Quite a few things in Section 4 seems quite weird... perhaps the whole section could be revised at some point. Some of it seems like statements of fact about how things are currently done, rather than guiding principles that can be used for guidance when choices are being considered...
>> 4. GUIDING PRINCIPLES:
>> 4.1. The guiding principles are:
4.1 seems rather extraneous!
>> 4.2. That caving is organised within a diversity of clubs or bodies, either based in a specific region or with membership drawn from particular localities and is also undertaken by unaffiliated individuals and other bodies with independent interests.
More of a statement of fact than a guiding principle? How does this provide guidance in a decision? Does it imply that caving _should_ be organized in a diversity of clubs or bodies; to what end? 'Independent' interests; independent of what?
>> 4.3. That regional interests are focused in a diversity of regional bodies made up of member clubs and individual cavers.
This makes a little more sense and is presumably arguing that, in general, local decisions should be made by appropriate regional bodies (i.e. devolution).
>> 4.4. That interest in specific facets of caving is concentrated in a number of national bodies.
Another statement of fact, but without saying what facets are concentrated in what bodies then I'm not sure what the guiding principle is here?
>> 4.5. That the nature of exploration and conservation of caves, and thus access to them, is based in science and technology, inextricably linked to the sporting aspects of the pursuit.
I read this as simply saying that cave science is important, and gives a mandate for the BCA to emphasize them even where 'sport' caving is the focus (e.g. money from sport caving could be used for science or something).
>> 4.6. That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access. Where caving bodies have control of access delegated to them by the owners, such access should be obtained and granted as freely as possible for all responsible cavers, within the terms of those agreements. When obliged to make new agreements, the appropriate body should endeavour to ensure that this freedom is maintained or improved.
The controversial one! Is the first sentence a 'guiding principle' or merely a statement of fact through which the remainder should be considered? Is it to be read as 'owners _should_ have the right to grant or withhold access'? Given the next sentences argue that access should be 'obtained and granted as freely as possible' that would seem odd... The BCA constitution should surely argue for the rights of cavers first. Even if you don't agree with (for example) the CROW stuff then this doesn't mean that landowner's rights should be enshrined into the constitution to (potentially) a higher degree than they are entitled in law. A statement like 'Cavers should abide by access restrictions where those have been agreed for the benefit of cavers' is quite different to how it currently stands.
If you read the first sentence as a simple statement of fact then I don't see why the BCA should feel bound to preserve that statement of fact.
>> 4.7. That the Association will make its services available to all sections of the sporting community. There will be no discrimination on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, creed, colour, occupation, religion or political opinion.
Now this sounds much more like a guiding principle to me. The second part should hopefully come with saying, but the first part also seems important to me.
>> 4.8. That caving is an activity best pursued in a club environment and that the Association recommends individuals be members of a club.
This is, I guess, a guiding principle although I'm not sure whether it really needs to be in the constitution (what harm do people who don't want to be in a club do?).