Mountainclients
There was shock, anger, and outrage today after it was revealed that mountain clients are inexperienced. “We all thought they were competent in all aspects of climbing and guide care.”
As a client you surrender your responsibility. The higher the mountain the more personal responsibility you hand over to the guide – notwithstanding that, being answerable for yourself should be the basic prerequisite of any mountain experience. Thus you put yourself at the mercy of the tour provider. The guide and the tour provider are in it for the business; the prestige of a successful ascent. But what happens when the leader gets into difficulty? Who looks after the clients on a climb or a mountain that is strange to him; ground that he has never covered before? Too many clients of the Association of British Mountain Guides and the international organisation that they belong to, the UIAGM/IFMGA, the Alpine/International cartel, have fallen into that trap (the BMC educating journalists that mountaineering and climbing are far less dangerous than swimming). Victims of basic mistakes. Worst still, the Alpine cartel has in effect drawn a line across society and anyone – the vast majority of hill goers who cannot afford or justify, £100/£150 per day, must go into the hills and mountain alone. The machinery has been put into place to ensure that they, the potential clients, cannot employ anyone else.
Potential clients and young people (supposedly protected by the Young Persons Safety Act 1995) beware. You are being denied the freedom to choose.
I wonder sometimes, just how closely mountain centres; outdoor pursuit centers (all of whom are supposedly run to strict, safety criteria laid down by the sports, so called, governing body (for that is what the British Mountaineering Council purports to be) and the Adventure Licensing Authority (BMC / BMG / AALA) guard themselves against the arrogance and impercipience of institutionalism. I wonder also, just how often they have closed ranks (a wall of silence) around the examination of themselves and accidents to clients of qualified guides / instructors and is the situation an honest or satisfactory one.? Does their reliance on syllabus lead to a perilous misplaced confidence in the presence of danger?
Rock Climbing: The British Mountaineering Council’s 2001 Booklet: ‘An Introduction to Rock Climbing’, starts with a welcome: ‘Welcome all members of the community. We want to welcome all members of the community interested in climbing regardless ‘of age’, ability, gender, race ethnicity, sexuality or socio-economic status to have an equal opportunity to participate and develop their skills (in 1976, the BMC stated that it was not interested; it was not within its remit, to – enticing young people to become members/to climb). This booklet is intended to give an idea of what rock climbing is all about, and to provide the basic information required to get started. It is principally aimed at those ‘who have never climbed before’ and want to give it a try…’ Members of the public being ‘enticed’ to participate in a (multi-million pound market) potentially – dangerous sport by the – British Mountaineering Council and Sports (quango) England. And yet, in the Daily Mail, Nov 24, 1999, an article: ‘Seducing the Innocent’, drew attention to children (any age is mentioned above) being enticed by advertising. ‘It’s immoral to exploit the lack of experience in children (young people)….it is not only immoral it is unethical.’ A conference organised by the Advertising Association was told.
The Boklet: ‘New Climbers’ enticing as it does, young people amongst others, is aimed at ‘those who have never climbed before’, shows photographs of some 50 climbers. 35 of the climbers shown are not wearing a safety helmet. None are wearing a full body harness or, even a simple upper-body sling – to harness (climbers have fallen out of sit-harnesses after turning upside down during a fall) whilst following BMC ‘safety criteria’ and will continue to do so.
In 1993, a new memeber of the UIAA’s Safety Committee at his first meeting asked the embarrassing question: “Why do the vast majority of French climbers wear a safety harness (sit-harness) which cannot have (should not have) a safety label?” Fifteen years on and the vast majority of climbers of all nationalities, including the French, still wear a harness out of which, they can slip. Only one percent of climbers wear a full-body-harness or simple upper-body sling attached to their sit-harness including – the UK.
Many parents, wish that their children had never heard of the – BMC; had not been enticed by BMC / BMG / English Sport (Sport (Quango) England) advertising because their children were lost to them in avoidable climbing accidents. Young people, supposedly protected by The Young Persons Safety Act, are then told that they are supposed to be – responsible for their own actions; accept risk with responsibility (who is responsible for the actions of the – climbing authorities, the climbing establishment and their enticement of young children into a potentially dangerous sport) once they have been enticed into the sport – at the very heart of the BMC’s Participation Document.
The Association of Mountain Clients (c) 1997, was formed after the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) found a member of the Association of British Mountain Guides (BMG) – guilty of negligence towards his client – art expert Gerry Hedley. Court Case No: 1994 W 1400G.
From the court transcript, Mr Justice Dyson, concluded: ‘…I prefer the opinion expressed by Mr Fyffe (a member of the Association of British Mountain Guides who, for the first time ever, appearing for a mountain client) to those of Mr Harper and Mr Cuthbertson (the guide who fell causing the accident). Mr Cuthbertson made a serious mistake (and yet, was allowed to continue to guide for gain during the seven years from 1990-97) with the tragic consequences which will live in his memory for the rest of his life.’
After the court case, the Association of Mountain Clients asked the Advertising Standards Authority to remove false advertising by the BMG from the pages of High Magazine (now High Mountain Sport) the ‘official’ magazine of the – BMC. The BMC, had done nothing to have that false BMG advertising altered or stopped. To the contrary – they closed ranks.
‘It (the BMC) exists to further the interests of mountaineering as a whole, and it will succeed in this only in so far as it receives the – full support – of each and every mountaineer… It should be needless to add, that there will be – no attempt to introduce anything so foolish – as a qualification scheme for ‘mountain leaders.’ G. A. Dummett: Pembroke College, Cambridge, 1946. Mr Dummett, was incorrect in his assumption..
The Law Gazzett 96/38 6 October 1999: ‘The court held that governing bodies in sport (the BMC in its advertising purports to be the governing body of climbing/mountaineering) are responsible for the safety of – the sports participants. It mattered not, that the organisation was a non profit making organisation…’ Climbing/mountaineering accidents, contrary to popular belief are, avoidable.
There is a popular misconception that, climbing/mountaineering are dangerous pastimes/sports; reckless people of course, can be found in all walks of life and while accidents do happen, climbing / mountaineering accidents are not inevitable… While apparently, serious and fatal accidents to mountain clients whilst under instruction with – ‘qualified guides (BMG) and instructors’ – are.? According to Mr D. J. Risk, QC.
For many year’s, mountain clients have been mislead by adverts containing certain ‘guarantees’; offers of ‘security’ that were not honoured. One such advert in fact, a ‘letter’ printed in a specialist magazine; Climber&Ramblerin 1988 states: “We are concerned that members of the public are being offered an ‘inferior’ and most certainly a ‘dangerous’ service.” The inference being, that the Association of British Mountain Guides (BMG) who had promoted the ‘letter’ were not – offering an inferior and a dangerous service. In fact, they were. It is not known, due to a ‘wall-of-silence’ just how many BMG / AMI clients have lost their lives. Certainly, many; at least thirteen such clients have been killed since – 1990. While many clients of the UIAGM, the organisation that the BMG were determined to join, have been killed and seriously injured prior to 1990 no details are available except for the nine clients in a multiple accident in July, 1964. And numerous reports that have not – as yet been substantiated.
Potential mountain clients should be aware of the danger that they embrace when answering ‘certain’ advertising offering guarantees of safety; guarantees that to date have proven to be – worthless… from people ‘qualified’ to BMG, BMC and MLTB safety standards; to their strict, safety criteria.?? BMG Internet adverting: www.bmg.org.uk is still offering; stating: “Our members are competent in all aspects of client care.”??
Mountain clients should also be aware of the responsibility governing bodies have for the safety of the participants in that sport.
In the February, 1996 issue of High Mountain Sport, the ‘official’ magazine of the British Mountaineering Council, the then monthly, BMG advert heading the Classified Column concludes with a statement, referring to the ‘official badge’; the logo of the Association of British Mountain Guides based at Plas-y-Brenin, North Wales: ‘This symbol (logo) is your guarantee.’ ??
This symbol of your guarantee. Yet, in the same magazine, on page 7, there is an article about a court-case in 1995: ‘Court sets precedent for instructors and pupils.’ The article is referring to the Pope v Cuthbertson case in which the client P. Pope fell and injured himself seriously when he was allowed to hit the ground (the slack rope was not taken in quickly enough). Because he injured himself, he apparently thought that his guide/instructor, had been negligent. According to BMG advertising at the time he was – entitled to claim for damages; to sue: ‘We have a comprehensive insurance scheme,’ so stated the BMG.
The court case that went against Mr Pope was herlded in High Mountain Sport, by Steven Venables as a: ‘Triumph for Common Sense’.? The case also established an important precedent, relating to climbers and a responsibility of care and – liability. Apparently, the court case came at a time of growing pressure on guides, instructors, individuals and climbing equipment manufacturers to cover themselves against litigation following injury to a third party. John Gillman countered Venables claims about ‘…Common Sense’ with his ‘letter’: A Guiding Principle’, about BMG guides etc – selling safety and then failing in that duty of care: ‘We are very concerned that, members of the public are being offered an inferior and certainly a dangerous service’, a 1988 comment by members of the Association of British Mountain Guides who are competent in – all aspects of client care?
Mr Graham Davies, in his letter to me on the 12th of December, 2000 wrote: “Your description of your sport as having become ‘somewhat callous and shabby’ is apt in my tragic experience (Graham’s 25 year old son Phillip, died whilst in a coma in his mother’s arm’s 16 days after he was seriously injured in a fall whilst on an Alpine mountaineering course run by ironic, The Survival Club – BMG) from prodigious readings out of which I have collected a number of extractions – this one from Peter D. Boardman won’t surprise you in the least: ‘Outward Bound and other outdoor education philosophies would have one believe that mountain climbing develops character, courage, resourcefulness and teamwork. That may be so, but it is also true that mountaineering expeditions can develop selfishness, fanaticism, glory – seeking and cunning.’ Mr Davies and his wife were not ‘looked after’ by the BMG/BMC. To the contrary they were – spurned…
As Mrs Davies said to me: “Dennis, will we ever have peace in our hearts?” Each July this aging couple still make the journey to the top of Great Gable where they scattered their only son’s ashes. Each July, on the date of their son’s avoidable death, they are reminded quite forcefully about the incompetence; the existence of – Bogus Mountain Guides; guides who’s careers, unlike young Phill Davies’s have been furthered by the BMC (the AALA according to the governments ‘Better Regulations Commisssion’ has put out of business over 600 independent, outdoor pursuit organisations / individuals). But, as Ian MacNaught-Davis, President of the UIAA put it (according to The Sunday Times reporter Nick Fielding): “There is no – sentimentality.”? An official UIAA comment…so there we have it.
Qualified, so-called ‘official’ guides associations have very recently become – limited companies thus protecting themselves; limiting the amount of compensation for which, they can be sued… In 1985, the then general secretary of the BMC, wrote to Club Westploration offering – full publicity to any future problems that Club Westploration might have regarding client safety. Interestingly, that offer was not made; has never been made to the Association of British Mountain Guides (BMG). Members of the BMG are also members of – the BMC.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.