In reply to kevin stephens:
I see your point esp. since you had an accident - let's say that some people don't want to wear a helmet though. Whether cycling or climbing - personal choice. I'd say most people know the risks and decide that the freak event doesn't justify being permanently bothered with that piece of gear.
Let's say that insurance matters. Be it inside at the wall or, in the long term, outside. Insurance companies look at what the BMC "thinks" so that eventually it'll become harder or impossible to go climbing without a helmet, whether you like it or not. It's already started.
That worries me.
Then there are a couple of personal feelings too. First and as I already wrote I don't like being "educated". If you're ok with soft persuasion and "it's for your own good" stuff, fine, but you can understand that others feel mature enough and don't like that, right?
Then the whole "security" argument is unsound: why wear a helmet and yet climb on a cam that may pop out? It's like suggesting filters on cigarettes; ban these or let people do what they want, please.
Conclusion: I don't buy the argument that the BMC, with all its weight and experience, is offering a choice or simply presenting a view. It's its policy, albeit kindly "explained" and not imposed, and I don't like either that policy nor being educated (sorry I keep repeating myself).
PS: you mentioned my lack of profile. Does it matter? I thought a point was a valid point could be discussed on its own merit. But if it matters, and since the perfs of British climbers are to dismal (world cups or FAs), maybe the BMC should drop its Blairite community spirit and remember climbing is a sport for people who choose it, knowing the risks.