I've re-read Stu's original blog (whatever one of those is
) post. The point is BB200/300 is
hard. If it wasn't it wouldn't be what it is and would cease to exist, thereby becoming 100% uninclusive full stop. No, it should not be made "easier". 2018 is still talked about in reverential tones. Yes there should be another "2014".
So Stu's blog talks about "inclusivity". Oxford Dictionary: "Inclusivity: the practice or policy of providing equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as those having physical or intellectual disabilities or belonging to other minority groups".
Seems to me that isn't the same as "positive discrimination" or "welcoming", which are words also used or hinted at in this thread. I think we've done "welcoming" and "positive discrimination" is an extra can of worms I don't myself want to pursue here.
So "equal access". As far as I'm aware Stu doesn't turn down BB200 entrants on the basis of their politics, gender or religion, or character, so there's equal access (inclusivity) there. That leaves physical ability, mental ability and for want of a better word survivability. Stu's already said he had to turn people away because they hadn't camped before (survivability). A person who hasn't camped before, and in a BB200 situation, has some likelihood of causing Stu and emergency services a problem. As Stu says, he has a moral obligation to "exclude". So there we have "uninclusivity", by its definition, straightaway I'm afraid.
Also there's plenty of other "sanitised" bikepacking events that will "include" people who want or insist on an easier route, feed stations, good weather, easy obstacles, nice car parking, normal people, blah blah.
As far as the wider Bear Bones Family "inclusivity" is concerned, there is no obligation to have camped before although the inability to ride a bike would seem to be a step too far - so are we then "uninclusive" of non-bikeriders? And the aforementioned politics/religion/gender stuff obviously still applies. So now that we're talking about the much wider pastime of "bikepacking" not just BB200, we can bring in "physical or intellectual disabilities or belonging to other minority groups". I don't think Stu's ever excluded a new member, or even a WRT entrant, using those criteria. So I would say, yes, BBB as a group is "inclusive".
But.... in the same way that BB200 would not exist at all if it didn't exclude some entrants, I think wider BBB itself might well cease to exist if absolutely anybody was included as a member. Stu himself has said it's a place for oddballs. I'd add: ditch sleepers, wanderers, ITTers, challenge-lovers, explorers, eccentrics, minimalists, smellysockers, nochangeofclothesers, and many other characteristics. That's what makes it BBB. It's why I myself am here and not in any other bikepacking "club". If all the things in that list got too diluted or disappeared, selfishly speaking
I would feel excluded. It would no longer be "Stu's BBB for oddballs"; it would not exist, and therefore it would exclude 100% of everybody.
And let's not forget Stu started all this, it's his gang - it was very informal, some random crackpots just turned up at a random location, said hello, joined in, rode around a bit, talked bollocks, slept under a tree, had a laugh and went home (but not in time for their tea). No obligations, no "policies" as per the above definition of "inclusivity". Does he want BBB to be something more than that? I'm always extremely conscious this is indeed Stu's baby, it's his (and Dee of course) "club" if you will. We can discuss and debate all we like but it's up to Stu.
We are not British Cycling or CTC or any sort of official "body" so we don't have "policies", nor indeed are we obliged to have any. We don't have a Constitution to adhere to. There's no ombudsperson to adjudicate or ensure we're sticking to any policies.
What I think I'm saying is, yes we're welcoming, yes we'll include people in the wider BBB "club" (but not necessarily BB200) if they are keen to join in, but what we do is "difficult" and "weird" and it's up to Stu not us if he wants BBB to "look like that".
I also think we do pretty well Here not getting too heated or overt about politics, religion, gender etc. That is part of being inclusive. And there's enough of that Outside anyway to keep us all happy. Having said that, I think "political" discussions concerning cycling, bivvying, land access etc are fair game, since those are things that affect our little "club".
) and I'm a muslim. Long beard, does my prayers, believes in what orthodox muslims believe. Love the Jews, hate the Zionists (not the ones that tell the actual truth - see The Generals Son by Mike Peled - but those with the crocodile tears that like the suffering of 'the others'. 
(think they know more about you and your culture/beliefs than your own self) and it's no harm done as long as one party stays quiet.
and it wasn't cos the pubs were involved that I didn't couldn't come. But had I not had other work/time/priority pressures then yes the pub would mean 'I'm out'. But doesn't mean I'd felt unincluded, just that we see through a slightly different lens and have differing priorities of what's needed on an excellent bivy ride 
(Whitestone).
