UK Caving

TECHNICAL FORUMS => National Access Discussions => Topic started by: Bob Mehew on August 08, 2014, 02:35:30 pm

Title: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Bob Mehew on August 08, 2014, 02:35:30 pm
I have been working of recent on investigating the impact if CRoW applies to caving.  It is limited to looking at the various powers which can be employed  to provide for access control if CRoW does apply to caving.  Whilst it looks at categories of caves, it does not consider any specific cave.  Hence I have not posted it within the still open thread on CRoW Sec 26.  I have also included a comment about the release of the 'instructions' which may be of interest to some.  A copy of this work which I have forwarded to the C&A Convenor for consideration at next week's C&A meeting on the 16th can be found at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0RTfmWzkLQMVlFMMFhBWkozdEU/edit?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0RTfmWzkLQMVlFMMFhBWkozdEU/edit?usp=sharing).

I must repeat that since I am not a lawyer, I accept no liability from any one who uses the contents of the document.  I issue it in the spirit of being open.  I have already shared this document with Graham Mullan and no doubt he will disagree with it.  Given the history of previous threads I am not inclined to enter into a debate on this forum about the contents.  (Indeed the mods might wish to lock this thread.)  I MAY answer specific questions PMd to me. 

What I will urge cavers to do, if they have not already done so, is to present their concerns and desires to their regional C&A representative so he or she may take them into account in their preparation for the meeting.   
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on August 08, 2014, 06:26:46 pm
I will second Bob's suggestion re; reps taking concerns to the BCA C&A meeting on the 16'th, I hope they have been taking notes from the blocked thread so that relevant issues will be brought up and addressed.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: damian on August 08, 2014, 07:41:51 pm
What I will urge cavers to do, if they have not already done so, is to present their concerns and desires to their regional C&A representative so he or she may take them into account in their preparation for the meeting.

Indeed. The BCA AGM asked the C&A Committee to deal with the issue and it will begin its work on this on 16th August. The Committee has on it one (voting) representative from each of the following Organisations:

Regional Councils - Cambrian, CNCC, CSCC, DCA and DCUC.

Constituent Bodies - ACI, ASCT, BCRA, BCRC, CDG, CHECC, NAMHO and WPCST.

Anyone with views on CRoW who is a member of any of the above, should speak to their representative. Individuals should send their thoughts to Andrew Hinde, the Conservation & Access Officer on conservation [at] british[hyphen]caving[dot]org[dot]uk.

Hopefully in this way the decisions that are reached will best reflect the views of BCA's membership.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on August 08, 2014, 07:49:46 pm
What I will urge cavers to do, if they have not already done so, is to present their concerns and desires to their regional C&A representative so he or she may take them into account in their preparation for the meeting.

Indeed. The BCA AGM asked the C&A Committee to deal with the issue and it will begin its work on this on 16th August. The Committee has on it one (voting) representative from each of the following Organisations:

Regional Councils - Cambrian, CNCC, CSCC, DCA and DCUC.

Constituent Bodies - ACI, ASCT, BCRA, BCRC, CDG, CHECC, NAMHO and WPCST. :Anyone with views on CRoW who is a member of any of the above, should speak to their representative. Individuals should send their thoughts to Andrew Hinde, the Conservation & Access Officer on conservation [at] british[hyphen]caving[dot]org[dot]uk.

Hopefully in this way the decisions that are reached will best reflect the views of BCA's membership.

 :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: jasonbirder on August 08, 2014, 08:23:11 pm
For all this intricate and detailed debate over whether CRoW applies to caving or not...

Surely its not for the BCA or regional access bodies to make an amateurish and half-hearted  guess about the law...

Surely its for the BCA to find out what its members would prefer then lobby for it...

Regardless of if there's a 75%or a 25% chance of it being covered...they don't have the final say...regardless of what an eminent QC...some para-legal I used to knock off when I worked in the city or a bloke down the pub advises...

The BCA should take stock of its members wishes and then represent that to the best of its ability...
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Peter Burgess on August 08, 2014, 08:58:22 pm
It says in the text you quoted "... should speak to their representative...". Seems clear enough to me. I am advised that as the date is fast approaching we only have perhaps this weekend to get our clubs to put their views to their relevant council. Ask your rep why he/she hasn't canvassed for your opinion, assuming that they haven't so far done so. I have only just done this - I wish I had put out an email a week ago!
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Lazarus on August 08, 2014, 09:17:40 pm
Precisely, Peter. My club is not a member of a regional council, but is a member of BCA affiliated to a regional council - so who do I speak to?

Am I, as a club member (CIM not DIM), allowed to put forth my views as an individual rather than via the rep-method?

As for others, yes, the rep of course should have asked, most might have missed that one.. It should have been the rep having time for questioning the club membership and being able to read and digest all the views provided and put forward an opinion for their club.

It all seems rather convenient that very little information has been put forward about this meeting. Furthermore, it appears rather rushed so that reps have very little chance of gaining a true opinion when a reasonable portion could well be on holiday/expedition (including the rep). Almost as if certain people in the BCA would rather enjoy the status quo than have to deal with differing opinions...
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Peter Burgess on August 08, 2014, 09:20:59 pm
Unless I get more than a tiny number of replies, I think my club's view will be that we have no view. Two responses so far, in 6 hours, 48 to go. Perhaps they are all out there caving or pirating the fells.....
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: jasonbirder on August 08, 2014, 09:32:26 pm
I guess if the number of conversations I've been involved in...

(and it seems to be mirrored by the threads on UK Caving too...so not just anecdotal)

Generally active cavers seem to be in favour of improved access and against restricting access...

Ask yourself which of the following type of conversations YOU'VE been involved in...


*Spot the odd one out...


I've no faith in caving's administrative bodies actually going as far as pushing FOR the wishes of grubby rebellious non-conformist cavers...

But that's merely indicative of the massive disconnect between the sports representative bodies and the members they are supposed to represent...

Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: damian on August 08, 2014, 09:50:27 pm
I think it's blatantly obvious how CSCC are voting! Who are these representatives of other bodies anyway? Clubs are members of the above, so do I speak to my club-rep, will my club-rep relay the information to the regional body in time? Do regional bodies have someone I can contact. Or should I, as an individual (not a DIM of the BCA), contact Andrew Hinde to put forth my views and avoid the faff?
Different regions have different membership rules ... so the answer to your question about the Regional Council is that it depends which Region it is. You are very welcome to send your views to Andrew Hinde. Of course, the weighting the meeting chooses to give to individuals' views, versus those of Clubs, versus those of Regions is entirely up to it. However you can be sure that if you have a good point to make, it will be of interest to the meeting.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: droid on August 08, 2014, 09:52:36 pm
Non-conformist, Jason?

Who are you kidding? The 'conformist' view seems to be that we have access wherever we want on CRoW land, irrespective of what Government Agencies think.

Witness the vitriol poured on the small non-conformist minority that disagree with this view in the light of no official confirmation.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on August 08, 2014, 10:03:34 pm
I guess if the number of conversations I've been involved in...

(and it seems to be mirrored by the threads on UK Caving too...so not just anecdotal)

Generally active cavers seem to be in favour of improved access and against restricting access...

Ask yourself which of the following type of conversations YOU'VE been involved in...

  • When can we get back into Sidetrack Cave?

    Is there any progress on getting back into Long Rake Founder Shaft?

    Has the DCA sorted access into Christmas Swallet yet?

    I'm really worried about the formations in Bag of Worms...has anyone spoken to the owner about banning access into Hungerhill Swallet

*Spot the odd one out...


I've no faith in caving's administrative bodies actually going as far as pushing FOR the wishes of grubby rebellious non-conformist cavers...

But that's merely indicative of the massive disconnect between the sports representative bodies and the members they are supposed to represent...

If you keep track of what DCA are doing for you, you would know that Sidetrack has been open for a while, you only need to fill in the visitors log book, Long Rake is a safety (GAS) issue, Christmas Swallet is an ongoing issue, still in negotiation. Please don't knock your regional council unless you are willing to contribute, otherwise you come over as all 'take' and no 'give', or even 'offer'.

The 'massive' disconnection you refer to is your responsibility!!

BTW, I don't think any of these systems are on CRoW access land, although I can't be ars*d to check.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: jasonbirder on August 08, 2014, 10:08:59 pm
I know what's happening with ALL of the specific examples...

It was a demonstration that 99.9% of Caver conversations tend to be about SECURING access to caves...snd I suspect if you are honest with yourself...the same is true for you...

No-one i've ever ever spoken to or caved with has lobbied for LESS access...

If that's even close to the truth...why the hell is the BCA NOT supporting its members views...in the way that the BMC or BCU would their members?
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: jasonbirder on August 08, 2014, 10:10:20 pm
Quote
Please don't knock your regional council unless you are willing to contribute

And your insight to what I've helped with locally is....

Or is that merely a personal attack designed to draw attention away from my argument...
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Alex on August 08, 2014, 10:14:50 pm
We are our own worse enemies

As a certain plant once said "Oh no not again!".
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Peter Burgess on August 08, 2014, 10:15:01 pm
It aint so simple, possibly. There is more than one way to secure access. The contention is over which is the best way - hard graft by working with owners on a case by case basis, or using a blanket perceived right to do so. And even then, there's a great deal more subtlety to either approach. You are right - we all want access, but there is a fundamental philosophical difference between the two approaches. This is why the matter is so divisive. It is extremely unusual for people to take a totally different philosophy on board from the one we have grown up with. It may just be the way each of us is made.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on August 08, 2014, 10:23:06 pm
Quote
Please don't knock your regional council unless you are willing to contribute

And your insight to what I've helped with locally is....

Or is that merely a personal attack designed to draw attention away from my argument...

Just going by your perceived attitude, if you like, you can PM me with your credentials, then I can decide if you where generally stirring it, for all I know, you may well be a valuable member of DCA, 'nom de plumes' can be misleading, especially when they appear to discredit others!
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: jasonbirder on August 08, 2014, 10:26:45 pm
Quote
PM me with your credentials, then I can decide if you where generally stirring it

You can judge my credentials and decide if I'm suitable to comment or just a rabble rouser!

Wow!

Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Cap'n Chris on August 09, 2014, 07:39:47 am
Moderator Comment OK; unlocked for the time being but with conditions. The handful of trite/personal attack/non-productive/irrelevant comments have been, and will continue to be, removed - please PLEASE keep comments useful and the kind of thing which aids the debate - there's very little time to go before the forthcoming meeting and this topic is potentially massively important, perhaps even fundamental, to the future of caving in the UK - we NEED to have useful debate about it, not mud-slinging, in the run-up to that meeting. It can/will be relocked if there's a toy/pram/handbag war
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: badger on August 09, 2014, 08:05:11 am
not sure how anyone could not know about the BCA meeting in August, it has been mentioned in several threads on this forum for quite sometime.
maybe it has not clicked into place in peoples minds due to the nature of the topics.
And not sure how people can know the out come yet (many seem to think it has already been decided) which talking to some of the BCA committee they them selves do not know which way the it will go.

Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Simon Wilson on August 09, 2014, 08:33:16 am
It aint so simple, possibly. There is more than one way to secure access. The contention is over which is the best way - hard graft by working with owners on a case by case basis, or using a blanket perceived right to do so. And even then, there's a great deal more subtlety to either approach. You are right - we all want access, but there is a fundamental philosophical difference between the two approaches. This is why the matter is so divisive. It is extremely unusual for people to take a totally different philosophy on board from the one we have grown up with. It may just be the way each of us is made.

There does appear to be a philosophy down south totally different to that up north. But I don't think anybody is expecting "people to take a totally different philosophy on board from the one we [you] have grown up with". I think all anybody is expecting is for the consideration of the idea that it might be possible to cope with two padlocks being replaced with two bolts or do a bit of paperwork to legally retain your padlocks.

Let's get things into proportion.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Oceanrower on August 09, 2014, 08:57:38 am
Apparently, according to the CSCC, I'm against CROW access.

Though I don't remember either of the clubs I belong to asking me.........
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Simon Wilson on August 09, 2014, 09:06:30 am
Apparently, according to the CSCC, I'm against CROW access.

Though I don't remember either of the clubs I belong to asking me.........

Are you seriously saying that with all the hype that your CSCC Representative has not asked your club what they think and how he/she should vote? When is your CSCC Representative up for re-election?
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Oceanrower on August 09, 2014, 09:24:01 am
No Simon, that's not what I'm saying.

I have no doubt that the rep has asked the club's committee what they want him to do.

But, unless I've missed something, the clubs haven't canvassed the opinion of their members (me!)
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: jasonbirder on August 09, 2014, 09:31:46 am
Which is the point I was making earlier.... Both the CSCC and the CNCCare strongly "anti-CRoW".....

Yet would anyone really suggest that amajority of active Northern AND Southern Cavers are in favour of more landowner restrictions and against better access?
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: droid on August 09, 2014, 09:44:02 am
MORE 'landowner restrictions'? Where do you get that from?

Most of the 'anti' comment has beed with regard to conservation, of the type operated in Water Icicle....
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: jasonbirder on August 09, 2014, 10:14:44 am
Sorry! I forgot the inflection of every word and nuance was judged rather than its intent...

I meant Access at the vagaries of landowner and/or controlling club whims and wishes...leaving them the opportunity to either continue to restrict access or have the option to further restrict access in the future as they choose...as opposed to having the right to access granted and protected...

Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: droid on August 09, 2014, 10:24:18 am
AS LONG AS the cave is on Access land.

Not criticising/nitpicking here: it's a pretty big caveat....
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: jasonbirder on August 09, 2014, 10:29:21 am
I though that was a given in a discussion about Countryside Rights of Way and Open Access Land ;)
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on August 09, 2014, 10:31:55 am
As I mentioned in a previous thread, I would like the committee to look into the historic aspect of reasons for access restriction.
 I suspect that the majority of restrictions in the South are there for conservation of cave features and, if so, a mechanism for their retention should be sought.
 The fell permit system in the North, however, I suspect is a relic of the private land/ grouse shooting moor period and has been largely superceeded by the CRoW act, and should be treated as such.
 These two examples are not mutually exclusive and can be approached and acted upon according to their respective merits.
 There will be other reasons for access controls but until the research is done these remain unidentified.

Maybe the committee could look into formulating a set of guidelines of acceptable reasons for controlling access?
NOTE; I said guidelines, NOT rules
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Simon Wilson on August 09, 2014, 10:42:47 am
As I mentioned in a previous thread, I would like the committee to look into the historic aspect of reasons for access restriction.
 I suspect that the majority of restrictions in the South are there for conservation of cave features and, if so, a mechanism for their retention should be sought.
 The fell permit system in the North, however, I suspect is a relic of the private land/ grouse shooting moor period and has been largely superceeded by the CRoW act, and should be treated as such.
 These two examples are not mutually exclusive and can be approached and acted upon according to their respective merits.
 There will be other reasons for access controls but until the research is done these remain unidentified.

Maybe the committee could look into formulating a set of guidelines of accepable reasons for controlling access?
NOTE; I said guidelines, NOT rules

I think Bograt is right about the historical reasons for restrictions. This a useful comment and might help us understand the different approaches in the different regions and appreciate better each other points of view. Let's all please get into the spirit in which Bob started this topic and attempt to move forwards in finding a mutually acceptable stance. BCA is national and the legislation is national so the BCA has to have national policy.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: jasonbirder on August 09, 2014, 10:46:35 am
Whilst investigating historic Access agreements and restrictions would be a useful and interesting excercise...

I don't see it having anything to do with the BCA's stance on whether to push for clarification on whether caving is included or excluded from CRoW

In fact I don't see what peoples interpretation of the act has got to do with whether BCA pushes for clarification and indeed pushes for it be be included or not...

As a representative body the BCA should find out what the majority of its members want and ally itself with their wishes...



Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Simon Wilson on August 09, 2014, 10:53:20 am
Which is the point I was making earlier.... Both the CSCC and the CNCCare strongly "anti-CRoW".....

Yet would anyone really suggest that amajority of active Northern AND Southern Cavers are in favour of more landowner restrictions and against better access?

The CNCC are not strongly anti-CRoW. I think it would probably be fair to say they were but you can't say that now. What you can say is that at the May committee meeting they were strongly in favour of supporting the view that clarification of the law would be a good thing. You can say that because the motion to support the motion at the BCA AGM was accepted unanimously. That is all you can say with certainty.

Simon Wilson, EPC elected CNCC Representative.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Simon Wilson on August 09, 2014, 11:06:30 am
Whilst investigating historic Access agreements and restrictions would be a useful and interesting excercise...

I don't see it having anything to do with the BCA's stance on whether to push for clarification on whether caving is included or excluded from CRoW

In fact I don't see what peoples interpretation of the act has got to do with whether BCA pushes for clarification and indeed pushes for it be be included or not...

As a representative body the BCA should find out what the majority of its members want and ally itself with their wishes...

The members wishes about what? The time for the national body to represent the members wishes about whether or not they wanted CRoW to include caves was back in the 1990s. The law was passed in 2000. The problem at the moment is that there is disagreement about what the law is. It is strictly a legal question and the cavers wishes are irrelevant. Or am I mistaken and can NE be swayed one way or t'other?
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on August 09, 2014, 11:10:32 am
Whilst investigating historic Access agreements and restrictions would be a useful and interesting excercise...

I don't see it having anything to do with the BCA's stance on whether to push for clarification on whether caving is included or excluded from CRoW

In fact I don't see what peoples interpretation of the act has got to do with whether BCA pushes for clarification and indeed pushes for it be be included or not...

As a representative body the BCA should find out what the majority of its members want and ally itself with their wishes...

Short of having an open (and expensive) referendum to all members, the BCA has to go by what is decided at open council meetings, one of these meetings decided to formulate a CRoW working party in response to caver demand for clarification.
 This working party then went ahead under BCA's remit and this culminated in a QC's advice that caving should be included in the act.
 At the last BCA open council meeting, the decision to pass the matter over to the BCA C&A  committee was made.
 What we are now discussing is the direction we would like that committee to take in the light of these developments.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: jasonbirder on August 09, 2014, 11:16:36 am
Caving is in a bit of a Limbo isn't it...
Many Cavers assume CRoW applies to caving and have been caving on access land without permits etc for quite some period of time without any problems...
But as its not a specifically included or excluded activity there will always be some friction over it until the point is clarified one way or another...
Whilst there currently exists a QC's legal opinion over its inclusion (whilst persuasive) its not definitive until either it is tested in court of clarified at a legislative level...
While it shouldn't be the case...the BCA stating it assumes caving is covered by CRoW and strongly supports that MAY influence the final decision...
And would give heart and support to cavers who feel their national body support them...rather than Landowners...If the BCA came in behind CRoW and ultimately it wasn't included and the status quo remained I think we could all get behind it...its the feeling that the BCA wants "to throw its members to the wolves" that's galling...
Can you imagine the outcry from their members if the BCU didn't so everything in its power to push for increased access for paddlers?
I'd like to (and I'm sure many others are the same) see the same backing from OUR body

Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on August 09, 2014, 11:24:44 am
Caving is in a bit of a Limbo isn't it...
Many Cavers assume CRoW applies to caving and have been caving on access land without permits etc for quite some period of time without any problems...
But as its not a specifically included or excluded activity there will always be some friction over it until the point is clarified one way or another...
Whilst there currently exists a QC's legal opinion over its inclusion (whilst persuasive) its not definitive until either it is tested in court of clarified at a legislative level...
While it shouldn't be the case...the BCA stating it assumes caving is covered by CRoW and strongly supports that MAY influence the final decision...
And would give heart and support to cavers who feel their national body support them...rather than Landowners...If the BCA came in behind CRoW and ultimately it wasn't included and the status quo remained I think we could all get behind it...its the feeling that the BCA wants "to throw its members to the wolves" that's galling...
Can you imagine the outcry from their members if the BCU didn't so everything in its power to push for increased access for paddlers?
I'd like to (and I'm sure many others are the same) see the same backing from OUR body


So.... make some constructive suggestions about what you would like your representative to take to the meeting, I'm sure Mel would be interested, this persistent negative carping and criticism is just wasting forum space.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: kay on August 09, 2014, 11:58:02 am

While it shouldn't be the case...the BCA stating it assumes caving is covered by CRoW and strongly supports that MAY influence the final decision...


I thought the BCA's opinion was that it currently has no stance on CRoW?
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on August 09, 2014, 12:05:13 pm

While it shouldn't be the case...the BCA stating it assumes caving is covered by CRoW and strongly supports that MAY influence the final decision...


I thought the BCA's opinion was that it currently has no stance on CRoW?

You are right Kay, the only reference to CRoW recently by BCA is to refer it to the C&A committee who have not yet met on the subject.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Oceanrower on August 09, 2014, 03:11:35 pm

But, unless I've missed something, the clubs haven't canvassed the opinion of their members (me!)

I'm very pleased to report that one of my clubs (WCMS. Well done) has been in touch asking for feeedback.

As a complete aside, having looked at the CSCC website, I was slightly surprised to see the YSS as a member club. Bloody hell, the south is bigger than I thought!
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: mmilner on August 09, 2014, 05:31:17 pm

While it shouldn't be the case...the BCA stating it assumes caving is covered by CRoW and strongly supports that MAY influence the final decision...


I thought the BCA's opinion was that it currently has no stance on CRoW?

You are right Kay, the only reference to CRoW recently by BCA is to refer it to the C&A committee who have not yet met on the subject.

Yep, it's on the agenda to be discussed.  :) I know for a fact that there are individuals within BCA with differing views on this. (Ie:- pro or against.) But none on the C&A committee as far as I am aware, so hopefully we will be able to come up with a independent stance that BCA as a whole will have to accept. (I think!)

Also don't forget that the BCA C&A officer/convener also works for NE and I also know that a senior person at NE will be made aware of the results in due course by BCA as a national body.

Fingers crossed!

Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Peter Burgess on August 09, 2014, 07:24:11 pm
Apparently, according to the CSCC, I'm against CROW access.

Though I don't remember either of the clubs I belong to asking me.........
Apparently you have now received the request from me for your view. Your avatar does not look much like any of the three members who have responded - can I take your stated opinion on here as your reply? Or have you responded by email? Or on the WCMS forum? Only if by some miracle I get a significant number of replies how do I know if you haven't responded twice somehow?
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Oceanrower on August 09, 2014, 07:39:47 pm
I replied at 14:28 today by email. Does that help to narrow it down? I will also pm you to make sure.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Peter Burgess on August 09, 2014, 07:41:46 pm
I got the request for our view from CCC via a CCC officer who happens to be a WCMS member - I took it more as a reminder to do something, but I was never directly asked in any kind of circular. Of course, it might be that the actual request was directed at our secretary. I don't know. However, an email went out yesterday (Friday) within minutes of the reminder. I am also now aware of the advice to contact reps etc that was posted up on this forum earlier. However, it passed me by, what will the dilution of the important posts with all the utter drivel that came with it. Our members are pretty good at responding to emails that are of interest to them, so if I don't get many replies, I can make a reasonable assumption on their level of interest in this matter. But I live in hope (not the place in Derbyshire).

Oceanrower - thanks. Please PM me - nothing has arrived.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Peter Burgess on August 09, 2014, 07:43:25 pm
Update- you message was dumped into Spam - so I do have it. Thanks once more.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Bob Mehew on August 09, 2014, 09:21:33 pm
Some people have been pressing me for access to the 'instructions'.  I am offering this statement to help them understand the context of what already is in the public domain with what is not.

My interest in this subject started back at the CNCC AGM when Tim made the curious statement that Natural England had declared caving on the surface was an open air recreation.  I did a fair amount of research into CRoW including using legal data bases to search for meanings of words and previous cases using these words.  By late May I had built up a large 13 page document detailing my thoughts, though several areas relating to consultation papers and debates were incomplete as I had not obtained copies of them then.

Around that time I then produced a document which can be seen as Appendix 1 to the CRoW Working Group report to the BCA AGM, read pages 22 to 27 in the Officers Reports at http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=about:documents:general_meetings:agm_reports_2014.pdf (http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=about:documents:general_meetings:agm_reports_2014.pdf) which was a reduced (13 to 6 pages) version of my main work.  (I did edit out a number of items, including a discussion about open air cremations for example, see http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/978.html (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2009/978.html) if you are that intrigued.  It concluded that one could design a building which was open to the air as is required by a Hindu burial belief!)  I then got drawn into producing the 'instructions' and never got around to completing my May document. 

I have indicated elsewhere that we are holding back on releasing the 'instructions' until we have sought legal advice.  But for those who would like to have an idea of what is in the 'instructions' then it comprises of an introduction and four Parts.  The introduction provides a brief history, organisation and nature of caving plus some basic statistics of the number of caves on access land.  Part 1 covers early legislation from the 19 century up to the 1939 Access to the Mountains Act.  Part 2 deals with the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 and CRoW covering not only the parliamentary debates but also the precursor consultation papers and so forth.  Part 3 covers a detailed consideration of CRoW focusing on the meaning of the two phrases 'access land' and 'open air recreation'.  Part 4 covers material issued by Natural England and some email exchanges.  The 'instructions' only asked 'Arising from this work comes the principle question of whether the right of access as provided for in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act applies to caving'.

Much of what is in the Working Group Appendix is based on my May document and is also in the 'instructions' at Parts 3 and 4.  I will admit that the May document and the Annex is a bit light on the material in Part 4 of the 'instructions' on Natural England since much of that was informed by Tim's work.

So if you are that interested you can get an appreciation of that part of the 'instructions' covering the legal argument Parts 3 and 4 by reading Appendix 1 mentioned above.  And apologies to those of you who have already done so. 

Work on the parliamentary debates was done in a hurry and only documented as full copies of the debates and 2 documents providing the internet links for each debate.  PM me with your email address if you want a copy of the links.   Various quotes were used in the 'instructions'.  The most significant quote from all the debates has already been quoted in discussion on this forum at http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=16816.msg221779#msg221779 (http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=16816.msg221779#msg221779).  I would recommend reading that part of the debate which covers the proposed amendment which sought to define open air recreation and the Minister's response.

I have thought about bringing up to date my May document.  There are two problems.  The first is whether I should up date the May document or issue it with known errors which I don't have the time to correct.  The second is the May document contains very little of the results of the study of the parliamentary debates.  So I conclude I am reluctant to issue it.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on August 09, 2014, 11:25:17 pm
Thanks for that Bob,I hope it will go some way to pacify the dissenters.

 I would, however, like to take this opportunity to emphasise that anyone wishing to make a relevant comment on the debate should make their contribution to their regional representative NOW, as the national committee meeting to decide policy is imminent. (16th August, next Saturday!)
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Bob Mehew on August 13, 2014, 09:49:09 pm
See http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=conservation_access:c_a_committee_meeting_140816_papers.pdf (http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=conservation_access:c_a_committee_meeting_140816_papers.pdf) which I think has just been put up.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on August 13, 2014, 09:59:03 pm
Thaks for that Bob,
                             Must check who's carrying the vote for us,also would encourage other folk to do the same!.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: mmilner on August 13, 2014, 10:13:22 pm
Thaks for that Bob,
                             Must check who's carrying the vote for us,also would encourage other folk to do the same!.

Me and Pete Mellors are the DCAs reps. I think we are now pretty much in agreement on policy. Andrew now has the DCA report to the C&A meeting.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on August 13, 2014, 10:34:12 pm
Thaks for that Bob,
                             Must check who's carrying the vote for us,also would encourage other folk to do the same!.

Me and Pete Mellors are the DCAs reps. I think we are now pretty much in agreement on policy. Andrew now has the DCA report to the C&A meeting.

Thanks Mel, Know I can depend upon our reps, just e-mailed Andrew to confirm who'se carrying the vote, these things need to be kept transparent :thumbsup:

CC'd to you and Pete.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: damian on August 14, 2014, 10:13:41 am
See http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=conservation_access:c_a_committee_meeting_140816_papers.pdf (http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=conservation_access:c_a_committee_meeting_140816_papers.pdf) which I think has just been put up.
It has been pointed out to me that the original document linked above did not make it as clear as it could have done that the contributions are from individuals and, therefore, not necessarily the views or opinions of BCA. I have now amended the document to reflect this and apologise for any potential confusion.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: graham on August 14, 2014, 01:54:56 pm
I note that further submissions continue to be added to the document linked to by Bob, above. So if you have downloaded a version, you'll need to do it again! I suspect that more will continue to be added up until the weekend.

It is worth noting, also, that additions are not all being made at the end of the document, so just because your last page is the same, doesn't mean that other bits won't have been missed.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: damian on August 14, 2014, 01:59:39 pm
I note that further submissions continue to be added to the document linked to by Bob, above. So if you have downloaded a version, you'll need to do it again! I suspect that more will continue to be added up until the weekend.

It is worth noting, also, that additions are not all being made at the end of the document, so just because your last page is the same, doesn't mean that other bits won't have been missed.
Yep - something I try to avoid doing because I know of the difficulties it can cause people. Mindful of this, the final version of the document is the one that was uploaded a few minutes ago. This latest version contains a cover page, plus a further submission by Linda Wilson, and submissions from the CDG and RFDCC.

Any further last-minute submissions to Andrew Hinde will appear in a separate document published tomorrow evening and also linked from here.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Bottlebank on August 14, 2014, 02:08:00 pm
It doesn't seem to have changed?
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: damian on August 14, 2014, 02:19:02 pm
It doesn't seem to have changed?
The new version has 58 pages. At the risk of being a computer geek, have you tried pressing F5 to refresh the page on the website before clicking on the download? I think computers try to be clever and revert to a saved version of a link rather than actual download it each time ... certainly mine was doing that earlier.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Bottlebank on August 14, 2014, 02:26:49 pm
Yep, and Ctrl-F5, and refreshing with the twirly button. I'll try it in a different browser.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: damian on August 15, 2014, 10:22:48 am
Any further last-minute submissions to Andrew Hinde will appear in a separate document published tomorrow evening and also linked from here.
Now done.

Volume 1 can be downloaded from here (http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=conservation_access:c_a_committee_meeting_140816_papers.pdf).
Volume 2 from here (http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=conservation_access:c_a_committee_meeting_140816_papers_v2.pdf).
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: damian on August 19, 2014, 11:32:00 am
Unbelievably the draft Minutes of Saturday's meeting are already available and have been published on the BCA website (http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=conservation_access:minutes). (Thanks to all those who have proof-read etc at amazing speed!)
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Peter Burgess on August 19, 2014, 12:59:15 pm
Quote
NAMHO (JH): Is concerned about the mention of mines in the QC’s opinion, as they are not relevant at
all. NAMHO has no stance on CRoW provided access to mines is excluded. (Post-Meeting Note: it appears
that access to mines may well be included in CRoW legislation after all. This is being followed up.)

Puts a whole new complexion on the issue.  :doubt:
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Bottlebank on August 19, 2014, 01:45:09 pm
As does (my italics):

Quote
16. Should BCA prepare a statement on caving and CRoW (subsequent to any Natural England
advice) for issue to landowners to be distributed by Regional CCs?
JL: In the North we have already tried to speak to the major land owners or their agents. The land
agents for Casterton Fell said that if BCA decides caving is covered under CRoW, the land owners
will stick to their current line that it is not
. They already have seen the QC’s opinion, know about
today’s meeting and have said that they will not be employing a QC to counter the QC’s opinion.
They would not make a statement in advance of the meeting making clear that any statement from
them will be reactive, based on the outcome of today’s meeting. The other northern land agents
have not replied to requests for a conversation.

After all we've been repeatedly assured that landowners will accept CRoW in in relation to caving.

Quite ironic really given that Casterton is one the two fells where present arrangements seem to have jump started a process which is supposed to fix the shortcomings of the current system.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: jasonbirder on August 19, 2014, 02:01:38 pm
Very pleased to see that 3 of the 4 major Caving regions (CNCC, DCA, CCC) are in favour of CRoW covering caving...and pleased to see the BCA reflecting that by agreeing to approach NE/DEFRA in light of the recently published QC's opinion

Hopefully in light of an agreed action plan by the BCA we can wave goodbye to endless circular arguments and wait for a positive outcome to these discussions.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Peter Burgess on August 19, 2014, 06:13:20 pm
I regret raising this matter of mine access here. It is far better discussed by mine explorers who understand this stuff and its implications much more, having wandered through the minefield of mines, abandonment, etc etc for many years and have a very good handle on it. I suggest the BCA defer all matters on mine access to those who have the experience of what it involves. All I really wanted to know was where is the authority for the idea that mine access might also be involved. So far all I can conclude is that was at the whim (pun) of one of the Open Access promoters.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Lazarus on August 19, 2014, 06:57:20 pm
As does (my italics):

Quote
16. Should BCA prepare a statement on caving and CRoW (subsequent to any Natural England
advice) for issue to landowners to be distributed by Regional CCs?
JL: In the North we have already tried to speak to the major land owners or their agents. The land
agents for Casterton Fell said that if BCA decides caving is covered under CRoW, the land owners
will stick to their current line that it is not
. They already have seen the QC’s opinion, know about
today’s meeting and have said that they will not be employing a QC to counter the QC’s opinion.
They would not make a statement in advance of the meeting making clear that any statement from
them will be reactive, based on the outcome of today’s meeting. The other northern land agents
have not replied to requests for a conversation.

After all we've been repeatedly assured that landowners will accept CRoW in in relation to caving.

Quite ironic really given that Casterton is one the two fells where present arrangements seem to have jump started a process which is supposed to fix the shortcomings of the current system.
Have people really said that? No time to check every single little thread/post on here to find out one way or another.
Of course landowners would say exactly what the Casterton land agent has said, or just plain ignore it in the hope it all blows over, I'm pretty sure the exact same things happened when the CRoW act was being drawn up.
They wish to maintain control over something of theirs and being a minority sport it makes it that bit easier to ignore us (especially with so many bloody minded individuals in positions of 'power'). This does surprise me a little given CRoWs reduced liability, maybe they feel better off protected by caver-insurance than government-assurance.

Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: graham on August 19, 2014, 07:15:43 pm

Of course landowners would say exactly what the Casterton land agent has said ...


For sure, as it is in accord with the advice that has been given by DEFRA.

Which hasn't changed.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: mmilner on August 19, 2014, 07:23:10 pm
All I really wanted to know was where is the authority for the idea that mine access might also be involved. So far all I can conclude is that was at the whim (pun) of one of the Open Access promoters.

Peter, I suggest you PM damian if you want to know who suggested that mines were covered too. (Else I can if you want, I have his proper email address, then report back.) As the quote shows, it was a 'post-meeting note'.

One of the actions of the meeting was to identify sensitive sites that needed protection, whether in the future or as a continuation of existing arrangements.

For sure, as it is in accord with the advice that has been given by DEFRA. Which hasn't changed.

Which may change. All BCA are doing is representing the majority view of the attendees of the meeting and seeking a review, clarification, etc. I shouldn't worry too much at the moment. BCA will keep everyone informed.

Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Bob Mehew on August 19, 2014, 07:53:04 pm
I regret raising this matter of mine access here. It is far better discussed by mine explorers who understand this stuff and its implications much more, having wandered through the minefield of mines, abandonment, etc etc for many years and have a very good handle on it. I suggest the BCA defer all matters on mine access to those who have the experience of what it involves. All I really wanted to know was where is the authority for the idea that mine access might also be involved. So far all I can conclude is that was at the whim (pun) of one of the Open Access promoters.
My view is based on the following consideration which winds around (best I could do) two parts.  Whilst mines are covered by the Mines & Quarries Act (and other numerous statutes for working mines), both the Work at Height Regs  (SI 735 2005) at Reg 3(6) and the Adventure Activities Licensing Regulations (SI 1309 2004) at Reg 2(1) clearly state caving includes exploration of abandoned mines.  Even though the definition was after the passage of CRoW in 2000, it now binds any legal interpretation of the word caving.  There might be a way around for those abandoned mine access points which have structures around them, other than simply for access (see para 2 & 14 in Schedule 1 of CRoW) rather like the entrance to Stump Cross Caverns is not on access land because it is in a building which is not just a means of access.  I am assuming working mines were never caught in the mapping process.  I would also refer you to para 4 in the opinion which reflected this view point.

The second part is that access land is three dimensional, see paras 7 to 9 at pages 23 & 24 of the appendix to the CRoW WG report to BCA AGM available at http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=about:documents:general_meetings:agm_reports_2014.pdf (http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=about:documents:general_meetings:agm_reports_2014.pdf) and http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=16816.msg221812#msg221812 (http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=16816.msg221812#msg221812) for more.

I would be grateful if you could keep me directly informed if someone comes up with a killer counter argument elsewhere.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: exsumper on August 19, 2014, 08:23:56 pm
This is the best part of the minutes!

18. Any Other Business
AH: We want to conserve a fragile environment and promote it to as many people to go caving as
possible. How do you square that? Believes we should adopt the principle of the fell runners …
that it is great if someone chooses to go fell running but that it should not be generally publicised.
LW: Under NCA there was a concrete policy of not promoting caving. However BCA took the view
that we should be publicising it. The result is that we enjoy a much better understanding from the
public of what we do.
DW: One of the key reasons for the change in approach was that there are fewer cavers now than in
previous era. It was felt that there is a certain quantity required for the sport to be sustainable in
the future with equipment, rescue teams etc. Therefore, BCA decided it needed to attract more
cavers.
AH: There is a financial cost. Has anyone tried to measure the benefit to caving from this? Can see that
there is a benefit to the professional cavers and to caving clubs with huts to attract more to the
sport, but who else is actually going to benefit?
SF: We mustn’t become too small or we will become unviable in the future. There is a difference
between that and actually providing an advertising budget. We certainly don’t want allual-growth
targets, for example.

One of my life's remaining dreams/ambitions!

 Caving shrinking back to a size where the BCA, Commercial Caving, and all of the associated political crap that's appeared in the last 30 years  is no longer viable! Cut out of Caving like the malignant tumour;that they are.

Where all cavers do is caving!
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: mmilner on August 19, 2014, 09:22:34 pm
One of my life's remaining dreams/ambitions!

Caving shrinking back to a size where the BCA, Commercial Caving, and all of the associated political crap that's appeared in the last 30 years  is no longer viable! Cut out of Caving like the malignant tumour;that they are.

Where all cavers do is caving!

So that if the government decided caving was illegal, cavers would have no national body to represent them and support their case for allowing it! Then what would you do? Perhaps an exaggeration but makes a point.

Would you get rid of the BMC as well? And the BCU?

We NEED national representation for our sport just like climbers and canoeists, else we will be overlooked and ignored and possibly legislated out of 'official' existence.

There were a lot more cavers around 30 years ago, I remember on numerous occasions having to queue to get down Garlands Pot in Giants or the first pitch in P8. Or Eyam Dale shaft in Carlswark.

It is much better now, but who is going to replace the people who sort out access and negotiate access agreements for you. We are all getting older. Eventually you will be left with no-one willing to do that sort of thing. That was the point of this discussion. We need to get new people into caving, but not too many. You obviously don't appreciate the decades of work that people have previously done to enable you to actually go caving. Very sad.

Remember caves are generally on private land (access land or not) and we are indebted to the landowners and the officers of the regional councils and BCA (NCA before that) for funding and support to allow us to enjoy our chosen sporting activity.  :coffee:
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Simon Wilson on August 20, 2014, 08:48:20 am
One of my life's remaining dreams/ambitions!

Caving shrinking back to a size where the BCA, Commercial Caving, and all of the associated political crap that's appeared in the last 30 years  is no longer viable! Cut out of Caving like the malignant tumour;that they are.

Where all cavers do is caving!

So that if the government decided caving was illegal, cavers would have no national body to represent them and support their case for allowing it! Then what would you do? Perhaps an exaggeration but makes a point.

Would you get rid of the BMC as well? And the BCU?

We NEED national representation for our sport just like climbers and canoeists, else we will be overlooked and ignored and possibly legislated out of 'official' existence.

There were a lot more cavers around 30 years ago, I remember on numerous occasions having to queue to get down Garlands Pot in Giants or the first pitch in P8. Or Eyam Dale shaft in Carlswark.

It is much better now, but who is going to replace the people who sort out access and negotiate access agreements for you. We are all getting older. Eventually you will be left with no-one willing to do that sort of thing. That was the point of this discussion. We need to get new people into caving, but not too many. You obviously don't appreciate the decades of work that people have previously done to enable you to actually go caving. Very sad.

Remember caves are generally on private land (access land or not) and we are indebted to the landowners and the officers of the regional councils and BCA (NCA before that) for funding and support to allow us to enjoy our chosen sporting activity.  :coffee:

Mel,
I agree with almost everything you have said except that I have big reservations that I have tried to make well known on here.

The BCA have been letting us down very badly on CRoW right from the start until last Saturday. If/when caving under CRoW is accepted then it will have been done despite the BCA.

We have a resin anchor programme which has been in a state of total dysfunction for several years. I am trying to get to understand why that has come about and there is still a lot I don't know. From what I have learned over the last few months the BCA appears to be blameless and the BCA have been trying to deal with disagreeing regional officers over whom BCA have no power.

The problems in the CNCC are well known and it has become clear that at least one regional body could not be trusted to be in control of access. It now appears to me that there might also be serious problems in the CSCC.

I think one of the best ways to limit the impact of dysfunctional bodies is to limit their power and that is one of the benefits of CRoW. There are lots of things that regional bodies can be doing and conservation would probably be top of the list; training would also be there. But their function should be coordination only and they should not be allowed to wield any power over cavers.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Alex on August 20, 2014, 12:35:51 pm
Problem is if they don't have any powers, then who does? What we don't want in the Dales are things like the caving companies that exist in the Mendips filling the gaps.

Its like kicking out a government, there is no guarantee the next one would be any better and could in-fact be worse.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: mmilner on August 20, 2014, 01:00:03 pm
Mel, I agree with almost everything you have said except that I have big reservations that I have tried to make well known on here.

The BCA have been letting us down very badly on CRoW right from the start until last Saturday. If/when caving under CRoW is accepted then it will have been done despite the BCA.

We have a resin anchor program which has been in a state of total dysfunction for several years. I am trying to get to understand why that has come about and there is still a lot I don't know. From what I have learned over the last few months the BCA appears to be blameless and the BCA have been trying to deal with disagreeing regional officers over whom BCA have no power.

Simon, I was skeptical about the meeting beforehand, as well as a few other people, but it turned out there were a lot of good people there.

I think BCA are trying to correct the problems of the last few years now. I made it very clear that a significant numbers of cavers were dissatisfied with them and I think they are now addressing that.

The speed at which Damian has got the minutes out is to be commended.

The resin anchor program was stalled for several years because the manufacturer of the original anchors stopped making them! It has taken some time to source suitable anchors to replace the original ones. This has been stated on this forum on several occasions.

The fact that another C&A meeting has been pencilled in as soon as 22nd. November (after a number of regional meetings and the next BCA Council meeting) shows that BCA are serious about sorting stuff out now.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: exsumper on August 20, 2014, 10:45:11 pm
One of my life's remaining dreams/ambitions!

Caving shrinking back to a size where the BCA, Commercial Caving, and all of the associated political crap that's appeared in the last 30 years  is no longer viable! Cut out of Caving like the malignant tumour;that they are.

Where all cavers do is caving!

So that if the government decided caving was illegal, cavers would have no national body to represent them and support their case for allowing it! Then what would you do? Perhaps an exaggeration but makes a point. Strawman, 30 years ago any politician making threats to cavers like that would have had severe cause for regret in a very short time!

Would you get rid of the BMC as well? And the BCU? An irrelevance! That's the business of climbers and canoeists

We NEED national representation for our sport just like climbers and canoeists, else we will be overlooked and ignored and possibly legislated out of 'official' existence. Another straw man argument

There were a lot more cavers around 30 years ago, I remember on numerous occasions having to queue to get down Garlands Pot in Giants or the first pitch in P8. Or Eyam Dale shaft in Carlswark.30 years ago you say  :-\ I see a pattern emerging  :thumbsup:

It is much better now, but who is going to replace the people who sort out access and negotiate access agreements for you. We are all getting older. Eventually you will be left with no-one willing to do that sort of thing. That was the point of this discussion. We need to get new people into caving, but not too many. You obviously don't appreciate the decades of work that people have previously done to enable you to actually go caving. Very sad.Typical politician! out comes the unfounded smears and emotive bit :yucky: :yucky:

Remember caves are generally on private land (access land or not) and we are indebted to the landowners and the officers of the regional councils and BCA (NCA before that) for funding [color=yellow Its only money they've gouged out of cavers, in  the first place, and most of it's going to the commercial sector to fund their training/ certification! [/color] and support to allow us to enjoy our chosen sporting activity.  :coffee:

The majority of cave access is arranged on a one to one basis with  landowners by the diggers and original explorers of a cave.  I've always made my own access arrangements for digs and that's how the original access agreements to the majority of UK caves have been arranged.   The existence of these arrangements owe absolutely nothing to the NCA/BCA or its scheming politicians!

I've always fully appreciated the work of the great caving pioneers;even supped with a few! What I have never appreciated are the self appointed, po faced, nobodies who decided that THEY needed a national body. No one I've ever caved with asked for one; or asked them to represent us.  Having set this crap up without any mandate! Its quite galling to now be told by them that it's my BCA! No it isn't!; Its like suddenly  finding out you've got a terminal illness, and upon asking why?  being told by your oncologist! it's your tumour!

As for regional councils, they used to be rather benign,talking shops!   I was the BEC rep on the CSCC for a while; until the NCA/BCA  insanity started!  If you want to know what the CSCC regional council is currently like? Ask the Windsor Hill Diggers whether they think that caving politicians should be persuading landowners to gate any open caves on their land!and poking their noses into diggers business? :wall: :spank: :wall:

Over the last year or two I think we've all seen these talents in action! I'm  embarrassed at their political antics, these clowns could give Mugabe lessons. Democracy my arse!
embarrassed at their lies and deceit; see posts on Anchors,CNCC,CROW etc; Embarrassed at their incompetence! again see posts on Anchors,CNCC,CROW etc!

But mainly embarrassed that people may think they're my chosen representatives.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: tony from suffolk on August 21, 2014, 09:46:02 am
So, a slghtly cautious thumbs-up for the BCA then.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: exsumper on August 21, 2014, 11:12:24 am
 :lol: :lol: :thumbsup:
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on August 21, 2014, 12:25:40 pm
Although I empathise with exsumpers view, I do hope that his quotes will never appear in court, there is no denying that there is more cave passage available now than ever before, modern cavers and technology have achieved this.
 There seems to be a greater awareness of the value of preserving new finds; long may this continue!.
 
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: droid on August 21, 2014, 03:51:19 pm
I too can empathise with exsumper.

In 35 years of being around caving (not always particularly actively), the CRoW debate is the first time I can remember a 'representitive body' actually asking me for an opinion.

Up to recently i've tended to regard the CNCC, CSCC, and NCA/BCA etc as rather benevolent oligarchies.

Maybe a useful effect of the sometimes roudabout discussions on here is that these bodies migh ask opinions a little more freely?
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: mmilner on August 22, 2014, 03:38:46 am
 :sleeping: :sleeping: :wall: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:   CBA anymore, peeps who just criticise peeps for the sake of it...  :sleeping: :wall: :sleeping: I'm embarrassed at your 'lies and deceit'. I think this thread should now be locked as yet again it has gone down to personal accusations by this little boy who calls himself exsumper. Grow up why don't you... (Not reading this thread again, so don't bother replying. And don't PM me, as it'll just get deleted.)
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Peter Burgess on August 22, 2014, 10:18:05 am
It only takes a tiny minority of people to derail a discussion. In the real world they are called hecklers and ought to be thrown out onto the street.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: graham on August 22, 2014, 11:04:55 am
It only takes a tiny minority of people to derail a discussion.

Just as it takes only a tiny minority of people to trash a cave.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: jasonbirder on August 22, 2014, 11:11:10 am
Best try to keep them out then...
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Simon Wilson on August 22, 2014, 11:43:56 am
It only takes a tiny minority of people to derail a discussion. In the real world they are called hecklers and ought to be thrown out onto the street.

I don't think it was derailed. You can see how the discussion went in that direction. You will always have extremes and two extreme views were expressed; one from a person who sees no good in caving politicians and one who sees no wrong. Both make points worth considering. Mel seems to have a good heart and Exsumper nearly always injects some humour.

Look at the time of Mel's posting. I hope she gets an early night tonight.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: droid on August 22, 2014, 04:51:30 pm
Agreed.

Exsumper was clearly stating a strongly held and honest view.

It should be possible for people to disagree, even quite vehemently, without becoming mortal enemies. Perhaps one or two of the more 'enthusiastic' critics on here should appreciate that.

It is also possible to agree with someone on one point but disagree on others. Too many discussions here seem to develop into 'trench warfare'.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: exsumper on August 23, 2014, 10:03:10 am
:sleeping: :sleeping: :wall: :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:   CBA anymore, peeps who just criticise peeps for the sake of it...  :sleeping: :wall: :sleeping: I'm embarrassed at your 'lies and deceit'. I think this thread should now be locked as yet again it has gone down to personal accusations by this little boy who calls himself exsumper. Grow up why don't you... (Not reading this thread again, so don't bother replying. And don't PM me, as it'll just get deleted.)

Please don't go mummy, I'm scared of the dark!

At 48, I think its too late to grow up now.  Don't think I'm the one who needs to mature either.

If you think these views are rude and abusive, you should hear me and my best mates arguing in the pub !

As I said look at the replies, actions and antics of our so called reps,  in the CNCC, Crow, Anchors etc

If you think that's an acceptable way for your politicians to run a national body, I'm the one who should be sad!

The truth hurts don't it!
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: graham on September 16, 2014, 06:03:56 pm
Any news yet on how DEFRA haven't actually changed their position re CRoW? i.e. that it doesn't apply to caves & caving?  :-\
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Andrew W on September 16, 2014, 09:45:40 pm
Are you in possession of new information regarding the internal machinations of DEFRA, Graham, or are you simply being provocative?
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: graham on September 16, 2014, 09:57:13 pm
I was just thinking that something might be known from last weeks meeting by now <shrugs>
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on September 16, 2014, 10:17:51 pm
Are you in possession of new information regarding the internal machinations of DEFRA, Graham, or are you simply being provocative?

I suspect the latter :shrug:
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: graham on September 16, 2014, 11:11:15 pm
Are you in possession of new information regarding the internal machinations of DEFRA, Graham, or are you simply being provocative?

I suspect the latter :shrug:

Suspect away, old son. Truth will out.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: mmilner on September 16, 2014, 11:34:39 pm
I will ask the appropriate people....  :coffee:
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on September 17, 2014, 01:51:14 pm
Are you in possession of new information regarding the internal machinations of DEFRA, Graham, or are you simply being provocative?

I suspect the latter :shrug:

Suspect away, old son. Truth will out.

Old I accept, son???, are you really over 80 years old?
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Peter Burgess on September 17, 2014, 02:04:42 pm
Isn't the best way to reply to a simple question (even if you think it has hidden purpose) to just give a straight answer?
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: mmilner on September 17, 2014, 02:09:55 pm
There will be a statement from BCA soon... :coffee:
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Brains on September 17, 2014, 02:19:06 pm
Any news yet on how DEFRA have actually changed their position re CRoW? i.e. that it does apply to caves & caving (and old mines...)?  :-\
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: mmilner on September 17, 2014, 02:24:52 pm
see my previous post...
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: graham on September 17, 2014, 03:05:10 pm
Any news yet on how DEFRA have actually changed their position re CRoW? i.e. that it does apply to caves & caving (and old mines...)?  :-\

Nope, none. ;)
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Brains on September 17, 2014, 03:16:33 pm
I shall await Mels response in due course rather than rely on the inane utterings of an anti caver troll who delights in causing trouble to all concerned
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on September 17, 2014, 03:21:00 pm
If he thinks I'm his son, he must be a very old man, we must make allowances! ;) ;)
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: graham on September 17, 2014, 03:27:30 pm
 8)
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: mmilner on September 17, 2014, 06:39:11 pm
There was a debrief meeting last night attended by various people including BCA bods regarding the recent informal meeting with NE. There is also other research being done. I am working on trying to complete the Peak CRoW database as much as I can to contribute to a leaflet that will hopefully be ready for handout at Hidden Earth. There will be a carefully worded statement put on the BCA web site as soon as it has been carefully worded. There will be a link posted here. Be patient peeps.  :coffee:
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: damian on September 17, 2014, 07:02:12 pm
I don't know about "carefully worded" but see http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=conservation_access:news (http://BCA website) for update.
Quote
On 8 September BCA’s Chairman, Andy Eavis, had an initial exploratory meeting with representatives from DEFRA and Natural England. This was informal in nature with plenty of common ground in evidence and all parties expressing a willingness to meet again in the future. There was also a general request that all communication with the Bodies be channeled through BCA. It is clear that BCA now needs to develop an official policy on CRoW and a route to achieving this will be addressed by the October meeting of BCA’s Council.

Damian Weare (BCA Secretary), 17 September 2014
Basically it was not a meeting with any minutes taken and conversations were held "off the record". This suited the Bodies and, as such, we are unable to go into any more detail.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: mmilner on September 17, 2014, 07:26:30 pm
Thanx for that Damian.  :thumbsup: I've also had an 'initial exploratory meeting' with the National Trust Peak District Projects Manager. All good. Won't follow this up formally until after the next BCA meetings and we hopefully have the BCA national policy in place. He said he would then identify and contact NT head office to clarify their stance on the matter. I'm sure all will be good, we have good relations with the NT, certainly in the Peak.

Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: graham on September 17, 2014, 08:02:45 pm
Gosh, so DEFRA haven't read counsel's opinion & rolled over then.

 :lol:
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Lazarus on September 17, 2014, 08:34:46 pm
Gosh, so DEFRA haven't read counsel's opinion & rolled over then.

 :lol:
Was that ever the intention?
Oh and what's this... A typical 'smug graham post' thinking he knows everything about anything.  :coffee:  It has to be said and I doubt I'm on my own here, I would love DEFRA to change their stance, just to wipe that smugness off your face. Personally I couldn't give a toss what the outcome is, I can go most places with only minor inconvenience!

Slightly O/T: If ever there was a reason for people to despise UKCaving your last few posts on here sum it up perfectly. Well done.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Hughie on September 17, 2014, 08:45:23 pm
Gosh, so DEFRA haven't read counsel's opinion & rolled over then.

 :lol:
Was that ever the intention?
Oh and what's this... A typical 'smug graham post' thinking he knows everything about anything.  :coffee:  It has to be said and I doubt I'm on my own here, I would love DEFRA to change their stance, just to wipe that smugness off your face. Personally I couldn't give a toss what the outcome is, I can go most places with only minor inconvenience!

Slightly O/T: If ever there was ever a reason for people to despise UKCaving your last few posts on here sum it up perfectly. Well done.

One would imagine so. Otherwise, seeking the opinion of a QC could be considered overkill.

Personally, I think NE will turn it down with the perceived risk of increased public liability. They're being a little bit cautious with public money at the moment.

Makes no odds to me either way.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: graham on September 17, 2014, 08:58:09 pm
Gosh, so DEFRA haven't read counsel's opinion & rolled over then.

 :lol:
Was that ever the intention?
You'd have to ask those who gave her the brief.

or possibly those numpties who, we are told, put a copy of the opinion in their car windows instead of a permit.

Oh and what's this... A typical 'smug graham post' thinking he knows everything about anything.  :coffee:  It has to be said and I doubt I'm on my own here, I would love DEFRA to change their stance, just to wipe that smugness off your face. Personally I couldn't give a toss what the outcome is, I can go most places with only minor inconvenience!

Well, actually I asked a question, I didn't claim to know anything. But then I'm not a genius who'd cheerfully see our caves trashed just 'cos someone irritated them on an internet forum.

Slightly O/T: If ever there was ever a reason for people to despise UKCaving your last few posts on here sum it up perfectly. Well done.

Do you know, I really don't think most people, including me, think I actually set the tone on this place.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Lazarus on September 17, 2014, 09:07:06 pm
Gosh, so DEFRA haven't read counsel's opinion & rolled over then.

 :lol:
Was that ever the intention?
Oh and what's this... A typical 'smug graham post' thinking he knows everything about anything.  :coffee:  It has to be said and I doubt I'm on my own here, I would love DEFRA to change their stance, just to wipe that smugness off your face. Personally I couldn't give a toss what the outcome is, I can go most places with only minor inconvenience!

Slightly O/T: If ever there was ever a reason for people to despise UKCaving your last few posts on here sum it up perfectly. Well done.

One would imagine so. Otherwise, seeking the opinion of a QC could be considered overkill.

Personally, I think NE will turn it down with the perceived risk of increased public liability. They're being a little bit cautious with public money at the moment.

Makes no odds to me either way.
I doubt it was overkill, considering we had been sold short by a minority years ago the opinion of a QC is there to back up a more enlightened view.

Public liability, hmm, but what of the thousands of miles of coastal access that we are promised - very precarious some of that coast, perhaps even crumbly and prone to collapse - too risky, no, obviously not....
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: peterk on September 17, 2014, 09:27:41 pm
Isn't the best way to reply to a simple question (even if you think it has hidden purpose) to just give a straight answer?
Everybody miss this observation. Here we go again with the same old posts. 
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Lazarus on September 17, 2014, 09:31:36 pm
Well, actually I asked a question, I didn't claim to know anything. But then I'm not a genius who'd cheerfully see our caves trashed just 'cos someone irritated them on an internet forum.
Tone of the question? And assumptions, yet again.  ::)

As for your posts graham:
Any news yet on how DEFRA haven't actually changed their position re CRoW?
<shrugs>
Truth will out.
Any news yet on how DEFRA have actually changed their position re CRoW? i.e. that it does apply to caves & caving (and old mines...)?  :-\
Nope, none. ;)
Gosh, so DEFRA haven't read counsel's opinion & rolled over then.  :lol:
numpties..caves trashed.. irritated..I actually set the tone..

Oh well, you're right and everyone else is wrong, nothing new there then. Like I suggested, overbearing individuals (not just you, I didn't say that, you're one of a small number) with too much time on their hands trying to dictate everything on here.

I think, as an irritated numpty, it's best I leave this forum so I can pirate and trash a cave or two, maybe head to Mendip and destroy some locked gates, that's what us lesser twats do, isn't it?
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: graham on September 17, 2014, 09:40:03 pm
Oh well, you're right and everyone else is wrong, nothing new there then.

Not everybody, there seem to be a significant number of cavers on Mendip and elsewhere who share my concerns. Like me they are relieved that DEFRA seems not to have moved.

I think, as an irritated numpty, it's best I leave this forum so I can pirate and trash a cave or two, maybe head to Mendip and destroy some locked gates, that's what us lesser twats do, isn't it?

Well it is undeniably the case that some twats have destroyed locked gates, though the most recent cases seem to be in Wales rather than on Mendip. These cases have been recorded on here.

I also have concerns about intentional vandalism that has taken place in caves, not just in Wales.

Do you deny that these things have happened?
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Andrew W on September 17, 2014, 10:14:27 pm
Your tone really isn't helpful, Graham. You made a cryptic remark. When I asked you if you were in possession of information that we mere mortals were not, you followed it up with a series of equally cryptic remarks when it appears clear that you already knew the outcome of the meeting in question. Why not speak plainly lest anyone be mistaken in thinking you a troll?

Damian's comment suggested that discussions were still ongoing and that nothing had been formally documented by either party. This is hardly a surprising outcome of an initial exploratory meeting. I don't think anyone expected a formal declaration either for or against CROW access from that meeting. Whether or not there was anything positive for open access gained from the meeting I have no idea, having not been there and having no information on those discussions. If you think you know more than the rest of us on what went on why not simply say so?
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on September 17, 2014, 10:30:30 pm
Seen somewhere ( CBA to find it at the moment); total number of caves on Mendip affected by CRoW; 7,; those in the Dales; many dozens,; figures in the Peak District and Wales to be confirmed.
 ONE PERSON, worried about seven caves is disrupting this debate, and folks are apparently taking him seriously??????
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: mmilner on September 17, 2014, 10:48:02 pm
Gosh, that was an 'initial exploratory meeting' , they all got on great and I'm sure future meetings will be held once an official BCA policy is agreed upon. It won't affect the Peak much, it probably won't affect Mendip, so just leave it alone. This was all discussed at the BCA C&A meeting. It is being considerately dealt with by all the people concerned from all areas of the country...  :coffee:
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on September 17, 2014, 10:54:50 pm
Thanks for that Mel, its good to know there is a 'steady hand on the tiller' from DCA.

To the rest of you, I've not detected any suggestions of what the BCA policy should be??
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: RobinGriffiths on September 18, 2014, 12:34:03 am
Quote
or possibly those numpties who, we are told, put a copy of the opinion in their car windows instead of a permit.

Isn't this the way to go though? Get a farmer to sue, and test it in a Court of Law ?
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: mmilner on September 18, 2014, 12:53:02 am
Thanks for that Mel, its good to know there is a 'steady hand on the tiller' from DCA.

To the rest of you, I've not detected any suggestions of what the BCA policy should be??

Thanks Boggie. We are all working on this for the benefit of caver access AND conservation. We are all aware of the issues involved. We are working on improving access where possible, but also keeping in place reasonable restrictions where already in place to protect vulnerable cave environments.  There is not much to worry about.  Trust me.  :thumbsup:   And if any concerns eventually crop up, we can all discuss them and deal with them like adults, hopefully.

And in response to the message just posted, we don't want to upset landowners...  :coffee:
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: graham on September 18, 2014, 07:44:37 am

To the rest of you, I've not detected any suggestions of what the BCA policy should be??


Well, Bograt. At the moment one could say that BCA does have a policy on the matter given that a guiding principle in its constitution states that:

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

In order to even consider lobbying for a change in DEFRA's position of CROW, BCA would first have to change its constitution, else it would be acting against it. Now, doubtless someone work try to come up with some extremely convoluted form of words that might try to square this circle, but please try to imagine the straightforward effect that such a constitutional debate would have on the relationship between cavers and landowners all over the country. It would not be pretty.

I fully support any move in BCA to review this matter because I think it extremely important that all cavers get a full understanding of what any change in the law in this area would involve. For example, I presume that everyone currently taking part on here has read the submission to the last C&A meeting from ACI and understands their claim that should CRoW apply to caves and caving that they then would have free reign to run their businesses wherever they liked in the affected caves. I'm sure that will go down really well with all landowners big and small.

Be careful what you wish for.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: graham on September 18, 2014, 07:45:38 am
Quote
or possibly those numpties who, we are told, put a copy of the opinion in their car windows instead of a permit.

Isn't this the way to go though? Get a farmer to sue, and test it in a Court of Law ?

Farmland as such isn't generally designated as Access Land.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: peterk on September 18, 2014, 12:03:15 pm
Quote
or possibly those numpties who, we are told, put a copy of the opinion in their car windows instead of a permit.

Isn't this the way to go though? Get a farmer to sue, and test it in a Court of Law ?

Is there a legal expert here? I think the landowner would apply for a court injunction and I think that can be a very one sided process.  Having obtained an injunction then if it is breached you forget civil actions for some time because "contempt of court" criminal action kicks in. The Supreme Court has ruled that an injunction against students occupying part of a university was to cover the whole campus but have rejected an injunction sought against travellers to apply to the parcel of land occupied and also other separate parcels that could be occupied.

I would like to see a professional opinion on the the prospects and costs of pushing access by "confrontation" and indeed to what extent a ruling either way would apply to other similar locations.  Looking forward if DEFRA decided that "We think CROW covers caving" then:
Landowners can ignore it? Courts would treat the statement in the same way as the opinion of any expert witness?
Can CROW be amended in this area by a Statutory Instrument - in effect a Minister's signature or would it require an Act?
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: bograt on September 18, 2014, 01:09:58 pm
Isn't this getting just a little bit too heavy?.

Just to clarify;

 CRoW applies to unimproved land, that is land that has not been cleared, fertilised or prepared for cropping i.e. rough grazing, usually for sheep. It is still farm land, owned by someone, but open access would not have a significant impact on the farm business.

 CRoW also specifically excludes use of access for profit or gain, so if ACI consider it a free rein to fill their pockets, they are mistaken, this could be a likely cause for legal action.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Stuart Anderson on September 18, 2014, 09:27:22 pm
bograt

CRoW doesn't actually exclude commercial activities per se, what it says is commercial activity providers need landowner permission. It's a subtle difference that is worth noting.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: Jenny P on September 19, 2014, 12:00:01 am
Maybe worth noting that there is a subtle difference between different types of what should more correctly be called "instructed caving". 

There is pressure for young people, as part of their normal education, to be given experience of different outdoor pursuits, one of which is caving.  This is most often done through local authority centres or else by local authorities buying in expertise from a caver who has taken the trouble to take some qualification relating to safety issues, conservation, etc.

This is not quite in the same ball park as a freelance cave instructor who makes money by advertising his/her services to take non-cavers underground and is thus effectively making money from using someone else's land.  Though many freelance cavers do some work for local authorities, schools, etc.

Worth noting also that some landowners make a charge for instructed groups (or, indeed, ordinary cavers) to go down caves on their - usually calling it a Trespass fee.  I, personally, don't have a problem with that.

Also worth noting that some "landowners" are actually business syndicates, sometimes not even British, who make money from the government subsidy for not doing anything with their land except keep it as moorland.  They are in totally different class from small landowners or tenant farmers.

Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: TheBitterEnd on September 19, 2014, 08:03:17 am
Whilst I can see what you are getting at I really don't think there is any distinction between categories you describe and also I don't see what it adds to the debate. Pretty much all local authority centres hire in instructors when they need them, these may well be the same instructors who advertise their services at weekends. Either way if money changes hands (even from the government to a teacher as a salary) then it IS a commercial activity.

Similarly with landowners, just because Jonny foreigner owns the land and shoots grouse on it once a year does not mean it is any different than land farmed by a salt-of-the-earth, trespass fee charging hill farmer.
Title: Re: If CRoW applies to caving - some comments
Post by: badger on September 19, 2014, 06:57:05 pm
this debate got very tedious previously, it is getting tedious again, people making unhelpful remarks, and if some one comes on and says its white graham comes back its black. its boring. as it stands bca are in talks with natural England, no one knows what the outcome of those talks will be. so whats the point of saying this or that until we know an official response.
here is what I do know, I was having a conversation with someone I know but had not seen for quite a few years, he was then a highly respected solicitor, however he is now a barrister, so I dropped Dinah rose's name into the conversation, his response was that if she has ventured an opinion those in power (NE and Defra) would take that opinion very seriously, now I know grahm is going to come back with what was the brief etc, but my friend did offer that she would not have made an opinion without having information from both sides. Now I have no idea to what info she was given, I also do not know what discussions between the bca and Ne have been.
so instead if this negative tit for tat why not lets wait until we have the answers from the discussions.