BCA AGM - CRoW Report

[martinr]

Martinr,
Nice of you to selectively quote and then reply out of context to "spin" the point I was making.

So, is there more than one legal opinion or not? Is Rose QC the only lawyer allowed to have an opinion on CROW?

 

[Ian Adams]

Fascinating Peter ?.

You quote ?legal opinion? in reference to a QC Barrister and then ?authoritative critique? in reference to a retired solicitor. The former reference diminishes the status of the QC and the latter elevates the retired solicitor.

A 3rd party forming their own opinion based on spin like that is likely to come to a prejudiced opinion.

?.. And YOU have the nerve to cite ?deliberate obfuscation? .

LOL

Ian

 

[Peter Burgess]

I will not respond to your provocation. See yesterday's comments regarding responding to you.

 

[Ian Adams]

So, is there more than one legal opinion or not? Is Rose QC the only lawyer allowed to have an opinion on CROW?

Don't deliberately twist, spin and obfuscate elements of statements made and then expect your trap to be sprung.

You know perfectly well what was said and what it meant.

Ian

 

[Ian Adams]

I will not respond to your provocation. See yesterday's comments regarding responding to you.

... Because you have just been caught out AGAIN deliberating being inflammatory and deliberating obfuscating a most important issue.

Ian

 

[martinr]

So, is there more than one legal opinion or not? Is Rose QC the only lawyer allowed to have an opinion on CROW?

Don't deliberately twist, spin and obfuscate elements of statements made and then expect your trap to be sprung.

You know perfectly well what was said and what it meant.

Ian

I'm not twisting, spinning or obfuscating anything. Are you saying the only legal opinion that counts is that of Rose QC? A yes or no would suffice.

 

[Ian Adams]

I said this ....

One being an active Queen's Counsel (Barrister) who presented an opinion.

The other being a retired solicitor who offered a critique on that opinion.


Not quite "two different legal views" are they?  Not much equilibrium is there?

Ian

The meaning is very clear, your spin is very evident. Please don't insult people's intelligence.

Ian

 

[crickleymal]

I've nearly used up my supply of popcorn. Can you lot stop arguing whilst I nip out and get some more?

 

[martinr]

I said this ....

One being an active Queen's Counsel (Barrister) who presented an opinion.

The other being a retired solicitor who offered a critique on that opinion.


Not quite "two different legal views" are they?  Not much equilibrium is there?

Ian

The meaning is very clear, your spin is very evident. Please don't insult people's intelligence.

Ian

Your meaning is clear to me - only Rose QC is allowed an opinion. Am I right?

 

[Ian Adams]

I assume you are ignorant of the manner of British law and I am happy to enlighten you on this particular aspect.

Queen's Counsel (postnominal QC) are particularly eminent lawyers, mostly barristers, appointed by letters patent to be one of "Her Majesty's Counsel learned in the law."

A (retired) solicitor does not have that accolade.

In any event, the retired solicitor did not offer an ?opinion?, just a critique of an opinion given by one of Her Majesty?s Counsel?s learned in the law (which any one can do - even you).

For the sake of clarity (to stop you whining about this so much) ? it is that which I was referring to as a lack of ?equilibrium?.

Ian

 

[martinr]

I assume you are ignorant of the manner of British law and I am happy to enlighten you on this particular aspect.

You mean "let me cut and paste from Wikipedia"

I'm not ignorant of UK law, I spent 10 years of my working life presenting civil cases in the county court, so please don't insult my intelligence.

As for Linda's document. it's her view as lawyer. Your ad hominem against her doesn't diminish her opinion. Nor is it right to say D. Rose's opinion has any more weight than Linda's especially because Rose herself admits "The matter is not entirely free from doubt, since the term ?open-air? [recreation] is undefined, and may carry different shades of meaning."

 

[martinr]

Incidentally Jakalpup, you are aware that the other side (ie landowners, Natural England etc) can go to an equally  eminent QC and get an opinion that is the exact opposite of  Rose QC's opinion

 

[royfellows]

I think that I can comment on this without provoking brickbats

There is to my perception a very delicate balance between the two legal arguments, and I see all relevant points being adequately covered by both.
I can however see an issue whereby the stance taken by the relevant statutory bodies would, without any doubt in my mind, influence the decision of any court. I cannot see a judicial review going against NRW for example when all of the statutory bodies are in concert on this.

There is a tendency, human nature being what it is, to perceive the correct legal argument to be whatever a person would like it to be, but life is not like that. Things are not what we would like them to to be. So there is in fact two separate issues, one relates to the desirability of CROW to relate to cave access, the other is the legal question of whether or not it actually does.

In any event, and I have changed my opinion on this, I think it highly desirable from the point of view of both sides for a decision on this through the courts, otherwise it will continue to haunt and divide the caving community for ever.

 

[Ian Adams]

Incidentally Jakalpup, you are aware that the other side (ie landowners, Natural England etc) can go to an equally  eminent QC and get an opinion that is the exact opposite of  Rose QC's opinion

Yes, of course, and THEN we will have the equilibrium to which I was referring.

Ian

 

[martinr]

Incidentally Jakalpup, you are aware that the other side (ie landowners, Natural England etc) can go to an equally  eminent QC and get an opinion that is the exact opposite of  Rose QC's opinion

Yes, of course, and THEN we will have the equilibrium to which I was referring.

Ian

Hardly, as they can't both be right

 

[droid]

I've nearly used up my supply of popcorn. Can you lot stop arguing whilst I nip out and get some more?

Can you email me some of that popcorn, Mal?

Roy made a good point: solution in the Courts is the way forward. Lay people can argue all they like ( and clearly will), they can trade semantics and 'obfuscate' (nice new favourite word, Ian) all they like, and in legal terms it means nowt, zilch and nada.....

 

[Badlad]

Perhaps it comes down to this - as stated in my report on page one.

None of this reflects well on British Caving.  The law is unclear, as caving is not excluded under the CRoW Act and whilst there are differing opinions of the interpretation of the law this position is likely to persist.  It may be that, as DEFRA have stated, in the end only a court can decide.  Should this route be something that the BCA consider?  It would settle the matter once and for all and prevent, in the meantime, other cavers taking matters into their own hands, especially in the midst of acrimonious access disputes.

Those who express an opinion that CRoW does not apply to caving should have no fear.  They will be proved correct.  The rest of us will then know what the law says for certain and will have to shut up.  Seems a good reason for everyone to get behind BCA.

 

[Peter Burgess]

The point was, and of course it gets buried in deliberate obfuscation, that there are enough authoritative comments, whether legal opinions or authoritative critiques of that opinion, for a third party to form an independent opinion of their own.

I think you'll find that I used the word first, Droid!! Time for a new argument -

 

[droid]

Bugger.

I'll get done for libel.....

 

[cavermark]

Yes we all agree I think. The accusation is slung around that those who control access do so simply because they can and like doing it. I passionately disagree - at least from my own experience - the controlled caves I visit are that way to conserve the features of the caves. The world does have control freaks, but fortunately there are far fewer of them than some would have us believe.

When it has been clearly demonstrated that sensitive sites and currently controlled sites can still be protected after the CROW changes, and that most gated sites on Mendip are not on Access land... then why are you  (and "darkness below") so entrenched against what will be a really positive development for the majority of cavers? 
Refusal to compromise/ see others point of view?
Or just bloody mindedness?
It's baffling to me..