STAY HOME ... Please

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.

STAY HOME

I am saddened by the irresponsible behaviour of a few climbers / hikers. I look through Instagram and continuously see posts of people travelling outside of their local areas. People from Harrogate at Caley, that’s another county. People from Sheffield at Almscliff and Leeds folk in Cumbria. And given the professional status of some I am shocked, especially in groups of three or more.

I am lucky I can walk to several crags within  15 minutes. But during this lockdown have NOT been to Brimham as driving is the best option.

Every day we hear STAY HOME SAVE THE NHS, yet this clearly does not apply to all. 

So if you really do feel you’re above the rules and the law then at least have the common sense not to post it all over social media... but you can’t help yourselves, you need the likes and to save your mental health and f*ck the rest of us!

rant over.

 tehmarks 08 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

Is it Groundhog Day?

In reply to tehmarks:

Dunno, haven’t logged in to the forums for months.

 S Ramsay 08 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

Your argument would probably have gone down better if you had not started by complaining about people from Harrogate climbing at Caley, it's hard to see the issue in travelling 12 miles for some bouldering from an epidemiological, legal, or moral standpoint. As Derbyshire police found out, country boundaries are an irrelevance to the virus and the law

In reply to S Ramsay:

> Your argument would probably have gone down better if you had not started by complaining about people from Harrogate climbing at Caley, it's hard to see the issue in travelling 12 miles for some bouldering from an epidemiological, legal, or moral standpoint. As Derbyshire police found out, country boundaries are an irrelevance to the virus and the law

Is Bouldering exercise? No.
Is there a risk of injuring yourself Bouldering and therefore becoming a burden on the NHS? Yes.
People might not like the above statements and I fully expect a load of Dislikes for mentioning them.
However, I fully expect more Dislikes for saying that people going Bouldering/Climbing, etc. in the current circumstances are a bunch of selfish idiots that really need to look at what's happening with regards to Covid-19 as opposed to *needing* a transient climbing fix.

 tehmarks 08 Feb 2021
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Is Bouldering exercise? No.

That is an odd assertion. Maybe you need to up your grade?

In reply to S Ramsay:

And sadly you’re argument would be sound had you had not mentioned 12 Miles. Unacceptable distance for exercise. Stay Local don’t stretch the limit and you should not travel outside your local area

“ you should not travel outside your local area.“

Harrogate, North Yorkshire is not the same local area as Caley, West Yorkshire. Harrogate is Harrogate. Not Otley, Not Pateley Bridge, Not Malham. It’s quite simple. STAY HOME. 

 Hardonicus 08 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

Can I climb at Baildon if I live in Ilkley?

In reply to Hardonicus:

If you need to ask then you need to think...

 S Ramsay 08 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

And who put you in charge of definition of local? The prime minister himself drove 7 miles to go for a bike ride during lock down. I haven't checked the exact location of the boundary but this would probably adhere to the Scottish rule of boundary plus 5 miles. As the legal profession has said ad nauseum, until it reaches court, there is no definition. 12 miles doesn't seem crazy to me. There is also a nice little irony that in a thread that you started to moan about covidiots, you meet FactorXXXs definition of a selfish idiot. I, for the record, don't.

Post edited at 00:15
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

I largely agree with what you're saying, but I think you're overlooking some important context

The govt is saying "stay at home" - which is right of course - but then it's also sneakily sanctioning all sorts of non-essential business going on, by not providing the support it did last spring where people did generally stay at home because they could afford to. 

I work for a company which is emailing old, vulnerable people, and telling them that they should ignore the lockdown, engage in high risk interaction (indoors, close proximity, 30mins in a small unventilated room with a stranger) and come and spend their money with us. The government is just fine with all this, the NHS and regulators have all closed ranks and defended this bullshit.

This doesn't justify breaking the lockdown to go climbing, but it does put breaches of lockdown in context. If your work is far higher risk than going walking and climbing, and you're being told by your employer, backed up by government, that and it's fine and that you have to shut up moaning cause we all want to make money and keep our jobs, then it sticks in one's craw somewhat to be told not to go out for a walk in the snow.

If we were all in this together, and lockdown was taken seriously in work, then it would be reasonable to expect people to make those personal sacrifices. But if they've been teaching in a 60% full school because all the parents are suddenly now "key workers" or they're under sales targets to bring in as many people into their "essential business" and flog them crap, just like normal, then the requirement to sit at home being miserable when you want to go out to the hills feels like a bunch of hypocritical shite. It's even worse than Dominic Cummings: the so-called "lockdown" we're in now is just "balls to covid if you're making money; but leave your house for fresh air for your own good and you'll get arrested".

The whole thing is f*cking shit and the people doing the significant harm aren't people going out for a walk or boulder. I would look at the large-scale, govt sanctioned lockdown pricks before getting ranty about people driving 12 miles to go bouldering. They're not the ones spreading the virus. It's the c^nts in suits working from home, forcing their employees into work to mix with colleagues and customers, who should be denied vaccination and laughed at over zoom when they're gasping their last breaths in the ambulance outside the hospital.

 Greenbanks 09 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

<Stay Home>
That’s all very well in the USA...in these dire & challenging times your exhortation is missing the vital preposition that signals its relevance to your parish and, indeed, this Septic Isle

 Offwidth 09 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

I agree...good to hear from you again.

In reply to S Ramsay:

> As Derbyshire police found out, country boundaries are an irrelevance to the virus and the law

Well, there were two police vehicles stationed at the Cat& Fiddle on Sunday, which looked quite a lot like a border check point!

We’d walked there, which didn’t seem to be a problem (apart from the danger of exposure).

 tehmarks 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I largely agree with what you're saying, but I think you're overlooking some important context

> The govt is saying "stay at home" - which is right of course - but then it's also sneakily sanctioning all sorts of non-essential business going on, by not providing the support it did last spring where people did generally stay at home because they could afford to. 

And some others have been sat on the sofa for coming up to eleven months now, prevented from working and offered no support whatsoever. It's hard not to think that if the government were truly serious, they wouldn't be leaving small businesses and self-employed people to essentially subsidise (through complete loss of earnings) the health and welfare of the older population.

When you're bored out of your tree and start thinking along those lines, it's quite easy to decide to at least do something fun or productive with your time.

Not to mention of course DVLA employees being forced under threat of disciplinaries to go to work in an unsafe office where one third of their 1500-strong workforce contracted coronavirus. They're a government agency — mental, non?

Post edited at 00:23
 Offwidth 09 Feb 2021
In reply to FactorXXX:

You really are a massive idiot sometimes. Of course bouldering is fabulous exercise when well within technical limits. That's how bouldering started at Font as long periods of technical exercise, practicing for alpine routes.

Post edited at 00:24
 Blanche DuBois 09 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

> STAY HOME

> I am lucky I can walk to several crags within  15 minutes. But during this lockdown have NOT been to Brimham as driving is the best option.

> Every day we hear STAY HOME SAVE THE NHS, yet this clearly does not apply to all.

I'm trying to spot the logical inconsistency in your argument here, but it's not quite coming.  I know, I'll STAY AT HOME by going out and walking to my local crag (I'm lucky and have several within 15 minutes, and so long as I don't drive...).  The exercise will do me good, and once I've finished my session STAYING AT HOME, preferably not inconvenienced by the unwelcome existence of those who drove to whichever of the several crags I'm lucky enough to live close to, then the logical inconsistency will have come to me.  And if not, then at least I'll have enjoyed my time outside STAYING AT HOME.

[Edit] FFS.

Post edited at 05:30
In reply to tehmarks:

> That is an odd assertion. Maybe you need to up your grade?

You'd get by far more beneficial exercise from a brisk 3 mile walk than a bouldering session and the only reason that people say that bouldering is exercise is to justify doing it.
If you can justify it as a standalone exercise, then it still doesn't omit the fact that it is an activity with an elevated risk factor and with the accompanying potential knock on effect to the NHS, etc.
 

 Enty 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

> I'm trying to spot the logical inconsistency in your argument here, but it's not quite coming.  I know, I'll STAY AT HOME by going out and walking to my local crag (I'm lucky and have several within 15 minutes, and so long as I don't drive...).  The exercise will do me good, and once I've finished my session STAYING AT HOME, preferably not inconvenienced by the unwelcome existence of those who drove to whichever of the several crags I'm lucky enough to live close to, then the logical inconsistency will have come to me.  And if not, then at least I'll have enjoyed my time outside STAYING AT HOME.

> [Edit] FFS.


This ^^^^^

E

In reply to Offwidth:

> You really are a massive idiot sometimes. Of course bouldering is fabulous exercise when well within technical limits. That's how bouldering started at Font as long periods of technical exercise, practicing for alpine routes.

As per a previous post, a brisk walk is more beneficial if all you want to do is exercise to maintain fitness/weight, etc. and that is essentially why we're allowed/encouraged to exercise.
Saying bouldering is excercise is just an excuse to go bouldering.
As for 'within technical limits', I assume that's a get out clause about risk and potential impact on the NHS, etc. Well, holds snap, the smallest of falls break ankles. 
The Covid situation is on a knife edge with regards to new strains with unknown qualities with regards to mutations, etc. and yet, you feel as if it's OK to continue partaking in a fairly high risk activity in the full knowledge that it could result in hospitalisation.

 DaveHK 09 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

Are you local?


 S Ramsay 09 Feb 2021
In reply to FactorXXX:

Both aerobic and anaerobic exercise are essential to your overall health and bouldering is excellent anaerobic exercise. Walking alone may leave you at a heightened risk of osteoporosis through no stresses on your upper body. A brisk walk each evening and some bouldering at the weekend would be a very good routine for your health.

Going back to your previous point, it's quite possible to choose your problems such that, with the help of a pad and someone from your household as a spotter, you're very unlikely to get anything worse than a sprained ankle which can be treated at home without NHS assistance. Freak accidents will always happen and the fact the government is encouraging cycling suggests that there is no general push to eliminate them

 DaveHK 09 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

Strangers, coming to our boulders in gangs of one or two...

Post edited at 07:40

 MischaHY 09 Feb 2021
In reply to FactorXXX:

How unfit do you have to be that a 3 mile walk is harder than going bouldering? 🤣

My mum is in her 60s, works 30+hrs a week and walks 10-15 miles at least 5 times a week. I guarantee she'd be knackered from a spot of easy bouldering. Most people need more resistance exercise in their lives. 

No dislike from me though. Just some covid love 😘 

 Andy Hardy 09 Feb 2021
In reply to FactorXXX:

Just because it's enjoyable doesn't mean it's not exercise...

 mattc 09 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

I have been staying local. But find it very frustrating that it is absolutely no problem for me to go and work in Germany for two weeks traveling through airports and the like but can't drive 30 mins in a car on my own to get outdoors. Also it is compulsory to wear a mask in the airport or on the plane if your having a beer you can take it off!!!!! what's the point in that? there was a couple on my flight home that were drinking the whole way back they had a mask on for take off and landing and that was about it. When cabin crew came close they just raised a glass to them. 

 birdie num num 09 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> That is an odd assertion. Maybe you need to up your grade?

Instead of lying on a mattress looking at an overhang, it’s better to stay in bed and have a protein shake... that burns on average around 101 calories depending on how quick you are

 springfall2008 09 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

Stay local isn't law it's guidance and up to everyone to interpret as they feel fit.

Exercise is permitted and climbing is exercise.

So other than ranting I'm not sure what your achieving here.

 springfall2008 09 Feb 2021
In reply to FactorXXX:

> The Covid situation is on a knife edge with regards to new strains with unknown qualities with regards to mutations, etc. and yet, you feel as if it's OK to continue partaking in a fairly high risk activity in the full knowledge that it could result in hospitalisation.

You do know most accidents happen at home?

 Andy Moles 09 Feb 2021
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Is Bouldering exercise? No.

Tune in for the latest episode of Lockdown Bullshit, in which man claims Olympic sport is 'not exercise'.

 nikoid 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

Most excellent!

 nufkin 09 Feb 2021
In reply to birdie num num:

>  stay in bed and have a protein shake

A euphemism that's going to make it difficult to read Men's Health with a straight face now

 ianstevens 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Andy Moles:

Unfortunately for all of us, horse riding is an Olympic sport and only half the participants there get any exercise ;) 

(This is a joke, bouldering is of course exercise)

In reply to springfall2008:

> You do know most accidents happen at home?

Crap argument. 

I'm not particularly against going bouldering locally and being careful, but your argument could be used to justify any dangerous activity that not many people do.

 mrphilipoldham 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Andy Moles:

Bouldering, you could pigeon hole it with darts and snooker as far as sport goes! ;)

In reply to springfall2008:

> Exercise is permitted and climbing is exercise.

You seem to be saying "balls to covid, here's a loophole so I'll do what I like". Totally the wrong message. Would it hurt to put a tiny bit of thought into supporting the national effort by not undermining the lockdown by publicly saying "let's all look for loopholes"?

Sure, there is some climbing that some people can do without creating any meaningful risk during lockdown, i.e. local crags, being careful. People taking your attitude just leads to "I'll drive from Birmingham to the Lakes and then end up calling out MRT". It's not OK.

Post edited at 09:47
 TomD89 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Andy Moles:

I lost weight and gained strength by bouldering regularly and it's something I've been able to stick to consistently because of its enjoyment factor.

The mental gymnastics you have to do to consider it 'not exercise' is Olympic level in itself.

 Offwidth 09 Feb 2021
In reply to FactorXXX:

You do realise you can get injured cycling, running and even walking (ankle twists in rabbit holes or slipping on ice, snow, wet grass or mud)? I seem to have taken more falls walking this winter than in a typical trad season after the grit has been called ... a really spectacular two feet flying into the air at once, on wet grass on a local golf course, just this week.

I really don''t understand what has got into some climbers being so negative about our activity in a pandemic if being careful to reduce risk. People of course should be taking special care and only exercising locally under the guidance and regulations. Easier bouldering circuits are fabulous full body exercise if anyone is lucky enough to live near them.

Post edited at 09:58
In reply to Offwidth:

> I really don''t understand what has got into some climbers being so negative about our activity in a pandemic...

> if anyone is lucky enough to live near them.

You've answered your own question. The vast majority of people have to travel outside their local area to go climbing. Going online and saying "bouldering outdoors is a great way to exercise during the lockdown" is gloating at best, or just encouraging people to break the lockdown. Both are unhelpful.

Why can't those of us who do have a local bouldering crag just keep it on the down low? If you want to go winter climbing because it's on your doorstep and you're confident it won't go wrong, fine, but don't post your f*cking pictures on instagram. Most people in the country can't do any of the shit they like doing, they're stuck indoors with their school-deprived children and unfulfilling office job the middle of winter in a pandemic. They don't want to hear about how great it is to go climbing right now.

 tehmarks 09 Feb 2021
In reply to FactorXXX:

> You'd get by far more beneficial exercise from a brisk 3 mile walk than a bouldering session

Sort of depends on what your goal from exercising is, doesn't it? A brisk walk isn't going to tick any of my boxes because I walk briskly everywhere I go. It'd do absolutely nothing to maintain my normal level of cardiovascular fitness because my level of cardiovascular fitness is somewhat higher than brisk walking.

Likewise, it's going to do nothing to maintain the relevant fitness of a dedicated 7C boulderer.

Fitness is your body being appropriately conditioned for the challenges that you engage it in, not merely being more than one step removed from heart disease.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

At last a voice of reason!

 Iamgregp 09 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

Oh good, this again.

[closes thread]

 EdS 09 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

Likewise - not been to Brimham since  last spring  to climb, though have cycled past occasionally, as driving is best option... And it's a whole 5km

Instead taken to swimming in Guisecliff Tarn as its a 10 minute walk 

I'm luck there is plenty I can do with walking distance - so I avoid driving. 

If I lived in town.... Keep the miles sensible and don't over do the risk

Post edited at 10:32
 Offwidth 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

It's not really answering my own question, as most of these posts relate to others making a fuss (sometimes with good reasons but facing idiotic counter argument, and sometimes not with equally idiotic responses in the other direction).

On your main points I agree totally. I personally haven't climbed since the late summer but I would have done so discretely if I could climb locally on something I could enjoy, keep risks low and not be too high profile (my local stuff like Trent Bridge and other similar sandstone walls tends to very public and risky for finger injuries when I'm above fighting weight).

In reply to Offwidth:

> It's not really answering my own question

Ah, do you mean, why is everyone suddenly saying "going climbing is potential death-trap" now, when previously they'd have said "you're more likely to die driving to the crag"? Fair enough.

Post edited at 10:48
 Offwidth 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

That and various other similar forms of dumb hyperbole. On a pure risk reduction basis no one should ever climb as a form of recreation, yet to many people (including me) it's a precious and very fulfilling part of their lives. Mind you, I think many climbers might be deluding themselves they properly accept risk, as per the BMC participation statement, so I'm not surprised this heated argumentation happens (due to passion on both sides in massively stressful times).

Post edited at 11:08
 Lord_ash2000 09 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

Why does it suddenly become a problem if you drive? What is it about being in a car beforehand which suddenly makes your exercise more likely to spread covid? 

You might say there is an additional risk from the possibility of breakdown or accident requiring contact with other people and possibly stressing the NHS as a result of your injuries. It is true there is an additional risk, but how much more risk is there than hurting yourself or otherwise needing assistance while walking your 15mins to a "local" crag.

As for covid, I went for a walk from my house the other day along a old railway line / cycle path on the edge of town, it was packed, probably the busiest I've ever seen it and given its narrowness and steep sides it was impossible to avoid people.

The day before we went for a 15 min drive to go walk on some forrest paths and we didn't see another person. So what's more risky? Driving so you can encounter noone or staying "local" and mixing with the crowds?  

Today I'm off for a mountain bike and I'll be driving about 15 mins to get to the trails. I could cycle there from home and have done before but it's a right slog on a full suss bike so I won't be. What's more risky 10 miles of driving or 10 miles of cycling? 

You're basically just saying "I've loads of crags on my door step and I want them to myself" 

 Offwidth 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Why should anyone take you seriously on covid debate when you proposed 'let it rip' strategies on eugenic style arguments? This isn't about bean counting risk...its about blatently ignoring protective rules and guidance put in place by evidence based government decisions, during a pandemic. Nothing stops your liberty to risk getting fined by ignoring these, other than a conscience.

Your whataboutery around crowded paths is just silly. Risks of being in closish proximity outdoors for a very short time are trivial and you could always chose something quieter.

Post edited at 11:18
 Ramblin dave 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> I really don''t understand what has got into some climbers being so negative about our activity in a pandemic if being careful to reduce risk.

Honestly I think the problem is that this whole situation is very frightening and stressful, and people understandably want to deal with that by feeling like they're doing something, and the form that that "doing something" often takes is picking some subset of the potentially risky things that they do, mentally inflating how significant they are, and then feeling like they're making the crucial difference by cutting out those particular risks and also by screaming blue murder at people who visibly haven't done the same thing.

In practice I'm inclined to agree with Jon's point in his first post - the continuing spread of the virus and strain on the NHS has everything to do with the government being unwilling to interrupt the process of businesses making money and very little to do with people driving for fifteen minutes and bouldering within their limit. But there's less concrete stuff we can individually do about that so people generally don't think about it.

 Offwidth 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

I'd agree but maybe I'm naive to have expected a little better from climbers than the general population on these extreme cotton wool arguments on one side and eugenics style libertarian stuff on the other. What happened to proportional debate on things we know about?

Post edited at 12:19
In reply to tehmarks:

> Likewise, it's going to do nothing to maintain the relevant fitness of a dedicated 7C boulderer.

You need to be a dedicated -7C boulderer today.

 salad fingers 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Lord_ash2000:

I’ve never really understood the debate about the risks (relating to both accidents and covid) associated with climbing to justify climbing or not. I think this is missing a really important point about the restrictions in that they are for everyone, not just climbers, and we can’t have every practitioner of ever peculiar sport, hobby or past-time doing their own risk assessment as to what they think is justifiable. Some things will increase transmission, others increase strain on NHS, yet others might seem perfectly fine, but the only way the system will work is if everyone toes the line.

I agree that the-one-size-fits-all restrictions are clunky and a really annoying, but I cannot understand why so many climbers think they are so uniquely special that the rules don’t apply to them. It’s only climbing FFS, and I say that as someone who is as passionate and committed to it is anyone.

 BillyBoredEU 09 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

> STAY HOME

> I am lucky I can walk to several crags within  15 minutes. 

> Every day we hear STAY HOME SAVE THE NHS, yet this clearly does not apply to all. 

oh the hypocrisy...

clearly doesn't apply to you

 raussmf 09 Feb 2021
In reply to springfall2008:

Just checking but if its guidance why are people being fined by the police?

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

> The day before we went for a 15 min drive to go walk on some forrest paths and we didn't see another person. So what's more risky? Driving so you can encounter noone or staying "local" and mixing with the crowds?  

The standard being applied by the local police in the first lock-down was that driving in order to be able to exercise was regarded as 'reasonable' as long as the travelling time was less than the exercise time, which, at the time, was supposedly an hour I think.

I wouldn't do it everyday, but I don't think driving for 20 minutes or so, for a couple of hours of exercise somewhere reasonably isolated a couple of times a week, is unreasonable.  For balance, on many days during the week I don't leave the property at all. 

I think of it as a sort of COVID exposure budget.  I minimise the amount of time spent in supermarkets, which is self-evidently a far bigger risk than anything else I do.  I do sympathise with the majority of people who aren't lucky enough to have easy access to nice places to walk and I do take the point about people self-publicising what they are doing and encouraging others, but I'm not sure how it benefits anyone else if I forego a carefully thought-through, low profile, walk or run within, say, a roughly 10 mile radius of where I live.     

 Offwidth 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

The front of my house faces opposite to this baltic wind direction. It was dry and warm enough to show sheltered WSW facing bouldering would have been fine in the sun this morning. The air temp was just moving above freezing and we live near the top of a hill.

 rogersavery 09 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

“So if you really do feel you’re above the rules and the law then at least have the common sense not to post it all over social media...”


what law would that be? 

 Ramblin dave 09 Feb 2021
In reply to salad fingers:

> I agree that the-one-size-fits-all restrictions are clunky and a really annoying, but I cannot understand why so many climbers think they are so uniquely special that the rules don’t apply to them. It’s only climbing FFS, and I say that as someone who is as passionate and committed to it is anyone.

Surely the one-size-fits-all restrictions say that exercise is okay, and since climbing is exercise therefore climbing is okay so long as you "stay local"?

We can argue that as responsible citizens we should actually be being more careful than that and avoiding high-risk activities and that climbing of any form is an inherently high-risk activity, but to frame this as just being selfish climbers ignoring the rules that don't suit them is neither accurate nor helpful IMO.

 fred99 09 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

Don't you mean "these boulders are for local people only".

Royston Vasey mean anything to you ? (not sure of the spelling)

 danieleaston 09 Feb 2021
In reply to fred99:

Chubby Browns real name, isn't it?

We'll have no trouble here...

 Ally Smith 09 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

Despite the keyboard warriors taking delight in picking apart the fine logical details of your argument, I can't help but agree with the sentiment of your post.

I'm not denying anyone their right to their chosen form of exercise, but I am dismayed by public logbooks on UKC demonstrating that some climbers, including sponsored "athletes" are travelling well beyond anyone's moral definition of "staying local".

Pointing this out on an instagram story resulted in a foul mouthed tirade from one of these "athletes"; so to avoid a repeat and let you do your own searches.

The "Recent top ascents" is a good place to start.

Rant over.

In reply to fred99:

> Don't you mean "these boulders are for local people only".

> Royston Vasey mean anything to you ? (not sure of the spelling)

>

Sorry Fred but when you come to a joke 3rd time around....you've got to feel sorry for the joke teller...😉

Taxi for Fred....🤣

 BillyBoredEU 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Ally Smith:

> Despite the keyboard warriors taking delight in picking apart the fine logical details of your argument, I can't help but agree with the sentiment of your post.

fine logical details by which you mean "do as I say not as I do"?

don't post on social media if you are lucky enough to be able to walk to crags 15mins away?

what an absolute load of self-centred twaddle

In reply to Offwidth:

> The front of my house faces opposite to this baltic wind direction. It was dry and warm enough to show sheltered WSW facing bouldering would have been fine in the sun this morning. The air temp was just moving above freezing and we live near the top of a hill.

I have excellent bouldering actually on the side of my house. but unfortunately we're at about 1000ft and it faces directly into the current weather.  I'm not about to ruin the pointing with crampons. 

Nice on a summer morning though.


 Will Hunt 09 Feb 2021

Just popping in to say how pleased I am that UKC is still just as full of f*ckwits as it's ever been. Keep it up, gang.

 salad fingers 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Sorry if I wasn't being clear. My point was in relation to excessive traveling to climb (as per the OP), not climbing per se, and justifying doing so with individual assessments of perceived risks etc. And in this respect I do think climbers are being selfish and ignoring the rules that don't suit them when they travel way outside what anyone could connect consider their local area.

In reply to Will Hunt:

> Just popping in to say how pleased I am that UKC is still just as full of f*ckwits as it's ever been. Keep it up, gang.

Do we get to know which side of the discussion you think the f*ckwits are. Or is it just anyone on the thread?

 jelllytrad 09 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

I have been staying at home.. too much one would argue. To the point where I decided when I was drunk alone again that bat hanging from my pull up bar was a good idea. Luckily, no serious injuries from that one. I've also found candles really useful to relax to help my mental health in lockdown, and I set fire to the table last week by accident (don't use wax melts..) But it's only a matter of time before I am a burden to the NHS and emergency services. My house probably needs babyproofing.

 wintertree 09 Feb 2021
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> I have excellent bouldering actually on the side of my house. but unfortunately we're at about 1000ft and it faces directly into the current weather.  I'm not about to ruin the pointing with crampons. 

You just need to get some ice on it; half a day with a mister spray on the hose?  

In reply to Ally Smith:".

> Pointing this out on an instagram story resulted in a foul mouthed tirade from one of these "athletes"; 

Oh go on, we're all intrigued now! Spill the beanz...? 😀

In reply to wintertree: 

> You just need to get some ice on it; half a day with a mister spray on the hose?  

Outside taps all turned off and hoses frozen!

In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

> So if you really do feel you’re above the rules and the law then at least have the common sense not to post it all over social media... 

Even though, on balance, I think a discreet 12 miles is ok if not picking anyone up outside your household.... like from me as the above is the unequivocally bang on.

 springfall2008 10 Feb 2021
In reply to raussmf:

> Just checking but if its guidance why are people being fined by the police?


People aren't fined for travelling for exercise, but clearly you have to show the travel was reasonable for the exercise. If you drive from London to the Lakes it's clearly not going to be justified as just exercise. If you drive a short distance to your local crag then there is really no way a fine could stand up in court.

 springfall2008 10 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> You seem to be saying "balls to covid, here's a loophole so I'll do what I like". Totally the wrong message. Would it hurt to put a tiny bit of thought into supporting the national effort by not undermining the lockdown by publicly saying "let's all look for loopholes"?

It's not a loophole it's as designed, clearly your travel has to be reasonable (not driving from birmigham to the lakes). Boris himself drove 7+ miles for a cycle ride.

 Iamgregp 10 Feb 2021
In reply to springfall2008:

That's not necessarily true. 

No. 10 confirmed that he was cycling in the Olympic park, but didn't confirm whether he had been driven there and then cycled, or if he had cycled there, presumably for security reasons....

Doing a circular bike ride that takes you to the Olympic park and back is obviously fine (my missus does that a few times a week, though we're a little closer to it than Downing Street).   

(I hate to defend Boris on anything btw)

Post edited at 11:42
 springfall2008 10 Feb 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> That's not necessarily true. 

> No. 10 confirmed that he was cycling in the Olympic park, but didn't confirm whether he had been driven there and then cycled, or if he had cycled there, presumably for security reasons....

> Doing a circular bike ride that takes you to the Olympic park and back is obviously fine (my missus does that a few times a week, though we're a little closer to it than Downing Street).   

Driving to exercise is also fine, it's not illegal *shrug*

 Iamgregp 10 Feb 2021
In reply to springfall2008:

Kind of, but also not really...

The thing is if you were to live a built up area with no open space, and were to drive a few (we're talking 5 or so) miles to get to an open space to exercise I think that would be fine, and in the spirit of the rules.

There are numerous other parks closer to Downing St. than the Olympic park, so Boris driving to there to go and ride his bike around it wouldn't really be fine, whereas a circular ride that took him through the Olympic park would be would be fine.

Thing is of course people take that as a "driving to go and exercise is fine" as a blanket rule and do things like drive half way across the country to go climbing or hill walking or whatever.  That's the issue...

 Ramblin dave 10 Feb 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

I honestly think that anyone who looks at the ambiguity as to what exactly local means and uses that to justify the conclusion that Birmingham to Borrowdale is fine is probably an arsehole who would have done that even if the law and the guidance had both been crystal clear.

Although I also think, based on what I've read from public health specialists as well as what I've seen from people who I know, that the number of people who are doing that are a tiny tiny minority, and that there are many more important things to worry about in terms of actually saving lives.

Post edited at 12:40
 Iamgregp 10 Feb 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Agreed 100%

Like I said on one of the other threads on the same subject - If you have to ask, then it probably isn't in the spirit of the rules.  Yet people going out climbing probably isn't going to have a noticeable effect on the UKs response to the pandemic so it's not worth getting worked up about.

 GrahamD 10 Feb 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> Although I also think, based on what I've read from public health specialists as well as what I've seen from people who I know, that the number of people who are doing that are a tiny tiny minority, and that there are many more important things to worry about in terms of actually saving lives.

The trick, of course, is to make sure it stays as a selfish, negligible minority.

 Cobra_Head 10 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

Sorry you walked into this, you're right of course.

It's been going for months, people tying to justify / bend the rules / ignore, for the sake of doing something they WANT to.

We ALL want to, most of us aren't.

We aren't because there's a pandemic to deal with.

 Cobra_Head 10 Feb 2021
In reply to springfall2008:

> It's not a loophole it's as designed, clearly your travel has to be reasonable (not driving from birmigham to the lakes). Boris himself drove 7+ miles for a cycle ride.


Much as I hate to defend the buffoon, I'm pretty certain he cycled there, not driven there to cycle.

 Offwidth 10 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

Interesting as most commentators I've read who were looking into this are pretty sure he didn't, for security reasons. If he did, he could have just said so and made the critics look like fools.

Post edited at 18:14
 mark s 10 Feb 2021

I've hardly climbed this year as the weather has been poor and when it's nice I'm at work 

I've been today, alone and within 3 miles of my house. I won't travel further as I'm staying local. I've seen people who are not local but that's not my issue. That's up to the police to sort out. I've seen them around the roaches so they are seeking non locals out. 

 springfall2008 11 Feb 2021
In reply to mark s:

There's really no definition of local, it was only guidance. My nearest quiet Trad venue is around 19 miles away (it would be closer but Wales is off limit), once the weather improves that is where I will be going. To me it's a local climbing venue.

 kevin stephens 11 Feb 2021
In reply to springfall2008:

> There's really no definition of local, it was only guidance. My nearest quiet Trad venue is around 19 miles away (it would be closer but Wales is off limit), once the weather improves that is where I will be going. To me it's a local climbing venue.

For clarification "Local" is mandatory, the guidance on definition of "local" is for the police and courts to use as well as the individual

In reply to springfall2008:

I don't understand why you think "only guidance" should make any difference as to whether you're required to follow it or not.

You've justified it to yourself, fine. But it's not helpful to come online and tell everyone "it's only guidance, go as far as you like". 

 Iamgregp 11 Feb 2021
In reply to springfall2008:

To me, you’re a knob

 mark s 11 Feb 2021
In reply to springfall2008:

> There's really no definition of local, it was only guidance. My nearest quiet Trad venue is around 19 miles away (it would be closer but Wales is off limit), once the weather improves that is where I will be going. To me it's a local climbing venue.

Why not just go to Wales then

Makes no difference to me what you do but I wouldn't call 19 miles local.  I think you would struggle defending local to the police if they did stop you that far from home.

I'm not saying don't go or anything like that as I'm all for people getting out and having fresh air. I just questioning how 19 miles is local under any situation 

In reply to springfall2008:

Guidance is important. Guidance will be a significant factor in police and courts deciding if someone has broken the law.

There is some good climbing ice that may well be formed at the moment, only 15 miles from me. I’m not going to go and have a look, because in my view that would be seriously taking the piss.

In reply to Iamgregp:

> To me, you’re a knob

I like it..no ambiguity with this response.

I miss this....🤣

 jbb 11 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

For what it's worth, I haven't been, and won't be, climbing until lockdown restrictions change. I live 25 minutes drive from Almscliff. i haven't been there since December. I can't wait to get back out but it will wait. My own desire to have fun, has to take second place to the lives and livliehoods that are at risk during this pandemic.

I'm not going to comment on people who break lockdown to go climbing, but I would ask that at the very least please do it discreetly and don't shove it in the rest of our faces by putting it on social media!

Roll on the day that all this is over. Hopefully in a few weeks or months we'll be back out on the rock, and most I hope will be able to feel happy that they did their bit when it was needed.

 springfall2008 11 Feb 2021
In reply to kevin stephen:

Stay local is not written into law, so you are not breaking any law by not staying local.

The law says you can leave home for exercise, so you are really arguing over if the trip was for exercise or not.

Clearly if you drove 100 miles to go running it would be hard to convince a judge that the reason for your trip was just for excerise.

But I'd be very happy to stand up in court and tell a judge that my exercise is climing and my nearest safe quiet climbing venue is 19 miles away. Given I wouldn't have broken any laws I can't see there is a reasonable chance of any type of conviction.

 springfall2008 11 Feb 2021
In reply to mark s:

> Why not just go to Wales then

Because there is a law preventing visits to Wales for excerise.

> Makes no difference to me what you do but I wouldn't call 19 miles local.  I think you would struggle defending local to the police if they did stop you that far from home.

There's no need to defend local as the police only enforce the law and local is not in law.

In reply to The New NickB:

> There is some good climbing ice that may well be formed at the moment, only 15 miles from me. I’m not going to go and have a look, because in my view that would be seriously taking the piss.

If we're thinking of the same place, it's 18 miles for me so I'll not meet you up there on Saturday morning, and not belay you. Maybe next winter eh?

 Iamgregp 11 Feb 2021
In reply to springfall2008:

> But I'd be very happy to stand up in court and tell a judge that my exercise is climing and my nearest safe quiet climbing venue is 19 miles away. Given I wouldn't have broken any laws I can't see there is a reasonable chance of any type of conviction.

It's not about what's legal, it's about what's right.  They're not the same thing.  Legally, a 50 year old man could be in a sexual relationship with a 16 year old girl.  Doesn't make it right.

There are other albeit less preferable, forms of exercise available closer to your home which you've ignored them as climbing is your preference.  Therefore it's your desire that has brought you there rather than necessity (remember we're only supposed to be making essential journeys). 

All sorts of people have had to make all sorts of terrible sacrifices on order to limit the spread of the pandemic, (I've had friends cancel weddings, miss their own parent's funerals, I haven't seen my mother in over a year...) and you're not even willing to to stay local and find another way to exercise for a few weeks as you reckon it's not enforceable by law.  Is being coerced by the full force of the law the only way you'll consider doing the right thing?

My opinion of you remains unchanged.  Though it might now be prefixed with a couple of other words now like "selfish" or "self centred" or maybe just "massive"

 Maggot 11 Feb 2021
In reply to No one in particular:

I'd define 'Local' as being within an hour's walk of my front door, about a 4 mile radius.

I could get considerably further driving for an hour.

Post edited at 12:27
 Tyler 11 Feb 2021
In reply to springfall2008:

> Clearly if you drove 100 miles to go running it would be hard to convince a judge that the reason for your trip was just for excerise.

What about if you travelled 19 miles to go running? The idea of allowing people out to exercise is a compromise to keep the nation as fit as possible whilst staying close to home, it’s not to allow people to pursue their favourite hobby that involves an element of exercise. Rationing was introduced in WWII to ensure people had enough calories to remain healthy, if your favourite meal was spam and powdered egg then good on you but, if not, you couldn’t request an alternative that suits your palate. You might prefer climbing to other forms of exercise but you can’t claim not to be able to do exercise a lot closer to home. 

That’s not to say you wouldn’t get away with it if caught but if you didn’t I don’t think you could complain. 

Edit to add I’m ambivalent about people breaking the rules if they *genuinely* don’t increase risk of infection to themselves and others but I do think you need to face up to the consequences of those actions whether that be legal action or a slagging on here. 

Post edited at 13:11
In reply to springfall2008:

> There's no need to defend local as the police only enforce the law and local is not in law.

So you're only bothered about complying with the letter of the law, not following the rules to help control the pandemic? Are you still sure you're not using a loophole to justify continuing doing your hobby? 

In reply to The New NickB:

OK, I saw your profile said Rochdale, so then I realised Kinder wasn't likely to be your icy spot after all!

 Trangia 11 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

Ideally the most effective way of combatting Covid 19 would be to put the whole country into self isolation which would stop the spread of the virus. That's the ideal but it's obviously impossible to achieve because, for a start, people need food and provisions to carry on living, so some relaxation of the STAY AT HOME rule is essential to allow people to go out and shop for food etc. And there are numerous other essential reasons that people have to go out - essential work, collecting medicines etc etc. I'm not going to list everything, but each REASON for leaving home erodes the effectiveness of a total lockdown.

It is however, and. thankfully, recognised that daily exercise is essential for both mental and physical health, and we are permitted to take daily exercise, but are required to stay local to do this. The interpretation of what constitutes "local" is being very much to our own judgement and common sense with the police having to make a judgement if we stray from the spirit of this relaxation of the rules. Bearing in mind that we are combatting a deadly virus this puts a duty of acting in a mature and responsible way on every one of us.

Too often we are looking at the rules seeking excuses to get round them without being prosecuted. That's understandable because we all value our own freedom and right to enjoy doing what we like, but these are not ordinary times. If we can exercise within a few miles of our homes what justification is there for going further afield? 

Surely we should be asking ourselves this question every time we go out, rather than thinking I want to go bouldering/climbing/walking, but there is none nearby, so I need to travel? 

Can we really justify going further afield when there is plenty of adequate exercise within a short distance of home? Isn't the concession one of allowing us to exercise locally, NOT a concession to pursue a specific sport or interest? If there is no climbing locally then tough, there is still the facility to EXERCISE locally. If there is climbing locally, then great go for it.

It really isn't rocket science bearing in mind that we should be conducting ourselves responsibly and with the interests of our fellow citizens and the NHS at heart rather than selfishly just considering ourselves.

 tehmarks 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Trangia:

> we are permitted to take daily exercise, but are required to stay local to do this.

We are not required to, we are strongly advised to. Regardless of your opinion, accuracy is important.

 Cobra_Head 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> Interesting as most commentators I've read who were looking into this are pretty sure he didn't, for security reasons. If he did, he could have just said so and made the critics look like fools.


From what I've read, they didn't say he'd set off from Downing Street sur son vélo , because of security reasons, not that he'd driven somewhere first for security reasons.

I doubt we'll ever know, I can see the point of them not wanting people knowing The Great Buffoon goes for a bike ride from No.10, it would make an easy target, but I can also see why they wouldn't want to publish he was driven somewhere to ride his bike either.

 Cobra_Head 11 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> We are not required to, we are strongly advised to. Regardless of your opinion, accuracy is important.


Not true at all, the whole stay local, isn't just for excercise, it's :

If you do leave home for a permitted reason, you should always stay in your local area - unless it is necessary to go further, for example to go to work.

Besides that, why does it matter, shouldn't we all be doing our best to limit the spread of the virus, and the best way to do that is to stay at home. Go out when you only really need to, it's very simple.

 tehmarks 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> If you do leave home for a permitted reason, you should always stay in your local area - unless it is necessary to go further, for example to go to work.

My emphasis.

> Besides that, why does it matter

It matters for the hundreds of people who have been given fixed penalty notices for which there is no appeals process once accepted, who have been given them based on committing a nonexistent offence.

The solution is simple: don't write woolly legislation. Instead of being another moron riling at others for breaking 'the spirit' of the law, ask for laws which actually say what the government think they should say. Then there would be no argument.

In reply to tehmarks:

Legislation has to be flexible, otherwise every conceivable scenario and combination of scenarios has to be individually considered and included. If it's too much to ask people to follow rules without it being a criminal offence not to, our society really is truly pathetic, and we have no hope of ever getting over this.

If individuals break the rules in ways that are low risk it won't make much difference. If the whole approach across society is to do whatever we can get away with, we will be in lockdown forever. We're closer to the latter. 

Post edited at 14:53
In reply to springfall2008:

> But I'd be very happy to stand up in court and tell a judge that my exercise is climing and my nearest safe quiet climbing venue is 19 miles away. Given I wouldn't have broken any laws I can't see there is a reasonable chance of any type of conviction.

I think that if you found yourself in that situation, you would be in for a nasty shock. 

 tehmarks 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Stewart:

The first lockdown demonstrated that it was a poor approach. The government have had ample opportunity to amend the bits of law that didn't work the first time round, but have chosen not to do so. Wales and Scotland seem to have managed to come up with systems that, while being far from perfect, spell out the expected behaviour in far less ambiguous terms. It's far easier, of course, to write ambiguous and unenforceable legislation and then shout loudly about it in the press depending on the mood of the day. Our cabinet minsters are happy to be quoted in the press voicing their disgust for people who have actually had their FPNs rescinded by the police after they were advised that they were wrong to issue them in the first place. And on top of that, the actions of someone driving to go for a walk have negligible impact on any metric we can use to measure the spread of coronavirus.

It won't be the people driving to a nice place to go for a walk who keep us in lockdown indefinitely. It'll be the people who insist their vulnerable staff come to work in unsafe office environments despite massive outbreaks within, under the threat of disciplinary action. It'll be the people who are still having non-essential home improvements done by tradespeople the country over. It'll be the people who still insist on having their mates over every Friday night. It'll be those people engaging in behaviour that is clearly and obviously outwith the actual science of epidemiology. Much of which remains perfectly legal.

But that's not my point. People should not be prosecuted for breaking laws that don't exist. But, once again, don't take my lay opinion for it. Have it from someone qualified:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/hilltalk/police_in_horton_in_ribblesdale-729850?v=1#x9375215

Why do I care? Because it's not just a matter of pandemic behaviour. Do you really want the current crop of authoritarian-leaning idiots to set the precedent of legitimising punishment for things that aren't illegal? Really?

Post edited at 15:06
In reply to springfall2008:

> Stay local is not written into law, so you are not breaking any law by not staying local.

> The law says you can leave home for exercise, so you are really arguing over if the trip was for exercise or not.

> Clearly if you drove 100 miles to go running it would be hard to convince a judge that the reason for your trip was just for excerise.

> But I'd be very happy to stand up in court and tell a judge that my exercise is climing and my nearest safe quiet climbing venue is 19 miles away. Given I wouldn't have broken any laws I can't see there is a reasonable chance of any type of conviction.

I looked into this during another thread. ‘Local’ is not defined in law so a judge would have to go: “what information is out there to help the accused make their decision on what ‘local’ means.”  The main one would be the guidance which defines local as the village, town or part of the city you live in.  They may also take into consideration previous ‘rules’ such as the five mile radius rule. So a judge would go “you have travelled 19 miles from your home which is unreasonable so you are guilty.” This would then become case law.  
But the police aren’t nabbing climbers, probably because it’s too much effort and they can get a bigger hit by nabbing student parties etc.

 Cobra_Head 11 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> It matters for the hundreds of people who have been given fixed penalty notices for which there is no appeals process once accepted, who have been given them based on committing a nonexistent offence.

And what about the hundreds/ thousands of people infected, because people read the word should, as "well I know we should but we can ignore that".

By now people should know why it's best for us to stay in doors, if possible, and people shouldn't be taking the piss, when we all know what prevents people from getting ill and possibly dying.

Why the f*ck are we still arguing about this a year down the line? This is very basic stuff, the virus doesn't spread on it's own.

 kevin stephens 11 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> The solution is simple: don't write woolly legislation. Instead of being another moron riling at others for breaking 'the spirit' of the law, ask for laws which actually say what the government think they should say. Then there would be no argument.

Like they have in Wales, with the result of much tougher restrictions? (for better or worse)

 tehmarks 11 Feb 2021
In reply to kevin stephens:

Yes.

 tehmarks 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> This is very basic stuff, the virus doesn't spread among people sat alone in their own cars or in fields miles away from anyone else.

Fixed that for you.

> And what about the hundreds/ thousands of people infected, because people read the word should, as "well I know we should but we can ignore that".

I propose that the government review the drivel that they have actually written, change a few 'should's to 'must's, write a few extra bits to clarify any obvious new problems that they thus introduce, and pass that through Parliament instead. In short, I propose that they do their 'f*cking' jobs.

 kevin stephens 11 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

Sure, with appropriate exemptions for 

climbers
horse riders
anglers
morris dancers
shooters
bog snorklers
darts players
etc
etc

On the other hand catch all rules are a lot simpler to introduce and enforce, part of out climbing sacrifice to enable effective regulations against those actually spreading the virus

Post edited at 15:37
 Iamgregp 11 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

There's an old phrase "the kind of person you'd like to have next to you in the trenches"

And there's a couple of people on this thread who you know would be stood there saying "No, he said when the whistle goes we should go over the top, not that we have to, and in any case he didn't say which whistle and I never consented to respect his whistle..."

Good on you lads, real salt of the earth "we're all in this together" types aren't you?  You must be very proud of yourselves.

Post edited at 15:35
 Ramblin dave 11 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

I do find the definition of "local" in the guidance pretty weird, though. As I read it it basically means that if you live somewhere like Milton Keynes or Huddersfield then you can roam around the entire town, but if you live in some six-house hamlet in the middle of nowhere then you just have to walk (or cycle) backwards and forwards across the road for an hour.

I mean, for our part we're sticking to not driving, at least for as long as there's serious pressure on the NHS, but technically my 40 minute lunchtime bike rides seem to be breaking the guidance unless I stay in town, so I can see why people might not treat a literal interpretation of the guidelines as being gospel...

 tehmarks 11 Feb 2021
In reply to kevin stephens:

I can't tell whether or not you're misconstruing what I'm saying: I'm saying that if the government want people to act in a certain way, they should pass law that, as far as possible, clearly and unambiguously states that. If they pass a law that says that climbers and bog snorklers can drive to the opposite corner of the country to do so, then there is clearly only one culprit when people actually do it. If they pass a law that says that no one can partake in exercise unless it starts at their own front door then there will equally only be one culprit when people don't do so.

Passing a law which very hazily implies something and then lambasting every member of the public who falls foul of one untested interpretation of it is just bollocks. It leads to abject stupidity like the police being forced to rescind penalty notices at the same time as cabinet ministers shout loudly in the press that the police had every right to issue it in the first place. If anyone thinks that that is in the best interests of the country, then I respectfully suggest that you're mental. Trial by media, especially by those in public office, is shameful. Condemning people for breaking 'the spirit of the law' is shameful. If it's that important for it to be law, make it law.

Post edited at 15:45
In reply to Ramblin dave:

I agree, it is weird. But as Jon Stewart said upthread, it needs to be flexible. I said in another thread that I thought the govt may have left them vague so as to give flexibility (eg towards climbers - very few have been ‘done’).
On a tangent here and not aimed at anyone: I find it weird that loads of climber types seem to want more clear laws. ‘More clear’ would most likely mean tighter eg you can’t travel more than 5 miles radius from your post code. Need to be careful what we wish for. 

 S Ramsay 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

Were these children building a snowman spreading the virus? And this man having a smoke on his own in his car? The virus doesn't spread on its own you know! Just because something isn't strictly covered by the guidelines doesn't mean that it is immoral or risky

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/11/ministers-backtrack-on-advice-only-children-without-gardens-can-play-outside

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/watch-dad-smoking-car-as-19786103

 tehmarks 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

It's a fantastic argument, really emotive and powerful, but it falls down at the first application of logic or science. People walking five miles to the crag is okay but people driving twelve isn't (as per the OP)? Get real. It makes no difference.

It could just as easily be paraphrased as "I can't have my fun so why should you?"

In reply to tehmarks:

Fully get that main areas of Covid spread are workplaces, homes etc etc. But, the small things do add up when viewed as a population....

If 1 in every 20 cars travelled 12 miles to a place instead of 5, and did this once a week for two months, that would be a quarter of a BILLION extra miles!!!!! Filling up with fuel, car breakages etc etc adds up. 
 

Aside: one of the things that I really want to explore is my perception that huge numbers of people don’t buy into the ‘we need to view it on a population wide basis’,  

Post edited at 16:49
 S Ramsay 11 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

And if reaching their preferred distance an extra 7 miles further away than the closer one, they then engaged in the same (or similar) activity that they would have at 5 miles distance, there no would be no statistically significant change in the number of Covid cases. Maybe the thing that you should explore is how a number tending to zero multiplied by a fairly large number still tends to zero. Meeting people spreads Covid, not arsing about on a bit of moorland/rocks/woodland 12 miles from your house

In reply to S Ramsay:

> Maybe the thing that you should explore is how a number tending to zero multiplied by a fairly large number still tends to zero.

Patronising.  

> Meeting people spreads Covid, not arsing about on a bit of moorland/rocks/woodland 12 miles from your house

That’s basically my point.  The climbing bit is fine *. And a single person can go ‘I’m only travelling a bit further so it’s no big deal’, but on a population wide basis those extra millions of miles will have to include a whole bunch of social contacts - getting petrol, car problems, fatal accidents. But that’s the problem, people don’t see themselves as being part of a bigger picture. 

And just to reiterate , I’m fully aware that Covid is mainly being spreading elsewhere  

* up to a point. A few posters on here have had climbing accidents and ended up in hospital. Shit happens. 
Edit: just to add that I’ve borderline past caring about this issue, not bothered if folk go out climbing etc., but let’s not kid ourselves it comes with close to zero Covid risk. That is delusional bollocks. 

Post edited at 17:24
In reply to S Ramsay:

Unless you have to call MRT ofcourse....

Or see someone on a path....

Or put petrol in the car....

Or have a crash....

Or all sorts of unknowns.

So let's take your zero shall we and realise it isn't zero. Let's say, it's 0.02. multiply that by your large number. Are we still at zero?

 Iamgregp 11 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

"There's 50,000 of us lined up in this trench so what difference does it make if I don't bother to go over the top?  Get real it makes no difference."

And you know what?  You're right, we both are.  It doesn't make a difference.  You going off climbing likely isn't going to make a difference to the UKs recovery from the pandemic.  One person not going over the top at the Somme wouldn't have made a difference to the battle's outcome.

But that doesn't mean that people aren't going to criticise you for doing it.  

And of course it doesn't stand up to the application of logic and science.  But if we're going to sit here and pick out elements of the restrictions that don't make logical or scientific sense we're going to be here a long, long time. 

We all know lots of elements of it don't make sense, but that doesn't mean that we can go ahead and apply our own knowledge or scientific experience to make up our own set of rules.  If everyone did that then we'd never get out of this mess.  

To be honest, I don't really care if you do go climbing or not.  I've never met you, don't live in the same part of the country, am not going to see you at the crag etc...  I've no issue with you having fun climbing when I'm not, it honestly doesn't make any odds to me.

Coming on an internet forum trying arguing the toss about how it's ok because of x,y or z though, that's a prick move mate.  

 Iamgregp 11 Feb 2021
In reply to S Ramsay:

I didn't say it did.

 Iamgregp 11 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

Exactly this.

Have a like from me.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

> I do find the definition of "local" in the guidance pretty weird, though. As I read it it basically means that if you live somewhere like Milton Keynes or Huddersfield then you can roam around the entire town, but if you live in some six-house hamlet in the middle of nowhere then you just have to walk (or cycle) backwards and forwards across the road for an hour.

The irony here is that the hamlet you describe probably/possibly has miles and miles of country walks whereas the cities you describe are festooned with roundabouts in one example and, well, Huddersfield in the other.

Post edited at 18:24
 Trangia 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> "There's 50,000 of us lined up in this trench so what difference does it make if I don't bother to go over the top?  "

>  One person not going over the top at the Somme wouldn't have made a difference to the battle's outcome.

Ironically and sadly it didn't make any difference to the battle's outcome when all 120,000 British soldiers actually went over the top on the Somme on 1 July 1916 either.

But that's another story.

 Iamgregp 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Trangia:

Yes, I did think that as wrote this to be honest. 

 Cobra_Head 11 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> Fixed that for you.

You didn't really though did you, because driving increases the chance of having to interact with other people, like the bloke who called our MRT the other day, he probably thought, he wouldn't be spreading the virus, now who knows?

> I propose that the government review the drivel that they have actually written, change a few 'should's to 'must's, write a few extra bits to clarify any obvious new problems that they thus introduce, and pass that through Parliament instead. In short, I propose that they do their 'f*cking' jobs.

Agreed, it would be better, but even with the government telling you "shoulds and coulds" you should by now be able to judge for yourself what's NOT right to do.

People don't want to though.

 Cobra_Head 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Trangia:

> Ironically and sadly it didn't make any difference to the battle's outcome when all 120,000 British soldiers actually went over the top on the Somme on 1 July 1916 either.

It did in Stalingrad (23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943)

 David Coley 11 Feb 2021
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> I do find the definition of "local" in the guidance pretty weird, though. As I read it it basically means that if you live somewhere like Milton Keynes or Huddersfield then you can roam around the entire town, but if you live in some six-house hamlet in the middle of nowhere then you just have to walk (or cycle) backwards and forwards across the road for an hour.

I thought this was well defined by the PM. He was found cycling 7 miles from Number 10. Within 7 miles of that location, the population is around 3 million at a guess. So I assume the government recommends staying with a 3 million radius.. I.e if you live in Penzance, please don't go north of Birmingham. 

 tehmarks 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

>  You going off climbing likely isn't going to make a difference to the UKs recovery from the pandemic.

Again, for the second time in two days, I'm not 'going off climbing'.

> But that doesn't mean that people aren't going to criticise you for doing it.  

They certainly can, but as I'm not going climbing it wouldn't be very relevant.

> And of course it doesn't stand up to the application of logic and science.  But if we're going to sit here and pick out elements of the restrictions that don't make logical or scientific sense we're going to be here a long, long time.

Brilliant. 'We are in this mess because people like you are going climbing', 'not going climbing doesn't stand up to the application of logic or science'. Here's a suggestion: if people truly cared about what makes a difference to when we exit lockdown, as so many here profess to, then write to your MPs and ask why the government refuse to apply logic or science to their approach to the pandemic. Hold them to account in any and every way that you can. That is the single biggest influence on the shit we're in and on our recovery from it, but apparently everyone is too busy arguing the toss about people being people and engaging in low-risk activities to make any effort to do anything about why the entire disaster has been so appalling mismanaged in the first place. It's just hot air otherwise. Taking the easy option. Staying in the trench, you might say.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/11/one-in-five-britons-going-into-workplace-unnecessarily-covid
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/11/safety-is-very-lax-staff-tell-of-being-forced-into-the-office-during-uks-third-lockdown

Maybe start with this issue. Or start with the appalling example the government's own agency has set in forcing staff into an unsafe office against their will. Or start by asking why takeaway coffee shops are 'essential'. Or start by asking why tradespeople the country over are still doing non-essential works in people's homes. Or start by demanding to know why Dominic Cummings can drive the length of the country while potentially actually having coronavirus but two locals can't drive to go for a walk in a quieter area. If you actually want to make a difference instead of just spouting off at people who have reached a different conclusion to you on a niche hobby that has negligible impact in the grand scheme of things, give that a go instead of forcing your views on people who, in the grand scheme of things, make zero identifiable difference to any statistical measurement available.

> If everyone did that then we'd never get out of this mess.  

We're not going to get out of this mess at all while some disconnected and unaffected pillocks in Downing Street act three weeks too late at every opportunity and ignore any scientific reasoning in preference to economic performance.

> Coming on an internet forum trying arguing the toss about how it's ok because of x,y or z though...

I'm arguing that the premise of the OP — that it's not okay to go climbing if it involves a motor vehicle making a short journey, but it's fine if you walk to the crag — is nonsensical. I'm arguing that the law is unclear, and ultimately that if it mattered so much, the law should be made clear. I'm arguing that it's unfair for people to be punished for not disobeying the law. I'm arguing that our government should grow the f*ck up and stop trying to blame the public for their failings, and I'm arguing that each and every person who follows that premise is allowing them to get away with what amounts to the manslaughter of tens of thousands of people. And I'm also questioning why this entire forum has turned into a curtain-twitching disaster ready to criticise at the merest hint of impropriety. Again, if people truly care enough to be writing at length, there are far more important things and far more important people to write at length to. But it's just hot air, isn't it? An easy target. A casual vent for some general outrage.

> ...that's a prick move mate.

Grow up.

Post edited at 21:44
 timparkin 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> You do realise you can get injured cycling, running and even walking (ankle twists in rabbit holes or slipping on ice, snow, wet grass or mud)? I seem to have taken more falls walking this winter than in a typical trad season after the grit has been called ... a really spectacular two feet flying into the air at once, on wet grass on a local golf course, just this week.

> I really don''t understand what has got into some climbers being so negative about our activity in a pandemic if being careful to reduce risk. People of course should be taking special care and only exercising locally under the guidance and regulations. Easier bouldering circuits are fabulous full body exercise if anyone is lucky enough to live near them.

Lochaber, people climbing and walking the hills left, right and centre. Most hospitalizations are from slipping in the street, chopping wood and sledging.

 tehmarks 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> People don't want to though.

People have. Understandably not everyone has reached the same conclusion, because we're not automatons. I guess the MRT member in Scotland who was already on the hill with his mate when a call came in hasn't reached the same conclusion either?

The law as it stands allows for the scope for these different conclusions to be reached. We're back at my original premise: don't pass woolly laws and expect every single person in the country to come to the same conclusion about what it means and about what is right and what isn't.

Post edited at 21:29
 Iamgregp 11 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

Actually, I’ve already written to my MP, raised the Cummings issue and some others you mentioned too.  I don’t need your advice on how to raise issues via the correct channels thanks.

What have you done, aside from your words here?

 tehmarks 11 Feb 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

I've written to my MP, twice, but I've been somewhat distracted engaging with my industry on the rather more pressing issue of how we're all going to pay our bills and not go out of business, and engaging with my banks, HMRC, CRT, etc, over the even more pressing issue of ensuring that I can pay my own bills and not go out of business myself.

I'm bowing out. I had nothing to contribute to this thread other than to point out that you can't expect every citizen of the country to arrive at the same conclusions about the most ambiguous cop-out to pass through Parliament in some time. And to point out that it matters because people are — they really are — being charged with and issued unappealable penalty notices for offences that don't actually exist or that aren't enforceable. Ask Derbyshire Police. I'm sure they'd love to not be reviewing their brilliant work in this area — but they are?

I ultimately have no opinion on people climbing. I really don't care. I'm happy doing what I think is appropriate and leaving others to use their best judgement as they see fit. We've so far had 'bouldering is not exercise' (patently ridiculous), 'going climbing is okay if you can walk there else how dare you' (illogical), 'prick move for daring to argue' (just plain rude). It's impossible to refute such fine observations. And a mandatory distasteful comparison to wartime. Who are you, Boris himself?

 Iamgregp 11 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

We’ve all faced difficulties caused by the lockdowns you’re not alone in this, it’s been hard for us all.

I agree absolutely with you that the messaging and legislation from the government throughout this whole thing has been nothing short of shambolic. Believe me I am no supporter of this or any other Tory government, I’ve always been a Labour supporter.

I think essentially we’re both frustrated by the same issues, but vent our frustration in different ways. I’m probably as unmoved by people going climbing as you are, I just get frustrated by multiple threads of various people justifying why they’re in the right by going climbing. You’re not so bothered by it on account of the governments weak messaging.

Yeah I guess I have been a bit insulting. Apologies for that, but like I said I, like the rest of the bloody country, am feeling frustrated by all this so maybe that got to me in my response.

Having said that, I’ve never been called Boris effing Johnson before! ;)

I’m happy to leave it there too. I’m probably coming across wrongly and I think we probably agree on more than we might think.
 

 Cobra_Head 12 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> People have. Understandably not everyone has reached the same conclusion, because we're not automatons. I guess the MRT member in Scotland who was already on the hill with his mate when a call came in hasn't reached the same conclusion either?

I wasn't talking about Scotland, rather the recent one in the Lakes.

> The law as it stands allows for the scope for these different conclusions to be reached. We're back at my original premise: don't pass woolly laws and expect every single person in the country to come to the same conclusion about what it means and about what is right and what isn't.

My point is, we should need laws!! It's pretty obvious what's needed, people don't want to, like the bloke who kept his gym open, he KNEW he shouldn't but he still did.

It's not about being automatons either, it's about having some respect for others and doing what you know is right.

In reply to jbb:

> For what it's worth, I haven't been, and won't be, climbing until lockdown restrictions change.

> Roll on the day that all this is over. Hopefully in a few weeks or months we'll be back out on the rock, and most I hope will be able to feel happy that they did their bit when it was needed.

This will be the next debate and I think it will start in earnest around Easter, particularly if the weather is nice like it was last year. At the moment it's fairly simple for most people - they aren't going climbing at all unless it's very local and safe and the weather is too cold and wet for rock climbing anyway. However as lockdown carries on, the pressure on the NHS reduces and the weather improves, I think increasing numbers of people will start to head out again.

The reality is that the travel and exercise rules won't change much before Easter at the earliest and quite possibly not until May or June. I think as long as the various Covid indicators continue to head in the right direction (Covid patients in hospital, case numbers and the vaccination drive), a lot more people will start to take a view on things.

Of course it's possible that BoJo will relax the travel and exercise restrictions from Easter but the sense I'm getting is they're being fairly cautious.

We aren't yet at the stage where this debate will rear its head again but I think we will be there in 4 to 6 weeks' time, unless we have really poor weather in March and April which will largely solve the issue for us all!

 Michael Gordon 12 Feb 2021
In reply to timparkin:

> Lochaber, people climbing and walking the hills left, right and centre. Most hospitalizations are from slipping in the street, chopping wood and sledging.

How many hospitalisations from chopping wood?

In reply to tehmarks:

I have written to my MP about a multitude of issues. I would've been better off shouting my concerns directly in to a bin.

And don't say 'Well, don't vote for them then!' 

Trust me, I wasn't going to.

 S Ramsay 12 Feb 2021
In reply to bouldery bits:

Unless you have to call MRT ofcourse....

Or see someone on a path....

Or put petrol in the car....

Or have a crash....

Or all sorts of unknowns.

So let's take your zero shall we and realise it isn't zero. Let's say, it's 0.02. multiply that by your large number. Are we still at zero?

So you're saying that travelling 12 miles rather than 5 brings with it can extra chance to having a close enough contact to pass on coronavirus if currently infectous of 0.02? Seems high to me. Unless you're particularly accident prone you should be able to manage to go for more than 50 outings without having a sufficiently close contact with someone else to pass on coronavirus were you infected. Bear in mind that R is currently around 0.9 meaning that on average most infected people pass it on to at most 1 other person. Who are the closest contacts for most people? Household members and colleagues would be high on the list, people that they pass on a footpath near the bottom of the list. How often do you have a car crash? hopefully less than once in every 100,000 or so outings. Therefore, I just can't see how the country limiting themselves to a 5 mile radius for outside activities is going to have a statistically significant effect on R. The difference is likely to be so small as to not be measurable, i.e. zero.

Sure if everyone, goes for big days out, there will be a couple of extra car crashes and Mountain Rescue callouts, which could lead to a couple of extra infections, but I just can't see this affect being big enough to be worth worrying about. If we were specifically going for a zero covid in X weeks strategy then there would be a point to just staying in your house but not getting in your car for sake of moving R from 0.9 to 0.8999 seems pretty pointless to me.

 S Ramsay 12 Feb 2021
In reply to S Ramsay:

This isn't even an anti-lockdown argument, if we to all start visiting our friends and family then it would be reasonable expect that R would climb substantially above 1 and result in a 3rd (4th depending on how you measure) wave. It's an argument against banning things that won't make an actual difference to the number of people dying

In reply to S Ramsay:

Do what you like.

In reply to S Ramsay:

>It's an argument against banning things that won't make an actual difference to the number of people dying

....


 tehmarks 12 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> I wasn't talking about Scotland, rather the recent one in the Lakes.

Doing what we know is right doesn't just magically change when you cross an imaginary line on the ground. The law may be different, but the right thing isn't. These aren't my words, these are your own words applied logically. So, the MRT already out with his mate on the hill when the call comes in. Probably climbing, let's be realistic. What's your opinion?

> My point is, we should need laws!! It's pretty obvious what's needed, people don't want to, like the bloke who kept his gym open, he KNEW he shouldn't but he still did.

We're not talking about egregious breaches of common sense; we're talking about fringe cases of doing activities that make no appreciable difference to anything. If we're really considering risk rationally, and it really is obvious what's needed, then I need to stop rewiring my boat, stop splitting wood for the stove and stop going for walks on icy towpaths. I'm not going to stop doing any of those things though, because that's unreasonable and unrealistic.

> It's not about being automatons either, it's about having some respect for others and doing what you know is right.

One doing what you know is right is not the same as doing what they know is right. Why can't you get that? People will take the same facts and come to different conclusions. That is life. Just because you believe passionately in your interpretation doesn't mean that others will come to any less valid an interpretation.

In reply to tehmarks:

Climbers etc are very lucky because they have a loophole that their hobby has a by-product of exercise. 
 

Question for you or anyone:  What other activities would you allow to happen?

For the record, I’ve thought long and hard about what I would do if I was say living in the Lakes with mega ice all around. I reckon I would probably go ice climbing, keep  it quiet, use the excuse that it’s training for a qualification but no way in hell would I come out with ‘it’s almost risk free so it’s fine.’  This is because I have ‘world view’ of things and realise my actions, albeit minusculey small, have an impact. 

 Ramblin dave 12 Feb 2021
In reply to Misha:

> Of course it's possible that BoJo will relax the travel and exercise restrictions from Easter but the sense I'm getting is they're being fairly cautious.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did relax the exercise restrictions fairly early, to be honest. As has been discussed ad nauseum, the cumulative impact on infection rates is basically negligible, the concerns about road accidents and exercise-related accidents overloading the NHS become much less of an issue when the absolute numbers in hospital have come down a bit, and the vast majority of normal people aren't going to do things like six hour round trips in a day to go climbing anyway, but might welcome the clarity on being allowed to drive out to a nearby beauty spot or sit in the park with a picnic. It's a very low-impact way to make people feel like they've got a bit more freedom, particularly as the weather gets warmer. Although it doesn't make anyone any money, which I guess decreases the likelihood a bit...

 tehmarks 12 Feb 2021
In reply to mick taylor:

> Climbers etc are very lucky because they have a loophole that their hobby has a by-product of exercise. 

> Question for you or anyone:  What other activities would you allow to happen?

I'm going to go about this backwards and start with what I wouldn't allow happen. Boating was deemed as legitimate exercise at one point in the dim past, despite it mostly involving standing stationary at a tiller while travelling places. I wouldn't allow that other than for essential reasons (ie liveaboards who, despite their best efforts, still need biological basics like potable water and fuel). I wouldn't allow any of the hundreds examples of businesses operating unsafely. Starbucks would be closed.

What I would allow, personally, is any personal non-group activity that starts at one's own front door. Walking, running, climbing, horse riding, whatever. If you can make it entirely human-powered, crack on.

Is that perfect No, of course not. Is it fair? No, not entirely. Is it clear and unambiguous? Yes. It very obviously communicates what is and isn't acceptable, and gives a clear framework within which people can go about their daily lives. It's not open to wildly different interpretations, and it'd eliminate at a stroke about 90% of current UKC arguing.

> I reckon I would probably go ice climbing, keep  it quiet, use the excuse that it’s training for a qualification but no way in hell would I come out with ‘it’s almost risk free so it’s fine.’  This is because I have ‘world view’ of things and realise my actions, albeit minusculey small, have an impact. 

Alas, unlike maths and physics, there is not a single answer or set of answers that can be computed and verified to be correct. I don't understand why people are surprised when others come up with different answers.

Post edited at 11:39
 tehmarks 12 Feb 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> We’ve all faced difficulties caused by the lockdowns you’re not alone in this, it’s been hard for us all.

I don't doubt it.

> I just get frustrated by multiple threads of various people justifying why they’re in the right by going climbing. You’re not so bothered by it on account of the governments weak messaging.

They tend to be replies to threads started, unprovoked, telling people why they're in the wrong for going climbing though. And without any understanding of the situations of the people going climbing beyond a cursory investigation on social media. I hate assuming the worst of people, and I hate other people assuming the worst of others. And I really hate the broken record currently playing. None of these threads are going to change anyone's mind. 'heads will still be 'heads, people on the fringes enjoying their local crags will still go out and enjoy their local crags, and those not climbing will continue to not climb. No one needs a peer-pressure compass, I think we've either got functioning or dysfunctional moral compasses of our own that we're going to listen to in preference.

> Yeah I guess I have been a bit insulting. Apologies for that

No problem.

but like I said I, like the rest of the bloody country, am feeling frustrated by all this so maybe that got to me in my response.

I shouldn't have been sucked in. I was making a point that I feel gets lost in the hysteria. I don't have an opinion on the subject.

> I’m happy to leave it there too. I’m probably coming across wrongly and I think we probably agree on more than we might think.

Like I said the other week, I suspect this would be sorted in no time over a pint.

 Iamgregp 12 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

I got kind of sucked into that too, I try not too but just can't help myself sometimes.  Like you say, I'm sure we'd have settled this in no time over a pint!

Agreed, it's all to easy to come across completely wrongly on internet forums and social media (I'm talking about myself here) and for people to get the wrong impression. 

I've also noticed I have a particular gift for putting my foot in my mouth when I'm typing, so I really should try to exercise some more self control!  I'm much better at speaking face to face, particularly if there's a pint on the table...

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Fair points. 

 Michael Gordon 13 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

It shows how divisive the issue can be -  currently 136 likes and 136 dislikes for your original post! I didn't like the preachy nature of it, again another example of the stay at home brigade or lockdown police. IMO folk shouldn't be doing risky things at the moment - much more important than just walking or driving for a while which causes no harm whatsoever.

 GrahamD 13 Feb 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> It shows how divisive the issue can be -  currently 136 likes and 136 dislikes for your original post! I didn't like the preachy nature of it, again another example of the stay at home brigade or lockdown police. IMO folk shouldn't be doing risky things at the moment - much more important than just walking or driving for a while which causes no harm whatsoever.

There is no such thing as 'no harm whatsoever'.  

 Al Randall 13 Feb 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

I dislike the OP because it's sanctimonious NOT because it's wrong which just goes to illustrate why the dislike button is useless and conveys absolutely nothing.

Al

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I tend to agree. Hence my view on winter climbing is fairly strong - it’s a high risk activity, riskier than most winter climbers care to admit. Rock climbing comes in all shapes ans sizes so the risks can be managed better but personally I don’t see the point of rock climbing at the moment.

The key point though is that the position is not absolute - it changes as the Covid situation evolves. The dial is already shifting and we are in a far better position than in early January in that all the indicators are pointing in the right direction as opposed to the wrong direction. If things continue to go well, by Easter and possibly a bit earlier the position will have improved sufficiently for me to consider heading out climbing again (if the weather is kind), perhaps even some gentle late season winter stuff.

The good news is that things are heading in the right direction. If the papers are to be believed, the pubs might open for outdoor service in April, which would be an indicator of some kind of return to normality... though not sure I’d want to sit round a table with several other people but that’s a different debate. 

 Cobra_Head 13 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> My point is, we should need laws!! It's pretty obvious what's needed, people don't want to, like the bloke who kept his gym open, he KNEW he shouldn't but he still did.

Shouldn't, NOT should!!! Ooops

To accusations od being automatons, one step away from the "sheep" accusations that usually get thrown at people trying to do what's best, "what side of the road do you drive on?"

In reply to Cobra_Head:

I drive on the right side, which is to say the left. Clear?

Post edited at 15:43
 Cobra_Head 13 Feb 2021
In reply to bouldery bits:

> I drive on the right side, which is to say the left. Clear?


Always.

 tehmarks 13 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> To accusations od being automatons, one step away from the "sheep" accusations that usually get thrown at people trying to do what's best, "what side of the road do you drive on?"

Not the best example is it, given that people choosing otherwise are quite obviously raging mentalists with a death wish? I wasn't accusing anyone of being 'one step away from the sheep' — I was pointing out that you can't expect everyone to process the facts of a complicated scenario and all arrive at the same conclusions. If you leave ambiguity, you leave room for interpretation and you leave room for people to quite validly arrive at different answers.

 Michael Gordon 14 Feb 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

> There is no such thing as 'no harm whatsoever'.  

OK then, what harm does walking or driving cause, other than the latter helping to enhance the greenhouse effect?

 GrahamD 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

One person, probably not so much.  As soon as half a dozen cars turn up at the same spot or buy their fuel from the same service station, you have a potential bridge between hitherto isolated groups.  How can you guarantee that noone else chooses the same walk as you, or the same sledge slope, or the same beauty spot or the same beach?

 Tom V 14 Feb 2021
In reply to bouldery bits:

But I usually notice people driving on the other side of the road from me as well.

 Fat Bumbly2 14 Feb 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

Use the second dimension. I have met very few on the hills or lochs but it is not difficult to pick another line. (Appreciate problems with fenced in paths down south.) Only busyish hill was one evening on Dumyat where there may have been 20 there, all avoided with ease. Our local beach however was a total avoid in all but poor weather... a real sod during the 8km rubbish. 
 

As for sledging... avoid, avoid. I think the police were mob handed up at Pencraig yesterday because of sledging

This seems to hark back to last Spring when we did not know how low risk outdoors is.

Post edited at 10:30
 Cobra_Head 14 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

Not sure it's very complicated, people spread the virus, that seems pretty easy to understand. People are quite happy to make it complicated, to suit their wants, in many cases.

I beg your pardon if the sheep accusation was wide of the mark, I've heard this insult so many times in relation to covid, it's really the most stupid "insult" to try an justify doing what you want.

Post edited at 10:50
 GrahamD 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

So you are lucky that folk aren't choosing to be on the same place as you.  Most people aren't that lucky, or experienced.  They will go for the options they know using exactly your "what harm" argument.

 Offwidth 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

People walking and climbing outdoors simply do not spread the virus doing that, something you seem to struggle to understand.

 tehmarks 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

Quite right. So which of the following list of permitted and non-permitted activities do you think are justifiable:

  • DIY using power tools (non-essential improvements).
  • Using a chainsaw to cut back trees in your garden.
  • Walking to a crag to solo (repeat, not onsight) routes comfortably within your abilities.
  • Driving within the same locale to do the same.
  • Driving five miles out of your busy suburban area to a quiet area to walk with reasonable expectation of being alone.
  • Driving the length of the country to see your significant other (support bubble)?
  • Going to work in an unsafe office environment.
  • Going to the supermarket to do a weekly shop when there are delivery slots available for home delivery.
  • Having tradespeople in your home to do non-essential improvements.
 Jon Read 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

Low risk is not the same as zero risk, which is what you seem to be implying?

I can imagine a number of ways the virus can transmit between individuals climbing together outside.

 Offwidth 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

Sure but people are muddling finite and significant... I'm saying it's so low its negligable if you follow anything close to the social distancing rules. Some people are getting very het up about passing within a gap of less than 2m, when risks were defined as very small unless close for quite a few minutes; also large crowds had much lower distances for long periods in various protests with no obvious consequences. Formite transmission outdoors also seems to be very low risk. We didn't know this in the first lockdown so the greater caution was justified then.

Post edited at 11:57
 Ramblin dave 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

I think the basic point here is that "zero risk" is an attractive sounding idea if you want to call people idiots for not following a very simple moral imperative, but total rubbish if you actually follow through the consequences. Setting your house on fire would seem like a fairly bad idea right now, and cooking is a known cause of fires - should we all be sticking to raw food? And obviously if you have to go out to work or shop, taking no chances means you should probably be quarantining from the rest of your family for ten days just in case you picked up the virus while you were out.

So in practice, whether people like to admit it or not we're all writing some risks off as small enough to be acceptable, and we're just haggling over which ones they are.

 tehmarks 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Jon Read:

> Low risk is not the same as zero risk, which is what you seem to be implying?

If you'd like to limit all non-essential activities to those that are 'zero risk', then we best not leave our houses, do anything in or houses or indeed get out of bed at all.

In reply to tehmarks:

> If you'd like to limit all non-essential activities to those that are 'zero risk', then we best not leave our houses, do anything in or houses or indeed get out of bed at all.

Don't be silly. There is a great risk from remaining sedentary.

:P

In reply to GrahamD:

I don’t think it’s really about the risk of spread outdoors from walking (however climbing entails more risk of spread). I’d say it’s more about the general perception travel creates  - one person heads out so another person decides it’s ok to head out for whatever reason and so on. Person A might not spread anything but person E who also decides to head out may well do. The stats show that the roads are a lot busier in this lockdown. Plus your earlier points about accidents and breakdowns.

I would say at this point in time we are still in a situation where the Covid numbers are pretty high, though they’re heading in the right direction, so reducing travel as much as possible is a good idea. However by Easter we should be in a much better position. It’s an evolving situation.

Have to say I’m surprised that L3 has worked as well as it has, despite a more transmissible variant, lower compliance and being in the middle of winter.

 Offwidth 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Misha:

Given the R number is higher for the current dominant variant compared to the virus in the first lockdown but local recreational areas have been a lot busier in this lockdown compared to the first one, it indicates to me that people are being more careful social distancing indoors in this lockdown and the much busier outdoor situation, sometime looking almost crowded, has had negligable significant population risk levels. People know risk is much lower outdoors and outdoor formite risk is lower than once thought. I agree people should be especially careful whatever they do in avoiding injury as the extra stress on hospitals is very much to be avoided (even if we disagree if people can do that winter climbing). The physical and mental health benefits of exercise are important.

 tehmarks 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Misha:

> I’d say it’s more about the general perception travel creates  - one person heads out so another person decides it’s ok to head out for whatever reason and so on.

The hard life of a social media influencer...

In reply to tehmarks:

Celebs are one thing (another case in the news today, though I make no comment on it as I have no idea of the circumstances involved). However it is undeniable that peer pressure and general perception are key to lockdown holding or not. You might think that everyone decides for themselves but the reality is that we are all influenced by what other people do and where is generally considered to be acceptable. Let’s say you have traffic levels back where they were in early April. Most people would probably think twice about heading out and if they do they will probably try to stay local. Now traffic levels are higher, though not back up to usual levels. It’s easier to say ‘well everyone else is travelling so I might as well’ and it’s easier to blend in.

 wercat 14 Feb 2021
In reply to bouldery bits:

> Don't be silly. There is a great risk from remaining sedentary.

> :P


for people with my genes the risks to my own life and to the people who would treat/transport my body are considerable.  As clear and present as the danger of Covid given I've had zero social contact with anyone outside the household in more than a year except for essential medical and very very occasional essential shopping/building society/bank.  I saw what sedentary work did to my father(+ 61) and his brother (+ 57).  My father's cousin also died for the same reason in his 50s.   You have to go back to my grandfather's cohort (b 1904) in my family to find someone who lived to retirement age.

Driving once a week to get to my local mountain also keeps Green Flag away from our elderly car (2007).  As I've stayed local rigidly except for police sanctioned university pickup/dropoff it's within the law as well as the spirit.

Post edited at 13:09
 Cobra_Head 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Misha:

Not only that though, if you're travelling on an empty road, you'd feel more vulnerable of getting caught, should you be doing something you shouldn't be.

 Offwidth 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Misha:

I'll try again as you seem to be ignoring what your evidence means. With much higher traffic levels, much busier recreation areas, wider definitions of essential workers (and more), all in the face of a variant that spreads more easily, the fact things are improving faster than in the first lockdown means all those other risky looking factors are small compared to the what must be improved prevention measures indoors.

 Cobra_Head 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Offwidth:

> People walking and climbing outdoors simply do not spread the virus doing that, something you seem to struggle to understand.


And they never interact with anyone during their walking or climbing I presume.

 wercat 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

I certainly haven't - No rock climbing at all last year and all winter was solo.  Walking I hardly put myself in hailing distance if I could avoid it and wore leather gloves for a little easy scrambling and leaves or other vegetation for all gate-contact.  Tell me where there was more risk than having other people's dogs paw me in the village

 wercat 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Ramblin dave:

well said

> So in practice, whether people like to admit it or not we're all writing some risks off as small enough to be acceptable, and we're just haggling over which ones they are.

 Cobra_Head 14 Feb 2021
In reply to tehmarks:

> Quite right. So which of the following list of permitted and non-permitted activities do you think are justifiable:

It matter not what I think, to be honest, it's what we've been told to do, what's best for ALL of us.

Simply going out when you don't need to could be an encouragement to others to do the same. Would you like to encourage others to go out?

> Using a chainsaw to cut back trees in your garden.

Who's got a chainsaw?

> Walking to a crag to solo (repeat, not onsight) routes comfortably within your abilities.

How many people can do this?

> Driving within the same locale to do the same.

Why drive if you're in the same locale?

> Driving five miles out of your busy suburban area to a quiet area to walk with reasonable expectation of being alone.

 wercat 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> Not sure it's very complicated, people spread the virus, that seems pretty easy to understand. People are quite happy to make it complicated, to suit their wants, in many cases.

> I beg your pardon if the sheep accusation was wide of the mark, I've heard this insult so many times in relation to covid, it's really the most stupid "insult" to try an justify doing what you want.


I think you are making some big assumptions

 Maggot 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> And they never interact with anyone during their walking or climbing I presume.


Meet me up on moors and all you'll get is a nod and " 'right".

 Cobra_Head 14 Feb 2021
In reply to wercat:

> I certainly haven't - No rock climbing at all last year and all winter was solo.  Walking I hardly put myself in hailing distance if I could avoid it and wore leather gloves for a little easy scrambling and leaves or other vegetation for all gate-contact.  Tell me where there was more risk than having other people's dogs paw me in the village


You sound like you're in a very niche environment, and there are obvious exceptions to every rule. For clarity, my posts are based on what I perceive are risks for the general public, in that, most of us don't live near a crag or bouldering, most of us live in urban environments, most of us would have to travel to get to a decent walk or crag.

The majority of people who are arguing for greater freedom, see to be doing so from the same environment as myself, telling everyone it's OK

 wercat 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

I could have travelled to crags (40 minutes or so) last summer but given I was even wearing gloves for scrambling it seemed a bit risky to me but perhaps I was being over cautious. 

The plus side - I bought very cheap leather gardening gloves and am constantly amazed at how grippy and tactile these things are compared with synthetic or wool gloves - possibly as good as my own skin or better.

 Ramblin dave 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> It matter not what I think, to be honest, it's what we've been told to do, what's best for ALL of us.

What we've told is that we can go out to exercise but we should stay local. It doesn't say that only certain forms of exercise are allowed or that we shouldn't drive. This isn't some sneaky twisting of the words in the guidance, it's literally what is and is not said, and it's things that very easily could be said if they were what was intended.

We're choosing not to drive (and the question of whether we should climb while staying local doesn't really apply to us), but this is very much about what we think and not what we've been told to do.

 tehmarks 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

Life in your world must be really quite pleasant in its simplicity and lack of colour.

 Wainers44 14 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> The majority of people who are arguing for greater freedom, see to be doing so from the same environment as myself, telling everyone it's OK

The whole thing does need looking at in the context of how people actually behave though. I have been a dullard (aka responsible) and stuck to the whole concept of local for exercise.  A very few miles from us are the Haldon Hills and a couple of times I have walked or run up there. Its chaos at weekends so I now steer clear.

You can see exactly what is happening,  the whole population of Exeter having had the fear of prosecution ramed into them aren't going the few extra miles to Dartmoor so Haldon is overrun. 

OK, blame the people,  they shouldn't drive and should all mass in the few parks in the city instead? Maybe, but infection rates are very low here, and have been that way comparatively throughout. The worst thing of all would be a general feeling that the rules aren't important. 

I get that the whole Tier thing didn't work, but the way out of this has to involve the rules being sensible and relevant enough for people to want to follow them?

 Fat Bumbly2 14 Feb 2021
In reply to GrahamD:

Luck has nothing to do with it. “Avoid busy places”. There is an awful lot of Lammermuir. 
 

How much experience to you need to notice lots of cars or parking problems? 

Post edited at 14:19
In reply to Offwidth:

The reasons why L3 has worked are complex and not yet understood. The way I see it, it all adds up, so the more we can reasonably do, the better. The situation is already better than a month ago and if things go well and reopening schools doesn’t set us back too much, I think by about Easter I’d be reasonably happy with heading out. Depends on the situation at the time of course but this is my current expectation. I suppose easy for me to say as I wrote off winter climbing this season back in the summer as I could see what was coming and I have zero interest in rock at this time of year. 

 Trangia 15 Feb 2021
In reply to A Nidderdale boulderer.:

Lake District MR Team on Countryfile last night. The message that came across loud and clear was "Please please stay at home and stay local for exercise". They have had a huge increase in call outs over the last year, so please don't risk making this worse by going into the Fells until this crisis is over, and things return to normal. 

Post edited at 19:46
 Cobra_Head 15 Feb 2021
In reply to Trangia:

The fact your post has 2 thumbs down, shows how difficult it is to make sure people do the right thing.

 Michael Gordon 15 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

It probably shows more that people don't like being told not to got to the hills. And who can blame them, since going for a walk is completely harmless.

 Michael Gordon 15 Feb 2021
In reply to wercat:

>Tell me where there was more risk than having other people's dogs paw me in the village

Unless they've jumped up and knocked you over, I can't see where risk comes in. Or do you mean risk of dirty clothes?

 Cobra_Head 15 Feb 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> >Tell me where there was more risk than having other people's dogs paw me in the village

> Unless they've jumped up and knocked you over, I can't see where risk comes in. Or do you mean risk of dirty clothes?


I think there's definite risk of kicking it's owner in the balls and shouting keep your dog under control you t^*t

 Trangia 15 Feb 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> It probably shows more that people don't like being told not to got to the hills.

They are not being told, they are being asked for the sake of all.

>And who can blame them, since going for a walk is completely harmless.

Having an accident which requires an MRT to attend is not harmless, it puts the whole team at potential risk of infection.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

> It probably shows more that people don't like being told not to got to the hills. And who can blame them, since going for a walk is completely harmless.

It also shows that people basically don't give a shit about the unpaid MR teams that are asking people not to go into the hills/mountains at this time.

 Michael Gordon 16 Feb 2021
In reply to FactorXXX:

> It also shows that people basically don't give a shit about the unpaid MR teams that are asking people not to go into the hills/mountains at this time.

What it shows is that people consider, in most cases rightly, that an accident requiring the help of MR is very unlikely. 

 Michael Gordon 16 Feb 2021
In reply to FactorXXX:

> It also shows that people basically don't give a shit about the unpaid MR teams that are asking people not to go into the hills/mountains at this time.

I don't think that's a fair request though, nor am I aware of many MR teams making it. Most ask people to be extra careful, take weather and conditions into account, and pick objectives matching their level of experience, requests I wholeheartedly support.

 Trangia 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> I don't think that's a fair request though, 

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you, but these are not normal times, and as the programme showed MRTs have been unusually busy it is an indication that incidents requiring call outs are occurring despite lockdown. As Nick Small's well written and enlightening cautionary tale on UKC about his accident on Ovenden Moor showed, accidents can and do affect the experienced as well as the inexperienced. In the light of this I can't see why some people continue to think they are above it, by putting self interest above above the welfare of others. It smacks at both arrogance and selfishness.

 Offwidth 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Misha:

Things can be much better understood without being 100% certain. It's clear to me risks outdoors are very low as long as people take care and are only in close proximity for seconds. Formite risks outdoors are much lower than experts initially expected.

Many of my best days on rock have been in winter, especially bouldering. The UK climate is weirdly varied... I've rock climbed high routes on Skye and the Clachaig Gully in mid March and a IV on the Ben in early June. I've needed a down jacket to walk a couple of hundred metres to Higgar South and bouldered in a teeshirt on a freezing but sunny January day with a north wind.

 wercat 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Trangia:

this is a theme we've had on local news for a long time.  It has been pretty well entirely aimed at unequipped inexperienced and reckless people coming long distances and going on the hills taking silly risks

 wercat 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

exactly - not dirty clothes but physical unsolicited contact with another household, given how intimate many dog owners are.  I've never forgotten pausing on the way up a mountain here and noticing a load of liquid human diarrhoea nearby.  A moment later a labrador came running up, ate it all and then went back down to bound up and jump up in the face of the owner

Post edited at 08:56
In reply to Offwidth:

> and a IV on the Ben in early June.

Which one and what year? June must have been a pretty unusual year. Early May doesn't seem that unusual, although I remember backing off Green Gully in May because the ice on the second pitch was hollow and rotten.

 Iamgregp 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

Really?  You would consider physically assaulting and shouting abuse at someone if their dog pawed at you?  

Sounds like there's only one loss of control here and it's not the owner's over the dog.

Though I suspect in reality, the only loss of control that's happened is you when you came into contact with your keyboard to type this?!   Or do you actually have a string of assault convictions incurred over minor matters?

 Cobra_Head 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Really?  You would consider physically assaulting and shouting abuse at someone if their dog pawed at you?  

> Sounds like there's only one loss of control here and it's not the owner's over the dog.

> Though I suspect in reality, the only loss of control that's happened is you when you came into contact with your keyboard to type this?!   Or do you actually have a string of assault convictions incurred over minor matters?


I may have been exaggerating for comic effect. But I have once come to blows with a bloke and his dog, when it was threatening my daughter and he refused to get it under control.

I didn't get convicted of assault, nor have I ever been.

I always issue a warning first.politely, of course.

Post edited at 10:47
 Cobra_Head 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> It probably shows more that people don't like being told not to got to the hills. And who can blame them, since going for a walk is completely harmless.


Well for a start they're being asked not to go into the hills.

And we're being TOLD not to travel unless it's essential.

The hospitals wards are full because people are suggesting xxxxxx is completely harmless.

But of course you know better. For me to get to any hills there's a long list of interactions I would need to make, so tell me how they are completely harmless?

 wercat 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

I yelled very aggressively at a youngish couple on Helvellyn some years ago.  I suddenly felt sharp pain in my left leg and their dog had come out of nowhere and bitten me.  I hadn't seen it through being battened down for a cold sleety and very windy day.  I was quite justifiably livid.  It had passed by me and then come straight in from the rear to bite

Post edited at 10:56
 Iamgregp 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

I think if a dog is threatening your daughter and the owner flatly refused to do anything about it that's fair enough!  Bloke had it coming if you warned him...

Mind you, you said you came to blows with a bloke and his dog?  I've got images of a border collie up on it's hind legs wearing boxing gloves and swinging punches, but I'm not quite sure that's how it went down?!

 Iamgregp 16 Feb 2021
In reply to wercat:

Bloody hell, that must have been quite a shock.  Can't have been the first time it bit someone either...

 Trangia 16 Feb 2021
In reply to wercat:

> I yelled very aggressively at a youngish couple on Helvellyn some years ago.  I suddenly felt sharp pain in my left leg and their dog had come out of nowhere and bitten me. 

Can you blame it if you had yelled aggressively at it's owner?

I know that's not what you meant but that's how it reads!

 Cobra_Head 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Mind you, you said you came to blows with a bloke and his dog?

They both got the appropriate "punishment", there's a lot of dickheads with staffies who think they don't need to control their dogs in any way.

 Michael Gordon 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> For me to get to any hills there's a long list of interactions I would need to make, so tell me how they are completely harmless?

Fair enough if you would have to travel by public transport or rely on lifts. And I don't know your personal circumstances. For many though it's simply a case of get in the car, drive there, get out and start walking. No interaction required.  

In reply to Cobra_Head:

There’s a lot dickheads out there in general...

Blame the owners not the breed of dog.

 Iamgregp 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Justsomeclimber:

I second that. We have a Staffy and she’s never out of control. 

It’s a misconception that all Staffy owners are brainless idiots. They’re one of the most popular breeds in the U.K.

Post edited at 19:45
 Iamgregp 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

Assaulting the owner is one thing, but hurting a dog isn’t on at all.  What a stupid thing to do.

 Michael Gordon 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

I like dogs, but could understand someone lashing out in the heat of the moment if they've just been bitten.  

 Iamgregp 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Michael Gordon:

Yes I agree, but I don’t think the dog had attacked him? 

In reply to Iamgregp:

Your comment at 11.06  today. Wrong breed. Wasn't a border collie. Was a Boxer.

Post edited at 20:50
 Iamgregp 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Prof. Outdoors:

Ha! Very good!

 Cobra_Head 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> It’s a misconception that all Staffy owners are brainless idiots. They’re one of the most popular breeds in the U.K.

but that doesn't mean the bloke here wasn't does it?  What are you trying to suggest?

I asked the bloke to sort his dog out, I picked my daughter up out the way and the daft dog was trying to jump up and grab her. He told me it wouldn't hurt her, and would be alright.

I asked him again, and he told me to f*ck off!

What would you have done?

I agree it's his fault, but the dog didn't know he was a dickhead, the dog probably thought it was good fun. Meanwhile my daughter is screaming thinking the dog is trying to eat her.

I never suggested all staffie owners are anything, we used to have one, and I have friends with them.

Post edited at 21:28
 Cobra_Head 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Yes I agree, but I don’t think the dog had attacked him? 


Assumed.

 Cobra_Head 16 Feb 2021
In reply to Justsomeclimber:

> There’s a lot dickheads out there in general...

> Blame the owners not the breed of dog.


Never said it was the dog's fault, or the breed of dog, I said it was the dog and it's owner.

To be honest, this is pretty standard from many staffie owners good and bad, they jump to the defence of the dog telling everyone how lovely they are.  I know they can be, and usually are, but in the hands of dickhead owners they can be very unpredictable too.

How many kids have been killed by dogs in the UK? What's the usual breed of dog that does it?

Like you say it's not the dogs fault, it just so happens the sort of idiot that likes the breed, is often the type of idiot, that shouldn't be allowed ANY dog.

The trouble is when you got some dog trying to grab you daughter off her bike, it's quite difficult to explain to the dog, it's a product of bad upbringing and shouldn't really be doing the naught things it's doing.

 mark s 17 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

A dog showing aggression to my daughter and I'd react in a  violent way to first the dog then owner if they challenged me. I certainly wouldn't be bothered about the dogs health 

Post edited at 07:09
 Iamgregp 17 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> What would you have done?

Exactly the same as you probably but I wouldn't have come to blows with the owner or dog or set about administering "appropriate punishment". 

I'd have reported it to the local authorities and let them take the appropriate action if I was really concerned by the incident.

> I never suggested all staffie owners are anything, we used to have one, and I have friends with them.

I didn't say you did, I said in a reply to someone else that misconception that people have.  As you've had a Staffie you've probably encountered the same?  I'm not accusing you of anything....

Post edited at 11:37
 Iamgregp 17 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

Yes I assumed that you hadn't been attacked as this is how you described the incident in an earlier post:

"when it was threatening my daughter and he refused to get it under control"

No mention of an attack?

 wercat 17 Feb 2021
In reply to Trangia:

> Can you blame it if you had yelled aggressively at it's owner?

> I know that's not what you meant but that's how it reads!


Touche

 Cobra_Head 22 Feb 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Yes I assumed that you hadn't been attacked as this is how you described the incident in an earlier post:

> "when it was threatening my daughter and he refused to get it under control"

> No mention of an attack?


You don't think a dog threatening your daughter is something to get upset about? It has to be an attack? I'd say there's a fine line between these two, and not knowing the dogs state of mind, I'm of the opinion, I wasn't going to wait to find out.

You really seem to be arguing for the sake of it here.

 Iamgregp 22 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> You don't think a dog threatening your daughter is something to get upset about? It has to be an attack? I'd say there's a fine line between these two, and not knowing the dogs state of mind, I'm of the opinion, I wasn't going to wait to find out.

I didn't say it didn't, I was confirming why I assumed that the dog hadn't attacked you (scroll up?) Which I was correct on. 

> You really seem to be arguing for the sake of it here.

...Said the fella who has just resurrected a quarrel from 5 days ago. 

Are you bored or feeling frustrated or something?  Why don't you go for a walk instead of trying to resurrect pointless arguments on the internet with people you've never met about an incident I suspect never even happened, or at least not in the way you've described.

Post edited at 13:08
 Cobra_Head 22 Feb 2021
In reply to Iamgregp:

> I didn't say it didn't, I was confirming why I assumed that the dog hadn't attacked you (scroll up?) Which I was correct on. 

Because I said threatened instead of attacked.

> ...Said the fella who has just resurrected a quarrel from 5 days ago. 

Only just seen you post, what would you like me to do?

> Are you bored or feeling frustrated or something?  Why don't you go for a walk instead of trying to resurrect pointless arguments on the internet with people you've never met about an incident I suspect never even happened, or at least not in the way you've described.

bored yes, Been for a walk and a bike ride thanks. Well you could simple decide for yourself, that's you prerogative, but al least I'm not making something up about things someone else made up.

PS What's the time limit to answer a post?

Post edited at 15:26
 Iamgregp 22 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> what would you like me to do?

Stop replying to me.  

 Iamgregp 22 Feb 2021
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> PS What's the time limit to answer a post?

There is no limit but when you accuse somebody of "arguing for the sake of it" in the first reply back to a thread that been dead for the best part of a week, you might find that the same charge gets laid at your door. 

And besides, I can see from your profile that you've been on here replying to other threads right throughout the last part of last week, and over the weekend, so seeing as the forum flags a new reply to you with a big red number I find it unlikely that this is the first time you've noticed this thread in all this time.

Seems to be a lot of things that you say that seem unlikely doesn't there?

Post edited at 15:33
 Cobra_Head 11:30 Tue
In reply to Iamgregp:

> Stop replying to me.  


ha ha ditto, WTF?

 Cobra_Head 11:34 Tue
In reply to Iamgregp:

>  so seeing as the forum flags a new reply to you with a big red number I find it unlikely that this is the first time you've noticed this thread in all this time.

There you go again, assuming things aren't true because it doesn't fit with your narrative.

> Seems to be a lot of things that you say that seem unlikely doesn't there?

If that what you want to think yes. I've been waiting five days just for the sake of it, why would this be the case? Anyhow, I can reply to any thread whenever I feel like it, as can you.

Maybe the other threads were more interesting

See you in a few days time.

Post edited at 11:56

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Loading Notifications...