Access, CRoW and the BCA

[Peter Burgess]

I'm reading between the lines, but I think what Nigr is saying is that he and his chums will take a positive response from the QC as carte blanche to cut off locks and do as they wish on CROW land - before any official guidance comes in to place.

Rhys

If true, and I emphasise that IF true, it sets the lie to the "don't worry everything will turn out fine" message being pushed increasingly by some. I really hope you are wrong and everyone who wants to see things clarified will behave nicely.

 

[bograt]

I'm reading between the lines, but I think what Nigr is saying is that he and his chums will take a positive response from the QC as carte blanche to cut off locks and do as they wish on CROW land - before any official guidance comes in to place.

Rhys

 

This is likely to come into the category of "Criminal Damage", an offence that the CRoW act does add muscle to.

 

[NigR]

I'm reading between the lines, but I think what Nigr is saying is that he and his chums will take a positive response from the QC as carte blanche to cut off locks and do as they wish on CROW land - before any official guidance comes in to place.

Rhys

No, Rhys, that is not what I am saying at all and you know it.

Drws Cefn is currently open. It is not locked, it is not gated. It has been this way for the last four years. However, plans are well advanced for the entrance to be permanently sealed and this was emphasised at last week's PDCMG Meeting.

In order to prevent this from happening (and, hopefully, to secure future access to the cave) we are fully prepared to use the CRoW Act to our advantage if possible (with all the legal ramifications this implies).

Is that any clearer for you, Rhys (or would you still prefer to "read between the lines")?

Again, apologies to Mel, the BCA and anyone else (particularly in other areas) who may be affected as a result. I fully appreciate why you might prefer us not to go down this route but, as things stand, we are being left with no other alternative.

 

[Rhys]

I didn't know what you meant Nig. You made a cryptic sort of threat. I apologise if my interpretation was off beam. I still don't know what you think is BCA's "worst nightmare" though.

 

[graham]

Again, apologies to Mel, the BCA and anyone else (particularly in other areas) who may be affected as a result. I fully appreciate why you might prefer us not to go down this route but, as things stand, we are being left with no other alternative.

Bollocks, there is a perfectly good alternative to Drews Cefn that is available for you to use.

 

[Ian Adams]

Again, apologies to Mel, the BCA and anyone else (particularly in other areas) who may be affected as a result. I fully appreciate why you might prefer us not to go down this route but, as things stand, we are being left with no other alternative.

Bollocks, there is a perfectly good alternative to Drews Cefn that is available for you to use.

There is no good reason to concrete a cave entrance especially as it contravenes both the Regional Council's constitution and the BCA constitution. There is no justification at all for sealing off a natural feature like this - not even conservation.

It requires nothing less than a deranged megalomaniac to believe that "concreting" a cave entrance is a solution to anything other preventing people going in at all.

It staggers belief in even the wildest of extreme views.

Concreting an entrance ???????    Seriously ????????

Ian

 

[graham]

There is no good reason to concrete a cave entrance especially as it contravenes both the Regional Council's constitution and the BCA constitution.

No, it doesn't

BCA Constitution:

4.6. That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access.

CCC Constitution:

4.2  That the owners and tenants of property containing caves, have the right to grant or withhold access.

Now, you might not like that, but that's what those documents actually say.

 

[Ian Adams]

More mis-direction and tomfoolery. You know perfectly well what the constitution(s) are and to select small parts and throw a technicality out (which is not intended to give carte blanche to clubs/groups to seal entrances) demonstrates utterly idiocy.

Even you have to believe that a gate is better than concrete, surely ?


Ian

 

[graham]

More mis-direction and tomfoolery. You know perfectly well what the constitution(s) are and to select small parts and throw a technicality out (which is not intended to give carte blanche to clubs/groups to seal entrances) demonstrates utterly idiocy.

Misdirection? The words seem perfectly clear to me.

Even you have to believe that a gate is better than concrete, surely ?

I would. Sadly experience has shown that in some places these are all too easily vandalised. A number of gates in S. Wales have been vandalised in the recent past. I can understand if something more robust is to be preferred.

 

[Ian Adams]

Your apparent justification to concreting a cave entrance leaves me utterly flabbergasted ....

 

[Fulk]

Zzzzzzzzzzz . . . . . . .

 

[graham]

Your apparent justification to concreting a cave entrance leaves me utterly flabbergasted ....

Thing is, I didn't mention concrete, you did. 

 

[jasonbirder]

Graham is obviously just a contrarian...and enjoys the sport of disagreeing for disagreeing sake...
I don't think a single person really believes that any part of the BCA or CCC constitution is intended to support the vandalising of Natural Cave entrances with concrete...

Don't feed the troll!

 

[Peter Burgess]

CCC clause 13.1. Graham - you mustn't interpret the constitution - it's unconstitutional.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Damn! Now I've interpreted it. 

 

[David Rose]

So far as I can see, almost all the really nasty anger and venom displayed in this thread originates in arguments over just three cave systems: Ogof Draenen, St Cuthbert's Swallet, and Upper Flood Swallet.

This is not a sensible state of affairs. There seems to be virtually no controversy over the the prospect of CROW access in the Dales and Derbyshire, and very little in Wales or Mendip other than at these few sites.

People, we can do better than this.

 

[graham]

CCC clause 13.1. Graham - you mustn't interpret the constitution - it's unconstitutional.

I didn't, old son. I merely quoted from it.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Cave systems and arguments don't get angry, David, people do. And this is something only the individuals concerned can do anything about.

 

[Peter Burgess]

CCC clause 13.1. Graham - you mustn't interpret the constitution - it's unconstitutional.

I didn't, old son. I merely quoted from it.

OK Grandad, but you were quite brave to include the words "No it doesn't" before your quotes!

 

[graham]

So far as I can see, almost all the really nasty anger and venom displayed in this thread originates in arguments over just three cave systems: Ogof Draenen, St Cuthbert's Swallet, and Upper Flood Swallet.

This is not a sensible state of affairs. There seems to be virtually no controversy over the the prospect of CROW access in the Dales and Derbyshire, and very little in Wales or Mendip other than at these few sites.

People, we can do better than this.

David

Don't make the mistake of believing that what you read on here constitutes the totality of what concerns British cavers when it comes to at risk sites and landowner relations.

Of the three that you mention, I don't believe that anyone from the BEC or from the PDCMG has taken any direct part in this thread and martinr, by his own admission is not part of the active management of UFS. Also, I do not think we have seen anything from actual officers of CNCC, either.

I suspect that there are good reasons for all this; I, for one, am only taking part in this because none of the sites that I share responsibility for are put at risk by this move. Consider that others may have a contrary motive, or two.

OK Grandad, but you were quite brave to include the words "No it doesn't" before your quotes!

Your pendant is in the post.