jasonbirder
Member
Except on CRoW land...where the law of the land will take precedence over Landowner objections
BCA CRoW Poll Result
- Thread starter damian
- Start date
Except on CRoW land...where the law of the land will take precedence over Landowner objections
Peter Burgess
New member
Where are all the vocal proponents of CRoW with their answers to Bob's problem?
jasonbirder
Member
I don't see Bob has a problem.
It is now the duty of the BCA on behalf of its members to challenge, campaign and negotiate to ensure that Caving is not specifically excluded from the CRoW act as a prohibited activity...
Everything else flows from that...
It won't impact on any arrangements on non-access land, all arrangements on access land will immediately become null and void.
It has no constitutional issues for the BCA as the law of the land will take precedence over any pettifogging details.
It is now the duty of the BCA on behalf of its members to challenge, campaign and negotiate to ensure that Caving is not specifically excluded from the CRoW act as a prohibited activity...
Everything else flows from that...
It won't impact on any arrangements on non-access land, all arrangements on access land will immediately become null and void.
It has no constitutional issues for the BCA as the law of the land will take precedence over any pettifogging details.
Peter Burgess
New member
You know what I mean. His Question, if not his Problem.
nearlywhite
Active member
Bob Mehew said:
Could you put this in a new thread? Preferably one that doesn't have people CRoWing on it.
I (perversely) enjoy reading some of these comments but am getting a little lost amongst the 3 discussions going on.
Cheers
cap n chris
Well-known member
[mod]A plethora of CRoW/BCA threads already exist; this present one is not yet sufficiently tapestry-like to justify splitting it since it is currently still capable of being followed without difficulty, even though it does appear to be sparking towards a tangential manouevre! If a significant parallel debate develops then splitting will be easier and justified.[/mod]
Ian Adams
Active member
As I am sure many will recall, in the 1960?s and 1970?s (even extending into the 1980?s and to a much smaller degree even up to today) there were many ?organisations?, ?associations?, ?institutes? and other ?bodies? created which were self-serving and self-governing. The vast majority encompassed professions but not all.
In order for them to be recognised and survive, they had to be ?credible?. Certainly among professions, these ?bodies? suffered many problems and, ultimately (and in some cases fairly quickly), the Government subjugated them requiring perpetual accreditation. (I am sure many cavers are members of at least one such ?body?)
For the BCA to be a representative body (or any semantic thereof) it simply must maintain its credibility most especially if it wants to be recognised as the voice of ?cavers? when in dialogue and most especially with the Government (and the various departments thereof).
The issue of CRoW has been very divisive. Not only that, it has been very openly and visibly divisive.
It is now more important than ever that the BCA is seen to be ?credible? to the eyes of those with whom we would have dialogue as well as the watching world.
We have seen ?cavers? attempting to steer the political landscape from one extreme to another with all sorts of shouts of ?unfair ref? and calls of ?doomsday? if we do ?this? or if we do ?that?.
The BCA did what is the best it could have done and initiated a ballot of the members which, like every single ?vote? in the democratic world resulted in some saying ?yes? and some saying ?no? in pretty much the same proportions as every other political minefield in our daily lives.
Now is not the time for individuals to try to ?pull strings?, ?lay down injunctions?, ?throw spanners?, ?argue semantics? or in any way attempt to derail this process.
The BCA executive are not idiots, they are not unintelligent and they are certainly not insensitive to the plethora of cavers ?views?. They are acutely aware of the many issues which are entwined (landowner wishes, conservation, ease of access etc).
Now is the time for us to all unite behind the BCA and the BCA executive and give them our full support to enable them to undertake the work we voted them in to do on our behalf and further the mandate they have now been given by the results of the ballot.
If we do not, we risk losing the credibility of the BCA, we risk losing the influence it holds and we risk losing our voice. Then where would we be ?
Ian
In order for them to be recognised and survive, they had to be ?credible?. Certainly among professions, these ?bodies? suffered many problems and, ultimately (and in some cases fairly quickly), the Government subjugated them requiring perpetual accreditation. (I am sure many cavers are members of at least one such ?body?)
For the BCA to be a representative body (or any semantic thereof) it simply must maintain its credibility most especially if it wants to be recognised as the voice of ?cavers? when in dialogue and most especially with the Government (and the various departments thereof).
The issue of CRoW has been very divisive. Not only that, it has been very openly and visibly divisive.
It is now more important than ever that the BCA is seen to be ?credible? to the eyes of those with whom we would have dialogue as well as the watching world.
We have seen ?cavers? attempting to steer the political landscape from one extreme to another with all sorts of shouts of ?unfair ref? and calls of ?doomsday? if we do ?this? or if we do ?that?.
The BCA did what is the best it could have done and initiated a ballot of the members which, like every single ?vote? in the democratic world resulted in some saying ?yes? and some saying ?no? in pretty much the same proportions as every other political minefield in our daily lives.
Now is not the time for individuals to try to ?pull strings?, ?lay down injunctions?, ?throw spanners?, ?argue semantics? or in any way attempt to derail this process.
The BCA executive are not idiots, they are not unintelligent and they are certainly not insensitive to the plethora of cavers ?views?. They are acutely aware of the many issues which are entwined (landowner wishes, conservation, ease of access etc).
Now is the time for us to all unite behind the BCA and the BCA executive and give them our full support to enable them to undertake the work we voted them in to do on our behalf and further the mandate they have now been given by the results of the ballot.
If we do not, we risk losing the credibility of the BCA, we risk losing the influence it holds and we risk losing our voice. Then where would we be ?
Ian
exsumper
New member
The BCA should not have opened this can of worms, and should keep it's nose out. Like most cavers/diggers, I negotiate my own access arrangements, all of which are long lasting; one current agreement has been running since the early 90's. Out of the thousands of caves and access agreements in the UK, I'd like to know just how many access agreements the BCA have negotiated, from scratch, for access to a newly discovered cave!
The longevity of these agreements (like friendships)are due to mutual respect and understanding, transparency, honesty and good faith!
Having seen how our beloved caving politicians have behaved, over this CROW affair, the CNCC, Leck and Casterton Fell fiasco's, The Bolt Anchor scheme farce, etc.
I am not confident that these will be the values that will be employed, should the dead hand of the BCA be placed upon our access arrangements!
Because of this, I feel that those who believe that this will lead to improved access for cavers are mistaken.
Never mind the CROW vote, none of the cavers I know, can remember ever being asked if we wanted a national body! The BCA and the people who pretend to represent us, still have a lot to learn about democracy!
The longevity of these agreements (like friendships)are due to mutual respect and understanding, transparency, honesty and good faith!
Having seen how our beloved caving politicians have behaved, over this CROW affair, the CNCC, Leck and Casterton Fell fiasco's, The Bolt Anchor scheme farce, etc.
I am not confident that these will be the values that will be employed, should the dead hand of the BCA be placed upon our access arrangements!
Because of this, I feel that those who believe that this will lead to improved access for cavers are mistaken.
Never mind the CROW vote, none of the cavers I know, can remember ever being asked if we wanted a national body! The BCA and the people who pretend to represent us, still have a lot to learn about democracy!
Stu
Active member
Feck me... Only on Planet Cave could a bunch of people tangle themselves up in so much bullshit. There isn't even the remotest possibility that any other faction of the "outdoor" world would try to shoot itself in the foot so deliberately and so often as those that inhabit the underworld. Just look at our history.
25% of eligible BCA members voted for and won a fair election. Are we now seriously being told that the election outcome might be irrelevant because BCA can't actually act on what was voted for? I've read through the posts from before Christmas but in spite of what the mods say it's all quite difficult to piece together.
I wonder what the outcome might be if those 1400 members were to think that BCA isn't fit for purpose and voted with their feet, or rather their wallets? One assumes that the membership fee and the insurance premium attached to it would increase based on a membership of 4500 rather than 6000. Fewer members, bigger increase, some might say sod it because of the cost and numbers decrease further. No doubt putting in jeopardy access to the many caves that insurance is a requisite because the insurance bill can't be met by those that are left... Who fairs well then?
It's in everyone's interest for BCA to remain a successful and relevant organisation. That relevancy may seem more important to some than others but one things is for sure, if BCA don't act on the results of the vote, however disagreeable to some, to not do so could lead to much unpleasantness.
I'd echo everything Ian (Jackalpup) said.
"It's a sort of threat, you see. I've never been terribly good at them myself but I'm told they can be terribly effective."
Just look at our history.25% of eligible BCA members voted for and won a fair election. Are we now seriously being told that the election outcome might be irrelevant because BCA can't actually act on what was voted for? I've read through the posts from before Christmas but in spite of what the mods say it's all quite difficult to piece together.
I wonder what the outcome might be if those 1400 members were to think that BCA isn't fit for purpose and voted with their feet, or rather their wallets? One assumes that the membership fee and the insurance premium attached to it would increase based on a membership of 4500 rather than 6000. Fewer members, bigger increase, some might say sod it because of the cost and numbers decrease further. No doubt putting in jeopardy access to the many caves that insurance is a requisite because the insurance bill can't be met by those that are left... Who fairs well then?
It's in everyone's interest for BCA to remain a successful and relevant organisation. That relevancy may seem more important to some than others but one things is for sure, if BCA don't act on the results of the vote, however disagreeable to some, to not do so could lead to much unpleasantness.
I'd echo everything Ian (Jackalpup) said.
"It's a sort of threat, you see. I've never been terribly good at them myself but I'm told they can be terribly effective."
2xw
Active member
Jackalpup said:
I feel with all my heart that the BCA should be disbanded, and the caving areas split up into slices and put into the care of local cavers.
I will personally take Stoney Middleton. It shall be renamed the Democratic Republic of Stoney Middletonistan, and access to Gin entrance will cost ?22 a head.
If anybody disagrees you can come at me. I will be at the top of the dale covered in woad.
droid
Active member
Ian assuming the BCA have any influence at all with the legislators is probably wishful thinking: it's a tiny sport, very few people who legislate (or guide the legislators) have any interest in it....
The BCA will throw a shedload of money and effort into this and get nowhere. Since the majority of those that could be a**ed to vote WANT CRoW to apply to caves I hope this isn't the case, but I ain't holding my breath.
The BCA will throw a shedload of money and effort into this and get nowhere. Since the majority of those that could be a**ed to vote WANT CRoW to apply to caves I hope this isn't the case, but I ain't holding my breath.
Peter Burgess
New member
I am expecting someone to come at me accusing me of deliberately and maliciously wishing for and encouraging the break up of the BCA so in anticipation of that, let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Have a great New Year everyone.
Chocolate fireguard
Active member
2xw said:
Shouldn't that be "covered in mud"?
As someone fairly new to caving I can see both sides.....
Yes I think there should be a right to roam and everyone should be able to access caves however I think there is also a need for a permit system like is currently in place for CERTAIN caves.
To explain.....
I was in the cupcake the other week (a lovely cave with some really nice but delicate formations which you would easily knock off if your attention slips). If this cave can be used by anyone at any time due to being open access then bigger groups could go in at will and it could easily end up ruined which is really sad!
I take on board what people may say that in reality anyone could go in and trash it anyway and just cos you are supposed to have a permit it doesn't mean people abide by rules or get permits. Maybe that's up to us as responsible cavers to raise with the people we see (just like I am sure we would challenge an idiot who we saw vandalising a cave or littering for example).
I also think there is a practicality element here as well. Permits can restrict the numbers in a cave and I think we have all been in a situation before in a cave where we are waiting ages for other groups or someone has rigged over your ropes in such a way that it has caused problems. Some tighter caves could be very problematic if another group was in and they both met coming from different ends at a squeeze etc.
Yes I think there should be a right to roam and everyone should be able to access caves however I think there is also a need for a permit system like is currently in place for CERTAIN caves.
To explain.....
I was in the cupcake the other week (a lovely cave with some really nice but delicate formations which you would easily knock off if your attention slips). If this cave can be used by anyone at any time due to being open access then bigger groups could go in at will and it could easily end up ruined which is really sad!
I take on board what people may say that in reality anyone could go in and trash it anyway and just cos you are supposed to have a permit it doesn't mean people abide by rules or get permits. Maybe that's up to us as responsible cavers to raise with the people we see (just like I am sure we would challenge an idiot who we saw vandalising a cave or littering for example).
I also think there is a practicality element here as well. Permits can restrict the numbers in a cave and I think we have all been in a situation before in a cave where we are waiting ages for other groups or someone has rigged over your ropes in such a way that it has caused problems. Some tighter caves could be very problematic if another group was in and they both met coming from different ends at a squeeze etc.
nearlywhite
Active member
Bob Mehew said:
Why would a new representative role be a bad thing?
It strikes me that the caving scene could do with a bit more co-ordination and the logical conclusion to that is putting some more power into the BCA. We should be doing more to get people into the sport to avoid this demographic time bomb let alone the more important reason of making people aware that caves exist and why the whole society should care about them - if it's the same for forests and mountains why not for caves? There are caving regions outside the big 4 that could really do with some development - both in things like caving huts, access to survey equipment and training and expertise in lots of things, from bolting to getting 'normal' people involved. There are lots of fantastic individuals out there but I always get the feeling the sum of the parts should be greater than the whole.
Sorry went off on my hobby horse there.
I guess my reply to those that think things are best kept as they are is that the Tyrrany of the Minority is also a concern and profoundly undemocratic. Mind you the whole thing is a bit of a dog's dinner - very few vote on representation, and often it's because trying to find someone to fill the role that's the hardest part, turning it into a farce. Having referenda gives the whole thing more legitimacy without trying to turn everything into an election.
Shouldn't it also have a governance role? I want all caves to be protected by all cavers in case some big limestone quarry extends its operation and destroys our landscape without a second's thought as to what's there. For example.
My feeling is that the difference between a "representative body" and a "governing body" may be down to whether said body has to adjudicate on the rules for a competitive sport.
So, e.g. badminton, football, etc. have rules governing play, point/goal scoring, eligibility for team players, etc. so they require to have a "governing body".
Caving, like birdwatching, is a non-competitive sport/pastime and so it does not need a "governing" body but it does need to have a representative body.
Note that I didn't include climbing as a non-competitive sport because, although it is to all intents and purposes non-competitive, yet it now has "bouldering competitions" so not sure how that plays.
One of the problems we had in 1970, when NCA was first set up, was that the then government sought to lay down rules concerning the safe conduct of outdoor pursuits and these rules were to be policed by then then DES (Dept. Ed. & Sci.). Caving would have had no say in these rules because our constitution was not considered to be that of a "governing body of a sport". We had to change the NCA constitution so that we could be considered as a "sports governing body" in order that we had the right to be consulted by DES. This paid off in later years when the Adventurous Activities legislation was being passed because we had the right to be consulted about the way the legislation was framed and were able to object to certain suggestions as being totally impractical and possibly even dangerous. Cavers were also consulted when it came to the "work at height" regulations - we made common cause with climbers to point out that it was not practical or desirable to insist that lifelines must always be used when undertaking certain types of training.
The caving world does need to have the right to be consulted by government on issues which might affect both caving as a sport and the conservation of caves. So we need BCA to be in a position where it is automatically on the list of consultees and it really doesn't matter whether the government considers it a "governing" or a "representative" body, just as long as it is able to represent the views of the majority of cavers in any formal discussions.
So, e.g. badminton, football, etc. have rules governing play, point/goal scoring, eligibility for team players, etc. so they require to have a "governing body".
Caving, like birdwatching, is a non-competitive sport/pastime and so it does not need a "governing" body but it does need to have a representative body.
Note that I didn't include climbing as a non-competitive sport because, although it is to all intents and purposes non-competitive, yet it now has "bouldering competitions" so not sure how that plays.
One of the problems we had in 1970, when NCA was first set up, was that the then government sought to lay down rules concerning the safe conduct of outdoor pursuits and these rules were to be policed by then then DES (Dept. Ed. & Sci.). Caving would have had no say in these rules because our constitution was not considered to be that of a "governing body of a sport". We had to change the NCA constitution so that we could be considered as a "sports governing body" in order that we had the right to be consulted by DES. This paid off in later years when the Adventurous Activities legislation was being passed because we had the right to be consulted about the way the legislation was framed and were able to object to certain suggestions as being totally impractical and possibly even dangerous. Cavers were also consulted when it came to the "work at height" regulations - we made common cause with climbers to point out that it was not practical or desirable to insist that lifelines must always be used when undertaking certain types of training.
The caving world does need to have the right to be consulted by government on issues which might affect both caving as a sport and the conservation of caves. So we need BCA to be in a position where it is automatically on the list of consultees and it really doesn't matter whether the government considers it a "governing" or a "representative" body, just as long as it is able to represent the views of the majority of cavers in any formal discussions.
