[shark]

The applicable part of the Peak Area bolting guidance is:

Overstepping the mark
Taking into consideration these guidelines, if you see a new piece of fixed gear which you judge is unacceptable, what should you do? If you feel strongly enough and the gear is easily removed, then remove it.

As referenced in the UKC thread this is a very selective quote and ultimately wrong as it appears to relate to an initial draft:

The agreed text in the final document is:

Overstepping the mark
Taking into consideration these guidelines, if you see a new piece of fixed gear which you judge is unacceptable, what should you do? The first step is to directly contact the person that did it (if possible) to understand their actions and, if possible, reach an amicable resolution.  If this is not forthcoming and you feel strongly that these guidelines have clearly been disregarded, removal of the offending item(s) may well be justified.

The full document is here and I’ve reproduced it in full on the UKC thread which is here

Needless to say it completely undermines your contention that it supports what you did and how you did it. 

[X]

Simon, we cannot change the past.

I have been trying to make contact with you to seek a resolution for a number of days now. You have my email, I have offered to speak with you in person or online at a time that is convenient to you. Please get in touch.

[Will Hunt]

Did you not think to do that before you went and chopped a load of bolts on your own say so?

[andy popp]

Simon, we cannot change the past.

How convenient.

[Sam R]

Edit: see you all at the meeting!

[Sam R]

How convenient.

What do you mean?

[Fiend]

Simon, we cannot change the past.

Is this the past where a sport route and separate bolted belay station were placed 8 years ago - and that past has now been changed??

I have been trying to make contact with you to seek a resolution for a number of days now. You have my email, I have offered to speak with you in person or online at a time that is convenient to you. Please get in touch.

Is that a resolution to an issue you (f it was you, I don't see a denial) created by chopping 8 year old fixed gear, which from the sounds of it only had 1 bolt possibly interfering with a trad route??

It seems like the resolution should come before the action - just like with retro-bolting established trad...

[andy popp]

What do you mean?

Only that that is an awfully convenient excuse; do something that people disapprove of or are upset by and then tell them they just have to get over it because it's in the past and can't be changed.

[sherlock]

Only that that is an awfully convenient excuse; do something that people disapprove of or are upset by and then tell them they just have to get over it because it's in the past and can't be changed.
[/quote]
Sounds a bit like Brexit!

[Stabbsy]

What do you mean?

Only that that is an awfully convenient excuse; do something that people disapprove of or are upset by and then tell them they just have to get over it because it's in the past and can't be changed.

Without picking a side, we need to recognise that this argument works both ways in this case. Clearly Tony (and others) disapprove of Simon’s actions (although whether it was the Big Cigar bolting or the more recent stuff is less clear) and he disapproves enough to ab multiple times to make his statement.

[andy popp]

I could have made it clearer that my post was not about this particular case (I don't know enough to have a position) but the argument we can do something then tell people they simply have to suck it up because it's now in the past. It's disingenuous. In this instance, it happened to be Tony, not Simon, trying to use that argument.

[X]

I could have made it clearer that my post was not about this particular case (I don't know enough to have a position)

Sounds a lot like, “not being able to change the past” Andy. How’s that pot, kettle, black working out for you?

[andy popp]

Far from it: that was me taking responsibility for the fact my post could have been less ambiguous.

[Duma]

this thread has confirmed my opinion of Tony

[X]

Far from it: that was me taking responsibility for the fact my post could have been less ambiguous.

So analogous to:

When I write “we cannot change the past”, it has never been meant as an excuse. I have never tried to disclaim my own actions. I have laid them out for you to read. I would like to seek a resolution. However, what I an unable to do is go back and undo what I have done. No one can. That is what I mean by the words.

[Stabbsy]

I could have made it clearer that my post was not about this particular case (I don't know enough to have a position) but the argument we can do something then tell people they simply have to suck it up because it's now in the past. It's disingenuous. In this instance, it happened to be Tony, not Simon, trying to use that argument.

Is it any more or less disingenuous to not engage when someone clearly disapproves?

There is no extended history of new (non like-for-like) bolts being placed for free climbing on the main shield of High Tor. The vast, vast majority of bolts in place currently are-, or replaced-, aid bolts.

Moreover, I had expressed my opposition to new fixed equipment to Simon and directed him to the BMC position statements before he placed his most recent bolt. Simon did not engage with me; he has still not engaged with me.

As I have written several times, I would still like to discuss the matter with Simon to try to find a resolution. It is my hope that we could then jointly take a proposal to a Peak Area meeting.

Taking the above at face value, I'd say not engaging is similarly unhelpful - noting that I don't know the timelines or if Simon saw/read the emails. So while I don't agree with Tony's actions, I do understand his motives. Equally, I don't agree with Simon's action of placing the latest bolt, but I understand the motive to create a "better" route. The question is which set of motives are closer to fitting the interpretation of the Peak Area bolting guidelines?

I do think Tony has been unfairly criticised in both this and the UKC thread without people being willing to look beyond the actions and look at the motives - possibly because of the way he has come across in other threads. Criticise the actions by all means, but recognise that the motives (I think) are quite pure and come from a love of Peak trad lime. (Full disclosure - Tony is a friend of a friend, but I don't really know him.)

[andy popp]

When I write “we cannot change the past”, it has never been meant as an excuse. I have never tried to disclaim my own actions. I have laid them out for you to read. I would like to seek a resolution. However, what I an unable to do is go back and undo what I have done. No one can. That is what I mean by the words.

I'm not sure where this quote is from, but I'd not seen it until and am more than happy to apologise.

[X]

I'm not sure where this quote is from, but I'd not seen it until and am more than happy to apologise.

I appreciate that Andy. Thank you.

As I wrote on UKC, I appreciate that it is difficult to accurately get across meanings in the written form. That is why I have been trying to make contact with people face-to-face.

[stone]

Would a Franco-style knotted rope make everyone happy?

-only asking.

[Johnny Brown]

I do think Tony has been unfairly criticised in both this and the UKC thread without people being willing to look beyond the actions and look at the motives - possibly because of the way he has come across in other threads. Criticise the actions by all means, but recognise that the motives (I think) are quite pure and come from a love of Peak trad lime.

+1. It's easy to frame chopping as a destructive act, but it generally comes from urge to restore. But true restoration is always rendered impossible by the destructive act of bolting in the first place, often framed as creative. Both are typically equally unilateral acts.

I'd like to think Simon is capable of making a reasonable judgement here but we can all get carried away when finding new routes. I have done Decadence a few times and from memory a clippable bolt, anywhere near the start in particular, would affect it.

I do think it is worth having these debates online, as well as at area meets, as they have the most potential to reach many people and are more easily accessed in perpetuity.

[Sam R]

I think that is a balanced assessment Johnny Brown. Others should take note.

[Paul B]

I'd like to think Simon is capable of making a reasonable judgement here but we can all get carried away when finding new routes. I have done Decadence a few times and from memory a clippable bolt, anywhere near the start in particular, would affect it.

Is there a topo/markup of the existing topo kicking around for the new additions (I haven't been over to UKC)?

[X]

In chronological order

Red: Musical Women E5 6b, Pete Livesey and Pete Gomersall 1980
Green: Grimsvotn E6 6b, Crispin Waddy, 28 Jun 2024
Purple > Red > Green: Storming, Simon Lee, 5 Jul 2024 (former bolt marked as purple X)

Ignore lines 56, 57 and 58 as they are drawn incorrectly (also true in the Rockfax btw).

If anything, the initial traverse of the red line is probably shown too high. Green is probably a little bit off higher up.

[Johnny Brown]

Is 58 Decadence? Where should it be?

Was the purple bolt clippable by a stretch off the ledge?

[X]

Is 58 Decadence? Where should it be?

Starts by 59, traverses left above the low roof then follows the red line.

Was the purple bolt clippable by a stretch off the ledge?

From a step just above the ledge is my recollection but Simon would know better.