[Ally Smith]

I'm starting to wonder if one of Shark's minion's, in collaboration with Alan James, placed that bolt during 'a quiet week for news'.

Guilty as charged 

[shark]

Nah... As an outsider, very much pro-Sport. I cannot see any justification to bolt something which can be easily protected, where gear can be easily recovered by a short Abseil, on the basis that there used to be a peg/stake of dubious reliability. Why were people using a dodgy stake anyway, if abing to recover gear was straightforward? A 20m buttress? Less than half a rope? And I see from Rockfax that it's not overhanging above, correct?
 Is it possible to ab in an stand safely in the cave (attached to ab rope, not off belay)?

It's not quite as simple as that.

• The top of the crag is pretty chossy so abbing into the cave invariably involves knocking stuff down onto the ground below (and anyone down there)

This is a much overstated "fact". I saw someone abb off the top recently and they didn't knock anything down.

Was this Johnny "Ninja" Brown ?

I've seen him walk on rice paper and not leave a trace.

Fact.

[dave]

Wasn't close enough to see, kinda looked like that fit bird who used to knock about the plantation.

[Johnny Brown]

Galpinos meets Dave:

[Offwidth]

It's not a blame game. I pointed out the obvious - that the routes go to the top but the various editions and versions of the guidebook(s) make it clear there's a common HVS cop-out.....

In this context, the more people who just climb to the ledge, following a suggestion that it makes a good HVS to there, the more demand there's likely to be for a solid retreat anchor. Skip forward in time and a commonly-used lump of iron anchor dissapears and someone thinks there should be something equally 'ferrous' and solid to replace it. Is this really any surprise?!

I'm starting to wonder if one of Shark's minion's, in collaboration with Alan James, placed that bolt during 'a quiet week for news'.

Guidebooks guide. In your place I would have mentioned the 7a. The routes are good, they are not cop-outs (the HVS physical challenge is arguably bigger than the E2/3 challenge for respective leaders of those grades) and they are not really commonly ascended.

It may be inevitable that pressure for inclusion of a safe replacement anchor builds a little and one day the wedge might even get a millimeter thicker and sway the BMC area meet on a specific like-for-like replacement basis, under the rules, but that won't be anytime soon and may never happen. The rogue bolts I'm aware of go in and get quickly removed roughly biennially in the peak (normally on the top of crags). We also have bolts on top of popular pinnacles that are not really needed. Yet the BMC area debates are honest,  robust and well informed (this isn't the first time someone made a detour to suss things out on the day and it was JB who pointed out that several UKC folk did ask for it to stay). Hiding things to counter demographic changes in the ethics of the climbing population I think is unhelpful and may even be counterproductive (that was part of the market edge Rockfax used when they started... pushing back against a rigid establishment).

[galpinos]

This is a much overstated "fact". I saw someone abb off the top recently and they didn't knock anything down.

I'm happy to be corrected. Last time I was there (a couple of years ago) there was a fair bit of loose stuff around prone to be knocked by a rope. Maybe this is no longer the case.

Galpinos meets Dave:

That seems a bit rough on Dave!

[Offwidth]

The top is loose yet it is nothing like as bad as the finish of  Brixton Road, over to the left, which is on a scree slope and VD leaders deal with that and the risk to the second (especially of rope dislodged crap: I challenge a roped pair to climb that and not knock anything down). As Dave says HVS leaders should be fine, despite some additional 007 options.

[petejh]

Guidebooks guide. In your place I would have mentioned the 7a. The routes are good, they are not cop-outs (the HVS physical challenge is arguably bigger than the E2/3 challenge for respective leaders of those grades) and they are not really commonly ascended.

It may be inevitable that pressure for inclusion of a safe replacement anchor builds a little and one day the wedge might even get a millimeter thicker and sway the BMC area meet on a specific like-for-like replacement basis, under the rules, but that won't be anytime soon and may never happen. The rogue bolts I'm aware of go in and get quickly removed roughly biennially in the peak (normally on the top of crags). We also have bolts on top of popular pinnacles that are not really needed. Yet the BMC area debates are honest,  robust and well informed (this isn't the first time someone made a detour to suss things out on the day and it was JB who pointed out that several UKC folk did ask for it to stay). Hiding things to counter demographic changes in the ethics of the climbing population I think is unhelpful and may even be counterproductive (that was part of the market edge Rockfax used when they started... pushing back against a rigid establishment).

You misunderstood - I did include the 7a+ version (it's ace). My point being that almost nobody going to the diamond would have thought to have climbed halfway up WOtEL without the guide making the suggestion that it works well as a grade 'abc' instead of an 'xyz'. There's nothing in the rest of your your post that I disagree with.

All I'm pointing out is what should be obvious to anyone - that if you mention in the guidebook that an unpopular E2/3/5, which until recently had an in-situ midway anchor, makes a great HVS to mid-way, then it shouldn't be surprising when people climb it to midway and then want the least faffy way off - e.g. a reliable fixed bail anchor. I'm not saying thy're right, I'm just saying it's a totally inevitable outcome of describing the route in this way with people being the way they are. So seeing as it's inevitable, maybe a more sensible approach than going through the whole trad-grit-angst-ethical hero palava would be to either:
a. accept a solid in-situ anchor as the inevitable consequence of encouraging not topping out 25m trad pitches,
or
b. in the next edition, describe the routes topping out and make no mention of bailing from halfway. That would reduce the numbers considering it in the first place and also give a more unambiguous message ergo less justification to anyone considering bolting it. 
People can argue 'till they're blue in the face about leaving gear and abbing and such, it's a separate (but closely related) issue.

See Road Runner on Lundy for a similar example (minus the cave): http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=32324 . A VS to half-way and a less commonly-climbed E3 to top out, although many do. Described in the guide as such. With a garbage-collection mid-height anchor you can see from miles away.
 

[rich d]

Now chopped according to UKC. 

[danm]

Yep. Went today, there are 2 stubs left, one solid and one wobbly. Solid one is good enough to clove hitch a sling to and ab from, you still need to go around and ab from the top if you don't want to do the top pitches though and not leave any gear behind.

[slackline]

At least things haven't got this bad...

[Muenchener]

I could go one better than that: saw a similar setup in Austria last week, but in a nice location on non-quarried rock. And the bolt-ons were blue instead of vaguely rock-coloured.

But I found the whole thing too  to take a picture.

[SA Chris]

I've seen it at quite a few of the "ecole" crags in France too.