Vixen Tor access and assaults
Tom
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/news_det.asp?item_id=880
"The BMC has received a report of a serious incident at Vixen Tor,
Dartmoor on 12 September.
Climbers on the route 'Torture' had their ropes cut - while the
leader was climbing - and the belayer was physically assaulted.
Fortunately the leader managed to retreat from the climb without
injury. The climbers called the police and there were several arrests -
it is understood that the incident may lead to a criminal prosecution.
Vixen Tor was subject to a CRoW Act appeal earlier this year and there
is no formal right of access to the Tor."
Tim Jones
The whole incident sounds a real mess, it may be worth pausing to ask
why these climbers were there causing confrontation at a point when
others were working to negotiate access. Perhaps they weren't the
most sensitive and reasoning embassadors for our sport?
Regards
Tim Jones
Simon Challands
wilde...@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) wrote:
But even the most rabid anti-access advocate should realise that
attempted murder is a somewhat more serious crime (well, obviously not
all, otherwise this wouldn't have happened).
--
Simon Challands
Tim Jones
<simon_...@helvellyn.plus.com> wrote:
>But even the most rabid anti-access advocate should realise that
>attempted murder is a somewhat more serious crime (well, obviously not
>all, otherwise this wouldn't have happened).
Who mentioned attempted murder?
As far as I can see we know very few facts at present. We don't even
know who was arrested.
Is it just possible that the climbers weren't whiter than white in
this?
How about keeping an open mind until all the facts are known.
Simon Challands
wilde...@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) wrote:
Cutting the ropes someone is using to climb sounds pretty much like
that, whatever the climbers are doing. If that isn't what happened
then the whole thing was made up, and shouldn't have been posted
anyway.
--
Simon Challands
Mike Clark
You might be right that the facts as reported on the BMC website are
wrong, there may even be additional facts that do indeed change the
scenario.
However based on the statement on the BMC website which clearly says
Climbers on the route 'Torture' had their ropes cut - while the
leader was climbing - and the belayer was physically assaulted.
it looks very like a serious assault.
Perhaps you don't climb? If you do however, what would you think of the
circumstance of attempting to climb whilst your safety rope was being
cut and/or the person controlling it was being physically assualted?
--
o/ \\ // || ,_ o Mike Clark, "An antibody engineer who also
<\__,\\ // __o || / /\, likes the mountains"
"> || _`\<,_ // \\ \> | Cambridge Climbing and Caving Club
` || (_)/ (_) // \\ \_ <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/cccc/>
Tim Jones
wrote:
>In message <43289d27...@news.btinternet.com>
> wilde...@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:11:16 +0100, Simon Challands
>> <simon_...@helvellyn.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >But even the most rabid anti-access advocate should realise that
>> >attempted murder is a somewhat more serious crime (well, obviously not
>> >all, otherwise this wouldn't have happened).
>>
>> Who mentioned attempted murder?
>>
>> As far as I can see we know very few facts at present. We don't even
>> know who was arrested.
>>
>> Is it just possible that the climbers weren't whiter than white in
>> this?
>>
>> How about keeping an open mind until all the facts are known.
>
>You might be right that the facts as reported on the BMC website are
>wrong, there may even be additional facts that do indeed change the
>scenario.
>
>However based on the statement on the BMC website which clearly says
>
> Climbers on the route 'Torture' had their ropes cut - while the
> leader was climbing - and the belayer was physically assaulted.
>
>it looks very like a serious assault.
>
>Perhaps you don't climb? If you do however, what would you think of the
>circumstance of attempting to climb whilst your safety rope was being
>cut and/or the person controlling it was being physically assualted?
I do climb. In this instance I gather the climbers were asked to
leave, pretended to do so then carried on clmbing.
We all know access at Vixen Tor is subject to negotiation right now,
so I personally wouldn't have been selfish enough to jeopardise those
negotiations by trying to climb there and certainly wouldn't have
carried on climbing after being asked to leave. I can't help but feel
that these two climbers obviously weren't masters of subtlety and
could very easily have done a lot to provoke the incident.
If you knowingly climb at a venue with serious access issues you a re
surely inviting confrontation and must accept that your actions are
provocative, especially if you ignore a request to leave?
regards
Tim Jones
Peter Clinch
> I do climb. In this instance I gather the climbers were asked to
> leave, pretended to do so then carried on clmbing.
So that makes it Perfectly Justifiable to assault one person and
endanger the life of another?
> We all know access at Vixen Tor is subject to negotiation right now,
> so I personally wouldn't have been selfish enough to jeopardise those
> negotiations by trying to climb there and certainly wouldn't have
> carried on climbing after being asked to leave. I can't help but feel
> that these two climbers obviously weren't masters of subtlety and
> could very easily have done a lot to provoke the incident.
It's difficult to provoke someone to do something that could easily
cause *death* when you're either climbing a route or attached to someone
who is. You're pretty much limited to verbal communication, and if you
can provoke someone to cut a safety rope with that then you really score
-10 for Gift of the Gab when the normal minimum is 0.
> If you knowingly climb at a venue with serious access issues you a re
> surely inviting confrontation and must accept that your actions are
> provocative, especially if you ignore a request to leave?
Thobut confrontation at the level of cutting a safety rope? Think of
the ramifications of that! It's like deliberately running someone over
at speed because they spat on your car's paintwork!
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Mike Clark
wilde...@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) wrote:
I can accept that the climbers concerned /may/ have been guilty of a
civil offence, but that does not give an excuse for a criminal assault.
>
> If you knowingly climb at a venue with serious access issues you a re
> surely inviting confrontation and must accept that your actions are
> provocative, especially if you ignore a request to leave?
Yes but even in the face of provocation assaulting the individuals is
still a criminal offence, whereas trespass is usually only a civil
offence.
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
Tim Jones
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>Tim Jones wrote:
>
>> I do climb. In this instance I gather the climbers were asked to
>> leave, pretended to do so then carried on clmbing.
>
>So that makes it Perfectly Justifiable to assault one person and
>endanger the life of another?
No, but given that they weren't the sort of reasoning individuals that
follow a polite request to leave why is there so much certainty that
they didn't offer further provocation?
>> We all know access at Vixen Tor is subject to negotiation right now,
>> so I personally wouldn't have been selfish enough to jeopardise those
>> negotiations by trying to climb there and certainly wouldn't have
>> carried on climbing after being asked to leave. I can't help but feel
>> that these two climbers obviously weren't masters of subtlety and
>> could very easily have done a lot to provoke the incident.
>
>It's difficult to provoke someone to do something that could easily
>cause *death* when you're either climbing a route or attached to someone
>who is. You're pretty much limited to verbal communication, and if you
>can provoke someone to cut a safety rope with that then you really score
>-10 for Gift of the Gab when the normal minimum is 0.
I'm sure we've all met the loud foul mouthed types who would score a
10plus though, its equally true to say that most people wouldn't just
cut a rope with no provocation. The widespread assumption that the
climbers weren't in some way guilty of causing this confrontation
seems absolutely astounding to me.
>> If you knowingly climb at a venue with serious access issues you a re
>> surely inviting confrontation and must accept that your actions are
>> provocative, especially if you ignore a request to leave?
>
>Thobut confrontation at the level of cutting a safety rope? Think of
>the ramifications of that! It's like deliberately running someone over
>at speed because they spat on your car's paintwork!
And most of us have the good common snese not to spit on someones car!
Most of us would have the sense to leave when asked, something tells
me these climbers weren't the brightest or politest specimens are
sport has to offer!
Regards
Tim Jones
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> said
<snip>
>> If you knowingly climb at a venue with serious access issues you a re
>> surely inviting confrontation and must accept that your actions are
>> provocative, especially if you ignore a request to leave?
>
>Thobut confrontation at the level of cutting a safety rope? Think of
>the ramifications of that! It's like deliberately running someone over
>at speed because they spat on your car's paintwork!
That's called "road rage", and never happens of course, which is why we
don't have a specific term for it ... I can well envision 'rope rage' if
some climber was acting suitably provocatively.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.
Simon Caldwell
No it isn't. The landowners have deinied access, and the national Park
have stated that they are going to compulsoraily purchase the land. No
negotiations involved.
Mike Clark
wilde...@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:41:23 +0100, Peter Clinch
> <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Tim Jones wrote:
> >
> >> I do climb. In this instance I gather the climbers were asked to
> >> leave, pretended to do so then carried on clmbing.
> >
> >So that makes it Perfectly Justifiable to assault one person and
> >endanger the life of another?
>
> No, but given that they weren't the sort of reasoning individuals that
> follow a polite request to leave why is there so much certainty that
> they didn't offer further provocation?
>
You started by saying that we shouldn't jump to conclusions, but quite
frankly I find your extrapolations to be wildly speculative. You say
that you are a climber. Perhaps you'd like to indicate how a climber up
a rock face and his second belaying from the bottom can offer such
serious provocation that it can reasonably justify the cutting of the
ropes?
> > > We all know access at Vixen Tor is subject to negotiation right
> > > now, so I personally wouldn't have been selfish enough to
> > > jeopardise those negotiations by trying to climb there and
> > > certainly wouldn't have carried on climbing after being asked to
> > > leave. I can't help but feel that these two climbers obviously
> > > weren't masters of subtlety and could very easily have done a lot
> > > to provoke the incident.
> >
> >It's difficult to provoke someone to do something that could easily
> >cause *death* when you're either climbing a route or attached to someone
> >who is. You're pretty much limited to verbal communication, and if you
> >can provoke someone to cut a safety rope with that then you really score
> >-10 for Gift of the Gab when the normal minimum is 0.
>
> I'm sure we've all met the loud foul mouthed types who would score a
> 10plus though, its equally true to say that most people wouldn't just
> cut a rope with no provocation.
I'd hope that most people wouldn't even cut a rope with provocation.
> The widespread assumption that the climbers weren't in some way guilty
> of causing this confrontation seems absolutely astounding to me.
>
What I find astounding is that you think that assault and putting
someones life in danger is a reasonable response to a charge of civil
trespass?
Provocation or no provocation. Putting someone's life in danger is
inexcusable. It is as Pete Clinch has indicated an action as inexcusable
as someone who deliberately runs someone else over in their car because
they got in an argument with someone.
> > > If you knowingly climb at a venue with serious access issues you a
> > > re surely inviting confrontation and must accept that your actions
> > > are provocative, especially if you ignore a request to leave?
> >
> >Thobut confrontation at the level of cutting a safety rope? Think of
> >the ramifications of that! It's like deliberately running someone over
> >at speed because they spat on your car's paintwork!
>
> And most of us have the good common snese not to spit on someones car!
> Most of us would have the sense to leave when asked, something tells
> me these climbers weren't the brightest or politest specimens are
> sport has to offer!
What we also have to remember is that many of the rights we now take for
granted, for example rights of way, open access, and a right to a vote
not dependent on gender or ownership of land, have come about as a
result of civil (and sometimes criminal) disobedience and protest.
Cheers,
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
Peter Clinch
> That's called "road rage", and never happens of course, which is why we
> don't have a specific term for it ...
It happens, yes. Does that make it okay?
> I can well envision 'rope rage' if
> some climber was acting suitably provocatively.
But that still doesn't make it an appropriate and justified response
that shouldn't result in serious legal consequences.
Peter Clinch
> I'm sure we've all met the loud foul mouthed types who would score a
> 10plus though, its equally true to say that most people wouldn't just
> cut a rope with no provocation. The widespread assumption that the
> climbers weren't in some way guilty of causing this confrontation
> seems absolutely astounding to me.
What assumption? I haven't seen any such assumption, but am simply
pointing out that anything you can manage in the way of provocation
while climbing a rock or belaying someone doing so doesn't really
warrant action that could get someone killed.
> And most of us have the good common sense not to spit on someones car!
Most of us do. Maybe some don't. But that doesn't make it all right to
deliberately run them down at speed.
> Most of us would have the sense to leave when asked, something tells
> me these climbers weren't the brightest or politest specimens are
> sport has to offer!
Probably not, but it still doesn't excuse life threatening remedial action.
Tim Jones
<simonjc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We all know access at Vixen Tor is subject to negotiation right now
>
>No it isn't. The landowners have deinied access,
As is their right according to the current interpretation of CROW act.
>and the national Park
>have stated that they are going to compulsoraily purchase the land. No
>negotiations involved.
I think you may well find that compulsory purchase is not quite as
simple as that. They can try for compulsory purchase, the landowner
can object and some form of negotiation/mediation will be required.
Steve Pardoe
"Tim Jones" <wilde...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:43296124...@news.btinternet.com...
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 11:41:23 +0100, Peter Clinch
> <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Tim Jones wrote:
> >
> >> I do climb. In this instance I gather the climbers were asked to
> >> leave, pretended to do so then carried on clmbing.
> >
> >So that makes it Perfectly Justifiable to assault one person and
> >endanger the life of another?
>
> No, but given that they weren't the sort of reasoning individuals that
> follow a polite request to leave
Worse than that, if we're to believe that the climbers pretended to leave
when requested to, but then carried on. In my book, that would be
dishonest, as well as impolite and provocative. If I were the land-owner,
I'd be pretty pissed-off by such behaviour.
> why is there so much certainty that
> they didn't offer further provocation?
<snip>
Quite. Any assumption that "climbers are always in the right" would surely
be wrong, and it may be that the person(s) who (allegedly) cut the rope(s)
did not fully appreciate the potential consequences. Since the BMC and the
Police are on the case, further speculation about what actually happened
seems idle.
There's quite likely to be some blame and provocation on both sides, but it
surely won't help the BMC, or climbers in general, if this kind of incident
is repeated. There were suggestions on uk.climbing that some sort of 'mass
trespass' might be a suitable response - IMHO, nothing could do more to set
back the invaluable work of the BMC's access people, without whose diligence
and quiet persistence many of our favourite crags would remain out of
bounds.
Steve P
Tim Jones
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>Tim Jones wrote:
>
>> I'm sure we've all met the loud foul mouthed types who would score a
>> 10plus though, its equally true to say that most people wouldn't just
>> cut a rope with no provocation. The widespread assumption that the
>> climbers weren't in some way guilty of causing this confrontation
>> seems absolutely astounding to me.
>
>What assumption? I haven't seen any such assumption, but am simply
>pointing out that anything you can manage in the way of provocation
>while climbing a rock or belaying someone doing so doesn't really
>warrant action that could get someone killed.
>
We really don't know who threw the first punch or shoved who about.
Do you honestly believe that you can't strike out at someone whilst
belaying? I've seen people do far far more whilst they should in
theory have been concentrating on their partners safety.
>> And most of us have the good common sense not to spit on someones car!
>
>Most of us do. Maybe some don't. But that doesn't make it all right to
>deliberately run them down at speed.
No and it is more than likely that if it happened there would have
been further words spoken or threatening actions by both parites
before it happened.
>> Most of us would have the sense to leave when asked, something tells
>> me these climbers weren't the brightest or politest specimens are
>> sport has to offer!
>
>Probably not, but it still doesn't excuse life threatening remedial action.
That seems like an assumption to me.
Was it life threatening?
Quote
"Climbers on the route 'Torture' had their ropes cut - while the
leader was climbing"
The rope was cut, but we don't know where it was cut, there is so much
assumption going on here that all we are ever likely to reach is the
wrong conclusion.
People are talkng about the knife that was carried to do this, yet
where has anyone said that a knife was used at all?
In your motoring scenario the phrase their car was rammed at speed
wouldn't necessarily imply that there were in it at the time.
We seem to have one deliberately vague statement and a lot of
assumption to go on. The conclusion seems to be shouts of attempted
murder, but I'm a bit confused as to reasoning behind this conclusion.
Mike Clark
wilde...@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 14:14:53 +0100, Peter Clinch
> <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Tim Jones wrote:
> >
> >> I'm sure we've all met the loud foul mouthed types who would score a
> >> 10plus though, its equally true to say that most people wouldn't just
> >> cut a rope with no provocation. The widespread assumption that the
> >> climbers weren't in some way guilty of causing this confrontation
> >> seems absolutely astounding to me.
> >
> >What assumption? I haven't seen any such assumption, but am simply
> >pointing out that anything you can manage in the way of provocation
> >while climbing a rock or belaying someone doing so doesn't really
> >warrant action that could get someone killed.
> >
>
> We really don't know who threw the first punch or shoved who about.
> Do you honestly believe that you can't strike out at someone whilst
> belaying? I've seen people do far far more whilst they should in
> theory have been concentrating on their partners safety.
>
There seems to be an assumption on your part that it is possible to
condone the actions of someone who cuts a climbers ropes by invoking
provocation.
Even if as you hypothesise the climbers assaulted the 2nd party, the
correct response of the 2nd party would have been to leave the scene and
to then report the climbers to the police.
I have no intention of condoning the climbers actions for climbing at a
time when the access rights are sensitive. However I also have no
intention of justifying escalation of the dispute to an unacceptable
level involving cutting of climbers ropes.
> > > And most of us have the good common sense not to spit on someones
> > > car!
> >
> >Most of us do. Maybe some don't. But that doesn't make it all right to
> >deliberately run them down at speed.
>
> No and it is more than likely that if it happened there would have
> been further words spoken or threatening actions by both parites
> before it happened.
>
It really doesn't matter what words are spoken using a vehicle as a
weapon in such a dispute is unacceptable.
There is a very old and sensible saying that is applicable in such
circumstances and it is "two wrongs don't make a right".
Peter Clinch
> We really don't know who threw the first punch or shoved who about.
> Do you honestly believe that you can't strike out at someone whilst
> belaying? I've seen people do far far more whilst they should in
> theory have been concentrating on their partners safety.
And do you honestly believe that cutting the leader's ropes is a Really
Good Way to deal with any such provocation? As opposed to, say, getting
the miscreants done with assault as well as trespass?
Cutting someone's safety rope is unacceptable unless it is an act of
self preservation (c.f. Touching the Void).
> No and it is more than likely that if it happened there would have
> been further words spoken or threatening actions by both parites
> before it happened.
However many words are spoken or threatening actions made, cutting a
leader's safety rope is out of order. "He hit me first, miss!" is not
the sort of excuse the justice system works well with, and for good reasons.
> That seems like an assumption to me.
> Was it life threatening?
Potentially. It's a safety rope. Even if it's cut below the belay
plate the remainder may be needed to safely negotiate the route.
> People are talkng about the knife that was carried to do this, yet
> where has anyone said that a knife was used at all?
I haven't...
> In your motoring scenario the phrase their car was rammed at speed
> wouldn't necessarily imply that there were in it at the time.
I didn't say anything about ramming a car, I said running someone down.
Who's making assumptions now?
> We seem to have one deliberately vague statement and a lot of
> assumption to go on. The conclusion seems to be shouts of attempted
> murder, but I'm a bit confused as to reasoning behind this conclusion.
If it was an attempt at murder it was a pathetic one: you'd be better
off just pulling very hard or dropping a rock on his head. However, the
fact remains that deliberately vandalising safety equipment while it is
in use, or at least standby use, is out of order. It is the wrong way
to deal with the situation no matter how offensive a bunch of wankers
the climbers may or may not have been being at the time.
Peter Clinch
> Worse than that, if we're to believe that the climbers pretended to leave
> when requested to, but then carried on. In my book, that would be
> dishonest, as well as impolite and provocative. If I were the land-owner,
> I'd be pretty pissed-off by such behaviour.
Well so would I. But what I wouldn't then do is confront them and cut
their ropes. That's just fooking dumb with knobs on.
> Quite. Any assumption that "climbers are always in the right" would surely
> be wrong, and it may be that the person(s) who (allegedly) cut the rope(s)
> did not fully appreciate the potential consequences.
Though realising that fighting fire with fire isn't a Really Good Way to
put out fires might have helped it not happen. It's just a stupid and
wrong way to go about resolving what could well be a legitimate grievance.
> There's quite likely to be some blame and provocation on both sides, but it
> surely won't help the BMC, or climbers in general, if this kind of incident
> is repeated.
Indeed. Any issues I have here are with a disproportionate reaction
that hasn't helped *anybody*. I'm not saying the climbers must have
been right, just that the numpty who cut the ropes was out of order.
Tim Jones
wrote:
>There seems to be an assumption on your part that it is possible to
>condone the actions of someone who cuts a climbers ropes by invoking
>provocation.
The assumption is yours. Where have I condoned anyones actions?
All I have suggested is that we seem to have a very one-sided view of
the incident here.
>Even if as you hypothesise the climbers assaulted the 2nd party, the
>correct response of the 2nd party would have been to leave the scene and
>to then report the climbers to the police.
Just as the climbers should have left the crag when asked to do so.
Whether we like it or not it is private property with no current
access rights.
>I have no intention of condoning the climbers actions for climbing at a
>time when the access rights are sensitive. However I also have no
>intention of justifying escalation of the dispute to an unacceptable
>level involving cutting of climbers ropes.
No but it may help to admit that it was the actions of both parties
that lead it it to escalate that far.
>> > > And most of us have the good common sense not to spit on someones
>> > > car!
>> >
>> >Most of us do. Maybe some don't. But that doesn't make it all right to
>> >deliberately run them down at speed.
>>
>> No and it is more than likely that if it happened there would have
>> been further words spoken or threatening actions by both parites
>> before it happened.
>>
>
>It really doesn't matter what words are spoken using a vehicle as a
>weapon in such a dispute is unacceptable.
>There is a very old and sensible saying that is applicable in such
>circumstances and it is "two wrongs don't make a right".
No-one is suggesting that they do, just that we ought to take both
sides wrongs into account before entering into criticism of either
party or using terms such as attempted murder. Or maybe it unwise
instinctively leap onto some sort of pro climber access hobby horse at
a time like this.
Mike Clark
wilde...@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:11:46 +0100, Mike Clark <mr...@nospamcam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >There seems to be an assumption on your part that it is possible to
> >condone the actions of someone who cuts a climbers ropes by invoking
> >provocation.
>
> The assumption is yours. Where have I condoned anyones actions?
> All I have suggested is that we seem to have a very one-sided view of
> the incident here.
>
>
You have repeatedly argued that the actions carried out against the
climbers might have been excusable or justifiable.
The only one-sided view that I'll confess to is that regardless of the
rights and wrongs of accusations of trespass by the climbers, the
cutting of a climbers ropes whilst they are in use is inexcusable and
wrong, and should be condemned.
> > Even if as you hypothesise the climbers assaulted the 2nd party, the
> > correct response of the 2nd party would have been to leave the scene
> > and to then report the climbers to the police.
>
> Just as the climbers should have left the crag when asked to do so.
> Whether we like it or not it is private property with no current
> access rights.
>
Yes but you still don't get my point do you. I'm not arguing that what
the climbers did was right. I'm arguing that whatever the rights and
wrongs of what the climbers did, the response in cutting the rope was an
inappropriate response.
> > I have no intention of condoning the climbers actions for climbing
> > at a time when the access rights are sensitive. However I also have
> > no intention of justifying escalation of the dispute to an
> > unacceptable level involving cutting of climbers ropes.
>
> No but it may help to admit that it was the actions of both parties
> that lead it it to escalate that far.
>
The question is should we accept in the UK that civil disputes are
likely to escalate into criminal attacks?
What you seem to be saying is that a criminal act of assault is
justifiable as a result of a civil dispute. It isn't.
> > > > > And most of us have the good common sense not to spit on
> > > > > someones car!
> >> >
> >> >Most of us do. Maybe some don't. But that doesn't make it all right to
> >> >deliberately run them down at speed.
> >>
> >> No and it is more than likely that if it happened there would have
> >> been further words spoken or threatening actions by both parites
> >> before it happened.
> >>
> >
> >It really doesn't matter what words are spoken using a vehicle as a
> >weapon in such a dispute is unacceptable.
>
>
> >There is a very old and sensible saying that is applicable in such
> >circumstances and it is "two wrongs don't make a right".
>
> No-one is suggesting that they do, just that we ought to take both
> sides wrongs into account before entering into criticism of either
> party or using terms such as attempted murder. Or maybe it unwise
> instinctively leap onto some sort of pro climber access hobby horse at
> a time like this.
You seem to be making the false assumption that I am only condemning the
action of cutting the rope and assaulting the belayer because I am on a
"pro-climber access hobby horse". I condem the alleged action of cutting
the rope and assaulting the belayer because I think it is wrong to
threaten somebody's safety or health. If it had been the climbers who
were alleged as having assaulted the landowner I would have been equally
condemning of the action.
The law has penalties for the civil offence of trespass and the law has
penalties for the criminal offence of assault. To equate one offence
with the other, or to justify (rather than mitigate) one offence by the
other is what I find unacceptable.
Mike
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> said
>GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>
>> That's called "road rage", and never happens of course, which is why
>>we don't have a specific term for it ...
>
>It happens, yes. Does that make it okay?
No, did I say anything to imply it was OK? I just pointed out that it
happens.
>
>> I can well envision 'rope rage' if some climber was acting suitably
>>provocatively.
>
>But that still doesn't make it an appropriate and justified response
>that shouldn't result in serious legal consequences.
Too many negatives in that sentence, but I think we both agree cutting a
rope (if someone was using it at the time) is pretty criminally stupid.
As is
Road rage .. I think you originally said
>Thobut confrontation at the level of cutting a safety rope? Think of
>the ramifications of that! It's like deliberately running someone over
>at speed because they spat on your car's paintwork!
Yes, it's exactly like that, it's exactly as stupid and it's exactly as
likely to happen, which is why it's be exactly as smart not to provoke
it. Nor do I swear at gamekeepers with loaded shotguns .. detecting
someone's mental state at a glance is really tough, so it's best to
assume they're dangerous jerks until proved otherwise.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Simon Challands
Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
> Tim Jones wrote:
>
>> We seem to have one deliberately vague statement and a lot of
>> assumption to go on. The conclusion seems to be shouts of attempted
>> murder, but I'm a bit confused as to reasoning behind this conclusion.
>
> If it was an attempt at murder it was a pathetic one: you'd be better
> off just pulling very hard or dropping a rock on his head. However, the
> fact remains that deliberately vandalising safety equipment while it is
> in use, or at least standby use, is out of order. It is the wrong way
> to deal with the situation no matter how offensive a bunch of wankers
> the climbers may or may not have been being at the time.
My use of the term "attempted murder" was admittedly rather tabloid
journalistic, but if you tamper with safety equipment then death or
serious injury is a possibility. IANAL, but if someone was killed as a
result I doubt you'd get away with manslaughter, and would be treated
the same as someone who had left junk on a railway line (or so I would
assume). If the ropes were hacked to pieces whilst lying on the
ground, and were very obviously damaged, that wouldn't be as serious,
but the implication from the OP was that climbing was in progress.
--
Simon Challands
AndyP
> What I find astounding is that you think that assault and putting
> someones life in danger is a reasonable response to a charge of civil
> trespass?
What I find astounding is that anyone would assume from the brief report
that it was any kind of life threatening incident in the first place.
Clearly it wouldn't be if whoever was climbing was just a few feet off the
ground.
Tim Jones
wrote:
>In message <43299fde...@news.btinternet.com>
> wilde...@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 15:11:46 +0100, Mike Clark <mr...@nospamcam.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There seems to be an assumption on your part that it is possible to
>> >condone the actions of someone who cuts a climbers ropes by invoking
>> >provocation.
>>
>> The assumption is yours. Where have I condoned anyones actions?
>> All I have suggested is that we seem to have a very one-sided view of
>> the incident here.
>>
>>
>
>You have repeatedly argued that the actions carried out against the
>climbers might have been excusable or justifiable.
Absolute rubbish. read what I have said properly. I have merely
attempted to point out that there could well be more to this than the
simple "attempted murder" proclamations suggest.
Paul Rooney
(Tim Jones) wrote:
>No, but given that they weren't the sort of reasoning individuals that
>follow a polite request to leave
Why should reasoning individuals take any notice whatever of a polite
request to leave? I wouldn't.
--
R
o
o
n
e
y
"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone
Mike Clark
"AndyP" <An...@ajp100.freeserve.no-spam.co.uk> wrote:
> "Mike Clark" <mr...@nospamcam.ac.uk> wrote
>
> > What I find astounding is that you think that assault and putting
> > someones life in danger is a reasonable response to a charge of civil
> > trespass?
>
> What I find astounding is that anyone would assume from the brief
> report that it was any kind of life threatening incident in the first
> place.
I'm prepared to acknolwedge that this may only be a possible rather than
actual life threatening incident. But at a minimum cutting of a rope is
likely to be an act of criminal damage in its own right, and since the
BMC report clearly states that the leader was climbing at the time that
certainly increases the threat to the individual.
> Clearly it wouldn't be if whoever was climbing was just a few feet off
> the ground.
>
>
I've personally witnessed serious injuries to people who were bouldering
just a few feet off the ground, both at climbing walls and on rock. It
depends how you fall, and on what you fall, as well as how far you fall.
Cutting the rope is still potentially a criminal offence in its own
right, and the height of the climber above the ground might be used in a
plea of mitigation should a charge of attempted bodily harm, or
endangerment be made.
--
Mike Clark
I am in full agreement with you that self preservation should encourage
you to be careful in these situations and that the smart thing to do is
often to back off. However I think we also have to acknowledge that many
of our freedoms were won for us by people who engaged in civil
disobedience such as by regularly trespassing on private moorland.
Similarly it was once the case that only those who were both
male and landowners could vote for a parliamentary candidate and again
both of these were overturned as a result of civil, and at the time
criminal, disobedience. Few would argue that these people were wrong to
break laws in order to force a change, but many did suffer injury or
death in protesting their cause.
Mike Clark
wilde...@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) wrote:
In message <43294b6f...@news.btinternet.com>
wilde...@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) wrote:
'I can't help but feel that these two climbers obviously
weren't masters of subtlety and could very easily have done a lot to
provoke the incident.
If you knowingly climb at a venue with serious access issues you are
surely inviting confrontation and must accept that your actions are
provocative, especially if you ignore a request to leave?'
In message <43296124...@news.btinternet.com>
wilde...@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) wrote:
'I'm sure we've all met the loud foul mouthed types who would
score a 10plus though, its equally true to say that most people
wouldn't just cut a rope with no provocation. The widespread
assumption that the climbers weren't in some way guilty of causing
this confrontation seems absolutely astounding to me.'
The point I'm trying to make is that regardless of what kind of
provocation was offered by the climbers in the first place the
appropriate action for the land owner to take would have been to contact
the police and report the climbers, rather than ( as has been
additionally alleged in the thread you are also in on UK.climbing)
assisted by two male companions, to assault the belayer and cut the
ropes.
Simon Caldwell
<An...@ajp100.freeserve.no-spam.co.uk> wrote:
>
>What I find astounding is that anyone would assume from the brief report
>that it was any kind of life threatening incident in the first place.
>Clearly it wouldn't be if whoever was climbing was just a few feet off the
>ground.
>
It appears from latest reports that he was 20 feet off the ground. On
an E4.
Latest press report here:
http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=133464&command=displayContent&sourceNode=133158&contentPK=13211572
There's a protest meeting on Saturday:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=146607&v=1#2078842
--
Oppose ID cards and the database state - sign the pledge at
http://www.pledgebank.com/refuse
Dave K
>
> The whole incident sounds a real mess, it may be worth pausing to ask
> why these climbers were there causing confrontation at a point when
> others were working to negotiate access. Perhaps they weren't the
> most sensitive and reasoning embassadors for our sport?
>
> Regards
>
> Tim Jones
That was the idea of the Mass Tresspass on Kinder. That seems to have
had the desired effect. Now if you are against any similar action then
your morals should not allow you to gain from such action. I take it
you have never walked/climbed on Kinder or any other similar mountain area.
Dave K
Tim Jones
That really depends on whether you're naive enough to believe that the
Kinder Trespass was solely resposible for all of the access we have
today.
Mike Clark
wilde...@btopenworld.com (Tim Jones) wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 16:17:20 +0000 (UTC), Dave K
> <g0...@REMOVETHISBITbtinternet.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
> > That was the idea of the Mass Tresspass on Kinder. That seems to
> > have had the desired effect. Now if you are against any similar
> > action then your morals should not allow you to gain from such
> > action. I take it you have never walked/climbed on Kinder or any
> > other similar mountain area.
>
> That really depends on whether you're naive enough to believe that the
> Kinder Trespass was solely resposible for all of the access we have
> today.
No it doesn't depend on whether it was 'solely responsible' it only
matters that it contributed.
Was the cause of Nelson Mandela solely responsible for the end of
apartheid in South Africa? Did his cause contribute to the end of
apartheid in South Africa?
I think it is reasonable to claim that the Kinder Trespass contributed
to the cause for more open access.
Richard Webb
>That really depends on whether you're naive enough to believe that the
>Kinder Trespass was solely resposible for all of the access we have
>today.
Well the forelock tuggers did not get too far... You have ended up
with access law favouring the rather more militant hillwalkers,while
other outdoor pursuits got SFA...
How free are your forests and rivers?
Richard Webb
steve watson
Al Downie
some facts:
How high was the leader when the ropes were cut? First move off the deck,
after being given a warning by an irate landowner?
'Assault' seems to be a very vague term, and can mean anything from
attempted murder right down to the feeling of someone's aura without their
permission. What precisely was the injury caused in this particular assault?
Al
Ed Seedhouse
<ad327g...@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>'Assault' seems to be a very vague term, and can mean anything from
>attempted murder right down to the feeling of someone's aura without their
>permission.
You are arguing from a state of profound ignorance. Not a good position
to be in if you want to avoid looking foolish in public.
Actually 'assault' in law does not necessarily involve touching anyone
in any way.
From dictionary.com:
" Law.
1. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
2. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to
injure another."
Touching someone unlawfully, on the other hand, is 'battery':
"Law. The unlawful and unwanted touching or striking of one person by
another, with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive
contact."
Ed Seedhouse,
Victoria, B.C.
Chris Gilbert
Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> looking foolish in public.
A state that can also be avoided by reading the OP post
a bit more carefully before responding.
Chris
Simon Caldwell
<ad327g...@mole.bio.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Haven't time to read all the posts, but it seems daft to speculate without
>some facts:
>
>How high was the leader when the ropes were cut? First move off the deck,
>after being given a warning by an irate landowner?
20 feet, apparently. Quite high enough to do yourself a serious
injury.
>
>'Assault' seems to be a very vague term, and can mean anything from
>attempted murder right down to the feeling of someone's aura without their
>permission. What precisely was the injury caused in this particular assault?
I don't think details have been released. But enough that charges
have been brought.
S.