We (DDDWH CC) are no longer BCA members.

Much as some were striving to do good work (Badlad, et al), there seemed to be a pandering to sore losers. An organisation that even appears to allow that is not one we wish to be associated with.

We're still very much a club, but without the BCA parts. I suspect others will follow suit, unless certain parts of the BCA grow a spine and stop pandering to those tying to derail the CRoW clarification.

Where's a 'like' button when you need one?

NewStuff said:

We (DDDWH CC) are no longer BCA members.

Much as some were striving to do good work (Badlad, et al), there seemed to be a pandering to sore losers. An organisation that even appears to allow that is not one we wish to be associated with.

We're still very much a club, but without the BCA parts. I suspect others will follow suit, unless certain parts of the BCA grow a spine and stop pandering to those tying to derail the CRoW clarification.

Click to expand...

Interesting you should say that. I wonder how many clubs/members might reconsider membership depending on how the BCA AGM goes...

MarkS said:

Interesting you should say that. I wonder how many clubs/members might reconsider membership depending on how the BCA AGM goes...

Click to expand...

And I wonder how many of those clubs/members will have bothered to attend the BCA AGM? If you're not part of it you are not going to be able to change it. For what it's worth I shall be attending the BCA AGM as an individual member and I shall be voting for Badlad's motion. At today's DCA meeting our representative was unanimously mandated to vote the same way. Hopefully others will do the same. It's a pity that DDWHCC won't be able to do so.

NewStuff said:

We're still very much a club, but without the BCA parts. I suspect others will follow suit, unless certain parts of the BCA grow a spine and stop pandering to those tying to derail the CRoW clarification.

Click to expand...

I votes against, for reasons I considered at the time ( and still consider now) to be perfectly valid.

However, the vote went the other way and I feel that the BCA just need to get on with it. Taking into account the concerns of the minority should not prevent progress.

It was a vote, not a popularity contest.

mch said:

MarkS said:

Interesting you should say that. I wonder how many clubs/members might reconsider membership depending on how the BCA AGM goes...

Click to expand...

And I wonder how many of those clubs/members will have bothered to attend the BCA AGM? If you're not part of it you are not going to be able to change it. For what it's worth I shall be attending the BCA AGM as an individual member and I shall be voting for Badlad's motion. At today's DCA meeting our representative was unanimously mandated to vote the same way. Hopefully others will do the same. It's a pity that DDWHCC won't be able to do so.

Click to expand...

I also plan to be at the AGM. However, if there isn't a proactive outcome in line with the postal ballot, I would fully understand frustration from members/clubs who had already voted in the ballot and assumed that the BCA would act on the result, regardless of whether they attend the AGM or not.

MarkS said:

I also plan to be at the AGM. However, if there isn't a proactive outcome in line with the postal ballot, I would fully understand frustration from members/clubs who had already voted in the ballot and assumed that the BCA would act on the result, regardless of whether they attend the AGM or not.

Click to expand...

I can certainly understand peoples frustration, but the wheels of monolithic bureaucracies grind exceedingly slowly. I remember when I was on the BCRA National Council in the late 1980s the big issue was discontent with the NCA and the need for a properly representative national body - this took until 2005 when the BCA was formed. So stick with it, it may take a while but you'll get there in the end!

Maybe it's time to make the beaurocracy less monolithic then.

Given the relatively small number of cavers this shouldn't be too difficult.

Or perhaps it's time to learn from mistakes, that those who doubt open access, will need to be shown it can work. you may not be able to change the whole of the UK in one go, but certainly applying to local councils may be the way forward to get open Access.

Clearly there's already a dialogue between Badlad and councils, if a council were to turn around to DEFRA (or whatever it's called) and say we want our cavers to have open access on this land, then the wheels will start turning. Much like the original CROW walking movement- isolate the problem, ask and the rest will follow.

If Defra were to turn around to us and say "we want all CROW land to apply to caving" then what would the doubters say.

Clearly the caving community need to get behind what has been decided and stop themselves being railroaded into a situation where they look like a laughing stock.

droid said:

Maybe it's time to make the beaurocracy less monolithic then.

Click to expand...

Good luck with that!

mch said:

droid said:

Maybe it's time to make the beaurocracy less monolithic then.

Click to expand...

Good luck with that!

Click to expand...

S'pose could try the American way of changing / subverting democracy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39090334 if the ballot box isn't quite right.  Organisational change takes a long time....

The point is that change will come if enough people want it BUT it depends on those people being prepared to come along and vote for the change they want. 

We have started the change and gradually we're getting there but it needs support to get it through.  Deciding that it isn't going fast enough so you are going to opt out of being part of BCA is just defeatist.  You need to stick with it and keep fighting for what you want - the changes may be small each time but eventually, if enough people really want major change, it will come.

Come along to the BCA AGM on June 11th. and have your say and vote for change.  To confirm a change to the constitution following a vote at the AGM requires a ballot of all members of BCA so, again, make sure you fill in and return your ballot.  (It's long-winded but the idea was to prevent local views at an AGM in a particular part of the country overriding the general views of all the members.)

Juan said:

  As a bit of an experiment, the Matienzo Caves pre-Easter Meeting, (Saturday March 11th, 6.30 at the Bunk House, Clapham) will be broadcast to the Matienzo Caves & Caving Facebook group using "Facebook Live". This will allow absent group members, e.g. southerners and foreigners, to view the proceedings "live" on the Matienzo Caves & Caving Facebook page.

Click to expand...

Just sayin'

As much as Jenny P is correct (and I have seen her in action) I believe the mandate already exists and there should be ZERO need to muck about with the constitution.

In this thread there are people who voted on both sides of the fence (for whatever reason, good, bad, valid or invalid) and there is unison in that the BCA should do as they were mandated.

We have already had Cornwall (albeit perhaps tongue in cheek) leave the BCA and now we have a real, genuine, bone fide club "opt out".

How many more before the BCA becomes dis-functional ?

I have genuine respect for people who find themselves on the wrong side of a vote (we probably have all been there at least once) who then "deal with it". It's ok not to agree. It's ok to campaign to the contrary. It's ok to garner support to the contrary. But it's not ok to undermine democracy by deceit, lies, distortion, spin or deceit.

Ian

Ian Adams said:

I have genuine respect for people who find themselves on the wrong side of a vote (we probably have all been there at least once) who then "deal with it". It's ok not to agree. It's ok to campaign to the contrary. It's ok to garner support to the contrary. But it's not ok to undermine democracy by deceit, lies, distortion, spin or deceit.

Click to expand...

The latter, and the part where they were actually getting some traction, is the reason we left. We had (And still have) no confidence that the "good" elements in the BCA, despite solid efforts, can overcome the influence of those seeking to subvert the decision. The likes of Mullan, Brocklebank and Burgess can do what they want now, we simply don't care. We will go in deep dark dirty wet holes in the ground, because that's what we like to do.

Since this decision, we have *added* members, no monies, no details, no voting. Seems appealing to people.

It's a shame that this has reflected badly on BCA, which is trying to follow on with the majority of members' wishes, as expressed by the ballot.  However, as a democratic organisation it really can't just ride roughshod over all dissenters but has to try to persuade them to see that theirs is a minority view and therefore the majority have to prevail.  (Don't know who said that "Democracy is the worst form of government ... except for all other forms.")

Ian might find it worth remembering that much of the infrastructure which all cavers rely on is supported by funding from BCA.  Access and conservation costs in the regions are funded by BCA - and that includes (as an example for DCA) repairing farm gates, renovating parking areas, capping dangerous mineshafts, persuading the National Park to allow an exemption from a "Traffic Restriction Order" so that cavers can use a track to drive close to a site where they are digging and not have to carry heavy gear for a mile to the site, rebuilding walls, installing stiles, etc.  All these things benefit all cavers, whether they be Club, regional council or BCA members, or even independent/unaffiliated - but BCA funds them.

Likewise, BCA funds all bolt installation done by regional groups by providing or funding the necessary bolts and resin.  And it's highly likely that your friends will use these installations during their caving trips and no-one who ever installed bolts would begrudge this.

So just bear in mind that the freedoms you enjoy to go caving when and where you like with your friends are underpinned by the efforts of other cavers whose efforts are, in turn, supported financially by BCA.

BCA needs your support to be able move forward and it's sad if this support is removed, just when it is most needed.

Jenny P
A nice summary
But to turn it on it's head
the democratic wishes of the majority are being ridden over by a small vocal minority of refuseniks!

Time would be better spent getting these to accept majority rule than berating people who expect a vote to be binding.

What you have at the moment in BCA is minority rule by a cabal who are against a democratic majority. 

Wayland Smith said:

Jenny P

...

the democratic wishes of the majority are being ridden over by a small vocal minority of refuseniks!

Time would be better spent getting these to accept majority rule than berating people who expect a vote to be binding.

What you have at the moment in BCA is minority rule by a cabal who are against a democratic majority. 

Click to expand...

I don't think it's exactly "minority rule" but I do think we have now got to the point where, having given this all due consideration, we now have to move forward in the direction that the majority of our members want us to go.

I'm not "berating people who expect a vote to be binding" and I share their frustration.  That's why I am hoping that this coming AGM will have plenty of voting members of BCA who make it clear that they now expect BCA to move forward on this.

Having said that, there has been a good deal of work going on behind the scenes in talking to "government officialdom" and, at the moment, this "officialdom" is proving difficult to shift.  A definitive vote at this AGM indicating that an overwhelming number of our members wish BCA to move forward on this would put more solid backing behind those who are already working for the change the majority of us want.