Mark Wright
Active member
royfellows said:Mark Wright said:The proposed amendment has clearly been worded to further derail the campaign......
How do you work this one out?
Its basically mirroring a change to the constitution of Cambrian Caving Council of which I am legal and insurance officer and if memory serves me correct was originally instigated by me.
There is a situation in law whereby land ownership and mineral ownership can be in separate hands, and where this is the case and access to an abandoned mine is desired then the authority to grant or withhold permission will lie with the mineral owner. Likewise if a natural cave has had material extracted from it and sold, then it will be mineral property.
The change was instigated simply to reflect the true legal position and would actually work in favor of someone requiring access as even where a natural cave is concerned a mineral owner has full rights over land and beneath it. So a separate mineral owner could give permission even against wishes of the landowner, and vise verse. Access could only be denied by the two acting in concert.
If there is any desire by parties to use this to derail the CROW campaign, then it will be entirely due to their own possibly fanciful interpretation.
Having said all of this it may well be best option to remove it completely as suggested.
Many people, myself included, couldn't see the original wording of the first sentence of Section 4.6 precluding the BCA from pursuing the CRoW campaign, but clearly it did and has derailed it for the past 7 months.
The proposed amendment wording confused me even more than the original wording, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
I've been given a very detailed verbal explanation of the potential problems the amendment could introduce and removing the offending sentence would be the best way of providing clarity that the BCA is able to act effectively in the interests of its members in the case of CRoW and other issues which could arise in the future, particularly following the will of the 52% majority of those who voted us out of the EU and the ramifications this might have. That's bloody democracy for you.
I certainly don't claim to be an expert in the legal elements of cave or mine access, but I would certainly put you (Roy) in the category of somebody that does, and you agree that removing the sentence may be the best way forward so it can't be that important.
There is only one sure way of ensuring there is no fanciful interpretation of the first sentence of Section 4.6, get rid of it at the AGM and give the BCA CRoW Liaison Officer our full endorsement to renew the campaign with vigour on Monday 12th June and look after the interests and access rights of all cavers.
Mark