CRoW Opinion Poll

[Stu]

It is a very sensitive subject. I have tried very hard, and I hope I have managed, not to insult anyone. But I do despair at how poorly it has been discussed at times.

Definitely a very sensitive subject and even though we're on different sides of the fence re: CRoW, I do think you manage to argue your point with a fair amount of grace and intelligence.

 

[tony from suffolk]

You've managed very well Peter. If the object is to win people over to one's point of view the belligerent, insulting posts we've seen during the course of this discussion aren't going to do it and may well have the opposite effect.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Thank you.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Peter, I think I made it pretty clear that that is precisely how I do behave when it goes against me. And since when did Graham need you to defend his corner? Give me strength.

Graham doesn't need me or anyone else to defend him. However if I choose to reinforce a point he, or anyone else makes, I will use MY judgement when deciding what to write, thank you!

 

[Rhys]

[gmod]I have been asked to provide assurances in this thread that the poll voting system is proofed against multiple voting and corruption. The system allows just one vote per registered forum member. There is the possibility that people could create multiple aliases and vote multiple times - they would require multiple working e-mail addresses to do this. It seems unlikely that there is a big risk here. After all, it's just an indicative poll and really a bit of fun! We will, however, keep an eye open for suspicious new members joining and voting - we can track the IP addresses and identify potential duplicates if we thought it was an issue.[/gmod]

 

[Bottlebank]

A couple of quick points on this poll.

Whilst you can only vote once unlike conventional opinion polls you can change your vote if you change your mind - simply remove your vote and you can vote again.

It is partly a bit of fun as Rhys says, but also a real attempt to gauge opinion. At the moment around 1.5% of cavers (most of who probably would be entitled to a vote in the actual referendum) have voted, based on a total of 6000 or so BCA members. In percentage terms this is probably far higher than opinion polls on general elections for example.

So if you haven't already voted go for it!

 

[kay]

At the moment around 1.5% of cavers (most of who probably would be entitled to a vote in the actual referendum) have voted, based on a total of 6000 or so BCA members. In percentage terms this is probably far higher than opinion polls on general elections for example.

Bit of a red herring, of course. When the  sample size (no. voting in the ukc poll) is low compared with the population size (total no. of BCA members), the 'error" in the sample poll compared with the "true" result depends on the proportion of the sample voting yes or no, and the sample size, and not on the proportion of the population  that the sample comprises. Counter-intuitive, I know.

Biggest source of error is going to be whether the sample is a random sample of the population, which is highly questionable when the people answering a poll are self-selected, quite apart from whether people on ukc are typical of BCA members.

 

[Bottlebank]

At the moment around 1.5% of cavers (most of who probably would be entitled to a vote in the actual referendum) have voted, based on a total of 6000 or so BCA members. In percentage terms this is probably far higher than opinion polls on general elections for example.

Bit of a red herring, of course. When the  sample size (no. voting in the ukc poll) is low compared with the population size (total no. of BCA members), the 'error" in the sample poll compared with the "true" result depends on the proportion of the sample voting yes or no, and the sample size, and not on the proportion of the population  that the sample comprises. Counter-intuitive, I know.

Biggest source of error is going to be whether the sample is a random sample of the population, which is highly questionable when the people answering a poll are self-selected, quite apart from whether people on ukc are typical of BCA members.

It's a good indicator of how people are thinking of voting, not a prediction of the result

I've also noticed that every time someone posts on this the number voting jumps a bit - perhaps because the topic again pops up under "Show unread posts" so the more discussion the merrier!

 

[robjones]

My vote brings the sample size up to 1.58333%

Most political polls are c.1,000 - a tiny percentage of national electorates - but they are selected (supposedly) to be representative of the electorate as a whole.

Point to ponder: the 'Yes' poll stands at 1.05%; in US presidential elections a swing of 1.00% from Republican to Democrat or vica versa is regarded as major; most swings are <1.00%.  Relevant? Not in the least; but intriguing - at least to me thanks to having USanian relatives. 

 

[Resting caver]

I voted "no" in response to the BCA poll.
The arguments being presented by the Yes campaign predominate and the small rational voice that says this is not the way to improve access has not been heard. I would like to put forward the reasoning that led me to vote "No":
1. The CROW Act has been in force nearly 14 years. It does not mention caves or access to caves and its applicability to provide for access to caves has until now not been seriously challenged.
2. Few cavers have suffered so far due to caves on access land being significantly unavailable to cavers. Considering the large number of caves on access land, only around 20 altogether in England and Wales have locked gates (and this includes for example, Ogof Draenen & Agen Allwedd). Other caves, particularly deep ones in Yorkshire have access permit systems (e.g. caves on Leck and Casterton Fells). It is not an intrinsically bad thing that access to such rare and potentially dangerous caves should be a little bit restricted - to protect the caves and those who would visit them.
3. The right of access provided by section 2(1) of the CRoW Act is "to enter and remain ON any access land for the purposes of OPEN AIR recreation". The words in capitals are clear: "ON" land for OPEN air recreation. That is NOT "IN" or "UNDER" land and NOT "ENCLOSED" recreation (i.e. underground).
4. The legal opinion that has been obtained from Dinah Rose argues that access under the Act does apply to caves. This is a complex area and these arguments are driven by some obtuse political motivation that ignores the reality (see 2 above).
5. The legislation did not obviously intend access to apply to underground caves and the Government bodies in England and Wales do not support or have the appetite to try arguing that section 2 does mean that "on" includes "in and under" or that "open" means "enclosed".
6. If access to caves IN "Access Land" is to be provided "as of right" then the CRoW Act should be amended to specifically allow caving as an activity and to define what that actually involves (e.g. digging, diving, camping, underground, etc). Without this change there will be a legal minefield and conflict between those forcing access upon unwilling landowners.
7. If the vote is "yes", this gives BCA a mandate to lobby and pursue the provision of access to caves on Access Land without any idea of the damage this approach will bring. The mandate will seek to force the right to access caves on landowners without a change in the primary legislation.  There will need to be a change in the BCA constitution to remove the requirement to respect landowners and farmers interests. This WILL alienate owners of caves both on access Land and elsewhere. The Law of Unintended Consequences WILL apply and we will end up with more access problems than we have at present. For what long term benefit? Improved access for a few and better conservation of these fragile environments? The legal profession will do very well out of the conflict.
I hope that this helps explain some of the issues more rationally and persuades that BCA should not be encouraged to spend time trying to change an Act of Parliament by the back door. I consider that the cavers vote should be "No" and BCA should be encouraged to direct its voluntary staff time and efforts in more productive areas.

 

[jasonbirder]

Other caves, particularly deep ones in Yorkshire have access permit systems...It is not an intrinsically bad thing that access to such...potentially dangerous caves should be a little bit restricted - to protect...those who would visit them

Have we genuinely got someone here who is suggesting access to caves should be restricted and/or prohibited on the basis that they might be a little more taxing or strenuous than average?

 

[jasonbirder]

BCA should be encouraged to direct its voluntary staff time and efforts in more productive areas

As a representative body for cavers...what could possibly be considered a more productive use of time and resources than acting to trying to improve and conserve access to caves for both current and future generations of cavers?

 

[Oceanrower]

Call me cynical, but I suspect that, whatever it says, "Resting caver" is by no means a newbie!

 

[martinm]

1. The CROW Act has been in force nearly 14 years. It does not mention caves or access to caves and its applicability to provide for access to caves has until now not been seriously challenged.
5. The legislation did not obviously intend access to apply to underground caves and the Government bodies in England and Wales do not support or have the appetite to try arguing that section 2 does mean that "on" includes "in and under" or that "open" means "enclosed".
7. If the vote is "yes", this gives BCA a mandate to lobby and pursue the provision of access to caves on Access Land without any idea of the damage this approach will bring. The mandate will seek to force the right to access caves on landowners without a change in the primary legislation.  There will need to be a change in the BCA constitution to remove the requirement to respect landowners and farmers interests.

What a load of rubbish. It doesn't mention Extreme Ironing either but that doesn't mean you couldn't do it.  There are specific exclusions which are well known. Caving is not one of them.

The Governments definition of 'open air recreation' deliberately avoided restricting it's definition as their aim was to keep access as open and free as possibly except for specifically excluded activities of which caving wasn't one of them!

If the vote majority is "yes", then it will just justify BCA to have further discussions with NE & Defra. It will be up to people in the know in the various regions to use their judgment in how to use this.

There will NO need to be a change in the BCA constitution to remove the requirement to respect landowners and farmers interests. I am sure BCA will want to retain this as will the regional councils. The requirement to respect landowners and farmers interests will always remain. It is stupid to suggest otherwise!

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Call me cynical, but I suspect that, whatever it says, "Resting caver" is by no means a newbie!

I know what you are saying but reading the post I am not entirely convinced since ALL of those points have been addressed in detail many, many times over and the post just seems to have no cognisance
of previous debates or, frankly reality.

I mean,

access to such rare and potentially dangerous caves should be a little bit restricted

has this person ever visited Kingsdale? And in what way does a piece of paper stop someone falling down a hole?

All that said it's probably not worth wasting breath (or finger muscles) on since I imagine most votes are in.

 

[Trotsky]

Dear Santa,
I have been good for most of the year and what I would like to have most for Chritmas is some peace, harmony and mutual respect in what has always been a friendly and helpful community.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Poor Resting Caver. Rarely posts here, but finds the urge to simply explain his own rationale for how he voted, only to get put in the firing line. No wonder some people feel intimidated into not using this forum.

 

[jasonbirder]

No wonder some people feel intimidated into not using this forum.

I suspect most people who have access to the internet know how these things work...

Post a question...get a helpful answer...
Post some photo's/trip report etc...get some praise...
Post a detailed rebutall of many peoples points of view, on a controversial subject in a Thread entitled "Opinion Poll"...get people who agree/disagree with you lined up in their respective corners...

It would take a VERY delicate flower to be scared off by that!

 

[Peter Burgess]

Actually, it wasn't a rebuttal - just a list of someone's reasons for how he voted. However invalid the reason might be in your view, they ought to be respected, as sincerely held.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Dear Santa,
I have been good for most of the year and what I would like to have most for Chritmas is some peace, harmony and mutual respect in what has always been a friendly and helpful community.

People should stop poking the hornets nest then. It is probably far too late to influence the ballot, however there are passionately held views on both sides of this debate and it is by letting these things slip by that a pro CRoW attitude in the BCA during the original consultations became an anti CRoW "policy".