Author Topic: Guardian article  (Read 14055 times)

Offline PaulW

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • WSCC, WCC
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2016, 01:25:35 pm »
Sorry to point out the obvious but the article was written by a journalist not the BCA.

Offline Badlad

  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1592
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2016, 01:35:44 pm »
The BCA poll stated,

"Should BCA, on your behalf, campaign for the Countryside and Rights of way Act to apply to going underground"

In the event of a majority of members saying "yes", BCA will ...

There then listed a number of bullet points including;

"lobby MPs and other persons of influence to push for CRoW to apply to going underground"

Another bullet point stated;

"seek to change section 4.6 of our constitution at the June 2015 AGM"

Neither was conditional on the other - or on any of the other bullet points.  Nowhere does the BCA constitution state that it cannot campaign for a legal right to apply to caving.  The same section referred to above also states that access should be obtained and granted as freely as possible for all responsible cavers.  The constitution is not specific enough for it to be used to prevent the will of the majority of members over this particular issue.  The BCA has been clear on what action it is taking on behalf of members, it has justified those actions and reported them fully.

Should any organisation choose to ignore the majority of its members it would risk stepping into very dangerous territory indeed.

As for the Guardian article, it was they who phoned me up for an interview.  However it was clear that they had already been talking to other cavers.   I gave the BCA position as best I could.  I don't know what other reasonable response BCA members could expect from me - I am the BCA CRoW liaison officer after all.

Offline Mrs Bottlebank

  • regular
  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • Darkness Below
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2016, 02:19:34 pm »
Not too sure how many times the BCA are going to ask for clarification.

DEFRA says no, George Eustace says no, etc.

Is there just a load of money going to be wasted hoping that one day someone might say yes. Its like a child repeatedly asking for a sweetie, please can I, please can I, please can I, why not, why not, your just SO unfair (boohoo) and then running to a grown up (the press) to say its so unfair!

Just my point of view perhaps I am just getting tired of the question


Offline Brains

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2257
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #28 on: March 31, 2016, 02:34:03 pm »
Quite so, however the ongoing legal action over Drws Cefn will yield some sort of result. The establishment will maintain the status quo until change is the easy option, as with the Kinder Trespass many moons ago. The current standpoint of DEFRA and NE/NRW is illogical, but that has never been a reason for change before! Many of the terms are debateable,  but again that doesnt mean anything.
Bottom line is the law needs clarifying, and NE/NRW or DEFRA dont do that. Parliament, the Privy Council (subject to ratification), and judiciary can make, change and interpret law. All else is hot air. Government seems to have little wish to bring this to parliament, but perhaps a SWales court will come up with the goods...
A definitive result, either yay or nay, will then be had...

Offline steviet_scg

  • stalker
  • ***
  • Posts: 290
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #29 on: March 31, 2016, 02:50:46 pm »
Not too sure how many times the BCA are going to ask for clarification.

DEFRA says no, George Eustace says no, etc.

Is there just a load of money going to be wasted hoping that one day someone might say yes. Its like a child repeatedly asking for a sweetie, please can I, please can I, please can I, why not, why not, your just SO unfair (boohoo) and then running to a grown up (the press) to say its so unfair!

Just my point of view perhaps I am just getting tired of the question

There's a difference between asking a question and running a campaign. A majority who voted wanted a campaign. That's what we have.

Steve

Offline David Rose

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2016, 03:37:02 pm »
Enough defeatism. There is a campaign, supported by a vote, and whatever Defra now says simply means we haven't won yet.

But we will.

Offline droid

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2162
  • WMRG
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2016, 07:14:43 pm »
What is the difference between being 'defeatist' and being 'realistic'?

Caving is very important to people here. It's largely irrelevent  to most of the general public. That doesn't mean that a change in interpretation of CRoW isn't achievable, but it is by no means inevitable.

No longer 'Exceptionally antagonistic' 'Deliberately inflammatory'

Offline Peter Burgess

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
  • Left ukcaving by this name
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #32 on: March 31, 2016, 07:20:19 pm »
Those officers that ignore the decisions of council simply make the BCA a laughing stock. The knot to be unravelled simply gets more tangled every day.

Offline BCA Secretary

  • regular
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #33 on: March 31, 2016, 08:03:51 pm »
This is one of those very difficult and divisive issues where a lot of people have strong views. Unfortunately, therefore, whatever BCA does there are almost bound to be some very unhappy people.

The issue is on the agenda for the next BCA Council Meeting a week on Saturday. I'm not going to try to pre-empt here what is decided.

One quick query though:

Peter Burgess says:
Quote
Those officers that ignore the decisions of council simply make the BCA a laughing stock.
I am not aware that any Officer has ignored the decisions of Council. If you are, please let me now.

Offline Peter Burgess

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
  • Left ukcaving by this name
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #34 on: March 31, 2016, 11:12:02 pm »
What is the BCA exit strategy for the campaign? To simply say "when we've won" is not good enough, because it doesn't take into account the possibility of not winning, however remote some might think that possibility is.

Offline steviet_scg

  • stalker
  • ***
  • Posts: 290
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2016, 11:42:45 pm »
Perhaps it'll just Peter out ...  :-\

Offline RobinGriffiths

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 890
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #36 on: April 01, 2016, 12:35:43 am »
This is a gloriously ambiguous bullet point from https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-your-right-to-roam if you choose to read it literally rather than in a common sense way - restrictions -' taking animals other than dogs on to the Land.'

What animals do they have in mind? Cats? Horses? Dead crabs? Lice? Ticks?

And you can drive a mobility vehicle anywhere if you want to. Which puts me in mind of the chap who got arrested driving up Snowdon in a 4x4 a few years ago. If he stuck to a mobility scooter with extra traction and a very big battery he would have been OK.

Robin

Offline RobinGriffiths

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 890
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #37 on: April 01, 2016, 01:01:09 am »
PS Eustace is happy not to toe the party line when it comes to pasties. Someone so beholden to savoury pastry products is obviously a very fine fellow indeed. I now see the errors of my ways and concede Crow does not apply to caving.

Offline Mark Wright

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 697
  • NCC, BBPC
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2016, 01:48:55 am »
What is the BCA exit strategy for the campaign? To simply say "when we've won" is not good enough, because it doesn't take into account the possibility of not winning, however remote some might think that possibility is.

Should BCA, on your behalf, campaign for the Countryside and Rights of way Act to apply to going underground"

For me that means the BCA should be campaigning for the CRoW Act to apply to going underground until such time as it does. Whilst this might not be good enough for those who voted against the BCA ballot, i'm sure it is for the 63% majority of 'members' who voted in favour.

With regards to the constitution, I think the 63% of positive voters would expect the necessary constitutional changes to be made without question. Not doing so would surely bring into question how representative the BCA is of its membership and could bring into question its very existence.

For me the ability of the BCA's 'second chamber' to veto a very positive (and very expensive) full membership vote is ridiculous.

I think it would be in the best interests of the BCA to ensure the necessary constitutional changes are made to ensure the best interests of the majority of its members are looked after.

Note: It's late and I've had a few,

Mark

 

 

Offline droid

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2162
  • WMRG
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #39 on: April 01, 2016, 05:41:15 am »
63% of those who voted, voted 'yes' That means that 37% voted 'no'.

Why did over a third of voters reject the seemingly reasonable proposal to campaign for a clarification of CRoW to include caving? Maybe if some attempt was made to understand that, and address the 'no' voters' concerns, then the bitchiness that has characterised this entire 'debate' might be lessened.

No longer 'Exceptionally antagonistic' 'Deliberately inflammatory'

Offline Peter Burgess

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
  • Left ukcaving by this name
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #40 on: April 01, 2016, 06:57:54 am »
What is the BCA exit strategy for the campaign? To simply say "when we've won" is not good enough, because it doesn't take into account the possibility of not winning, however remote some might think that possibility is.

Should BCA, on your behalf, campaign for the Countryside and Rights of way Act to apply to going underground"

For me that means the BCA should be campaigning for the CRoW Act to apply to going underground until such time as it does.
I note your comment about having been drinking. Maybe in the cold light of day you might think about considering the possibility that the campaign won't ever succeed. It might, but it might not. Ever.

Online Gollum

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 231
  • I don't do high, wet, tight or dark
    • Twin Peaks Outdoor Activities
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #41 on: April 01, 2016, 08:03:42 am »
If we win then great but if we don't we stay as we are. Why the big concern about if we don't win. We don't actually have anything to lose as I can see. Canoeist have been battling for access for years with nothing to lose. Guess what they have never lost anything but they sometimes gain. My daughter is a kick boxer and she was taught when you go into a fight you have to be prepared to keep fighting until it's over and do whatever it takes or you have already lost before you enter the ring.
Twin Peaks Outdoor Activities
Quality Instruction in the Peak District

Offline Pitlamp

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4624
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #42 on: April 01, 2016, 09:31:16 am »
If we win then great but if we don't we stay as we are. Why the big concern about if we don't win. We don't actually have anything to lose as I can see. Canoeist have been battling for access for years with nothing to lose. Guess what they have never lost anything but they sometimes gain. My daughter is a kick boxer and she was taught when you go into a fight you have to be prepared to keep fighting until it's over and do whatever it takes or you have already lost before you enter the ring.

Your choice of analogy is unnecessarily confrontational; as members of the caving community we've a great deal in common, even if there is disagreement about the best way to achieve objectives. We should all remember we're a bunch of mates.

You asked the question "Why the big concern if "we" (my added inverted commas) don't win". One answer is the damage caused to caver / landowner relations. This is already considerable. It was flagged up by many cavers before the vote but it failed to persuade those who want to pursue this campaign. So that's the situation we're now in. I don't know if you're a digger Gollum but if you are you might be at least slightly uneasy about this. The CRoW campaign, if successful, would not give you any right to do surface excavations. Although many people choose not to refer to this any further on this particular forum, concern hasn't gone away.

The suggestion of an exit strategy is worth considering and doesn't necessarily need to take the wind out of the sails of those who feel that pursuing the campaign is the right thing to do. It's not "defeatism" it's just common sense. (As I've said previously, I greatly respect the effort you have all put into what you believe in, even though I have some personal concerns.)

Whenever the CRoW topic crops up on this forum there's strong opinion expressed from all directions. I hope the volunteers on BCA Council (whom we're all grateful to - and whom I don't envy at the moment) will make balanced decisions reflecting the fact that this campaign isn't universally supported.

The above are just my opinions - please don't think any the worse of me for expressing them here (moderators). I've tried very hard not to break any forum rules, honest . . . .  :)

Offline Simon Wilson

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1645
    • IC Resin Anchor
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #43 on: April 01, 2016, 12:37:09 pm »
... the damage caused to caver / landowner relations. This is already considerable. 
Can you justify that statement?

Offline Madness

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 682
  • Wind-up merchant and general pain in the arse!
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #44 on: April 01, 2016, 01:16:30 pm »
'Exit strategy'?

'Not winning'?

Surely the point of any campaign is to continue until you achieve what you're campaigning for.

You may suffe set backs along the way, but that doesn't mean you should stop campaigning.

We all owe thanks to people who in the past have campaigned for certain rights/freedoms. How can anyone criticise a campaign that is aimed at improving freedom? If you have worries that a campaign may have negative effects in some way, then rather than opposing the campaign, why not become part of it and use your energies in reducing possible negative effects?

Offline Pitlamp

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4624
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #45 on: April 01, 2016, 01:36:51 pm »
Simon, Madness; yours are perfectly reasonable questions.

Simon - I could justify that but I prefer not to say any more than I have already. It comes from conversations with various people who can decide who does what and where on their land. (That's not a very satisfactory answer, I know. Sorry but I don't really want to enter a proper debate because I have so many things going on I'd struggle to find the time to do it properly at the moment. Maybe in future.)

Madness - I see your point. What we need to watch for is that a "campaign" doesn't turn into a "war of attrition". Putting this another way, it all depends on how serious the "setbacks" are which you refer to above. Yes - fully agree we all owe thanks to people who have campaigned for things in the past (otherwise we might still have a slave trade for example, or far worse inequality for women than at present). I chose not to join the campaign because I never really agreed with it. As with many other cavers, that's not changed. Then again I'm always willing to change my mind in the light of compelling evidence. And I meant what I said above about respecting the efforts made by others who believe this campaign is the better option.

An exit strategy is a prudent precaution because none of us knows how this will pan out and what unforeseen problems may crop up along the way.

I apologise but I'm going to have to leave this discussion as several other pressing things need attention. Best wishes all.

Offline alastairgott

  • 11 and a half weeks till September...
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1540
  • silvestre en los bosques
    • SILVESTRE
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #46 on: April 01, 2016, 03:09:24 pm »
I think Perhaps Pitlamp is perhaps seeking a distinction in the CROW campaign between all of the activities that cavers may do on the landowners property.

ie. Caving (CROW), Diving (exploratory and sport), and Digging (exploratory).

Putting words in his mouth I think Pitlamp might have reservations in the situations where Exploratory Diving and Digging are taking place.
 There are probably a number of places where landowners in the Dales (Yorkshire or otherwise) are adamant that access is denied (either for Caving, Diving or Digging). but if these locations are within CROW land then they may be forced to rethink the fact that they have an open cave on their land. and perhaps take precautionary action by filling it in, if this happens then we would not be allowed to dig it back open.

Perhaps some clarification should be sought as to the extent of the CROW access, maybe with some small rollout of test locations and see how it goes (much like the mines in north wales). rather than going for a blanket open access for all Caves.

Offline Cookie

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1074
  • WCC, Dark Places, ChCC, BEC, CSS
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #47 on: April 01, 2016, 04:14:25 pm »
The BCA poll stated,

"Should BCA, on your behalf, campaign for the Countryside and Rights of way Act to apply to going underground"

In the event of a majority of members saying "yes", BCA will ...

There then listed a number of bullet points including;

"lobby MPs and other persons of influence to push for CRoW to apply to going underground"

Another bullet point stated;

"seek to change section 4.6 of our constitution at the June 2015 AGM"

Neither was conditional on the other - or on any of the other bullet points.  Nowhere does the BCA constitution state that it cannot campaign for a legal right to apply to caving.  The same section referred to above also states that access should be obtained and granted as freely as possible for all responsible cavers.  The constitution is not specific enough for it to be used to prevent the will of the majority of members over this particular issue.  The BCA has been clear on what action it is taking on behalf of members, it has justified those actions and reported them fully.

Should any organisation choose to ignore the majority of its members it would risk stepping into very dangerous territory indeed.

Quote
Nowhere does the BCA constitution state that it cannot campaign for a legal right to apply to caving.

BCA can not campaign for a right that the Constitution specifically prevents until you have changed the Constitution. If you are right about the will of the membership then that should not be a problem.

By conducting this public campaign, BCA is not following its own Constitution or resolutions passed at the 2015 AGM.

Should any organisation choose not to follow its own rules and regulations it would risk stepping into very dangerous territory indeed.
 

Dave Cooke. BCA: IT Working Party Convenor, Web Services, Webmaster

Offline Brains

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2257
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #48 on: April 01, 2016, 04:22:38 pm »
Then change the rules at the earliest opportunity to reflect the wishes of the whole membership that voted, rather than just those that love the politics of half a weekend wasted in a stuffy room

Online Gollum

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 231
  • I don't do high, wet, tight or dark
    • Twin Peaks Outdoor Activities
Re: Guardian article
« Reply #49 on: April 01, 2016, 05:31:15 pm »


Your choice of analogy is unnecessarily confrontational;
[/quote]

Confrontational?
Not at all  :hug: :kiss2:.
Have seen the Australian comedian who does a sketch about being offended? I really recommend
! No longer available
Twin Peaks Outdoor Activities
Quality Instruction in the Peak District