UKC

Makes the 'No Bouldering' rule seem quite lenient!

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/foodanddrink/foodnews/a-mother-has-been-threatened...

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

The imprisonment threat is just total BS, they haven't the power to decide such things and couldn't do shit. that would be the very last option open to the courts if it went to court and the woman did something crazy like telling the magistrate to go swivel before taking a turd on her desk.

Still, it makes them look brilliant in the press.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

Time to leave a few more pithy reviews methinks!

In reply to pasbury:

Agreed. So long as they are truthful comments I've always considered you can write anything in reviews. Didn't someone complain last year about the lack of toilet facilities on the summit of Ben Nevis?

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

There is apparently a bit more to this than just a bad review. I understand that this particular individual has had several runs-ins with High Rocks over a period of months, in person and by phone, over various issues, so the threat of legal action may not necessarily be based purely on the review content.

Mr Cappellazzi can be a bit difficult at times but is usually fine to deal with, apart from his irrational hatred of boulderers (which perhaps isn't even that irrational considering how some of them have messed up his wedding parties in the past).

In reply to Rob Naylor:

How did they mess up the parties? I've always wondered why the best southeastern bouldering spot is off limits. I thought it must have something to do with photography aesthetics.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

No bouldering, no kids, £10 a go and surly management. Sounds a bit like the Fawlty Towers of climbing venues. I'll give that one a miss...

In reply to Pekkie:

I know what your saying but it is, in my opinion, the jewel of the Southern Sandstone Crags. £10 is a change from what we used to pay but you pay that at any of our local walls.

In reply to Pekkie:


Your loss then, as it's arguably the best climbing venue in the SE.

In reply to Pete Dangerous:


Yes, indeed...photography aesthetics, and in a number of cases (when the entry fee was actually much more modest) boulderers being rude to staff, refusing to pay, etc.

It's not about the money he raises from climbers that causes Cappellezzi or his staff to be surly at times....it's the rudeness and sense of entitlement that some climbers and boulderers have exhibited over the years re using the venue. His big money-spinner is weddings, prom parties etc. He likely makes more from one of those than he does from all the income from climbing in a year, and his restrictions are partly to ensure that the photo opportunities for these events aren't negatively impacted by what he sees as beanie-wearing scruffs "polluting" the background of pictures.

If he hadn't had so many problems a few years ago, IMO, it would be cheaper and less restrictive than it is today.

In reply to dickie01:


Not a good precedent though is it?

In reply to pasbury:

There's always someone who just wants to take a dump on everyone's fun , oh and there reason is always the same , yep you guessed it , Money !