UKC

Thought I would check out Aldery Cliff but saw this message

'After excessive 'gardening' there are now no abseil points (or trees) on many of the routes. The unsuitable/badly installed bolts that replaced them have been removed. For may of the routes the top-outs are somewhat difficult. You may have to drop a rope from the top to form an anchor/abseil point, or leave gear in the natural belay places'

What's the deal with this. Can I walk off the top?/ will I need to leave gear on every climb?
Any locals knowledge would be great .

Cheers

In reply to Ban1:

For most routes it is possible to top-out, for some (Mitre Cracks area) it's a bit adventurous (especially if it's been wet). You can easily check the finishes by walking round and having a look from the via ferrata at the top.

In reply to Ban1:
Most routes have natural anchors at the top for belaying, but the badly placed unsuitable ab points have been removed. Before these unsuitable bolts were installed most routes ended at trees with ab tat preplaced.
For many routes the top out is a steep scramble, again made worse by the vigilante gardener stripping off all the vegetation. The best option is to walk round to the top and drop a fixed rope down to where your route ends and use that either to ab down or as an anchor.
The problem was discussed at the last Peak Area BMC meeting and Buxton Mountaineers are going to look at the problem and decide on a case by case option what the best plan is. The will probably discuss it again at the next Peak Area meeting.
The over-zealous gardening created many many problems. There is a huge long thread on here about it. Bolts at Aldery Cliff, I think it is titled and there are reports and updates on the BMC RAD and on the access/main page.
Apart from the anchor problems and the crag now being somewhat denuded, there are some great routes from HVD up to E2/3. Go with a plan and enjoy the smashing little crag.

In reply to johncook:

Or - as some people have done - go with a plan and enjoy smashing the little crag

In reply to EarlyBird:

I was pissed off 20yrs ago, when some tosser cut down the eponymous ash tree on the slab; I went & had a look a couple of weeks ago and was really sad. It's trashed.

The crag needs a generation to recover.

In reply to blurty:


The oddities here are that:

1. The BMC appeared immediately to know the identity of the person who had done the current work.
2. The BMC's initial reaction (via Henry F) was reported to be that the work had been done quite well.

Clearly something went badly wrong here. But I keep wondering what the full story was. (By the way: I am *not* asking for the publication of a name, or anything like that. I am just puzzled by the reported sequence of events.)

In reply to Rob Parsons:

1 Simply not true.

2 Henry was speakig personnally not for the BMC and quoted out of context. He was referring to the work on the trees not the principle of what was done.

Like John Cook I'm a big fan of the place, and highly disappointed in what happened and have attended most of the Peak Area meetings where it was discussed. If you are interested in Peak access issues maybe try to attend.

In reply to Offwidth:


I was reacting to this report of a meeting - https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=660958&v=1#x8537228 - by the Peak Area Chair Rob Greenwood:

"It is also worth highlighting that there was a great divide between the thoughts and feelings on the matter from the (large) audience. Henry Folkard, Peak Area Access Coordinator, had been to visit Aldery earlier in the day and was actually very impressed with the thorough nature of the job done. Whilst it had not been done with the BMC's permission, a lot of it had been done in line with the recommendations provided by the geo-technician that had assessed the site previously (e.g. trees needed cutting properly, plus their stumps treated so that the roots would die - thus not continue to grow and cause more damage to the crag); Neil Foster, former Peak Area Chair/Exec Member, had also been and was also very complimentary of the thorough nature of the work done, reminding everyone that the stark nature would change as the seasons go by. Other people came up to me afterwards, some who had been, some who had not (but had seen the photos), and suggested that it would probably be a better place for it. There are undoubtedly two sides to the argument..."

I was not at the meeting myself though, so I can't assess the correctness of that summary.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

That report could have been better worded. It is very hard to get the nuances, of what people said, to show in a brief summary of an exchange of words in a large and crowded room. Due to the appalling MONC which was the main agenda item of the meeting the Aldery debate was cut short with only a very few people getting a chance to have their public say. My opinion was that there were many more who thought Aldery had been vandalised than who thought it was a job well done.
Henry is a very hard working and knowledgeable person who does a vast amount of work for access. On this occasion I disagreed with his opinion, and that is the first time ever, and possibly the last.
A very few people know the name of the culprit and as far as I am concerned it is best if it remains that way.

In reply to johncook:
I think the report is broadly OK (anything could be better worded but the volunteers who write these things don't have infinite time). Professional removal of trees can still be widely regarded as vandalism ... talk to the people of Sheffield. So although the unapproved work on the trees was professionally done in itself according to Henry, it was perfectly clear the work should not have been done, would not have been approved if requested and the BMC are very concerned it happened. The brand new BMC VP (who wrote up the crag for the recent BMC Limestone North) said all this again in the following meeting.

What some people seem to forget in this mess is this incident is only the latest stage of a history of recent significant changes. Firstly the BMC had already removed most of the trees and that original removal was approved as the root systems were fracturing parts of the crag. The BMC work also added the metal safety line along the crag top and on the descent. A lot of previous crag cleaning and loose rock removal had occured and new static rope had been added to the trees commonly used as belays (that some purist muppet removed almost immediately). More recently the base of some lines had been excavated by another local activist.

In reply to blurty:



Having seen the threads on this topic, I'm still trying to comprehend how wedged up their own arse someone has to be, to think they have the right, and that it's acceptable to do this kind of thing, without garnering a consensus of opinion and referel to the BMC?

In reply to Offwidth:
I fully agree with you, and wasn't trying to do otherwise. I assumed people knew all this and was just trying to point out that the quoted item from Rob was a summary and could not cover all the feelings and nuances of the meeting. I have talked to many people, who grumbled that not enough was said. My response is "Were you at the meeting? If you are so concerned about this and other Peak problems, turn up and have your say, even volunteer!" That is usually a conversation killer!
The work done by you, and other volunteers, many of who are anonymous, is invaluable to the whole climbing, hillwalking and outdoor activities!
I thank ALL the volunteers and their efforts, and just wish that many of the grumblers and complainers actually got on and became active.
P.S. I don't think it was purist muppets who took the slings and maillons, but a thieving climber who thought only of crag swag. It had to be a climber as most were inaccessible.

In reply to johncook:


Yes, volunteering should be applauded; many thanks to those that do.

But the idea that "having your say" at the Peak meeting counts, whereas saying it on UKC does not, seems a bit peculiar.

I've climbed a lot in the Peak and care about it, and I have been to some of the Peak Area meetings. But living on the opposite side of the Peak to Grindleford means that it would take me an hour and 20 mins drive each way to attend, so I usually don't.

So why is speaking in person in the Maynard treated as magic, whereas doing so on UKC is discounted? The latter emits a lot less CO2 than driving to Grindleford and back.

Further, as for "turn up and have your say", most of the time you *cannot* have you say! The need to get through the agenda usually means that discussion is limited and curtailed. At most a typical attender might get to say a few sentences. (Chairs, access reps, etc, rightly get much more time to speak.)

Realistically one cannot have 30 or more people all having their say, it just takes too long. And if more people took note of the "turn up and have your say" request, and did indeed turn up, then obviously an even smaller fraction would actually get any significant chance to speak.

Yes, if you attend you might get to *vote* on issues, but that's not really the same thing (and why does it make sense to drive for 3 hours to cast a vote, when there are easy means of doing online polls?).

In the age of the internet I find the fetishisation of a physical meeting as a means of consultation and discussion a bit weird.

So here's a radical thought. Each "agenda item" should be introduced as a thread on a forum (on the BMC site or UKC or somewhere). People can then discuss it an length on a thread such as this one. After which, if there's a vote to be taken, it can be done online with people logging in with their BMC number (and since the BMC has home addresses, it can restrict voting geographically if it wishes).

In reply to Coel Hellier:
My round trip averages about 2.40 (longer on the way there as roads are busier). It was over 3.00 for the Sfaffs and Glossop meetings. In my view although everyone is welcome the turnout in recent years has been really good from knowledgable people who really care about BMC issues in the Peak.

Web based discussions are not really yet a practical soultion for BMC discussions and you must know that. This is from the perspective of current BMC governance rules, through differences in user bases to semi-confidential information that forms part of the area access discussions. I never saw a problem with major issues being discussed on UKC and I will always take such Peak related discussions back to the meeting if no-one else will. Differences can and do occur between average forum and meeting viewpoints and from current governance the meeting must have the final say. I recall a past meeting a few years back in Staffs where a majority UKC view (based on fewer than those in the actual meeting) had not a single supporter at the meetingi itself.

In reply to johncook:

I'm pretty sure it was a climber(s) acting on 'ethical' grounds, based on information from another regular visitor I trust.

In reply to Offwidth:

Obviously my suggestion would involve a change in such rules. (Though the way the BMC is run -- largely set before internet days -- is one of the things currently under review.)

PS If the BMC wants more of its members to get involved in BMC matters then having a policy that the only way to make a difference is to physically turn up at one particular time and one particular place very few months is rather weird.

It just leads to the current situation where only about 1 in 1000 members is a regular attender at their local Area Meeting.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Well said. I climb in the Peak a lot, but given the time and location of meetings I'd have to use up my annual leave to attend. Even in my local area, meetings are always in a location that I can't get to in time. Apparently this means that I have no rights to any opinions.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
That's another really oddly blinkered view. There are many ways to help the BMC and its access work, from simply donating to the access fund. Area meetings are just one way; guidebook help, crag cleanups, spreading news of the work done by others.... just do what you can.

In defence of the numbers at Area meetings the regular total is normally similar to the democratic input to the BMC AGM (this year excepted with the huge numbers semding proxies for the no confidence vote).

In my view we are at least a decade off proper web based debate for the BMC. Working at a University with some of the best internet connectivity in the world we still struggle at times with web based meetings and web based democratic input.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
I've personally raised your opinion on several matter and that of others here (notably Toad) who complain they have no voice. You can also write to the area meeting or to the BMC direct (and yes I know you have and not always with the most professional response ... but that was also pointed out.). Meetings normally start at 7.30 and latecomers who struggled with traffic are always welcome.

There is also this going on...

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-governance-review-group-newsletter-may-2017

In reply to Rob Parsons:

If you kill the routes they will wither and allow the ingress of water which could quite easily facilitate a failure.
Leaving the roots means they will not grow as they are not supporting a large canopy. As and when cut the regrowth as required.
Cleaning out cracks and repeated insertion of cams has probably contributed to failures at Tremadog. John Sheard (chartered geotechnical engineer) and myself have been amazed over the years at what people are prepared to climb up, especially some of more recently bolted quarry routes

In reply to Offwidth:

I think it a little unfair to describe Coel's view as blinkered. I have some sympathy with his view.

One could argue a degree of arrogance to suggest the only way to care for, or have a view on the environment of of the Peak District is to attend in person a BMC meeting.

Blinkered suggests to have a narrow view on a fixed point in front of your nose.

Blinkered, like focusing all efforts on in-fighting within an organisation when a piece of land which has been entrusted to its care is brutalised over a period of well over a year perhaps?

Is any amount of talk going to grow the trees back? The opportunity to care for this crag has passed. All that is left is a debate on whether to add belay stakes or bolts or do nothing.

I'm sorry if the above is harsh, I know individually a lot of good people work very hard for the BMC, but as a collective what on earth happened here?

In reply to Wayne S:

An individual chose to ignore standard crag ethics and did what he felt was right in clear opposition to the majority of climbers and the BMC. Why is this suddenly the fault of the BMC?

I explained the blinkered point above. I agree with Coel on most access issues but attending Peak Area meerings is simply not the only way to contribute to the organisations good work on access or to communicate concerns . Having said that, most of the strongest evidence and argument on UKC against the action at Aldery came from John C, Dave G and Andy S who are all Area meeting regulars.

In reply to Offwidth:


Because (imwo), that the over whelming consensus is, that the site has been trashed, by a known individual (to the BMC) who seems to have knowledge about a report about the stability of the place, and no action has been taken against them by the landlords - the BMC.
The whole affair stinks.

In reply to Offwidth:
Hi, to be honest I cannot put it any better than Lusk. The individual is well known, the work has been ongoing for an extended period of time, and let us remember that Aldery crag was gifted to the care of the BMC.

I could agree that no one person is at complete fault in this situation, but if we park the word "fault" that you introduced, and use the word "Responsibility" then comment going forward will perhaps be more focused.

So the question remains:

Why was it not the responsibility of the BMC to ensure this land was managed in a correct manner? However tenuous/indirect the link to the person undertaking the work was, how was it allowed to continue unchallenged for such a long period of time?

I am angry and upset that a once beautiful crag is now stripped bare. Are you honestly suggesting that the BMC has no responsibility?

In reply to Wayne S:

The BMC is a membership organization for the large part it relies on the memberships informing it of issues like Alderly Cliff. Where were all these people who apparently climb at Alderly all the time and are now so melodramatically angry

In reply to Lusk:

I'm pretty sure I know who the person is and as far as I am aware he has no connection at all with the BMC and certainly no access to the geotechnical reports. The other person who I do know who has done a lot of soil and rock clearance there as far as I am aware also has no link with the BMC or the reports.

As Graham says the BMC is the membership; the pros and cons of taking action against the vandal were discussed and are complex; and if action was taken difficult to pursue and possibly counterproductive. Hence despite clear consensus that the individual was wrong, there was no clear consensus that action should be taken (even though a large minority felt it should).

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

I suspect these melodramatic types were out climbing, feeling assured that an organised group, to which many of them subscribe, was looking after their interests and the crag environment?

We can turn the issue on to climbers and membership, we can deflect and talk about the replacement of anchors. I still think there is a lot to learn about asset management here. When all I can see is a lack of accountability then I feel less confident in the management of BMC owned crags.

I have only been to Aldery maybe 3 times in the past 2 years, what is the actual attendance level needed to have an opinion?

In reply to Wayne S:

Yes of course the BMC has responsibilities and in the main carries those out well. However, it can't afford to police crags in case of risk of such invidiual vandalism. From an access perspective, the BMC has one dedicated employee for the whole of England (who was on holiday at the time so someone else kindly deputised to inspect the crag). I know all this as I was probably the first to personnally contact the organisation (after John posted here) and have followed it closely since and I can't see where it failed to do what it could (despite being very busy organisationally at the time).

In reply to Offwidth:

I think that one of the issues is that two individuals with 'no connection to the BMC' have felt empowered to do this industrial scale work on a crag owned by the BMC. Would they still be just 'misguided' and anonymised if they had decided to take the same approach to Ravensdale? Or Willersley?

And if this could take place over a period of time with 'the BMC' in ignorance then is there a gap in the Land Management Strategy? Agreed; there IS only one Rob Dyer in the office but surely, in the locality, there must be at least one or two BMC members who would agree to pop in one a week/month?

In reply to Ban1: if you are going to be a land owning organisation, you have to invest in the resources to back it up, not just Expect that volunteers will be able to adequately manage these sites, effectively unsupported. A lesson land owning conservation groups learned decades ago. I think the wildlife trusts are a good analogy as in the 60s and 70s they went from volunteer led naturalist special interest clubs to land owners and made the same sort of mistakes as the BMC along the way.

In reply to Andy Say:


Yes, I'm sure there are, although in practice the Buxton Mountaineering Club have a sort of informal guardianship of the crag. They are going to figure out the best way fixing the belay situation.

I'm pretty local and feel a bit responsible that I didn't spot what was happening sooner. Partly this was because I knew that there were 'official' gardening operations in progress, partly because I'm away quite a lot for work. That said, I had no reason to believe that anyone was single-mindedly engaged in a personal relandscaping project.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:


Why don't you let us have a list of crags you haven't visited much recently so we have a short list for creating a new user-friendly bolted climbing venue?

It's not melodramatic to be pissed off when a nice little crag gets trashed for no good reason, especially when it's one that, as BMC members, we actually own and for which we are responsible.

In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks for the response. Maybe the issue is one of inspection/monitoring frequency. The other is benchmarking, as in it is difficult to see small incremental changes over an extended period of time. Exactly the reason why the most shocked were perhaps infrequent visitors to the crag.

I would question however if the larger blocks of stone that were removed had any commercial value. Which would move the situation beyond vandalism.

I would agree that when the flag was raised by John (Hi John, good to meet you at Intake the other day!) that the BMC acted in a correct manner, though we should recognise that the "Vandalism" started many months before this.

I guess the thing that is becoming clear to me is that this is perhaps a more general national issue on asset monitoring rather than a local area issue of this particular little crag.

I guess my annoyance and perhaps that of others is the (at least from UKC posts) focus seemed to be on the detail (anchor removal, quality of work) rather than any recognition of a land management responsibility.

Again I appreciate the content and tone of the response.

Wayne

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Same here Simon.
I live in the far South of the Midlands (as you know).
I also enjoy climbing in the Peak (and for that matter both the South-West and South Wales), as do many people from the Midlands - there is after all very little decent climbing in the actual Midlands Area - but to get to the meetings in these areas would involve many entire midweek days taken as holiday.
We can all climb at these locations at weekends, but it's very difficult to attend area meetings held (quite reasonably) to suit the locals.
I have climbed at Aldery Cliff on many occasions in the past, and really wanted to take time off and go to the meeting in question, but work commitments prevented such.

There are many crags which could claim to be nationally important - Stanage for example - there should really be some way that non-locals can have input, as they are frequently more regular climbers at these venues.

In reply to Offwidth:

My big worry, considering the fact the person X (and his partner in crime person Y) have had no action taken against them and have got away scot-free.

This appears to demonstrate to anyone in the future that they can turn a trad venue owned by the BMC into a clip-up sport crag, or at the very least position lower-off bolts for easy access.
Such a crag could then be used for professional guiding purposes and the rest of us would be left with nothing to do but wring our hands.

Surely the very least that should have happened is that those guilty should have been banned from BMC property for a period.

In reply to fred99:


How do you propose this should be enforced?

In reply to fred99:




I'm possibly being a bit thick here, but I'm at a complete loss as to why the BMC have not explored taking legal advice and even sought a criminal prosecution against the perpetrators of this deliberate act of calculated vandalism?

If I'm right assuming the BMC own the crag, then even as a salutory lesson to prevent other knobheads thinking they can do the same, they should have pursued this - unless there is reason beyond the information in the public domain to make this awkward - either politically or legally?

I'm part of a consortium which owns a decent sized area of open countryside with public rights of way, and if someone commited an act of vandalism and we catogoricaly knew who the perpetrators were, we would not hesitate to throw the full weight of the criminal and legal system at them.

Also, as landowners allowing open access to your land, you have legal liability. By not taking action, this could be seen as the BMC approving the work done, and with it, the liability for any subsiquent consequences arising.

Of course, I would presume the BMC have already looked into this?

In reply to Goucho:

It is a bit weird. It seems that the BMC bods (and BMC volunteers in the know) have decided to protect this person by not naming them. Whether this decision is the appropriate one or not I'm not sure, since I don't know the person, and am not really in a position to judge[*].

I am, however, dubious about a membership body such as the BMC not being willing to be open with its members about a major issue about a BMC-owned crag.

Transparency might be more appropriate for the BMC than protecting an individual (especially after the recent MONC, which I opposed, where lack of transparency was the major accusation). The BMC is thus harming itself somewhat in order to protect this person.

[*I did actually hear the name of the person in conversation, but it is not a name I recognise, not that of any person well-known to UKC posters generally, and not someone that I have (to my knowledge) ever met.]

In reply to slab_happy:

Well if we knew who it was, then the membership could keep their eyes open for them.

As it is, we have no idea of the real reason for their anonymity;

Is it because they're friends with BMC officials ?
Is it because they're instructors who'd lose custom ?
Is it because they've threatened someone ?
(If you remember in one of the early comments in the original thread the threat of violence was mentioned).
Is it because they've threatened to do more (or worse) somewhere else if legal action is taken ?
Is it because the BMC have got no idea what they can or could do (legally) ?

There will always be the underlying questions - who did it, and why have they been allowed to both get away with it and have their backs covered by the BMC ?

In reply to Wayne S:
Until I visited the crag early this year, after not going since October last year, and contacted the BMC no one else had bothered to inform the BMC. As soon as they knew of the problem, they acted quickly, even replying to me within an hour, although they were on annual leave! Many other climbers had been to the place during the 'work' and not questioned it. The BMC has a very limited staff and cannot be out visiting every crag they own every week. They rely on people to contact them. If others had called them earlier the devastation may have been considerably reduced. It is up to members and all climbers to let the BMC know if they have any concerns re access and vandalism and crag 'improvements'!
I am not good at putting things in words on here. I also feel this thread is a reiteration of the previous long long thread on here. I personally now feel the need to move on.

In reply to johncook:

I guess that until the final few trees were removed including the belay trees and the unsafe bolts were put in people wouldn't have suspected that the work was going too far though. Especially if entirely appropriate work had been carried out earlier too. It might not have seemed like a drastic enough step to cause concern until it was too late.
Do you know if the bolts were in/ final trees were missing for long before you raised the alarm?

Also Graeme - I think its valid for someone to be annoyed even if they don't visit the crag every other month. I've been maybe three or four times which means whole years can and do go by without me climbing there but that doesn't mean I'm ok with it being trashed. Similarly, I've only been to Staden once but if someone grid bolted it I'd still be pissed off.

In reply to Wayne S:
I really don't know when the particular vandalism started but I doubt very much that it was many months.

Lots of people are very concerned about asset monitoring in all sorts of venues but volunteers are needed for that, on BMC or otherwsie owned land. Buxton MC have kindly taken on Aldery and quite a few other volunteers are bound to take a less regular but still keen interest.

I take you point on the way 'focus' looked from the outside but the BMC had to ensure the anchors were safe and assess the excavated sections as a priority before the ethics of any subsequent actions were discussed. This was the main reason I phoned the BMC in the first place: such work can often leave unintended urgent safety issues. The subsequent discussion was wanted by all those concerned whereas, following that discussion, action against the vandal was not wanted by most.. legal action is expensive, requires clear proofs and the alleged perpetrator doesn't normally get named until a case is initiated... I'm not sure about what others think but I don't want the BMC to be setting examples for other landowners on using civil or criminal action in such circumstances or naming people (risking libel). In that, I find some of the comments on this thread frighteningly naive. Vigilante action isn't going to cause mass bolting as the democratic BMC discussions so far indicate most would want (and get) such bolts removed.

I will repeat again for Fred and others who might have wanted to make an input, but found attending the particular meeting not possible, that you can email the meeting through the area pages on the BMC website or just ask a regular like me to raise an issue.

On the subject of excavations I'd point out many favourite climbs across the UK were dug out of vegetation, mud and some loose rock cleared, to form the clean lines we enjoy today. In modern terms this would often constitute a similar level of vandalism and possibly, if rare flora or fauna were evidentially affected, might even be a criminal issue. Too many climbers are still ignorant of such issues around crag cleaning and some know but sadly don't care. The BMC does a good job IMHO on limited resources to educate in this respect and facilitate us in keeping crags clean in a way that is appropriate.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I find it very odd that intelligent people can't understand the many problems legal and otherwise of the BMC publicly naming someone carrying out such actions and instead regard it as evidence of a cover-up.

In reply to Offwidth:

First, I'm not suggesting any legal action of any sort. I don't think it would be helpful.

But, I get the impression that the BMC are not being fully forthcoming about their interactions with this individual. That's just an impression (and it's an unfortunate one for the BMC to give at this point). If they want to clear the air then they can do so.

Is it the case that, before the BMC were alerted earlier this year (as in the post at 13:27) the BMC had had no interactions at all with this person regarding Aldery?

In reply to Offwidth:

In terms of timings known to me:
July 15, 2016 the gully on the RH side of Carmen was being excavated with a fairly significant amount of soil and rock being moved.

It's a difficult situation as JHiley states, it's only the final major de-scaling and removal of the belay trees that seemed to be the step too far. I chatted briefly to the guy on July 15 and I went away with the impression that the work was sanctioned.

In reply to Wayne S:
That was the other person (I suspect the BMC don't even know who this person is but I do).

In reply to fred99:


Right, so the BMC should put up someone's name and photo on the website and allege that they've committed illegal activity (which, unless it's proven, potentially opens them up to a libel suit) , and encourage members at BMC crags to accost anyone who looks like the photo and demand that they leave, and if they don't obey ... then what?

This strikes me as something that could end badly in a lot of ways.

Not to mention running the risk of making the BMC liable if anyone decides that this person deserves violence, threats or harassment.

I really doubt there's any sort of sinister cover-up going on; it seems more likely to me that the BMC decided that pursuing a costly legal action against this person wasn't going to be worth it (especially since it would be very hard in court to put a financial value on the damage) and wouldn't be a good use of members' money, and also don't want to open themselves up to liability by making public allegations.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

"It is a bit weird. It seems that the BMC bods (and BMC volunteers in the know) have decided to protect this person by not naming them."

I'd expect better than that from you Coel. The BMC could never have publicly named the person.

In reply to Wayne S:


We chatted to a guy clearing the debris from below Terrace Wall on 24th July, and went away with the same impression.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


That is exactly the impression that is being left. Rightly or wrongly, it looks as though the person was acting with consent, at least to a degree and people knew the rough nature of what was happening, if not quite the extent of it.

In reply to GrahamD:

Its not the same person who later vandalised the crag by cutting down additional trees (removing belays) , trundling rock down slab classics and adding the bolts.

In reply to Offwidth:


This is exactly why a statement from the BMC naming names and clarifying who did what and when would be useful.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

It would be stupid, not useful to name these two climbers for the reasons already given here. Quite a few others also did approved work on the crag in 2016 so even producing an anonymous time line woud be difficult, time consuming and of little benefit. Volunteers give up their time to do useful work, not to satisfy conspiracy theorists on UKC. The BMC statement on the vandalism is still here:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-position-statement-aldery-cliff

In reply to Offwidth:


I'm not sure this distinction is particularly clear to me, I'm afraid.

In reply to slab_happy:


"It seems to you." Fine, that's your opinion.

Is it based on any real knowledge? Was that in fact the reason the BMC took the course it did?


You can't be successfully sued for libel if the statement is true. So it seems like the only ambiguity here might be whether the person involved truly believed that consent had been given.

As I said before: I'm not interested in a 'name' being published. But this affair really is beginning to sound weird.

In reply to Offwidth:


Since you raise that, please help me out. What are the legal problems?

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Nope, I have zero insider knowledge here (or in most places, to be honest). This is simply me speculating about what seems plausible to me as a possibility.


Under English libel law, the onus is on the *defendant* to prove that it's true. It may well be that a bunch of people know that of course it's [so-and-so]; that doesn't mean that it's necessarily *provable* by the standards of a court of law if [so-and-so] denies it.

This is why "libel tourism" is a thing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism

Also, fighting off libel suits can be ruinously expensive even if you win (yes, the court could theoretically order the claimant to cover the BMC's costs, but what if [so-and-so] doesn't have any money?).

In reply to slab_happy:


According to statements by the BMC and by BMC people, the person concerned does not deny his actions. Indeed he regards them as having improved the crag. There is thus no issue of a libel suit.

In reply to slab_happy:


Point taken.

Taking a step backwards: how *did* the BMC identify the Mystery Miscreant(s) in this case? Since that identification certainly appears to have been done. Anybody know?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

There clearly is potential libel if you name him in the context of so many BMC officials publicly having said in BMC meetings that he has severely damaged the crag. The only things he clearly did differently (from a non expert view) from the authorised work was not seek permission of the crag owner (and the area meeting) and the adding of bolts and with an overall slightly larger visual impact. The BMC removed quite a few mature trees with significant visual impact and a lot of descaling work was done with permission. Potential libel was also never going to be the only reason for not naming.

In reply to fred99:


That's probably correct as the only people allowed at these meetings are the 'locals'.

From the Articles -

43.1. Participation in each Area Meeting shall be open to all Voting Members resident in that Area (save those that have elected by notice to the CEO to attend Area Meetings for a different Area) and those Voting Members resident elsewhere who have elected by notice to the CEO to attend Area Meetings for that Area instead of those for the Area within which they reside.

In reply to Offwidth:


Why would the BMC need to name the person? If an offence has been committed why not just report it to the police and let them deal with it? It's quite possible that both nesting birds and bats were disturbed which would make it quite a serious offence and one which really ought to be referred to the police. If it were to come to the attention of the law that The BMC had good reason to believe serious offences had been committed on their land and done nothing about it couldn't they be in trouble themselves?

In reply to pec:
I'm sure that was considered and the key issue was the bats. People in the BMC are really pissed off about what happened, not trying to cover up for some mates;. yet they followed process not emotion.

In reply to Kipper:

As you know, the Peak area rebelled on that rule back when John Horscroft was chair over 10 years ago. We welcome any climbers interested in the area. I, for one, hope the governance review changes the rules in that respect.

In reply to slab_happy:

Since I believe the BMC's Land Management Group (including Martin Wragg, BMC legal advisor) held a site meeting WITH the person concerned to assess the situation I'd have thought it was pretty 'provable'!

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm sure that was considered and the key issue was the bats. People in the BMC are really pissed off about what happened, not trying to cover up for some mates;. yet they followed process not emotion.

Has it been reported to the relevant parties?
Yes or No will suffice...

In reply to FactorXXX:

As far as I'm aware No. Process was followed and there was clearly no consensus this should be done and I suspect no evidence that the bats had been disturbed more than usual by climbers (who disturb the bats all the time and have done so for decades).

In reply to Andy Say:
Any libel is not just dependant on the fact that he did it but that written statements made about this are fair. The possible forms of libel are also related to the effect that the written communication has upon its subject via the effect it has upon people generally; ie if: it discredits the person; it causes lower regard in which the person is held by others; it causes shunning or avoidance of the person; it causes the person to be hated, ridiculed or held in contempt.

This being an internet forum people usually forget that they are liable for what they write here about others. The BMC has sensibly been far more circumspect in what they write (yet this is interpreted as a cover-up).

Just an example of the limits of liability this tweet was found to be libellous:

"Why is Lord McAlpine trending? *innocent face*"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAlpine_v_Bercow

In reply to Offwidth:


A query. What is 'process' here? I will admit to ignorance. Does the local area meeting take precedence over the BMC's Land Management Group in issues like this? I would have thought not as the LMG are supposed to be authorities in, erm, Land Management and, therefore, not. Who is actually 'responsible' for the management of places like Aldery, Crookrise etc. If, for example, the LMG decides on a ban on Crookrise due to fire risk can the Yorkshire area over-rule them? If its the other way then I'd have thought that the deliberations of the Peak area meeting over 'what to do' with the demon gardener are actually down to the LMG?
Andy

In reply to Andy Say:
What I mean by process is twice discussed at the area meetings, quickly looked at by BMC employees for safety issues and the involvement of the LMG as informed by area meeting input and access reps. It seems to me the area meeting determines what to do next with the crag condition (subject to LMG and safety advice) and the BMC exec and LMG implement this and deal with issues around a need to look at future policy and considerations about what to do wrt the vandal (as informed by the democratic area view but also taking safety and legal advice into account).

Volunteer driven representative organisations always have to deal with the tensions between democratic input, the law and practicaliies (like financial constraints). The BMC is especially complex for additional reasons. So although I'm not convinced the formal description of processes are ideal in the BMC articles at present; getting clear improvements is highly complex at least and and possiibly unacheivable in the current organisational form (for reasons Rupert has explained clearly on other threads). Attempting to improve such is what the governace review is all about. As someone with a very close interest in this crag (I've helped the BMC write up and cleaning at Aldery) and someone who is really annoyed with the vandal's actions, I think the BMC followed the right interactive path combining democratic area and LMG/Exec input; once notified, and subsequently made what I think are the right decisions (and I find the cover up story ludicrous).

In reply to Offwidth:

The facts of who did it and what he did are not in dispute, so there is no libel issue there,

Whether the works at Aldery constitute "damage" or "improvement" is a matter of opinion, and that is not actionable. You cannot sue for libel on the basis of "you said that the alterations I made had damaged the crag, whereas I think that's unfair since my opinion is that those alterations are an improvement". That sort of value judgement is simply not actionable. Each of us is entirely entitled to an opinion about that damage/improvement issue and to state it in public.

The only way this could be become a libel case is of the BMC said: "X is the one who chopped the trees down" and X says: "No I did not".

But since X does not deny the deeds, and has stated that he sees the changes as an improvement, this whole discussion of libel is a red herring here.

As for the Lord McAlpine case you point to, that was a matter of someone passing on an allegation that he was guilty of a serious crime. Thus it was an allegation of facts, where that allegation of facts was found to be defamatory.

In reply to Ban1:

We should draw a line under this and make sure it never happens again on any crag owned by the BMC, learn that we need to keep our eyes on our crags and have something in place to stop anything like this dead!

In reply to Offwidth:

As far as I'm aware No. Process was followed and there was clearly no consensus this should be done and I suspect no evidence that the bats had been disturbed more than usual by climbers (who disturb the bats all the time and have done so for decades).

Why not report it to the relevant animal welfare bodies and let them investigate and decide on what action should be taken?

In reply to FactorXXX:
On the basis of the old thread, I'd have expected the BMC to have consulted natural england by now. Im a bit shocked they decided not to as I dont think they have the skills in house to decide if the roost had been disturbed or not

In reply to Coel Hellier:
People here have said a lot worse than that tweet and if the BMC released the name against the wishes of the individual they would in my view be culpable in enabling the person to be publicly discredited and be held in lower regard (and enable any nut job out there to try and extract some form of revenge). You are entitled to your opinon but I'm glad the BMC chose to think differently and not turn its response to a very regretable action into a witch hunt.

In reply to Offwidth:

People here have said a lot worse than that tweet and if the BMC released the name against the wishes of the individual they would in my view be culpable in enabling the person to be publicly discredited and be held in lower regard

What exactly is wrong with that?

In reply to FactorXXX:

Because someone simply overstepped the mark whilst freely giving time to misguidedly improve a crag? Everything has two sides, and naming and shaming would set a poor precedent and certainly would not encourage people to volunteer to help the BMC.

We can try and blame a single person or get embroiled in the detail of bolts or stakes. All of which is shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.

I would be happy to know that the BMC recognise shortcomings in their Land Management approach and commit to positive change. The damage to Aldery is awful, we need to learn from it. I almost took exception to a post above that used the words "Move On", for me lessons need to be learnt and we need to move forward. Ironically we have the latest BMC Limestone North guide book as a permanent record and reminder of the damage that has been inflicted to this crag as a climbing venue.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Someone dry tools a route at Millstone and is not only named, but pilloried publicly on UKC and elsewhere.

Someone trashes an entire crag - one which is owned and managed by the BMC - and they're placed in the climbing equivalent of a witness protection scheme.

It's a funny old world isn't it?

In reply to Goucho:
I would have advised against the BMC being involved in naming him as well (and some posters here were lucky he didn't have a rich litigious family) . The BMC has a lot to do at the moment without getting involved in further unneccesary complications on this case. The BMC has just lost an excellent President because he felt the workload (and private nastiness from some individuals) made his continued volunteer efforts at that level unworkable.

However much I regret what this guy did, he simply has not trashed the crag, he has killed trees, some of which were probably not an issue for the stability of the crag and some whose removal will make crag stability worse in the medium term. Those trees that the BMC removed earlier had a larger effect on the visual appearance of the crag, He has removed intermediate belay possibilities that were useful to avoid chossy and vegetated second pitches (that several purists have said publicly should be the way we finish the dlimbs rather than relying on convenience lower offs: someone presumably removed the previous static rope tree belays for this reason). His action will lead to less disturbance of the bats as those climbs now have a lot of faff or an unpleasant exit.

In reply to Offwidth:


I have no doubt that working within the BMC is very difficult - a poison Chalice in fact - and bearing in mind the diverse nature of the climbing community, it is probably like hearding cats.

And whilst I agree that taking this situation into ever potentially muddier waters could be self defeating, I'm a firm believer in deterrents.

The BMC, and indeed the entire climbing community, needs to send a very clear message that this kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable.

Whilst I can fully understand the difficulties and delecate nature regarding this situation, I feel the message and the perceived lack of transparency from the BMC (possibly unintentionally) has unfortunately completely failed to send this message.

In reply to Goucho:
This is the problem we face... perception of lack of transparency used in ignorance and causing unintended consequences. The transparency some want was never possible in the BMC as its incompatible with the organisation being functional under the legal frameworks it operates in. Hopefully the governance review can make some of this clearer but its difficult as the BMC is structurally very complicated.

I'm a keen and extensive BMC volunteer as I care about climbing and hillwalking and the sterling access, safety and other work the BMC does. My only major official volunteer position in the organisation has been as a guidebook co-editor, although I was acting area chair for about 10 minutes for the election process (done as required but problematic enough to make alternatives preferable in the future... too much committee work in my day job and I want to make my BMC contributions as much as possible in the hills for the moment . I can see the major damage being done recently by 'single issue agendas' being forced against clear consensus of what the BMC membership wants (especially the recent no-confidence vote that I regard as an honest concern, dishonestly actioned with private distribution of manifestos containing serious misinformation). It is clearly idiotic to think the BMC can meet the key concerns of all of its individual members who may have very different views but some members live in a bubble and are so passionate on their specific issue they get carried away. To be clear I support the right of members to complain and campaign (and I directly facilitate complaints made in UKC being heard in Peak Area meetings) but some actions in the recent past have gone well beyond that and I don't want Aldery to follow that path.

In reply to Goucho:
I forgot to add that my view on deterrents are they can only be a small part of a wider scope of BMC land problem resolution.

I've spent plenty of time climbing whilst breaking needless landowner set rules with real deterrants attached and I'm not unusual in that. I don't want the BMC setting deterrents in any way that will encourage bad landowners to behave worse. So landowner deterrents will deter climbers less than most and may be counterproductive to the BMCs wider remit.

Secondly what some of our nastier or naive complainants want here is punishment for ethical breaches. If someone is making money from very bad behaviour (paid group supervision) I might have sympathy, but you cant have deterrants for individuals in such circumstamces unless they accept they have been at fault. Hence education and reasoned clarity in what the BMC wants to see are the best way for the organisation, even for issues that might have minor legal consequencies, but especally so for solely ethical issues. Major legal breaches need to go through proper legal channels as soon as possible.

In reply to slab_happy:

As per Coel Hellier;
"According to statements by the BMC and by BMC people, the person concerned does not deny his actions. Indeed he regards them as having improved the crag. There is thus no issue of a libel suit."

So unless something is done, this person may decide to "improve" somewhere else.

Again I say that, unless some action is taken against this person, then effectively a green light has been given to him/her to "improve" some other crag.

This is no longer a parochial Peak District problem, it is a National one.
When that Tor on Dartmoor (?) was closed off to climbers, one of the (legal) arguments was that climbers put bolts and such like willy-nilly in cliffs, and other such vandalism.
How are we supposed to feel when the next time a crag is closed off the owners throw Aldery Cliff in our faces as an example of bad behaviour by climbers.
When the BMC are in the dock answering questions, they'll have no alternative but to answer "Yes" to the questions;
"Has any unauthorised tree removal been done on any of YOUR properties ?"
"Did you take any action ?"

Followed by;
"The defence rests m'lud, these people have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted even with their own property. How can they claim to have any influence to prevent wanton vandalism on my clients property ?"

In reply to fred99:

An error above on my part, the answers the BMC would be forced to give would be YES followed by NO.
However the end result of complete embarrassment is what I'm trying to show.

In reply to Offwidth:

>The transparency some want was never possible in the BMC as its incompatible with the organisation being functional under the legal frameworks it operates in.

C'mon, man. That's misleading gobbledegook. The current Articles and MoA and their relationship, or otherwise, with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 have nothing to do with how transparent the BMC can be in its operations. It tweets, its on Farcebook, it has a web-site. The operations of the BMC can be as transparent as they like right now without a structural review. (N.B. Its no longer being called a 'governance review').

In reply to fred99:




As far as I am aware the person responsible has already done some heavy duty improvement at Horseshoe; perhaps they just decided to move on to another BMC crag?

In reply to Ban1:

It's incorrect to say that the BMC hasn't taken action. The website says "The individual responsible has been identified and requested to desist. He has agreed to do so."

At the Peak Area meeting I asked if there were any plans to seek restitution from the perpetrator and was told no. Whilst he could be asked to carry out restoration works I got the impression they would rather he kept well away from the place.

A legal claim for damages isn't appropriate. Legal action is very expensive and any reputable lawyer will advise that is only to be entered into as a last resort. It's difficult to see what financial loss the BMC has suffered to form the basis of a claim. It would be difficult to show that the market value of the land has been reduced. Whilst its attractiveness as a climbing venue may have been affected, it isn't being run as a commercial operation so there's no financial loss there. Much of what has been done isn't capable of being remedied (except by nature over many years), and much of the tidying-up is being carried out by volunteers.

I would be surprised if the actual cost of this is to the BMC is more than a few hundred pounds, or a few thousand at most. In the context of court claims, that is a trivial amount. To spend tens of thousands of pounds to pursue legal action against an individual to recover only a fraction of that sum would be serious misuse of BMC funds. Whilst the winner gets some of their legal costs paid by the loser there are always some costs which aren't recoverable. This assumes he has the means to pay damages and costs in the first place.

If he were still persisting in his actions then the BMC could seek an injunction to keep him away, but that seems to have been achieved already without needing to go to law.

Criminal damage is an entirely different matter and one for the police. However it is clear that the perpetrator believed he was improving the crag and it would be difficult to show criminal intent.

In reply to Howard J:







A sensible and measured response.

However, maybe 'outing' who the missguided idiot is, may lead to a suitable level of ridicule and personal embarrassment, which might prove to be a far greater deterrent to any future crag landscaping aspirations they may have, than a slap on the wrist behind closed doors?

In reply to Andy Say:
You're an area BMC national council rep and I'm just a volunteer and a regular at Peak Area meets. As you are someone who provides an organisational steer within the current governance arrangements I sometimes I wonder how you can square your comments here with that role. You know full well there is all sorts of confidential information handled by the organisation (like any other) and that's sometimes what some people seem to want to know and then there are things the BMC choose to not share after taking democratic, legal and organisational soundings (like this guy's name). So the BMC can't be as transparent as some want despite childish or naive requests, sometimes by rules and sometimes because that was the decision following process. Sure the governance review probably won't change what can be made transparemt that much but it might make the reasoning on what can and cannot be transparent clearer (so I could just point to a definition rather than try and explain from what I know).

Another point that facinates me with obsessions to name and shame private individuals is some of those most obsessed with such punishment often have their have their own dark secrets. I still think its bad to expose them but when they are hoist on their own petard the dark humour doesn't escape me.

In reply to Howard J:

Why was rock taken originally to create Aldery? Large amounts of rock have been removed that may or may not have a commercial value, as have amounts of timber. Realistically I don't really have an idea of the commercial value of limestone or the timber, it may only cover the overheads of removal, but to say the land owners have not suffered financial loss may not be strictly correct.

In reply to Offwidth:


Agreed. There will always be limitations to the infomation that can be revealed at any point in time. That's why I used the phrase ' The operations of the BMC can be as transparent as they like right now without a structural review.' It's when you get something like a 'Climb Britain' fiasco that the value of open discussion and debate becomes evident though!

In reply to Wayne S:


But taken to its logical conclusion that would actually be an accusation of theft, a criminal offence, rather than suing for damages for losses incurred. The test there may well be different and could revolve around pecuniary gain by the perpetrator rather than loss by the victim?

In reply to Andy Say:

Maybe they need to improve Tremadog, the Wiltons and Crookrise for the full set! Are you suggesting the individual has carried out work at Horseshoe since being asked to refrain from work at Aldery?

In reply to Wayne S:


No, the Horseshoe rock-clearing and first ascents were a decade or so ago (and I don't think anyone has any objection to them, given the nature of Horseshoe).

In reply to Wayne S:

To answer your last question first - No.
As to the full set - are you forgetting the mighty Craig y Longridge? I believe there's some rubbish down in Kent as well.....

In reply to Coel Hellier:

That's a relief. Sounded for a moment like we had a serial kleaner on our hands. Interviews with his neighbours about how he kept himself to himself. Police finding stashes of crowbars and spades, pictures of Aldery all over a wall.........Jack the stripper.

In reply to Wayne S:
First, I should give the usual caveat that I am not a lawyer, but I am a professional land and property manager and have some knowledge of the law and the practicalities of dealing with unwanted actions by third parties.

I believe the question would be, if the vigilante had not removed the rock would the landowner have been able to exploit it commercially? Since the BMC acquired Aldery specifically to preserve it for climbing and would never exploit it commercially then it has suffered no financial loss.

In commercial terms the amount of rock removed is small, especially after allowing for the costs of removal, and certainly not worth suing for. If the vigilante has sold the stone and timber then theft might be an issue, but again there is the question of criminal intent. However misguided he may have been, the vigilante believed he was improving the crag and wasn't doing it for personal gain.

The BMC had plans to carry out maintenance work itself, so some of the work might have been carried out by the BMC anyway, but the vigilante has gone far beyond what was planned. However it could be argued that he has saved the BMC the cost of its intended maintenance works.

It is a natural reaction to want to teach this person a lesson and make him face the consequences of his actions. However the legal remedies are probably limited, and not worth the cost of going to court. Besides, we should be very careful about invoking the law, whether civil or criminal. Climbers habitually trespass on others' land, and often remove rocks and vegetation to improve the climbing (although not usually on this scale). We place bolts and leave tat and other paraphernalia, and disfigure the rock with chalk. We erode pathways. This is all when we are being well-behaved - I won't go into the issues of litter and human waste, noise, damage to walls, unsocial parking or disturbance to livestock. Despite this, mostly we are tolerated by landowners, but where we are not we take umbrage as if our rights to climb outweigh those of the landowner. Looked at objectively, the climbing community is more than happy to ignore the law when it suits us, and is not in a good position to start threatening others with the law (whether civil or criminal). If the BMC were to do so we could find it would encourage other landowners to do the same. Sauce for the goose... There are plenty of good reasons for sorting this out privately, which is what the BMC is doing.

In reply to Howard J:

Can't fault the analysis or the conclusions.