BCA AGM - CRoW Report

[Peter Burgess]

Bugger.

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

Know any good QCs, Droid?

 

[braveduck]

    Yawn ZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[bograt]

Bugger.

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

Know any good QCs, Droid?

As has already been mentioned, a retired solicitor should be good enough ----....

 

[badger]

sadly having been at council meeting I think Badlad has it about right, only way to move forward, and to resolve this is take it to a court of law.

 

[danthecavingman]

Cavermark,

Peter will not reply to you. He doesn't do replies..... Don't bully him....



D.

 

[badger]

having read cavermark question cant see how it is bullying
and I am quite sure peter does and can speak for himself

 

[badger]

quite funny that so much comment coming from an agm report, you could all have had a say, I wonder how many of us where there,
well chris binding was, and me
actually for a membership of about 6000 I would say less than 1% where there.
maybe I should not be surprised since only 37% could manage to put a x in a paper and send back in a prepaid envelope

 

[mikem]

Climbers were also excluded by CRoW, but managed to get themselves included without going to court - has anyone contacted the BMC?

The worry is that landowners on access land will be less likely to give permission to dig if the cave then also becomes open access...

Mike

 

[Peter Burgess]

quite funny that so much comment coming from an agm report, you could all have had a say, I wonder how many of us where there,
well chris binding was, and me
actually for a membership of about 6000 I would say less than 1% where there.
maybe I should not be surprised since only 37% could manage to put a x in a paper and send back in a prepaid envelope

I had been away caving for two weekends on the trot. A third one was out of the question! There's only so much you can fit into weekends throughout the year. The CSCC AGM was for me more important.

 

[crickleymal]

So we've had a vote where anyone registered with the BCA could vote if they so wished. A majority of those who voted said they wished for BCA to campaign for CRoW to apply to us (or something). Nobody has suggested anything irregular about the vote. So why the f*** are you lot still arguing about it?

 

[Badlad]

Climbers were also excluded by CRoW, but managed to get themselves included without going to court - has anyone contacted the BMC?

The worry is that landowners on access land will be less likely to give permission to dig if the cave then also becomes open access...

Mike

I'm not sure that climbers were ever excluded, but they did lobby hard to ensure that they were included.

The BMC are a much larger organisation, of course, with a full time staff and around 76,000 members.  They are also very proactive in access matters both locally and nationally.

The BCA are in contact and the BMC have generously offeredsome advice and support to the BCA campaign.  So a big thumbs up for the BMC from me 

 

[PeteHall]

quite funny that so much comment coming from an agm report, you could all have had a say, I wonder how many of us where there,
well chris binding was, and me
actually for a membership of about 6000 I would say less than 1% where there.
maybe I should not be surprised since only 37% could manage to put a x in a paper and send back in a prepaid envelope

I think there were 27 people there, I seem to recall a vote going 22 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstain and 3 people didn't vote? If I'm right and the membership is unchanged from the time of the poll at 6,085, then we have a turnout of 0.4% 

 

[Bob Mehew]

BCA has a two house vote, individuals and clubs / groups.  There were two motions of interest, one on proxy voting, the other on amending Sec 4.6 to read That any rights held by the owners and tenants of property or mineral rights to grant or withhold access be respected.  The voting on the resultant modified Proxy vote motion was Individuals For 11, Against 2, Abstentions 2 and Group For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 3.  The voting on the  resultant modified second motion was Individuals For 22, Against 0, Abstentions 2 and Group For 14, Against 0, Abstentions 1.  (I have decided to not try and report what happened at the meeting and what the modified motions were; you will have to await the draft minutes for that.) 

So the voting representation expanded from 15 Individuals and 14 Groups for the first motion to 22 Individuals and 15 Groups for the second motion.  The AGM Report Item 13 indicated that at 23 May 2016, there were 5683 individual and 169 club members plus 8 constituent bodies and, 5 regional caving councils. 

 

[royfellows]

I am well pleased that no one voted against the second motion as it was made in good faith and intended to reflect the law of the land in which we live as it is best understood at this point in time.

 

[Ian Adams]

I am well pleased that no one voted against the second motion as it was made in good faith and intended to reflect the law of the land in which we live as it is best understood at this point in time.

+1 

Ian

 

[damian]

The voting on the resultant modified Proxy vote motion was Individuals For 11, Against 2, Abstentions 2 and Group For 6, Against 5, Abstentions 3.  The voting on the  resultant modified second motion was Individuals For 22, Against 0, Abstentions 2 and Group For 14, Against 0, Abstentions 1.

The voting in the modified Proxy vote motion was actually:

Individuals: For 11, Against 8, Abstentions 2

For anyone who is interested, there was one extra individual and one extra Group voter in the room between the first and second votes too.

In terms of attendance, there were a maximum of 29 people present representing 15 groups. The Chairman and Recorder do not have a vote. Some individuals clearly did not vote ... you need your membership card to vote, and they may well not have brought theirs.

The full minutes will probably be a little while ... I had 3 meeting last weekend and have all the minutes to do!

 

[Bob Mehew]

The voting in the modified Proxy vote motion was actually:

Individuals: For 11, Against 8, Abstentions 2

I better go and get my ears syringed again since the batteries were OK. :-[

 

[cap n chris]

I think there were 27 people there, I seem to recall a vote going 22 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstain and 3 people didn't vote? If I'm right and the membership is unchanged from the time of the poll at 6,085, then we have a turnout of 0.4% 

It doesn't really matter too much that the turnout was only 0.4%, this is because the fact that only 2 people abstained means we can safely claim that 6,083 cavers can be presumed as being for the motion. Based on other ballotty-type interpretations. This is quite a significant majority, many percentage points over 51% for sure. 

 

[cavemanmike]

I think there were 27 people there, I seem to recall a vote going 22 in favour, 0 against, 2 abstain and 3 people didn't vote? If I'm right and the membership is unchanged from the time of the poll at 6,085, then we have a turnout of 0.4% 

. Based on other ballotty-type interpretations. This is quite a significant majority, many percentage points over 51% for sure. 

so even moderators can be provocative (but without getting a slap on the wrist) like the rest of us 
smacks of elitism  if you ask me
your not blonde with blue eyes by any chance  are you capn 

 

[cap n chris]

Emoticon = chirpy chinwag

No emoticon = subversive trolling; that's how it works, isn't it? Pretty sure that's how people who appear to be suggesting criminal acts get away with their comments here on other topics. e.g. gate-breaking.

Quite happy to be considered a contributor to the forum. Just ignore the mod status thingy and all should be well.