Problems looming for BCA?

Badlad

Administrator
Staff member
This issue is worthy of some wider discussion and awareness. 

There is a seemingly insignificant sentence in the BCA constitution.  Section 4.6 states;

?That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access?.?

In 2014 the BCA polled its members on whether to campaign for the Countryside and Right of Way Act to be recognised as applying to caving. The poll showed a majority in favour but those opposed to a campaign used this section to argue that such a campaign was against the BCA constitution.  Following complaints from CSCC and a number of motions, those opposed to CRoW successfully argued their case at the BCA AGM last summer.  The result of this was to effectively derail the BCA CRoW campaign pending an amendment to the constitution.  Just recently the Exec has put forward the following amendment which appears to be pretty much the same as that proposed at the 2016 AGM;

?That any rights held by the owners or tenants of property or mineral rights, to grant or withhold access, be respected?

At face value this amendment seems harmless enough ? why wouldn?t you want to respect rights?  However, considering the misuse of the original clause, wiser cavers than me have pointed out that this amendment is actually worse than the original.  This would commit the BCA to respecting ?any rights held?.  This could be the rights of a quarrying company to quarry away a cave ? BCA would have to respect that right and would be unable to mount a campaign to save the cave.  Similarly, if cavers came into conflict with the holders of shooting rights, mineral rights, planning rights, any rights, BCA would be powerless to pursue its own interests.

Despite warnings in council, the constitutional change timetable is now very short leaving some with little time for discussion.  At the recent CNCC meeting people were quite concerned to hear about this especially as the potential costs of the postal voting requirements could run into many thousands of pounds.

To me it seems sensible to remove the sentence from the constitution altogether.  Landowners have plenty of powerful organisations and lobbyists working for them they do not need more help from cavers. 
 

Alex

Well-known member
I agree, why is that line in there at all? Remove it. It's a cavers organisation not a  landowners one.
 

Tommy

Active member
The constitution should respect the wishes and rights of other groups but ultimately the point is to protect and guide cavers in their actions.

Another agreement here.

In terms of the postal vote costs, personally I'd be happy to pay a few quid to vote. Not that it should be a requirement (pay to vote...hm) but I'm sure others would be happy to chip in if needs be.
 

PeteHall

Moderator
I can't imagine any other organisation representing landowners above their own membership.

The job of the BCA is to represent the best interests of cavers. If this happens to include keeping on the right side of landowners, then all well and good, but this should not be in conflict with putting cavers first. As you say, landowners have enough power to argue thier own case.
 

alastairgott

Well-known member
Full Quote of original.
"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 constitution need not be amended from its current form, it states that "when Obliged... Freedom is Maintained or Improved"

We, (>50% of) the members, have Obliged the "appropriate bodies" to improve access to some sites which are on CROW land, whether that be all sites or not is a matter of opinion. I would argue that this has not derailed plans, and in small pockets access can be improved by the "appropriate Bodies" continuing their good work. Much like the CNCC have been doing on Ingleborough.
 

Cavematt

Well-known member
The CNCC will be discussing this at our AGM on 11th March to decide how we should react and vote with respect to this constitutional amendment.

See the associated document in the AGM section here:

http://cncc.org.uk/meetings/

Matt Ewles
Secretary, CNCC
 

royfellows

Well-known member
With the legal situation becoming increasingly complicated I am pondering on the necessity for legal rights associated with ownership to be echoed in the BCA constitution.

Having said this I disagree with the possible adverse interpretation of the amendment as it specifically relates to the granting or withholding of access. This could possibly be made clearer by removal of the first comma.
 

Wayland Smith

Active member
Wayland Smith said:
AccessGate?  :tease:

A certain member has sent me a P.M. complaining about the use of the word Gate.
I suggest that a sense of humour transplant is required!!

Can you not see that the use is in the way the Americans and press add gate to every scandal?

It was a JOKE

joke, noun
Something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism.  :cry:
 

TheBitterEnd

Well-known member
Wayland Smith said:
Wayland Smith said:
AccessGate?  :tease:

A certain member has sent me a P.M. complaining about the use of the word Gate.
I suggest that a sense of humour transplant is required!!

Can you not see that the use is in the way the Americans and press add gate to every scandal?

It was a JOKE

joke, noun
Something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism.  :cry:


Gategate?
 

Mark R

Well-known member
I have been wondering why this is included in the first place. It seems unnecessary to point out one of the many rights that land owners have, in the BCA constitution. Perhaps it was originally included to draw the average cavers attention to the fact that membership of the BCA does not automatically supersede any existing landowner right. Maybe there was a 'fear' that some cavers may merrily (and mistakenly) wave their BCA membership card in the face of an irate farmer whilst they trespass on his land to reach a well-known cave entrance believing they now have some sort of new and automatic right.
If this was the case then perhaps instead of pointing out rights that the land owners DO have, it could be worded to point out what rights cavers DONT have? Or more precisely, that the BCA does not automatically entitle cavers to any rights they do not currently enjoy as a non-member? (other than those access rights negotiated specifically and exclusively for BCA members and member groups).

If however this wasn?t the original purpose of the wording then I?m all for removal.
 

Ian Adams

Active member
I am at a total loss as to why ?we? accept this kind of nonsense.

We have a democracy <<< Enter different types/styles here>>>

The members voted for ?something? and there was a result.

The minority who lost have sought to undermine the wishes of the majority resorting (in some cases) to vitriol and poison. Others have sought to undermine it by throwing up technical issues.

What happened to respecting the majority who voted for the ?something??

It?s not that long ago that a ?losing side? in any vote (take general elections for example) where the losing side would shrug their shoulders and just ?get on with their day to day lives?.

It seems that, in recent times, there is a trend forming;

Labour elected Corbyn and the minority have been trying to unseat him ever since.

The UK voted to leave Europe and the minority have been trying to reverse the decision ever since.

Scotland voted to stay within the UK and the minority (including the SNP leader) have been trying to reverse the decision ever since.

America voted for Donald Trump and, because they seem to do everything on a bigger scale over there, not only have the minority been trying to reverse it but they have been rioting ever since.


We do not have to agree with another person?s opinion but we must, at least respect that other people also have an opinion that might be different to our own (regardless of which side of any of the fences we sit). In the democracies that we live within, should we not respect the majority vote of the people? Is that not the whole point of democracy?

The BCA should respect the wishes of the majority of its members ahead of the minority and act accordingly. The members were asked to vote. The members voted. The members told the BCA what they wanted. The BCA should act as mandated.

Simple?

Ian
 
Top