You appear to miss the point. My scenario is that a group of cavers make a request to NE to issue a Direction on the basis that the land owner wishes to withdraw the legal right of access provided under CRoW. NE ask BCA for their opinion. BCA has drawn up guidance / policy / standard that this application does not meet. The question is what should BCA do? Not 'interfere' / tell NE it does not meet BCA's standards / suspend the members because they bring BCA into disrepute? What is your choice (or indeed alternative course of action)?Peter Burgess said: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.
It says BCA shall not interfere in the affairs of a Member unless specifically requested to do so by that Member
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
If a club has to check with BCA every time it sets up an arrangement for access or any other aspect of its caving activity, in case it is breaking some rule or "guideline", then this cannot be good.
Off topic but to correct you- The move was to include professional caving as well as clubs in access negotiations and thus represent it's entire membership. The landowner could opt out of any group for access if they chose and it makes no difference to the CRoW debate anyway. The BCA represents cavers and governs the LCMLA and CIC scheme. Would you prefer a representative body who did not represent every member, just the area you care about?Peter Burgess said:A governing body will determine how it's members act, a representative body will support its members by presenting a unified front to the wider world. I know the BCA does the latter, but how many want the former? If a club has to check with BCA every time it sets up an arrangement for access or any other aspect of its caving activity, in case it is breaking some rule or "guideline", then this cannot be good. A while back, a move was started to encourage access bodies/clubs to push for commercial caving interests when setting up access arrangements. This was not looked upon very favourably by a couple of bodies. This is not the sort of thing that should be happening.
Peter Burgess said:Landowner's wishes take overall precedence. Ask the landowner what they wish, and respect the answer you are given.
No it is not about existing access agreements. Basically and assuming CRoW applies to caving, if someone wants to withhold access to a cave for some reason, then they have to apply to NE for a direction to enable control over access to that cave to be maintained. That application has to meet a threshold and as part of the judgement made by NE, NE will consult with various bodies, BMC and Ramblers being good examples amongst the range of bodies so consulted. My underlying point was 'should BCA also accept this role if offered and work up some standards to use when asked'. If it did, then say a club took up a land owners wishes and made an application which was patently without merit save for keeping the land owner happy. I suggest BCA could find itself being accused of breaching its constitution by that club because the application had no merit.jasonbirder said:Is the discussion around this point with the intent of suggesting that if BCA member club has an existing access agreement to a cave on CRoW land that the BCA would be interfering in the affairs of that member by pushing for an interpretation of the CRoW act that invalidated that access agreement?
Peter I think we are talking past each other. Whilst some of what you say has merit, I did not ask a question related to what you outline. I asked one where CRoW does apply and cavers were seeking to get the land owner exempted from CRoW by seeking a Direction without any merit and then BCA was asked to comment to NE not to the land owner.Peter Burgess said:I am not bothered how you classify the policy, Bob, but in my mind, although it might immediately appear that not fighting for specific access is against the interests of cavers, I would argue that in the long term, being seen to show respect will earn wider respect, and trust, and be to the ultimate benefit of all of us. I have seen it work so this isn't just wishful thinking. I have also seen owners' wishes being challenged and the problems that can cause.