Author Topic: BCA CRoW Poll Result  (Read 33006 times)

Offline Stuart Anderson

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Yorkshire Subterranean Society - A.N.U.S.
Re: BCA CRoW Poll Result
« Reply #150 on: December 28, 2014, 08:26:19 pm »
Feck me... Only on Planet Cave could a bunch of people tangle themselves up in so much bullshit. There isn't even the remotest possibility that any other faction of the "outdoor" world would try to shoot itself in the foot so deliberately and so often as those that inhabit the underworld.   :wall: :wall: :wall: Just look at our history.

25% of eligible BCA members voted for and won a fair election. Are we now seriously being told that the election outcome might be irrelevant because BCA can't actually act on what was voted for? I've read through the posts from before Christmas but in spite of what the mods say it's all quite difficult to piece together.

I wonder what the outcome might be if those 1400 members were to think that BCA isn't fit for purpose and voted with their feet, or rather their wallets? One assumes that the membership fee and the insurance premium attached to it would increase based on a membership of 4500 rather than 6000. Fewer members, bigger increase, some might say sod it because of the cost and numbers decrease further. No doubt putting in jeopardy access to the many caves that insurance is a requisite because the insurance bill can't be met by those that are left... Who fairs well then?

It's in everyone's interest for BCA to remain a successful and relevant organisation. That relevancy may seem more important to some than others but one things is for sure, if BCA don't act on the results of the vote, however disagreeable to some, to not do so could lead to much unpleasantness.


I'd echo everything Ian (Jackalpup) said.




"It's a sort of threat, you see. I've never been terribly good at them myself but I'm told they can be terribly effective."   



 
I've roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me

Offline 2xw

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 483
  • Caving slag (but SUSS really)
Re: BCA CRoW Poll Result
« Reply #151 on: December 29, 2014, 11:46:47 pm »
we risk losing the influence it holds and we risk losing our voice. Then where would we be ?

I feel with all my heart that the BCA should be disbanded, and the caving areas split up into slices and put into the care of local cavers.

I will personally take Stoney Middleton. It shall be renamed the Democratic Republic of Stoney Middletonistan, and access to Gin entrance will cost £22 a head.

If anybody disagrees you can come at me. I will be at the top of the dale covered in woad.

Offline droid

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • WMRG
Re: BCA CRoW Poll Result
« Reply #152 on: December 30, 2014, 04:00:56 am »
Ian assuming the BCA have any influence at all with the legislators is probably wishful thinking: it's a tiny sport, very few people who legislate (or guide the legislators) have any interest in it....

The BCA will throw a shedload of money and effort into this and get nowhere. Since the majority of those that could be a**ed to vote WANT CRoW to apply to caves I hope this isn't the case, but I ain't holding my breath.
No longer 'Exceptionally antagonistic' 'Deliberately inflammatory'

Offline Peter Burgess

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
  • Left ukcaving by this name
Re: BCA CRoW Poll Result
« Reply #153 on: December 30, 2014, 07:38:31 am »
I am expecting someone to come at me accusing me of deliberately and maliciously wishing for and encouraging the break up of the BCA so in anticipation of that, let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Have a great New Year everyone.

Offline Chocolate fireguard

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 374
Re: BCA CRoW Poll Result
« Reply #154 on: December 30, 2014, 09:12:30 am »

I will personally take Stoney Middleton. It shall be renamed the Democratic Republic of Stoney Middletonistan, and access to Gin entrance will cost £22 a head.

If anybody disagrees you can come at me. I will be at the top of the dale covered in woad.

Shouldn't that be "covered in mud"?

Offline mmilner

  • Experienced digging / conservation juggling
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1169
  • Outside Handshake Cave, Manifold Valley.
    • Darfar P.C. web site
Re: BCA CRoW Poll Result
« Reply #155 on: December 30, 2014, 10:08:09 am »
the caving areas split up into slices and put into the care of local cavers.

they are already and have been for decades! BCA takes no direct part in the affairs of the various caving regions and never has done. That is down to CNCC, DCA, CCC, CSCC, etc. BCA in fact funds much conservaton work across the country...  :coffee:
Norbert Casteret (Ten Years Under the Earth) and Pierre Chevalier (Subterranean Climbers) were my inspiration to start caving. (And I'm still doing it.) Secretary, Darfar Potholing Club, the Peak District.

Offline AndyStuff

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: BCA CRoW Poll Result
« Reply #156 on: December 30, 2014, 11:27:48 am »
As someone fairly new to caving I can see both sides.....

Yes I think there should be a right to roam and everyone should be able to access caves however I think there is also a need for a permit system like is currently in place for CERTAIN caves.

To explain.....

I was in the cupcake the other week (a lovely cave with some really nice but delicate formations which you would easily knock off if your attention slips).  If this cave can be used by anyone at any time due to being open access then bigger groups could go in at will and it could easily end up ruined which is really sad! 
I take on board what people may say that in reality anyone could go in and trash it anyway and just cos you are supposed to have a permit it doesn't mean people abide by rules or get permits.  Maybe that's up to us as responsible cavers to raise with the people we see (just like I am sure we would challenge an idiot who we saw vandalising a cave or littering for example).

I also think there is a practicality element here as well.  Permits can restrict the numbers in a cave and I think we have all been in a situation before in a cave where we are waiting ages for other groups or someone has rigged over your ropes in such a way that it has caused problems.  Some tighter caves could be very problematic if another group was in and they both met coming from different ends at a squeeze etc.


Offline Stuart Anderson

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2021
  • Yorkshire Subterranean Society - A.N.U.S.
Re: BCA CRoW Poll Result
« Reply #157 on: December 30, 2014, 12:03:17 pm »
As someone fairly new to caving I can see both sides.....

Yes I think there should be a right to roam and everyone should be able to access caves however I think there is also a need for a permit system like is currently in place for CERTAIN caves.

To explain.....

I was in the cupcake the other week (a lovely cave with some really nice but delicate formations which you would easily knock off if your attention slips).  If this cave can be used by anyone at any time due to being open access then bigger groups could go in at will and it could easily end up ruined which is really sad! 
I take on board what people may say that in reality anyone could go in and trash it anyway and just cos you are supposed to have a permit it doesn't mean people abide by rules or get permits.  Maybe that's up to us as responsible cavers to raise with the people we see (just like I am sure we would challenge an idiot who we saw vandalising a cave or littering for example).

Education then.

Quote
I also think there is a practicality element here as well.  Permits can restrict the numbers in a cave and I think we have all been in a situation before in a cave where we are waiting ages for other groups or someone has rigged over your ropes in such a way that it has caused problems.  Some tighter caves could be very problematic if another group was in and they both met coming from different ends at a squeeze etc.

Or cavers unable to visit restricted caves end up honey-potting a few old favourites. Ending permits might as likely mean cavers can broaden their choices and subsequently lessen traffic in said old favourites.
I've roamed and rambled and I've followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts
And all around me a voice was sounding
This land was made for you and me

Offline nearlywhite

  • stalker
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: BCA CRoW Poll Result
« Reply #158 on: December 30, 2014, 04:00:48 pm »
But let me get back to the question I asked and Peter nor anyone else has so far not answered.  The problem I put forward is about BCA taking on a new representative role, not a governing one.  I also thought I made it clear that it is not a bipartisan agreement.  It is about one group of cavers trying to exclude access to the cave by all cavers because of purely the preference of the land owner.  And BCA is being asked to comment on the proposal because NE has given it that responsibility to represent all cavers on persons making applications for Directions.  I have suggested that this group of cavers might seek to use one part of the constitution to block BCA from answering.

Why would a new representative role be a bad thing?

It strikes me that the caving scene could do with a bit more co-ordination and the logical conclusion to that is putting some more power into the BCA. We should be doing more to get people into the sport to avoid this demographic time bomb let alone the more important reason of making people aware that caves exist and why the whole society should care about them - if it's the same for forests and mountains why not for caves? There are caving regions outside the big 4 that could really do with some development - both in things like caving huts, access to survey equipment and training and expertise in lots of things, from bolting to getting 'normal' people involved. There are lots of fantastic individuals out there but I always get the feeling the sum of the parts should be greater than the whole.

Sorry went off on my hobby horse there.

I guess my reply to those that think things are best kept as they are is that the Tyrrany of the Minority is also a concern and profoundly undemocratic. Mind you the whole thing is a bit of a dog's dinner - very few vote on representation, and often it's because trying to find someone to fill the role that's the hardest part, turning it into a farce. Having referenda gives the whole thing more legitimacy without trying to turn everything into an election.

Shouldn't it also have a governance role? I want all caves to be protected by all cavers in case some big limestone quarry extends its operation and destroys our landscape without a second's thought as to what's there. For example.

Offline Jenny P

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: BCA CRoW Poll Result
« Reply #159 on: January 02, 2015, 04:44:02 pm »
My feeling is that the difference between a "representative body" and a "governing body" may be down to whether said body has to adjudicate on the rules for a competitive sport. 

So, e.g. badminton, football, etc. have rules governing play, point/goal scoring, eligibility for team players, etc. so they require to have a "governing body".

Caving, like birdwatching, is a non-competitive sport/pastime and so it does not need a "governing" body but it does need to have a representative body.

Note that I didn't include climbing as a non-competitive sport because, although it is to all intents and purposes non-competitive, yet it now has "bouldering competitions" so not sure how that plays.

One of the problems we had in 1970, when NCA was first set up, was that the then government sought to lay down rules concerning the safe conduct of outdoor pursuits and these rules were to be policed by then then DES (Dept. Ed. & Sci.).  Caving would have had no say in these rules because our constitution was not considered to be that of a "governing body of a sport".  We had to change the NCA constitution so that we could be considered as a "sports governing body" in order that we had the right to be consulted by DES.  This paid off in later years when the Adventurous Activities legislation was being passed because we had the right to be consulted about the way the legislation was framed and were able to object to certain suggestions as being totally impractical and possibly even dangerous.  Cavers were also consulted when it came to the "work at height" regulations - we made common cause with climbers to point out that it was not practical or desirable to insist that lifelines must always be used when undertaking certain types of training.

The caving world does need to have the right to be consulted by government on issues which might affect both caving as a sport and the conservation of caves.  So we need BCA to be in a position where it is automatically on the list of consultees and it really doesn't matter whether the government considers it a "governing" or a "representative" body, just as long as it is able to represent the views of the majority of cavers in any formal discussions.

Offline cavermark

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1382
Re: BCA CRoW Poll Result
« Reply #160 on: January 03, 2015, 07:52:42 pm »

The caving world does need to have the right to be consulted by government on issues which might affect both caving as a sport and the conservation of caves.  So we need BCA to be in a position where it is automatically on the list of consultees and it really doesn't matter whether the government considers it a "governing" or a "representative" body, just as long as it is able to represent the views of the majority of cavers in any formal discussions.

Another example of this was when University clubs were being shut down through fear of litigation around 15 years ago. 
Many Student Unions asked for "National Governing Body Guidelines" on good safety practice from sports like climbing, canoeing, sub aqua and caving.  Trying to explain that caving didn't really have such a body wasn't productive. 
The creation of BCA and CHECC has really helped many clubs in this area.

Offline peterk

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 228
Re: BCA CRoW Poll Result
« Reply #161 on: January 03, 2015, 08:51:22 pm »
Sport England recognise the BCA as the governing body for caving in the UK.
https://www.sportengland.org/our-work/national-work/national-governing-bodies/sports-that-we-recognise/

Offline nearlywhite

  • stalker
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: BCA CRoW Poll Result
« Reply #162 on: January 04, 2015, 01:31:24 pm »
There is a fair bit of 'governance' in caving and it revolves mostly around conservation and access. That's mostly held at a regional level or individual cavers/groups. The other bit as far as I can see is CHECC producing guidelines and the BCA CIC thing.

Basically it's a governing body too, which should do more of the governing IMO but by far it's most important role is representation. I wholeheartedly agree with Jenny P on that one.

I guess I should try and answer 'Bob's Question'. The BCA should trump a minority of cavers' views IF it disagrees with them. I don't think the constitution needs to be amended for CRoW hurriedly as the law of the land trumps the BCA anyway and you need to be wary when fiddling with the constitution.

I have to say 70% for a constitutional change?! Why is that necessary in this instance?

Offline Jenny P

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 627
Re: BCA CRoW Poll Result
« Reply #163 on: January 04, 2015, 04:20:31 pm »
The requirement for a majority larger than a simple majority is common in many, if not most, constitutions; the level is often set at 2/3, 70%, 3/4, or even higher.  The point being that to alter a constitution is a fairly serious move and you need to be sure that the change will have a large majority in favour or you are storing up trouble for the future.

I have to say I tend to agree with nearlywhite's comment:
I don't think the constitution needs to be amended for CRoW hurriedly as the law of the land trumps the BCA anyway

IMHO, if it does turn out that the existing law should correctly be interpreted as giving cavers to right to access caves on land subject to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, then BCA cannot justify having a constitution which tells cavers they cannot act in accordance with the law and might then wish to consider re-wording the offending section to make this clear. 

If it appears eventually that the present interpretation of the legal position is correct and cavers do not currently have the right of access to CRoW land, then I rather think that the BCA constitution would have to be amended in order to permit us to lobby for a change in the current law.

So, let's wait and see if further discussion will clarify the legal position first.

Sorry if that sounds rather like splitting hairs but there is a different between interpreting an existing law and changing a law which is believed to be wrong.