Quote from: gme on April 20, 2020, 05:40:04 pmI 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.
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.
"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?
Is there CPS guidance Alex? Or are you referring to the National Police Chiefs Council guidance?
To be lawful you have to have both a "need" to undertake the activity and for it to be "reasonable".
Shark will hopefully come along to explain, but he received the article very positively
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".
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..."
The bmc have a live q and a with Dave Turnbull tomorrow on their fbhttps://www.facebook.com/381399730827/posts/10159525235905828/
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 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
The majority of the climbing population is thick as pig shit when it comes to access agreements.
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.