UKC

Mick Ward takes a nostalgic look back at British climbing, from the post-war boom through to the swinging sixties and beyond.

Tales of partners now sadly passed, the glory years of the seventies, camping in Snell's Field in Chamonix and more...

"As the grim Thatcherite Eighties approached, the survivors of partying, drugs, soloing and scary alpinism struggled to get their lives back on track. It wasn't easy..."

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=6360

In reply to UKC Articles:

Thanks to Mick Ward for a wonderful article.

In my early thirties, at least one generation above the current young super stars, it is nice to look back on our history, some folks I can remember, some I can't. And the chap in the photo: Duncan Drake, old Leeds Wall regular, awesome climber and inspiring character, pictured soloing Wall of Horrors when I was just 1 year old. Thanks Duncan for being nice to a 15 year old kid who hung around the wall 24/7. RIP.

Thanks Mick, brings back so many memories

In reply to UKC Articles:

Great writing

In reply to UKC Articles:

Thanks Mick,the section that struck a cord with me was the part about being unable to ask an older person about climbing,there simply was'nt anyone around.We had to make do with some old Showell Styles books from the library and make the rest up as we went along.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Great stuff Mick. A very enjoyable read.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Always good to read about the history, especially from a personal perspective. Nice one Mick!

In reply to UKC Articles:

Best article in ages on UKC, made me feel like I was born 40 years too late!

In reply to UKC Articles:

Very nice. As you say ever climber and every generation has its "Golden Age" but I think you are right - ours was the mother-lode!


Chris

In reply to UKC Articles:

Thanks Mick

In reply to Chris Craggs:

"We thought the world was young but really it was only us"

Alex MacIntyre, Mama's Boys

In reply to UKC Articles:

Great article, thank you. An enjoyable and thought provoking read.

In reply to UKC Articles: Funnily enough, I was going through some old photos(the ones you got developed by Truprint!) last Sunday. Me in the early 1980s in flat cap and tweeds (even then tuning in to some nostalgic romanticism) soloing at Pontesford; my mate Chris in school blazer and ancient Whillans harness in emulation of Mallory at the top of Reade's Route on Crib Goch; Dave - a young protégé I took climbing a few times - in a black & white photo, high on Manx Wall in the gathering gloom. So long ago the fresh-faced wanderer-poet. Another lifetime...yet somehow connected to this one I live now. 'The rocks, the rocks', as a tragic Quasimodo might have said (had his Notre Dame been some gritstone cathedral). Big questions: Why are we so drawn to them? What are we searching for, hope to find there? What are we hiding from by sheltering in their embrace? Now I rarely climb (odd spot of playful bouldering aside)and never in the mountains...Maybe I should? Saunter up to Lliwedd - allow the memories to absorb me...say hello to my younger self and tell him what I've been doing the last 30 years? Re-connect.

Thanks very much for thought-(and emotion-)provoking piece, Mick.

In reply to UKC Articles:

A very evocative piece of writing of which my only criticism is that it's way too short. Have you thought about writing a book? I suspect it would find a solid market among UKC users aged 18 to 58 and well beyond. I would certainly love to read it.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Snell's 1982, 83, 84 heaven, a smelly sort of heaven, but delightful all the same cheers

In reply to UKC Articles:

That was flipping brilliant.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Good one Mick. The mid to late 50's I think were at least as wild as the 60/70's certainly in the Lake District.. no drugs then but lots of alcohol. Post Mortem was a 1956 effort by the hungover thickies wearing Woolworth's two and six penny plimsoles.Climbing was simply something to do when the pubs were closed.In those "old" days reputations were gained more by accident than now by design/sponsorship. No magazines etc etc..just word of mouth.Anyway keep up the good work.

In reply to UKC Articles:
Fantastic - great writing, Mick. I particularly like the comment that everyone has their own golden age from 18-25. It's up to them what they make of it. Certainly each golden age is different. What would we have done with cheap easy travel, relatively cheap and very good gear and loads of information? Would we have followed the crowds or beaten a different path? We'll never know. Should I have worked harder and climbed and skied a bit less, as my peers thought? In my dotage, I wish I'd climbed more and worked even less - if that's possible. Negative amounts of work? Hard to work out how to do that....

In reply to UKC Articles:

Excellent - always valuable to look back and gain perspective.

In reply to davidoldfart:


I'd love to read it too! You could weave in the rise of rock n'roll (wasn't Ray Mchaffie a teddy boy?), mods n'rockers, hippies, Philip Larkin, big hair, loons, mullets, Al Rouse, Pete Minx,John Long,Jim Bridwell,John Bachar (last three not british, obviously, but that seminal Yosemite photo has a lot to answer for).... I've almost done your synopsis for you!

In reply to UKC Articles:

Outstanding read, Mick. As another of the baby boomers, your retrospective rings so true for me. Its a really valuable perspective for UKC readers, especially on the decades that preceded the baby boom. I'm sure those whose golden days are either here now or are yet to come will appreciate that they are part of a continuing and evolving climbing tribe.

As a parting thought, despite being well into my 60's, I feel that I'm having a kind of 'Silver Age', with increased leisure time and access to climbing! (The drugs are all prescription though). What's next - Bronze Age?

Dave

In reply to UKC Articles:

Very evocative, Mick. It leaves me with very complex emotions, slightly bitter-sweet, because of my own intense memories of that time, and the people who are no longer with us. One day I'll write about it (I think about 5 books down the line) as part of my autobiography ... that sounds so horribly grand. It's looking like about three volumes at the moment. I'm v keen to write about my childhood, marred by tragedy, and early creative life, and discovering film and climbing (prequel to Fiva in other words). Then there will be my time in the film industry, most of all working with Stanley Kubrick (but also Ridley Scott and Peter Yates and others) ... but mostly about SK, because of what he gave me, really, which was a kind of new confidence at the age of 30 that I'd never had before. Then there will be the rest of my creative life, with climbing running through it like an important 'golden thread', though not the central thread. All those wonderful characters one met, and days one spent, with the likes Al Rouse, Eric Jones, John Syrett, Ken Wilson, John Cleare, Pete Minks - a whole alpine 'season' (well, three weeks, with John Syrett, just he and I), a very amusing trip to Trento in about 1974 with Ken Wilson (again, just the two of us) - then, years later, thanks to my mountain books, great days and chats with the likes of Joe Brown, Peter Harding, Arthur Birtwistle, Frank Elliott, and Richard McHardy. The great days of doing those books, and the characters like Mike Lates and Steve Dean who helped me so much.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Can you move your autobiography up the queue a bit, Gordon? I'd like to get a chance to read it!

In reply to pneame:

Difficult. One has to make a living. Present book (a biography) comes first; then probably film industry book, then book on childhood, then (probably) my philosophy book (been simmering/worked on for 30 yrs), and then the one covering climbing and creative life. Another novel might intervene. One thing's for sure: no 'future plan' like this ever happens in the way you expect.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Another great article Mick, I always find your writing thoroughly absorbing. Keep them coming!

Thanks Mick, thought provoking, easy to read and v enjoyable.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Bravo Mick!

I learned to climb form my Dad, who was in the Rockhoppers from the late 40s (?). He met my mum on one of their trips!

He had all sorts of stories about wild times in Glencoe.

I guess I still envy him the unexpoleredness of it all with so many great lines to go at, but you're right - everyone has their "golden age"; I'm looking now at a picture from my first trip to the Andes when I was 21. I was a bit tougher then!

Thanks for the article

J

In reply to UKC Articles:

Thanks Mick, another great article.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Thanks

In reply to UKC Articles:

GREAT article and refreshingly laid back, thanks a lot, I really enjoyed it [like others did]. Keep writing!

In reply to UKC Articles:

Touching article, thanks Mick!

In reply to UKC Articles:

Absolutely brilliant.
To get so much into such a short article (without the 'modern' use of bullet points!) is amazing.
I am also a baby boomer, born 1949. I never was amongst the elite at climbing, although they were such a friendly crowd you could be amongst them at the crag without being regarded as a bumbly.
I still climb and have just noticed that I am only just reaching my personal 'golden age'.
This article has given me cause for great reflection, and raised a variety of emotions, sadness at lost friends, happiness at long term friendships (climbing ones seem to have outlasted non-climbing ones), new motivation to make my golden age 22 carat, realisation that I have done some good things in my life as well as some bad or dubious. I could go on and on (not unusual for me!)
This must be the best article I have read in a long time. Turn it into a book. I will pre-order and pay as soon as you ask.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Great article Mick. Would be very interesting to read the sequel, as yours stops right at the point where my involvement gets going. But before you suggest it (as I'm sure you would!) I'm not the man for the job, since I was anything but a rebel in my youth - merely an unexceptional, non-radical student with plenty of state-sponsored time on his hands who ended up climbing well without ever feeling part of a 'scene'. Maybe that's indicative of the next generation but I rather think the real story of the 80s was mainly split between Stoney and Llanberis and the colourful characters (Hersey, Pritchard, etc.) to be found there.

I'm also curious about that photo of Wellington crack. Though I did climb it once upon a time I have no recollection of the capping block - which I understand is no longer there due to Council-sponsored vandalism. Did anyone ever put up a direct finish?

In reply to Pekkie:

No, he was a typical young man who got into fights, until he discovered climbing. He should be remembered only by his contribution to climbing.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Was it Ken Wilson who taught you to be so prolific in your comments?

In reply to armus:

No, I probably influenced him Only joking.

In reply to armus:

Actually - that's worth a little story. We certainly talked a lot. When I went with him to Trento we left his home in north London at about 6.00 am and caught a hovercraft to Boulogne (i think) at about 9.30. He then drove all the way, virtually nonstop, to south Switzerland - to Chur, very close to the Italian border. Down the German autobahns for hours. He had Jerry Lee Lewis on full blast, but also talked and talked. At about 6.00 pm he was getting tired, and just kept saying, 'Keep talking, Gordon; you've got to keep talking to keep me awake.' We eventually arrived at Chur at 9.30 in the evening, just as our host, a v well-known Swiss climber, who's was killed in the late 70s (can't remember name), and was a garage mechanic by day, was just about to go to bed. Very tired. But when Ken Wilson arrived it was like an explosion - Ken was laying out designs for his latest project 'World Rock' on this guy's kitchen table. He didn't know what had hit him. I think we all staggered to bed at about 11.30, when tiredness finally got the better of Ken. I don't think I've ever met such an enthusiast in any walk of life, ever.

"I don't think I've ever met such an enthusiast in any walk of life, ever."

So you have never met a quiet enthusiast? They do exist. What is the difference between a dedicated climber who keeps quiet and an enthusiast?
Answer = "Talk"

In reply to armus:



I have met a lot of quiet enthusiasts, including one or two very famous ones, outside of climbing. My point about Ken's enthusiasm was nothing to do with the amount he talked, but his enthusiasm per se.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

My point about Ken's enthusiasm was nothing to do with the amount he talked, but his enthusiasm per se.

O.K. fair enough, but he is best known for appearing in a climbing pub and then lecturing all climbers there from teenage learners to top climbers. I've seen him do that in the Lakes, ODG, Lake Road Vaults etc. He became, can I say obsessed? He decided to pontificate to us teenage learners in a Lakes pub about some technical stuff that we didn't even know existed. Worse, he then turned to the top guys and asked them why they weren't showing us the way. The top climbers weren't social workers for God's sake and they knew that we were on climbing courses from the local County Education Authority, as they had been. People were complaining that they had put a shilling into the juke box but only climbing lectures could be heard.

In reply to armus:


Come on, get in the spirit of things. We're not interested in what really happened, we want some good pub stories...

In reply to UKC Articles:

my generation, brings back fond memories.

In reply to UKC Articles:

An excellent article, and I liked the way it described the Baby Boomers' parents - I'd never thought of it quite like that.

But... the more I read and think about this era, the less convinced I am. One of the most telling bits in Ron Fawcett's book was the scene in which they are in a Welsh cafe with a bunch of the Llanberis party animals (who Fawcett is clearly a bit intimidated by). One of the men casually slaps the waitress - his girlfriend - for her tardiness in bringing over the food. The whole sex, drugs and rock'n'roll era looks like a lot of fun, if you were a bloke, and the right sort of bloke too. I'm put in mind of Led Zep, great band, the soundtrack to an era if many climbing biogs are to be believed, but happy screwers of under-age girls and near rapists. Some things tarnish the Golden Age.

Let's not forget, when the drugs ran out and the party stopped, the Boomers in their search for freedom and self-actualisation were often the quintessential Thatcherites, seeking economic freedom instead. The welfare state might have done them proud, but as a generation they were (with plenty of exceptions, clearly), casual in its dismantling.

And now? I've seen plenty of the Boomer generation on these forums, as illiberal as they come, but still believing they are flying the banner of rebellion against authority, rather like the Rolling Stones still think they're rock'n'roll.

To be fair, the article hints at the dark side of this time. But I feel the full story is something rather different...

In reply to seankenny:

We were enjoying a wallow in 'golden age/good old days' nostalgia and you throw a bucket of cold water over us!

In reply to seankenny:



I think you need to name names!

In reply to seankenny:

Surely the point is that his generation was consciously behaving badly as an act of rebellion against
the conservative moral parameters of their parents (and having fun).

By denigrating them you are confirming yourself as a neo-conservative

Anyway, good article.

In reply to seankenny:

I have climbed from 1954 to this year .. Nothing was dark certainly during the 50's 60's and 70's .Many of us were and are still climbing because its fun ...this used to include off the rock pastimes as well.Now it seems its all rock and no roll.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Nobody said the people of this generation were saints. Sometimes they could even be sexist. Who knew? Seriously, Sean, get over yourself.

In reply to davidoldfart:

I appear to have tweaked a few noses amongst the older generation - excellent, as a group of self-described rebels and iconoclasts out to sock it to the man you should be pleased!

I'm not the only sceptic about the Boomers I'm afraid: http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,20046.msg448250.html#msg44825...

David - I'm fully aware every generation has its saints and its sinners but seriously, can you imagine some bloke smacking his girlfriend in Pete's Eats these days?

USBRIT - are the younger generation all rock and no roll? Well, maybe. If you tried to get away with old Mr Whillans' type larks today (splitting someone's face for looking at his girlfriend springs to mind) then you'd likely be caught on CCTV, or a camera phone, and in an era of mass unemployment (yep, we're still in one of those) who really wants a criminal record? Your generation had full employment and could get away with a bit of brawling. Don't blame the young, look at the world they're in. (Also, I give you the 1990s, you were perhaps a bit too old to notice but some good times were had )

In reply to Pekkie:


Yup. I have a dial marked "wanker" which, in true 70s Spinal Tap style, goes all the way up to 11, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.

In reply to seankenny:




Do you honestly believe people thought this was acceptable behaviour in the 1970s? There were prxcks then and there are prxcks now.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well, we're discussing an event which neither of us were at, but from what I read, some there were shocked and some seemed blase about it. But I repeat my point - could this kind of thing happen today and the police not be called? We're not talking about 1am on a Saturday night in a market town, or if we are, I've seriously mis-read the book!

Anyhow, there's plenty of good evidence that the 1970s was a more violent time than now. Sorry to prefer the present to the past...

In reply to seankenny:


Probably, yes. I just think it would have been considered pretty much as unacceptable by most people then as it would be now.


That's true.

Anyway, back to climbing and partying.......

In reply to Postmanpat:


I hear what you're saying, I don't doubt the decency of you, Mick or the other posters, but it still seems to me there's been a generational shift in attitudes. Life on Mars and all that.



Hahaha yeah, the 1990s, you shoulda been there.

In reply to seankenny:


Spinal Tap was a great exercise in self-mockery. But there were a lot of good things that happened at the time - as Mick's article summarises. Why get so aggressive about something you never experienced?

In reply to Pekkie:


You mean it wasn't real?!
>>>disappointed


But there were a lot of good things that happened at the time - as Mick's article summarises. Why get so aggressive about something you never experienced?

I think I explained my unease with this Golden Age codswallop in my first post... I appreciate, lots of attractive things about that time, but I don't believe it was quite as it's often described. And as I also said before, surely the generation which delighted in telling its elders where to get off should, at the very least, appreciate the irony of it being done to them

In reply to seankenny:


Oh yes it was!

Chris

In reply to seankenny:



>Actually, virtually everything in 'This is Spinal Tap' was based on things that really happened, as Ozzy Osbourne and members of Led Zeppelin have confirmed. And, of course, Derek Smalls, the bass player, currently lives in Liverpool under the pseudonym 'Buzz Jones'. Not many people know that.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Great article and beautifully illustrated with those classic old photos.

In reply to seankenny:

So sexism is slowly declining over the years. But weren't the rebellious attitudes of 1960s a pivotal moment in this shift?

Such shifts don't instantly take place over the whole of society in one big go. They tend to be gradually accepted as they filter through the generations.

It's both easy and misleading to judge the standards of one era but those of another.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Really enjoyed reading that, thank you.

In reply to stp:


Definitely. Remember, I'm not lambasting the Boomers, as represented here, for being radical, but for not being radical enough!


Agreed. All I'm saying is that I don't believe the narratives of many people who were around in that era. That's perfecyly acceptable, surely?


Well, yes and no. For example, I can use my imagination to put myself in the shoes of the people in the past and try to understand their motives. But I can judge them by my own standards.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Thank you to everyone who left comments, whether complimentary or critical – or both. My apologies for the delay in replying to various points. Life (and climbing) got in the way. And then it seemed there were so many points that covering them would be longer than the original article.

First of all, a big thank you to Jack Geldard for publishing this article in the first place. I wrote it three years ago, trying to understand the background to Jim, Iain, Duncan and so many others. These days, I don’t try to get published - sad but true. Back in the day, I fell out with various magazine editors through sticking up for people like Jim Perrin, Stevie Haston and Pete Oxley when they were decidedly out of fashion.

I’m certainly not attacking the mags but, back then, there was an iron control over what was published/saw the light of day. One UKC contributor had his guidebook unfairly reviewed; when a rebuttal was sent to the mags, it wasn’t published for fear of offending the reviewer. Nowadays, with the internet/UKC, it’s much harder for that to happen.

Normally I just write/file/forget but, three years ago, I sent the article to two people whose views I respect. Neither really responded. I took this as code for, “You’ve laid a duck egg.” (‘Duck egg’ was a favourite term of my old mate, Mick Hillas, no stranger to wild runouts and wilder parties.) So I filed and forgot.

Then, a couple of weeks ago, Jack emailed, asking me if I had anything suitable. There was lots I could have sent but... I guess I was still flying a flag for Jim, Iain and Duncan. So I did what I’d normally never do and sent him something with a bit of a question mark hanging over it. Let him make up his own mind, I thought. If he doesn’t like it, there’s no harm done, no offence, I can always send something else, more conventional.

An article about events which finished around when Jack (and most UKC readers?) was born? A climbing article which doesn’t mention climbing until almost half-way in? And admission of drugs (which I certainly don’t endorse and wouldn’t have endorsed even when I was taking them.) Not exactly the born-in-heaven UKC article, is it? If Jack had run a mile, I wouldn’t have blamed him. But he published it – so thank you.

Terms of reference... I’ve wandered across 100 years of history in general and 20 years of climbing history in particular, in less than 2,000 words. Necessarily it’s been a whistle-stop tour. I think the years 1966 to 1973 were generally a Golden Age, the first since the 1920s. Certainly, compared with today, most people still lived in dire poverty. But you don’t miss what you’ve never had. (If you go from big mountaineering boots to PAs - the first rock shoes - it’s fantastic. You don’t miss chalk, cams, pads, clipsticks... because you’ve never had them.) By 1966, things had been getting better, year on year, for about 12 years (since the end of post-war rationing). People felt good. Things were getting better... and better... and better. Although living standards are unbelievably better now, the 45 degree curve of progress has long ago flattened. We’ve lost ‘that loving feeling’ of better and better.

Climbing’s Golden Age. We went from Vector (E2) in 1960 to Strawberries (E7) in 1980. A lot of that upward curve was roughly 1970-1980, courtesy of Pete Livesey, Ron Fawcett, John Allen and Steve Bancroft.

Photographs. Jack did a fantastic layout. Thanks! (And, ever so discreetly, removed the embarrassing typo – more thanks! Memo to self – wear glasses when proofreading.) I’m massively indebted to all of the photographers. Looking at new photographs on UKC each morning is sheer delight, the perfect way to start the day. Some massively talented people... Two of the photographs were courtesy of Brian Cropper, whose work encompasses climbing’s golden age. Again and again he’s uncannily caught the character of major activists in a split-second shot. Often they’re not even climbing. But he’s got the essence of their being; don’t ask me how.

Two photos were from USBRIT, aka Paul Ross, who, of course, is the first ascentionist of Post Mortem in 1956. The Lakes’ answer to Right Eliminate but overhanging and on a dark, fierce North-facing crag. It’s probably taken more scalps than Sitting Bull. I believe Whillans got his knee stuck, trying the first ascent unsuccessfully and had to be rescued. When we did it 20 years later, we had gear that Paul hadn’t. (He probably just had a sling around the chockstone.) Obviously now there are big cams - but you’re still going to have to give it some welly to get up it. (And isn’t that what climbing should be about?)

For me, the person who most epitomises the spirit of climbing is Paul. Post Mortem is nearly 60 years old now. It’s still spanking E5 and E7 leaders. Paul’s fought the good fight on the crags for 60 years and more, most of the time around the E3 level (and that’s Lakes, i.e. ‘proper’ E3!) Commitment... I guess he knows a little about it.

Climbing’s Golden Age – before and after. Gwen Moffatt’s, ‘Space Below My Feet’ takes thing from the mid 1940s to the early 1960s. Al Parker’s (of Parker’s Eliminate fame, with tons of great routes on grit, especially Stanage) ‘Alpha Males’ deals with the early/mid 1960s. It would probably have to be Gordon or Jim Perrin or Keith Ellison to chart the 1960s Llanberis, Peak, Lakes scenes. Jim’s exactly the right age; he lived through it and knew most of the major activists, such as Pete Crew, very well indeed. Keith Ellison did the superb ‘Mad Dogs and Englishmen’ website, though it’s gone now, depicting the early 1960s Llanberis scene. And he’s a superb photographer. (Incidentally he was leading Welsh Extremes in the late 50s/early 60s when he was barely in his teens.)

The 1980s? Although I knew many of the activists, I was 10 years older, already an old fart. There’s too big a difference between 30 and 20. My guess is that it would need somebody like Paul Pritchard or Phil Kelly, with probably lots of input from people like Mark Leach and Graeme Alderson.

Wellington Crack? Should have done it but was over-awed by the amount of time Pete spent working it before the FA. Folk say that, now that boulder’s gone, it can get dirty, so best to get your mate to clean it before attempting the onsight. Councils and crags? Hmm... No doubt they do their best but, supposedly, their efforts at Dalkey Quarry weren’t entirely helpful either.

Ken Wilson? The most impassioned person I’ve ever met. Utterly decent. Behind the brashness, remarkably sensitive and kind-hearted. Yes, he could drive you to distraction, but Ken cared so much you just had to forgive him. What a conscience... What a man... Les Ainsworth’s and Phil Watkin’s Rocksport was superb on a national scale but, with Mountain, Ken cast a magisterial eye across the whole world. His issues (roughly the first 60) have never been bettered. And then he gave us Hard Rock. And then he gave us Games Climbers Play. And then he gave us so much more.

Ray McHaffie? Little Chamonix in boxing gloves and roller skates – an expression of climbing style which will probably never be bettered. Earlier, it was soloed by a young lad on his first day on rock. Eek! Fluff that top wall without a rope and there won’t be a replay. We seem to keep coming back to Paul Ross.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Books? Thank you to those who requested one. Sadly I’ve lost decades struggling with editors and publishers (and I’m the easiest and most professional person to deal with). Should have just gone climbing! It might be good to get something out though, sometime in the future. But, for the meantime, hang on to your wallets. I seem to have averaged an article a year on here for the last eight years now; might be good to get a few more out. Mind you, as Abraham Lincoln so sagely noted, “You can’t please all of the people all of the time.”

However, somebody you can read, right now, is Pekkie of this parish. If you go onto Amazon and type in Pete Trewin you’ll find Pete’s first novel, just published. It’s called ‘A Fair Wack’ and it’s got mostly five star reviews, including, ‘A wonderful first novel and incisive rollercoaster trip to the seamier side of life.’ It’s about bent councillors, dodgy property developers and career criminals. It’s ridiculously modestly priced. And it’s got a real ring of truth to it.

Marc C? Tragi-comic writer of genius. Please, please, please write more stuff for this site, Marc. (Yeah, I know, I specialise in discreet hints.)

Are Golden Ages entirely golden? In my view, no more so than Dark Ages are entirely dark. Every shade of humanity and inhumanity are present in all ages; it’s the human condition. You’ll find humanity and inhumanity on UKC, every day of the week. If only we could leave the latter behind...

Treatment of women in the 1960s/70s? Sometimes deplorable. However, as Martin Boysen notes in his recent interview with Claire-Jane Carter, the contraceptive pill gave women sexual freedom. It freed them from a baby a year for 10/15 years for some and the terrible stigma of unwed pregnancy for others. The Equal Pay Act brought in some long-needed fairness at work and gave women the beginning of economic freedom. I’d argue that both were significant breakthroughs.

Sadly, deplorable behaviour is as old as the human race. In my view, either you challenge it or you condone it. ‘For the triumph of evil, all that is required is that good men do nothing.’ Why do people do nothing? Because often there’s a price to be paid. My grandfather was stabbed to death trying to prevent violence. He paid the ultimate price. The perennial challenge is this: either you challenge or you condone. Your choice.

The Baby Boomers – saints or sinners? Both, of course. One might argue that the archetypal baby-boomer was Tony Blair whose shameless mendacity is now legendary. (“Hey guys, I’ll just grab my guitar. Anybody fancy a little Dylan, say, ‘Masters of War’?”) Better role models might be Rob Matheson, onsighting Lakes E6/E7 and Francisco Marin, redpointing F8b+ in Spain. Both in their 60s. Beyond them are, of course, Paul Ross in his 70s and Fred Beckey in his 90s. Our love affair with stone... it’s not over until it’s over.

Yikes! This post is now shaping up to be than the article. I could go on... and on... but, don’t worry, I won’t.

A couple of last points though. I can understand fellow baby boomers ‘getting’ the article (and, like me, having very mixed emotions, particularly about mates long gone). Implicit in the article though is a spirit of climbing that transcends generations, that affects our lives for the better. And it’s gratifying that some very young climbers seem to have picked up on this. A generation lives and dies; it doesn’t matter. What matters is that the spirit of climbing is enjoyed and passed on.

I said earlier that I flew a flag for Jim, Iain and Duncan. I still do – for them and for so many others. Jim worked for the Citizens Advice Bureau in Bradford; he must have helped thousands of people who desperately needed it. When Iain died, a lady posted that she’d been a housewife in Baildon for decades (and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that). But meeting Iain and his mates showed her so much more. She went on to travel the world, climbed in many countries, met people she’d never have met otherwise, lived so much more intensely.

And Duncan? Brian T’s ghostly, evocative photos of him soloing Wall of Horrors say so much. Round about this time, I bumped into him at Gogarth. He’d just taken a wild trip on/off Positron Airways – a fifty footer – before going back up again to finish it. The next day he was going to do Ordinary Route, then The Cow, then something like Dogs of War. “Wouldn’t it be best just to go for one of them?” I timorously enquired (thinking that Ordinary Route might result in another Positron Airways trip). “Nah!” he grinned. “I’m going for ’em all.” He was up for it. He was mad for it.

Fast forward almost 15 years to a young 15 year old lad, 24/7 at Leeds Wall. Duncan would have known well that youth has an almost unstoppable vigour. Make no mistake, the young of today will burn you off tomorrow. So do you put them down and hang on to your fading glory for just a little longer or do you say, “No, of course not. I’ll give them all the help I can.”?

Duncan chose to help Jack and his mates. Fast forward another 15 years. Jack’s done routes beyond the dreams of 99% of us. He’s helping to make this place a community for all of us. Meanwhile another generation’s come along. He can help them. Courtesy of this place, he can help all generations.

A circle completes. Another circle begins. It was ever thus. The spirit of climbing continues.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

Article made a good read over lunch - nice one Mick.

In reply to CurlyStevo:


Is there really as much in all of this as meets the eye?

This article and the subsequent posts resonate with sheer pomposity when claiming that they, the Boomers, had adventures and took risks that those younger people have not. It's utter cant; a handful of pals had the hills to themselves and speak about it as if they developed the Carnot cycle and invented the powered flight when, in fact, they developed a different way of playing with a ball.

As for the rest, Sean K seems pretty much on the ball. One might add that the Boomers transferred the public assets to the mortgage companies, corporations and private individuals and still ask those younger than themselves to work and pay for their retirement on pensions the like and to a level that those paying for this retirement will never see.

In reply to Mick Ward:




Typical bloody Boomer, trying to put the blame onto someone else. Truly, the generation that wanted it all, took it all, and even now doesn't want to take a bit of personal responsibility.

Why such animosity, as someone asked up above. Well, I'm intensely irritated with the whole Boomer generation, basically 'cos I'm paying for their early retirement and will carry on paying for their drooling senility whilst they cashed in with a fully funded welfare state, a final salary pensions and a massive un-taxed free pot of money from the house they bought for tuppence in 1981.

Who's paying for the Boomers to enjoy life now? Why, that'll be people in their 20s, 30s and 40s struggling with huge mortgages bequeathed to them by downsizing greyhairs, who then have the temerity to lecture the younger people on how they don't have adventures any more! If they only admitted as much - that they took everyone else for a ride - then it might quell the anger a little bit, but instead they want to prance around like that walking effigy Keith Richards, who in my mind stands in for the whole bloody lot of you!

In reply to seankenny:

Brilliant post.

In reply to seankenny:


Getting personal now.



The blame for what?

Mick

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Thanks Steve. Glad you enjoyed it.

Mick

In reply to Mike Highbury:


Please quote the relevant text from the article.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

Well to be fair, you're the only one on this thread to have engaged with what I've written, but otoh my gripes about the boomer generation have been pretty well laid out in my previous posts... I suspect that your cohort may be in denial about how they've enjoyed the good life at the expense of those younger (and older!) than them.

In reply to seankenny:


How could we have known that back then?


Chris

In reply to seankenny:


I don't have a cohort. I wrote the article. I wrote it alone. Your post above was directed to me. Please respond to me.



I'm not asking for your fairness. Please respond to me.



To repeat:



Getting personal now.



The blame for what?


It's 6.25pm now. I'm off for some exercise. Started work at 6.25am. Would appreciate your response and will read it later.

Mick

In reply to seankenny:


You need some bitterness management, mate. Our mortgage seemed big at the time and we paid it off over 25 years. I paid what seemed like a large amount each month into my pension. Everything I've got I earned. I didn't bequeath you anything. My kids have the same problems with finding affordable housing that you seem to have had but they don't go around blaming ordinary punters like me. Have you thought about joining UKIP where you can blame immigrants and Europe for all your problems? Blaming scapegoats for one's problems is actually the first step on the road to something far nastier than UKIP.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Enjoyed the article and the follow up post, great work! Thanks.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Great article Mick but I wouldn't have expected anything else from you.

Al

In reply to seankenny:


>
You should be blaming Atlee, Beveridge and the other leftie muppets who invented the ponzi scheme that is the welfare state.

In reply to Pekkie:

I'm happy to refute your points tomorrow as I'm going to read my novel now, but I do think bringing ukip into the argument and accusing me of fascist tendencies is a bit... weak. Specially given that ukip garner most of their votes from... the boomer generation!

In reply to seankenny:
Just taking one step into this exchange, speaking as someone closer to Sean's generation and as someome who partook in the club culture of the 1990's.

'I suspect that your cohort may be in denial about how they've enjoyed the good life...' Aside from whether the fault actually lies were you feel it does, would you have done any different? Would you have guessed how the macroeconomics would pan out 20/30/40 years later? The sustainability of the final salary pension scheme? Subprime mortgage lending? Would that have even been on your radar? It wouldn't have been on mine.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Interesting nostalgic article. The 'golden age' thing is so subjective though, and as others have said it equates to our own personal golden age of youth and enthusiasm. Mine was from the late '80s to mid '90s. A time when big Ron was handing over the mantle to Moffat & Moon and then came another great grit revolution and the birth of the slatehead all inspired by Johnny Dawes. This could qualify as a golden age surely. But then so could any time in the past 70 years if viewed through the correctly tinted spectacles.

In reply to Mick Ward:

Me me me. The archetypal Boomer cry Anyhow, I'll stop trying to yank your chain with scurrilous remarks and respond as requested.

So, a few quotes from the article:

More and more of our generation are going...

A generation of baby boomers grew up in the Fifties and Sixties. After two world wars and a depression, our parents desperately wanted to protect us.

The stage was set for a major, bitter and tragic conflict between our parents and ourselves.

Back then, you couldn’t ask older climbers about alternative lifestyles or drugs because they simply didn’t know anything about them.

etc etc

You've quite clearly written a piece about your generation, your cohort, your people. What they did and how they fought against their parents' generation. As I said originally, I liked it and thought it had some good ideas in it. But equally, if you want to write about your generation, don't be surprised if someone from a different generation throws up a point of view that you don't like. Esepcially given that you were the people who, when you were young, expected the oldsters to listen up!

I outlined my gripes against the Boomer generation several times, and at some length... it's a broad based, sweeping and not at all original critique - David Willetts on the right and Tony Judt on the left have said it way better than I have.

To respond to Pekkie, which may give more insight into where I'm coming from:

Our mortgage seemed big at the time and we paid it off over 25 years.

Well I'm sure it did, but I'm fairly sure the figures will show that mortgages are much, much larger today in comparison to incomes (unless you're buying a £1 house in Stoke!).

I paid what seemed like a large amount each month into my pension.

Doesn't your website say you took early retirement? Would you really argue that retiring on a decent pension in your mid-50s means you put in anything like what you'll be taking out?

Everything I've got I earned.

I don't deny that you've worked for all you've got (tho I'm sceptical that buying a house, living in it and selling it for a massive profit is actually earning, but let's pass that one by eh). All I'm saying is that the Boomer generation lucked out, that the returns on their efforts were way ahead of what my generation is going to enjoy, never mind the generation below me.

So when we hear the self-same people berate those younger for being "all rock and no roll" it does rather grate. As does the fact that the Boomers don't want to admit they were lucky, that they had it all and now, when they're old, they're still taking it all. I actually find the way many of you live to be totally admirable, getting out on the rock, writing books, doing all sorts of life-enhancing stuff. It's just a crying shame that other won't get to enjoy the same perks.

Flinticus makes an excellent point, and one that I was going to make myself. Would we have done anything differently? I doubt it, because the Boomers took the path of least resistance. But, in the current political climate, in which the Boomer vote counts for more with politicians than anyone else, you have some degree of power. Given that five years of austerity have left pensioners virtually untouched whilst the disabled see their living standards slashed, excuse me for thinking that the grey vote isn't as liberal, socially conscious or all round decent as they may portray themselves.

(Note: this critique doesn't really apply to women, miners and other industrial workers, black men, etc etc. They had it well tough in the 70s and 80s. But since none of you are Punjabi lesbian steelworkers, that's just an aside.)

In reply to seankenny:


Please contrast with your earlier remark to me:

'Typical bloody Boomer, trying to put the blame onto someone else. Truly, the generation that wanted it all, took it all, and even now doesn't want to take a bit of personal responsibility.'

So I don't just take a bit of responsibility - I take total responsibility for every word I've written - but, to you, that's simply 'me, me, me'.

You're just wriggling around now, playing games with words, trying to get off the hook.

You're a bully and a coward. When I stood up to you last night, your first response was to back off - because that's what bullies and cowards do. When that didn't work, you've started introducing other commentators, trying to dilute things.

You're just wriggling around now, playing games with words, trying to get off the hook.

Learn to take responsibility yourself.

I don't think you cared about that lass in Beris who got slapped. I think that was just your way in. I think what drives you is the politics of envy.

And that is so sad.

Mick (who will be out at work for the next few hours and therefore unable to partake in these august forums.)

In reply to Mick Ward:

Work? I thought you would be sat in your paid for house checking the size of your pension pot whilst planning you next foreign jaunt!


Chris

In reply to Mick Ward:

Oh dear Mick, you can do better than that little diatribe. I should just ignore it, but since I clearly have an outsized ego, exaggerated sense of my own importance and just like a good scrap, I'll reply.

I didn't "back off" last night. I had dinner, cleaned the house and retired to bed early with a good book, pausing only to note on here that, Terminator-like, I'd be back. Which I duly was, with a thought-out and cogent response, in which I reiterated my praise of your article and its angle, then added in how I admired some of the Boomers. Is anything less than lavish praise a bit hard to handle? Of course the "me me me" comment was a bit naughty, but I admitted as much in the very following sentence and you still fell for it. Not everyone is deadly earnest you know

Bully and a coward? Well, if you say so. I don't hide behind a moniker, you can find out who I am, what I look like, what I do for a living. There have been all of two posts in this thread agreeing with me, and another 50 telling me I'm a tosser. Is that really bullying?

As for "diluting things" with other commentators, that was simply my way of saying the ideas weren't mine, and providing some useful links if you wanted to see where I was coming from. Of course, I could have nicked their arguments and claimed them for my own.

Flinticus and Pekkie both took issue with what I said, and I've replied to them very clearly. I'm more than happy for someone - anyone - to come back and me and tell me I'm wrong. To intellectually judo throw me to the floor and have me begging for submission. Get to it Mick!

In reply to seankenny:

The trouble is that, seriously you or not, you personalised the issue and seem to think the boomer generation is responsible for making your life harder.

"Typical bloody Boomer, trying to put the blame onto someone else. Truly, the generation that wanted it all, took it all, and even now doesn't want to take a bit of personal responsibility.

Why such animosity, as someone asked up above. Well, I'm intensely irritated with the whole Boomer generation, basically 'cos I'm paying for their early retirement and will carry on paying for their drooling senility whilst they cashed in with a fully funded welfare state, a final salary pensions and a massive un-taxed free pot of money from the house they bought for tuppence in 1981. "

As my somewhat facetious remark above implied, the boomers inherited a welfare system and addiction to rising property prices etc created by their parents' generation. It wasn't obvious as inflation, unemployment and strikes soared in the 1970s that they were part of a "lucky generation". Indeed, their expectations were probably much lower than those of succeeding generations.

Just as you are, the boomer generation simply played the cards they were handed and, on average, it worked out quite well. But they weren't the ones that dealt the cards.

In reply to Postmanpat:


The problem of how much we as individuals are responsible for the wider trends in our society is a thorny problem that has stumped minds way finer than ours. Time to reread Isiah Berlin on Tolstoy perhaps? Anyhow, I might have been a bit provocative in the way I phrased it, but I'm not stupid - I know that we all are both willing participants in our time, and swept along with it too. The exact nature of our involvement depends on who we are, and how we live - and of course the climbing bum is less likely to be a shaper of cultural mores than a reflection of them. But we all know that lives feed back into other lives odd ways, perhaps it only takes one or two people to spark a whole movement. In short, no one knows how things are going to turn out! (Apart from death, and nearly all men except John Gill seem to get a bit mooby.)

So, cod philosophising over, if one writes an elegy to one's generation, one might expect others to point out that generation's flaws and weak points. That's what the younger generation is for! If those Boomers were within their rights to tell their seniors that "you just don't understand us, man, you keep us down with your rules" then what's wrong with me saying "you keep us down with your profligacy"?!

Of course, as you say, they probably didn't feel profligate in the 1970s and I did pop in the odd proviso about the Boomer's experiences of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll not being quite evenly distributed. But the 70s were some time ago and I don't quite buy your line about them being happy beneficiaries of someone else's set-up. We're talking about people in the 60s - they had their chance to shape society, and how extraordinarily good it was for them. Teachers, town planners and others of modest means won't be retiring at 55 again any time soon. In my view, they should be admitting their remarkable good fortune - something which they've seemed loathe to do on this thread.

In reply to Chris Craggs:




Corrected that for you.

In reply to seankenny:


It seems to me that we have very different values and further discussion would be futile.

Good luck with your life.

Mick

In reply to Mick Ward:

Mick - I am genuinely disappointed, and I mean that with not even a hint of sarcasm. I thought a true man of letters would love to debate with someone with different values, but it seems not. If you see me at Portland sometime do come over and say hello, I would be more than happy to make your acquaintance. I'm fairly civil and quite cuddly.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Great piece Mick.

In reply to seankenny:
>Teachers, town planners and others of modest means won't be retiring at 55 again any time soon.

I know several public sector workers who are retiring at 55 this year. I now another health worker who will be retiring at 53 in two years time on a pension of £80k. You are getting two entirely different things mixed up public sector pay (which is higher now than ever before) and the 60/70s generation.

I knew both Jim Fullalove and Duncan Drake well and neither of them were wealthy. I just checked on Rightmove and you could still buy a house on Jim’s street for £20k, 7 or 8 years ago. It was Gordon Brown who allowed prices to go through the roof not the boomer generation.

I remember once being given a hand me down carpet once and taking my old carpet down to Jim’s. Because his front room was small we were able to cut and fit the carpet exactly to the shape of his room. He rolled around on the carpet with his eyes going red and watering saying “I’ve never had a fitted carpet before” – he was almost 40.

I could also talk about what it was like to have an outside toilet, or to unfreeze the sink every winters morning with hot salty water, or the circumstances under which both Jim and Duncan died.

I don’t know what your fantasies are about the 70s but it bears no resemblance to my experience. Please take your middle class angst somewhere else.

In reply to webding:



I asked for any factual corrections - so thanks for making that clear. I chose those professions as they were done by several silver surfers on this thread! When you say "health worker" - what exactly do you mean? Doctor? Surgeon? High-level NHS manager? I'd hardly count those professions as "modest means".



Gordon Brown, born 1951.
Mick Ward: "There was also the post-war baby boom, arguably the most significant demographic shift in history. Jim Fullalove was born in 1946, at the beginning of this boom; I was born in 1952, near the end of it."




As I said many times before, the benefits of the Baby Boomer generation weren't distributed particularly equally, nor were they particularly apparent in the 1970s. I'm fine if you upbraid me for being an idiot, but I take care in what I post and I've covered the points you've raised already.

And angst? Personally I was aiming for a bit of an iconoclastic biff, kind of a punk pogo to Mick's more prog rock musings.

In reply to webding:


Are you sure about that? Are they being made redundant? A pension of £80k - is that per year and how much does this person earn? A lot depends on luck and being in the right place at the right time. I know of people employed in the public sector who retired at 50 with 10 year's pension enhancement and a huge lump sum in the back pocket. And then they walked into another job elsewhere in the sector! Better than winning the lottery. Unfortunately for the majority, these 'deals' almost bankrupted a number of pension schemes including mine. When it was my turn I got no enhancement, which was OK by me. I then worked for myself for a number of years as a consultant and made a few bob. At least I've got a clear conscience.

In reply to seankenny:
A minority but still a large number, including many on more modest pensions, will get a chance to go at 55. They pay a lot for this: usually 5% loss in pot value per year they retire early and you dont get the extra years in and there are other complications but you may be facing ridiculous stress levels at work, so a much happier if a bit poorer life after work may be a cogent choice.

As a member of the punk generation I understand the iconoclast point but havent you got better targets? Did you get out of the wrong side of bed? Mick kindly wrote an interesting and impressive piece, as UKC articles go, and isn't responsible for, nor is he celebrating, the bad things of the time.

On Postman Pat's point, if we are looking for Ponzi schemes, which are deliberate knowing frauds based on pyramid growth, there are quite a few places I'd look before the NHS.

In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks for the clarification on the pension schemes business. Much appreciated.

As I said, I enjoyed the article, and found it interesting - certainly more so than the sponsored trip "new 8a+ in Magagascar" type photo spread that fills the mags these days. But surely one measure of the worth of a piece of writing is the reaction it gets from readers? Would it be better to have 50 posts of "Nice read mate" and then done and dusted?

The history of the post-war generation is varied and interesting, has a huge bearing on today's world, and in amongst the huge tides of social change there are plenty of fascinating stories. I have a view on that history too, even tho many posters here openly wanted me to shut up. I was honest about my reaction, which as the thread developed was as much about the thoughtlessness and hypocrisy of other posters as of Mick's original article. (Tho' I think we can both be clear that Mick's toys out of pram moment didn't do him many favours.)

Sure, my reaction clearly is in the minority, but it's become clear to me during the course of this debate that the Boomer generation have an awfully hard time picturing themselves from outside. It's almost an irony deficit: after complaining that their parents just didn't understand them, they don't want to make the effort to understand where younger people might be coming from. The refusal to see that the Boomer good luck and the rather less fortunate generations below might be in some way linked strikes me as a collective failure - and I say collective because none of the Boomers present here wants to admit this in the slightest. I think this is a different matter from looking for personal blame, as I alluded to before. Again, no one from the Boomer generation on here seems interested in exploring that idea. They'd rather squeal "it wasn't me" and have done.

Anyhow, I hope I remember the same lessons come 2045, when climate change is rampant and my grandchildren are berating me for being part of a generation that did too little, too late. "Weren't YOU responsible for flying RyanAir?!"

(Christ, I can waffle on can't I?)


Ooooh fighting talk

In reply to Offwidth:


I was actually thinking primarily of the State and public sector pension system.

In reply to seankenny:

But your examples are with hindsight. People thought that owner occupation, steadily rising house prices, and the cradle to grave welfare state were great things that would benefit the next generation. A better example would be if kids in 2045 were asking what all the bloody wind farms were built for when they are freezing their balls off.i.e, the unexpected.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Most people still think the ideas behind the NHS and Welfare system and pensions are good. You just fancy yourself as Cassandra. I'd have thought Ponzi sceme labeling is more typical of the madder right wing posters here. Argue about affordability if you want (as measured currently by some pretty neo-conservative ideas that take all the worst case scenarios in a way that seem to me to want to sink the nasty social liberal idea) but its no certainty and there was never pyramid growth.

In reply to seankenny:
If your reply was as thoughtful as some of your more typical posts we wouldn't be talking here. Attack the more guilty rose tinted posters directly, not Mick by association. Better still discuss the issues in a less aggressive way. I'd be upset in his shoes and toys might have flown... its not like you get paid for putting up these features.

In reply to Offwidth:

What he means by describing the pension system as a Ponzi scheme is that people's contributions are not invested for the future, but the people who currently pay into the system are directly funding the pensions of those currently drawing them. The defining characteristic of a Ponzi scheme is that the contributions of new investors are used to pay the annual profits of the existing members.

In reply to Offwidth:

As I pointed out only about three posts back I was referring to State and pubic sector pensions. See john2's explanation as to why they might be regarded as ponzi schemes.

It seems to me that Sean is trying to have it both ways. I believe that he is a great supporter of the welfare state of the post war period but seems to object to the inevitable and entirely predictable costs it has passed on to his and later generations.

In reply to Postmanpat:
A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment arrangement where the scheme operator pays returns to its investors from new capital paid by new investors. That is a gulf away from pension schemes which are neither fraudulant, nor set up in anything like that way. The current arguments on affordabilty are based on intelligent guestimates of future assets and liabilities by actuaries and depending on the estimates and actuary you get significantly differences in the current valuations, deficit or otherwise. All pensions are required to be adjusted regularly to prevent significant problems growing. The major problems in recent history arose because of changes in tax measures (good old Gordon Brown), theft from the pension fund by the company running it (eg Maxwell although its no longer possible in that way), or pension holidays encouraged when the same extreme measurement measures that I think now show an artificially large deficit, then showed the schemes in artificially excessive profit. In a recession using these worst case scenarios (the current arrangements) it's unsurprising the deficits look high but irrespective adjustments will have to be made again under the rules. Both you and John2 know all this yet you continue to apply childish labels.

A similar argument applies to the welfare state. Budgets have to get adjusted. I, like many, see the real threat as creeping privatisation and potential future inequality as we argue on costs (does the private sector 'efficiency' pay for the extra costs of profits and dividends?...the signs from outsourced areas so far are not good). plus the more extreme conservative agenda which rails against paying for the poor so they can get more tax cuts which they say will help them encourage 'free market growth'.

Anyway this is all off-topic so I'm stopping now. Thanks again Mick for the article.

In reply to Offwidth:

You appear to be referring to private sector pensions. Are you claiming that State and public sector pensions are all fully funded? You don't appear to understand how they work.

Incidentally, although all the factors you listed negatively impacted private sector pensions the biggest single factor was misjudging average longevity.


I have very little idea what you are trying to say. Of course budgets have to be adjusted. What is the conclusion you are drawing from this in the context of the discussion?


>

In reply to Postmanpat:

moved

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=589317&new=7793703#x7793703

I think Offwidth may have been referring to the Local Government Pension Scheme which invests contributions and pays out from interest, a bit like private schemes, as distinct from other State schemes. Just a bit of info!

In reply to seankenny:

Wow.....that's some generalisation, particularly blaming the boomers for high mortgages which has been caused by the resurgence of the economics of the 20's and 30's not the behaviour of a particular generation.....I retired early after 35 years as a secondary teacher the last 15 as a headteacher and was glad to retire on a decent pension which I'd paid into all my career.....maybe if the Thatcherite generation hadn't been so happy to embrace unfettered capitalism and a deregulated financial system the young today would feel better off?

In reply to UKC Articles:

Nice item Mick - the climbing was great then and its great now - just me that is not so hot. Sean Kenny - got issues have we? 4 of my 5 kids have a mortgage (or own outright) - 3 have pension schemes. They all have a pretty good lifestyle. Seems you might want to get a job that does what you want?

In reply to Stone Idol:

This looks rather like the "I'm all right Jack" school of social and political analysis, and with a fairly low sample size.

In reply to UKC Articles:
Thanks for the article Mick!