This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Fantastic day of hard sports climbing at Harpur hill! Followed by a swim in the lagoon.... Then being asked to leave by the police before our last few routes ... As "the land is no longer available For climbing"?!
As the guide notes no formal access we left.
Shame.
Although the police should surely be catching criminals.... These two jokers couldn't catch a cold
As the guide notes no formal access we left.
Shame.
Although the police should surely be catching criminals.... These two jokers couldn't catch a cold
In reply to craig.morris22:
> Fantastic day of hard sports climbing at Harpur hill! Followed by a swim in the lagoon.... Then being asked to leave by the police before our last few routes ... As "the land is no longer available For climbing"?!
>
>
Presumably you asked on what basis it is all of a sudden "not available for climbing" and who had notified and asked the police to enforce this?>
>
In reply to Postmanpat: They said the land ownership changed. Presume they just ran out of murders to deal.
Fear naught, we are back tomorrow anyway
Fear naught, we are back tomorrow anyway
In reply to craig.morris22:
Would suggest you contact the relevant BMW rep ASAP.
> (In reply to Postmanpat) They said the land ownership changed. Presume they just ran out of murders to deal.
>
> Fear naught, we are back tomorrow anyway
>
> Fear naught, we are back tomorrow anyway
Would suggest you contact the relevant BMW rep ASAP.
In reply to craig.morris22:
It would be wise, considering the recent loss of access arrangments to perhaps not go back tomorrow and check in with your BMC rep as you might then end up messing things up for future access rights
It would be wise, considering the recent loss of access arrangments to perhaps not go back tomorrow and check in with your BMC rep as you might then end up messing things up for future access rights
In reply to craig.morris22:
I doubt the individual coppers had much choice in the matter; simply recieved a call from the control room to do a job and went and did it. I'm not sure why you seem to think the police weren't doing their job.
Instead of acting like a petulant child and going back tomorrow anyway, why not do something constructive and inform your BMC access rep to try and get access re-established for all of us.
As for not being able to catch a cold, they seem to have made short work of turfing you off the crag so they can go back to sorting out all those murders.
I doubt the individual coppers had much choice in the matter; simply recieved a call from the control room to do a job and went and did it. I'm not sure why you seem to think the police weren't doing their job.
Instead of acting like a petulant child and going back tomorrow anyway, why not do something constructive and inform your BMC access rep to try and get access re-established for all of us.
As for not being able to catch a cold, they seem to have made short work of turfing you off the crag so they can go back to sorting out all those murders.
In reply to Dave 88:
If there was a like button I'd click like on this.
If there was a like button I'd click like on this.
In reply to Dave 88: Obviously a copper, don't take it personal sweetheart
Don't worry kids, il make the BMC call
Don't worry kids, il make the BMC call
In reply to craig.morris22:
Obviously a copper,
Nope.
don't take it personal sweetheart
You'd do well to heed your own advice.
Good girl.
> (In reply to Dave 88)
Obviously a copper,
Nope.
don't take it personal sweetheart
You'd do well to heed your own advice.
> Don't worry kids, il make the BMC call
Good girl.
In reply to craig.morris22: but they caught you ...
In reply to craig.morris22:
Did the police chat you up?
Did the police chat you up?
In reply to craig.morris22: You went swimming in the Lagoon? have you seen some of the troglodytes that use that place! I'd get your self down the docs ASAP.
In reply to craig.morris22:
From the Askthepolice website https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q56.htm
"Trespass to land is a civil wrong and as such the police have no jurisdiction. Under common law, the landowner has a right to re-entry on the land. However, the ejection of the trespasser is fraught with danger for the landowner. Initially, the landowner should ask the occupier to leave the land and if he/she does then all is well. However, the problems start if he/she refuses to leave the land.
The owner of the land could commit several criminal offences if he forcibly removes the trespasser and his/her property from the land. The best and safest course of action is to obtain a court order, which if breached may then turn into a criminal matter.
If the police do attend an incident such as this, they are merely there as observers for any possible criminal offences committed by either party. The police cannot assist in the removal of the trespassers or their property from the land in question. The police do have some powers against larger groups of occupiers if damage has been caused."
So what job did the police think they were doing? On the face of it they were exceeding their authority. Unless there's something missing from the OP?
From the Askthepolice website https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q56.htm
"Trespass to land is a civil wrong and as such the police have no jurisdiction. Under common law, the landowner has a right to re-entry on the land. However, the ejection of the trespasser is fraught with danger for the landowner. Initially, the landowner should ask the occupier to leave the land and if he/she does then all is well. However, the problems start if he/she refuses to leave the land.
The owner of the land could commit several criminal offences if he forcibly removes the trespasser and his/her property from the land. The best and safest course of action is to obtain a court order, which if breached may then turn into a criminal matter.
If the police do attend an incident such as this, they are merely there as observers for any possible criminal offences committed by either party. The police cannot assist in the removal of the trespassers or their property from the land in question. The police do have some powers against larger groups of occupiers if damage has been caused."
So what job did the police think they were doing? On the face of it they were exceeding their authority. Unless there's something missing from the OP?
reply to telemark: duty of care, people drown in quarries, you would never heard the end of it if no action had been taken
In reply to telemark:
Prevent a possible breach of the peace from occurring.
Happens all the time, it's often best for all involved ( landowners, 'trespassers' and the police once they have been called and are expected to do something positive ) to just go and ask people to leave.
Bearing in mind the attitude of the OP it was probably best the landowner didn't try themselves. Do you think he would have left if Joe Bloggs turned up and asked nicely seeing as he was planning on going back again anyway. I do believe that people should bear more of the responsibility themselves, especially if it's been a recent change in ownership.
BTW how likely do you think it is that the police had a murder to investigate or a burglar to catch but thought they would go and deal with something that is a civil matter instead just to make sure it didn't escalate ?
Prevent a possible breach of the peace from occurring.
Happens all the time, it's often best for all involved ( landowners, 'trespassers' and the police once they have been called and are expected to do something positive ) to just go and ask people to leave.
Bearing in mind the attitude of the OP it was probably best the landowner didn't try themselves. Do you think he would have left if Joe Bloggs turned up and asked nicely seeing as he was planning on going back again anyway. I do believe that people should bear more of the responsibility themselves, especially if it's been a recent change in ownership.
BTW how likely do you think it is that the police had a murder to investigate or a burglar to catch but thought they would go and deal with something that is a civil matter instead just to make sure it didn't escalate ?
In reply to telemark: Nowt missing mate, bit of climbing, then a swim and back on the crag.
In reply to craig.morris22:
on someone else's land where you weren't supposed to be.
There you go fixed that for you ;0)
> (In reply to telemark) Nowt missing mate, bit of climbing, then a swim and back on the crag.
on someone else's land where you weren't supposed to be.
There you go fixed that for you ;0)
In reply to biscuit: Cheers hero
In reply to craig.morris22:
Calm down dear !
Did you not see the ;0) at the end ?
It means i am making a joke.
FYI:
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/RAD/viewcrag.aspx?id=118
Calm down dear !
Did you not see the ;0) at the end ?
It means i am making a joke.
FYI:
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/RAD/viewcrag.aspx?id=118
In reply to Bulls Crack: An untolerable loss to the climbing world. Where are top visiting climbers going to go instead!?
In reply to craig.morris22:
You were doing something you weren't supposed to do is that ok in your eyes?
You'd be no doubt happy with people popping in and out of you garden I'm sure?
You were doing something you weren't supposed to do is that ok in your eyes?
You'd be no doubt happy with people popping in and out of you garden I'm sure?
In reply to Denni:
Also, according to your profile you have been climbing from 11-20 years and you still don't understand that you have done anything wrong?
Also, according to your profile you have been climbing from 11-20 years and you still don't understand that you have done anything wrong?
In reply to Denni: If you don't know the difference between having a small garden and being a large land owner you are a bigger idiot than you sound. Do you believe all land owners should be able to deny access to their property? Large Scottish Estates are in effect someones garden! Your attitude stinks. If you have nothing constructive to say kindly forego posting in the future.
Cheers kidda
Cheers kidda
In reply to HarryRoberts:
It may not have been the best example however the point stands that the OP is a long time climber who was upset that he was asked to leave somewhere where it says in the guidebook its on private property and there is no formal access. It's that kind of climber who potentially cocks it up for everyone else.
I don't think there was any need for your abuse really.
If you have nothing constructive to say kindly forego posting in future.
Were you his climbing partner that day by any chance ?
It may not have been the best example however the point stands that the OP is a long time climber who was upset that he was asked to leave somewhere where it says in the guidebook its on private property and there is no formal access. It's that kind of climber who potentially cocks it up for everyone else.
I don't think there was any need for your abuse really.
If you have nothing constructive to say kindly forego posting in future.
Were you his climbing partner that day by any chance ?
In reply to craig.morris22:
Being ejected from Harpur Hill would have been the highlight of my day. I think the police were doing you an honorable service.
Being ejected from Harpur Hill would have been the highlight of my day. I think the police were doing you an honorable service.
In reply to HarryRoberts:
Harry, I did have exactly the same reaction when asked to 'go away' from Guisecliff on the basis that I wouldn't like the landowner 'walking through my back garden'. I had a yard at the time not a sodding great wood and attached moorland.
However I had a polite, though slightly frosty, chat with the lady as we packed up and we left. I didn't mouth off on the internet afterwards* and publicly declare I was going back the next day.
And in reply to your direct question; ALL landowners cannot deny access to their property. But, yes SOME landowners should be able to deny access to their property. (Its called trespass in England.)
Lets not go into whether the large estates in Scotland are gardens or livestock farms, eh?
*I think it had just been invented at the time.
Harry, I did have exactly the same reaction when asked to 'go away' from Guisecliff on the basis that I wouldn't like the landowner 'walking through my back garden'. I had a yard at the time not a sodding great wood and attached moorland.
However I had a polite, though slightly frosty, chat with the lady as we packed up and we left. I didn't mouth off on the internet afterwards* and publicly declare I was going back the next day.
And in reply to your direct question; ALL landowners cannot deny access to their property. But, yes SOME landowners should be able to deny access to their property. (Its called trespass in England.)
Lets not go into whether the large estates in Scotland are gardens or livestock farms, eh?
*I think it had just been invented at the time.
In reply to craig.morris22:
There are two seperate issues here:
1. What are the extent of police powers in such an incident
2. How as climbers do we want to deal with situations where a landowner may not wish us to enter their land
First Point
It does appear (from what you say) that the police attending overstepped their jurisdiction in asking you to leave. Hopefully, they will send a bill to the landowner to recoup our money spent do the landowners bidding.
Send an email to the Derbyshire Police asking for clarification if you want to take issue with being asked to leave.
Second Point
I would suggest it would be best to check with BMC to see what the up-to date site access situation is, (and what the BMC recommendation is) before you go back.
From ask the police:
"Trespass to land is a civil wrong and as such the police have no jurisdiction. Under common law, the landowner has a right to re-entry on the land. However, the ejection of the trespasser is fraught with danger for the landowner. Initially, the landowner should ask the occupier to leave the land and if he/she does then all is well. However, the problems start if he/she refuses to leave the land."
"If the police do attend an incident such as this, they are merely there as observers for any possible criminal offences committed by either party. The police cannot assist in the removal of the trespassers or their property from the land in question. The police do have some powers against larger groups of occupiers if damage has been caused."
There are two seperate issues here:
1. What are the extent of police powers in such an incident
2. How as climbers do we want to deal with situations where a landowner may not wish us to enter their land
First Point
It does appear (from what you say) that the police attending overstepped their jurisdiction in asking you to leave. Hopefully, they will send a bill to the landowner to recoup our money spent do the landowners bidding.
Send an email to the Derbyshire Police asking for clarification if you want to take issue with being asked to leave.
Second Point
I would suggest it would be best to check with BMC to see what the up-to date site access situation is, (and what the BMC recommendation is) before you go back.
From ask the police:
"Trespass to land is a civil wrong and as such the police have no jurisdiction. Under common law, the landowner has a right to re-entry on the land. However, the ejection of the trespasser is fraught with danger for the landowner. Initially, the landowner should ask the occupier to leave the land and if he/she does then all is well. However, the problems start if he/she refuses to leave the land."
"If the police do attend an incident such as this, they are merely there as observers for any possible criminal offences committed by either party. The police cannot assist in the removal of the trespassers or their property from the land in question. The police do have some powers against larger groups of occupiers if damage has been caused."
In reply to ChrisJD:
Your 1st point has already been discussed above with the same link. I wish bills were sent in this kind of situation but i doubt it, it would stop people calling before they try themselves.
As for point 2 it's on the RAD and in the guidebook saying it's private land with no formal access agreement - he already knew this when he went it would appear.
Your 1st point has already been discussed above with the same link. I wish bills were sent in this kind of situation but i doubt it, it would stop people calling before they try themselves.
As for point 2 it's on the RAD and in the guidebook saying it's private land with no formal access agreement - he already knew this when he went it would appear.
In reply to biscuit:
What RAD actually says is this:
"There is no access agreement here. The landowner occasionally appears and lets people know they have no right of access."
"Parking remains a sensitive issue here. Parking on the (private) roads anywhere in the industrial estate has created problems recently with several reports of wheel clamping and police involvement etc. BMC advice is to park considerately in the village and use public footpath network to access the crag."
Land has to be 'owned' by someone/thing, so privately owned is not an unusual situation. The RAD database is very clear if the BMC recommend that climbing should not take place - the RAD databases for Harpur Hill does not indicate an agreed 'ban' as such (like it does, for example for part of Craig y Forwen). So I think that the OP was more than justified in going climbing there given the guidance on the RAD website and the common discussions (e.g. parking) about Harpur Hill on UKC.
And I wouldn't place any immediate weight on (without confirming with BMC) the attending Policeman's comment about "the land is no longer available For climbing" given they don't even know the common law around trespass!
What RAD actually says is this:
"There is no access agreement here. The landowner occasionally appears and lets people know they have no right of access."
"Parking remains a sensitive issue here. Parking on the (private) roads anywhere in the industrial estate has created problems recently with several reports of wheel clamping and police involvement etc. BMC advice is to park considerately in the village and use public footpath network to access the crag."
Land has to be 'owned' by someone/thing, so privately owned is not an unusual situation. The RAD database is very clear if the BMC recommend that climbing should not take place - the RAD databases for Harpur Hill does not indicate an agreed 'ban' as such (like it does, for example for part of Craig y Forwen). So I think that the OP was more than justified in going climbing there given the guidance on the RAD website and the common discussions (e.g. parking) about Harpur Hill on UKC.
And I wouldn't place any immediate weight on (without confirming with BMC) the attending Policeman's comment about "the land is no longer available For climbing" given they don't even know the common law around trespass!
In reply to ChrisJD:
The main issue i think people who have been negative with the OP is his attitude. He knew there was the possibility he would be asked to leave and when that happens says it ruined his day and would go back the next day anyway. He then got abusive with people who didn't share his opinion.
If he'd come on and said that he wanted to let people know that there is a possibility that the situation at Harpur Hill had changed, and he was disappointed as it's a place he likes to go, and was going to get in touch with the BMC to check it out then i feel he would have been treated differently.
The RAD does not say there is a ban but it does say there is "no right of access". A grey area i admit but it's certainly not open for all and sounds like a slippery way of saying private property. Are there any signs up at the place ? If not the landowner should put some up or it sounds as if he's not that bothered so i've no idea why he called the Police.
As for the Police i have no idea how they ended up being called as normally any call taker will advise the landowner it's a civil issue. Either there is something we are not aware of or it was a cock up. Once they were there they have used whatever powers they have to sort the situation out - not necessarily trespass as noted in posts above.
The other option would be to stand there and watch while the landowner arrived and asked them to leave and if they said no then the landowner can go through a long procedure to get them removed while the Police stand there and watch. As the OP quite rightly said they have better things to be doing with their time than dealing with him.
The main issue i think people who have been negative with the OP is his attitude. He knew there was the possibility he would be asked to leave and when that happens says it ruined his day and would go back the next day anyway. He then got abusive with people who didn't share his opinion.
If he'd come on and said that he wanted to let people know that there is a possibility that the situation at Harpur Hill had changed, and he was disappointed as it's a place he likes to go, and was going to get in touch with the BMC to check it out then i feel he would have been treated differently.
The RAD does not say there is a ban but it does say there is "no right of access". A grey area i admit but it's certainly not open for all and sounds like a slippery way of saying private property. Are there any signs up at the place ? If not the landowner should put some up or it sounds as if he's not that bothered so i've no idea why he called the Police.
As for the Police i have no idea how they ended up being called as normally any call taker will advise the landowner it's a civil issue. Either there is something we are not aware of or it was a cock up. Once they were there they have used whatever powers they have to sort the situation out - not necessarily trespass as noted in posts above.
The other option would be to stand there and watch while the landowner arrived and asked them to leave and if they said no then the landowner can go through a long procedure to get them removed while the Police stand there and watch. As the OP quite rightly said they have better things to be doing with their time than dealing with him.
In reply to biscuit:
Yes. But of the "covering the landowner's back" variety - there are no fences or gates preventing access by either climbers, walkers or motorcyclists.
> Are there any signs up at the place ?
Yes. But of the "covering the landowner's back" variety - there are no fences or gates preventing access by either climbers, walkers or motorcyclists.
In reply to biscuit:
If as you say "sounds like a slippery way of saying private property."... Why not say that in the guide and RAD? But it doesn't, also no signage ...and as agreed I'm sure, nothing to do with the police? As its Civil not Criminal
If as you say "sounds like a slippery way of saying private property."... Why not say that in the guide and RAD? But it doesn't, also no signage ...and as agreed I'm sure, nothing to do with the police? As its Civil not Criminal
In reply to craig.morris22:
I was attempting to say it is skirting around what is obviously a sensitive issue. Essentially what it says in the RAD is that it is on private property and although the landowner doesn't often do anything actively about this they don't really want climbers there and may turn up and ask you to leave, so you can't feel too aggrieved that this happened to you.
Would you have posted if it was the landowner and not the Police who asked you to leave ? Genuinely curious if that is what upset you so much.
I couldn't agree more that it's nothing to do with the Police. As i said earlier i am baffled as to why they were called, but once they have been sent on the job they are expected to do something positive about the situation. Either you end up offended or the landowner does, depending on what the police do. I guess as the landowner ( presumably ) made the call and technically you weren't allowed the course of action that they chose was to remove you.
There is something called the ' ways and means act ' ;0) whereby the Police can use different legislation to deal with a problem. So they may use the reason of a preventing a possible breach of the peace from occurring to make you leave. Depending on what happens in this type of situation you can even be arrested and then de-arrested once you are clear of the area - this is not typical by any means though and is a clumsy way of doing it.
The legislation quoted on the just ask link seems to be much more aimed at squatters or say travellers being in someone's field rather than finding someone in your lounge when you get home. You wouldn't be expected to get a court order etc to remove them would you ? What if they said they had no intent to steal anything or commit any crime whilst there in your lounge and got in through an un-locked door? They are then technically just trespassing. Would you want the call taker to say that they were sorry but it's a civil matter ? We wouldn't want the Police to overstep the mark would we ? However i have been in just that situation and locked the guy up to prevent a breach of the peace.
I know a crag is different to a house but the principle is the same you were on private property without permission and got asked to leave.
It may well be worthwhile getting in touch with the Police and asking what caused them to be called out. The Sgt in the control room is who you need to speak to. They won't try and cover anything up, if they make a mistake they often want to learn from it. If nothing else it sounds like a waste of Police resources, unless it's so quiet out there you were the most exciting thing happening.
I was attempting to say it is skirting around what is obviously a sensitive issue. Essentially what it says in the RAD is that it is on private property and although the landowner doesn't often do anything actively about this they don't really want climbers there and may turn up and ask you to leave, so you can't feel too aggrieved that this happened to you.
Would you have posted if it was the landowner and not the Police who asked you to leave ? Genuinely curious if that is what upset you so much.
I couldn't agree more that it's nothing to do with the Police. As i said earlier i am baffled as to why they were called, but once they have been sent on the job they are expected to do something positive about the situation. Either you end up offended or the landowner does, depending on what the police do. I guess as the landowner ( presumably ) made the call and technically you weren't allowed the course of action that they chose was to remove you.
There is something called the ' ways and means act ' ;0) whereby the Police can use different legislation to deal with a problem. So they may use the reason of a preventing a possible breach of the peace from occurring to make you leave. Depending on what happens in this type of situation you can even be arrested and then de-arrested once you are clear of the area - this is not typical by any means though and is a clumsy way of doing it.
The legislation quoted on the just ask link seems to be much more aimed at squatters or say travellers being in someone's field rather than finding someone in your lounge when you get home. You wouldn't be expected to get a court order etc to remove them would you ? What if they said they had no intent to steal anything or commit any crime whilst there in your lounge and got in through an un-locked door? They are then technically just trespassing. Would you want the call taker to say that they were sorry but it's a civil matter ? We wouldn't want the Police to overstep the mark would we ? However i have been in just that situation and locked the guy up to prevent a breach of the peace.
I know a crag is different to a house but the principle is the same you were on private property without permission and got asked to leave.
It may well be worthwhile getting in touch with the Police and asking what caused them to be called out. The Sgt in the control room is who you need to speak to. They won't try and cover anything up, if they make a mistake they often want to learn from it. If nothing else it sounds like a waste of Police resources, unless it's so quiet out there you were the most exciting thing happening.
In reply to higherclimbingwales: Of course he will, right after he googles troglodytes.
In reply to craig.morris22:
I don't think the landowner wants anybody on the land at all at the moment, after looking at this I can see why.
http://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/video-buxton-residents-blue-la...
I don't think the landowner wants anybody on the land at all at the moment, after looking at this I can see why.
http://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/video-buxton-residents-blue-la...
In reply to cj1970:
Looking at the video and the mess made, could it do climbers any harm to organise, or at least offer to organise, a crag clean up? a bit of positive PR for climbers? Just a thought.
Looking at the video and the mess made, could it do climbers any harm to organise, or at least offer to organise, a crag clean up? a bit of positive PR for climbers? Just a thought.
These two jokers couldn't catch a cold
But they were able to detect two turds in a swimming pool :]
In reply to craig.morris22:
I live in the area and thought I would give a bit of information to help you understand some of the issues involved.PLEASE understand that this isn't a lecture, it's just to put the weekends events into perspective.
Whilst the climbers are are VASTLY more considerate with litter and parking (which we all tend to respect and appreciate), the area is under a lot of pressure with already very limited parking. Especially on the side roads.
All this is compounded by the hoards who attend the lime pit and cause major problems with drink and abusive behaviour etc etc to the point where many locals wish for rain at the weekend. This regular occurrance during good weather has become very distressing to many residents.
Just to warn, the water in the lime pit is badly contaminated to a level not far off from bleach, so please be very careful!!
Cheers,
Paul
PS Unfortunately people who use the quarry are doing so against the owners wishes.
I live in the area and thought I would give a bit of information to help you understand some of the issues involved.PLEASE understand that this isn't a lecture, it's just to put the weekends events into perspective.
Whilst the climbers are are VASTLY more considerate with litter and parking (which we all tend to respect and appreciate), the area is under a lot of pressure with already very limited parking. Especially on the side roads.
All this is compounded by the hoards who attend the lime pit and cause major problems with drink and abusive behaviour etc etc to the point where many locals wish for rain at the weekend. This regular occurrance during good weather has become very distressing to many residents.
Just to warn, the water in the lime pit is badly contaminated to a level not far off from bleach, so please be very careful!!
Cheers,
Paul
PS Unfortunately people who use the quarry are doing so against the owners wishes.
In reply to cj1970:
Probably explains why the police were called and why they responded as well.
> (In reply to craig.morris22)
>
> I don't think the landowner wants anybody on the land at all at the moment, after looking at this I can see why.
>
> http://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/video-buxton-residents-blue-la...
>
> I don't think the landowner wants anybody on the land at all at the moment, after looking at this I can see why.
>
> http://www.buxtonadvertiser.co.uk/news/local/video-buxton-residents-blue-la...
Probably explains why the police were called and why they responded as well.
In reply to andi turner:
Hey now. Easy... Come on... Cairn is a genuinely OK route. It sometimes even has stinging nettles at the bottom of it and everything... Just like a real classic peak sport route! And there's that one with the rock that doesn't even look like it will fall down on you as well. And what other crag can you climb at in the morning, then set up a cottage industry tie dying t-shirts in mining effluent during the afternoon?
ps. Aside from the clear social issues, does anyone else see the irony in a news report that both bemoans the pollution of a pool by yob litter, and also warns against bathing because of the antecendant pollution?! If it really is "almost as strong as bleach" there is probably some sort of moral imperitive on the landowners to address this. Ergo, infilled lagoon = scallies disperse.
Then maybe they could resume quarrying and make a better crag.
Hey now. Easy... Come on... Cairn is a genuinely OK route. It sometimes even has stinging nettles at the bottom of it and everything... Just like a real classic peak sport route! And there's that one with the rock that doesn't even look like it will fall down on you as well. And what other crag can you climb at in the morning, then set up a cottage industry tie dying t-shirts in mining effluent during the afternoon?
ps. Aside from the clear social issues, does anyone else see the irony in a news report that both bemoans the pollution of a pool by yob litter, and also warns against bathing because of the antecendant pollution?! If it really is "almost as strong as bleach" there is probably some sort of moral imperitive on the landowners to address this. Ergo, infilled lagoon = scallies disperse.
Then maybe they could resume quarrying and make a better crag.
In reply to parkovski: Aside from the interest of the quarry to climbers, as far as everyone else is concerned it's just a disused quarry, so what is the problem? Surely it's far better for them to litter an old disused quarry that no one could care less about than to do it where people do.
In reply to parkovski:
Isn't that 'resume quarrying and get a private security company in to ensure there isn't any climbing?'
>
> Then maybe they could resume quarrying and make a better crag.
> Then maybe they could resume quarrying and make a better crag.
Isn't that 'resume quarrying and get a private security company in to ensure there isn't any climbing?'
In reply to andyathome:
Apart from the main point of this thread I'm enjoying the vision of Buxton 5-0. Book 'em Dano.
Apart from the main point of this thread I'm enjoying the vision of Buxton 5-0. Book 'em Dano.
In reply to craig.morris22: The access for harper hill has always been a issue for as long as i have been climbing on it ( about 10 years), I can see in certain situations why you would want to be more careful e.g no climbing because of bird bans on grit edges. If broken that could potentially lose access to QUALITY climbing not harper hill. For all the people that are getting so irate about craig climbing there (who probaly havent been there themselves) it's loose pretty poor climbing that access will never get granted so I say fook it and carry on climbing!
In reply to flashman1:
Apart from not agreeing with your suggestion that so long as we are not talking a 'classic crag' its absolutely fine to not only ignore and 'fook' any access restrictions surely we have to agree that if Craig had had a 'Fantastic day of hard sports climbing at Harpur hill!' its either its a good crag or Craig wouldn't recognise 'loose pretty poor climbing' if it fell on him?
Apart from not agreeing with your suggestion that so long as we are not talking a 'classic crag' its absolutely fine to not only ignore and 'fook' any access restrictions surely we have to agree that if Craig had had a 'Fantastic day of hard sports climbing at Harpur hill!' its either its a good crag or Craig wouldn't recognise 'loose pretty poor climbing' if it fell on him?
In reply to andyathome: Mate... You climb v diff? My dog climbs harder than that... You can hardly gob off about quality of climbing.
In reply to craig.morris22: Is the climbing community changing into a bunch of goody goodies, go on be wild break a speed limit or something, far more potential for harm than trespass on an uncared for lump of rock!
In reply to biscuit:
You mean people like the Kinder Trespassers?
> (In reply to HarryRoberts)
>
> It may not have been the best example however the point stands that the OP is a long time climber who was upset that he was asked to leave somewhere where it says in the guidebook its on private property and there is no formal access. It's that kind of climber who potentially cocks it up for everyone else.
>
>
> It may not have been the best example however the point stands that the OP is a long time climber who was upset that he was asked to leave somewhere where it says in the guidebook its on private property and there is no formal access. It's that kind of climber who potentially cocks it up for everyone else.
>
You mean people like the Kinder Trespassers?
In reply to craig.morris22:
Bloody hell, Archangel is hard for a v diff.
> (In reply to andyathome) Mate... You climb v diff? My dog climbs harder than that... You can hardly gob off about quality of climbing.
Bloody hell, Archangel is hard for a v diff.
In reply to craig.morris22:
Craigy baby:
My recent logbook (in the NW of Scotland) might have misled you.
I'm currently on crutches so not updating that much.
I have climbed at Harpur Hill in the past. On a few occasions. And the vast majority of crags in the Peak. On a few occasions.
And I have climbed the odd route above V. Diff in my 45 year climbing history. And climbed on quite a few crags in the UK and Europe. I'm not going to willy wave: but I've done a bit. So I do have a pertinent view on quality of climbing. I also have a pertinent view on your attitude as evinced in your first post.
So you, and your dog, can just F right off.
Ciao.
Andy
> (In reply to andyathome) Mate... You climb v diff? My dog climbs harder than that... You can hardly gob off about quality of climbing.
Craigy baby:
My recent logbook (in the NW of Scotland) might have misled you.
I'm currently on crutches so not updating that much.
I have climbed at Harpur Hill in the past. On a few occasions. And the vast majority of crags in the Peak. On a few occasions.
And I have climbed the odd route above V. Diff in my 45 year climbing history. And climbed on quite a few crags in the UK and Europe. I'm not going to willy wave: but I've done a bit. So I do have a pertinent view on quality of climbing. I also have a pertinent view on your attitude as evinced in your first post.
So you, and your dog, can just F right off.
Ciao.
Andy
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
You're quite right. Lets organise a mass protest and all walk in there and demand the right to use it as we like and sod the landowner.
It's not exactly the same issue under debate here is it ?
> (In reply to biscuit)
> [...]
>
> You mean people like the Kinder Trespassers?
> [...]
>
> You mean people like the Kinder Trespassers?
You're quite right. Lets organise a mass protest and all walk in there and demand the right to use it as we like and sod the landowner.
It's not exactly the same issue under debate here is it ?
In reply to biscuit:
When it comes to things the size of hills, moors and mountains I personally don't believe one person should be able to 'own' them and decide whether other folk can walk or climb on them. Walking and climbing on wild land shouldn't be a favour from the landowner it should be the default position - like in Scotland.
> (In reply to tom_in_edinburgh)
> [...]
>
> You're quite right. Lets organise a mass protest and all walk in there and demand the right to use it as we like and sod the landowner.
>
> It's not exactly the same issue under debate here is it ?
> [...]
>
> You're quite right. Lets organise a mass protest and all walk in there and demand the right to use it as we like and sod the landowner.
>
> It's not exactly the same issue under debate here is it ?
When it comes to things the size of hills, moors and mountains I personally don't believe one person should be able to 'own' them and decide whether other folk can walk or climb on them. Walking and climbing on wild land shouldn't be a favour from the landowner it should be the default position - like in Scotland.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I agree broadly however someone does own this site and we should respect that whilst trying to get our point across.
Is this wild land or is it an old industrial site ?
I agree broadly however someone does own this site and we should respect that whilst trying to get our point across.
Is this wild land or is it an old industrial site ?
In reply to andyathome: Haha crack on blowfish
In reply to craig.morris22:
From his profile:
"Best Climbing Experience
The perfect day that culminated in an on-sight solo of Archangel"
Archangel is quite hard a VDiff...
From his profile:
"Best Climbing Experience
The perfect day that culminated in an on-sight solo of Archangel"
Archangel is quite hard a VDiff...
In reply to craig.morris22:
I was warned off swimming in the lagoon as there are a lot of chemicals in it .
Not sure if it's true or not but decided not to chance it!
J
I was warned off swimming in the lagoon as there are a lot of chemicals in it .
Not sure if it's true or not but decided not to chance it!
J
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...