ACI/CNCC - question about which came first re: Leck

[Stu]

Can anyone, with absolute proof i.e. they were there or have minutes of the meetings, tell me the actual order of events?

The reason I ask is I've heard two different stories; one makes one side look virtuous and the other party the villains, and of course the counter is true depending on which version you believe, or is true.

A) Letter to MP - MP suggests meetings - landowner (or rather agents of) & CNCC & commercial caving interest have meeting - cavers have nothing - landowner (agents) despair and ask CNCC to sort it out.

B) Letter to MP - MP suggests meetings - landowner (agents) & CNCC & commercial cavers briefed about meeting and arrange date - CNCC & landowner (agents) have separate meeting prior to meeting with commercial caver interest - deal is done - all parties turn up to what is now a second meeting (though the first commercial cavers have been invited to) - commercial cavers have nothing or feel it is fait accompli so offer nothing.

If you have a C please tell.

 

[Pete K]

I think you best go direct to the ACI for this one Stu. I can't help as I don't know.
Contact the chair of the ACI via the website.

 

[Stu]

Cheers Peter.

The reason I asked is I do think a public answer would possibly clear some things up and not just to cause mischief.

I don't ever think that my signature has been more true!

 

[Pete K]

Sorry Stu, I should have said the ACI secretary not Chairman.

The ACI does not have a forum registration and is reluctant to do so. The Association is run by a committee and any response would need to be considered and approved by all the committee. There is no desire to hide information but an agreed statement would not come fast enough to satisfy this thread I think.
With the CNCC meeting tomorrow, is it best to draw a line and look to the future of caving in the North?

edit-
Googled your sig, couldn't agree more.