BBC 5 Live interview on the BCA's CROW campaign

David Rose

Active member
Bravo Tim Allen for this excellent, passionate interview with Sam Walker on BBC Radio 5 Live this morning about the BCA campaign to get recognition from Defra that CROW access rights extend to caves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b075swn3

It starts at 1:24:30. NB that Ms Walker mentions that the interview had to be pre-recorded because Tim would be underground by the time it was broadcast at about 11.25. Great to see that the BCA's campaign leader is so active.

I do hope there won't be a flurry of comments claiming the interview breaches the BCA constitution, rather than reflecting a democratic mandate. I understand there are at least three motions - all from the same part of the country - due to be put before the BCA council this weekend, seeking to undermine the CROW campaign. In my view, if they are passed at the forthcoming AGM, this will do untold damage to caving and the BCA - unlike this cogent and positive interview.
 

Cookie

New member
So are you saying campaigning to remove landowner rights is not against the Constitution?

Or are you saying BCA should ignore its Constitution?
 

Beardy

Member
Cookie,

Are you saying that you want to disenfranchise the majority of cavers who voted yes to the following statement?

"Should BCA, on your behalf, campaign for The Countryside and Rights of Way Act to apply to going underground?"

Beardy
 

Cookie

New member
Well until the Constitution is changed, yes.

An organisation really should follow its own Constitution, especially where the issue is contentious.

The Constitution itself sets out how it can be changed. Do that first then you can steam full speed ahead with your campaign.
 

bazdog

Member
Cookie said:
Well until the Constitution is changed, yes.

An organisation really should follow its own Constitution, especially where the issue is contentious.

The Constitution itself sets out how it can be changed. Do that first then you can steam full speed ahead with your campaign.

How do we vote in this assuming an individual member can't make it to the AGM?
 

molerat

Member
Cookie said:
So are you saying campaigning to remove landowner rights is not against the Constitution?

Or are you saying BCA should ignore its Constitution?

Which rights would they be? It is probable that cavers have had the right to descend caves situated in mapped access land (and landowners have enjoyed reduced liability resulting from the same) since 2005.
 

Beardy

Member
Cookie said:
Well until the Constitution is changed, yes.

An organisation really should follow its own Constitution, especially where the issue is contentious.

The Constitution itself sets out how it can be changed. Do that first then you can steam full speed ahead with your campaign.

However, as has been discussed before, the BCA's constitution does not preclude it from campaigning for a legal right to apply to caving.

An organisation really should follow the wishes of the majority after holding a national vote on a contentious issue.


 

Cookie

New member
@Peter. I'm an optimist.

Beardy said:
However, as has been discussed before, the BCA's constitution does not preclude it from campaigning for a legal right to apply to caving.
That has been stated but I disagree. It is clearly against 4.6

An organisation really should follow the wishes of the majority after holding a national vote on a contentious issue.
Democracy is actually more subtle than a single vote but yes, broadly I agree. What I am saying is that shouldn't be at the expense of due process. You can have both due process and follow the wishes of the membership.

Or put it another way. The Constitution has been shaped over the years by many votes of the members past and present and their experience. Should their wishes be ignored so casually? Should their wishes have less weight than the most recent vote?


 

badger

Active member
all these crow debates get very tiresome, the reality is those that are anti are not going to be convinced by the majority, the majority are not going to listen to the anti. if defra change its understanding of the crow act those that are anti are still going to be anti, if defra don't change there understanding of the act are going to carry on as they do at the moment, either way inflammatory remarks from cavers on both sides of the argument does not help either side
in the meantime the anti camp will be as argumentive as they can
the pro camp will be as argumentive as the can back.
as far as I can see Tim Allen has acted within the remit given to him by the BCA, if people don't like what the bca have done then they could always leave, BCA are cavers acting on behalf of its membership,
the bickering is not helping any cavers anti/pro, north/south
 

Madness

New member
Tim

You're obviously working really hard on our behalf.

Thank you, and keep up the excellent work.

I see no valid reason why we shouldn't enjoy equality with other outdoor users.

 

Bob Mehew

Well-known member
Apologies to all other readers for this but I suspect it is better if I do this publicly rather than by PM.  (It might also help save some time at Saturday's Council meeting.)

Cookie said:
So are you saying campaigning to remove landowner rights is not against the Constitution?
Cookie - Your 2015 AGM motion stated that "This meeting confirms that the Constitution allows BCA to seek clarification from DEFRA and Natural England on their existing guidance on The CRoW Act and its application to caving." and places no condition on what else BCA might (or might not) do.  I for one understood your motion to solely focus on the point that the constitution did not allow BCA to campaign to change the law; a point which had been conceded some considerable time ago (I think during the debate on the original proposal in 2014).  As I recall, I made that point during the debate at the 2015 AGM in response to your motion.  (But the minutes record little detail.)

I also note that Tim used the word "extend" rather than 'change' as well as referring to 'DEFRA interpretation' in both the Guardian article and in the radio interview.  (It is DEFRA who refer to changing the law.)  So in my personal opinion he has not gone outside the accepted limitation of not being able to campaign to change the law.  I therefore am unable to see what your beef is about.

bazdog said:
How do we vote in this assuming an individual member can't make it to the AGM?
As I recall there is no provision for delegating your vote to another person; such controls as are in place relate to representatives from clubs.  (Back in the 'good' old days, there was one occasion where someone turned up purporting to represent many clubs; so a control was introduced PDQ!)
 

BCA Chair

Member
bazdog said:
How do we vote in this assuming an individual member can't make it to the AGM?
If you want to vote at an AGM, then you need to attend in person (and bring your membership card).

However your query relates to a potential Constitutional Change. Assuming any potential change is first approved by an AGM, it must then be approved by postal vote of members, so that would be your opportunity.
 

Alex

Well-known member
Just back from Matienzo and still am amazed by how ridiculas all this, the farmers there practically compete who has the biggest cave on there land and happy to point out where the caves are, the land owners are no issue. We only got told off for not parking closer to the cave, or laughed at for walking all the way up the hill when there was a road going almost directly to the cave.

Yes technically in Spain its not open access caving as a permit is required but the permit runs in-definitely all year round and provided we stay in our alloted area which is massive, we are allowed to go where we please. (Spain has complete open access as far as walking is concerned, provided you can run fast enough to avoid the bulls!)

Anyway thanks David Rose, it all helps!
 

Ian Adams

Active member
Bravo Tim - Awesome and most excellent. Please do keep up the amazing work you are doing  :)

... Just wondering ....

There is an increased amount of "noise" about landowners rights being eroded AND prior to the BCA referendum, the "anti-campaign" (in part) cited the probability of gates being ripped off en-masse if CRoW was found to allow caving.

Since DEFRA and NE have stated caving IS permissible up to the point of "light", I was wondering if;

1) Any landowners "rights" have been eroded as a result of anything cavers or the BCA have done?
2) How many gates have been ripped off in the name of "open access" on CRoW land?

(Or is it all twaddle?)

:blink:

Ian
 

droid

Active member
Hardly worth 'ripping a gate off' if you can't go in further than the daylight.

Get a grip.....lol
 
Top