Legal Action about Access - relevant to debate on access under CROW Act

NoFloods

New member
With the ongoing debate on this forum and within the BCA, I noticed the following article in The Times today with interest:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4175748.ece [I read the full article in a paper copy of The Times...]

This is about the Angling Trust threatening legal action against the British Canoe Union and others for 'promoting unlawful access' by publishing documents/opinions on their website. It has certain parallels with the ongoing discussion in caving and differences as well...

The Angling Trust's press relaese on this is:
http://www.anglingtrust.net/news.asp?section=29&sectionTitle=Angling+Trust+News&itemid=2265
There doesn't appear to a press release about it on the news section of the BCU's website at this time

The purpose of this post is to provide information rather than prompt debate :)
 

bograt

Active member
Thanks for the info, but I can't see the relevance to our debate, this is a conflict between two sets of users of the same resource (i.e. waterways), can anyone think of anyone who is going to contest cavers on the grounds of alternative use of our resources? (i.e. the caves)?
 

topcat

Active member
I've been paddling much longer than caving and I am very aware of the OP's information:  it has no bearing on CRoW and caving.
 

richardg

Active member
Thanks for passing on this information onto this forum, so those who contribute are aware of it.... and the risks of opening up new areas of potential conflict unnecessarily.
 

graham

New member
bograt said:
Thanks for the info, but I can't see the relevance to our debate, this is a conflict between two sets of users of the same resource (i.e. waterways), can anyone think of anyone who is going to contest cavers on the grounds of alternative use of our resources? (i.e. the caves)?

Archaeologists?
 

popeass1

New member
graham said:
bograt said:
Thanks for the info, but I can't see the relevance to our debate, this is a conflict between two sets of users of the same resource (i.e. waterways), can anyone think of anyone who is going to contest cavers on the grounds of alternative use of our resources? (i.e. the caves)?

Archaeologists?

Bears?  ;)
 

peterk

Member
If it has no relevance please explain why? This fishing club has asked the BCU not to publish information that it believes is wrong and has now told them that they intend to take legal action if an agreement cannot be reached.  They will only have taken this action on the basis of professional advice and if this advice is patently wrong and it ends up in court the legal advisers will get a bollocking for wasting court time ( The Ministry of Justice lays down the expected actions prior to a case appearing in court). I presume a report to the Bar Council is the ultimate expression of annoyance.

It is no different to you writing to Currys demanding that they repair your TV within 10 days or you will take them to a small claims court.  However your letter may have cost you ?1 but the fishing club will have spent ????.  Landowners are possessive of their rights and  some of these fishing clubs are big landowners - Prince Albert Angling Society employs over 150 bailiffs and I would guess over ?800k annual membership fees and a 2 to 3 year membership waiting list!

I see the relevance in the trouble that can be caused to a national representative body who expresses its beliefs in "just the wrong way"  and the need to plan the war to its conclusion before starting battles.
 

graham

New member
peterk said:
I see the relevance in the trouble that can be caused to a national representative body who expresses its beliefs in "just the wrong way"  and the need to plan the war to its conclusion before starting battles.

While I suspect that peterk and I may be on opposite sides of the current debate, he is absolutely right about this. If (big 'if') the caving world wishes to go down this route, it (we) must be absolutely clear about all the ramifications and all the effects before attempting to change the status quo.
 

Lazarus

New member
Surely there's a notable difference though?
Nobody or very very few have a right of access on the waterways in England. Whereas cavers quite often walk across land that falls under CRoW, then they head underground and generally don't bother any other outdoor user, unlike the canoe/angler argument.
Archaeologists, they tend to stick to small dry open caves, apart from when divers find stuff or cavers start digging new shafts (two examples that spring to mind). Bears, can't say I've bumped in to one recently  :blink:
 

peterk

Member
I don't know what side I'm on because I can see no reason to take sides but I do see a conflict that on insignificant scale is like those entered into by Bush and Blair. There's too much "I'm right because I've got this report in my hand", a refusal to understand why anyone else can hold differing views and little consideration as to the reaction or tactics of those who currently control the access we want.
 

graham

New member
peterk said:
I don't know what side I'm on because I can see no reason to take sides but I do see a conflict that on insignificant scale is like those entered into by Bush and Blair. There's too much "I'm right because I've got this report in my hand", a refusal to understand why anyone else can hold differing views and little consideration as to the reaction or tactics of those who currently control the access we want.
(y)
 
I'm a little confused here...it almost seems as if the BCU is on the side of the canoeists and not the landowners and bailiffs...

 

Brains

Well-known member
jasonbirder said:
I'm a little confused here...it almost seems as if the BCU is on the side of the canoeists and not the landowners and bailiffs...
A national governing body seeking to futher the aims of its sport, working on behalf of the participants? Seems a very odd state of affairs... perhaps they should be campaigning to stop people having fun in canoes and kayaks, lobbying for greater restrictions and bureaucracy!  :LOL: I can hear the hordes of paddlers demanding less access to the rivers as I type  :LOL:  :LOL:
 

Blakethwaite

New member
jasonbirder said:
I'm a little confused here...it almost seems as if the BCU is on the side of the canoeists and not the landowners and bailiffs...
That seems to be an extraordinarily negative point-of-view. Why is it a matter of sides? Us & them. Surely a representative body best represents the long-term interests of its members by acting in a manner that is mutually acceptable to all concerned & not just pursuing want want wants which may alienate those whose cooperation might ultimately be relied  upon?  :confused:
 

Simon Wilson

New member
peterk said:
I don't know what side I'm on because I can see no reason to take sides but I do see a conflict that on insignificant scale is like those entered into by Bush and Blair. There's too much "I'm right because I've got this report in my hand", a refusal to understand why anyone else can hold differing views and little consideration as to the reaction or tactics of those who currently control the access we want.

People in the anti-CroW camp keeping going on in this vein and it is quite wrong. At the June CNCC meeting there was much discussion of the issues of conservation and landowner relationships. The chairman had to repeatedly remind the meeting that the motion under consideration was not whether or not cave access under CroW would be good for caving, the motion was about whether or not the CNCC wanted to see the BCA endorse action to seek clarification of the law.

The CDG wrote a short submission to the BCA C&A meeting. I think it puts quite succinctly the position held by the vast majority of thoughtful cavers.
 

Bottlebank

New member
bograt said:
Thanks for the info, but I can't see the relevance to our debate, this is a conflict between two sets of users of the same resource (i.e. waterways), can anyone think of anyone who is going to contest cavers on the grounds of alternative use of our resources? (i.e. the caves)?

I think the other relevance to the debate in caving is that one group feels the act applies to an area, water in this case, which the other side feels is not included in the definition of Access Land. The same can be said of caves.
 

Duncan Price

Active member
Simon Wilson said:
The CDG wrote a short submission to the BCA C&A meeting. I think it puts quite succinctly the position held by the vast majority of thoughtful cavers.

Simon Wilson said:
Correct this if it is wrong but I have heard that the CNCC represents more cavers than all the other regional bodies put together. Yet the CNCC has the same voting power as the CDG which is just a medium sized specialised caving club.

:clap:
 

graham

New member
But the CDG are irrelevant to this anyway as bathing in non-tidal waters is specifically excluded by the act.  :coffee:
 

NoFloods

New member
Thoughts on relevance of the Angling Trust legal letter to the caving CRoW discussion:
1) Probably not that relevant to the legal niceties of acesss - as cavers are discussing access under an interpretation of a recent specific statute i.e. CRoW Act; whilst canoeists are discussing it under interpretation of both common law (precedent from court cases, etc) and historic statute - but still worth noting as it follows the basic principle that better/easier access would improve the sport
2) Fairly relevant that an organisation representing landowners (as the anglers typically own or lease the fishing rights) have seen fit to threaten legal action against a sports governing body over that sport's interpretation of how access to land (caves, water, etc). This indicates that there is a risk of legal action/costs to the BCA (I wouldn't like to be drawn into estimating either likelihood or impact of this risk); and if my understanding is correct (and I am happy to be corrected), as the BCA is an unincorporated association, its members would be jointly and severally liable under any action. I suspect that means that many or most of those posting on this debate could be liable - in reality, there shouldn't be much cost (other than lawyers fees) if the legal action is just about not publishing material
 
Top