GO TO GLOBAL SITE   se es us fr za it
de ca au no
at br ru ch
gb pl nl sk
Home | News | Videos | Articles | Gallery | Crags | Gyms | Search - Tick List | Forum | Ranking | Blogs | Contact | New Member
 By: Jens Larssen  | Date: 2010-06-10  | Category: Other    | Comment  
This article is written as a defence to the UK climbing anti-8a-campaign, The campaign is fronted by two editors who actively have spread lies and negative information about 8a for about 18 months.

Here is the answer from Alan James at UK climbing, in relation the above article. At the end, comments/questions from Jens including Alans' answers.
"Hi Jens

Thanks for giving me the chance to respond to your article. I am sorry that you think there is a campaign being run by UKClimbing.com. To substantiate your feeling of a campaign, you quote a discussion article from two years ago, and a private email to you from last week.  This doesn't sound like a very concerted campaign on our part  and I can assure you that there is no such campaign against your site. We have had some disagreements in the past about the interpretation of the E-grade but I think these are part of healthy discussion of our sport.  

The situation with the Access Fund came about I think due to some confusing information published in your Yearbook about human waste at the crag which was contrary to the Access Fund policy, but was published on a page carrying the Access Fund logo. I am glad that you have now resolved this.

I wasn't aware that UKClimbing.com content had been published on the Facebook page called "Boycott 8a!"- I will make sure that none of our news articles are ever published on there again.

In your article you have published content from a private email. We are very clear on our policy about this at UKClimbing.com and you can be certain that we will never publish the content of any private emails you send to us without your permission.

I wish you luck with your web site.



Comments/Questions from Jens including Alans' answer.

Jens: 1. The 8a access recommendation was sent to The Access Fund and we asked if they wanted to take part on in with their logo. TAF sent us their approval and a logo that later was pasted in the 8a access recommendations.
Alan: "Well as I have shown you, we had information that they were not happy when they found out what was on the published page. You appear to now have smoothed this over with them so well done." 

Jens: 2. The email was also sent to the biggest non-english speaking climbing website spreading the rumour stating that, "You have basically lied to climbers by saying that your access notes were endorsed by the Access Fund.", "You are a liar. The Access Fund are pissed off with you." etc. 
As a defence, you say that the email sent from your editor, xxx@ukclimbing.com, to the business emails of the Chief-in-Editors of two of the biggest climbing websites in the world, should be considered a "private email"? Why should this be considered a private email?
"It seems curious then if you are so sensitive about it that you should now publish it on your site."(Here is the email spreading false rumour about 8a and myself also sent to the largest non-english climbing website)

Jens: 3. I asked them to take away the picture and to have the possibility to answer with an article of my own. They refused to remove the picture at that time (although they did several months later) and told me I was welcome to register as any member and comment on the news." 
a. Why did you not take away the portrait picture when I begged you?
"I can't remember - it was 20 months ago."

b. Why did you take it away several months later?
"I can't remember - it was 20 months ago."

c. Why was I not allowed to answer it with an article?
"Because our site doesn't work like that."

d. Am I now allowed to answer the article?
"You can send us whatever you want and we will consider publishing it if we see fit. But the original article is dead and we are not going to resurrect it. You are also welcome to post direct on our forums if you wish."
(As you can see, 8a allows UK climbing to answer they don't"

Best regards, Jens

PS As I have understood it. You have been misled. I am saying this just in order for you to know that I respect you and the work you do.  

UKclimbing seems to totally have missunderstand the difference between personal and bussiness matters.

If your editor spreads anti-8a-information through,

1. emails from
xxx@ukclimbing.com to other websites,
2. to The Access Fund (UKclimbing contacted TAF spreading false info)
3. and via hundred comments in the 8a forum which he signs xxx yyy, UKclimbing.

It is clearly, an anti-8a-campaign.

Eespecially since it started from a very negative and offensive article published including a portrait picture where you refused to publish a response from me.

I am glad that you have made your editor stop running the 8a boycott campaign at facebook and that you have taken away the UK marketing material from that page.