Access in private or democratic groups.

[Ian Adams]

Ian

A PM is on its way to you.

Miles

Miles,

Just in case you haven't noticed the little icon next to the word "messages" (Messages(1)) - I have replied to you.



Ian

 

[Clive G]

What a contrast to one of the earlier responses which led me to think 'What a arrogant p****.

Jopo

Perhaps the response might have been a little less 'arrogant 'if you had contacted the Directors direct, before launching a public debate?

Perhaps I wanted a public debate and chose to do it through this forum. Are you saying you don't agree with public debates?

Jopo

I was personally involved with the impetus to set up the Mynydd Llangattwg Cave Management (Advisory) Committee, which started on 9.4.1985 with a discussion document that I drew up with four other cavers, and proposed by two more, containing a 'Proposal for the Formation of a Daren Cilau Management Committee'. In the end, through open public discussion, it was agreed that, for the area concerned, it would be best if a combined new cave management committee, incorporating the original Agen Allwedd Cave Management Committee, the proposed new cave management committee for Daren Cilau (prompted by the extent of the recent extensions to the cave), plus bringing on board those who managed access - through a private agreement with the landowner - to Ogof Craig a Ffynnon.

Through open public debate and discussion the new constitution was drafted and amended as appropriate by Frank Baguley, as Secretary of the Cambrian Caving Council, and the MLCMAC inaugurated with an open public election on Saturday 16th April 1988. There were 23 applicants for 12 places, standing for a term of 2 years, after which a new election would be held for the subsequent two years, etc., etc.

Now, this was purely for the Llangattock area and intended to be the best solution for dealing with access to and management of a number of separate caves in the region that are in fact linked underground, although the connections still remain, to the present day, to be discovered and opened up.

What Jopo has brought to public attention is that a private limited company has been set up to manage access to mines over a non-specific area and that, in fact, the name of the limited company, Cave Access Ltd, has nothing to do with mines at all and leaves open the widest possible remit.

Has anyone studied the articles of association?

I think public discussion on this is absolutely essential and the suggestion that "it might have put your mind at rest if you'd contacted the Directors first" has all the hallmarks of secret controls and 'favours by return' being put in place behind the scenes, to the complete absence and detriment of any public accountability, apart from producing proper accounts and the usual limited company annual reporting.

For example, who owns the limited company? There must have been at least one share issued.

 

[royfellows]

For example, who owns the limited company? There must have been at least one share issued.

Its a company limited by guarantee with no share capital. Been already stated in the thread.

This type of company is usually referred to as a 'not for profit' type company, have I said this before, oh well carry on anyway. Its very popular for sports clubs and other non profit type organisations. The advantage is a robust legal frame work (1), and protection of its 'officers' from personal liability.(2)

Note 1. Any non incorporated organisation only exists in law because its members are contractually bound to a constitution. A corporate body is an independent legal entity in its own right and will continue in existence as long as it has a board of directors and submits returns to Companies House.

Note 2 Limited Liability means what it says on the tin. That is, the liability of its members is limited to the value of their guarantee or investment as the case may be, the liability of the company is therefore limited to its own assets.

Hopefully, this will add to an explanation of the methodology adopted, but I can do little else to allay any other concerns.

'Ownership' resides in the subscribers Stuart and myself, until our death, when the company will continue indefinitely as long as it has aboard and annual returns are submitted.

The company as it is is whats called a 'shell company', that is, it has no assets and does not hold a bank account.

I cant think of anything else useful to say.

 

[royfellows]

Here is another one, try this.

I would venture to suggest that a huge majority of cavers are in favour of free and open access, this was reflected in the CROW ballot and in a lot of opinion expressed on this website.

Both Stuart and myself are both committed to this principle, so I would say that we are very democratic.

 

[Wayland Smith]

Here is another one, try this.

I would venture to suggest that a huge majority of cavers are in favour of free and open access, this was reflected in the CROW ballot and in a lot of opinion expressed on this website.
Both Stuart and myself are both committed to this principle, so I would say that we are very democratic.

Meanwhile the MYNYDD LLANGATWG CAVE MANAGEMENT /ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Established
Through open public debate and discussion the new constitution was drafted and amended as appropriate by Frank Baguley, as Secretary of the Cambrian Caving Council, and the MLCMAC inaugurated with an open public election on Saturday 16th April 1988. There were 23 applicants for 12 places, standing for a term of 2 years, after which a new election would be held for the subsequent two years, etc., etc.

Has many locked and gated caves requiring keys and access permits under it's control. :-\ :-\

Makes you wonder?

 

[Badlad]

I was just pondering what kind of a job Cave Access Ltd would do with Ogof Draenen whose access is run by a democratic group.  Couldn't be worse - could it? Is this what this thread is really about??

 

[royfellows]

 

[Clive G]

Here is another one, try this.

I would venture to suggest that a huge majority of cavers are in favour of free and open access, this was reflected in the CROW ballot and in a lot of opinion expressed on this website.
Both Stuart and myself are both committed to this principle, so I would say that we are very democratic.

Meanwhile the MYNYDD LLANGATWG CAVE MANAGEMENT /ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Established
Through open public debate and discussion the new constitution was drafted and amended as appropriate by Frank Baguley, as Secretary of the Cambrian Caving Council, and the MLCMAC inaugurated with an open public election on Saturday 16th April 1988. There were 23 applicants for 12 places, standing for a term of 2 years, after which a new election would be held for the subsequent two years, etc., etc.

Has many locked and gated caves requiring keys and access permits under it's control. :-\ :-\

Makes you wonder?

Agen Allwedd/Ogof Gam
Ogof Gwaliau Gwynion/Channer's Dig
Ogof Cnwc/Price's Dig
Ogof Craig a Ffynnon
Ogof Capel

are the Llangattock and Clydach Gorge caves with gated entrances and there'd be a whole lot more stalactites, stalagmites and selenite crystals broken and missing if they didn't have proper protection, as opposed to open random access.

 

[Ian Adams]

With regards to the statement I made earlier (I realise we have moved on but I would like to come back to a point);

My reference to the commercial group (and person(s) associated)  that were creating difficulty was deliberately vague so as to not create a "finger pointing" problem.

However, it was so vague that I appear to have perhaps cast doubt or shadow over innocent parties for which I apologise.

I would specifically add that I was not referring to the business "Go Below", it's owner or his other interests. Miles has been a personal friend for a long time and his openness with regards to allowing access for cavers to the various mines he controls is second to none.

Having re-read my post I can see that my wording could be construed as pointing in his direction as he is very active in North Wales - that was never my intent.

I have been in communication with Miles and assured him that it was never my intention for him to be implicated.

We still hold the same friendship.

.....Sorry for the interjection, now back to the affray at hand ......  :blink:

Ian

 

[royfellows]

We are now moving into the area of conservation and freedom of access. Not thread subject but I will still offer my pennyworth.

Those who seed to impose access restrictions for conservation reasons do so out of best of intent, however I feel that there may be the fundamental error of generalisation.
Typical is "Look at what's happening at Browns Folly"
Answer, look at what isn't happening at Cwmystwyth. No two sites are identical, each has its own possible issues. I have just spend 8 working days doing 8 hour work stints to address a problem far worse than anyone could create with a spray can. Non of the mines on the CAL schedule could be described in any way as fragile.

So moving back to thread subject, if CAL policy reflects the majority view of cavers with regard to access, where is there a problem?

 

[Brains]

Maybe being cynical but it seems the problem is you are upsetting the "keep it locked" people who have argued so hard to prevent a clarification of CRoW, so grasping at straws and the fact you have the word "cave" in the company title they are having a pop, the fact you are dealing with mines seems a bit inconvenient.
Or perhaps there has been an access epiphany and they are looking at your solutions to adapt them for their own locked sites?
Still, not my monkeys, not my circus so I will leave them to it
BTW, good job well done with the mines 

 

[droid]

First mention of CRoW.

Which is irrelevant to mines, as has been frequently explained....

 

[Peter Burgess]

I have no problem with Roy's approach to mine access. I doubt Roy has ANY interest in spreading his good works to caves. That might not be same for the others however.

 

[cap n chris]

I would venture to suggest that a huge majority of cavers are in favour of free and open access, this was reflected in the CROW ballot and in a lot of opinion expressed on this website.

That's not actually true though, is it?

The "huge majority" of cavers did not actively support CRoW. What we do know is that the majority didn't feel sufficiently motivated to venture registering their view on the topic.

Of the people who actually did vote, though, there was a majority. The two are very different beasts. Please do not conflate them.

 

[mikem]

I think you'll find a majority of cavers are supportive of open access to MOST caves (which happen to be on access land & don't have mitigating circumstances). The reason most cavers like caving is they aren't being told what they can or cannot do all the time...

Mike

 

[Peter Burgess]

Nonsense. Most cavers like caving because they like exploring caves. Anyway, this topic seems to died a death as there is  nothing left to talk about except for a bit of squabbling..

 

[mikem]

Okay, one of the things they like about caving, I didn't mean the only thing  :

Mike

 

[cap n chris]

I think you'll find a majority of cavers are supportive of open access to MOST caves

I suspect if they were provided with a fuller picture of the potentially calamitous results of the "Jam Today" Populist Policy they might temper their enthusiastic support to a great extent. Open access has a price to pay. Presently the majority of cavers in the UK can gain access to the majority of caves in the country, nearly all without any cost penalty which is as near as dammit the equivalent of free and easy access, without any need for legislative wrangling, institutionalised antagonism of landowners, a schism in national and regional administrations, and an unstoppable flight from national bodies by the general public/cavers/people with a builder's hat, who "no longer need the BCA 'cos they can go caving wherever they like whenever they want" etc.. If the BCA wanted to commit slow suicide it's arguably doing an effective job at it by pursuing CRoW.

 

[mikem]

You can't cite keeping the BCA in existence as a reason not to have open access...

Mike

 

[cap n chris]

Indeed. The BCA probably won't survive if there is open access.