[Sidehaas]

New BMC article out today :
https://thebmc.co.uk/can-i-drive-to-go-walking-or-climbing

[abarro81]

"The best advice is simply to follow the regulations" - to write this, in an article that claims to be about investigating what the regulations mean, is pretty dumb  . That's not to say I'd have written a better article, just that the article is pointless, and poorly written. Surely the BMC can do better, or just not bother  . Do they not have any cynical muthafuckas to proof read this stuff?

[old cheese]

I don’t want to discuss the old topic anymore. In my mind we are all pretty much in agreement and 99% of climbers are now not climbing.

We need to turn the whole subject in to one of how we can get back outside as soon as possible and get our official body to support and push those ideas forward.

Climbing is allowed again in Austria now, so long as you are with people from your household and maintain sensible distance from other people. As I understand it, the government asked sports associations to draw up guidelines for a gradual return to normal practice.

https://www.bergsteigen.com/news/neuigkeiten/klettern-klettersteiggehen-und-auf-skitouren-waehrend-der-corona-krise/

I guess the UK is a few weeks or a month behind Austria, so hopefully not too long to wait now.

Climbing probably has much more mainstream understanding, coverage and impacts upon the economy  in Austria so I wouldn’t be surprised if the BMC were several weeks behind them.

[abarro81]

"The best advice is simply to follow the regulations" - to write this, in an article that claims to be about investigating what the regulations mean, is pretty dumb  . That's not to say I'd have written a better article, just that the article is pointless, and poorly written. Surely the BMC can do better, or just not bother  . Do they not have any cynical muthafuckas to proof read this stuff?

Actually, I just read the BMC article again
"This new information from the College of Policing doesn’t give us the lawful right to drive to the crag or nearest mountain to climb or walk. This would be defined as unreasonable. " - why the absolutist statement, when the CPS guidance is vague? I take it back, I would have written a better article, this one is wank

[Johnny Brown]

Agreed, increasingly disappointed in the BMC response. Someone a few pages back suggested as an access rep I'd be party to some discussion or some such with them; I've had no communication whatsoever. Not surprising when the relevant access officer - the one who deals with on the ground issues in England - has been furloughed!

[ali k]

To be fair to the BMC I guess they can’t advocate going out climbing again in the current circumstances. But given the inconsistencies around the police guidance I do agree that the article should probably have been left unpublished, in that it doesn’t further the debate in any meaningful way.

[Stu Littlefair]

Is there CPS guidance Alex? Or are you referring to the National Police Chiefs Council guidance?

The absolutist statement is a bit much, I agree, but it's not really saying any more than Ru posted about 30 pages back. To be lawful you have to have both a "need" to undertake the activity and for it to be "reasonable". Ru's position - paraphrased - is that the crown and the police are unlikely to conclude driving to a crag is necessary or reasonable, if you could have gone for a walk from your front door.

Sadly, that probably is the legal position right now, although whether you could get away with it is a separate question entirely. I'm not sure the BMC could/should be saying anything different, but the article could have done with a "probably" in that sentence somewhere...

I agree with everything posted above about what should be happening now; someone should be trying to draw up clear guidelines as to how we can get out climbing as soon as possible. What should best practice look like? How serious is the risk of transmission from parties sharing a crag? Armed with that information, the BMC can start arguing to the relevant bodies and landowners that climbing is "reasonable".

[petejh]

Stu the guidance is ‘endorsed’ or some such by the CPS. Ru can explain better.

It’s a really poor article that preaches to the converted and does nothing at all to alter the opinions of anyone else.

JB - from conversations I had the day before yesterday from somebody who knows, it sounds like there are serious concerns by some BMC staff over who got furloughed and who didn’t and which has left access reps in a difficult position; and leadership during CV due to personal issues.

Coronavirus represents the biggest access issue climbers have faced in generations. This isn’t the time to be having access reps off work but keeping on advertising and ‘writing’ staff. People on here and elsewhere love to pick apart decision-making of those involved in governing. I think they would do well to direct some of their focus on the decision-making of the BMC in this situation. We are climbers and hill walkers after all who want to go climbing and hill walking; not opposition MPs even though Offwidth may dream.

[Johnny Brown]

Agree. We need to be testing and tracing, identifying the most significant environments for transmission and concentrating on them while lifting restrictions on low risk activities. The updated police guidance is clearly part of this process so it's bizarre to see them arguing against it. As well as ignoring the significant proportion of their members who live close to hills and crags (except in Wales). Feels like they're trying to do the job of government rather than represent their users.

The paragraph about them campaigning against the hill closures in Wales seems completely at odds with the rest of the piece. Stay at home, stay at home, the hills are closed but we'd prefer they weren't but even so you shouldn't go anyway?

[Stu Littlefair]

I see what you mean about the CPS pete. That does muddle things. Now agree that article shouldn't have been published.

Can't believe the access rep has been furloughed. With all the issues with landowners padlocking rights of way etc I'd have thought they'd be doubling down in this area. Odd decision.

[petejh]

One other thing.

Upland Wales has most certainly not ‘been closed’. This is utter BS sorry. Go and look on the Snowdonia national park website and there is a link to a pdf map showing the extent of footpath closures. It’s the areas around Snowdon and Cadair Idris. There are huge areas of upland open, I’ve been walking some of it.

[Will Hunt]

Shark will hopefully come along to explain, but he received the article very positively (and was agitating for something like it a few days ago on his BMC Watch Facebook page).

[abarro81]

Is there CPS guidance Alex? Or are you referring to the National Police Chiefs Council guidance?

The NPCC stuff, but in its intro it says "CPS have produced a really useful practical guide as to what might and what might not constitute a ‘reasonable excuse’. They have kindly allowed us to reproduce this to help officers"

To be lawful you have to have both a "need" to undertake the activity and for it to be "reasonable".

We're very much into semantics here, but I think you only need to prove it's reasonable, since that's the key wording, ("During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.") and exercise is defined as a "need" in the list of examples in the regs,
"a reasonable excuse includes the need -
a) to...
b) to..."
Some of the regs are clearly not "needs" (we're into a philiosphical death trap on "needs", so it would presumably make sense not to have to demonstrate "need", you just have to demonstrate a reasonably excuse...)

Shark will hopefully come along to explain, but he received the article very positively

You might think that an article like this was needed, but this article is crap.

[ashtond6]

BMC furloughing access reps whilst one of the main defenses of their strategy is that Coronavirus creates huge access issues... you couldn't make it up!
 

I am still left wondering when the BMC are gonna stop taking publicly issued government guidelines & publishing them in a much firmer stance. 

[shark]

I’m exasperated and disappointed by the lack of public output and leadership during this crisis and posted that criticism on the BMC Watch FB page. I would have expected regular statements or videos from the CEO and President on these issues.

I’m glad something has finally emerged but the whole public handling and output of this is really poor to date.

[Paul B]

I agree with everything posted above about what should be happening now; someone should be trying to draw up clear guidelines as to how we can get out climbing as soon as possible. What should best practice look like? How serious is the risk of transmission from parties sharing a crag? Armed with that information, the BMC can start arguing to the relevant bodies and landowners that climbing is "reasonable".

From Pete's posts, local (), open access land would seem like the best initial candidates?

[Stu Littlefair]

We're very much into semantics here, but I think you only need to prove it's reasonable, since that's the key wording, ("During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.") and exercise is defined as a "need" in the list of examples in the regs,
"a reasonable excuse includes the need -
a) to...
b) to..."

Law is semantics, isn't it? I interpret the law as saying that, to have a reasonable excuse, you have to "need to exercise", and the exercise itself must be reasonable. I agree with all your hair splitting, but at the end of the day it boils down to whether the CPS, and then the judge, decide you had that need*, and satisfied it reasonably.

That's why it makes a big difference that the guidance about travelling to exercise came originally from the CPS, which I had missed. It means the statements in that article about legality are probably bunkum, as I understand it.

*_{for example, you are unlikely to convince the CPS you had a need to exercise if you'd already been for three runs and a bike ride that day.}

[abarro81]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/regulation/6/made

You just have to show it's reasonable, the word "need" only appears in the examples list, which presumably is non-exhaustive. If you have to prove that you need to do something then whoever wrote the draft should be kicked in the balls really fuckin hard, since need is the most arbitrary bollocks ever. It makes "reasonable" look reasonable.  I guess we can lump "need" in under reasonable anyway and make all my objections go away. No wonder I always tell Ella that the law is a crock of shit.

[Duma]

The bmc have a live q and a with Dave Turnbull tomorrow on their fb
https://www.facebook.com/381399730827/posts/10159525235905828/

[lurcher]

As others have said not a great article.  Not really any less confusing than the guidelines and advice that it (not always correctly references) and doesn't set out much if anything for ways forward.

It also says that other representative bodies eg surfing canoeing etc have told members to stop their activities.  Not that most surfers would pay much attention to what surf england say i'm sure.... but their advice is that their 'preference' is for people to stay out of the water.

[shark]

The bmc have a live q and a with Dave Turnbull tomorrow on their fb
https://www.facebook.com/381399730827/posts/10159525235905828/

Dave started at the BMC as an Access rep and is directly in charge of the Access team so this is great opportunity to get things from the horses mouth

[Will Hunt]

This was quite an annoying thread split.

Anything the BMC comes out with has to be taken with a pinch of salt. That pinch is that the access guidance that appears on the RAD and in official communications is often different from the advice that might be given verbally in the pub.
The majority of the climbing population is thick as pig shit when it comes to access agreements. If the BMC tells people they can exercise reasonably (compliant with the law) then 85k people will immediately be at Almscliff. The only other way to give a position which won't get shot down for getting confusing or inconsistent is to apply blanket guidance.

So I can see why the BMC guidance is what it is, but what annoys me is threats from other climbers (see Shark on his conspiracy theory Facebook group) to "haul me over the coals" if he should find out that I went and did some limited climbing in a reasonable and thought out manner.

[shark]

This was quite an annoying thread split.
So I can see why the BMC guidance is what it is, but what annoys me is threats from other climbers (see Shark on his conspiracy theory Facebook group) to "haul me over the coals" if he should find out that I went and did some limited climbing in a reasonable and thought out manner.

What I actually said

What the BMC can state publicly is constrained by many factors and as an organisation it is best to pick fights selectively and as a final option.
Whether you chose to climb locally, out of sight, without impact or risk of transmission is an individual choice and your conscience at this juncture.
Similar to wild camping / dossing in the Peak if done under the radar. However, don’t be surprised if other climbers haul you over the coals if they find out

It was a friendly warning to save you grief. Personally I’m not going to have a pop but it would be naive of you to think that others wouldn’t.

In addition to say that they were ‘cunts’ if they did so was inappropriate language for that FB group which is why I removed your comment

[Johnny Brown]

The majority of the climbing population is thick as pig shit when it comes to access agreements.

Evidence? Sorry but this is nonsense. We have an excellent track record of delivering successful access agreements in difficult circumstances, often despite popular opinion saying it can't be done.

Granted, there is a significant minority who have little understanding of who the BMC are and are difficult to reach directly, but that's where the networks inherent in our culture come in. Again, the track record is good and that's what the BMC should be saying. Whereas what I'm hearing is we can't be trusted and its dangerous as shit anyway.

[abarro81]

I fear that anyone doing anything fun that's not explicitly mentioned by Supreme Leader Bojo is liable to get hauled over the coals on social media at the moment. I know some people who think this has brought the country together, perhaps I'm in the minority in thinking that it's reinforced to me that most people are stupid dicks (myself included).

Also, you don't need to write a shit article to say "we don't think that you should be driving to go climbing at the moment", you could just say that. For one thing it would save my cortisol levels from getting up and ruining all the GAINZ from my morning session.

Granted, there is a significant minority who have little understanding of who the BMC are and are difficult to reach directly, but that's where the networks inherent in our culture come in. Again, the track record is good and that's what the BMC should be saying. Whereas what I'm hearing is we can't be trusted and its dangerous as shit anyway.

My working assumption is that a return to climbing will be done freeform by the community, without much useful input from the BMC