonable stance at the bottom of the final corner. Meaning if you come off the crux you're faced with a long but safe fall down the wall with lots of rope stretch for a soft catch.

Will be very p'd off if the OP isn't trolling.

In reply to ally smith:

If that's true, you complete and utter wuss!

In reply to chris j: 90% of the holds were damp, with the remainder being soaking wet! I think we'd have bailed after the 1st pitch if there hadn't of been a shiney bolt to clip.

It's never gonna be E4 in the dry, but was desperate in the damp. The rising traverse into the corner still felt bold passed another old manky peg, and even the top corner was no pushover.

Keen to go back in drier weather and do Darkinbad, which truely was piss wet last weekend (we escaped North again on sunday evening just as the torrential rain was arriving).

In reply to Coel Hellier:

He carrying it on well though - no-one really believes him though....or do they?

In reply to Coel Hellier and Nige M:

If the belay rips then it's no longer a factor two fall.

In reply to EddInaBox:

Goes down to factor zero then. Which must be better.

In reply to ally smith:

This cannot be true

In reply to Bulls Crack:


I can assure you that Ally is an utterly credible person.

Mick

In reply to ally smith:

I've never done the route, but this is utterly disgusting if it is true. So the peg has gone, then get bolder/better if you want to do the route. Bolting the bold section of a trad route is totally bang out of order, and if i lived down there i'd be out chopping asap. Raise yourself to the level of the route, don't bring the route down to your level, what exactly is so hard to grasp about that?

In reply to Mick Ward:

OK Apologies Ally but credible or not do really think you think a bolt here is a good idea?

Replacing a peg on an ultra classic trad route on a trad cliff - this goes beyond any retrobolting that's ever been done before.

The peg on Eroica has been useless for years but no-ones felt the need to replace it.

BMC matter I think.

In reply to ally smith: Seriously?
Personally I'd have more respect for someone who didn't replace the peg with anything; and walked away accepting that the route is too bold/dangerous for them.
I haven’t climbed Eroica yet – I need to get fitter, stronger and find the bollocks...
A bolt might be more sustainable than continually replacing the peg, but what was wrong with leaving it un-replaced?

In reply to bomb:

Although I agree with your sentiments (having done the route and also living 'down there'), don't you think you're arguing from ignorance considering what you have admitted above?

In reply to ally smith: Sounds like a good idea to me. After all it's only some manky sea cliff that no-one ever climbs. Replacing a bust peg with a long-lasting bolt so others can enjoy the route with the appropriate protection level is spot on IMHO.

Andy F

In reply to ally smith: Actually, respect if you managed the crux in the pissing wet as it was bad enough when I seconded it in slightly salty conditions last year.

I was planning to go back and lead it next year so will not be a happy camper if the bolt is in place as I was looking forward to testing myself against the run-out (& probably wetting myself and backing off...).

In reply to andy farnell:

A sub-troll?

In reply to duncan b:

No, read the rest of my post!

In reply to bomb: If this really is true it stinks. This really is the thin end of the wedge from someone with no balls. I did the route a while ago with no peg and it was no tougher than many other soft E4s and I didn't think the belay was so bad. If it really exists it needs sawing off!!!

In reply to ally smith:

This is a complex issue. A bolt makes it much more like it was 10 years ago, and I assume as it was for many years: E1/2 with one point of aid. So it preserves the original route. With no bolt people tell me it is E4.

Now I'm no great fan of bolts, or of pegs and would happily pull pegs from most routes before they rust to stumps. But if I was to head to Chudleigh tomorrow and pull all the replacement pegs there, some might not be so happy. Most of the routes there with pegs would only again a single grade.

So do we try and keep routes similar to how they were, or when things look rusty or when we admit grades have improved, do we go for better style and remove the pegs.

I don't have an answer, but personally I don't like just letting things rust and being more of a hazard than they need to be.

In reply to ally smith:

A manky peg replaced by a bolt sounds like a good idea to me, I despise the pegs = ok, bolts = bad argument.

In reply to David Coley: Hi Dave

A really glib reply to that would be "can I then go and place bolts on the belay on Dreadnaught above the great cave to replace the rusted stumps of the pegs there?" (the belay there scares the pants off me and is the only thing stopping me from going back on the route...)

Not something I'm going to do given the trad ethic of the crag, but if we look to keep routes similar as things rust then that would be an option, no?

There was a thread on pegs on the Culm coast back in late 2008 ( http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=333619 ) which from a quick scan of it expressed a hope fixed gear would rot and not be replaced if alternatives exist and a fixed gear-free ethic would emerge (to quote Iain Peters). It will be a great shame if an unidentified culprit feels they can ignore that sentiment without any discussion. The route is still eminently do-able without the peg (12 ascents in the logbooks in the last 18 months) and possibly a more aesthetic prospect. And after all, aren't we all in it at least partly for the challenge and to try and do things in the best style we can?

Cheers

Chris

In reply to chris j:

Basically agreed.

But then please can I be allowed to pull pegs before they rot? My hammer is ready.

In reply to ally smith:

If it wasn't a 16 hour round trip, i would go down and take the bolt out myself. Whoever does take it out please make a neat job of it, it's a beautiful cliff, it would be a shame to have messy bolt stubs all over the place.

Sure it's an unbalanced route with the bold section, but if you want long well protected e2ish routes it's not as though there's a massive shortage.

In reply to ally smith:

In reply to ally smith:

Good grief. What's the matter with people? I still think you can't be serious.

jcm

In reply to Misha:

I've never trusted the cams there since I seconded the first pitch, got to the belay pumped out of my mind, clipped the nearest large cam and sat on it. It promptly ripped and I was left dangling just about level with the top of the cave! Luckily there was 4 or 5 other pieces in the belay. Any thoughts I had of leading the second pitch vanished instantly and I spent my time on the belay ledge trying to put as little weight on the gear as possible and eyeing each piece of gear in turn for any sign of movement...

In reply to bomb:

I have. Maybe I wasn't being very clear. The point I was trying to make, perhaps not very well is that these kind of threads tend to come up from time to time. Someone posts 'bolt placed on route x at crag y'. Then usually a number of people come along and say 'I haven't done route x, or even been to crag y (I don't know if this is true or not in your case) but I think the bolt should be chopped', or words to that effect. The fact is these people have no knowledge of the route, its character before the bolt, how this is effected by the bolt etc, but still think that they are totally justified in their conclusion.

In reply to Toby Dunn:

What Toby said.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Android, moonchild chapel head.
It always was useless.

Fancy a pint?

In reply to duncan b:

Why would you have to have been on a particular route to be aware of current ethics, or even to hold a valid opinion ?

In reply to ally smith:

If this is true, then I will be down there ASAP and remove the bolt as carefully as possible. Can we as a climbing community not agree that the natural sea cliffs of Devon and Cornwaall should remain bolt-free? Think of the outcry there would be if bolts were to appear on natural grit.

I accept that the first ascents of both Eroica and Darkinbad were not ethically 'pure' but over the years both have become iconic symbols of what climbing in the region is all about. To suggest that the Great Wall at Pentire is just a scrubby, unpopular seacliff is risible.

I have climbed Eroica both with and without the original pegs, and, yes the crux moves are scary and yes the potential fall could result in injury but dealing with that is what adventure climbing is all about.

In reply to Iain Peters:

Well said Iain. Get the ridiculous item out. The peg wasn't in it when I did it about 15 years ago. It should be given E3 (without the peg), and is hardly out of character with everything else on the crag.

All this leads to the obvious conclusion that you shouldn't put pegs in sea cliffs in the first place.

In reply to idc:

Yeah - Androids got that old boat at the start - are there more? Got a new mobile too - I'll send you the number

In reply to duncan b:

>The fact is these people have no knowledge of the route, its character before the bolt, how this is effected by the bolt etc, but still think that they are totally justified in their conclusion.

It's a sea-cliff classic climbed by Pat Littlejohn 40 years ago and done without bolts thousands of times since. I don't see what else you'd need to know.

jcm

In reply to Bulls Crack:

>Android, moonchild chapel head.

Neither an ultra-classic route nor a trad cliff, to be fair.

jcm

In reply to duncan b:


In this case its a classic route and I'm sure many of the people posting have done the route. As someone who is no way anti bolt (and mainly sports climbs these days) I have to say that, if true, this bolt is ridiculous and should be removed asap. The great wall at Pentire is a magnificent cliff both in large scale appearence and on the small scale of perfect rock to climb on and I can't see any justification at all for bolts.

And, yes, I have climbed the route, did it free at the time when the peg was hanging on as a pretty useless piece of rust.

In reply to ally smith: So, the question is, who placed the bolt? Surely this is not some random event - whoever did it should admit their action and explain their motivations.

In reply to ally smith:

why don't we prevent further damage and leave the bolt in place..

Or can we set a chopping date so I can go and try it first?

In reply to ally smith: I think maybe the bolt has a place there. Without it, its an unbalanced route HVS, E4, E1. Leave it in. Just dont let it be a 'thin end of the wedge' thing. The two big E5s are superb and well balanced and best left for sure.

In reply to ally smith: I don,t normally get involved in these debates but have just found out about the Eroica issue from MR Kembal and am just completly gobsmacked! a bolt on the Great wall!! this is possably one of the best and most stunning pieces of rock in britain its an absolute sin, get it chopped Iain.
I have climbed it many times even roped solo, the peg does not need replacing with anything, their are good small wires just off the belay to reduce fall factor or you can extend the pitch and belay in the corner.
The new rockfax guide states it is E4 without the peg,its an adventurous sea cliff climb please do it justice, accept the challange,get better or go and play somewhere else, lets fight for our sea cliffs to remain bolt free, their are plenty of places to clip bolts, long live adventure.

In reply to Alex Mason: Gosh, bolts on sea cliffs, that's a wee bit cheeky!!!
You do have a valid point though.

Rather people getting on their high horse with their staunch brit ethics and removing the bolt, it should be discussed at a local BMC meet - probably to be removed. However, at least this would be a democratic process.

People that take it unto them selves to remove bolts are just pleasing their own views. Just as the person that placed it.

In reply to Alex Mason:

I don't really see what 'balance' got to do with it? Do you want to seek out every 'unbalanced ' route in the country and 'normalise it? When does it start to become unbalanced? The first pitch is nearer E1 anyway and the next E3

In reply to sebrider:

I shall remove it - if, in fact it exists - and very soon, because the vast majority who choose to climb on natural seacliffs whether in Cornwall, Lundy, Pembroke or Anglesey hold the view that bolts have no place in these superb and wild settings.

There is excellent and challenging granite sport climbing available a short drive away at Cheesewring Quarry, and the people who created these routes include some of the most talented trad climbers in the southwest. I'm sure they would be appalled at this act of mindless desecration.

How anyone can consider that a route with a truly memorable 5A move on its first pitch, a 6A crux followed by a technical 5B section and a 5A crack - all in a magnificent position - is 'unbalanced' is beyond me and can only assume that he must find himself being continually disappointed wherever he climbs.

In reply to Ian Patterson:

I'm not sure what you are replying to here, but maybe I'm being a slow today! Just to be clear, I think the bolt should be chopped. What I was getting at with my 'people who haven't climbed the route' comment, was something like Alex mason's argument that having the bolt would make Eroica a more balanced route. Alex knows this because he has first hand experience of the route. This in my opinion gives his argument more weigh then someone coming along and saying, 'I've not done the route but .....'.

In reply to Iain Peters:
Iain,
If you are going to remove the bolt, and I think you should, is it ok for me to remove any and all pegs on sea cliffs in the region if and when I find them?

In reply to sebrider:

Hardly, given the current BMC policy is no bolts on Cornish sea cliffs (pending the vote on Carn Vellan). There should be no problem whatsoever with removing it.

In reply to David Coley:

Hi David,

My own view, and I have in the past placed more than a few pegs on Cornish seacliff first ascents, is that they should be removed and not replaced particularly where natural gear is available. Rusting stumps are an eyesore and potentially dangerous, but I guess it will be a gradual process and much hot air will be generated here and elsewhere. The missing peg on Eroica is a good example of the way forward.

That said many of the local climbers who are putting up new routes on the ND &C coast place pegs where there is no other protection. Dave Birkett's major new line on Dyer's Lookout is a prime example. If you can do any of these routes without pegs I and they would support your actions in removing them.

As for me, still trucking after all these years on new rock, I am now a completely reformed character!

In reply to ally smith: The example of strange little girl at wintours leap having 2 bolts on the crux sections(s) and still being a great TRAD route makes me think that people should type less and go and climb more. If you disagree with the bolt dont clip it, your choice. Most weekend climbers wont deal with the E4 5c grade, so cant really be offended if they're not looking it in the face and ignoring it.

Strangely the bolt(s) on strange little girl got chopped by local activists quite a few years back, then they got put back (by the same people i think) by popular demand.

Its a strange old game this climbing thing.

Bolt choppers get a grip, its not big and its not clever.

Cheers
Dave

In reply to ally smith:
Is the bolt really there?? I just find this a bit unbelievable. The route was fine with out it. I choose to carry on past the belay and then belay after the crux. No problem doing his and saved any issues falling onto the belay. was about E3 doing this. I did see it as E4 in the new south west guide which is a joke.( grade not the guidebook)

In reply to dave frost:

With respect Dave you're missing the point here: virtually every bolt that has been placed on a natural English or Welsh seacliff has been chopped and not replaced. That is an ethical decision agreed by the majority of those who climb on them. There are the odd exceptions, but not for long I reckon.

Strange Little Girl may well be a great trad route with or without the bolts, but Wintours Leap (Cheddar, Avon etc etc) are hardly, even in these days of rising sea levels and melting icecaps, seacliffs and that is my point. Stanage and natural grit enjoy a bolt-free ethos, supported by the majority, why not our seacliffs?

And no-one opposing this bolt on Eroica is trying to be 'big or clever'. As an aging and often less than a weekend climber myself I certainly don't wish to be patronised by others arbitrarily deciding that a route should be reduced to a grade that I can climb comfortably and certainly not one of the stature and history of Eroica - or Dreadnought for that matter, an equally majestic route and years ahead of its time when first climbed.

In reply to duncan b:

I see where you're coming from but people surely can have perfectly valid opinions on whether to bolt or not bolt a classic trad route such as this whether they've done it or not. I've done Eroica but haven't done Scrittos Republic say but I'd definitely have a view on whether to bolt it or not!

In reply to dave frost:

Come on, try a bit harder! Wintours is one of those unusual situations where bolts, pegs and trad gear are all mixed together and you'll probably encounter at least two out of the three on most routes there. Hardly comparable to the predominant ethic on the north cornwall coast...

In reply to dave frost:

Dave, i could not disagree with you more. As you say (or i understand from hay you say) fewer people will be able to do Eroica without anything fixed on the crux. If they want to climb it, then they should become better. The shit peg was an illusion of safety anyway, for those that freed it clipping it. You must know as well as i do that it not the same climbing a route 'ignoring' bolts as it is climbing it with out them.
In this case: bolt chopping: big perhaps not; clever, well demanding of a certain skill perhaps; but the right thing to do? Yes.

In reply to Toby Dunn: Chop it, chop it, chop it!!!

In reply to ally smith:

I cant believe that anyone is giving even tacit support to retaining this bolt, or suggesting that a BMC meeting is required to decide its fate.

This is unequivocally an adventure climbing destination, not somewhere where we shape the climbs to match our sensibilities. Does anyone think for one moment that this would meet with the approval of the FA?

Ken Wilson was right, there is a thin end of the wedge, and its evident in certain replies on this thread. To me this is way more of an affront to British ethics than creating sport-only crags in appropriate areas or isolated bolts on mixed-ethic venues. Seethe.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead: Was it originally done using this peg?

If so, there's no problem replacing it with a bolt to minimise damage to the route.

In reply to Calum Nicoll:

No, adding a peg is creating more damage. Nobody's talking about replacing the peg like-for-like, but leaving the route as it is without either as a bold E4. Neither E4s, nor bold routes are exactly a rarity on the north coast, so why does this route need to be an exception?

Basically, whoever has done this is a complete coward - leaving it until the end of the summer before bolting it and probably assuming it wouldn't be rumbled until next summer. If they thought it was going to be popular why not got on it mid July?

Being a local, I'd love to do Eroica and love to do it with a margin of safety, but a margin gained from working up to the grade, not artificially thanks to some impatient driller who can't be arsed to invest the same time and effort as everyone else.

In reply to Southern Man:

Exactly.


I got the impression that that was what was planned, pegs good bolt bad.

In reply to Southern Man: I agree fully, and although I am not good enough at the moment I like to have amazing classics of higher grades to aspire to. The question remains, who is going to remove the bolt? Is it feasible to remove it?

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

It's an affront to your ethics not to British ethics, as I'm British and I'm all for sensible bolting.

'thin end of the wedge' should be on the banned phrases.

no offence intended, I'm just tired of hearing it.

In reply to Calum Nicoll:

Hi Calum.

Sorry, just got up! I meant adding a bolt is creating more damage as the peg itself is unlikely to be placed. Some general consensus seemed to have been reached (on here at least) that the peg wouldn't be replaced and that the grade would go up accordingly. Undeniably, this has to be an improvement in the ethic of the route over either a bolt or like-for-like replacement.

In reply to MattG:

Iain Peters said he's going to remove it above; I would think he will.

In reply to Southern Man:
If he does'nt I will!

In reply to franksnb:


Ok then, lets replace it with middle of the wedge. You'll be hearing this phrase much more in future.

E

In reply to Calum Nicoll:


There's no problem doing the route without a bolt or replacing the peg either, you just have to be slightly braver. The route's been without this peg for probably two years now and seen plenty of ascents in this time. There is no pressing reason to replace the peg like-for-like or with a bolt.

In reply to ally smith:

So where is the debate about WHO placed it !?

Or is that common knowledge locally?

Is it the phantom chipper?

Does you-know-who have an alibi?

In reply to Iain Peters:

I see from your 1988 North Devon and Cornwall guide book, Eroica is described as one of the sea cliff classics of Britain, low in the grade ! (E2) , where "judicious use of the crucial peg will enable the spectacular situation to be enjoyed in comparative comfort".

Is there no case for leaving the bolt in if it enables the route to be climbed as described rather than a bold E4 ?

In reply to franksnb:

Do you think it's sensible to place a bolt on a classic route, in the heart of an area where the ethic is adventure climbing on traditional gear (and rotting pegs), where the current policy agreed at BMC area meetings is no bolts on sea cliffs?

Most of these routes were put up with a mixture of trad gear and pegs, many years ago when the gear wasn't anything like as good as it is today. Since then the ethic has been to remove points of aid and when pegs have rotted away they generally have not been replaced where modern gear has allowed reasonable alternatives. Sometimes this leads to an increase in grade, sometimes it doesn't. How can anyone possibly think (not aiming this at you frank) that it is a positive step to place a bolt in the middle of the Great Wall at Pentire? If this is actually accepted then it becomes a precedent for replacing any rotting pegs with a bolt - anyone out there for bolts on Matchless, Diamond Smile, Fay, Dreadnaught...?

In reply to chris j: Did Eroica and Dreadnought this summer, and yes Eroica was mighty scary in its pegless state, but fantastic as was Dreadnought. The belay on Dreadnought was not great but with many placements in admittedly soft rock, I think I had 3 cams at least (and there are pegs as I remember). If we were to start placing bolts where belays were not so good then there would be a lot of bolts in Gogarth, and rows of bolts on every winter route in the country(lets face how good is a lightly trampled patch of sloping snow)! So be prepared to be scared or go sport climbing, or stick to indoor climbing where we can put up routes we can do. Outdoors we need to get better, not make the routes easier. So.....chop the bolt.

In reply to philhilo: Further thought - when I first tried Mousetrap it had a peg on the first pitch (1982?). When I did it in 199? it had gone, it was bolder but well within my grade so it made little difference. Should someone go and put a bolt in Mousetrap? I think not.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

True Jim, and I'm sure I'm not the first guidebook author who has to eat his words! However, at the time, it was a reasonably accurate statement. Twenty years on, it no longer applies. All this guff about maintaining a grade or the original style of the FA is a total red herring, you only have to look at the aid reductions on Gogarth and in The Pass to understand that climbing is an evolutionary sport, viz the furore over the bolt on The Boldest, placed to prevent a "Death Factor" fall!

The simple fact is that Eroica in its peg/bolt free state is a benchmark seacliff E3/4, and a route to aspire to for any leader operating at that grade.

Come this Wednesday, I shall be at Pentire with the necessary equipment to remove the bolt with as little damage to the rock as possible and will post here if and when the job's done.

Judging by the emails I have received this will not be an arbitrary act by one selfish individual (unlike the anonymous person who placed it) but approved by the majority of those who have already climbed the route or who would like to climb it.

In reply to Calum Nicoll:

I think that's missing the point. Eroica is a classic route with a famous crux (both technical and psychological) that requires some judgement. When I did it (a very long time ago), there was a very bendy peg above the stance, which I was far from convinced would take a fall. I chose to (carefully) stand on it so that I could reach a good (if small) wire placement slightly further up. This clipped, I went down to the stance and then climbed it free (which, to be honest, wasn't as hard as I'd been expecting).

Not a perfect lead by today's standards, but I solved the problem at a level of risk I was comfortable with. In any case, using a point of aid was the norm, so actually, I was pretty pleased with myself. My point is that, even with the poor state of the in situ peg, it never occurred to me that a bolt was necessary at a time when I was leading E2. The hard section is pretty short and to remove all risk is to completely change the character of the route. If a bolt is to be placed anywhere (and I'm not saying it should), surely making the belay bombproof would be the more logical solution?

In reply to Iain Peters:

Iain, firstly i dont want anyone to think im saying the bolt should stay, chop it.

The things is that there are also good examples of these problems escalating. Im sure you know a lot more than me about the problems in cornwall with bolts being choped and replaced quite a lot and a lot of damage being caused.

I can only come at this from the point of view of the crags i spend most time at (the wye). I suppoed i have to accept a lack of judgement in that they are quite unique, and many of the routes would simply not be possible without the fixed gear.... Firefly for example.

Anyway, i hope it goes well, beware sport climbers bearing gifts.

Dave

In reply to Iain Peters:

>
>


Nice one.

Whilst you are there, have a really good look at where the old peg(s) used to be and see if a replacement could/would fit or if any kind of nut would go in thereabouts.

Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Why?

In reply to Calum Nicoll:

Why? Because I would be interested to know if the old rusty stumps completely block the crack or not, and I am a thousand miles away. As he is passing by he could have a good look at it - tricky on the sharp-end on a bold E4.


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs: Why would you want to know if another peg would fit it?

In reply to Calum Nicoll:

I just told you, I am interested.


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs: the black diamond swedges fit in all sort of places, and are now apparently quite strong in comparison to other micro wires ... i would also be interested.

Cheers
Dave

In reply to everyone:

It seems that no one has thought to ask Pat Littlejohn his views – whether he approves the placement, whether he would have preferred it not to have been placed but thinks removal may not be for the long term good, or whether he would like it removed immediately. A first ascensionist does not own a route, but where his achievements and integrity are held in the high regard they are in this case, and where the route, especially such an iconic one, was first climbed fully within the spirit and ethos of its time, his wishes must count for something. Some of us may think we can guess what they would be (though we may be wrong), but if declared they could lend authority to any action (or inaction) that was decided upon and help to prevent further tit for tat, inevitably destructive consequences. To the latter there always two losers (the rock and the rest of us) and no winners.

In reply to Iain Peters: I find it hard to believe that Pentire Head has been retro-bolted but then these bolts/threads are cropping up more and more frequently. Please remove it, thank you.

In reply to Removed UserJohn Willson:

Yes John: Pat and I discussed this about 2 years ago and his view, as you might expect, was firmly against replacing the peg with a bolt. In fact the Eroica peg has been the subject of many a pub and hut debate over the years. The stance I have taken (and subsequent action) is based not on any BMC resolution but on the opinions gained from talking to many climbers, as well as those expressed on forums such as this one.

I agree with you that a prolonged tit for tat with the bolt being removed and replaced would not be in anyone's interests, but the fact remains that this bolt (as with many others on Cornish granite) was placed anonymously and provocatively. I can only repeat my contention that were this on a popular grit outcrop the perpetrator would probably suffer greater injuries than those sustained by a Factor 2 fall!

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Hi Chris. In fact Pat even talked about this as a solution (see my reply to John Willson). He wondered whether the stub could be carefully drilled out. I'll know a bit more later this week, but have the feeling that as the original placement was always marginal (I made a reasonably early repeat in the 70s and it was well dodgy, body weight only then), taking a drill to it would exacerbate the damage. I reckon the best solution is for those who want to climb Eroica, and the route should be on many people's hit list, is to get good and confident enough to lead it at that grade or just admire it from afar!

In reply to Iain Peters: Iain, it would be really useful to get an honest and solid suggestion of the grade, as some people have suggested that the recent guidebooks may be wrong. So no peg, and no bolt, and maybe no micro wires (probably too tiring to place anyway). What would the honest grade be ? Something other than E3/4 5c/6a as it seems that, like me, its on a lot of peoples lists, and added to that Dave Birkett has already suggested in his recent article, its the best E3 in the country!

Actually, given the original guidebooks suggestion of using the peg, some tips about micros etc would not go a miss ... just in case there may be something and we might not be to tired and shaky to get a little-un in.

Cheers
Dave

In reply to ally smith: If the bolt is being removed, the peg should be too, at the same time.

In reply to dave frost:

I got a smallish wire (rock 1?) behind the peg jammed against the rusting metal in the crack (that may be gone now?) - cant' remember what else I got - and I seem to recall (it's all a bit hazy) that it's not a bad position?

In reply to dave frost:

A tricky one Dave. For my money it's a solid E3 5c and towards the top end of the grade, but I do know Mark Glaister consulted extensively for his Rockfax guide. Dave Birkett's opinion about the route's quality would be shared by many even if it's "unbalanced"!

Hopefully by the time the next definitive guide goes to print there will be a consensus on both grade and gear.

In reply to Iain Peters:


This 'unbalanced' thing': so many good and great British routes have distinct cruxes - due to the hetergeneuos nature of our rock types/weathering, trad ethic etc - and some may see this as a lack of continuity. Personally, I think its often the defining quality for a climb.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Some prat who'll never come forward of course, as usual.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Clearly. But was it:

(a) Someone prepping the crux for their own flawed ascent?

or

(b) Someone evangalistically deciding how future ascents should be undertaken?

Whichever, they surely cant have expected it to stay.

In reply to everyone:
This has only come about because we have not taken a proactive stance to remove all fixed gear from UK sea cliffs and regrade accordingly, but let things rot. If I remember correctly such a stance was taken in Pembroke. I suggest lower sharpenose is first on the list. Maybe Iain would have the time to start on Wednesday as well.

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

Or possibly someone making it easier for their clients to follw?

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Ooooh Mark! Now there's a thought. But surely not...

In reply to Mark Kemball:


How does a protection bolt do that?

One rarely (if ever) sees guided ascents of this kind of route.

In reply to ally smith:
Has anyone else seen this bolt???

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

The client can pull on it.


I wouldn't say that...

But I do think Mark is maybe being rather mischievous.

In reply to jon: The very thought!

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

Simple; just leave a long sling on it. In the bad old days there was usually some fraying tat within easy reach. The bolts on Voie De La Demande in the Verdon were placed so that the local guides could double their daily income by getting their clients up as fast as possible

In reply to ally smith:
Hopefully all will be revealed on Wednesday, and I'll take my camera along.

To David Coley: an admirable sentiment, and hopefully the amount of rotting ironmongery will be reduced. I'll get back to Matchless soon and remove the peg (which I placed on the first ascent...mea culpa) with no change in grade, but popular middle grade routes such as Crimtyphon at Compass Point will definitely become much more serious propositions, and LBJ at Bosigran, firmly in the classic VS list will probably creep up to HVS, if and when the pegs go.

However John Willson's points made further up this thread regarding the historical context and the integrity of the first ascensionists are valid. Gary Gibson removed most of his own bolts on Lundy as a direct result of peer group pressure.

Perhaps the person who placed the bolt on Eroica (if indeed it is there) would like to meet me at Pentire on Wednesday morning for a friendly discussion, or even better reveal him/herself and their reason on this forum?

In reply to ally smith:

This all reminds me of another bolt I saw on the north coast very recently, on Perran Sands of all places.

For anyone who knows the beach they'll know of the huge gut with enormous and scary perched blocks about a third of the way along east from Perranporth.

High up of the right wall of this gut (facing in) there is a bolt (and hanger) with a bit of tat hanging off of it.

The cliff is basically a death trap and the sort of place you could imagine some mentalists aiding way back when, but this bolt looks newish.

It weird that there's just the one too, like someone's set of on some sort of diabolical trad mission, but taken a Hilti along just in case.

Anyone shed any light?

In reply to Calum Nicoll:
Seem to recall thiking it would be possible to place a knifeblade next to or instead of the existing stubs. That would be acceptable as it would be like-for-like, though, as others have said, there's also the argument that fixed gear should not be replaced in view of rising standards. A bolt isn't the same as a peg as it's much more reliable and is placed in a blank piece of rock.

In reply to franksnb:

Would you mind expanding on your definition of sensible bolting? Does adding a bolt to take the spice out of a classic line on a fantastic trad crag count as sensible, particularly as it's very easy to bail from the crux if you don't fancy it? Where next, bolting bold grit slabs and run out slate routes?

I'm all for sensible bolting - at sport crags.

In reply to philhilo:
If, as you say, it's anything like Red Wall, a bolt would probably be pretty pointless as it would just rip out in a fall, along with a good chunk of the vertical cheese!

In reply to franksnb:


Me too, but this isnt sensible bolting.


You're right, the phrase is used to describe an act which is of limited harm in itself but which opens the door for worse to come. Clearly this is more serious and would be better described, as Enty said, as the middle of the wedge.

In reply to Misha:


It's a little bit different than Red Wall

In reply to Iain Peters:

I agree. I did it in the early Eighties and my (fading) memory is of hooking a wire over the sub of an old blade peg and using it gently to reach better holds just above. IMHO a bolt in it is a travesty!

Chris

In reply to Iain Peters:

Hi Iain

I would have thought that if the first two pitches were climbed (described) as one then that would remove the serious fall factor risk and make the climb a much better experience for the second. In my opinion, there would be no need for the bolt (or a new peg).

Steve Crowe

In reply to Steve Crowe:

Agree, and that's how it will be described in the next guide. Just the grade needs agreeing now. Mark Glaister stands by his E4 in Rockfax, I'm top end E3 but willing to be convinced!

In reply to Iain Peters:

Hi Iain i agree with E3 But definatly 6a, well I am short!

(just dropped you an email)

Has anyone actually seen this bolt yet (apart from the OP) ?

In reply to ally smith: What we really have to ask is. "How would the first ascentionist (sp?) feel about the bolt being placed?"
I wouldn't know either which way but surely it should be how they'd feel about a bolt being placed that decides whether it stays or gets chopped.

In reply to Dangerous Dave 123:


No, it isn't. If bolts are not acceptable in an area, then the first ascensionist shouldn't be able to simply override this.

In reply to Dangerous Dave 123:


Already discussed in the thread I believe - very much against!


Chris

In reply to David Coley:


The policy is against all new fixed gear isn't it? The bolt in Eroica (and I can't really still believe this isn't an elaborate troll) is new and represents as I understand it an upgrade against a peg that was never that good in the first place.

A replacement peg in Eroica would have been debatable and most people would probably have thought it a retrograde step. A bolt is fairly universally unacceptable hence the removal.

However while there are many pegs out there in an unreliable state, there are plenty more that are still servicable and, while the policy of not replacing them when they go is fair enough, there's no good reason at present to accelerate their demise. We have a situation at present where we accept the risk and back up where possible and I for one would rather have a reasonable-looking peg that is probably fine than a longer fall onto the next gear. I've fallen on more than my fair share of sea-cliff pegs and never had one rip yet, though I've generally avoided being in a position where the result would be dangerous. I've also had pegs crumble in my fingers, but you can tell to an extent what might or might not hold and a solid-looking kingpin is a thing of beauty when you're pumped! Just one more factor in the glorious trad game!

I'd suggest you'd want to be repeating and regrading lines peg-free before you go pulling gear which is currently OK.

In reply to Dangerous Dave 123:

So the question is, do we think Pat Littlejohn would be in favour of retrobolting classic routes on sea cliffs...?

If the excuse that the phantom bolter in this case is going to use is that he didn't think the first ascentionist would mind, he doesn't know much climbing history.

In reply to quadmyre:

Good post - arriving at an old peg on a UK sea cliff and having to make many decisions about it there and then - onsight - in a pumpy situation is one of the marvelous facets of UK trad climbing.
Please leave existing pegs to rot naturally and let me decide how good I think they are.

E

In reply to ally smith:

and all this not long after the Medwards debacle....i hope they can all get their lives back on track.

I've not read the whole thread but have done Eroica 3x including earlier this year. There is a reasonable rp 4 (or similar HB offset I think) placement in a peg scar near where the peg used to be. Pitch 2 is now E3/4 6a I'd say. Personally I'd against bolts on Pentire.

Dave

In reply to ally smith: I've argued the point for replacing old pegs with bolts in certain circumstances, but in this case I'm totally against the replacement. It's both unnecesary and out of character with the crag and the area.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

>If the excuse that the phantom bolter in this case is going to use.....

Don't be daft, Dave, he isn't going to use any excuse. He's just going to hide away like they always do.

jcm

In reply to ally smith:
....And so it goes on. Judging by the views expressed above and those at the weekend's BMC SW area meeting in Gloucester which I wasn't able to attend, I'm convinced that the consensus is against the bolt in Eroica. Am looking forward to Wednesday, and it seems that one or two of the past and present north coast devotees will also be there.

Ally: more than one have spoken up for your bona fide on the subject and I assume this is not just a mega wind-up. If it's not I realise that others do share your opinion, but I hope you understand that whoever placed this bolt was acting without any regard to the agreed ethos of the region. Speculation on who that individual might be is understandable but probably fruitless as they don't appear to have the balls to defend their action publicly or climb the route in its peg-free state.

In reply to Iain Peters: No one spoke up in favour of this bolt at the BMC SW meeting held last night in fact one or two were threatening to drive down today and remove it.

Al

In reply to Dave Garnett: ' do we think Pat Littlejohn would be in favour of retrobolting classic routes on sea cliffs...?'

I've always been puzzled as to how the bolts appeared in Cocytus at Anstey's Cove (together with an upgrade from E2 to E3).

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Fine by me. Just as long as they do it carefully; would hate to see the rock getting even more damaged.

Will probably go down anyway on Wednesday.

In reply to Iain Peters: I don't want to name names in public but the person involved is highly respected, involved with the BMC and well known to you.

Al

In reply to Iain Peters:

My understanding is that the crappy old peg wasvirtually useless for protection anyway and it was only of use to aid past the hard move, In fact ,I know a couple of people who did it free cos it was so rubbish they would'nt even trust body weight to it.

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

Well who was it then?

In reply to Dr Sidehead:

Isn't he referring to the people at the Gloucester meeting who were planning on chopping it today?

In reply to Southern Man:

Oh yes, probably

1. That depends on whether (a) you don't mind the rust, and (b) more importantly whether if the peg is removed before it rusts it might make a gear placement. Leaving a peg in just to rust seems the worst solution. If the peg had been removed from the route in question the scar might have made (I don't know) a slot for a very small rp, and although no good for leading it would still have generated the aid move that I expect most who have climbed it used. I would prefer if pegs were replaced and kept in a safe condition until it was decided to strip a route or crag.
2. I would never suggest anyone removes fixed gear unless they do the route without, on sight. Which counts me out for removing any of the pegs at Chudleigh I guess!

In reply to Gaston Rubberpants:

I take it that you must be referring to the individual who shares my intention to remove the offending object. Perhaps they could contact me direct so that there's no misunderstanding. Having phantom debolters makes life a little complicated!

In reply to John2:

Re Cocytus: I posted some ten years ago when I did the route and found them there. I was told they were put in by the local bolters when Empire and so forth were bolted and they were justified because there had been pegs before and the route was much better with them and all the usual stuff (and it was claimed there had been 'a local consensus'). I think then something was said about PL not being fussed, although I have an idea I once read something in a magazine which contradicted this. I think someone had taken them out once and someone else replaced them, maybe? Anyway, I never carried out my intention at the time of going and removing them, for one reason and another.

jcm

In reply to David Coley:

The problem with pegs on sea cliffs is that it is impossible to tell if it is solid unless you crack it with a hammer. In many cases the eye looks K but is attached to a mass of soft red rust in the crack.


Chris

In reply to John2:

The upgrade is a strange one.

In reply to Iain Peters:

Grade wise i'd say it is E4 6a now. I've done it a couple of times once recently after the peg had snaped.

I found it better to do it in 3 pitches to reduce the rope drag on the crux.

In reply to Chris Craggs:
Too true Chris, but Enty's point above about individuals using their own judgment is valid. I tend to treat fixed pegs, particularly on the less popular routes as an iron age precursor to Satnav - they show you one way to go but you might end up reversing for miles - extremely rapidly!

In reply to Iain Peters:

Of course, they often didn't used to get left in permanently but I guess the days of carrying pegs for use at agreed locations has gone completely by now. Are there any such placements left on the culm? Indeed, how common are fixed pegs now?

Some of my more exciting moments in Devon involve repeating routes without any real idea how many pegs had been present on the first ascent. Usually more than remained by the time I got there!

In reply to Iain Peters: YHM

Al

In reply to ally smith:

Lots of chat about the grade of the route - I thought it excellent fun and worth E4 - not many E4s have a hard 6a crux that far above the gear though you can go up and down and work it out slowly. I had a cluster of RPs near the old peg but they were all pretty rubbish. A bolt (if it exists, must be wind up surely!) takes all the fun out the route and makes it E2 6a.....

In reply to Chad123:

Sorry meant to say "not many E3s" not E4s....

In reply to Chad123:

so the guidebooks were wrong when they were describing this 40 year old climb as one of THE classic E2's in Britain(with the point of aid) !? - it seems a bit of a shame if the route (and cliff) can no longer be enjoyed at the E2 grade - the "highwater mark" grade of many/most ? climbers.

In reply to JimR:

This was my experience too. The peg was still there when I did it. I went up with the intention of using it for aid but when I took a good look at the state of it, I decided that discretion ... etc. I did clip the peg but had no real faith in it. I recall finding a reasonable RP placement close by though. For what it's worth, I actually found the technical 5b section after the crux to be more stressy than the crux itself.

Oh well, I really hope there's a bolt to actually remove once people get there this week. Watch this space, as they say ...

Dave

In reply to John2:


I think it went:

Done with pegs at E3 6a
Pegs dodgy
Pegs replaced with bolts
Bolts pulled
Bolts replaced, E2 6a
10 years pass
Rockfax guide comes out and gives it E3 6a

Or something like that?

In reply to quadmyre: I climbed it before the bolts were there at E2. I remember a dodgy peg and some reasonable wires. Next time I visited the crag it had two bolts and was given E3.

In reply to ally smith:
Today Dan Donavan and I both took a day off work to travel from Bristol to Pentire Head and remove the bolt on Eroica reported by Ally Smith. There is, and has been, no bolt on Eroica.
Scott Titt

In reply to scott titt:

Well, well, so troll after all. Unless you are trolling Scott?

In reply to scott titt:

"has been" - you've made it look like there has never been

or

"has been" - there never was

??

In reply to jon:
I do not troll.

In reply to richardh:
there never was
whatever you want

In reply to scott titt:

Blimey, hope you're charging expenses

In reply to scott titt:

<say Hi to Dan from me please Scott - not seen him for years>


E

In reply to scott titt:

I am surprised, but certainly not doubting what you say - please don't take this that way, but I've met(once I think) and emailed to / from Ally in the past and rather surprised that way too.

who knows what this is about at the end of the day ... a testing of the waters?

In reply to scott titt: Message to Scott and Dan: Thank you for taking this so seriously.

Message to Ally Smith: Grow up.

Al

In reply to scott titt:

So there we have it. Thanks Scott.

Ally: hope you enjoyed yourself.

At least we now know what most people think about the status of this superb route.

In reply to Iain Peters:

Or only of those who read and post on this forum. Is that really the view of most climbers?

In reply to scott titt:
My thanks to both of you for taking the time to go there with the intention of removing it had it existed.

In reply to scott titt:

Fair play to you and Dan for checking this out and trying to do the right thing.

To the OP, your profile states 'Trying to come to terms with not being able to climb every day after finishing a Chemistry PhD and "joining the real world...."'

Suggest you work a bit harder on 'joining the real world' and understanding that your actions have consequences. Sounds like your amusement has cost a couple of guys a days work and plenty of fuel.

Do you feel good about wasting the time and money of committed climbers?

In reply to ally smith:

Dear Mods,

If this is a troll then the OP's actions have led to two guys taking time off work, losing money and paying a decent amount of cash for fuel.

Will UKC be restricting this user from posting in future to save other people time and money?

In reply to TMM:


Sounds to me like a good old fashioned kicking is the order of the day, or if that sounds a bit extreme we could construct some stocks.
Certainly a permanent UKC banning at the very least.

In reply to most
Thanks for your thanks (I am sure Dan will join me in that).
I'm logging off now for some sofa time after a long day.
Scott

In reply to scott titt:

Unbelievable. The original post has troll written all over it but the good faith of the author seemed to have been vouched for by others; perhaps it was a joint effort. Whatever, definitely not big or clever.

I can only think the OP isn't used to being taken seriously. Maybe he'll just have to get used to it.

Anyway, thanks for your efforts. I think someone owes you some petrol money.

Best troll ever. Tickled all you armchair moralists just where it gets you going, and to such an extent that it never occurred to anyone to wonder (a) who is the OP and (b) a bolt on Eroica - really?
The two who actually drove down aren't merely armchair moralists, of course, and respect for that. But jeez guys - a bit of forethought maybe?

In reply to scott titt: Thank you for taking the time to sort this out.
Unfortunately, I no longer have the details of whichever user updated the description of Eroica - I emailed them for more info via ukc when moderating the route, but having updated the description, the system looses their details. Does UKC have any records of who this was, as it would seem that they too were in on the troll and should also be named and shamed.

I am about to suitably ammend the description and will also amend the grade to E4 as that seems to be the concensuss.

In reply to international:

Well, the user, now restricted it seems, has/had a full profile, has been active on threads such as Fit Club, and is known to ( I don't know him), a few on this thread, hence my surprise posted above.

I deplore wasting anyone's time and hate to think of anyone spending a day off work having to go and chop this - and this is not a justification for the OP's actions - but hasn't this thread reached a more definitive conclusion than $x rambling bolt debates on these forums in the past?

In reply to richardh:

I am following this up and have temporarily restricted Ally SMith. This is in an effort to get some response.

Alan

In reply to international:

1. Armchair moralists? Most of those who have contributed to this thread, whatever their opinion on the merits of a bolt to replace the peg, have actually climbed Eroica and recognize the route as one of the finest of its type in the country.

2. The OP was vouched for both on this forum and in private emails sent to me.

3. The placing of a bolt on the crux of Eroica has been mooted on many an occasion in the past by genuine, not armchair, climbers.

4. In the light of the above, not to mention the recent very real controversy over the chipping of gear placements at Lands End, I fail to see how "a bit of forethought" would have prevented people taking the OP seriously.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Ally Smith, whoever he is, was clearly experiencing some difficulty with life between 14:46 hrs and 16:16 hrs last Friday when he was insistent that a. he had climbed Eroica in damp conditions and b. reporting a new bolt on it.

He was entirely unrepentent of his dishonesty through this period. During the rest of Friday, the whole of the weekend and all today he has been completely silent. He could have halted his "joke" much earlier with less serious consequence.

At the BMC South West Region meeting in Gloucester last night the prospect of a bolt on Eroica was unaminously challenged which probably generated the gallant but futile trip by Scott Titt and Dan Donavan.

The behaviour of Ally Smith (a PhD graduate!) is immature, naive, perhaps infantile. His climbing log on this website suggests he achieves a lot of high grades but having experienced the Macallum episode at Gogarth I note that Ally Smith is somewhat sketchy about his dates and partners?

Pylon King suggested "we could construct some Stocks". Perhaps the best treatment would be to continue to allow Ally Smith full access to UK Climbing forums so that everyone can throw on-line tomatoes at him whenever he has the audacity to appear?

He could perhaps be excused some of this sentence by payment of a suitable fine that covers Scott and Dan's travel expenses and a substantial contribution to a suitable climbing related organisation.

In reply to TMM:
The weekend just passed has been reasonably dry here in the SW. As a result of the OP an E2 leader might well have seized the opportunity to get on the route thinking that the crux moves would be both aidable and well protected, so I reckon it's nil points for a childish and unnecessary hoax that is neither amusing nor clever.

As one not in the first flush of youth myself, I still have the occasional infantile lapse and as such I can empathise with Ally.. before the lynch mob gets carried away. We've all been guilty of a bit of ill judged humour sometimes and lets keep a sense of proportion .. nobody has died , there are no bolts on eroica and I would have thought the gallant Scott would have have paused before galloping off to tilt at windmills .. especially since there were folks a lot more local who were perfectly prepared to do the necessary.

In reply to Frank Cannings:


Given his name (well, either that, or one very much like it, but I am reasonably sure its the same person) is mentioned in the history section of the current Avon and Cheddar guide, you can probably verify a number of them fairly easily by asking Martin or a host of other Avon regulars. For what its worth, I know a number of people who have climbed with him and would have no reason to doubt them personally.

It seems like something of a low way to attack someone who is currently banned from defending themselves to cast aspersions over their climbing record, personally. Why not wait until the guy in question has a chance to explain (lets face it, username hijacks have happened before and will happen again, and until that is ruled out you're judging without full knowledge of the facts), and then abuse him for trolling if the explanation falls short, rather than insinuate from behind a keyboard about their achievements.....

As an aside, I know plenty of people who only log partial details of their ascents. They aren't all liars, and in all probability none of them are.

AJM

In reply to AJM:

The interesting point is that he replied in great detail about his ascent, then subsequently went totally silent. If you remember more or less the same thing happened with the Lands End chipping thread.

I wouldn't question his climbing record, but if, as you say, he is known to Martin amd other Avon regulars he could defend his actions through them.

Personally I have no problem with a full-on genuine discussion about the use of bolts in defined trad areas, and whilst my position will never change, if and when a true consensus occurs allowing the replacement of old pegs with SS bolts in such areas, I'll retire gracefully and find somewhere else to climb.

In reply to Frank Cannings:


Not sure what the Macallum episode refers too but Ally's logbook is what it appears or at least the bits of it done with me over several years certainly are.

I'm also pretty sure he's also just gone on holiday which may account for his uncharacteristic troll getting out of hand.


Ho hum... too late. Now where'd I leave that pitchfork...

jk

In reply to JimR:

Hear, hear. As you say, nobody has died. I certainly had a big smile on my face when all was revealed. It's a shame those two lads drove a long way for nothing, but they may well see the funny side in time, along with every other poster of spluttering indignant comment!

I wonder how much debate, furious cursing etc was generated when those bolts were glued onto Vector buttress, and how many people were prepared to drive a million miles to knock them off? Certainly seems quite amusing now anyway.

Nice reminder of how strongly held the no-bolt ethic is in the climbing community at least, quite reassuring actually.

In reply to jobertalot:

What the hell are you talking about, Jo? I'm shocked.

Tosspots like Ally Smith or whoever's hijacked his username are ten a penny, but I must say I thought you'd have more sense, even after the pub (I presume). Someone, whether Scott or someone else, is going to have their time wasted by this sort of thing - in fact probably quite a lot of people. It's one thing trolling on line if people have nothing better to do, but quite another time to waste people's real-life time.

jcm

In reply to ally smith:
What this thread has shown is that the overwhelming consensus is to keep the sea cliffs bolt free, both in this particular case and generally (and I think this thread can be taken to be fairly representative of the views of active climbers as quite a few people have contributed and they are all active climbers as far as I can tell). Sounds like the SW area meeting also came to this conclusion. Thus some use has come out of the ill-advised wind-up.

To the OP - trolling is ok if it just generates a lot of hot air and a chuckle all round at the end of it but in this case you should have realised that it might go further, or at least have kept an eye on the thread and had the decency to come clean as soon as Iain mentioned intending to go over to remove the bolt (he mentioned this quite early on).

In reply to jkarran:

>Not sure what the Macallum episode refers too

A hoax climber who claimed several bogus routes on Gogarth in the 1960's. Made the Sunday Times.

jcm

In reply to ally smith:

>"Most restrictions are only temporary."

Let's hope not.

jcm

In reply to jobertalot:
"Lads"! If Scott's user profile is accurate, Dan and he have a combined age over 100 ...

Well done to them anyway.

In reply to scott titt:

Respect to you for having the committment to go and put matters right, even if it turned out to be a wild goose chase. I have utter contempt for the wind-up merchant and would suggest that you are owed money for petrol and holiday time. Any rehabilitation of the offender would surely have to involve reimbursement.

In reply to jobertalot:


I'd hope that those who revealed themselves to be apologists for bolting adventure terrain are feeling more embarrassed.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


so are miserable whinging old curmudgeons ...

I would just like to repeat - an excellent troll. Admirable as the bolt-free ethic might be, the religious fervour with which the more up-themselves members of UKC attack every bit of news or comment involving boltage is becoming a bit boring. A firm puncturing of their collective windbag is a jolly good thing.
It's a troll. You lot got taken in. Ha!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Jeez John Chill out!

I just mean that in the greater scheme of things... well, worse things have happened.

Even you must be able to make at least some concession towards seeing the lighter side of things? Sometimes?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Incidentally, I love the insinuation that having not immediately and unquestioningly subscribed to your viewpoint, I must not only be lacking in sense but also be under the influence of alcohol! Wonderful!

In reply to jobertalot:
I tend to agree, no-one forced anyone to take time off work to drive down in an instant. Any poster could have said "when I'm next down in the area I will remove the bolt, so don't count on it being there" or something similar. calls for compensation seem a bit ridiculous.

In reply to international:

I have no objection to the puncturing of pomposity, it's a vice we can all fall into. However, this is best achieved with a bit of subtle baiting, especially if genuinely funny and some hypocrisy can be targeted. That's not what happened here, the subtlety of the lie extended no further than the clever choice of route. The outrage was no less real and justified because it was predictable.

It's easy to paint anyone who has firm principles as a zealot; the problem is that not everyone does accept (or is aware of) the self-imposed rules that make trad climbing special, as recent event events show pretty graphically. If there isn't a strong reaction to an action as controversial as bolting Eroica, such people are likely to be encouraged to try it somewhere perhaps less conspicuous.

In reply to international:


The stocks are awaiting

or maybe build a wicker man

In reply to Jamie Bankhead:

I'm not, because I could see it was a troll all along.

I hope Dan and Scott did a route while they were down there and had a good time.

In reply to international:


You are a moron!

I know it, you know it and now everyone knows it.

In reply to the thread: Thought it was probably a troll up to the point where Mick said Ally was utterly credible... Guess he's less so now.

I was surprised by the number of people arguing for the bolt to be left in place in the name of convenience. Found it quite sad that so many thought it was a reasonable idea. This is me speaking as a bumbling sport climber and not very adventurous trad climber, rather than a hardcore, foaming at the mouth zealot.

In reply to DJonsight:

Me too. Though I don't see the wind up as amusing, the indignation is going overboard too. The whole thing smelled fishy (well it would I hear you say), and as was pointed out in the thread no-one had actually seen the bolt.

Photographic evidence is so easy to come by, maybe it should be a requisite before things get discussed at area meetings or on here? Iain of Devon had told the thread he was going down with a camera in the near future.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
>

Well, yes, but that's the nature of the troll surely - to take people in. To say "I don't like this troll because the subject matter is important to me and I do not appreciate being manipulated in this way" is to recognise the success of the troll.
That isn't to say that you shouldn't object - because trolling depends as much on the trollees as the troller!
And, yes, obviously some trolls go too far, but this isn't one of them. Still, now we've all had a good purge, so let's await the next "Hard traddish route done - oh, with a bolt..." news item

In reply to international:

OK, now I am going to sound pompous, or at least humourless. Obviously the nature of a troll is to take people in. I'm a bit less clear about what the point is.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
Well, I don't know if trolls have to have a point, beyond taking people in. Trolls aren't forces for good or evil - they are just there to annoy.

In reply to international:

Good trolls don't annoy - crap ones do.

E

In reply to jobertalot:

>Incidentally, I love the insinuation that having not immediately and unquestioningly subscribed to your viewpoint, I must not only be lacking in sense but also be under the influence of alcohol

Well, Jo, as you know we've met, and I didn't have you down as the sort of person who would find people driving hundreds of miles on a wild goose chase as a result of the OP's childishness funny. So I charitably assumed you'd had a bit to drink and you'd think better of it in the morning. OK, so I was wrong.

jcm

In reply to international:

>To say "I don't like this troll because the subject matter is important to me and I do not appreciate being manipulated in this way" is to recognise the success of the troll.

Yeah, but no-one's saying that, are they? By all means post lies on the internet to wind people up if that's what you find funny, but when you start inconveniencing real people by making them drive hundreds of miles for nothing, that's not trolling, it's shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

jcm

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

You seem to have unrestricted him again, Alan. Why is that?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

No, it's not shouting fire in a crowded theatre - that is effectively ordering crowds to panic. No-one "made" anyone drive hundreds of miles. Someone "decided" to drive hundreds of miles - an odd decision, given the existence of more local climbers, but it certainly shows admirable dedication to the cause. In other circumstances I'm sure you'd be sternly adminishing posters who played fast and loose with such causal considerations.
And, yes, trolls depend on un-truths. Unbelievable isn't it! Next you'll be saying that the only good troll is one that doesn't annoy you. Oh, you've been beaten to it!

In reply to international:

>Next you'll be saying that the only good troll is one that doesn't annoy you.

Well, when I say something so stupid, why don't you reply to it then? In the meantime, my point is nothing to do with annoying anybody, but with actually inconveniencing people. It's pathetic to say nobody forced anyone to respond; it's obvious someone was going to be put out by going to the cliff and finding nothing there, and whether it's Scott and Dan driving a long way, or someone local going out and taking the trouble to set up an abseil and go down with a camera, someone is giving up real time because of some childish prank. At that point in my opinion a line has been crossed.

If Alan has any sense he'll ban the OP for life.

I'd be interested to hear whether Mick Ward was in on this or being taken in.

jcm

In reply to ally smith: Troll or not the post was put across in such a way as possibly having some substance and the source given credibility by respected climbers both on here and at the BMC SW meeting.

I suspect that at worst it was ill conceived, immature, provocative and stupid but a formal, apology to Dan and Scott should mark the end of the matter and if done on publicly on UKC serve as a warning to others that actions have consequences.

If nothing else the post has probably achieved one of its aims, to sound out the opinion of climbers of such an act if it were to occur. I also suspect that the result is not quite what the poster wanted or expected.

Al

In reply to Iain Peters:

The peg on Eroica was in initially because there was "no other protection". Or perhaps, not enough protection? - Discuss. Now it's gone the protection level has been diminished, yes? So how can you justify Birkett's new route's "protection" but not the bolt on Eroica? It's a degree of interpretation isn't it? If there is "no other protection" on Birkett's route then it should not have gone without the pegs, to follow the argument through - in other words leave it for a better climber. Many routes have "no other protection" other than bolts or pegs or insitu/pre-placed gear - so why not bolt/peg/pre-place everything to make them safe?

Not sure whether you are therefore condoning the gear on Birkett's route and dissing the bolt - or both. Or neither.

Your phrase "no other protection" is the problem. Oh and p.s. - I don't recall Birkett being a "ND & C Coast local", as you infer?

In reply to unclesamsauntibess:

Actually the peg in Eroica has never been any good for protection, It was only there as a point of aid to get past a hard move.

That, actually, was why a bolt would have fundamentally changed the route's character cos it would have created bombproof protection where none had ever existed.. even on the first ascent!

In reply to JimR:

So if there is no gear and no peg, what do you aid on if you want to climb the route at the orginal grade? Or is that no longer an option?

In reply to Max factor:

It hasn't been an option for some years.

jcm

In reply to Max factor:

No because the aid point has been eliminated. As is the case with hundreds of other climbs.

In reply to international:

I note this is the first thread you have ever posted on.

As a matter of interest do you normally post on here under another name or is it just a remarkable coincidence that a thread comes up on the day you register that you have strong views on?

International? You're posting from abroad? On holiday? Don't get me wrong I'm not getting all wound up, this is just idle curiosity.

In reply to Removed User:
I can't be @rsed posting normally - just browse. This thread tweaked my funny bone, and I figured the ignoble art of trolling needed defending!
I'm not involved in the troll at all btw (although that's just what I would say....).
I've posted mindless drivel in the past under the name International - prob before I registered.
And based in deepest Yorkshire. I came up with International because I went to that Lancashire once.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

As I said John, it's a shame that Dan and Scott drove all that way, and no, I don't find that aspect of the whole affair funny. It must be terrible to have wasted a day, expended time, effort and money etc...

However, I think it's unlikely that that's the outcome the poster intended and I imagine he's feeling pretty shit about how out of hand it all got (we may never know).

But when I take a deep breath, step back and see it for what it is, in perspective, an internet hoax that had a lot of people taken in (including myself although I didn't post anything), then yes it makes me smile. Is that so bad?

In reply to jobertalot:

>It must be terrible to have wasted a day, expended time, effort and money etc...

Well that's a bit of a far cry from your 'nobody died' before.

>However, I think it's unlikely that that's the outcome the poster intended

He must be a bit of a fool if he didn't think someone would have their time wasted by going to see, if not Scott and Dan then someone else. How else did he expect all to be revealed?

>and I imagine he's feeling pretty shit about how out of hand it all got (we may never know).

I hope so, certainly, though I doubt it. I'd guess he's hugging himself. Particularly crass to post the thread and then leave, so that when people posted on there alerting him to the fact people were going to have their time wasted, he didn't know and couldn't prevent it. (Charitably assuming that was his intention.)

>But when I take a deep breath, step back and see it for what it is, in perspective,

Y'see, I told you it'd look different in the morning!

>an internet hoax that had a lot of people taken in (including myself although I didn't post anything), then yes it makes me smile. Is that so bad?

Personally I don't find the prank style of humour very funny, but each to his own. However, even if I did find it funny my overriding impression would be that good peoples' time has been wasted by thoughtlessness and no, I wouldn't overall find the thing very funny at all.

It's a complex thing, humour. Actually I think people who are finding it funny are doing so principally *because* people have had their time wasted. Say the fellow had come out of the closet Sunday night and admitted it was a hoax. How funny would it have been then?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


.. correction .. add "rottweiler" to the previous sentence including the words "old" "miserable" "whinging" & "curmudgeon"

In reply to ally smith:

It's probably been said before, but I notice that what is pretty clerly the real AS posted in this thread:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=433150&v=1#x6119635

recording his ascent of Eroica (and without mentioning any bolts, indeed in terms which rather suggest there wasn't one, as there wasn't of course) three or four days before beginning this thread.

Not that that proves or even really suggests anything either way. Just saying.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
>

Since he is not here to defend himself I can assure you Mick does not stoop to this level of humour.
John.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Mick is in Spain as we speak. I think he was just being his usual generous self, and giving someone the benefit of the doubt. Indeed as johnl says above.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


No one made them drive there. I'm struggling to believe that anyone was gullible enough drive to Pentire on the off chance of their being a bolt.

Even if a bolt had been placed, it didn't need to ripped out there and then. I can't believe that people are passionate enough about anti bolting to take a day off work to remove a bolt. Why didn't they just go on Saturday?

Chill out everyone,

Tom x

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Wonderful thing hindsight

In reply to Bulls Crack: Tom's post is not hindsight, it's a common sense rebuttal of the quoted statement. Posters were pointing out no-one had actually seen this bolt before hand.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:
Bear in mind that Scott might have wanted to ensure that the job was done properly, and not simply smashed by some angry hothead

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

>"Why didn't they just go on Saturday?"

Saturday is a rubbish day for bolt chopping, the crags are full of punters clip-sticking their way up routes.

If someone is thought dead, and it turns out the reports were exaggerated, should we not rejoice they are alive rather than whine about the expense of the flowers we ordered.

In reply to Papillon:

Whatever.

And Tom is also going to have to believe that people are passionate eneough about classic routes (not debolting per se) to committ time and effort to investigate and hats off to them

In reply to Bulls Crack:

You're 47 you can do better than that.

So does this mean it's safe to go and stick a bolt ladder up there now? Nobody will believe it after all

In reply to Papillon:

LOL as they say 48 now - just saying it may look over zealous now there turns out not to be one in but as i pointed out there's nothing wrong with caring deeply about classic routes within the context of the climbing game

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Agreed!

In reply to JLS:

Have you been at the Confucius again?

I quiet agree though, there was no real reason to disbelieve Aly Smith - he was vouched for on the thread. Come to think of it, and in the same vein, how do we know there really isn't a bolt

Two things struck me reading the thread, just how quick the pro-bolters were to applaud the placing of the bolt, it certainly proves that the thin end of the wedge theory applies... and the other is that at least there still are a good number of climbers ready to resist the bolty, safety first trend, which is reassuring.

In reply to ally smith:

i tried to resist the warning voice in my head telling me not to post but i couldn't resist in the end.

It looks like this has been a troll. If that's the case then it's a bit of a shame that those chaps wasted a day off work finding out the hard way. As troll's go though (and generally i'm not a fan of the genre), this has been a fairly entertaining one. I suspect that it even had a (semi) serious debate to highlight.

Regarding JCM's righteous indignation: Chill. Out. Get a bit of perspective. Sometimes good pranks/stories/jokes have unintended consequences. You are not the arbiter of humour, or standards of propriety. Just because you didn't find it funny doesn't mean other people can't and just because you don't agree with others doesn't make them wrong. For the record, I subscribe to jobertalots school of thought over yours, and I suspect a good deal of others lurking on here share that view.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

or how about this for a way out idea - ask someone to go take a look who lives close?

Sam

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yep. Lots of cards are now on the table. Which is why it's such a delicious troll.

In reply to M0nkey:

>Sometimes good pranks/stories/jokes have unintended consequences.

As to 'good' pranks, you realise of course that we have 'there's a new bolt in x route' trolls about once every six months? You'll have to excuse those of us who've seen it 20 times before if we don't find them all that amusing. The only reason this one gained credence is because it was done either in the name of a respected poster and climber, or by a respected poster and climber who had temporarily lost his mind. And the only reason anyone thinks this is funny at all is because it actually managed to waste people's time. Moreover, as I pointed out, if it was indeed an unintended consequence, then the OP, or whoever was trolling in his name, is more stupid than one would have believed possible.

>You are not the arbiter of humour, or standards of propriety.

'course I'm not. Neither are you. We're both just expressing an opinion.

>I suspect a good deal of others lurking on here share that view

Wonder if Scott T and Dan D do?

And FWIW I very much doubt if the posting guidelines do. Not that I've ever read them.

jcm

In reply to Sam Mayfield:

So that someone else can go and waste their time instead, you mean?

jcm

In reply to AJM:

Leaving the rest of this thread for what it is, it is indeed his name, and I've held his ropes on a number of high grade ascents. I even attempted to second some of them myself. Failed on most...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
To be honest it wasn't funny until you started talking

In reply to Tdubs:

Something no-one will ever say of you, I suspect, my friend.

jcm

In reply to James Jackson:

So come on then, James, I'm a little bored with this; more fun to start guessing. D'you reckon this was the real AS, or not?

jcm

In reply to scott titt:

That was a bit of a trek, did you not think to ring him first?

In reply to woodster: Seems to me he read the post in good faith and was sufficiently concerned to rightly resolve the situation ASAP. Even assuming he knew the bloke, what was he supposed to confirm? The OP was unambiguous.

'Don't it always seem to go
You don't know what you've got till it's gone...'

Every spat like this just confirms that, and what's worse, there's plenty posting here now who will never know what's being lost.

(PS Eroica didn't seem so serious when I did it, but to be fair that was in 1982 and I didn't lead it.)

In reply to ally smith:

Just back from a couple of days of light (not) relief at the Vixen Tor Public Inquiry (see the thread on the subject). I was there in order, along with Dave Turnbull, Frank Cannings and a few others climbers to try and ensure that the climbers' voice would be heard. Whether we were successful remains to be seen.

I can't help noticing that there is a level of support for this troll. All well and good, but if I can only return to a previous remark I made many posts earlier: if this hoax had concerned a bolt on Indian Face or Gaia for example, I guess there would have been a similarly strong response and a mass exodus from peoples' keyboards to the routes concerned.

I stand guilty as charged of being committed to preserving the bolt-free ethic of the Devon and Cornwall natural seacliffs and shall remain so until such time as it can be demonstrably proved that the majority wish it otherwise.

Whether or not this was a perfect troll and a brilliant response to people like myself who love the adventure and committment required to climb at any grade in this region I'm not qualified to judge. My friends may confirm that I do have a sense of humour, and am not averse to taking the piss now and again, but I firmly believe that the debate on bolts and other fixed gear is important and deserves better than than merely stirring things up with a false statement.

I've known Scott for many years and his quick response to what many believed was a genuine post is exactly what I would've expected from a man who has fought long and hard on behalf of yourself and all other climbers.

Ally: why not grab yourself a nice heavy sledge hammer and get down to Swanage the next time a stake replacement party gets together. Then Scott, his brother Jim or any of the other activists down that way might point you towards somewhere where a real bolt might be appreciated!

In reply to Iain Peters:


Yes, but not necessarily at your expense. Reckon he's done you a funny sort of favour.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I have no idea, I'm not in the business of speculation.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
(PS Eroica didn't seem so serious when I did it, but to be fair that was in 1982 and I didn't lead it.)

Nor when I did it in, I think, 1984 and I did lead it. The recklessness of youth, perhaps.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Yeh cause I am sure that for the people that live 15 mins is that same as a drive down from Bristol, silly me!

Sam

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Ally is away and hasn't got UKC access John, you'll have to wait for him to set the record straight.
jk

In reply to Sam Mayfield:

Of course it's not the same. But it's a difference of degree only: it's still inconvenient for someone to schlep out to the crag and find nothing. And in any case I'd be inclined to applaud getting on and doing what you want done rather than asking someone else to put themselves out for you first.

Does Scott really live in Bristol by the way? I thought he was a Dorset local.

jcm

In reply to jkarran:

Yes, I know, but meanwhile we could amuse ourselves guessing, surely? What is the internet for if not uninformed speculation? Why, some of us could be wrong again and provide further amusement for the onlookers.

I'll start then: I still can't believe AS would be such a prat, so I'm going to go for housemates hacking into his computer.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I have had contact from Ally. He did start it. I hope he will post soon.

Alan

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

There were several reasons to disbelieve, with only one good reason to believe. As soon as you drop this assumption that a prolific and accomplished climber known to others would not lie about this, the one good reason evaporates.

In reply to Papillon:

It's pretty sad if you can't believe what such a person says though, isn't it?

But think of the service Aly has provided. I've always suspected that, deep down, fulmars really enjoy emptying the contents of their stomachs.

I know Dan and Scott a little, and next time I see them I'm really going to enjoy it.

In reply to Dave Garnett: Well I think it reflects badly on him obviously, but I don't think it's anything new. I've read a few climbing biographies recently and skulduggery within the climbing community seemed to exist in the 70s and 80s. I think people are still getting used to a new media (internet forums), and are treating it in different ways.

In reply to Papillon:

I'm obviously hopelessly naive about this. In what way is posting an apparently factual statement on here different to saying it at a public meeting or writing it in a letter?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Dave, its an iternet forum and trolls are a fact of life. Its more like a pub or sixth form common room (or a Salem court room once JCM gets his witchfinder chief hat on) rather than a BMC public meeting...

In reply to ally smith:

Oh my goodness! This is ridiculous!

Cannot believe anyone would waste their day driving to remove a bolt. Remove it if you're going anyway, sure. But otherwise, get a life!

In reply to JimR:

OK, I can see I'll need to practise. Still, I can't waste such a bright cold day on here, I must go and have another look at the LGP arete at Hen Cloud. Everyone thinks it's ridiculous as it is, of course, but they haven't really looked at it. With just a little bit of brushing I think you'd be surprised at how good those holds are really...

In reply to Dave Garnett:

just jumping in the car to do it before you ....

In reply to JimR:

This isn't a troll, actually. It's a hoax. Trolling is posting opinions or whatever in the hope of causing a bunfight on the actual forum. Posting lies in the hope of (or certainly with the inevitable result of) inconveniencing real-life people isn't trolling, it's hoaxing.

jcm

In reply to RichD:

Goodness, what a lot of first time posters.

I dare say the same point occurred to Scott and Dan and they did some climbing while they were there.

jcm

In reply to JimR:

I'd have said this sort of prank is more reminiscent of primary 6. It's the sort of thing an 8 year old does and then runs away shouting "na na na I fooled you". Generally said child ends up getting kept in at playtime or getting his arse tanned by an annoyed parent.

Why didn't he just start a post saying that he thought this route should be bolted? Much the same discussion would have taken place, the same conclusion reached but no one would have been inconvenienced.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

That is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But its not a statement of fact. Anyone that unquestioningly takes statements on the internet at face value needs their heads examined.


my opinion is that it was a troll that got out of hand because of the unavailability of the OP. Now there may be all sorts of reasons for that, and I for one, am not going to leap into judgement without hearing something from the OP. I suggest you do the same.

In reply to JimR:

Even better. I'll be there first, and then I can blame you!

In reply to JimR:
Anyone that unquestioningly takes statements on the internet at face value needs their heads examined.
Feel free to examine my head at any time, but given that the OP's credentials had been verified both on this forum and directly via email to me, how else was I (or Scott and the many others) supposed to question whether a bolt had been placed without going to take a look? Secondly, as I'm sure you know full well, there have been many examples of anonymous but nevertheless very real bolt placing and hold "improvement" in Cornwall.

I've made my views on this whole sorry affair very plain, and have no desire for any sort of personal vendetta against the OP, but it would be great if he were to re-surface here, if only to clear the air.

In reply to JimR:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-11408239

Like the CPS?

In reply to Mark Westerman:

Especially the CPS!

In reply to JimR:


Well, maybe one shouldn't troll and then b*gger off somewhere?

In reply to Alan James - UKC:
I think a lot of people are also hoping that. Any update?

Cheers
Andy

In reply to Andy Cairns:

No news back. I get the impression he may be somewhere he can't see UKC.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

not sure why he would want to post again and be subject to a renewed "internet kicking" ?! better not to reply and let the thread fizzle out (much like the Simpson and Edwards threads)

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

He updated his profile on Tuesday.

In reply to Tom Briggs:

That was me Tom.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Is that the start of an 'I'm Spartacus'?

In reply to Offwidth:

It's quite complicated actually. My impression is that we aren't dealing with a serial prankster who doesn't give a **** about what he has done here. I think he started the thread to test the ethical water, left after 20 replies and hasn't looked again since due to work commitments. He genuinely sounded completely unaware of the level of the response.

He is now aware of the level of response and hopefully he can come on here and respond.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Of course, the alternative of suggesting replacing the old peg with a bolt was far too devious!

I do agree though with "testing the waters" on such issues. The BMC area meetings are an important element in this, but climbers from everywhere, not just locals, have a right to express their views and forums such as these are a great way to do this.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Given the tone of the original post, I think that makes sense. The gently provocative language ("wholeheartedly condone", "far-sighted individual") and technical justifications both give a sense of someone wanting to generate a debate. However, the lack of further discussion, plus the well-meaning testimonials attesting to his authenticity, unfortunately led to the whole thing getting out of control.

Of course, he could just as easily have said 'I did Eroica in greasy conditions the other day and the move off the stance seemed unnecessarily scary (and I'm well hard - check my profile). Would it be so terrible if we replaced the rotting ironmongery with a well-placed stainless steel bolt? I'm minded to go and do this to make this fine expedition more accessible to the masses. Would anyone mind terribly?'

I think that would have had the desired effect without wasting anyone's time.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
Spot on.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


John, I've just got back from Spain and skimmed through these additions to the thread with increasing incredulity.

Of course I wasn't 'in on this'. Do you think I run some bolting mafia in the South-West? I can assure you that I don't.

'Taken in'? So it appears - and, for that, I apologise unreservedly. I still find it very odd indeed. Ally is a very good climber (evidence of my own eyes!) and, in my (flawed?) estimation, a decent, highly intelligent and mature person. I just can't think why he would have done this. Doubtless he will tell us.

[To Scott] Thanks for going up there with Dan Donovan. This really is going the extra mile!

[Back to you, John] Again, I apologise.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

>Of course I wasn't 'in on this'. Do you think I run some bolting mafia in the South-West? I can assure you that I don't.

Well, there wasn't any bolting, of course, by 'in on this' I meant 'in on the hoax'. And no, I didn't really think you would have been up for this sort of thing. But then, as you say, any explanation seemed rather improbable.

Certainly no need to apologise to me; pre-unmasking I was inconvenienced to the extent of a single three-line post, and of course I like nothing better than a bit of unfounded speculation and/or outrage, so I rather enjoyed the rest of it.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Apologies, John, for having had a pop at you. I would have thought the OP would have taken the trouble to explain by now.

In reply to JimR:

Good grief, did you? No offence; I didn't really notice. We litigation lawyers tend to take 'rottweiller' rather kindly than otherwise.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

This thread is an absolute classic. It demonstrates exactly why I visit UKC rarely.

So what if the OP trolled? If you're stupid enough to drive all that way for a bolt, then you need your head checking. And if they climbed as you claim they did, then a nice day out was had by all. So stop whining the lot of you.

A bolt in a route like that is unacceptable, but it's just a bolt. It wouldn't have lasted long and it doesn't need some hotheaded response from a load of keyboard warriors.

Ridiculous! And bye bye again UKC.

In reply to RichD:

Well, I was going to make some tart observation, but since your post on the plywood-for-fingerboard thread made me laugh no end I won't.

jcm

In reply to RichD:
Bye bye

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

Like up his own arse?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


??? No idea what you're talking about. And sounds like it's off topic anyway. Don't know why I checked this thread. Waste of time!

In reply to RichD:


Funny thing to say really as I thought it was one of the more interesting threads for some time, more so until we knew it was a hoax, of course but the level of debate on what is a fairly important subject - in climbing terms - was better than average, not much nastiness or insulting. I think it clarified views and showed that the consensus is not as "revisionist" as some clearly think.

The keyboard warrior remark seem particularly odd given the climbing record of the main posters... It's hard to understand your peevishness?

In reply to RichD:

Are you under the impression that controversial threads is all UKC has to offer?

You might want to investigate the other 8 tabs at the top of this page.

Alan

In reply to RichD:
I guess that having two kids and a beautiful wife can sometimes be a problem for you. Perhaps in your frustrated moments you visit UK Climbing to try to reconnect with your very modest or maybe insignificant past rock climbing achievements. Your disdain for this thread just shows your ignorance. Perhaps you are a person who identifies with the weaknesses of Ally Smith; one who casts dishonest allegations and then can't face the criticism.

In reply to RichD: (In reply to johncoxmysteriously)
>
>

Brilliant...In a nutshell...nice one

Can't believe this stupid thread is still going, days and days later...do so called climbers not have climbing or some other hobby to do (going for promotions within the ethics police does not count)!

In reply to sebrider:
So sebrider: are you too a person that casts untrue statements? Maybe you don't understand rock climbing on the UK - Its history and the accepted ethics. Have you ever done a bold E3 lead on such a magnificent cliff as Pentire Head? I doubt it. Please would you present your credentials to justify your criticism?

In reply to RichD:

Just like Eroica!

In reply to Bulls Crack:

It looks as if Ally may have bolted after all!

In reply to Dave Garnett:

It makes one spit non?

In reply to Crank: I have no idea whatsoever about climbing in the UK, and in the time I have been climbing I have certainly never heard any mention of UK ethics, so pardon my ignorance on this one. I have little climbing credentials to present and in any case they would not be a touch on your climbing prowess, so as you might expect I have never done a bold E3 on the magnificent Pentire Head – good for you though. I hear that a bolt has come to take from the bold so maybe there is a route there for the likes of myself now.
Me...untrue statements, well that could definitely be possibly true

In reply to sebrider:

So: sebrider - I now identify you as being Ally Smith in disquise - and I claim my prize!

In reply to Calum Nicoll:

When did you become all ethical all of a sudden? This from the guy that was dry tooling at Millstone at the weekend.

In reply to ally smith:

How can Ally reply to this thread when he's banned?

E

In reply to Enty:

Ally has been in touch with me. He knows that he can get in touch with me again if he wants to reply.

Alan

In reply to Enty:

Presumably a promise from him to the mods, of a public explanation is what is required to release his profile?