Author Topic: bca meeting 25/3 /2017  (Read 19177 times)

Offline Cap'n Chris

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 11991
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #175 on: April 21, 2017, 04:28:21 pm »
However "Cap'n" you should not be so sharp and scathing with your observations.

Which observations of mine were sharp and scathing?
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 04:38:53 pm by Cap'n Chris »

Offline alastairgott

  • Excessive
  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 782
  • Live in Hope, Die in a Vein
    • CURB Hope Valley Parking Restrictions
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #176 on: April 21, 2017, 06:29:12 pm »
You need to improve your looking.

In short whether you intended it to be sharp and scathing, thats the way it came across.

It's this arguing that Could be creating a problem.

This forum is public, correct? So anyone can view it.
 Imagine theres a landowner whether now or in the future that looks at these pages, and sees people spitting at each other.

I cannot prove that this has happened.

But can you prove that this wont happen in the future?

Think on what you make public, its there forever and can prove self defeating to any cause which we may have in the future.

Offline Cap'n Chris

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 11991
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #177 on: April 21, 2017, 06:53:25 pm »
The way people read my posts incorrectly is not my fault. 

Whereabouts was I arguing? I have looked, really I have.

(As a side note it's perhaps worth mentioning that a forum, by definition, has to contain debate, does it not?).

Imagine I am an Access land owner.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 07:06:14 pm by Cap'n Chris »

Offline cavemanmike

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #178 on: April 21, 2017, 07:19:21 pm »
Imagine I am an Access land owner.

can anyone access the cave on your "land" or do you need a funny hand shake  ::) ::)

Offline Cap'n Chris

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 11991
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #179 on: April 21, 2017, 07:23:15 pm »
Is that sharp and scathing?

Offline alastairgott

  • Excessive
  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 782
  • Live in Hope, Die in a Vein
    • CURB Hope Valley Parking Restrictions
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #180 on: April 21, 2017, 07:30:38 pm »
Imagine I am an Access land owner.

Great to have you here already Sir!

I'm positive we will have many happy years of good landowner relations!

Top of the evening to you sir!

Offline Badlad

  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1056
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #181 on: April 21, 2017, 08:08:54 pm »
Chris

I understood you were the owner of the entrance to Glebe Swallet and a very small area around the entrance.  This would make you the landowner of one of the smallest pieces of access land in the country.

« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 08:30:47 pm by Pegasus »

Offline andrewmc

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • EUSS, BEC, YSS...
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #182 on: April 21, 2017, 08:27:24 pm »
Chris

I understood you were the owner of the entrance to Glebe Swallet and a very small area around the entrance.  This would make you the landowner of one of the smallest pieces of access land in the country.



On a only somewhat slightly related note, owning an entrance presumably gives you to enter that entrance - but the rest of the cave is still owned by someone (generally, in absence of additional right, the surface landowner I believe). If you want to argue you are respecting landowner rights, then presumably you should ensure that all the surface landowners are happy for you to enter their land underground as well as above ground?

Obviously trespass is a civil offence, rather than a criminal one, provided you are not obstructing lawful activity.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 08:33:04 pm by Pegasus »

Offline cavemanmike

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #183 on: April 21, 2017, 08:44:45 pm »
Chris

I understood you were the owner of the entrance to Glebe Swallet and a very small area around the entrance.  This would make you the landowner of one of the smallest pieces of access land in the country.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbsup:

Offline Ed

  • regular
  • *
  • Posts: 42
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #184 on: April 21, 2017, 08:53:42 pm »
Chris

I understood you were the owner of the entrance to Glebe Swallet and a very small area around the entrance.  This would make you the landowner of one of the smallest pieces of access land in the country.


And access under CROW would remove your liability obligations at a stroke.

Offline Oceanrower

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 240
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #185 on: April 21, 2017, 11:38:48 pm »
Chris

I understood you were the owner of the entrance to Glebe Swallet and a very small area around the entrance. 

In fairness, I think Chris is also the owner of the entrance to Grebe Swallet

Offline cavemanmike

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #186 on: April 22, 2017, 12:07:33 am »

[/quote]
In fairness, I think Chris is also the owner of the entrance to Grebe Swallet
[/quote]
Ye but is there open access

Offline droid

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1723
  • WMRG
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #187 on: April 22, 2017, 08:38:19 am »
In fairness, I think Chris is also the owner of the entrance to Grebe Swallet
7

Did a little bird tell you that?
No longer 'Exceptionally antagonistic' 'Deliberately inflammatory'

Offline NewStuff

  • Vocal proponent of Open Access
  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 456
  • www.dddwhcc.com
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #188 on: April 22, 2017, 11:15:41 am »
Please modify your attitude, it's not welcome or helpful!

If there were not so many "dirty tricks", assertions of wrongdoing, assuming Pro voters are mentally deficient and/or morally corrupt, totally unfounded/malicious accusations of criminal damage, misinformation and outright lies, this would not get so heated. But there are, so this is.

Pretending it hasn't happened to make some sort of macabre presentation of us to the "outside" world will not get this sorted. It will make resentments run deeper, and if you think bickering on here is an "issue", wait until more people get more pissed off. This is something that needs to get sorted sooner, as the longer this drags out, the worse it will get. The minority that lost the vote (irrespective of people trying to fudge the numbers), are throwing spokes into the wheels and it's entirely unsurprising that people are pushing back.
Deep Dark Dirty Wet Holes - The Right honourable Lock Persuader in Chief.

Offline Dave Tyson

  • addict
  • **
  • Posts: 130
  • WCG
    • Wirral Caving Group
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #189 on: April 22, 2017, 11:24:10 am »
+1  ;D

Dave

Offline cavemanmike

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #190 on: April 22, 2017, 12:12:46 pm »
The best way to implement change is to get voted on the exec, it's exactly what the conservationists did years ago and no one seen it coming, until now

Offline Jenny P

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 420
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #191 on: April 22, 2017, 04:05:27 pm »
Chris

I understood you were the owner of the entrance to Glebe Swallet and a very small area around the entrance.  This would make you the landowner of one of the smallest pieces of access land in the country.



On a only somewhat slightly related note, owning an entrance presumably gives you to enter that entrance - but the rest of the cave is still owned by someone (generally, in absence of additional right, the surface landowner I believe). If you want to argue you are respecting landowner rights, then presumably you should ensure that all the surface landowners are happy for you to enter their land underground as well as above ground?

Obviously trespass is a civil offence, rather than a criminal one, provided you are not obstructing lawful activity.

There are many cans of worms involved in all this!

One difficulty that DCA is finding in its problems with access to Holme Bank/Hall Chert Mines is that it is relatively easy to obtain a map of the surface holdings of any landowner from the Land registry; however this doesn't show the mineral rights.  If there are mineral rights separate from the landowner's rights it may be possible to access a cave or mine by using an entrance outwith the landowners property.  But you have to find out who owns the mineral rights and this is only of limited value in most cases because, as has been pointed out, it is normal for the landowner to have the rights to control underground access below his property.

Offline Brains

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2257
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #192 on: April 22, 2017, 04:13:32 pm »
I believe this is being discus.sed over on Aditnow, with some info on mineral rights etc.

Offline droid

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1723
  • WMRG
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #193 on: April 22, 2017, 04:55:15 pm »
The 'Pack mentality' is returning I see.

The way to deal with peoples' potential problems with CRoW for caves is to argue the point rather than the man. This ad hominem nonsense is exactly why the previous debates on this subject got so heated.
No longer 'Exceptionally antagonistic' 'Deliberately inflammatory'

Offline cavemanmike

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #194 on: April 22, 2017, 06:12:18 pm »
I'm sure I remember the late elsi little saying you don't actually need mineral right owners permission as you are not removing the mineral, or something along those lines.all you need is land owners permission to access his land (until crow applies)

Offline Kenilworth

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #195 on: April 23, 2017, 05:35:16 am »
As a footnote, not caring one whit about the law is likely to bring one in confrontation with it, and guess who usually wins.

With thousands of miles "illegally" walked, this has not been my experience. Bad behavior brings confrontation with the law. I have met a handful of landowners while trespassing, and most of these meetings have been positive. Even the worst of them have ended respectfully. Treat people well and honestly and the law is irrelevant. Which is why I cannot understand these many and heated threads about access law and policy. Sharing land should be a communal act. To reduce it to legalities ignores the concepts of personal responsibility, neighborliness, and skillful decision making, and nothing is gained besides access to a few contested sites.

Offline droid

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1723
  • WMRG
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #196 on: April 23, 2017, 07:13:43 am »
Never met a grumpy English farmer, have you Kenilworth.....
No longer 'Exceptionally antagonistic' 'Deliberately inflammatory'

Offline cavemanmike

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 329
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #197 on: April 23, 2017, 08:24:23 am »

With thousands of miles "illegally" walked, this has not been my experience. Bad behavior brings confrontation with the law. I have met a handful of landowners while trespassing, and most of these meetings have been positive. Even the worst of them have ended respectfully. Treat people well and honestly and the law is irrelevant. Which is why I cannot understand these many and heated threads about access law and policy. Sharing land should be a communal act. To reduce it to legalities ignores the concepts of personal responsibility, neighborliness, and skillful decision making, and nothing is gained besides access to a few contested sites.

I don't see how you can say that the law is irrelevant. As a land owner myself I wouldn't like people wondering around without me knowing about it

Offline andrewmc

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 361
  • EUSS, BEC, YSS...
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #198 on: April 23, 2017, 05:24:27 pm »
With thousands of miles "illegally" walked, this has not been my experience. Bad behavior brings confrontation with the law. I have met a handful of landowners while trespassing, and most of these meetings have been positive. Even the worst of them have ended respectfully. Treat people well and honestly and the law is irrelevant. Which is why I cannot understand these many and heated threads about access law and policy. Sharing land should be a communal act. To reduce it to legalities ignores the concepts of personal responsibility, neighborliness, and skillful decision making, and nothing is gained besides access to a few contested sites.

You have rather more of it (land) to walk illegal in the US... 86 people per square mile, compared with 694 people per square mile for the UK (1070 per square mile for England).

Offline Kenilworth

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 387
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #199 on: April 24, 2017, 01:02:44 am »
Never met a grumpy English farmer, have you Kenilworth.....

No. Are they different from grumpy American farmers?

I don't see how you can say that the law is irrelevant. As a land owner myself I wouldn't like people wondering around without me knowing about it

This is exactly the point. You would be displeased with my trespassing. Therefore, it is my duty as a neighbor, not to ask how I can use the law to get my way, but to either ask your blessing or to make sure you don't see me. This thought process does not include any consideration of what is legal, only what is considerate of your feelings.
In cases where I have been "caught," honesty and earnest friendliness have made the best of awkward situations.