BBC 5 Live interview on the BCA's CROW campaign

[David Rose]

To quote one friend "are they a bunch of cap doffing Victorian peasants in fear of the lord of the manor?"

 

[David Rose]

The answer is: YES.

Benny Rothman, had he been a caver, would be turning in his grave.

Of course, there are also those who LIKE access restrictions - for their own sake and the delightful exercise of a little power. Trusted tenant farmers, perhaps, been with the family in the big house for generations, would hate to see any reduction in milord and 'erlayship's influence.

Downton Abbey is the new caving paradigm. How weird. 

 

[Simon Wilson]

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.

Their concerns have been acknowledged, given serious consideration, discussed at very great length at all levels and solutions have been suggested.

The main concern in the northern region has been permission for digging. This has been debated by the people who are most in contact with the landowners involved and the concern is overwhelmingly considered to be unfounded.

The main concern in the southern region is retaining locks on two caves. The solution has been suggested that it would require some paperwork in order to retain the locks.

These concerns need to be weighed against confirming the right of access to caves in several hundred square miles of karst in the North.

 

[Pitlamp]

I find myself agreeing with Simon's final sentence above but the tone of the preceding posts is disappointing. Some experienced cavers do have genuine concerns, for what they believe are good reasons. They feel their concerns haven't been properly addressed yet.

My own feelings are mixed. I'm the sort who can be persuaded by evidence, as experience has taught me that few things in life are purely black or white. As an active northern caver, who obviously prefers the easiest access possible, I'm hardly likely to be persuaded by David Rose's remarks above.

We've met once David; I know you're an articulate and highly intelligent person. If your "YES" comment means you really believe many of your fellow cavers are "a bunch of cap doffing Victorian peasants in fear of the Lord of the Manor" then I'm afraid I'll not be looking at your contributions with any great seriousness in future. If you could post a little more reasonably then I'm sure we can have useful and positive discussion.

Sorry to have to express the above but I'd like to bet I wasn't the only one who felt slightly insulted by your comment.

 

[caving_fox]

JennyP 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.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Badlad]

The BCA chairman has held personal meetings with several of those most concerned about a legal right of access to caves on CRoW land.  Concerns have been listened to and some solutions offered.  In addition Bob Mehew has offered his wealth of knowledge on the CRoW Act Section 26 restrictions for conservation reasons to help bring about a solution.  It seems some people want the status quo or no quo at all, regardless of the consequences.

 

[steviet_scg]

... I'd like to bet I wasn't the only one who felt slightly insulted by your comment.

Quite right Pitlamp. I voted for the campaign after very careful thought and I acknowledge that there are concerns and issues that should be discussed - but trying to make this out to be some sort of class war is silly, misses the point and riles me (and I support the campaign!)

Anyway, taking a more pragmatic and solution focused view I see lots of mention of section 26 but nothing about the power under the CRoW Act for access authorities to make byelaws to restrict access.

"Byelaws.

(1)An access authority may, as respects access land in their area, make byelaws?

(a)for the preservation of order,

(b)for the prevention of damage to the land or anything on or in it (my emphasis), and

(c)for securing that persons exercising the right conferred by section 2(1) so behave themselves as to avoid undue interference with the enjoyment of the land by other persons."

Steve

 

[droid]

I'm not insulted in the slightest by David's comment. It was made from ignorance.

 

[Alex]

Just heard there is going to be programme on open access on Look North tonight. Those in Yorkshire turn to BBC1, it will likely be on in the next 15 minutes.

 

[David Rose]

Sorry to upset you PItlamp. I was, er, trying to be a little humorous. I guess it misfired. Apologies. I revere your long and incredible record of exploration, and I take your words on any topic very seriously.

 

[droid]

I too take Pitlamp's views seriously. he shows an admirable level of pragmatism and level-headedness which is a good example to those of us that occasionally get over-enthusiastic with our debating.

 

[Peter Burgess]

It's called maturity. There are glimmers of it on both sides. Both ALEXW and Pitlamp are good examples.

 

[todcaver]

Mature is a word best used wisely ! 

 

[Peter Burgess]

I hope I can at least recognise it in others. That's a start!

 

[Pitlamp]

Sorry to upset you PItlamp. I was, er, trying to be a little humorous. I guess it misfired. Apologies. I revere your long and incredible record of exploration, and I take your words on any topic very seriously.

Thanks for your kind words David - I still think you're probably doing the caving community a disservice but the last thing I'd want to do is fall out with you or anyone else for that matter. I'm still willing to be swayed by the right words of course but it's not happened yet and I do know (from large numbers of private correspondences) that many other cavers think similarly.

I have nothing but admiration for the energy which some exemplary individuals have put into this campaign (seriously) but I've not yet been persuaded it's the right thing to do. I've been lucky to benefit from landowners' kindnesses on many occasions (as have lots of cavers) and this just doesn't seem like the right way to pay them back.

One thing which does worry me is the many references to a "strong mandate" and the fact that the "majority of cavers" are in favour of the CRoW approach. But if memory serves me right over half of BCA members decided not to have anything to do with the vote - and over a third of those who did vote were against proceeding. The many non BCA members got no say at all. The weighting given to club votes rendered their input meaningless. Is this really democracy in spirit?

I mention the above, not because I want to carp on about it, but because I'd have fewer qualms about going along with something I don't agree with if there really had been a strong mandate. But pursuing this course of action with such a weak "mandate" is one of the things which causes me greatest concern.

In all sincerity, I do appreciate your words above David. Next time you plan to stay at Greenclose send me a PM beforehand as I'd love to come and have a natter with you over a brew or a beer. After all, it's even possible you might be able to change my mind.

(For anyone else who is considering jumping on the keyboard to pick holes in what I typed above, just pause first and consider that if you really want to change things, the above just may be the best advice of all. If I was a BCA officer, in favour of the CRoW initiative, I'd be thinking about how I could now persuade as many cavers as possible to believe it's the best course of action. Otherwise it may always to be fraught with problems.

Enough - time to sort out some caving gear!

 

[BCA Chair]

The weighting given to club votes rendered their input meaningless. Is this really democracy in spirit?

Sorry that this is somewhat off topic, but I feel I should pick up on this to avoid any misunderstandings. BCA's membership is something like 5,600 individuals and 180 groups (i.e. largely clubs). Each of these had 1 vote in the CRoW ballot, so there was absolutely NO weighting given to club votes. In fact it could be argued that it was hugely weighted in favour of individuals (unlike AGM voting where votes have to be passed by both individuals and groups separately).

 

[Pitlamp]

The weighting given to club votes rendered their input meaningless. Is this really democracy in spirit?

Sorry that this is somewhat off topic, but I feel I should pick up on this to avoid any misunderstandings. BCA's membership is something like 5,600 individuals and 180 groups (i.e. largely clubs). Each of these had 1 vote in the CRoW ballot, so there was absolutely NO weighting given to club votes. In fact it could be argued that it was hugely weighted in favour of individuals (unlike AGM voting where votes have to be passed by both individuals and groups separately).

I think that was actually the point I was trying to make. One club I'm in has (from memory) about 300 members. It went to a lot of trouble to canvass opinion before making a collective decision. But that decision carried so little weight, despite representing so many cavers. I was never happy with this and I still don't feel it was the right way to do things.

But don't worry about that now - please take my comments above in the spirit in which they were intended. (It certainly wasn't meant as a criticism of volunteers like you.)

 

[jasonbirder]

I'd be thinking about how I could now persuade as many cavers as possible to believe it's the best course of action. Otherwise it may always to be fraught with problems.

But hasn't that already been done?
There was debate...arguments were deployed to sway and persuade...there was a vote...there was a decision...

Are you suggesting ANOTHER referendum? Then what...keep doing it till the right decision comes up...

There's no possible vote referendum or election in the world in which people that don't vote get to have their vote counted by the losing side...
The people that didn't vote - decided to go along with the majority by the very action of abstaining...

 

[Gollum]

Think you are wasting your time Jason. A vote was taken and a decision was reached. End of. Why are people wasting their time even discussing it? Lets leave it alone and let the BCA get on with it.

 

[Pitlamp]

I take your point above Jasonbirder - you explained it very well in fact (thanks).

I don't know the best way to work towards a more united front but the fact that many cavers weren't allowed to vote at all (non BCA members) or their opinion counted for virtually nothing (club votes) makes me (at least) concerned.

I almost didn't vote myself because I was torn between the options.  I did cast my vote in the end but I didn't vote confidently. I suspect others hesitated long enough that they missed the deadline.

I'm going to have to turn my attention to something else for the evening but I'll sign off by mentioning that the many posts on the CRoW topic demonstrates a caving community deeply divided. I'm not sure what the answer to this is - but I know it concerns me greatly that such divisions exist.

(Non of the above should be regarded as "dirty tricks" or "lies" as suggested elsewhere on this forum today - I'm just attempting to share my honest opinion.)

I'll shut up now . . . .