Threads being locked too often?

[David Rose]

I see, Peter Burgess. Having written in my earlier thread

"Yes, thanks David. Almost as convincing as reading the Daily Mail"

you now presume to lecture me about sarcasm. Unbelievable.

 

[ALEXW]

I can tell you that on the afternoon of New Year's Day the surface deluge was pushing an awful lot of fresh, open air (and some water) down the entrance series of Notts 2.

If, as is predicted by some, the crow act apples to caving, does this mean that we can only go down dry caves?

Restrictions to be observed by persons exercising right of access

Section 2(1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he?

(i)  bathes in any non-tidal water,

 

[Cookie]

And having done the trip, she said she felt more convinced than ever that caving does count in law as an outdoor recreational pursuit, in the open air, as defined by the CROW Act and its long pre-history. So much so that in her view, if it ever were to come to a court case, the way to ensure victory would be to take the judge caving, too. For caving not to be covered by CROW is, she said, "totally bonkers".

Dinah wrote in the conclusion to her Opinion "The matter is not entirely free from doubt, since the term ?open-air? is undefined,".

After Dinah's caving trip can we expect an updated Opinion that is less doubtful?

We do rather need it in the Opinion because after his caving trip the Judge will be reading the Opinion rather than ukCaving.

 

[David Rose]

The phrase "not entirely free from doubt" simply means that because the term is not defined in the Act, then it will always be subject to interpretation. But that doesn't mean she had doubts when she wrote the opinion, and she has none now. It's just a legal phrase which is essentially tautologous: a statement of the obvious.

If the term had been defined in the Act, and in such a way that caving clearly was covered by it, then none of the debate of the past year or so would have happened. 

 

[Cookie]

If the term had been defined in the Act, and in such a way that caving clearly was covered by it, then none of the debate of the past year or so would have happened.

If only it were ...

 

[Roger W]

I can tell you that on the afternoon of New Year's Day the surface deluge was pushing an awful lot of fresh, open air (and some water) down the entrance series of Notts 2.

If, as is predicted by some, the crow act apples to caving, does this mean that we can only go down dry caves?

Restrictions to be observed by persons exercising right of access

Section 2(1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he?

(i)  bathes in any non-tidal water,

Another can of worms there!

What constitutes "bathing"?

Swimming would appear to be prohibited: it looks as if you are free to walk along a river bank on a hot day, but CRoW doesn't allow you to dive in for a cooling dip.

What happens if you come to a large puddle across a footpath, or a stream that requires fording?  Do you have to stop and turn back, or are you allowed to paddle through?

What happens if you are making your way up somewhere like Blease Gill where - as Wainwright says, "Gentle walkers will turn tail and flee the place, but hardy adventurers can proceed up the stony bed of the gill, following the main stream..."  Are hardy adventurers allowed to follow streams up fellsides in this way under CRoW, or will they, like the gentle walkers, have to turn tail and flee?

So far the worms have all escaped from the can above ground.  But what about underground?  CRoW, if it does apply to caving, would appear to rule out such aqueous versions of the sport as cave diving.  But what about splashing along a passage with a few inches of water, or maybe several feet?  If a puddle in the path is OK to paddle through but a duck is a dip too far, where do you (or the lawyers) draw the line?

Did you have to raise that one, Alex? 

 

[ALEXW]

Did you have to raise that one, Alex? 

Not really, I'm just querying a point that may be picked on by those who may be opposed to the inclusion of caving as part of CROW. I am sure that there are many more. It is often the little things that can sway a legal decision. Despite the opinion of eminent QCs the show is not over until the fat lady sings.

 

[Peter Burgess]

As the debate seems to have transferred from a locked topic to a still unlocked one, it appears there is a disregard of the moderators' opinion that the original discussion should be terminated.

 

[paul]

[gmod]As expected, a return to bickering with no progress in the discussion of the subject (which ironically was about locking Topics, and not CROW). This is why Topics get locked as there is no useful outcome and again, why this Topic is now being locked.[/gmod]

 

[Roger W]

Apologies there, Paul - I was well off the original topic!

That is a problem when picking stuff up on the "unread posts" button.  You tend to only see the latest posts and not take account of where the thread started...