Author Topic: bca meeting 25/3 /2017  (Read 10156 times)

Offline 2xw

  • addict
  • **
  • Posts: 149
  • SUSS
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #150 on: April 19, 2017, 12:35:30 am »
Well it won't be the Cornish Rebel Alliance I suppose
Humour free zone

Offline Badlad

  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1032
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #151 on: April 19, 2017, 09:28:47 am »
We could try to respect the democratic wishes of cavers - or is that too radical  ;)

Offline Goydenman

  • Black Sheep Digger
  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 787
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #152 on: April 19, 2017, 09:43:36 am »
We could try to respect the democratic wishes of cavers - or is that too radical  ;)

LIKE

Offline Cap'n Chris

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 11977
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #153 on: April 19, 2017, 09:46:23 am »
Or perhaps respect the wishes of the people who own the land.

Offline crickleymal

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 685
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #154 on: April 19, 2017, 11:23:57 am »
Or perhaps respect the wishes of the people who own the land.
Nah. Proper tea is theft.
Malc
Rusted and ropy, dog-eared old copy.
Vintage and classic or just plain Jurassic:
all words to describe me.

Offline tony from suffolk

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2050
  • I see dead people...
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #155 on: April 19, 2017, 12:03:16 pm »
Or perhaps respect the wishes of the people who own the land.
We should certainly respect the land. But the wishes of the landowners? So if a landowner doesn't want anyone to use a footpath across his property, or wander on his public access land, we should respect this & not do so?
"Aim low, achieve your goals, avoid disappointment"

Offline Ed

  • regular
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #156 on: April 19, 2017, 02:02:39 pm »
Or perhaps respect the wishes of the people who own the land.
We should certainly respect the land. But the wishes of the landowners? So if a landowner doesn't want anyone to use a footpath across his property, or wander on his public access land, we should respect this & not do so?

Just stop their subsidies form public taxes in that case.....

Offline Kenilworth

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #157 on: April 19, 2017, 02:32:24 pm »
We could try to respect the democratic wishes of cavers - or is that too radical  ;)

Or perhaps respect the wishes of the people who own the land.
We should certainly respect the land. But the wishes of the landowners? So if a landowner doesn't want anyone to use a footpath across his property, or wander on his public access land, we should respect this & not do so?

These sorts of comments well illustrate the inadequacies of policy and law. There is no such thing as national democracy, so there is no such thing as "the democratic wishes of cavers". That a large number of cavers are dissatisfied with the results of so-called democracy within a particular club is evidence that it is foolish to give a club the (perceived) authority to make decisions on a national scale. The national legal "rights" of landowners and the legal "rights" of walkers or cavers are equally counterfeit, and entirely unimportant and immaterial to doing the right thing. Yes Tony, the wishes of landowners should be respected, but that's because they are our neighbors, not because they have legal title to property. And respecting their wishes does not always mean following the law. Respecting and doing good to our fellow man are never dependent on law or politics.

Offline bazdog

  • player
  • **
  • Posts: 103
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #158 on: April 19, 2017, 03:34:26 pm »
We could try to respect the democratic wishes of cavers - or is that too radical  ;)

Or perhaps respect the wishes of the people who own the land.
We should certainly respect the land. But the wishes of the landowners? So if a landowner doesn't want anyone to use a footpath across his property, or wander on his public access land, we should respect this & not do so?

These sorts of comments well illustrate the inadequacies of policy and law. There is no such thing as national democracy, so there is no such thing as "the democratic wishes of cavers". That a large number of cavers are dissatisfied with the results of so-called democracy within a particular club is evidence that it is foolish to give a club the (perceived) authority to make decisions on a national scale. The national legal "rights" of landowners and the legal "rights" of walkers or cavers are equally counterfeit, and entirely unimportant and immaterial to doing the right thing. Yes Tony, the wishes of landowners should be respected, but that's because they are our neighbors, not because they have legal title to property. And respecting their wishes does not always mean following the law. Respecting and doing good to our fellow man are never dependent on law or politics.

What a load of crap you come out with.

Offline royfellows

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
    • mineexplorer.com
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #159 on: April 19, 2017, 07:06:51 pm »
Not my choice of words but I agree the sentiment.

Someone aught to explain to him how our rights in law are what protect us from the bad people,
Thank God Samsung don't make caving lamps.

Offline NewStuff

  • Vocal proponent of Open Access
  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • www.dddwhcc.com
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #160 on: April 19, 2017, 07:10:26 pm »
He's trolling, and has found another emotive subject to attach himself to. I very much doubt he actually thinks we should be nice to the landowners that illegally tell us to "git 'orf moi land!" because they are human beings as well.
Deep Dark Dirty Wet Holes - The Right honourable Lock Persuader in Chief.

Offline Cap'n Chris

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 11977
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #161 on: April 20, 2017, 07:36:53 am »
Are cavers suggesting that landowners' wishes should be ignored? If so, how do they think landowners might feel about it?

Offline Ian Adams

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1065
  • UCET
    • UCET Caving Club (North Wales)
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #162 on: April 20, 2017, 12:26:22 pm »
Or perhaps respect the wishes of the people who own the land.

I agree.

I also think that the vast majority of cavers also agree with the principle and moral standard (which addresses Chris's second point above).

During the campaigning ahead of the BCA CRoW ballot, there was a tremendous amount of vitriol including aspersions that, if the ballot went in favour of clarifying the rights of cavers under the CRoW act, many cavers would run roughshod over landowners and damage relationships and potentially bringing the whole caving community into disrepute.

The ballot did prove in favour but I have seen no reports (on here or anywhere else) of gates being removed, landowners being railroaded or any “damage or dis-respect” (resulting from the ballot). In short, the nuclear war never happened.

We all recognise that landowners have wishes and, so far, the vast majority of cavers (at least) continue to acquiesce (and probably always will do so).

Landowners also have legal responsibilities that their “wishes” do not trump. In fact, we all (as individuals) have a great many wishes that do not trump statutes. An easy example is that we all have the right to use a public library. It may be that there is a person in there that you feel should not be there but your “wish” does not exceed the statute that allows the other person the right to use the library. In short, acceding to “wishes” is a two way street (whether a landowner or not).

Specifically with landowners, there are many responsibilities (legally and morally) that fall on their shoulders. Their wish that a public right of way not be used to cross their land is trumped by the statute that permits us all to use it. A schedule on land would prevent the landowner from potentially utilising it without the correct licence. Again, their “wish” fails to overcome the statute. There are many other examples but you get the point.

The law exists for the benefit of the people. That isn’t to say that the government of the day made the right decision. Nevertheless, the law applies to us all whether we “wish” it or not.

The BCA members voted in favour of clarifying the law as to whether or not CRoW extends to caving. That is a perfectly moral and respectful action. Some people within the BCA have worked very hard to address the wishes of the majority of the members who voted. Whilst engaged in this process they have been openly mindful of landowner wishes and have acted to preserve relationships. During this process, the “cavers” have been caving without behaving in any way to upset this work or damage the reputation of the BCA and caving in general.

I would suggest that, a small minority who are actively fighting against the hard working, respectable few are the ones bringing the caving community and the credibility of the BCA into disrepute.

“Wishes” do not trump statute. No one is going to dis-respect landowners – We don’t need to assume that, the “proof” is already evident – Since the ballot, there has been no resulting dis-respect.

Please stop doom-mongering.

Ian
A door, once opened, may be stepped through in either direction.

Offline Jenny P

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 409
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #163 on: April 20, 2017, 03:56:41 pm »
LIKE!

Offline cavemanmike

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #164 on: April 20, 2017, 05:45:59 pm »
what jenny said  :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Offline droid

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1708
  • WMRG
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #165 on: April 20, 2017, 05:49:55 pm »
Ian.

The only thing that's changed is that the BCA have a mandate to ask for a clarification of existing law.

The statute itself hasn't changed.

Whether the status quo would continue if the interpretation of the legislation were changed has therefore yet to be seen.

No vitriol, just stating the obvious.
No longer 'Exceptionally antagonistic' 'Deliberately inflammatory'

Offline Kenilworth

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #166 on: April 20, 2017, 10:30:39 pm »
I very much doubt he actually thinks we should be nice to the landowners that illegally tell us to "git 'orf moi land!" because they are human beings as well.

Of course I do, and in matters of land access I do not care one whit about the law, or about landowner's (or caver's) legal rights. I deal with people as people only. I should clarify; I believe that owner's wishes should be respected, not always obeyed. Thus discretion is often important.

Call it a load of crap, but someone once said that wisdom is proved righteous by its works. Having wholly ignored "owner's rights" and having relinquished any claims of my own, I enjoy excellent access to thousands of caves on private lands, as well as excellent relationships with scores of landowners.

Ian states that the law exists for the benefit of the people. Roy states that the law protects us from bad people. These are both correct in a very limited sense. Ian is incorrect that the law applies to everyone. Secular law applies only to those, good or bad, who submit to it. And Bob states that to live outside the law you must be honest. I reckon that every honest man must concern himself with the law out of consideration for consequences and the for the peace of the society he lives in, and must be ready always to ignore it out of consideration for what is right.



Offline adam

  • player
  • **
  • Posts: 97
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #167 on: April 21, 2017, 09:47:07 am »
...I do not care one whit about the law...

A nice turn of phrase. I like it  :thumbsup:. Brings to mind a certain episode of Fawlty Towers  ;D

Offline royfellows

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
    • mineexplorer.com
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #168 on: April 21, 2017, 09:56:30 am »
This taking the thread way off and I will possibly open a new one, but there is a potentially 'interesting' situation about to develop at Craig y Dinas where my company owns the mineral rights which included Upper Silica Mine.

I am attempting to improve access to the mine and am working in close cooperation with NRW the soil landowner who are being admirably helpful.

It appears that there is an unmarked public right of way to the mine which crosses a hostile landowners land and is a potential easy access for the divers who have to carry heavy gear

When back from holiday I shall be looking at this and taking the  matter up with the local authority.

It is a matter of some speculation where landowners wishes fit into this equation

As a footnote, not caring one whit about the law is likely to bring one in confrontation with it, and guess who usually wins.
Thank God Samsung don't make caving lamps.

Offline shortscotsman

  • addict
  • **
  • Posts: 152
  • Albanwr byr
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #169 on: April 21, 2017, 11:56:34 am »

It is a matter of some speculation where landowners wishes fit into this equation

As a footnote, not caring one whit about the law is likely to bring one in confrontation with it, and guess who usually wins.

..might well need a new thread.  This sounds simple: The law really has to be respected by both cavers and landowners and
landowners wishes don't override "rights of way".

As someone who has humped cylinders etc over the hill to the upper silica mine I'm curious as to what the route is...

Offline royfellows

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 707
    • mineexplorer.com
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #170 on: April 21, 2017, 12:55:43 pm »
Once the initiative gets under way I will start a new thread with full background etc, but in meantime you will be able to find the route here

On the rtc website the path is listed along with adopted roads (click on prow and adopted roads)

 http://my.rctcbc.gov.uk/myRhondda.aspx.

It not shown on the OS map. Also the continuation of the tarmac road past Dinas Rock car park is a council public road, not a private road belonging to the farm

I have to add that the proposed walkway project is dead but as yet I have not been able to update the NAL website as I am away on holiday

This is an alternative kindly suggested by NRW.
Thank God Samsung don't make caving lamps.

Offline Goydenman

  • Black Sheep Digger
  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 787
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #171 on: April 21, 2017, 01:59:22 pm »
Or perhaps respect the wishes of the people who own the land.

I agree.

I also think that the vast majority of cavers also agree with the principle and moral standard (which addresses Chris's second point above).

During the campaigning ahead of the BCA CRoW ballot, there was a tremendous amount of vitriol including aspersions that, if the ballot went in favour of clarifying the rights of cavers under the CRoW act, many cavers would run roughshod over landowners and damage relationships and potentially bringing the whole caving community into disrepute.

The ballot did prove in favour but I have seen no reports (on here or anywhere else) of gates being removed, landowners being railroaded or any “damage or dis-respect” (resulting from the ballot). In short, the nuclear war never happened.

We all recognise that landowners have wishes and, so far, the vast majority of cavers (at least) continue to acquiesce (and probably always will do so).

Landowners also have legal responsibilities that their “wishes” do not trump. In fact, we all (as individuals) have a great many wishes that do not trump statutes. An easy example is that we all have the right to use a public library. It may be that there is a person in there that you feel should not be there but your “wish” does not exceed the statute that allows the other person the right to use the library. In short, acceding to “wishes” is a two way street (whether a landowner or not).

Specifically with landowners, there are many responsibilities (legally and morally) that fall on their shoulders. Their wish that a public right of way not be used to cross their land is trumped by the statute that permits us all to use it. A schedule on land would prevent the landowner from potentially utilising it without the correct licence. Again, their “wish” fails to overcome the statute. There are many other examples but you get the point.

The law exists for the benefit of the people. That isn’t to say that the government of the day made the right decision. Nevertheless, the law applies to us all whether we “wish” it or not.

The BCA members voted in favour of clarifying the law as to whether or not CRoW extends to caving. That is a perfectly moral and respectful action. Some people within the BCA have worked very hard to address the wishes of the majority of the members who voted. Whilst engaged in this process they have been openly mindful of landowner wishes and have acted to preserve relationships. During this process, the “cavers” have been caving without behaving in any way to upset this work or damage the reputation of the BCA and caving in general.

I would suggest that, a small minority who are actively fighting against the hard working, respectable few are the ones bringing the caving community and the credibility of the BCA into disrepute.

“Wishes” do not trump statute. No one is going to dis-respect landowners – We don’t need to assume that, the “proof” is already evident – Since the ballot, there has been no resulting dis-respect.

Please stop doom-mongering.

Ian

LIKE ALSO

Offline Cap'n Chris

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 11977
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #172 on: April 21, 2017, 02:35:58 pm »
The ballot did prove in favour but I have seen no reports (on here or anywhere else) of gates being removed, landowners being railroaded or any “damage or dis-respect” (resulting from the ballot). In short, the nuclear war never happened.

You need to improve your looking. There is evidence which supports the contrary view.

Offline Simon Wilson

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1287
    • IC Resin Anchor
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #173 on: April 21, 2017, 03:54:58 pm »
The ballot did prove in favour but I have seen no reports (on here or anywhere else) of gates being removed, landowners being railroaded or any “damage or dis-respect” (resulting from the ballot). In short, the nuclear war never happened.

You need to improve your looking. There is evidence which supports the contrary view.

Put up or shut up.

Offline alastairgott

  • Rising
  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 747
  • Ex YUCPC and MUSC
    • CURB Hope Valley Parking Restrictions
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #174 on: April 21, 2017, 04:15:11 pm »
Stop!

Think about what you're even saying to each other.

Clearly there will be isolated incidents of damage, clearly nothing in Yorkshire. Otherwise I'm sure Simon would share your opinion and sympathise. He seemingly does not, which is disappointing for his own cause.

However "Cap'n" you should not be so sharp and scathing with your observations.

Clearly what Ian was trying to say is that landowners are trying to be reassured that the system CAN work when the change is brought in.
 or in the opposite way that the system currently works.

By people breaking things, proving each other "wrong" or otherwise creating Crisis' where there are none, this will do nothing to improve our landowner relations.
 This is the one thing that as a community we should pride ourselves on and Congratulate ourselves.
 Where paddlers are Banned from some rivers, cavers are not banned from many systems (if any) and it is with keeping the landowner in mind that we will continue to either have good access or more help with digs.

Nidderdale is a prime example, where the landowner helps the diggers transport scaff to their holes.
 There are other more recent success stories in Derbyshire on this forum.

Please modify your attitude, it's not welcome or helpful!
The GottZone (forever)
TSG (2011-Now)
https://twitter.com/CURB_hopeV_park