BBC 5 Live interview on the BCA's CROW campaign

[PeteHall]

I am concerned that the meeting will be held in the Hunters on Mendip, the stronghold of anti-CROW cavers, and will effectively be "packed" to produce an anti-CROW majority. This is the faction that emailed all BCA members before the referendum urging them to vote against the campaign. It is quite capable of mounting a determined drive to get out its local vote and so override the wishes of most cavers nationally  - wishes that have already been clearly expressed. My hunch is that such an effort is already underway.

I've been wondering whether the damage done to a cave in the vicinity of the AGM will be used as leverage to sway the debate against open access.  Which then leads to the question whether this damage was done deliberately by cavers to achieve such an outcome. Surely not?

I hope you are right Duncan! But as you suggest, I don't doubt this will be used as leverage to act against the wishes of the BCA membership.

 

[Simon Wilson]

PLease will someone who has some understanding of the caving politics down south answer the following.

Are the small number of individuals who want to ignore the will of the majority in the BCA generally the same people who have been accused of circumventing democracy in the southern region?

Are you lot down there so apathetic that you won't boot them out?

 

[MJenkinson]

I am assuming there is no way to vote on BCA matters as a member without being present at the meeting / AGM?

 

[todcaver]

So you can't vote unless you attend a meeting in south Wales 
Sounds dodgy to me ?

 

[droid]

I agree Jason its simple really the anti CROW/anti access are trying everything in their power to stop this from happening, even if it means pointing out ridicules things like this. Watch this space, it will lawyers next (oh wait that was the other side lol).

You'd better hope the BCA doesn't get mired in this.

Not only will the BCA look a bit daft for not taking its own Constitution into account when formulating the Referendum, but it'll also get pretty expensive.

But I ask again, where were the barrack-room lawyers before this all started? I can't see it as being impossible to re-word the Constitution *before* the Referendum.

 

[andrewmcleod]

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.

Seriously? The future of the British Caving Association, with 10,000 members or so, is decided entirely by the number of people who can fit in a pub somewhere?

I got my postal proxy voting form for the BMC AGM motions in the last Summit magazine (which reminds me, I need to post it off). Is democracy really served by decisions made by <1% of its members? Perhaps I should propose an amendment to allow postal/proxy voting...

 

[droid]

I agree with you on that one, Andrew. However the BMC and BCA are rather different animals RE size.

I really do think your constant comparing of the Climbing/mountaineering world with that of Caving is a bit of a red herring.

 

[andrewmcleod]

I agree with you on that one, Andrew. However the BMC and BCA are rather different animals RE size.

I really do think your constant comparing of the Climbing/mountaineering world with that of Caving is a bit of a red herring.

BCA is ~6,000; Wiki says BMC is 75,000 members. To an astrophysicist such as myself that's only about one order of magnitude and therefore nearly the same (it is a bit more than I thought actually, and I got the number of BCA members wrong a bit)

 

[Jenny P]

Don't forget that BCA did, for the first time ever, ask their members via a postal referendum to vote on the CRoW issue.  It had to be done by a postal vote because BCA does not have email addresses for all its members and did not have permission to use email addresses for the purpose of holding a referendum.  This cost BCA a few thousand ???s but did achieve a result in that there was a clear majority in favour of the proposal, which has been quoted above.

Since the postal referendum BCA has been attempting to collect its members email addresses so that, with their permission, it can allow them to vote by email in future.  This is quite a complicated process but it is an attempt to make BCA more democratic and able to respond to its members wishes as expressed by their votes.  One difficulty is that many members are CLUB Individual Members, i.e. their club informs BCA of their contact details, pays their membership fees on their behalf, etc.  For some reason a few clubs have refused to pass on their members' emails, despite it being quite simple to ask the members for permission to pass this information on.  There remain some members who would prefer not to allow BCA to have their email address and BCA has to respect this and a postal vote will still be possible for these people but it is more expensive and takes longer.  So there will be a chance to vote in respect of changes to the constitution without having to travel long distances to attend an AGM.

I can't remember who it was that said something on the lines of, "democracy is the worst possible form of government - until you look at all the other options".  For this to work it is important that all members of BCA take the trouble to inform themselves of issues raised and don't just rely on being "told what to think" by their club or regional council.

It's also worth pointing out that the conditions on the ground are quite different in the different caving regions, e.g. square miles of open, unfenced moorland with large areas of access land covered by CRoW legislation in the North; as opposed to farmland which is fenced, quite heavily used, close to roads which give easy access and very few areas covered by CRoW in the South.  It's clear that those from opposite ends of the country often fail to appreciate the conditions which inform the points of view of others.  It isn't impossible to make access to caves under CRoW legislation work sensibly but it does need some serious thought, a willingness to see the others' point of view and an understanding of the legislation which already exists under CRoW to protect especially vulnerable sites.

 

[droid]

It isn't impossible to make access to caves under CRoW legislation work sensibly but it does need some serious thought, a willingness to see the others' point of view and an understanding of the legislation which already exists under CRoW to protect especially vulnerable sites.

Well said.

Perhaps those that specialise in hysterical, apocalyptic visions of the future (on both sides) could consider this.

Those of us that are willing to listen to considered argument rather than rabble-rousing rhetoric would be most grateful.

 

[jasonbirder]

For those that specialise in hysterical apocalyptic visions of the future - Its worth remembering EXACTLY the same arguments as are being used to oppose recognising Caver Access under CRoW where used to oppose the whole principle of Access Land
Landowners and their schills trotted out Erosion Littering Damage to gates/fences Habitat Destruction jeopardizing existing access agreements etc etc

13 years on - none of that has come to pass...

No doubt when the argument for Caver access has been won the same individuals can move on and deploy the same trite arguments to oppose opening up waterways to Paddlers

 

[Bob Mehew]

I am assuming there is no way to vote on BCA matters as a member without being present at the meeting / AGM?

No is the simple answer.  When we wrote the constitution we did not include a proxy voting system.  (That is not to be confused with Constitutional motions do require a subsequent postal vote as do motions which the general meeting specifically refers.) 

Not only will the BCA look a bit daft for not taking its own Constitution into account when formulating the Referendum, but it'll also get pretty expensive.

But I ask again, where were the barrack-room lawyers before this all started? I can't see it as being impossible to re-word the Constitution *before* the Referendum.

I will restrain myself as one of the barrack room lawyers to simply saying that the accepted position at the 2014 AGM brought out whilst discussing my motion (which was pre referendum) was that we could not seek to persuade people by campaign or what ever process you may wish to call it to change the law but we could seek to get a change to the understanding of how the existing law applies.  The referendum made it clear that if the motion was agreed, then it would involve more than just going to DEFRA, NE & NRW.  I have claimed the 2015 AGM motion did not limit who BCA could approach, see http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=20128.msg258231#msg258231.

It isn't impossible to make access to caves under CRoW legislation work sensibly but it does need some serious thought, a willingness to see the others' point of view and an understanding of the legislation which already exists under CRoW to protect especially vulnerable sites.

I fully agree.  I am prepared to talk.

 

[todcaver]

Seriously? The future of the British Caving Association, with 10,000 members or so, is decided entirely by the number of people who can fit in a pub somewhere?

If someone try's telling me I've got to do what a pub full of Pisa heads say,
They won't have a leg to stand on 

 

[droid]

simply saying that the accepted position at the 2014 AGM brought out whilst discussing my motion (which was pre referendum) was that we could not seek to persuade people by campaign or what ever process you may wish to call it to change the law but we could seek to get a change to the understanding of how the existing law applies.  The referendum made it clear that if the motion was agreed, then it would involve more than just going to DEFRA, NE & NRW.  I have claimed the 2015 AGM motion did not limit who BCA could approach,

Thank you for the clarification, Bob.

I, for one, can live with that.

All we need now for peace and love to prevail in the caving firmament is for some others to at least acknowledge the other concerns that the CRoW-cautious lobby have. And maybe address them in terms that suggest solutions to those concerns. That hasn't happened yet. Unless 'stop making problems' and 'trust us, it'll be OK' count as solutions.....

 

[Brains]

It has been alledged that the meeting "darn sarf" may be filled with voters adherent to a minority viewpoint, in order to get their own way.
As was posted on the Takard Shaft thread:

I find Mendip is a hotbed of conspiracy and often its just best to keep out of it.

Apologies if you feel this out of context, but it seems to fit zetgeist?

This might be an side, or an irrelevance, but a parallel seems to be in here somewhere...
At the end of WWII the wartime coalition was replaced by a massive socialist landslide victory. This was partly on a mandate to enact the welfare state amongst other things. The upper house was hugely dominated by those of opposing views, BUT they accepted the voice of people and the mandate given to the new government, and decided they would only vote against acts there were bad in a legal sense of being poorly written or formulated. Thus the will of the people was respected and the purpose of the upper house redefined as not opposing the peoples elected representatives, but rather as a filter to weed out choss

 

[Peter Burgess]

Are you saying there is no badly thought out process in BCA worthy of an expression of caution, i.e. choss? Perhaps there is? Maybe enough people think there is, hence the counter arguments expressed. Your analogy of the post-war government is amusing.

 

[Bob Mehew]

All we need now for peace and love to prevail in the caving firmament is for some others to at least acknowledge the other concerns that the CRoW-cautious lobby have. And maybe address them in terms that suggest solutions to those concerns. That hasn't happened yet. Unless 'stop making problems' and 'trust us, it'll be OK' count as solutions.....

Back in September 2014 we issued a document at Hidden Earth making the case for CRoW applying to caving, see https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0RTfmWzkLQMVkdfNlNFeU1MeFk.  In that we mentioned Section 26 which does allow for controlling access if a case can be made.  I have also mentioned Section 26 in past threads and the fact that one Direction issued in Yorkshire includes a cave entrance (albeit on grounds of water supply).  I can't recall any anti CRoW person having a dialogue with me on details.  (I even button holed one person recently and made an offer but 3 weeks later I still have had no take up on that offer.) 

It is a cave specific problem so advice would have to be tailored to the detail.  There is also a fundamental question at what threshold do we seek control over access as saying every 'now gated' cave has to remain gated won't cut much ice with NE or NRW.  The starting point is in http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140304112715/http:/www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/RAG%20V4%20for%20website_tcm6-12375.pdf or https://naturalresources.wales/out-and-about/recreation-and-access-policy-advice-and-guidance/managing-access/restrictions-on-access-land/?lang=en.  It is also worth noting that when CRoW Open Access Land came into effect, I recall NE used temporary Directions to cover the months it took to consult with all before the long term Directions were issued (or not).  So provided the process is done with a little care, there should not be any period when gates have to remain open.

I am aware that C&A are drafting some advice for Access Controlling Bodies but I am unsure where it has got to so won't speak further.

If someone try's telling me I've got to do what a pub full of Pisa heads say,

But most of the meeting will take place before the bar opens. 

 

[Brains]

Are you saying there is no badly thought out process in BCA worthy of an expression of caution, i.e. choss? Perhaps there is? Maybe enough people think there is, hence the counter arguments expressed. Your analogy of the post-war government is amusing.

I am syaing the will of the membersip ius quite clear and should not be subverted, HOWEVER if a glitch is found then it should be rememdied WITHOUT refusing the mandate of the electorate.
ie if there is genuinely a misalignment of the constitution and the will of the electorate, then it is the constitution that should be changed. After all it should be to make life easier for caving, not the enjoyment of pedants

 

[Ed]

as a a caver / climber / canoe paddler / walker  - the bitter and vocal stance of minority of BCA members - that from the outside appear to be those in "control" of access to certain caves against CROW access (especially as it doesn't impact on the majority of the loud anits area) has made caving a bit of a laughing stock in the outdoor world.

People in climb with can't believe some members of the community are so determined to prevent access. To quote one friend "are they a bunch of cap doffing Victorian peasants in fear of the lord of the manor?"

Their words not mine. I've heard similar comment several times.

I can see a situation where the north breaks away from the less enlightened parts of the UK.

 

[Brains]

as a a caver / climber / canoe paddler / walker  - the bitter and vocal stance of minority of BCA members - that from the outside appear to be those in "control" of access to certain caves against CROW access (especially as it doesn't impact on the majority of the loud anits area) has made caving a bit of a laughing stock in the outdoor world.

People in climb with can't believe some members of the community are so determined to prevent access. To quote one friend "are they a bunch of cap doffing Victorian peasants in fear of the lord of the manor?"

Their words not mine. I've heard similar comment several times.

I can see a situation where the north breaks away from the less enlightened parts of the UK.

Well said, so indepenence for Yorkshire it is!