[lurcher]

Someone on Bamford facebook asked the police about driving/walking.

I've got one of the replies from the police contact centre in front of me, it says:

'essentially you can drive to the countryside to take a walk. But if drive is 25 miles and walk half an hour then not allowed. If the drive is 10mins and the walk is an hour that's fine..'

make of that what you will!

[mrjonathanr]

I'm going to need a faster car.

[T_B]

Many of the outdoor honeypots are full of day trippers, not BMC members. Just folk turning up, milling around and walking on popular footpaths around Edale, Snowdon etc. They can stay at home as far as I’m concerned whilst the BMC should represent the interests of climbers, hill walkers etc.

 

That attitude (fuck the general public, we want to go climbing) will do us absolutely no favours.

the BMC are unlikely to propose everyone else staying at home while we get to do what we want...

They’re supposed to be representing the interests of hill walkers, mountaineers and climbers, not the general public.

[kelvin]

Same advice here too - so plenty of people are driving here and there to walk their dogs.

[spidermonkey09]

Many of the outdoor honeypots are full of day trippers, not BMC members. Just folk turning up, milling around and walking on popular footpaths around Edale, Snowdon etc. They can stay at home as far as I’m concerned whilst the BMC should represent the interests of climbers, hill walkers etc.

 

That attitude (fuck the general public, we want to go climbing) will do us absolutely no favours.

the BMC are unlikely to propose everyone else staying at home while we get to do what we want...

They’re supposed to be representing the interests of hill walkers, mountaineers and climbers, not the general public.

The argument has no logic. Our interests are fundamentally the same as the general public, namely more freedom when the time is right. Your implication seemed to be that the BMC should be lobbying for members preferential access to the hills and crags over more casual users. in any case, turning up and milling around basically describes going out bouldering!

[ali k]

"Coronavirus: 'Country trips should be banned' after police lockdown guidance changes"

Rural groups campaigning to make the above happen.

I can’t see this gaining any traction. Leaving climbing aside for a minute, the updated police guidance gives a pretty clear green light that it’s ok to drive out to the country to exercise (with certain caveats), as far as your average day tripper is concerned. It would be seen as too much of a monumental U-turn / political minefield for Jenrick, Patel, or the NPCC to try and explain why it’s now decided it isn’t ok given the existence of that guidance document, I would have thought?

[36chambers]

Did when ever come to a conclusion how long you'd have to wait to get on something if someone else had been on it previously?

[petejh]

Many of the outdoor honeypots are full of day trippers, not BMC members. Just folk turning up, milling around and walking on popular footpaths around Edale, Snowdon etc. They can stay at home as far as I’m concerned whilst the BMC should represent the interests of climbers, hill walkers etc.

 

That attitude (fuck the general public, we want to go climbing) will do us absolutely no favours.

the BMC are unlikely to propose everyone else staying at home while we get to do what we want...

They’re supposed to be representing the interests of hill walkers, mountaineers and climbers, not the general public.

The argument has no logic. Our interests are fundamentally the same as the general public, namely more freedom when the time is right. Your implication seemed to be that the BMC should be lobbying for members preferential access to the hills and crags over more casual users. in any case, turning up and milling around basically describes going out bouldering!

The general public don't pay to fund a representative body that exists to defend their interests to go climbing, hill-walking and mountaineering. That's the reason for the existence of the BMC! It should make suggestions for best practice, but it should not tell its members what to do or not to do.

As others on here have said, the BMC should be representing us by looking for solutions to the issues of how we enjoy the hills and crags within the constraints of the current gov guidance - guidance which suggests that enjoying exercise in the hills is not strictly off-limits. Obviously in ways that acknowledge and attempt to mitigate the risks of covid transmission and of poor public perception of climbers and hill-walkers. It should do this as soon as possible. And it should be communicating those suggestions to its members. Anything less than that is a failure of its duty to its members.

The BMC is currently failing in its duty to its members by:
1. furloughing access workers while retaining other roles which are not as important to its members,
2. total failure of communication from leadership to members on plans to look at solutions, 
3. publishing articles of poor quality explaining its stance on covid-19 and access.

If it can't fulfil its purpose it should be ripped up and start again with a body that does represent its members.

[abarro81]

Pretty brutal, but I can't disagree with any of it

[mrjonathanr]

I wouldn't just pile on the BMC here, this issue is very tricky, especially the gap between what might reasonably be accepted and what can be proposed in a public statement. There may even be a strategy of restraint being the best starting place if you want to be heeded when arguing for more freedom further down the line.

They do need to up their game though, I can't argue with those three points.

[spidermonkey09]

Many of the outdoor honeypots are full of day trippers, not BMC members. Just folk turning up, milling around and walking on popular footpaths around Edale, Snowdon etc. They can stay at home as far as I’m concerned whilst the BMC should represent the interests of climbers, hill walkers etc.

 

That attitude (fuck the general public, we want to go climbing) will do us absolutely no favours.

the BMC are unlikely to propose everyone else staying at home while we get to do what we want...

They’re supposed to be representing the interests of hill walkers, mountaineers and climbers, not the general public.

The argument has no logic. Our interests are fundamentally the same as the general public, namely more freedom when the time is right. Your implication seemed to be that the BMC should be lobbying for members preferential access to the hills and crags over more casual users. in any case, turning up and milling around basically describes going out bouldering!

The general public don't pay to fund a representative body that exists to defend their interests to go climbing, hill-walking and mountaineering. That's the reason for the existence of the BMC! It should make suggestions for best practice, but it should not tell its members what to do or not to do.

As others on here have said, the BMC should be representing us by looking for solutions to the issues of how we enjoy the hills and crags within the constraints of the current gov guidance - guidance which suggests that enjoying exercise in the hills is not strictly off-limits. Obviously in ways that acknowledge and attempt to mitigate the risks of covid transmission and of poor public perception of climbers and hill-walkers. It should do this as soon as possible. And it should be communicating those suggestions to its members. Anything less than that is a failure of its duty to its members.

The BMC is currently failing in its duty to its members by:
1. furloughing access workers while retaining other roles which are not as important to its members,
2. total failure of communication from leadership to members on plans to look at solutions, 
3. publishing articles of poor quality explaining its stance on covid-19 and access.

If it can't fulfil its purpose it should be ripped up and start again with a body that does represent its members.

I don't disagree with any of that, with the caveats laid out by jonathanr above.

I particularly agree with the first 3/4 of your second paragraph. The point I was making, in opposition to the point TB seemed to be making , was that clearly our access is no more important than anyone else's.

I hope that Dave Turnbull starts to set out graduated plans for a return to climbing tomorrow. Would encourage everyone to comment on the FB post with a similar question so it doesn't get missed/ignored.

[spidermonkey09]

Did when ever come to a conclusion how long you'd have to wait to get on something if someone else had been on it previously?

Good question. Palmer or saltbeef might know? Obviously quite key as without this no guidelines can be drawn up. Could it be mitigated by carrying hand wash for after each go?

[36chambers]

Did we ever come to a conclusion about how long you'd have to wait to get on something if someone else had been on it previously?

Good question. Palmer or saltbeef might know? Obviously quite key as without this no guidelines can be drawn up. Could it be mitigated by carrying hand wash for after each go?

Eugh. I need to start paying more attention when I'm typing shit.

[abarro81]

Austria and Germany are climbing so clearly not everyone thinks you need a definite answer to that question to put together some sensible suggestions for what to do. Obviously would be better if you did know

[spidermonkey09]

True

[SA Chris]

Could it be mitigated by carrying hand wash for after each go?

before and after?

[Will Hunt]

Quite an important point is what Ru pointed out. Until there is (I doubt there ever will be) some established case law as to what is and what isn't deemed reasonable by the police, there's no way that the BMC can give any advice about what might be acceptable without putting their members at risk of prosecution.

[Bradders]

The general public don't pay to fund a representative body that exists to defend their interests to go climbing, hill-walking and mountaineering. That's the reason for the existence of the BMC! It should make suggestions for best practice, but it should not tell its members what to do or not to do.

I don't disagree with your 3 points, but arguably they have made a suggestion of best practice; don't go climbing.

As Spidermonkey alluded to, all other interests are effectively on hold now, especially those which are entirely recreational. Our singular interest should be to stop the virus spreading, and going about our lives in such a way as to achieve that as quickly as possible. I do not believe that anyone needs to go climbing as the sole method of exercising, especially not for a relatively short period of time. It's therefore neither legal (as it doesn't pass the reasonable test for me) nor moral to do so until the virus has been stopped. Whilst the BMC message has been poorly communicated, they've still made that central point at least.

Walking is different - I think they've got that wrong based on the Police guidance. But I don't give two shits about walking.

[Coops_13]

In Colorado the 'stay at home' order expires on 26th April and we're moving to a 'safer at home' order to allow some business to re-commence operation. It's entirely work focused and doesn't mention exercise but I imagine we'll see increase exercise outdoors after then (still some people climbing here)

[petejh]

Quite an important point is what Ru pointed out. Until there is (I doubt there ever will be) some established case law as to what is and what isn't deemed reasonable by the police, there's no way that the BMC can give any advice about what might be acceptable without putting their members at risk of prosecution.

This is true. However by similar  logic neither do the BMC need to state that nobody should be climbing.

They could instead make a statement which acknowledges the vagaries of the guidance, and suggests that climbing/hillwalking in the current situation - unless you are very confident of your circumstances - might if you’re unlucky land yourself on the wrong side of the law. With the ‘recommendation’ that people stay away from the crags and hills.
And leave it for individuals to make their own decisions.

Nor do the BMC need to double down on their original absolutist position with a poor article that misrepresents what the CPS/police guidance actually states.

Also. If climbers *have* been fined by police and the BMC are aware of this, then again this should be communicated. There’s hearsay of this happening, in a personal FB post by a BMC access rep but if this is true then the BMC would be doing its members a service by communicating on this properly.

They could even, if they wanted, communicate under what circumstances they believe climbing could take place in the near future, and communicate what they are doing to push for this to happen.

None of the above would be risky for the BMC as far as I can tell.

Ru laid out in his post pretty much all you need to know about where we likely stand in the eyes of the law. His UKB post is better communication than anything the BMC have put out on covid. I find this unacceptably unprofessional by the BMC.

[Will Hunt]

Our singular interest should be to stop the virus spreading, and going about our lives in such a way as to achieve that as quickly as possible. I do not believe that anyone needs to go climbing as the sole method of exercising, especially not for a relatively short period of time. It's therefore neither legal (as it doesn't pass the reasonable test for me) nor moral to do so until the virus has been stopped. Whilst the BMC message has been poorly communicated, they've still made that central point at least.

I think everybody here agrees with the first sentence. The issue is to figure out which bits of normal life can proceed without significant increased risk. Because why outlaw something if it doesn't significantly threaten our combating of the virus and its spread? I could say that you shouldn't use your nice new board because it increases your risk of injury. You don't need to use it.

[teestub]

In Colorado the 'stay at home' order expires on 26th April and we're moving to a 'safer at home' order to allow some business to re-commence operation. It's entirely work focused and doesn't mention exercise but I imagine we'll see increase exercise outdoors after then (still some people climbing here)

All those Karens who were protesting in Denver want their haircuts!

[Bradders]

I could say that you shouldn't use your nice new board because it increases your risk of injury. You don't need to use it.

It might be immoral (and if it's wrong I don't want to be right), but it's clearly not illegal, there's the difference

[gme]

Chris boardman has just been on the BBC very much supporting cyclists, including those doing big rides as long as they are prepared, go door to door and have the ability to be collected if they have a mechanical.

Whilst I think he was speaking in a non official capacity he is a policy advisor to British cycling.

This is the type of thing the BMC need to be doing.

[abarro81]

Bradders - I find your last couple of posts hard work because you jump between what's legal and what's moral too easily. Also, we've done these arguments to death before and it's the same old ground. I'll do them once more, then let's stick to the BMC on this thread.

all other interests are effectively on hold now, especially those which are entirely recreational.
This isn't true - I take it you've not been outside and seen the runners, walkers, rollerbladers and cyclists? Plenty of businesses still operating in some capacity even when it requires some travel etc too, and is non-essential. 

Our singular interest should be to stop the virus spreading, and going about our lives in such a way as to achieve that as quickly as possible.
Is this a moral or a government-related thing? I suspect most of us agree with this notionally, but I can't say I know anyone who can honestly say they've conformed to this, and the gov guidelines don't aim for it. (I presume you've not left your house/garden more than for, say, 2 shopping trips since the lockdown began?) At which point we're leaving absolutes and into working out what's significant and what's noise on the probability of injury or virus transmission.

I do not believe that anyone needs to go climbing as the sole method of exercising,
Nobody needs to do anything. I've had this semantics discussion with Stu already.

It's therefore neither legal
Speculation.

nor moral to do so
We've long since established that at least 2 of the regular posters on here could go climbing with as much moral justification as anyone going out walking.

Here's the bit that's relevant for the thread:

Whilst the BMC message has been poorly communicated, they've still made that central point at least.

They've misrepresented the police guidance and added nothing to the debate about legality, in an article about interpreting the guidance. I'd say on the central point the article was a total fuck up. If they wanted to write about the morality of going climbing that's ok, though I think they should keep that to something which is explicitly an opinion piece not an official statement/article - the BMC has no moral authority over climbers, this isn't the Catholic Church. They could also have published something saying "Our advice is don't drive to go climbing, because it may be something you get fined for, and we think it will make access negotiations harder. We're working on guidelines for how to climb in a socially distanced world once the lockdown has been eased somewhat, and will be communicating/consulting on these in due course."