CROW and CHECC
- Thread starter hell little caver
- Start date
cap n chris
Well-known member
Maybe, but you have to have both sides of a debate aired prior to a ballot otherwise the ballot can be (and rightly should be) contested as improper and hence void. To attempt to argue otherwise would be in the same ball park as having a fait accompli pseudo-ballot which just declares the result as a "Yes", without going through the rigmarole, and saving many thousands at the same time. i.e. not bothering with a ballot whatsoever.
It would be an act of gross injustice for a national student body to have zero debate and just use the event as a propaganda tool.
It would be an act of gross injustice for a national student body to have zero debate and just use the event as a propaganda tool.
cap n chris
Well-known member
Caving overseas 
If Graham isn't also overseas I rather hope he might be allowed to outline the other side of the issue.
If Graham isn't also overseas I rather hope he might be allowed to outline the other side of the issue.
cap n chris
Well-known member
Probably both but more reasonably the latter.
Ian Adams
Active member
I would agree with the latter but it isn't really up to you or me to dictate how people should enlighten themselves. I don't think it would be reasonable to say the BCA ballot should be void because a group of people failed (whether their fault or not) to research the pro's and con's.
Like all "votes" (UK General Election is an obvious example) some people may have already made up their mind (and may stubbornly refuse to change it regardless), some people may vote not really understanding it, some may change their minds several times, some may suffer undue brainwashing, some might think they understand when in fact they don't and some might just guess. Of course, some may not bother voting at all.
It's the nature of democracy (whether we like it or not).
The BCA executive have been reasonable in not trying to influence the vote in any direction and have required people to make their own enquiries as to the Pro's and Con's.
Ian
Like all "votes" (UK General Election is an obvious example) some people may have already made up their mind (and may stubbornly refuse to change it regardless), some people may vote not really understanding it, some may change their minds several times, some may suffer undue brainwashing, some might think they understand when in fact they don't and some might just guess. Of course, some may not bother voting at all.
It's the nature of democracy (whether we like it or not).
The BCA executive have been reasonable in not trying to influence the vote in any direction and have required people to make their own enquiries as to the Pro's and Con's.
Ian
Mark Wright
Active member
There is no requirement for any debate on the subject by CHECC or anyone else before we all cast our votes. Whilst a tiny minority of the +/- 5000 eligible voters might read and contribute to discussions such as this on ukCaving the majority may well have only read Descent. My club hasn't sent any information out about the referendum to its members yet but I do know Eldon members have.
What Hellie is organising on behalf of CHECC is commendable. She has given both sides of the argument the opportunity to make their case to arguably the most important group of cavers in the UK, the ones who will be shaping the future of our pastime when we are all gone.
If the 'no' camp aren't even prepared to put a candidate forward then it is that, that is 'indefensible' 'improper' and a 'gross injustice'. It would be a real missed opportunity for the 'no' camp.
Hellie should definitely go ahead with the event and if there are no offers to speak on behalf of the 'no' camp then she can simply tell the 100's of students who will probably be there that, despite numerous requests for somebody to offer the opposing view, they were both otherwise engaged.
Mark
What Hellie is organising on behalf of CHECC is commendable. She has given both sides of the argument the opportunity to make their case to arguably the most important group of cavers in the UK, the ones who will be shaping the future of our pastime when we are all gone.
If the 'no' camp aren't even prepared to put a candidate forward then it is that, that is 'indefensible' 'improper' and a 'gross injustice'. It would be a real missed opportunity for the 'no' camp.
Hellie should definitely go ahead with the event and if there are no offers to speak on behalf of the 'no' camp then she can simply tell the 100's of students who will probably be there that, despite numerous requests for somebody to offer the opposing view, they were both otherwise engaged.
Mark
cap n chris
Well-known member
Good points gentlemen. But it's not a level playing field, is it?
It will be interesting to see what the electorate return percentage is. If it's 30% of which 51% or more vote Yes (where yes is pretty much a foregone conclusion/certainty anyway, whatever the percentage happens to be) then a mere one sixth of the putative voters will be determining the future of UK caving in/access and the all-important, nay critical, relationship we have with landowners, or not, as the case may be.
However, I stand by my earlier point that to ONLY have a Pro stance publicly voiced to a captive audience prior to a national ballot is frankly bang out of order and hence should either not go ahead or, if it does, for the subsequent ballot to be considered potentially void and the costs of same to have been immorally squandered*.
An earlier, tongue-in-cheek, thread of mine showed that when offered with a choice of "Yes, or No", approximately two-thirds of people vote Yes for no ostensible reason other than that people naturally are inclined to say yes when asked...
I therefore state with absolute certainty that any ballot of UK Cavers on this topic will result in a positive response, not based on research, or reasoned debate, or thinking through the consequences, but purely on the basis that cavers who think they might find access easier will go for what they perceive to be a quick win.
* There could be unwitting but logically obvious consequences of this regarding the uptake (or not) of BCA membership thereafter. i.e. if anyone, Joe Bloggs and all, can go caving with no bona fides whatsoever, why would anyone want to join a club, or the BCA, or any regional council whatsoever? "Bollocks to the lot of 'em, let's just go caving; the law is on our side". National bodies, and EVERY UK club, take note.
It will be interesting to see what the electorate return percentage is. If it's 30% of which 51% or more vote Yes (where yes is pretty much a foregone conclusion/certainty anyway, whatever the percentage happens to be) then a mere one sixth of the putative voters will be determining the future of UK caving in/access and the all-important, nay critical, relationship we have with landowners, or not, as the case may be.
However, I stand by my earlier point that to ONLY have a Pro stance publicly voiced to a captive audience prior to a national ballot is frankly bang out of order and hence should either not go ahead or, if it does, for the subsequent ballot to be considered potentially void and the costs of same to have been immorally squandered*.
An earlier, tongue-in-cheek, thread of mine showed that when offered with a choice of "Yes, or No", approximately two-thirds of people vote Yes for no ostensible reason other than that people naturally are inclined to say yes when asked...
I therefore state with absolute certainty that any ballot of UK Cavers on this topic will result in a positive response, not based on research, or reasoned debate, or thinking through the consequences, but purely on the basis that cavers who think they might find access easier will go for what they perceive to be a quick win.
* There could be unwitting but logically obvious consequences of this regarding the uptake (or not) of BCA membership thereafter. i.e. if anyone, Joe Bloggs and all, can go caving with no bona fides whatsoever, why would anyone want to join a club, or the BCA, or any regional council whatsoever? "Bollocks to the lot of 'em, let's just go caving; the law is on our side". National bodies, and EVERY UK club, take note.
nearlywhite
Active member
It won't void a ballot.
It won't be a debate if one side doesn't turn up and the winner in that situation is apathy. The debate would be unlikely to go ahead but people will talk about this issue at the event so I think it's a moot point. Who knows where each student club stands? They might not all be Pro. One debate or rally is hardly likely to swing anyone who has taken an interest in this debate - most of my student club have made up their mind by now anyway.
To claim that any yes response isn't thought through is so unbelievably na?ve and frankly arrogant. No one is 'right' here, just differing opinions. Undermining this vote is far more damaging than any 'Pro CRoW' propaganda session.
It won't be a debate if one side doesn't turn up and the winner in that situation is apathy. The debate would be unlikely to go ahead but people will talk about this issue at the event so I think it's a moot point. Who knows where each student club stands? They might not all be Pro. One debate or rally is hardly likely to swing anyone who has taken an interest in this debate - most of my student club have made up their mind by now anyway.
To claim that any yes response isn't thought through is so unbelievably na?ve and frankly arrogant. No one is 'right' here, just differing opinions. Undermining this vote is far more damaging than any 'Pro CRoW' propaganda session.
Bottlebank
New member
Chris's last point is a valid one.
Incidentally whilst there is definitely a "pro" camp there isn't isn't really a "no" camp so far as I can see. I suspect this largely because the referendum, if not the entire debate, has taken many of us by surprise.
It's not that long since I naively thought we were simply debating reform of CNCC.
Incidentally whilst there is definitely a "pro" camp there isn't isn't really a "no" camp so far as I can see. I suspect this largely because the referendum, if not the entire debate, has taken many of us by surprise.
It's not that long since I naively thought we were simply debating reform of CNCC.
Ian Adams
Active member
Chris, I understand your frustration and I totally get this;
Returning to analogy that totally supports your statement; The referendum on whether Wales should have it?s own ?Welsh Assembly Government? was won by 50.2% in favour and 49.8% against with only around 1/3rd of the electorate actually voting. Again, this is democracy (I am not saying either of us should like it).
So, your point is well made and well heard.
I agree with this too;
? Of course, the same would be true if it were the opposite camp that were ?missing?.
However, in either case, that does not negate the BCA ballot.
I also think ?Nearlywhite? has made an excellent job of explaining the position too ? don?t under estimate students ability to think (and act) for themselves. They are capable adult human beings, just like we are.
Ian
Cap'n Chris said:
Returning to analogy that totally supports your statement; The referendum on whether Wales should have it?s own ?Welsh Assembly Government? was won by 50.2% in favour and 49.8% against with only around 1/3rd of the electorate actually voting. Again, this is democracy (I am not saying either of us should like it).
So, your point is well made and well heard.
I agree with this too;
Cap'n Chris said:
? Of course, the same would be true if it were the opposite camp that were ?missing?.
However, in either case, that does not negate the BCA ballot.
I also think ?Nearlywhite? has made an excellent job of explaining the position too ? don?t under estimate students ability to think (and act) for themselves. They are capable adult human beings, just like we are.
Ian
nearlywhite
Active member
I wouldn't dispute that Bottlebank, and that's a far more interesting line of debate that hasn't been explored. To attempt to discredit the result of a vote should not be done if it is a free and fair election.
And with regards to a Pro Camp and Anti Camp, they definitely both exist - I've been approached by both and declined to side!
And with regards to a Pro Camp and Anti Camp, they definitely both exist - I've been approached by both and declined to side!
Bottlebank
New member
nearlywhite said:
Interesting. I don't think there is an "Anti camp" as such, but maybe there is in the student world. Anyway, I haven't been invited to join
Perhaps if the requirement for the speaker to not be associated with a student club were dropped?
There's a few lines of debate that haven't been explored so far as I can see, and agreed, Chris's point is one of them.
Tongue-in-cheek, oh yes, yes, yes...Cap'n Chris said:
Some people would, because they like that kind of thing. Certain landowners (non-CRoW or show caves perhaps) might still request proof of insurance, not everyone can afford loads of gear, huts, plenty of reasons for clubs to continue to exist regardless of the outcome of the ballot. Doom-mongering serves no useful purpose.
nearlywhite
Active member
Just to be clear - Chris's point I was referring to was about the BCA/Regional council affiliation and people going caving without insurance...Bottlebank said:nearlywhite said:
Interesting. I don't think there is an "Anti camp" as such, but maybe there is in the student world. Anyway, I haven't been invited to join
Perhaps if the requirement for the speaker to not be associated with a student club were dropped?
There's a few lines of debate that haven't been explored so far as I can see, and agreed, Chris's point is one of them.
Cue Mark Wright...
(Only joking Mark)
cap n chris
Well-known member
One person's doom-mongering is another person's advocacy of the devil.
As a solo/club/professional/sports/fun/professional caver and cave/mine/SSSI/scheduled monument/CROW landowner I wear many hats so don't know how to vote! - probably FIIK.
As a solo/club/professional/sports/fun/professional caver and cave/mine/SSSI/scheduled monument/CROW landowner I wear many hats so don't know how to vote! - probably FIIK.
