UKC

On another thread, Tom Ripley remarked that he had been banned from the CIC hut, which is an achievement that I think is shared by several from amongst the great and the wicked.
Al Rouse is the most famous miscreant that I know of, but I'm sure there have been others.
Does anyone recall any other stories? Names can be left out if it helps

In reply to AlisonS:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=285403&v=1#x4232172

In reply to AlisonS: Norrie

In reply to AlisonS:

Tom soars in my esteem. And they say the youth of today can't hack it any more...

A certain ex-proprietor of climbing wear once confided to me that he'd been kicked out of the Creag Dhu (for joining another club, namely the SMC). Then he got kicked out of the SMC (for not paying his dues.) He thought he'd give the CC a miss after dobbing their president.

Would be disappointed if he hadn't managed to get banned from the CIC.

And he used to climb with Norrie!

And he climbed F8a, at 59!!

Mick

In reply to Fawksey:

Yes I thought Norrie might have been, but I didn't want to risk suggesting it if it was incorrect. He can be a bit scary at times!

In reply to Mick Ward:

Crumbs Mick don't do that to me! I'll be trying to guess all night now.

In reply to Mick Ward:
I havn't offically been banned, but I'm not paying Robin Cloither £150.

That gave it a away didn't it! Did he used to make sleeping bags too?

In reply to Mick Ward:

Not one of these guys?

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/older.html?month=06&year=2007#n37848

In reply to Tom Ripley: Why have you #unofficially' been banned? Purely out of nosiness...

In reply to Tom Ripley:


Well, for heaven's sake, get banned. What's stopping you? Step over the line. Join the outlaws.



OK, OK, so I made the Christmas quiz too hard and now everything's too easy for the likes of Alison and yerself. O tempora, o mores.

< Wanders off in daze... >

Mick

In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:


What exactly are you trying to link to there Mick?

In reply to Mick Ward:

I am I just havn't been told in writting yet!

Maybe I should blow it up in Alex Macintyre's memory. (He wanted to blow it up)

In reply to Mick Ward:
Aha! That was my first guess too. I can sleep easy tonight

In reply to AlisonS:

Phew, though it was just me. A lot of impressive guys to choose from.

Mick

In reply to Tom Ripley:


Brilliant. Is there a story behind why he wanted to do that? Or just the obvious?

In reply to Tom Ripley:


Dirty Alex! Now you're talking. There's a man who enlivened many a social gathering.

Mick

In reply to AlisonS:

I'll find out...

In reply to AlisonS:

The name, without typing it.

In reply to AlisonS:
I'm not aware that Al Rouse was banned, maybe he was.
He tried to get into the hut which was busy, he had not booked. When he was refused entry he raised his ice axe and was promptly nutted.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

Allegedly!

Mick (& goodnight to all)

In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

You mean the one who failed his ML certificate for crossing a river the wrong way after his return from a Himalayan trio where he dragged porters out of a raging torrent. Wasn't happy.

In reply to Colin Moody:


Hmm... I didn't know Al at all well but do remember him as a gentle soul. Doubt the 'non-verbals' would have worked so well on Dirty Alex, Norrie... or even the 'alleged' ex-purveyor of outdoor clothing whom we mustn't mention.

Isn't there a bit in Brown's book where he had to camp outside for three days in the rain with his wife, because they wouldn't let women in? And then thought soddit and went in. (Another supposedly mild-mannered person.)

So much acrimony over so many years... Sad really.

Mick

In reply to AlisonS: How did Mr Ripley get banned anyhow, someones got to bloody well know, its got me curious now?

Go on, tell em Tom.

In reply to Tom Ripley:
We demand answers. The truth will out soon enough. Tell now.

In reply to Will Hunt:

Don't be daft Will. No-one will spill the Gore-y deatils.

In reply to AlisonS:

Not banned but maybe I should be.

Years ago I was locked out of Lagangarbh (sp?) and I got in by climbing on the roof and prising the skylight window open with an ice axe.

I've also broken into a F&R club in the lakes as a night in a hut with a hot bath,and armchair in front of a cosy fire was infinitely preferable to sleeping in the car...the other option.


Note to these clubs legal representatives: The author reserves the right to claim that these actions were fictional occurrences submitted for entertainment value and not to be taken seriously.

In reply to Jonno:

So you want mind if I come and open up your front door with my ice axe?

In reply to AlisonS:
I know of an incident where someone wasnt allowed to nip into the Roaches hut to use the toilet as they were bivvying outside. They took a shit round the side of the house and poked the used toilet roll through the letterbox.

In reply to AlisonS:

Which hut was famous for the big orange key?
p

In reply to Colin Moody:

I have to say I thought he was banned in whichever incident (which I believe involved lots of people locked out of the hut not wearing enough) got the Cambridge Uni club banned.......

AJM

In reply to AJM:


Typical students! I think young Tam got banned for getting stroppy when nobody else in the hut would read him a bed time story, or had the hut ran out of hot milk and honey?

My father was refused entry to the CIC hut when one of the party of three he was climbing in suffered a near-fatal reaction to a vaccination he had recieved earlier in the day.

Not only were he and his group told they couldn't get in to the hut, those inside refused point blank to help in any way. His friend almost died in the ensuing epic and he remains very bitter about it to this day.

In reply to niggle:

Wouldn't happen nowadays. The SMC are friendly (and many post here) - though if someone else was in the hut and refused to help, then their fault

In reply to Andy Nisbet:

Hmm, whilst many of the SMC are friendly individuals, incidents such as described earlier do occur.

Walked up to camp at the CIC hut circa 1998, was meeting friends up there who were bringing the tent up so I went in early - anyway, came back to the CIC hut around 20.00 in a howling gale to find a swedish guy standing around outside the hut - his tent had been ripped apart in the wind and when he had approached the guys in the hut they advied that it was his tough luck and he was not getting to stay in the hut.

The poor lad was bemused by this stance, it was not what he had been used to in the Alps etc - anyway, he hung around with me until my mates came up with the tent and he squashed in with us. In the morning the poor lad collected his ripped tent and decided he had had enough and headed back down to Fort William.

Ok, I am not sure if the hut was full of SMC members (presume some were though) or others, but so indoctrined is the "private" mantality of the CIC hut dwellers they would not give bed space to a chap whose tent had been ripped apart by the wind one particularly cold winters night.

In reply to Ian Black:

maybe he got banned for his views on oval biners.

In reply to martin riddell:

I'm not defending anything, but the hut will have been packed and allowing folk in who are having a hard time (safety is quite different, like the illness issue before) would soon mean it became unusable. I'm not a fan of the CIC hut and rarely stay there myself, but it is a small hut and everyone nearby would love to come in and stay. My tent was blown down in 1979 in summer when there was room in the hut and I was welcomed inside. I know it is difficult and I am the most unlikely person to defend the CIC hut

In reply to Mick Ward:
But he's respectable now. Vice Pres of the BMC!

In reply to martin riddell: I have had exactly the same experience when we got back from castle ridge at 9pm and our tent had blown down... there was plenty of room inside because I saw it with my own eyes. However one of the guys did suggest a potting shed which we then inhabited for a week in great comfort. However I do think it is a rather harsh view to take that its just your bad luck...

In reply to AlisonS: would be better bulldozed yes .

In reply to badder than bolo:

I'm hypocritically inclined to agree. The SMC should take it down brick by brick and errect a monument to CIC in Fort William. I have stayed in the CIC, but I think it certainally dampens the sence of adventure of the Ben. Climbing on the ben would be much more rewarding without any of the manmade features. I'd be in favour of removing the summit shelter, CIC and all the absail posts.

The CIC, like the SMC is outdated and archaic. At the very least it should a proper composting toilet, which is open to ALL climbers who walk in the north face. The amount of shit around the CIC and on the Ben is discusting.

In reply to Tom Ripley:

Composting toilets don't work when it's as cold as it is in the winter. I believe the plan is to build a hydro-electric scheme to warm the sewage up enough for the new toilet. That's taking things seriously!

In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

What about the burgess boys?

In reply to Andy Nisbet:

I understand this is the case. It will however only be able for the use of those previlaged few who use the CIC. I don't understand why they can't let the toliet be open to all. It seems really selfish to me, especailly as everyonbe who slogs up there has paid £20 for a SMC guide.

The SMC should also take the environment they climb in seriousally.

How old are you by the way?

In reply to Tom Ripley:



http://www.boatofgarten.com/business/nisbet.php

In reply to AlisonS:
I remember someone from the SMC getting arsey with me for letting a punter into the CIC for a quick look! He said thet he had been walking past the hut at least once a year for 30 years and wanted to see what it was like inside. We almost got banned for letting him.

In reply to Tom Ripley:

Wee Tam, Remember the motto......."Leave no Turd Unstoned"!

In reply to estivator:

The CIC hut is an anachronism and an environmental disaster. All the residents defecating behind that boulder polluting a fragile environment, not to mention drains from washing up etc. (OK some folk will always need to "go" in the hills but most will "go" before leaving the valley)

The CIC have been going on for years about composting etc, it will never happen, just pie in the sky and greenwash.

It's not needed nowadays, just for laziness, how many times do you walk up from the valley to pass the hut before the residents have got out of their pits?

Get rid of the monstrosity once and for all, use the stones for a fitting memorial to CIC in the valley if you will. I for one will volunteer to carry some of the rubble down the hill.

In reply to Andy Say:


Well, respectability seems to come with age - though it doesn't seem to have happened to me yet! More importantly perhaps, it's great that he's concerned to put back into climbing. And that's something we can all do, sharing information, re-equipping routes, crag clean-ups, etc. It doesn't have to be great or glorious.

Mick

In reply to Tom Ripley: I am assuming, as you are disinclined to tell, that you have been banned for some really unimpressive reason?
Sam

In reply to Mick Ward:

Mick

Young Thomas has not been banned. Rab and Al were not banned from the CIC hut. In fact very few have been really banned, I only know of two.

Norrie (currently not banned)

In reply to Sam L:

Be interesting to see what Tom has to say because at the moment he has not been banned, nor is about to be. In fact you might find the reasons he is on his high horse about the CIC are any thing but 'honourable' or admirable.

In reply to Tom Ripley:

£20 is peanuts compared to the cost of the composting toilet. And most of that £20 goes to printers and distributors. £20 a c**p might just cover it, but only if a lot of folk were caught short. You'd be amazed at the cost of taking the environment seriously

In reply to estivator:

I've often let folk have a look (haven't charged them much either)

In reply to Andy Nisbet: Have you been to paris? The public loos there are interesting. A tardis like box, which you have to pay to open the door.

Maybe the SMC should install a door, which only opens when you pay £1. Anyone can use it, it would help cover the costs and would prevent the place from being trashed/abused.

In reply to Tom Ripley:

Or maybe you can nab a key and use the hut when you like?

In reply to george mc:

That is not true and I have exsplained that to Robin.

I also wrote him a letter of appology and a cheaque on the day I returned. I admitt I did wrong, paid for the hut and appologised. Howeever I'd rather walk in everyday than pay £150 fine and not go climbing at all.

In reply to Tom Ripley:

Human waste management in the mountains, an interesting topic Tom, especially on popular mountains like Ben Nevis, Snowden and Scafell Pike...and maybe even Mount Ogwen.

Human shit pollutes, whether generated by punters, bumblies, numpties or hard men (ouch!), it creates pollution in the water cycle.

Is it an issue in the UK?

On Mount Whitney in California they did have solar toilets at Outpost and Trail camps that generated about 4,000 pounds of....well shit that has to be helicoptered out. That does actually contravene wilderness laws that prohibits motorised equipment in wilderness areas like the John Muir Wilderness.

Anyway, in 2004 the Forest Service initiated a "pack out waste program".

It was successful, perhaps you could do the same when on Ben Nevis!!!!!!

"Also in 2004, the Forest Service initiated a voluntary waste pack-out program by providing Mt. Whitney climbers with Wag Bags and waste disposal receptacles. Rangers monitored for proper disposal of the kits, water quality, and waste weight. During the 2006 season, climbers packed out over 3,600 pounds of their human waste to the trailhead. Over 5,000 pounds of waste have been packed out during the 2007 climbing season.

With the success of the pack out waste program, we no longer need to consider the continued use of toilet structures in the John Muir Wilderness. The unsafe and unsanitary toilet facilities at Outpost Camp were removed in the fall of 2006, followed by the removal of the Trail Camp toilets in spring of 2007. All Mt. Whitney climbers are now required to pack their waste to the trailhead [link to main Mt. Whitney page]. Thanks to the cooperation of the Whitney climbers, we have found a long term solution to human waste management along the Mt. Whitney Trail."

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/inyo/projects/whitney.shtml

In reply to Tom Ripley:

What was the fine for, if you paid up?

In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC: Aye,

The American leave no trace ethic, really does need impicating and encouraging over here.

I've used a poo tube, before and it was fine. Shit in a plastic bag and put the bag in a big tub. At the end of the trip dispose of the crap and stiralize the tub.

Works fine....

In reply to Norrie Muir:

The fine was for not booking the hut and loosing the key, It was in my camera case which I dropped off Stringfellow. The fine was £150 and I didn't pay up. I did however pay £28 for 4 nights I speant in hut.

In reply to Tom Ripley:

And with the money you have saved, you coud buy loads of matches and burn even more bridges

In reply to Tom Ripley:

How did you get a key without booking the hut? You should at least pay for the lost key.

In reply to Tom Ripley:


How did you have a key if you didn't book the hut?

In reply to Tom Ripley: So you nicked a key did you?

I lost the CIC key once, which was bizarre because I very very rarely ever lose anything important. I remember a number of tense letters were exchanged with the hut custodian at the time (pre-email). I also remember poking through the embers of a bonfire in Worcestershire looking for said key - why it might have been in those ashes I don't actually recall now. I think I and my club might have got a one year ban as a result, but that's not a proper ban. The main thing was they forgave me and decided not to charge me for changing the locks or something...

So fess up. What did you do?

In reply to Tom Ripley:

You mean like the project beig run in the Cairngorms ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7170227.stm

If one was to be run on Ben Nevis who would run & finance it ?
Stations would need to be set up at The North Face car park as well as at Achintee and the Youh Hostel, and continually filled with bags/containers, and then emptied on a regular basis.

In reply to Norrie Muir:

I offered to pay a £10 to have the new key cut.

The reason I had the key is because I lost the key from the previous time I hired the hut. I did not pinch the key thinking I could use the hut whenever I like. I then refound the key a few days before I headed north and threw it in with the rest of my kit. The weather was perfect on Friday night we descided to head up to the hut to save the walking in the morning. I was fully intending to pay for the hut and return the key on Monday morning. However I dropped the key.

In reply to martin riddell:

Climbers, Mountaineering Council of Scotland, BMC maybe......for starters!

a couple of years ago I was on comb gully and slipped just after leaving the belay on the second main pitch. i stopped myself just before landing on the head of the CIC warden who was soloing below me.

If I hadn't stopped myself and sent him flying off down the gully, he would maybe only have been found once all the snow had melted. Given that he would probably have been carrying a key, would I have been charged?

In reply to Tom Ripley:


But surely you will find it just before you next plan to use the hut?

In reply to The Big Grey Man:

I doubt it... If anyone ever finds my camera case then they'll find the key.

If I was a liar I would've had a key cut and used an asummed name, but I'm not. I cocked, made a mistake, paid and appogised.

Did you never do anything stupid when you were young? Or can you nor remember?

Wheras you are real hard man posting under a psydonium behind a computer.

My understanding of the famous Al Rouse ice axe, door and CIC hut thing came from a forgotten member of that group, Namely John Roberson (apparently there were 4 people present that day?). John told me about the incident in his croft in Dundonnell a few years back, and why he supported breaking into the CIC hut. He explained in detail that while Al hacked away with an ice axe John held a document (which he may have read out prior to the hacking) that stated the CIC hut was for all mountain people. The group felt aggrieved the hut was being managed by the CIC for members only and was not in the spirit of the wishes of Dr and Mrs Inglis Clark who had the hut erected in memory of their son Charles Inglis Clark who was killed during the 1st world war.

This is what John said to me, and he may have also taken part in the hacking. Sadly John died 2 years ago from a brain tumour and I recite his story from memory.

He was quite vocal about it and still felt aggrieved and seemed very proud of his direct action.

These was John’s words and in the Al Rouse book Mountaineers life(?) there is a picture of John. (I think!)

TFN

Jamie

In reply to Jamie Simpson - Alpine Dragons:

Sorry typo!

Should read:

The group felt aggrieved the hut was being managed by the "SMC" and not as typed CIC! Oops

TFN

J

In reply to Tom Ripley:


I've never suggested that I am a hard man. How's the tick list going? Climbed Fallout Corner yet?

In reply to Tom Ripley:

No you couldn't, it is a security key, so you could not get a copy cut.

In reply to The Big Grey Man:
How's the tick list going?

Not to bad.


Nope, still yet to climb in 'gorms. It's not been to good a mixed season has it. Hopefully by the end of the winter.

In reply to Tom Ripley:

So far from being noble story of bold young mountaineer striking a blow for the common man against the nasty SMC the reason for the ban was a simple case of you nicking a key to enable you to use the hut whenever the fancy takes you and then refusing to pay up when you got rumbled.

Maybe you could reduce the amount of shit polluting the Ben by simply keeping your mouth shut next time you are up there?

In reply to The Big Grey Man:


While I can't vouch for Tom's honesty in general, we were on the Ben that day, and Tom and Will descended with the guys we were camping with. The subject of a dropped camera case was brought up then, and the fact that the hut key was in it, so this would be a very elaborately constructed lie!

In reply to Tom Ripley:
Dear Wee Tam
Reduce pollution on the Ben! the 'lost and found' key story makes you sound full of excrement. When i wanted to use the CIC i had to book a year in advance, and even then i considered us lucky to get a booking for anytime, 'losing' the key meant a lock change and inconvenience for others who had booked it, sounds fortunate you didn't get a lifetime ban, previous custodians were more ferocious than the present laid back one.

In reply to Tom Ripley:

once again this has descended into a slagging off of tom which I don't think is particularly good or nice!

he's hardly done or said anything and yet the toss-pots on here seem intent on attacking him for no good reason with speculation and accusations taking over as usual.

what's the point?

In reply to AlisonS:

why did my post get deleted???

In reply to billy.grant:


Have just waded through this thread, what is the point of it all?

Seems to me that Tom is out doing stuff most of the time in comparison to the "climbers" that post on here. So what if he made a mistake, no one is perfect (cept me :0))

This thread reminds me of the Alpine Club a wee bit, "it's my club and if you haven't got a pass, you're not coming in, even to use the loo!"

Buggger it Tom, go out and enjoy yourself and if you find the key, copy it and send it to as many people as you can afford to!

Fauvé

In reply to fauve

well said fauve...

i agreed....

In reply to Gib:

Swearing.

Make yourself familiar with the forum posting guidelines.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/guidelines.html

These forums can be read by all and are public, apart from that we don't want a swearing fest.

Make your point without profanities.

Mick

In reply to Fauvé:
>>

You are welcome to come to the Alpine Club anytime you like. So is Tom; as long as he doesn't nick the keys.

In reply to katonka:




Well it appears that the people above who have had a dig at tom owe him an apology.

Or are you not brave enough?

In reply to SI A: What for? loosing the CIC hut key twice?

In reply to drunken monkey:

no he lost it once as it was the same key. This he has acknowledged.

It was calling him a liar and other such things that people owe him an apology for. This statement by a stranger confirming his story proves he was telling the truth. Or do people think this statement has been made up too.

In reply to SI A:
Chill out. This is just an internet forum, People say what they feel like. Tom is ok. We were all like that at his age.

In reply to AlisonS:

I wasn't.

In reply to AlisonS:

regardless of stealing/losing I think the main point is that if you get a key you sign up to the rules, I assume the rules say lose the key, you pay to get the locks changed. You cant just say i'm not paying it.

In reply to smithaldo:
Indeed. If he had made a daring break-in via the chimney and spent the night hiding in the oven from the SMC, making only brief forays out to nick bits of Robin Clothier's Morrison's Indian Meal for Two, I could consider it to be high spirited rebelliousness.
If, on the other hand, he payed for a stay, kept the key at the end of it (deliberately or otherwise), used it again later without asking, then lost it and refused to pay up the replacement costs he signed up to on his first visit but seemingly had waived until his second breach, I have less sympathy!

In reply to AlisonS:

So you also had so much testosterone that your face burst out in plukes. I never took you as someone with rampant desires.

In reply to AlisonS:

Nope, Thank Christ I wasn't.

In reply to Iain Forrest:

PMSL. Now that would be the stuff of legend!


Agreed.

In reply to AlisonS:

I wasn't, I was fat and stayed at home all the time studying and watching TV. I didn't discover the hills until almost twice his age

In reply to SI A: Yes, but he also kept the key when he found it, and attempted to re-use it without permission. Then lost it again!

He should have sent it straight back to Robin Clothier. He now refuses to pay for a security key that HE lost. Hence why he is now banned from the CIC hut.

The CIC hut relies on a certain amount of honesty and faith. Tom overstepped the mark.

In reply to drunken monkey:

I found it days before I my trip. I hadn't been hoarding it for weeks.

I was intending on sending it straight back to Robin Clothier on monday, together with a cheaque and a letter of apology. I havn't refused to pay for a new key, just refused to pay £150 for one. I would happily pay £10 to cover the cost of having a replacement cut.

£150 a lot of money for me, I am a student. It is the cost of 3 weekend trips to Scotland and you can guess which I'd rather spend my money on.

But, you have never done anything stupid and are infact perfect?

In reply to Tom Ripley:

a) Is days not long enough for you to post something?

b) £10 wont cover the cost of a replacement key. Security keys are expensive.

c) No, no-one is perfect Tom. But you've only yourself to blame.

In reply to drunken monkey:

Not really. I'd have rang him, but I didn't have his number and I didn't think it would be an issue.

Fine, I'll pay for the cost of a new key. Whatever that may be. It sure as hell aint £150 though.

I'm not asking for sympathy.

In reply to Tom Ripley:

How many keys do you think he has?

Well dont give us the poor student stuff.

In reply to drunken monkey: I wonder if Young Tam would try the same patter with Jacksonville?

In reply to dek: mmmmm...

In reply to Tom Ripley:
Before I jump in, can I just make it clear that I do admire the fact that you're getting out and doing a lot of stuff, and I do have a lot of respect for you in terms of climbing. However at times you can get right up peoples' noses. Look at it this way:


So you lost it for weeks and didn't mention the fact?


Couple of issues here. Firstly Norrie seems to think it's a security key, which means Timpsons in Penrith won't be able to cut one. Secondly the loss of the key may mean they need to change the lock and all other key sets. Put is this way, if a mate lost your house keys would you be happy with a couple of quid for a new set?


So basically it's stuff everybody else? You can afford to pay but don't want to.


I have scaled the heights of unbelievable stupidity at times, and suffered the consequences (a lot more than £150 on one occasion). I'd suggest you do the same.

In reply to Tom Ripley:

I seem to remember that losing the key to the Coruisk hut involved a £50 replacement cost, over 20 years ago. It is not just a replacement key, it is replacing locks to stop people like you keeping a key and using the hut when you feel like it. I suppose a replacement key cost may suit you, after all you may have copies even now. Not saying you have, just could have.

Now either pay for someone to walk up and change the lock or remain locked out till you do pay.

In reply to Tom Ripley:

It's exactly this attitude:


that seriously pisses me off (I'm sure I'm not alone in this).

What you'd rather do is neither here nor there. If you'd an ounce of decency in you you'd pay the fine.

In reply to DougG:


Exactly! I'd rather not be sat at work in Kintore on a sunny day, but...

If the custodian was jumpin up and down insisting on £150 because it wasn't on his doormat first thing Tuesday morning you have a point Tom, but weeks later....
btw, all you achieved was to prove that they DO need to change the locks everytime a key gets "lost" to stop folk turning up and using the hut as and when they like!

We had to change the (pad)locks at Clasgour when I was custodian there cause a club had copied the key, and if nothing else the time and hassel involved is substantial!

I'd be supprised if a new key is any less than £80-100 btw, its a "uncopyable" (i.e by a highstreet key cutter/locksmith) key on a non standard blank. So i'm guessing you actually getting off light considering they could charge for a locksmith to go up and change the locks out rather than doing it themselves (which I'm guessing they are).

Its ace that your keen, ambitious and getting out there climbing, but it doesn't give you a carte Blanche to do whatever you please.

Stuart

In reply to Ozzrik:

Off topic but I just remembered you were asking about Trawler rum - will email you in a mo.
Mike

In reply to AlisonS:

The other thing you're forgetting is someone has to go out and spend time sorting a new key out. Time is very expensive

In reply to Tom Ripley:
Then surely you should have paid the cost of replacement weeeks ago!


Security Keys are expensive to replace. When you first recieved the key, you entered into a contract which leaves you responsible for the cost of replacement and associated admin. Mister minute will not cut security keys for a tenner.

I would rather buy a new car each year than pay taxes, unfortunatley I am obliged to pay taxes. You are obliged to pay for a replacement key


Tom, realise that you are burning bridges for the rest of your climbing career. In 20 years time when your mates are all pissed in the hut, will you still be proud of your indignation while you stumble down to Torlundy.

Take the hit, you can afford it, after all you seem to buy new tools at the drop of a hat.

In reply to Tom Ripley:

Tom

Why dont you offer to do all the leg work involved in this case. Buy the locks, fit the new ones and post out all the new keys. Explain your skint and any savings you can make on this fine would be highly appreciated.

If its one of these security locks they are genuinely a lot more than just a standard yale lock but at least you will see for yourself how much. You've expressed your regret and you will be offering your time to fix the probelm you have caused. Plus it would be a good retort to all the people who think your telling porkies.

In reply to SI A: I dont reckon many folk think that Tom is teling porkies. Its the fact he wont face up to his own cock-up.

In reply to Tom Ripley:


I think the really stupid thing you've done is spitting your dummy out after the Custodian asks for the costs of replacing the key.

You stayed in the hut, you then went back without permission and stayed again.

Now you've been found out and got yourself into the manure the SMC are suddenly a bunch of wanks and the hut that they own is a foul eyesore which should be demolished.

It's not a little surprising that some folk are a little put out at your attitude.

In reply to Removed User:

I've not been banned, but still think it should be demolished

In reply to kevin stephens: Why?

In reply to drunken monkey:

See his post higher up this thread:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=285980&v=1#x4245444

In reply to kevin stephens:

Fine but I don't see the relevance to my post. Presumably you've never stayed in the hut either.

In reply to kevin stephens:



Will you also use the train to get to Fort William or drive?

In reply to Removed User: Of course its seldom mentioned the hut has actually saved the lives of many climbers who have had accidents in the winter?

In reply to AlisonS:

There does seem to something about the way climbing huts are run in the UK... always complicated and often elitist. I stayed in the CIC hut once and found it very pleasant, I wandered up a year of two later for the new year (early 70s) expecting to stay there and found it all boarded up an quite empty... overcrowding can not have been the problem. We had just assumed that you could turn up an kip there if there was room, but it seems that things are not as simple as that!

I walked by last year, and thought I 'd just pop my head in to see if it was still the same... which it was, but my inquisitiveness was met by scowls and rather hostile looks by a couple of people inside... reading this thread I can see why.

And yet, all over the world, mountain huts function in a more friendly way, they have working toilets, despite often much higher altitude and more extreme conditions, (something that would seem a minimum for the local authorities to pay for given the tourist activity generated by Ben Nevis)...

As said above, one wonders whether those who left the money for the hut to be built intended it to be run this way?

PS. If you lost the key Tom, then you should pay for it, especially since you've brought it up so much on a public forum, but quite why it has to be a security lock I don't know.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Bruce: “There does seem to something about the way climbing huts are run in the UK... always complicated and often elitist. I stayed in the CIC hut once and found it very pleasant, I wandered up a year of two later for the new year (early 70s) expecting to stay there and found it all boarded up an quite empty... overcrowding can not have been the problem. We had just assumed that you could turn up an kip there if there was room, but it seems that things are not as simple as that!

I walked by last year, and thought I 'd just pop my head in to see if it was still the same... which it was, but my inquisitiveness was met by scowls and rather hostile looks by a couple of people inside... reading this thread I can see why.”

Clubs runs most huts i.e. they are private. The money is usually from donations from members both alive and deceased, to build the hut, and as such the hut is seen as the clubs and given to the club. Private property in effect. I think the main exception to this in Scotland would be the BMC Hut at Glenbrittle – although technically it is still a private hut.

Due to this situation I think you might find that although many of the huts welcome individual non-club users that they do assume (expect) you are a member of either of the Mountaineering Councils or an affiliated club. This I believe is all for the 3rd Party insurance so if you burn down said hut someone can cover the rebuild cost (I don’t think this is widely enforced though).

The majority of users of the CIC are non-SMC, something like 90% are users from outwith the club. So it’s hardly elitist, although being small it does not have that many places hence demand will always outstrip supply.

Bruce: “And yet, all over the world, mountain huts function in a more friendly way, they have working toilets, despite often much higher altitude and more extreme conditions…”

Yes and at a price. Many of the huts in the Alps are privately run so are businesses and that is reflected in the cost. Go ski touring for a week. Light rucksacks and heavy credit cards! In places like NZ the alpine huts are managed by the parks authority, but access is not always free or unrestricted i.e. you have to book em. Bit like the huts here. Try getting into some of the huts on Mt Cook during the busy season?

Bruce: “…something that would seem a minimum for the local authorities to pay for given the tourist activity generated by Ben Nevis...”

Given that local authorities can barely finance their core work I’m not sure they’ll be all that thrilled about building and running huts. Neither of the Mountaineering Councils at the moment unless they receive some huge wad of money would be all that bothered about either taking on new huts or building em. Truth is, and speaking as an ex-hut custodian (Jocks Spot near Newtonmore) huts are expensive and time consuming things to run.

Bruce: ”As said above, one wonders whether those who left the money for the hut to be built intended it to be run this way?”

I think they might be surprised that the unwashed masses actually have access, then again maybe not. The hut was gifted to the SMC – look at in context mountaineering was hardly the mass pastime it is now. I could equally argue they would be abhorred by the thought of the amount of people tramping to climb on the Ben – or maybe not. Conjecture Bruce old buddy

Bruce: ”If you lost the key Tom, then you should pay for it, especially since you've brought it up so much on a public forum, but quite why it has to be a security lock I don't know.”

He has and yes he should. Others have made the point about the reasons and why. One of the biggest banes of my life as a Custodian was people ‘losing’ keys then finding out latter (you always find out people who do this are not often the brightest) when you turn up at the hut and there are your uninvited guests with their new cut key! So it’s a security key to prevent unauthorised copies being made.

Oh and I should point out I'm in the SMC

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
!



I doubt Mr & Mrs IC would be pleased to see the hut wrecked by the overcrowding unregualetd access would cause
but quite why it has to be a security lock I don't know.

To stop chancers from copying the key and using it whenever they like

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Space is hard to come by up there.

Last season I bagged a couple of nights in the hut - for which I'm still very grateful - and spent the 1st sleeping on a pile of ropes on damp boards in the kitchen.

Got a bed the second night, but was surprised that a couple of guys staying there on some reciprocal rights agreement chose to spend the day sat in the hut scoffing biscuits rather than going climbing. This was during the spell of what everyone was calling 'the best Ben conditions for years'. Funny old world!

Far from knocking the hut down, talk was of actually expanding it by building a new, separate kitchen area.

In reply to george mc:

I hesitated before posting as I expected some flack, it's clearly a delicate subject!

In France too huts are private, some are run by the Club Alpin Français and other are commercial family affairs and yet they seem somewhat less exclusive - thinking of CC huts for example... If you turn up without booking these days you may not get a bed but in cases of bad weather or ill health you wouldn't be turned away as described above... although this says more about the people there at the time, whoever they were. The fees charges are higher by the sound of it too (in France).

The demand is said to be high so the couple of times I found the hut empty may have been unusual - some time ago too. Given the popularity of the area why not try to enlarge the hut - it's not exactly a wilderness area - rather than talk of demolishing it? (not you, others)

Coming to the public health aspects, surely local councils are also interested in this and interested in boosting tourism? Fort William has changed quite a bit since the 70s but it still doesn't look that prosperous. Far from being a drain on finances improving facilities and reducing the amount of excrement under Ben Nevis's most famous face would probably pay for itself quite quickly.

I suspect the question is also a political one though, some may want to remove any visible signs of human presence... (difficult as the town is fairly visible, as are the ski-lifts) rather than improving facilities and attracting visitors. This is understandable perhaps in wilderness areas but if tastefully done and kept within reason an Alpine style hut with toilets and a bit more space just here might be something worth investing in here.

Just my tuppence worth, no polemics intended.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
What time of year were you there? It's hugely in demand during the Winter, but not so at most other times.

In reply to Iain Forrest:

Over the New Year each time.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Probably a bit too early for the winter rush (January to April), but I don't honestly know how hard it is to book in at that time.

In reply to Iain Forrest:

If it was a nice place it would probably attract people in the summer - familly groups, for example.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

One thing about the CIC hut is that its actually not that far from the road on a much improved downhill track. I suspect most (not all) 'life threatening' situations there are really 'convenience threatening'.

In any case, I doubt that equivalent huts in the honeypot areas of Mont Blanc would just let all and sundry in during high season.

In reply to Tom Ripley:
Sorry Tom, I'm with the others: if you get a key with the condition of paying to replace the locks if you lose it then you've got to face up to that. Firstly, if you signed anything to that effect then legally you have to; secondly if you entered into that contract verbally/any other way then whilst it might not be a legal requirement to pay, it would certianly be the decent thing to do and I can see why you wouldn't be allowed back until you've paid.
Fines for not booking - dunno what the deal with this is, seems harsh if it's a lot of money.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Hi Bruce
This is not intended to be a polemic Bruce - I think you raised very valid points

Useage of the hut is pretty much confined to the late January early April period. You want to visit the hut outwith these times I think you'd be able to pick your dates and get your booking accepted no problem. Just winter climbing is the main reason the majority of people go to the Ben.

I know there are lot's of stories about injured or sick climbers being turned away from the hut, but as one poster has pointed out sometimes these incidents are more convenience threatening than life or death. I know I've been in the hut and allowed people to stay in the hut who for whatever reasons had been caught out. For example: One team had had their tent pinched from the bottom of Gardah Gully (we found some of their kit laying on the ground) and another team were two Japanese who had had their tent blown down. On both occasions there were no problems (the first team even payed for their night). I think overall there is a balance between climbers taking the urine and reasonable use. Space is at a premium and sometimes it can be difficult to tell who is in urgent need and who can't be bothered to walk the few miles down a well marked path to safety...

The hut is due for refurbishment and enlarging, although there is no intention to make access open. People do go on about the human waste left there but given there are only about 20 people staying in the hut and who knows how many hundred climbing there each day the waste issue concerns more than just the CIC. How many climbers going to the Ben for the day carry their waste back out. Let's see - none?

Re the local council etc providing facilities. You make some good points,, guess it all comes down to money which given the freeze in council tax rise here might mean local councils are a bit strapped for cash. It's all very well saying what benefits toilets etc might bring but someone has to pay. Guess the Mountaineering Councils could always chip in - what about raising money to provide toilet or a waste disposal system like being piloted at Cairngorm? Then everyone can pack in, and pack out. Given the mess I see all the time on the hill I think the main issue is educating us, the general climbing public on appropriate waste disposal.

Anyways, this piece is in danger of becoming a polemic

Cheers fur noo
George

In reply to abarro81:

As far as I am aware he has not be fined for not booking or anything like that. The £150 is to cover the cost of replacing the key (possibly lock? - not so sure about). I do know that these security keys are expensive.

You are right about the contract though. The booking information sent to all those who book make it clear what would happen and what their liability is should a key be lost i.e. £150. Mind you also have the custodian's time, the time for someone to cut the key etc etc. Major hassle all round.

In reply to george mc: regardless of all the excuses and reasons, some valid, some not, posted on this thread, there is no excuse for some of the behaviour surrounding the CIC. I regularily use alpine huts, guardianed and unguardianed. The abri simond was always busting at the seems with people, myself being one of them on several occasions. Despite the lack of space etc never once was anyone treated to the verebal abuse and downright rudeness i have personally witnessed at the CIC. The most you'd hear when yet another pair of soggy climbers stumbled over everyones gear in the rammed hut was the odd groan. Never once did i see doors slammed in peoples faces, people told to f off etc etc. I remember once chatting to a french climber who had been to the ben and witnessed something similar at the CIC, on the one hand he thought it was funny, on the other he was confused how these openly abusive people could be climbers. I felt ashamed that his one lasting memory of climbing in scotland was some halfwit poking his head out of the hut door to tell someone to F off back to london. It seems to me that far from this behaviour improving, the way these instances are treated like folklore propogates it. Anyway, thats my 2pennies worth,

In reply to george mc:

Those bloody Americans, forever setting a good example!

"Also in 2004, the Forest Service initiated a voluntary waste pack-out program by providing Mt. Whitney climbers with Wag Bags and waste disposal receptacles. Rangers monitored for proper disposal of the kits, water quality, and waste weight. During the 2006 season, climbers packed out over 3,600 pounds of their human waste to the trailhead. Over 5,000 pounds of waste have been packed out during the 2007 climbing season.

With the success of the pack out waste program, we no longer need to consider the continued use of toilet structures in the John Muir Wilderness. The unsafe and unsanitary toilet facilities at Outpost Camp were removed in the fall of 2006, followed by the removal of the Trail Camp toilets in spring of 2007. All Mt. Whitney climbers are now required to pack their waste to the trailhead [link to main Mt. Whitney page]. Thanks to the cooperation of the Whitney climbers, we have found a long term solution to human waste management along the Mt. Whitney Trail."

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/inyo/projects/whitney.shtml



Here, here George.

Mick

In reply to GrahamD: "In any case, I doubt that equivalent huts in the honeypot areas of Mont Blanc would just let all and sundry in during high season."

Most are forbidden from turning people away, I thought?

In reply to edg:

You not think there is a difference between being stuck up on Mt Blanc in poor weather and having to walk two miles down a nice easy path?

As I have said before many of the stories (and they are just that at times) about people being refused entry etc do seem to be just that most of the time. I heard or I was told. Mind many of the people who use the hut are not SMC. I don't think bad manners or rude and aggressive behaviour are the preserve of CIC inhabitants. Just take a look at some of the behaviour by climbers on line, here for example? Threats to burn things down, breaking and entry, fouling - all goes on and says more about the general climbing public and our respect for each other than stories about people being refused entry at the CIC.

In reply to george mc: I have witnessed it, as had the french climber i spoke to. As i said at the beggining of my post, there is no excuse for it and accusing others of being equally absusive online or the climbing public in general does not change that fact. It's a real shame.

In reply to hooter:
That's not the point I'm making nor am I defending that sort of behaviour by people in or at the CIC - I'm saying such attitudes are not the sole preserve of CIC hut inhabitants (who may or may not be SMC). Rather such behaviour seems to be more and more prevalent overall in the climbing community. Look at some of the posts about 'etiquette' and what have you. I can't see how you can differentiate?

In reply to george mc: I take your points and agree.. However, let me make my point like this. imagine all huts were pubs, you'd expect the very occasional bit of trouble or argument in most, none in some and then there would be the pubs that you just plain avoid because the trouble in them. The CIC would fall firmly in the latter catogory in my opinion.

In reply to hooter: Ever had your gear disappear from the drying pegs when you leave the door open so somebody can have a 'look around?' Over the years i've had a hammer, krabs, ice screw, duvet vest nicked, i've heard of ropes vanishing ffs!! Then you have a problem asking 'visitors' to leave when you are going on the hill,or down to the car to let the next club in for their booking, some opportunists seem to think the hut will be empty so they can doss there?! Bear in mind the the inside is about the size of an average sitting room. The French, Italian, Spanish etc all use the hut if they have booked it and know the score regarding securing it or be swamped, if you are not booked regard the hut as not for you, i do.

In reply to george mc:

George

I have only been asked to leave the CIC twice. The first time was after being in the hut for about 5 hours and just settling down under the table in my sleeping bag (some else was on top of the table) and about 4 others scattered about the floor, Malcolm Slessor (failed SNP politician) asked only me to leave the hut as I had not 'booked a place. I told him I would leave, if he told the others as well, he just humfed and hawed and went to his place to sleep.

The second time I was asked to leave was by a Merseyside Police Officer. We had arrived in the late afternoon and the 4 of us were sitting about the fire when in walked a bunch of climbers, straight away we were told to leave the hut. When I asked why were to leave the hut, I was informed that they, the Merseyside Police, had booked the hut and we were not welcome. As they were the Police, we just ignored them and lit up the cigarettes. The Spokesperson of the Police then asked us all for our names and addresses, **** asked him to show us his Warrant Card, the Police Officer said he did not have it with him, at this point **** held out a key and asked him if he knew what it was. **** explained that it was his key to his Club's hut and that there was always 6 places reserved for Club Members.

On neither of these times, I was asked to leave, was I banned and the SMC should not always be blamed for the rude behaviour of those occupying the CIC Hut.

Norrie

The contract says the £150 is the cost of replacing the locks. Not the keys, there is no way on earth that a key can cost anywhere near that amount.

Hopefully when I'm an old man I'll give keen youths who are getting out there and clibing hard(ish) routes the benifit of the doubt, rather than the nth degree.

In reply to Tom Ripley: This is surreal!

In reply to Tom Ripley: I mean this in the nicest way possible but why should they give some forgetful (?) well-off teenager charity when hes caused them a lot of hassle and expense. You should sell your ice axes or any other of your seemingly endless amount of fancy gear to pay the cost of the fine. Why does the fact your climbing 'hardish' routes make any difference to how they should treat you? Also i dont think the moneys to replace the key its more for the hassle caused, imagine if you hired a car for a week, but failed to give the key back with it for an extra week, you wouldn't just pay for the cost of a new key!
ta,
Joe (and before anyone else comes back with a witty retort i am of-course a forgetful middle class teenager)

In reply to Tom Ripley:


You don't deserve the benefit of the doubt; you've admitted you have the money to pay the fine and yet you're still not paying it!

You're not getting "the nth degree", you're just being asked to abide by the same laws as everyone else.

Whether you're climbing hard(ish) routes, or whether you're young, old, keen, or not so keen, is neither here nor there. So stop being a muppet, and pay up.

In reply to Tom Ripley: Yes, thats to stop people copying the keys. Hence why the locks get changed!

In reply to DougG: I've only skim read the thread, but it sounds like you should give the lad a break. After all we've all done foolish things when young.

Two 18 year olds going out and doing a VI, and not an easy VI at that, is far better than most of the arm chair moaners of here do. Maybe you should go out and climb more, rather than degrading the achievements of a young lad.

Although the lad has been a bit of prick, he has admitted it, paid for the hut and apologised. The SMC should give him the benefit of the doubt, after all without keen young members it will die out. I'm sure that this whole event and this circus of a thread have put a sour taste in his mouth.

In reply to Sam Jerrod:

I'm not denigrating his achievements.

I'm saying that the rules apply to him the same as they do to everyone else.

I don't climb at all at the moment. What has that got to do with the rights and wrongs of the situation? That's right, nothing at all.

In reply to Sam Jerrod: If youd have read it more fully you may have come to a different conclusion as it seems not once has anyone degraded his climbing acheivements. The point is if he has entered some sort of contract with £150 being the penalty whether he has the ability to follow grade 6 or cant get up a 1 without falling doesn't matter, nor does his age. While its good young climbers are around you dont have to treat us differently or give us the benefit of the doubt. If the SMC wants to prosper it should aim to be respectable and welcoming but not stoop to the level of grovelling and desperately seeking young english! climbers. btw im not saying the SMC isn't respectable or welcoming.

This is UKC too, i think the threads been very lenient on him especially given the dubious, but quite funny explantion. It would also seem a lot of talented winter climber have posted on here with well-informed posts (unlike this one) and maybe the armchair accusation would be better used one of the many threads where its true.
ta,
Joe

In reply to JoeL 90: If you are 18 I'm a monkey's uncle.

Given the number of posters on the school exclusion thread, I would of thought Tom would be commended. It isn't like anyone has been hurt.

I'm shocked that any real climber would even think to consider trying to stop another climber going climbing for the sake of key, which is what the SMC is effectively doing by fining Tom.

This seem very petty behavior over a key and a booking... it is about climbing ffs!

The lad was a bit stupid for bringing it up UKC though.

In reply to AlisonS: Ive stayed in the CIC hut thrice. Once I was only booked in for the saturday night only, so i slept in the van friday night and dumped my sleeping bag in the hut saturday morning before heading up the hill... there was absolutely no problem with the guys in there at the time they even offered me a cuppa.

I reckon if you didnt have the stories about the CIC Hut, people would treat it like shite... I respect the fact that if im not booked in I dare not expect to be allowed in for shelter... if i go and ask politely/am in need of help and I get told to get lost? - well there are pricks everywhere.

In reply to Sam Jerrod: How exactly is the SMC trying to stop Tom from going climbing? He has all but admitted he has the money, but refuses to pay for a new key!

In reply to drunken monkey:

How? The lad is a school boy, unlike most of the posters on here he does not a have a huge disposable income, nor is he able to use likes of Visa to get the money. The little money he has he will have slogged his gut out waiting on (or similar) for. By the look of his other posts he is busy saving for an alpine season; £150 is going to be a major set back to his plans.

Were none of you not ever young?

In reply to Sam Jerrod:

Really, have you seen this topic http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=283861&v=1#x4209211

In reply to Sam Jerrod: See above, plus many other gear posts.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. He will only have to miss 3 weekends of climbing anyway.

As he is still young, he still has plenty of weekends to go climbing. Old climbers shouldn't be charged however....

In reply to drunken monkey:

maybe he was selling the axes to pay the fine. It's our fault he hasn't paid the fine, cos we didn't buy his axes!!

In reply to joe king: Maybe he lost his axes, so couldnt post them to the buyer. Then found em again, but didnt bother as he wanted to use them on his trip to the CIC hut?!!!

In reply to joe king:

Really, have you seen this topic http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=283381&v=1#x4214780

In reply to Norrie Muir: What did the two miscreants who were actually banned do then?

In reply to Sam Jerrod:

Sam

Well one got banned 'sine died' for a second time.

Norrie (Not currently banned)

In reply to Sam Jerrod: Im not 18 which saves you from that rather unfortunate situation. I may be only 17 but that doesn't make me an advocate of disloyalty and going back on an agreement. Judging by the amo8unt of gear tom has two pairs of very expensive technical axes, the money to buy caribiners just because he likes the way he can rack wires on them and all the other things hes posted on her about i cant imagine hes struggling for money.

I dont see why well-off children should get let-off just because theyre enthusiastic. Climbing is a frivallous middle-class indulgence, its not as if theyre denying him the right to clean water! and if he hadn't entered the contract in the first place and had just camped outside like everyone else he wouln't owe £150.

Your argument doesn't really make sense. Money isn't simple given as compensation for hurting people its the loss of potentially productive time for those in the hut that is meant to be compensated.

And finally its not about climbing, its about a broken contract, if tom sold one pair of his axes he could pay the fine and preobably add a further £50 to the alps fund.

Its does feel a touch weird commenting on it like this, but then it was brought up in a public forum as you say.

In reply to Norrie Muir: Didn't see your post. What i attempted to say, said in two well selected links.

In reply to JoeL 90:

Well said son.

In reply to AlisonS:

Eh... 9,000 plus views and six days... is the whole world going mad???

In reply to AlisonS:
Oh... and 165 replies... Jesus H!

In reply to JSTaylor:

Well, when I posted the topic I was hoping for lots of stories from the old timers about derring do and the mischievous sixties. We can't always predict the way these threads turn out!
Maybe that's what the 9,000 were hoping for too?

In reply to Norrie Muir:

You are quite right Norrie; my face never burst out in plukes. What a marvellous word! I'll add it to my vocabulary.

In reply to AlisonS:

Well in the 60s, we did sometimes enter the hut in summer by dubious means, which were known to a few but always paid our hut fees and for coal, which was extremely expensive, having to be hauled up on a tractor twice a year.
Once someone took advantage, the hut was made more secure and getting the key was even harder as the holder was not in FW then.

We did have a go at the inside temperature record one hot day, getting the stove well fettled , but we failed as there was not enough wind to get a good draught up in it compared to when the hut is half buried in winter and a wind blowing.

Not really exciting and derring do was it?

In reply to sutty:

It's great Sutty

In reply to sutty: Did you 'Nut' anybody?

In reply to dek:

Never nutted anyone in my life, hit a couple with chairs when they were fighting drunk dangerous to put them down though.

In reply to sutty: Any excuse for bloody firewood eh?!

In reply to sutty:


One could still get in, even with the bars on the windows, allegedly.

In reply to Norrie Muir:

Well there was one bar that came out, but they fixed the shutters so you could not get to the bar, and the loose window pane. It would probably have been left if someone had not abused the system and made a mess in it a couple of times. The custodians were not stupid, they knew how we got in.

In reply to sutty:

The shutters were easy enough to open, if one knew the trick, allegedly.

In reply to Norrie Muir:

youse a baad man Norrie, allegedly.

In reply to Tom Ripley:

You really don't get it, do you Tom?


Unfortunately your actions will put plenty of people giving keen young climbers the benefit of the doubt today. Just consider how your actions over this will influence how people will react to you in the future. I'd happily loan a tent, kit or even (steady on DougG)a tenner to most regular posters on this site if they needed it. I wouldn't to you Tom, I couldn't trust you not to decide to keep it. Do you realise that?

In reply to Ridge:

What is the £150 for then? I thought it was supposed to be the cost of a key... Without taking sides it would seem fair to pay for a key if you lost it, plus a few bob for inconvenience, but £150 seems a lot.

Maybe some kind of system which scanned your eyeballs could be installed on the door? It could be negotiated with a university as an experiment as if it was able to function in the "extreme" conditions of the CIC hut, both weather and the low cunning of climbers, then this would be a very good selling point for a manufacturer.

A similar partnership arrangement with the eco-excrement industry could be sought for eco-friendly ablutions able to function in the cold too - isn't there some Islands and Highlands body whose job it is to foster such mutually beneficial deals?

Just a suggestion as a way of avoiding endless acrimonious threads that jeopardise inter-generational harmony.

In reply to Tom Ripley:

150 is dirt cheap for replacing the lock. Imagine hiring a tradesman to walk 2.5 hrs each way, then do an hours work fitting an expensive security lock and providing a dozen security keys on top. The bill for that would be approaching a grand. You are relying on the goodwill of volunteers.

For Rob to organise replacement of a security key, take it to the cutters and then walk up to the hut to check it works would cost in excess of 150 if he charged for his labour.

Shut up and pay up.

A middle aged man, still climbing hardish routes

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Numerous post have explained why it is £150. You suppose too much about subjects you know very little about.

In reply to Norrie Muir:

What is it for then?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Changing the lock.
Tom freely admits to keeping a key and reusing it without permission. Someone finding his camera case with the key in it might be inclined to do the same, or to nick peoples' stuff from inside.

In reply to Iain Forrest:
What kind of lock is this that costs 150 notes that is very expensive !!

In reply to Iain Forrest:

Sounds worse than Chicago up there! Alpine winter huts are not even locked when there is no guardian... perhaps being close to town the local yobs go up there? It's hard to imagine climbers pinching stuff.... at least it is for me.

So every time a key is lost they change the lock? £150 would be cheap in that case.

In reply to CurlyStevo:
Please read a few posts above.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

See post "by - 3leggeddog on - 09:05 Fri
In reply to Tom Ripley:

150 is dirt cheap for replacing the lock. Imagine hiring a tradesman to walk 2.5 hrs each way, then do an hours work fitting an expensive security lock and providing a dozen security keys on top. The bill for that would be approaching a grand. You are relying on the goodwill of volunteers.

For Rob to organise replacement of a security key, take it to the cutters and then walk up to the hut to check it works would cost in excess of 150 if he charged for his labour.".

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Sadly, there have been thefts from the hut.
See dek's post at 18:04 on Thursday, for example.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

It used to be a Chubb security lock and only named people could get the keys cut.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Oh for heavens sake, Bruce, read the posts! It's been explained several times now.

Sheesh.

In reply to george mc:




Sorry, but I have to take issue with this. If I am out for the day then I do take my waste home with me - in my guts. I use the toilets in the valley. However, if 20 people are staying overnight they WILL need to defecate on the hill. This is not comparing like with like. I concede that of the hundred (?) climbers out for the day a couple may need to go but I think those in the hut are producing a more concentrated and regular problem.

In reply to Monk:
The waste is a real problem. I understand the SMC are about to address this, and are just looking at how they'll fund the work.
Maybe it'll help if Tom pays up what he owes?

In reply to Monk:
very true I've only once crapped on the ben yet been there probably 15 times or so. Every night I spent in the hut I'd crap on the hill somewhere.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

I've never crapped on the ben.
I've crapped it loads of times though...

In reply to KeithW:

Something the matter? There have been several explanations now... but all are a bit puzzling... it is clearly a lump charge as it is too little for changing the lock (including making up a complete set of new keys) and a little high for just the cost of a few extra keys when the lock is initially bought (keys will inevitably be lost so spare keys are a necessary precaution).

The conclusion is don't lose the key, or don't use the hut, which is the reason for such a charge. All seems a little steeped in bitterness though... the warden clearly feels abused (probably with reason) and those that use the hut officially clearly seem a little possessive on occasions too.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Jesus christ hooker, do you know what a security lock is? And the difference (in price, quality etc) between it and a normal yale or chubb?
Factor in the hassle of getting to the hut, changing the lock, contacting all the keyholders, but it's all been said above, maybe you should take the time to read the thread rather than skimming it and picking out juicy bits to be your usual indignant self.
Yet again, you are arguing for the sake or aguing.

In reply to AlisonS:

Have to say Tom Ripley's "oooh I'll just pay after I've been" attitude is shocking.

I still have a hotel key I forgot to hand in. I know I'll go this weekend and send a cheque in on Monday!

Whether you like the CIC, or not, Tom's actions are wrong, possibly verging on criminal.

In reply to gourd:

I agree, for one who goes on about "ethics", he's not displaying any here.

In reply to gourd:

Aye I agree & not exactly the type of person I'd be wanting as an area rep, or whatever the correct title is, for the BMC.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Do you think a lock smith having to walk a couple of hours in each direction might have something to do with it? Perhaps you have very fit locksmiths down your way who just like to get out in the fresh air?

In reply to blueshound:

Perhaps you should read what I have posted too, instead of being so argumentative. I'm not arguing at all, making suggestions for improving the situation. In my last post I suggested that there seemed to be a lot of bitterness involved, your post confirms this, as do many others who have been mistreated by people staying in the hut (said on this thread and elsewhere, and in my own experience). Add to this the stories of theft it says something about climbers in Britain nowadays, don't you think?

This is probably more important than the initial key issue, and the situation of other exclusive club hut is often on the same lines (even more so than the CIC hut which, as the warden points out, is used by many non club members). Compared to the way British climbers are received in continental club huts - on the same basis as local club members - it is not a very favourable s comparison.

I think this is an issue that is worth debating, or at least reflecting about. Maybe you don't, in which case I am grief-struck at having caused you so much irritation.

In reply to TobyA:

Errm, if you had read what I posted you would have seen that I pointed out that £150 doesn't cover the cost of changing the lock... so your point is a little pointless... what's called a knee jerk reaction in the Daily Mail, I believe.

To be fair, taking a step back, I can understand Bruce's apparent bemusement, and I don't think he's really too far off the mark with
and

The thing is, the situation here is really quite different from huts elsewhere. The CIC is really the only Alpine-style hut we have, in part because our hills are mostly small and accessible enough to get up and down in a day without too much fuss, and probably also partly because of our excellent network of bothies.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: this is a very long thread. could someone distill it down to a few facts (rather than opinions) so that those of us who are late in can work out what the heck is going on?

much obliged.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Errr... pot.... kettle.... etc.

In reply to Bill Davidson: I see some of the recent posts show 'Wee Tam' has mastered the art of the 'Daft Laddie' he seems completely unconcerned about the hassle he could cause for others? Fortunately other youngsters, Joel? have a bit more nous about them. What surprises me is whoever sponsers teenage Tam's climbing career isnt giving him a bollocking.......but then they might just be glad to get rid of him at weekends?!

In reply to martin k:
Young Tom says that after staying in the CIC Hut (quite legitimately), he lost the key. When going back to Ben Nevis later he refound it and used it to stay in the hut again (without asking), then lost it again and refuses to pay up the £150 replacement costs he signed up to when he booked the first time.

Some people think this is fair enough as he's enthusiastic about climbing. Others don't really think that's relevant.

Meanwhile, the practicalities and morality of having the CIC Hut there at all, or of having it locked, are discussed at length, as are ways of reducing the impact of human faeces on the surrounding area.

Bruce Hooker is confusing several posters by not launching into an argument or making wild, unfounded assertions (so far).

Mick Ryan is yet to tell us how many climbs have been added to the UKC logbooks since this thread was started, but it can presumably only be a matter of time.

In reply to blueshound:

I am being very careful not to jerk my knee on this thread, out of respect for warden, who is following the thread and from his posts seems a very reasonable sort of person. My relations with TobyA are, however, more jerky and in this particular case he hadn't read my post before jerking his.

Perhaps the real solution would be a campaign to finance a bigger, better hut which would solve the problem? Tom could put in the first £150 and if he doubled it could even have it named after him (assuming he become a famous climber): "The Tom Ripley Lost Key Memorial Hut" could immortalize him for ever, although the TRLKM hut has less of a ring to it than CIC.

In reply to Iain Forrest:

I'm not the logbook person Iain, that would by Nick Smith.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:
Knew that'd draw you out

In reply to Iain Forrest:

It's my job Iain, I get paid for it....even at 6.02 am ET

In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

6.02, even McDonalds pays more than that mick.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Bruce - I just took Tom at this word above: "The contract says the £150 is the cost of replacing the locks." (19.40 Thu) Indeed, it would seem cheap at the price. I also noted higher than many moons ago I lost the key, but when I explained it must have been lost 400 miles south of the CIC they let me/my club off the lock changing fine. Tom appears to have lost it firstly in his winter climbing rucsac, and then secondly a few hundred metres away from the hut - he then told everyone who reads this how to identify the CIC hut key if they find it on Ben Nevis! Perhaps not the best idea. I agree with you fully though that some odd attitudes revolve around the hut - but perhaps that is because it is a "special thing" to get the chance to book it as it is so popular. When we had it we we let some lads come in who had just battled their way down in atrocious weather after doing Vanishing, to find their tent had vanished (it reaappeared in bits in the stream 500 mtrs from where they had left it! It was truely horrible weather - just walking up to the hut had been rather epic.

Iain - Mick's job is to tell us that more people read the news page than this one.

In reply to AlisonS:


Is this thread going to take the record for most viewed thread ever??

jonna

In reply to Iain Forrest: thank you, very concise.

here are some direct questions to help solve this business:

in the last ten years:

1. how many people have lost a key and been charged £150?
2. how many times has the lock been changed?

i suspect the answers to these questions will be "informative"

cheerio!

In reply to martin k:
I think you'd really need to amend (1) to:

How many people have "lost" a key, refound it, used it to get back into the hut without booking, lost it again, then publicised this on the internet with instructions on how to recognise it if found, and been charged £150

To get a properly "informative" answer.

In reply to TobyA:


But only on Mondays and Tuesdays and every third Thursday of the month.

In answer to popular thread, see the Alan Mullin thread, 25,852 views

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


The CIC Hut like all other SMC Huts do not have a wardens, they have Hut Custodians. Yet again you make comments/post on subjects you know little about.

In reply to Iain Forrest: i could, but then i'd be accusing young mr ripley of lying. i'd rather trust someone until they gave me a reason not to, as i'm sure you would too.

let's take it for granted that tom's telling the truth. then let's get direct answers to the questions about past losses (not "losses") and then we will have some clarity.

cheerio!

In reply to martin k:

And irrelevant.

In reply to martin k:
My post assumes that Tom is telling the truth - see his posts above for confirmation if you can be bothered.

In reply to martin k:


The answers to these questions are irrelevant. Tom entered into a contract when he initially booked the hut. He broke the contract twice, firstly by using the hut without booking. Secondly by refusing to pay for the keys replacement. It is down to the SMC's discression whether they choose to apply the fine or not. In this case, where it seems obvious that anyone finding the key will know of its use, thanks to Toms post, the fine has been applied. The Hut is privately owned, the owners decide on what action to take, not the opinions of ukc.

Another word of advice to Tom;

By venting your spleen in public about the fine, you are in danger of antagonising the SMC further. You are about to go to uni, a small claims court judgement against you will not help your credit record. Take it on the chin, pay up

In reply to blueshound:

What I quite like about this thread is that the point has been completely lost! Tom should pay up and take it on the chin, his fault either way, end of story.

There also seem to be a lot of people commenting on the hut, who:

a. Are not a member so don't use it - so do not know how it works (It is different from Alpine huts, so no comparison really).

b. Probably haven't seen it.

c. Probably know idea where it is actually is!

d. Are just putting their tuppenceworth in, like me.

Allez Les Bleus! :0)

In reply to Iain Forrest: my mistake. it was the way you said that he "lost" the key, rather than that he lost the key, which implies that you think he's lying.

if you think he's telling the truth, can you explain why you used ""?

cheerio!

In reply to martin k:
He hadn't really lost it, as he had it all along. I'm quite ready to believe this was entirely accidental - we've all misplaced things. I don't imagine he'd be being asked for £150 if he'd just returned it when he found it then.

In reply to 3leggeddog: the answers are totally relevant. if the answer is that people have lost keys but not been charged, then a "no charge" precedent has been set.

if people have been charged, but the locks/keys never replaced then it makes a mockery of the fine.

if people have lost a key, been charged and the locks/keys replaced then, as you say, that is how it goes and tom will be poorer than he currently is.

cheerio!

In reply to martin k: Standard test by MI5 was to get people to write down teckst. People lying often make many spelling errors and it would appear.....................
Maybe Tom you should spend the £140 quid on a dictionary.

In reply to 3leggeddog:

there's some interesting words in there; fine, contract . . .

maybe this


would be a useful test case

In reply to el diablo: i think that if you want to accuse someone of lying, you do it in the full glare of publicity, "el diablo"! why the false name?

cheerio!

In reply to Fauvé:


Hmm, nice volte face:

"Buggger it Tom, go out and enjoy yourself and if you find the key, copy it and send it to as many people as you can afford to!"

In reply to TobyA:

How long until the thread title is changed to read 'NEWS: Banned from the CIC Hut'?

In reply to martin k:
and not irrelevant at all as SMC supporters try and argue

Is it the £150 to reimburse SMC for costs that are ACTUALLY incurred, or is at a fine/deterrant?

and for those arguing against my previous post to demolish the hut, yes I have stayed there once, and would never do so again, preferring to walk up from Fort William, having been to the toilet first

The SMC have wittered on for years about composting toilets etc, but the fact is that none of the suggested solutions will work or be implemented

In reply to Tyler:


As you can see, or cannot as it would seem, I am being sarcastic. Far too many people taking this far too seriously.

My last post about him taking it on the chin, was meant for real. I love this site, people need to chill though. I am sure there are more important things in life thana key to a hut!

In reply to martin k:

So why be secretive about your surname Mr. K?

In reply to kevin stephens:

>Is it the £150 to reimburse SMC for costs that are ACTUALLY incurred, or is at a fine/deterrant?

It could be either or both. As I said earlier, the FEE for losing the Coruisk hut key was possibly more than the cost of replacement, but the buggeration factor of having to go there and replace it made it what it is.


I have a suggestion for Tom. Contact the custodian, offer to pay what it costs for the locksmith to go up there with a new lock and fit it and supply the number of keys needed. Probably a couple of dozen or more, as there will be some sent out early for people who have booked the hut and some held by people who have used the hut and have not returned them yet due to the post.

I think the £150 fee will probably be a bit less than that.

In reply to el diablo:
Because it sounds a bit like half an apple?

In reply to sutty:
the point is are the locks ACTUALLY replaced whenever a fine is paid/claimed?

In reply to kevin stephens:
1. You do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about 'that' hut.Ignore it if it offends you that much?
2. Where do all the tent users 'go'?
3. Double the hut fee in order to provide composting bogs?
4. Ever noticed how many climbers wait until stood at/near the hut before urinating? The stink in spring weather is grim.
5. Lochnagar has a public toilet block at the car park, how huge would the Bens have to be?
6. Would you be happy during a busy winter waiting for the key to arrive for your trip, and it hadn't been returned or 'lost' Im sure the custodian has better things to do than chase up missing keys, it's pretty clear in the form you are sent what the conditions are.

In reply to Fauvé:

I don't understand why Tom carried the key with him on a camping trip to Ben Nevis???

I presume he had a tent and wasn't intending to stay in the CIC, since the hut may well have been booked out for all he knew. Tom?

If he'd left it at home then he would have been able to post it on the Monday, no bother. So either through incompetence or dishonesty he messed up. And don't give me any of this "poor student" crap. Tom is at the age where all his income is disposable, unless he has some secret mortgage or childcare costs we don't know about...

In reply to dek:

1. The "Bee" in my bonnet is purely an environmental one, "ignoring" negative environmental impacts is not generally an effective strategy.

2. "ALL" the tent users may be overstating things, without the hut I do not believe there would be more tents, and those who insist on camping would probably spread out further.

3. I would be happy with the hut staying if the SMC could actually implement composting or other effective treatment/removal of toilet and kitchen waste, the fact is that composting will not work in the cold winter environment around the CIC hut

4. Agreed, see 2 above

5. A very large proportion of folk walking up from the valley will go before they leave, I am not suggesting a toilet block

6. Not relevent to me, I just asked a simple question out of curriosity, are the locks changed whenever a fine is paid?

In reply to kevin stephens: Why dont you carry your waste out with you?

In reply to kevin stephens:
Shit 'Happens' until the rumored new facilities appear each climber has a tool for burying their own waste. A NF car park toilet block would help inmo, until then i still use the two day enamelling option.

In reply to el diablo:

i'm martin kocsis, and i live in chinley near buxton. my direct phone number is 0161 438 3336 if you want to ring me, and my email is [email protected] & you can no doubt find me on facegoon too

i work at the bmc office in manchester as the "volunteers' officer"

i am 39, i like huskies, frequenting flea markets and looking the wrong way through telescopes

are you willing to be as open as me about your identity?

cheerio!

In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

Why is he sticking his tongue out? Looks fishy to me...

In reply to Bruce Hooker: i'm not sticking my tongue out, my dentures have just fallen into my pint. again.

In reply to martin k:

That clinches it then, I definitely prefer the other two.

(Isn't this getting off subject a bit? Is there a subject?)

In reply to AlisonS: im all for a bit of anarchistic behaviour in the climbing scene but what tom has done goes beyond that. The SMC huts only work if there is an element of trust, something which is expected in the climbing scene. My own club hut is left open and not locked, you cant get much more trusting than that.

Tom deserves to be banned from the CIC (and all SMC huts) and to be pilloried on here, and he will certainly never get an invite from me to doss in my club hut.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC: The boy in theat pic is alot better and sexier than the rippers....

In reply to will:

So what is your take on this topic? Should the UK's leading Young Climber be banned from the CIC?

In reply to martin k:
Martin, in the spirit of your direct questions above, how do you think the BMC would deal with someone who had stayed in one of their huts, told the custodian they'd lost the key, used that key later to stay again without booking, then said they'd lost the key again?
Just for comparison, of course. And I appreciate it isn't your area of responsibility, and that your reply need not constitute official BMC policy.
I'm off out shortly, but will be interested to read your answer later.

In reply to Norrie Muir:

This is surely part of Tom's education. I hope he learns from all this.

As someone said to me earlier today....."What were you like at 18?"

In reply to Erik B: making judgements about something that's being reported second hand, and about which much bull has already been spouted is inappropriate.

tom went climbing, lost a key, found it again and went climbing again. in the meantime, he stayed at the CIC without booking, and then gets a load of grief on here.

all the professional complainers on here should remember that perspective is a very valuable thing... "use it, or lose it" in other words. plenty of people on here have lost their sense of perspective and are the worse for it. why not do as tom seems to do and go climbing whenever you can and then rave about how brilliant it was? i say "well done" to tom for his commitment to getting out climbing and having an adventure, and "shame on you" to all the self righteous goons on here who just want to slag him off and protect the unsullied virginal beauty of their club/hut from dreadful people like tom.

cheerio!

In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

Age has nothing to do with young Thomas's actions/inactions. I'm sure, my age would not excuse me from being banned (not that I would use the CIC Hut unauthorised).

I know I was not like young Thomas, I had rosy cheeks and had no spots.

In reply to martin k:

Sorry Martin, but I completely disagree. This has nothing to do with how good Tom is as a climber, or about territorial disputes over a hut.
Tom has used the hut, agreed to certain conditions, then decided not to abide by them.

In reply to martin k: he found the key he thought he had lost, kept hold of it and then used it to stay in the hut, that negates any trust placed in him by the hut custodian. Without trust the hut system would not work therefore everyone who uses them or wants to use them is potentially impacted. Thankfully the majority dont have loose morals like Tom. His age is no excuse.

would you trust him?

In reply to Norrie Muir:

We all mature at different rates and ages Norrie.

He does however, seem to have taken several missteps.

Let us have faith Oh Lord of the Dark Corrie.

In reply to martin k: I was a SMC member for a while and I had the magic key, I handed the key back as soon as I resigned, would it have been acceptable for me to have kept it or copied it and used the huts? same issue, different persons morals.

In reply to Iain Forrest: that's an easy one, and thanks for not dragging my job into it as some might be tempted to do. however, huts are part of my remit, so i feel competent to reply.

i'd do the following:

charge them for the unbooked night(s) that they stayed.

take their story at face value unless i had solid evidence to the contrary.

ask for a written assurance that they would not stay in the hut again without booking it.

make it clear that if they repeated the unbooked night narnar they would be put on a blacklist.

give them a right good spanking.

keep the key deposit money, and double the deposit for the next time they booked the hut.

i think that just about covers it.
cheerio!

In reply to Erik B: amazing, you've never met him, yet you accuse him of having "loose morals"! would you care to make a judgement about me, having never met me?

the argument that "if everyone behaved like this then..." is specious in the extreme!

(yes, i would trust him)

In reply to martin k:

Yes, but some of us have higher standards of trust.

In reply to martin k: Theres lots of young climbers out there getting things done regularly and are keen and enthusiastic Toms not the only one doing so. His ability to self-publicise makes it seem this way if your only knowledge of other climber comes from this site.

If tom has broken a contact in which the penalty for doing so is £150 then he should pay, thats all people are saying on here its simple. If he hasn't he shouldn't. However waht is definately not a good idea is to slag off the CIC publically just because he doesn't want to pay the money when hes been happy to use it before. It baffles me why some people on here think young enthusiastic climbers are such a great thing. People who have no money and an appauling childhood who then go on to get a good education and a good job are amazing and inspirational and deserve applauding. Middle class wasters like me, tom and other young climber on here who rather than contribute to society, indulge in some selvish bourgeois past-time like climbing shouldn't be alound to break contracts and expect charity or be given special treatment of any kind.

However if the BMC is keen on helping such people could i have £150 of free membership please?

In reply to martin k: I have allready made a judgement about you

In reply to JoeL 90:

He! He! Nice one

In reply to JoeL 90:


Climbers are helping themselves if they join the BMC.

You do understand that right?

In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

Does the BMC just say to fraudulent insurance claimants, that is OK, you are a student, so it is not fraud? If it is or not, I would suggest it is double standards.

In reply to Norrie Muir:

Don't be ridiculous Norrie.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

Am I being ridiculous for suggesting excusing someone for being a student is double standards?

In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC: Yeah theyre a very fine organisation. Im glad im a member. Why wouldn't i understand it? I just thought that as one of the people who runs it seemed to think its unreasonable for a young climber to pay a fine they incurred it may be also be equally willing to save me the money and let me be a member for free. It wasn't being serious nor was it an attack on the excellent work they do. Hope this clears things up.
ta,
Joe

In reply to Mick Ryan - Editor - UKC:

What an opportunity to get in on the longest thread in climbing history !!!
I realize I am exposing myself considerably but do think the nature of the original thread has changed.

When Al Rouse was not allowed into the CIC hut and Dirty Alex wanted to burn it down, this was a completely different time in climbing history. Tales of antisocial bravado were common and I can assure you that staying in the CIC hut without booking or whatever, was quite mild by comparison to what frequently went on. Breaking into huts, thieving, brawling etc were all part of that colorful landscape. (now before you massacre me, let me say that I am not condoning this behavior nowadays but people do need to understand that "one upping" antisocial activities was common in the 70's)

It might be difficult for climbers nowadays to understand that in those days there were far fewer climbers around (ie. refuse issues in the hills)and that bravado was often a method of dealing with the frequent deaths of hard climbers. I think it was either Rouse or Mick Geddes that told me they bivouacked in the storage closet at the back of the CIC along with a corpse strapped to a stretcher. True or not true, the point is that feeling comfortable with death was part of the game.

Paying for a lost key in 2008 is a completely different issue. Do a slide show, raise 150 quid. But best to sort it out.

Please someone start a new controversial thread.

In reply to Norrie Muir:


... and a 'tache.

My oh my what a slanging match.

Why dont we settle it this way

1 Kidnap Tom and his wallet
2 In pro/anti Tom teams play pub olympics (darts,pool,skittles etc)
3 The winning team choose what to do with Tom and his wallet

Date?
Venue?
Players and Team?

In reply to 3leggeddog: Outward Bound Ullswater would seem the logical venue.

In reply to 3leggeddog:

OK I can't resist it...this thread's being going on far too long to not get involved.

Not the crime of the century is it?...not that I condone the 'not the Messiah but a very naughty boy'

I do 38 in a 30 limit and get fined £60...because I might have killed someone (or so I'm told but let's not go there)...£150 is a bit steep.

In reply to Norrie Muir: No

In reply to Norrie Muir:

Good question Norrie, but what about the fate of Mr Ripley???

In reply to martin k:

Aye and all the professonal spongers/students should be accountable for there actions and play the game. We always hear about poor students and the debt they incurr whilst studying, however displaying selfish behaviour and pissing it up seven nights a week does not give there pleas of poverty any credibility.

In reply to martin k:

hey I'm a part-time paedo/rapist /granny mugger (I'm lying for extra special effect) but during the day I'm a brilliant teacher of children. bloody laws eh?
folk like you make this country great for everyone with a lame excuse whilst the majority suffer the consequences.

In reply to martin k:
Thanks for the reply Martin.
I have to say, if the CIC was my club's hut, I'd be happier if the custodian took a harder line than your suggestion, which leaves it very open for the small minority of pisstakers that undoubtedly do exist to acquire their very own key for just the price of the deposit - quite a bargain.

You're right to say that people should be more encouraging of Tom's climbing rather than taking the piss out of him for his enthusiasm. I wish him all the best on that.
This is a different scenario entirely, though. People should be discouraging him from dishonest practises and trust-breaking. And, for the most part, they seem to be.

Those saying it isn't the crime of the century are quite right. It's a breach of trust, and a breach of the rules he signed up to, but that's all. An appropriate punishment would be something like a bit of a ribbing on here plus either the fine he agreed to or a ban from the CIC Hut - which seems to be what he's getting anyway.

Anyway, enough from me - it isn't my hut, and I've allowed myself to get dragged into this one much more than I intended! I refer you back to my original post on this thread:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=285980&v=1#x4249794

Happy climbing.

In reply to AlisonS:
This thread has gone on for long enough; I have come up with the ideal solution

Tom is absolved from coughing up the £150 If...

He walks up to the hut with sack and shovel and removes the accumulated excrement and packs it out again to disposl in Fort William (This may require quite a few trips)

as nobody has written on this tread for a while, i presume the rich kid has coughed up

very unlikely given his attitude that seeps through his posts like a dead rat stuffed into a curtain rail.
just how much this downfall has been enjoyed is acurately reflected by the sheer scale of response; just thought I'd join the party. well done to all involved for one of the best hours i've ever wasted reading anything on the net.

In reply to mike lates: Still, it could have been worse, at least he didn't nick a chock stone

In reply to mike lates:

FFS the lad is only seventeen! A bit of rebellion is healthy at that age. As grown-ups we are supposed to understand that. Weren't you a rebel at seventeen? No? Well then, you missed out.

If you were so bored by my thread why did you bother reading it? And even more so; responding?

In reply to AlisonS:

Not to the extent of refusing to pay for something if I was in the wrong.

In reply to nastyned: chockstone nicking sounds a bit of a tangent i can't quite follow unless you're a grit officianado with a long memory.

In reply to AlisonS: Its not really rebellion. Rebellion would be if he openly protested against it being there then burned it down in an attempt to free the mountains from the shackles of mans interference. Using it a few times before losing the key and not contacting the owner regarding ist whereabouts, then criticising them for not having an un-workable sanitation system when he gets caught out is just incompetance - but also the makings for a very funny thread.

In reply to AlisonS:

I feel sorry for you that the thread has not gone the way you wanted it. You could give an example of your rebelliousness, such as the time you black nail varnish, underneath your gloves of course.

In reply to AlisonS:

Bored, no, anything but. it was a compliment to the very well-guided posts trying to educate & preserve some of the basic ideals/ ethics of the climber's environment.
As for the age of rebellion i was fortunate enough to have mates who told me to shut up when I was making a dick of myself and still do (no doubt v soon for rising to your bait!).
I was a bit strong in analogy but the there really is a very unattractive atmosphere around his outlook on climbing and, more importantly, other climbers. My advise would be for him to print it all off and absorb some of the very wise words given out by so many highly respected mountaineers. Invaluble education for him and anyone else- a classic case study into how to survive in a climbers world.
O & O.

In reply to Norrie Muir:

amazing thread.
Young Tom certainly knows how to draw atention to himself. Tam, please tell me you are not a real person. No one could have made as many mistakes as you and lived for as long?

What really stuns me is that he was foolish enough to pay up front to get a CIC hut key. Has he not heard of the endless supply of "big red keys" which used to lie at the rear of the hut? Or at least he could have turned on the charm to get in? (lying rarely works)

I am not a fan of staying in the hut overnight as it is generally full of mean-spirited socio-paths. (Except the present Guardian, who does have a sense of humour & has always made me welcome).

The CIC does make a nice stop off as a cafe on the way up or down.
Suggest it is turned into a Cafe Restuarant, from which proceeds go to restoring the immediate environment.

Parafinn

In reply to parafinn: Or they could always knock it down and rebuild it on the summit as a kinda summit restaurant/bar?

In reply to parafinn:

Maybe Tom could get a job there to pay off his debt, or would he just moan about the wage...

In reply to Anonymous: yes Tom washing dishes!
Imagine arrhving 2 b greeted by Guardian.
"Does Sir have a reservation?"

In reply to AlisonS:

Ha! Great thread. As an ex-local I used to love crashing into the hut during a rescue on the Ben to the dimay of the 'guests'!! They eventually did see sense and get the tea on for the lads (and lasses).
I've always hated the hut due to the division it created... them and us! I've stayed in it a couple of times and didnt get much sleep to be honest. I now just try to blank it out as I walk up to the climbs. So that's my advice to the 'have nots'.
For those who feel they have the 'right' to enter at will.... Just how much fun would it be sharing it with 100 other like minded souls that weekend??
Leave it to the SMC, it's theirs, they look after it, they deserve it.

Cheers

In reply to drunken monkey:

How about calling it Smugbucks?

In reply to parafinn:

or the Old Curiocicty Shop

In reply to ericoides:

Of course there is one hidden environmental hazard not dicussed yet and another good reason to have the hut removed.

A frequent poster to UKC was "resting" the CIC one stormy day, when his gaze fell on the ancient barometer & thermometer mounted on the wall next to the door. Eyeing it over with curiosity, he put his Golden Virginia roll-up between his lips and muttered,

"I wonder what this little screw is for?"

Apparently it took some time to replace said screw. In the meantime balls of the highly toxic heavy metal Mercury rolled about the floor and disappeared between cracks in the floor.

Anyone know the long term effects of exposure to Mercury?

In reply to parafinn:

Yeah. You create a profile on UKClimbing, err dribble...

In reply to parafinn:



A sore arse I would imagine.

In reply to george mc:

Mercury's not dangerous if you don't eat the stuff... as kids we all had a little ink bottle of the stuff to play with... later on when working in a scrap yard the regular rainy day job was stripping out elecro-switch systems which used mercury in little glass tubes that pivoted so that the mercury made an electrical contact.. we spent hours breaking the flasks and pouring it into iron bottles (it will eat through any other metal) as it sold for a good price. Like for asbestos the dangers are exaggerated.

In reply to coinneach:
Thankfully my cup of tea never went all over my keyboard. Nice one.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

my aunt, as a chemist, was involved in creating a scent for north sea gas. each person in her lab had to spend time smelling different concentrations of the scent (mercapsid?). anyway long story short, the appratus used mercury to measure pressure and she had major mercury poisoning afterwards, that involves having all her teeth drilled and filled, hair shaved off etc

she is as mad as a hatter, which apparently refers to the mercury poisoning that blighted the haberdashers

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The vapour is pretty toxic...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I understand your posts now.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Bruce on what basis do you form his opinion?

In reply to Dr.Strangeglove:

Go to the top of the class, doctor.

In reply to parafinn:

On the basis that he is still alive, after playing with he stuff habitually as a child.
However, he is discounting (or ignoring) the fact that it has left him mentally infirm, as evidenced by his postings on UKC.

In reply to mutley & others:

In her case she was eating the stuff... inhaling the vapour, over a longish period will do you no good. Playing with a little in your hand or there being a bit under the floorboards is a bit different.

As for asbestos, all factory steam equipment, pipes, valves and pumps for viscous fluids which had to be kept hot were all lagged with asbestos (maybe many still are) as were the heating pipes in tunnels under buildings... again in scrap yards you necessarily handle tons of the stuff... but we don't hear that much about deaths due to this. I think you'll find that the majority of deaths are for people working asbestos at the fabrication stage when it appears to be more toxic.

Most garden shed roofs are still asbestos but as long as it's painted over and not disturbed there's no need to panic.. unless people want to, of course, which is often the case. In France now, when you sell a house or a flat you have to have a check done on all sorts of things, asbestos, lead paint, earthquake and flood risk etc etc but you only have to hand the report to the buyer, who even then is under no obligation to remove the dangerous products... he is warned though.

In general I think people worry too much.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Aye, chernobyl schmernobyl.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Thanks, I have stopped worrying about you, I now know what is wrong with you.

In reply to parafinn:

Bruce is spot on with this.

In reply to blueshound:

Asbestos does not affect ones mental capacity, only your ability to breath and other cancers too, I believe.

It seems to be good for ones eyesight though as a 58 I still don't need glasses... how many posting here are half my age but do need spectacles? Quite a few, I guess, which seems to prove quite conclusively that asbestos touching and mercury fiddling, in moderation, are good for your eyes.

A scientist from the university of Bordeaux published a paper not long ago which demonstrated that drinking of red wine in moderation actually reduces the risk of heart problems... yet another proof of the excesses and panic that we are subjected to by the media on a daily basis.

In reply to Norrie Muir:

I didn't know you cared... how touching!

I'm quite moved.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>Quite a few, I guess, which seems to prove quite conclusively that asbestos touching and mercury fiddling, in moderation, are good for your eyes.

LOL, I think it may be extremely bad for the brains reasoning powers.

The painter and decorator that lives near me has asbestosis from rubbing down old paint on panels, and there is still time for me to get it from my contact with it.