Guardian article

Brains

Well-known member
The article itself was quite encouraging, despite the unfortunate connotations of the headline. The last comments from DEFRA seem a little out of keeping with the state of the times
 

martinr

Active member
Tim Allen, 55, is leading a British Caving Association (BCA) campaign to get the Countryside and Rights of Way (Crow) Act 2000 extended to include caves

BCA campaigning for  CROW to apply to caving? So does that mean the BCA constitution was changed when I wasn't looking? Just asking, I've not been following the CROW debate for a while.
 

Peter Burgess

New member
It's interesting to see an open debate in progress on the comments section of that item. It is also interesting to see how cavers are debating the issue, whereas non-cavers on the whole are totally uninterested in access, and only wish to comment on cavers being rescued. I am not sure what that tells us, other than perhaps we need to remind ourselves that in the grand scheme of things, cavers are simply tiny insects crawling on the elephant's bottom, and are of little consequence to most people.
 

sambo

New member
I do find it infuriating in the comments section, how some of the general public feel they can speak on behalf of us in the rescue teams. 
 

kay

Well-known member
Letters to the editor sparked by the Guardian article:
Chair of Lancashire Access Forum feels DEFRA's position does not reflect will of parliament, Frank Pearson sums up the arguments of the "pro" camp and mentions increasing conservation awareness in recent years, Jean Perraton brings in experience of canoeists and swimmers (both specifically excluded by CRoW) and says that "voluntary agreements" as advocated in the article by DEFRA have not worked well.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/30/caving-and-the-right-to-roam-above-and-below-ground
 

Cookie

New member
martinr said:
Tim Allen, 55, is leading a British Caving Association (BCA) campaign to get the Countryside and Rights of Way (Crow) Act 2000 extended to include caves

BCA campaigning for  CROW to apply to caving? So does that mean the BCA constitution was changed when I wasn't looking? Just asking, I've not been following the CROW debate for a while.

No it hasn't been changed.

In fact the BCA interpretation of the Constitution was clarified at the 2015 AGM when it passed the following motion with virtually everybody voting in favour.

"This meeting confirms that the Constitution allows BCA to seek clarification from DEFRA and Natural England on their existing guidance on The CRoW Act and its application to caving."

I believe this doesn't allow the National Council to pursue a very public campaign. 

Whether you are pro CRoW or not, it must be a serious concern that the National Council is not following the will of the AGM.

I would like to hear Councils justification and intend to raise this at the next Council meeting.
 

complex

Member
It seems that the government's position is unchanged, and was clearly re-stated yesterday in a written answer to a question from a member of Parliament:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-03-18.31768.h

"Section 2(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 provides for a right of access on foot for the purposes of open-air recreation to land which has been mapped as open country (mountain, moor, heath and down) and registered common land. The Government has no plans to extend the definition of mapped land under that Act to apply to caves."
 

RobinGriffiths

Well-known member
Ha, yesterday.. The same time they were seeking to privatise the Land Registry. That'll be fun for arranging access agreements. Find out who the landowner is from a profit making company. Mind, it's not like the Land Registry doesn't make a profit, it just happens it's profit to the taxpayer- yay me, not some nob with an account in the Virgin Islands who goes for an occasional Country Supper with Cameron and possibly a pugilistic ex BBC motoring correspondent and/or flame locked ex now reinstated media lady and various other ner do Wells from the Cotswolds.
 

Beardy

Member
Cookie said:
No it hasn't been changed.

In fact the BCA interpretation of the Constitution was clarified at the 2015 AGM when it passed the following motion with virtually everybody voting in favour.

"This meeting confirms that the Constitution allows BCA to seek clarification from DEFRA and Natural England on their existing guidance on The CRoW Act and its application to caving."

I believe this doesn't allow the National Council to pursue a very public campaign. 

Whether you are pro CRoW or not, it must be a serious concern that the National Council is not following the will of the AGM.

I would like to hear Councils justification and intend to raise this at the next Council meeting.

Hang on a minute -

I suspect that the 1402 people that voted yes to the poll  which asked

"Should BCA, on your behalf, campaign for The Countryside and Rights of Way Act to apply to going underground?"

Would actually want to get what they voted for - and would be somewhat annoyed with the gerrymandering that appears to be being tried by those with sour grapes over the issue.

I suspect that the numbers of cavers that voted in this recent poll were several factors greater than those that installed the constitution.  The constitution should be changed asap in line with the majorities view.

 
Beardy said:
Hang on a minute -

I suspect that the 1402 people that voted yes to the poll  which asked

"Should BCA, on your behalf, campaign for The Countryside and Rights of Way Act to apply to going underground?"

Would actually want to get what they voted for - and would be somewhat annoyed with the gerrymandering that appears to be being tried by those with sour grapes over the issue.

I suspect that the numbers of cavers that voted in this recent poll were several factors greater than those that installed the constitution.  The constitution should be changed asap in line with the majorities view.

(y)
 

mch

Member
Beardy said:
I suspect that the numbers of cavers that voted in this recent poll were several factors greater than those that installed the constitution.  The constitution should be changed asap in line with the majorities view.

(y) democracy in action!
 

Cookie

New member
This motion was passed after the the poll and with full knowledge of the result.

The wording on the poll also said that the Constitution would be change first, before any campaign.

Until the Constitution is changed this motion set out the limit of what the AGM thought possible in trying to satisfy the wish of the membership.
 

mch

Member
Cookie said:
Until the Constitution is changed this motion set out the limit of what the AGM thought possible in trying to satisfy the wish of the membership.

So what is the timetable for amending the BCA Constitution?
 

martinr

Active member
complex said:
It seems that the government's position is unchanged, and was clearly re-stated yesterday in a written answer to a question from a member of Parliament:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2016-03-18.31768.h

"Section 2(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 provides for a right of access on foot for the purposes of open-air recreation to land which has been mapped as open country (mountain, moor, heath and down) and registered common land. The Government has no plans to extend the definition of mapped land under that Act to apply to caves."

a right of access on foot
What happens when you reach a crawl or a squeeze? What about sumps? And pitches would all have to be laddered, no abseiling but you can prussick back up?
 

thomasr

New member
Are we all clear what : OPEN AIR : means ? A quick google search says outside of a  building facility or structure  ie man made . Surely not a cave which has abundant fresh open air . [A mine would be different as it would be man made ] So did the legislaters have all this in mind when drawing up the  right to roam act ?
 
Top