CROW and CHECC

[Peter Burgess]

How to vote? You don't need a two-sided balanced debate to work out how to vote. Ask yourself :

"Do I value my convenience to visit whatever caves I want when I want to, more than I value the caves themselves?"

The answer to that question is your vote in the referendum. No student debate required, just a modicum of inspection of one's personal motivations.

 

[Bottlebank]

How to vote? You don't need a two-sided balanced debate to work out how to vote. Ask yourself :

"Do I value my convenience to visit whatever caves I want when I want to, more than I value the caves themselves?"

The answer to that question is your vote in the referendum. No student debate required, just a modicum of inspection of one's personal motivations.

I agree.

But as a doom-monger I'm bound to point out that if the answer to that is "yes" then be careful how you vote - because if my worse fears prove correct, and I hope they don't, you may not be able to visit the caves you want as easily as you can now for quite some time to come.

 

[cap n chris]

How to vote? You don't need a two-sided balanced debate to work out how to vote. Ask yourself :

"Do I value my convenience to visit whatever caves I want when I want to, more than I value the caves themselves?"

The answer to that question is your vote in the referendum. No student debate required, just a modicum of inspection of one's personal motivations.

Er, doesn't that effectively just boil down to whether or not "I give a shit about myself or give a shit about caves?".


The old "Conservation v Access Chestnut". We likey.

 

[Peter Burgess]

No, Chris.  :

 

[cap n chris]

Hokay, explainamondo, perleeze.

 

[Peter Burgess]

It's a question of which you give more of a shit about. Be careful, or there will be more shit posted in this thread than in the Global Warming one. Remember that? 

 

[cap n chris]

Er, .... didn't that one run for a couple of pages, or so,.. or perhaps four?

 

[Hughie]

It's a question of which you give more of a shit about. Be careful, or there will be more shit posted in this thread than in the Global Warming one. Remember that? 

Oh...I seriously miss that thread. Bring back the Norton, I say!!

 

[bograt]

Err- - - Forgive me if I'm misguided, but isn't Hellie's dilemma in finding someone to oppose the proposal in a serious debate??
Could it possibly be that none of the 'anti' lobby has a sensible, agreeable case to pose??

 

[graham]

Err- - - Forgive me if I'm misguided, but isn't Hellie's dilemma in finding someone to oppose the proposal in a serious debate??
Could it possibly be that none of the 'anti' lobby has a sensible, agreeable case to pose??

Could that be, possibly, utter tripe.

I repeat, I was asked to speak. Regretfully I have had to decline for family reasons. I have had quite a number of PMs & emails from cavers who share my views but who refuse to put their own heads over the parapet because the don't want a share of the bile and vitriol heading their way.

What I don't know is quite how widely this invitation went out, thing is that the vast majority of cavers don't post on here so may not even be aware that this particular debate will be taking place.

I sincerely hope Hellie finds a speaker, if she doesn't it'll just be another party political broadcast not a debate.

 

[Judi Durber]

To enable both sides to be heard would it be enough if Graham prepared a paper and someone neutral/undecided read it out? 

 

[Hughie]

I would suggest the event is rescheduled for a date mutually convenient to the guest speakers, rather than strictly adhere to the date. Five weeks notice isn't a great deal of time.

 

[Mark Wright]

Cap'n Chris mentioned earlier, with 'absolute certainty', '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?'

Well that really does depend on what the question is otherwise it suggests that 2/3 of cavers will be voting 'yes', not based on research, or reasoned debate, or thinking through the consequences, but because they are a bit thick.

On the point of the '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?'.

Clubs have been around much longer than the 'bona fides' and will continue to grow whatever the outcome of this referendum. If the outcome is a 'yes' then the BCA, assuming they then take the appropriate actions with the higher powers, will be seen to be supporting the majority of UK cavers and the likely outcome of that will be increased numbers of people not just joining the BCA but getting more involved in its management. Cap'n Chris thinks 'National bodies and EVERY UK club should take note', whereas I really don't think anyone needs to worry about that all.

As Graham mentions, if there are no takers for the 'no' camp then the event will indeed be more of a party political broadcast on behalf of the 'yes' camp. Hellie and the rest of the event organisers, however, will have done everything within their power to make it a balanced debate. It will be the 'no' camp that have let the process down by declining to participate in fear of the bile and vitriol that might come their way. A missed opportunity.

Hellie has already opened it up for anyone to put the case for a 'no' vote and whoever it was would certainly gain my respect. The bile and vitriol would certainly be heading in the direction of the 'no' campaigners if they tried to scupper the whole referendum process by not bothering to make their case to CHECC and then suggesting the outcome should be void.

I am increasingly more inclined to think along the lines of the last post Bograt made as being the reason there aren't any takers. 

Mark
   

 

[Kevlar]

I would suggest the event is rescheduled for a date mutually convenient to the guest speakers, rather than strictly adhere to the date. Five weeks notice isn't a great deal of time.

The Student caving forum is an annual event and a rare opportunity to address a large proportion of the university caving clubs in full on any topic. I doubt on any rearranged date that such a wide audience would be reached in person. Worth remembering that not all clubs will attend, and even then only a proportion of each club will go. If either side want to reach the full university club population, then a different medium would be needed anyway. However, such a debate will raise awareness (I'm sure many know nothing about the referendum) and any subsequent unbiased newsletters from CHECC to the clubs would reach more individuals.

5 weeks is plenty of time to arrange a speaker... some student clubs have had their new influx of members for less time!!

 

[Bottlebank]

I would suggest the event is rescheduled for a date mutually convenient to the guest speakers, rather than strictly adhere to the date. Five weeks notice isn't a great deal of time.

The Student caving forum is an annual event and a rare opportunity to address a large proportion of the university caving clubs in full on any topic. I doubt on any rearranged date that such a wide audience would be reached in person. Worth remembering that not all clubs will attend, and even then only a proportion of each club will go. If either side want to reach the full university club population, then a different medium would be needed anyway. However, such a debate will raise awareness (I'm sure many know nothing about the referendum) and any subsequent unbiased newsletters from CHECC to the clubs would reach more individuals.

5 weeks is plenty of time to arrange a speaker... some student clubs have had their new influx of members for less time!!

Problem is very few on the "No" side are willing to speak up, and of those on here that are most are away that week, me included. There is no orchestrated "No" campaign with a pool of speakers to draw from. All we have is a small number of individuals with real doubts that are willing to express their thoughts.

I hope Hellie finds someone in time.

 

[graham]

To enable both sides to be heard would it be enough if Graham prepared a paper and someone neutral/undecided read it out? 

A possibility, but it'd rather bork the Q&A session would it not.

 

[bograt]

Problem is very few on the "No" side are willing to speak up, and of those on here that are most are away that week, me included. There is no orchestrated "No" campaign with a pool of speakers to draw from. All we have is a small number of individuals with real doubts that are willing to express their thoughts.

I hope Hellie finds someone in time.

OK, why don't the "no" side orchestrate themselves and present a case to the future cavers?.

 

[graham]

OK, why don't the "no" side orchestrate themselves and present a case to the future cavers?.

Bottlebank and I, neither of whom are available for that weekend, are not a 'side' we are concerned individuals who, for various reasons think this is a bad idea. As we are not a 'side' we are not in a position to orchestrate anyone. I hope someone does come forward, but I can hardly make someone do so.

Oh, and the folks who turn up at CHECC are not 'future cavers' they are 'cavers'.

 

[bograt]

OK, why don't the "no" side orchestrate themselves and present a case to the future cavers?.

Bottlebank and I, neither of whom are available for that weekend, are not a 'side' we are concerned individuals who, for various reasons think this is a bad idea. As we are not a 'side' we are not in a position to orchestrate anyone. I hope someone does come forward, but I can hardly make someone do so.

Oh, and the folks who turn up at CHECC are not 'future cavers' they are 'cavers'.

Ahh, so the 'anti lobby' comes down to you and Bottlebank --- interesting---, perhaps a better term to 'orchestrate' would be 'co-ordinate', get your anti policies in place and present them in a coherent form.

In my experience, college cavers are new to the pastime and some continue on to be very valuable participants in our sport, in that respect they are 'future cavers'.

 

[graham]

Ahh, so the 'anti lobby' comes down to you and Bottlebank --- interesting---,

AKA Bollocks. I'm sure that if your memory wasn't fading with age you'd recall reading 'anti' posts from other people on here.