BCA CRoW Poll Result

[Cookie]

But to negotiate with a third party such as DEFRA/NE to take a landowners right to withdraw access away would be against the BCA Constitution since cavers would be working to undermine "That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access.". Surely that is self evident?

We are not requesting BCA Exec to negotiate to take away a right, just to clarify what right the land owner actually has or does not have.  If they don't have the right to withhold access because CRoW does apply, then they can't deploy it.  So the clause does not apply.

If that's the case then I'm OK with that.

 

[NigR]

As for seasonal cheer, it matters not one jot what time of year it happens to be. I will call these shenanigans out for what they are at any time.

Problem is, these people do not like being exposed for what they are. Get close to the truth and they call for mummy!

No matter; their rule is over, their time has passed, they just can't come to terms with it yet, that's all.

Eventually, they will.

 

[Mark Wright]

Blimey things are moving quick on this one. I started writing this 15 posts ago.

From the BCA Constitution;

3. AIMS:
3.1. To support Members of the Association in obtaining, ensuring, maintaining and encouraging the development of access arrangements at national, regional and club level in accordance with national, regional or club practice.
3.2. To support cave conservation, cave science, caver training and caving equipment safety, directly or indirectly.
3.3. To act as a national spokesman and negotiating body on behalf of Members, when required by them to do so; to protect members' interests; and provide facilities, when required, to co-ordinate effort where interests overlap.
3.4. To provide information on behalf of cavers in general, and promote an exchange of ideas and information between Members.
3.5. To make and maintain contact with other national and international bodies. To negotiate for funds to support caving activities.
3.6. To promote and organise conferences, fairs, seminars and meetings to further the aims of the Association.

4. GUIDING PRINCIPLES:
4.1. The guiding principles are:
4.2. That caving is organised within a diversity of clubs or bodies, either based in a specific region or with membership drawn from particular localities and is also undertaken by unaffiliated individuals and other bodies with independent interests.
4.3. That regional interests are focused in a diversity of regional bodies made up of member clubs and individual cavers.
4.4. That interest in specific facets of caving is concentrated in a number of national bodies.
4.5. That the nature of exploration and conservation of caves, and thus access to them, is based in science and technology, inextricably linked to the sporting aspects of the pursuit.
4.6. That the owners and tenants of property containing caves <insert may> have the right to grant or withhold access. Where caving bodies have control of access delegated to them by the owners, such access should be obtained and granted as freely as possible for all responsible cavers, within the terms of those agreements. When obliged to make new agreements, the appropriate body should endeavour to ensure that this freedom is maintained or improved.
4.7. That the Association will make its services available to all sections of the sporting community. There will be no discrimination on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, creed, colour, occupation, religion or political opinion.
4.8. That caving is an activity best pursued in a club environment and that the Association recommends individuals be members of a club.


I would suggest the only minor constitutional change necessary is to insert the word 'may' between 'caves' and 'have' in section 4.6..

The majority of BCA members have voted in favour of the BCA endeavouring to make new agreements that ensure freer access than currently, so I don't see any reason why taking the next step straight away contravenes the constitution. Whatever that next step might be.

3.1. of the BCA Aims is to support Members of the Association in obtaining, ensuring, maintaining and encouraging the development of access arrangements at national, regional and club level in accordance with national, regional or club practice.

The second sentence of 4.6 of the Guiding Principles is; When obliged to make new agreements, the appropriate body should endeavour to ensure that this freedom is maintained or improved. It was probably never envisaged the obligation to make a new agreement would come from the BCA.

Any suggestion of the process being held up until at least August should not be the case. The 7 guiding principles of the constitution above are just that, guides. The final guiding principle above is only a recommendation and not something that is enforced so I don't see any reason why the minor constitutional amendment can't be worked on in parallel with BCA taking the next step in its endeavour to secure better access for cavers.

It depends which side of the CRoW debate gets to interpret the constitution on what has to happen next but I would suggest the minor amendment to 4.6 is not a major tumbling block, as some have suggested, that could hold up the process. 

There are certainly a few other tweaks that could be made to the constitution to help speed up many of the BCA's processes. 

Mark

 

[ChrisJC]

If the BCA 'went against their constitution', what would happen?, does anybody die?, or get arrested? Or could the result of the vote just be taken as an item to be actioned.

Chris.

 

[Bottlebank]

Blimey, things are moving quick on this one. I started writing this 15 posts ago.

From the BCA Constitution;

3. AIMS:
3.1. To support Members of the Association in obtaining, ensuring, maintaining and encouraging the development of access arrangements at national, regional and club level in accordance with national, regional or club practice.
3.2. To support cave conservation, cave science, caver training and caving equipment safety, directly or indirectly.
3.3. To act as a national spokesman and negotiating body on behalf of Members, when required by them to do so; to protect members' interests; and provide facilities, when required, to co-ordinate effort where interests overlap.
3.4. To provide information on behalf of cavers in general, and promote an exchange of ideas and information between Members.
3.5. To make and maintain contact with other national and international bodies. To negotiate for funds to support caving activities.
3.6. To promote and organise conferences, fairs, seminars and meetings to further the aims of the Association.

4. GUIDING PRINCIPLES:
4.1. The guiding principles are:
4.2. That caving is organised within a diversity of clubs or bodies, either based in a specific region or with membership drawn from particular localities and is also undertaken by unaffiliated individuals and other bodies with independent interests.
4.3. That regional interests are focused in a diversity of regional bodies made up of member clubs and individual cavers.
4.4. That interest in specific facets of caving is concentrated in a number of national bodies.
4.5. That the nature of exploration and conservation of caves, and thus access to them, is based in science and technology, inextricably linked to the sporting aspects of the pursuit.
4.6. That the owners and tenants of property containing caves <insert may> have the right to grant or withhold access. Where caving bodies have control of access delegated to them by the owners, such access should be obtained and granted as freely as possible for all responsible cavers, within the terms of those agreements. When obliged to make new agreements, the appropriate body should endeavour to ensure that this freedom is maintained or improved.
4.7. That the Association will make its services available to all sections of the sporting community. There will be no discrimination on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, creed, colour, occupation, religion or political opinion.
4.8. That caving is an activity best pursued in a club environment and that the Association recommends individuals be members of a club.


I would suggest the only minor constitutional change necessary is to insert the word 'may' between 'caves' and 'have' in section 4.6..

The majority of BCA members have voted in favour of the BCA endeavouring to make new agreements that ensure freer access than currently, so I don't see any reason why taking the next step straight away contravenes the constitution. Whatever that next step might be.

3.1. of the BCA Aims is to support Members of the Association in obtaining, ensuring, maintaining and encouraging the development of access arrangements at national, regional and club level in accordance with national, regional or club practice.

The second sentence of 4.6 of the Guiding Principles is; When obliged to make new agreements, the appropriate body should endeavour to ensure that this freedom is maintained or improved. It was probably never envisaged the obligation to make a new agreement would come from the BCA.

Any suggestion of the process being held up until at least August should not be the case. The 7 guiding principles of the constitution above are just that, guides. The final guiding principle above is only a recommendation and not something that is enforced so I don't see any reason why the minor constitutional amendment can't be worked on in parallel with BCA taking the next step in its endeavour to secure better access for cavers.

It depends which side of the CRoW debate gets to interpret the constitution on what has to happen next but I would suggest the minor amendment to 4.6 is not a major tumbling block, as some have suggested, that could hold up the process. 

There are certainly a few other tweaks that could be made to the constitution to help speed up many of the BCA's processes. 

Mark

That would be a nice simple solution, albeit still technically a constitutional change, and a good point to lock this thread on.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Thoughts mainly to NigR and NewStuff (and apologies if I have missed any others off): It seems there are two discussions going on here. One following a reasonably amicable process of clarifying boring things like constitutional changes and the like, which despite their dry and dusty lack of lustre are actually relevant and need thrashing out. And then there is some odd stuff which has all the appearance of a futile attempt to stir things up.

It encourages me that despite all the differences between various factions this year, those who want to move forward amicably and rationally will do so despite the work of agents provocateurs. Can you do us all a favour, please, and just allow people who want to work thing out in a civilised way to do so, without the pointless stuff? If you want to keep the two factions apart, then you are going about it the right way. Why you would want to, is beyond me.

I've made my point, I hope it reflects the thoughts of most people here, and I trust you also will leave it there.

John Lennon had it right - give peace a chance.

Merry Christmas.

 

[NewStuff]

So you want the insertion of one word to hold the whole process up until at least August? 

 

[Peter Burgess]

Is that what I said? I'll just check.



Nope. Thought not.




Stop attempting to attribute things to me that I quite clearly did not say or infer.

 

[Bob Mehew]

There is a range of details which need to be sorted out.  For example, presuming CRoW does apply, then should BCA seek to become a consultee for each and every application for a Direction (be it under Sec 26 or what ever) as the BMC and the Ramblers (plus others) currently are?  How should BCA then act if one Access Controlling Body decided to seek a Direction to control access on the grounds of say conservation, when the general view is that such a case is not justified?  If you read other parts of the constitution, then sections like 11.1 could create a major internal argument.  (It says BCA shall not interfere in the affairs of a Member unless specifically requested to do so by that Member.)  I fear that the 5 months until the AGM will not be enough time to to all of this. 

So I would plead that people do come forward with new points / concerns etc for sorting out.  There are three  major objectives, one to confirm or otherwise if CRoW applies, another to keep land owners on side what ever the outcome and the third is to sort out BCA's processes and so forth if CRoW does apply.  C&A Committee have started to relook at the C&A documentation.  Council needs to do a critical review of the constitution and Manual of Operations.  I would add should BCA clarify the C&A policy inherited from NCA?  And there is work to be done at regional and Access Controlling Body level on identifying which caves require protection and drafting the case for it and what happens to the others.  And so it goes on.  It would be nice if the pros and the antis could coalesce to get a great job done before the AGM. 

Whilst I am in this hopeful mood, I better go and get the mince pies and whiskey out for Santa Claus.

 

[David Rose]

So it's 22.42 on Christmas Eve and this dude in a red cloak just popped out the fireplace, saying he'd come down my chimney to which had a right of access under the CROW Act! For once I really was so gobsmacked I was lost for words.

 

[Peter Burgess]

  If you read other parts of the constitution, then sections like 11.1 could create a major internal argument.  (It says BCA shall not interfere in the affairs of a Member unless specifically requested to do so by that Member.) 

So I would plead that people do come forward with new points / concerns etc for sorting out. 

It would be a concern of mine that were the BCA to amend that phrase you quoted, or perhaps be seen to act against it, that there is the risk that affected parties would opt to leave the BCA if they believed the Association was acting against their interests. There is after all no obligation for any such body to stay affiliated to the organisation, except a common loyalty to the cause of caving. The last thing caving needs is for bodies set up to represent cavers and caving to start disintegrating.

 

[NigR]

It encourages me that despite all the differences between various factions this year, those who want to move forward amicably and rationally will do so despite the work of agents provocateurs. Can you do us all a favour, please, and just allow people who want to work thing out in a civilised way to do so, without the pointless crap?

The only agents provocateurs at play here are those who have been taking great pleasure in emphasising precisely why the BCA are going to be unable to do what they should in reality have been doing all along i.e. representing cavers and making it easier for them to go caving. So stop trying to twist things around and turn them to your advantage as per usual. You know full well from which direction the "pointless stuff" has issued; if in doubt just look back over the first three pages or so of this thread.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Nigel, dear chap, won't you please join me in making some constructive comments for Bob and his fellow workers. Telling me that I am provoking trouble is not going to deter me from trying to be helpful, even if I was a no voter.

 

[cavermark]

Some parties might leave BCA if they don't like the changes that take place (in very small numbers/if at all in reality I predict). Those parties may also flock back when they see that the changes are for the better... (do Turkeys flock?  )

Talking of parties I think it's about time we all found one to go to, don't you? 

Merry Christmas

 

[Peter Burgess]

(do Turkeys flock?  )

Not when we're totally stuffed. Gobble gobble gobble.

 

[cap n chris]

[mod]Locked for today - for the sake of peace and goodwill to all. Some minor language modification following report to moderator done, in order to calm the thread. It will be unlocked tomorrow. Please do not start any new threads about CROW today.[/mod]

 

[Bob Mehew]

It would be a concern of mine that were the BCA to amend that phrase you quoted, or perhaps be seen to act against it, that there is the risk that affected parties would opt to leave the BCA if they believed the Association was acting against their interests. There is after all no obligation for any such body to stay affiliated to the organisation, except a common loyalty to the cause of caving. The last thing caving needs is for bodies set up to represent cavers and caving to start disintegrating.

I suggest "a common loyalty to the cause of caving" works in both directions.  My concern with Sec 11.1 (The Association shall not interfere in the affairs of a Member unless specifically requested to do so by that Member.) is that does one interpret it that BCA cannot set a standard of expected behaviour and express it in respect of a member's actions?  I suggest that is a poor interpretation. 

The concern I have is that to go back to Sec 4.6 (That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access.), some cavers might say well the land owner wishes to deny some one their legal right of access for no reason other keeping the status quo so we wish to invoke it by applying for a Direction on the land owner's behalf.  I can foresee these cavers could try and invoke Sec 11.1 in advance of the submission so as to stop BCA when asked replying 'we do not support this'.  (Please note I do not speak on behalf of BCA on this topic.)

However 11.2 in part states "Not withstanding Sub Section 11.1, any member deemed to be acting against the interests of the Association may be suspended and subsequently expelled from the Association."  This clearly does enable BCA to act against a member in such circumstances.  And that by extension, I would argue that it would allow BCA to provide an opinion that the cavers were acting against BCA's advice / standards / what ever.  Does that sound reasonable?

 

[Peter Burgess]

Any move that increases the possibility of confrontation between BCA and a member, individual or group, cannot be a good thing, or "reasonable". Every club is different, operating in very diverse areas of the country where different norms are to be found. A club may have an arrangement with a landowner, which is exclusively between them alone. Provided BCA or regional council assistance was not provided when such an agreement was put together, then what business is it of BCA's to interfere in those arrangements? I wouldn't expect the BCA to be interested anyway, so perhaps this is purely hypothetical. However, I can see how a peeved BCA member, not party to the "private" arrangement might invite the BCA to interfere on behalf of the rest of the BCA membership.

 

[cavermark]

Communication doesn't have to involve confrontation.

 

[Peter Burgess]

That's true - it just depends on how it is done.