A balanced view?

[badger]

not sure that this is right, you can sell your car to a breakers company, send the relevant document to the dvla, you would not normally sell a road worthy car to a breakers, your selling it to them because it is not road worthy

Yes, Mr Tom Tom, and it goes a bit further than that. You cannot contract out of law even by agreement between the affected parties. For example you cannot sell your car to someone if it is in an an unroadworthy condition even if the purchaser agrees to take it like that. You would still be committing a criminal offence.

The constitution of an unincorporated body, (one that is not a limited company) is in effect a contract whereby anyone applying for membership agrees to abide by the constitution, so this forms a contract between individual members and is what binds the organisation together.

As an aside, its not difficult to see the attraction of a limited company which in effect has a life of its own.

 

[Brains]

Andrew:
It is to avoid confusion such as yours that the Constitution should have been changed before the campaign commenced.

Well it is only a guiding principle and there is wriggle room as several have pointed out. Clarification of the whole section sounds reasonable, but there is no need to cry unconstitutional over this issue. At the end of the day this is a minor side issue and not worth stressing over - unless one is particularly enamoured of getting up a head of steam of such a thing?

 

[royfellows]

not sure that this is right, you can sell your car to a breakers company, send the relevant document to the dvla, you would not normally sell a road worthy car to a breakers, your selling it to them because it is not road worthy

Yes, Mr Tom Tom, and it goes a bit further than that. You cannot contract out of law even by agreement between the affected parties. For example you cannot sell your car to someone if it is in an an unroadworthy condition even if the purchaser agrees to take it like that. You would still be committing a criminal offence.

The constitution of an unincorporated body, (one that is not a limited company) is in effect a contract whereby anyone applying for membership agrees to abide by the constitution, so this forms a contract between individual members and is what binds the organisation together.

As an aside, its not difficult to see the attraction of a limited company which in effect has a life of its own.

If you sell to a breaker you are selling it for scrap, that is, its not a "vehicle", its scrap. You can actually sell to anyone quite legally as scrap, if they were willing to part with a few hundred, or even thousands for 'scrap'

They would have to take away on a trailer or similar. 'Not in running order' would also cover you, but ensure that you dont give them a valid MOT with it!

 

[droid]

Andrew:
It is to avoid confusion such as yours that the Constitution should have been changed before the campaign commenced.

Well it is only a guiding principle and there is wriggle room as several have pointed out.

Only a guiding principle? So any of the others can be ignored if inconvenient....?

And only you have mentioned 'wriggle room'

Let's stick to facts....though your characterisation of the DB piece as 'fact-free' suggests to me that your appreciation of what is 'fact' and what is 'opinion' is somewhat hazy.

 

[NewStuff]

Let's stick to facts....though your characterisation of the DB piece as 'fact-free' suggests to me that your appreciation of what is 'fact' and what is 'opinion' is somewhat hazy.

The "DB Piece" is pure spin, designed to scare people into your point of view, as is a lot of the site. The "finger waggy" tone is laughable. The fact that 3 of the people behind/involved with (Graham, Brocklebank and Burgess) it are well known for trying to derail this whole process is why people laugh at that site, and why people point out who is behind it, so that it can be treated with the contempt it deserves. I would suggest that it is that site you are pimping out at every opportunity that is the one with a deliberately "hazy" view of the facts.

 

[droid]

Let's stick to facts....though your characterisation of the DB piece as 'fact-free' suggests to me that your appreciation of what is 'fact' and what is 'opinion' is somewhat hazy.

I would suggest that it is that site you are pimping out at every opportunity

I've only linked it once!

Change your dealer.....

 

[badger]

I have made things known, one is I can see good points and have some misgivings re crow, and for what ever reason I did not get my voting slip would have voted yes mainly due to the situation in the dales on trying to get permits and what was a very antiquated system.
DB piece is only the view point of those who constructed the article, and actually if you read it, it is not actually incorrect, you could also write an article with the complete opposite view point and also be correct. its what you choose exclude.
defra have said crow does not include caving, they have also said that it does but only as far as daylight
one assumes all those involved with crow do not or have not considered land owners views, but who says they have not spoken to land owners?
one land owner might say I don't care, whilst another says he does.

 

[Brains]

 

[droid]

Exactly, Brains....

 

[Brains]

So no point getting our knickers in a twist and gobbing off - just wait and see what happens with the BCA mandate and its outcome

 

[royfellows]

So no point getting our knickers in a twist and gobbing off - just wait and see what happens with the BCA mandate and its outcome

I was 71 on Saturday so might not live to see it!

 

[cavemanmike]

So no point getting our knickers in a twist and gobbing off - just wait and see what happens with the BCA mandate and its outcome

I was 71 on Saturday so might not live to see it!

to be fair, since tim has taken the initiative thing have moved on quite well. give him some time and i think you and everyone else will be surprised 

 

[tony from suffolk]

So no point getting our knickers in a twist and gobbing off - just wait and see what happens with the BCA mandate and its outcome

I was 71 on Saturday so might not live to see it!

I confess I've thought you've been looking a bit under the weather for a while Roy but didn't like to mention it.

 

[royfellows]

I am actually, but not quite as bad as my avatar suggests.

 

[Wayland Smith]

to be fair, since tim has taken the initiative thing have moved on quite well. give him some time and i think you and everyone else will be surprised

We may well be surprised, (I hope so.)
But not everyone is going to be satisfied! (Whatever the outcome.)

 

[droid]

So no point getting our knickers in a twist and gobbing off - just wait and see what happens with the BCA mandate and its outcome

I hope, for everyone's sake, that the outcomes are entirely positive....

Oh, and that Brian Cox quote is a good one. Pity you didn't resize it.....

 

[Wayland Smith]

Positive to some is total unrestricted access everywhere.
Positive to others is restricted access for conservation.

 

[Bob Mehew]

This might help. From the BCA constitution

13. INTERPRETATION:

13.1. A General Meeting of the Association shall be the final interpreter of this constitution.

13.2. Any matter not provided for in the constitution shall be dealt with by the National Council, pending endorsement of the action taken by the next General Meeting of the Association.

If you are that interested as to what the AGM and Council thinks, then please read items 6 and 25 in the minutes of the BCA 2015 AGM see http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=about:documents:general_meetings:agm_minutes_2015_draft.pdf

then item 7d in the Council meeting for June 2015 see http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=about:documents:council_meetings:council_minutes_2015-06-14.pdf

and then item 9a in the Council meeting for October 2015 see http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=about:documents:council_meetings:council_minutes_2015-10-10.pdf. 

I can add that there will also be a lengthy item in the January 2016 Council minutes when they appear. 

I think you will find that no where has Council objected to what is being done despite its multiple debates on detail.

If any BCA members do object to what is being done, then can I remind them that motions for debate at the next AGM (weekend of 9 to 11 June on Mendip) must reach the Secretary by midnight on the day of the National Council meeting preceding the AGM which is to be held on 9 April.

 

[Brains]

So no point getting our knickers in a twist and gobbing off - just wait and see what happens with the BCA mandate and its outcome

I was 71 on Saturday so might not live to see it!

Despite your avatar still going  You have plenty of old mines to keep you going - and I hope to be able to visit some soon
Beaten Bowie and Lemmy so KBO!
Happy belated birthday

 

[RobinGriffiths]

Would the website publish, if provided with one, a Reflections piece supporting the Crow access point of view?