Author Topic: Is a public CRoW campaign going to damage landowner relations?  (Read 10847 times)

Offline Simon Wilson

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1645
    • IC Resin Anchor
Re: Is a public CRoW campaign going to damage landowner relations?
« Reply #100 on: April 04, 2016, 08:00:50 pm »
I haven't seen the news item in Descent so I don't know what it's about but it's obvious that a show cave could never be Access Land.

Offline droid

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2168
  • WMRG
Re: Is a public CRoW campaign going to damage landowner relations?
« Reply #101 on: April 04, 2016, 08:09:42 pm »
That's a good point - however I still don't agree with (YOU
locking ME out !

And here, in one sentence, is the nub of the problem>

I don't recall Peter EVER saying or implying that all caves should be gated. Some, special cases like the tunnel in Derbyshire that caused such a stir a year or so back might need a gate.

So could the pro-CRoW majority please try to stop characterising those that are CRoW- cautious as being gating fanatics. I'm not. I just want to see a little pragmatism, because there seems precious little in the debate(s) so far.

And as for the 'BCA Constitution' debate: it isn't going to take long for this to surface in any Court case, and it will reflect badly on BCA if it is seen that they ignored their own Constitution.
No longer 'Exceptionally antagonistic' 'Deliberately inflammatory'

Offline andrewmc

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 695
  • EUSS, BEC, YSS, prov. SWCC...
Re: Is a public CRoW campaign going to damage landowner relations?
« Reply #102 on: April 05, 2016, 11:05:28 am »
And as for the 'BCA Constitution' debate: it isn't going to take long for this to surface in any Court case, and it will reflect badly on BCA if it is seen that they ignored their own Constitution.

Why would a court, or indeed a judicial review, care, at all, about the constitution, habits, opinions or otherwise of the BCA in an access case between a caver and a landowner? What bearing does the BCA constitution have in law except as a private agreement between its members?

Offline todcaver

  • player
  • **
  • Posts: 95
Re: Is a public CRoW campaign going to damage landowner relations?
« Reply #103 on: April 05, 2016, 12:56:28 pm »
These land owners should be happy they (own) the country side !
 :thumbsdown:

Offline droid

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2168
  • WMRG
Re: Is a public CRoW campaign going to damage landowner relations?
« Reply #104 on: April 05, 2016, 04:05:48 pm »
And as for the 'BCA Constitution' debate: it isn't going to take long for this to surface in any Court case, and it will reflect badly on BCA if it is seen that they ignored their own Constitution.

Why would a court, or indeed a judicial review, care, at all, about the constitution, habits, opinions or otherwise of the BCA in an access case between a caver and a landowner? What bearing does the BCA constitution have in law except as a private agreement between its members?

RE the campaign to reinterpret CRoW, I don't think it makes much difference.

It might do in a court of law though. But I'm not trained in Law. Are you, Andrew?
No longer 'Exceptionally antagonistic' 'Deliberately inflammatory'

Offline 2xw

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 467
  • Caving slag (but SUSS really)
Re: Is a public CRoW campaign going to damage landowner relations?
« Reply #105 on: April 06, 2016, 07:30:47 am »
I don't understand the unwillingness to change. One access body considered our application for a permit three weeks prior to be "a bit late". How in any way does this broken system *not* need changing?

And regarding people being turned away from UKC, there is a wealth of knowledge etc, which is why you see a lot of lurkers, but they may not be inclined to post. See the other thread on cowstails from a new forum member where the first response is "not cowstails again this must be a wind up".

Offline droid

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2168
  • WMRG
Re: Is a public CRoW campaign going to damage landowner relations?
« Reply #106 on: April 07, 2016, 04:01:00 am »
It's not change per se that's the problem. It's possible negative effects of that change.

As regards lurkers: you might have a point. Though in many social media situations there are more that lurk than participate....
No longer 'Exceptionally antagonistic' 'Deliberately inflammatory'