Another pinion...

[Simon Wilson]

Formerly, I had quite strong views on the CRoW initiative. Now I've much more of an open mind. But whatever side of the discussion folk are on, I think the last sentence in that article is something we should all remain sensitive to.

Absolutely right. Through all this I have never heard anybody suggest that we should do anything other than maintain and enhance our good relations. There are many reasons why CRoW helps us all as we keep pointing out. Relationships and access are both continuing to get better and the CRoW Act is all part of it.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the CRoW Act gives us the right to enter caves. The only part where DEFRA appears to partly disagree with us is about how far into a cave we can go and they are refusing to say exactly how far that is.

We need to keep reminding people that cavers as a whole believe we have the right to go anywhere on Access Land which includes anywhere in a cave on that land. We also need to keep reminding people that we are acting on that and that it is in landowners' interest to accept it as I think many of them already have.

 

[MarkS]

I know neither of these people, but I know which opinion I would feel carries more weight in this context.

Unlike Mark, I am acquainted with Gary. I don't think his article deserves to be slated by people here, even though his opinion might differ from many. It is well-presented, and coherent, but it remains to be seen whether it is credible. As they say, the jury is out. At least Badlad has analysed Gary's article and has responded with a degree of respect.

I'm not slating the article, or wanting to make any comment on him as a person. I have read the article and think that it is well written, if somewhat long-winded, and raises some potentially interesting questions. My point was simply that in the context of seeking a legal opinion in this context, I know which of these two opinions I personally feel carries more weight.

I would also add that it seems bold (to say the least) for someone who states "I have absolutely no training in Law" to go on to say that there is "no credible possibility" that a court's decision would be along the same lines as the published opinion of an eminent lawyer.

 

[Simon Wilson]

I wonder if Bottlebank intended to put it on Danknessbelow but hit the wrong button and put it on Darknessbelow by mistake.

 

[BradW]

I know neither of these people, but I know which opinion I would feel carries more weight in this context.

Unlike Mark, I am acquainted with Gary. I don't think his article deserves to be slated by people here, even though his opinion might differ from many. It is well-presented, and coherent, but it remains to be seen whether it is credible. As they say, the jury is out. At least Badlad has analysed Gary's article and has responded with a degree of respect.

I'm not slating the article, or wanting to make any comment on him as a person.

Yes I realise. That's why I wrote "slated by people here", rather than "slated by you" or "slated by everyone here".

 

[Badlad]

Further to my point above I just came across this photo of Hull Pot which is not excluded on the access land mapping.  Neither are other large caves such as Gavel, GG, Cow, Rowten etc etc.  There is no explanation given why Eldon Hole and Marble Steps are excluded when other larger caves are not.  Common sense would suggest that it has something to do with both being within small walled enclosures.  With the mapping as it stands there would be no legal right of access to these caves but that does not follow for others such as Hull Pot which are clearly part of open access.

What does strike me as odd is the fact that many of these large and deep potholes are unfenced even when public footpaths run so close to them.  Visiting Hull Pot on a sunny day usually finds large groups of people picnicing and playing around close to the entrance.  Same at GG and Rowten right next to a road/pathway.  This seems acceptable and no landowners seem worried about their liabilities here.  Contrast that with caves in other areas which are locked or sealed up because they are close to public footpaths.  Doesn't make sense.

 

[Bob Mehew]

There is no explanation given why Eldon Hole and Marble Steps are excluded when other larger caves are not. 

If you look at the 1:25000 scale map you will see Marble Steps is designated as being within a small bounded wooded area.  And woodland was not included in the specification of what could be designated so was excluded.  From a story I heard, I believe much of the mapping exercise was done using maps rather than going out on the ground.  So it may well be the 'reviewer' just looked at the boundary wall, the wood symbol and said 'no, not within definition' and so excluded it. 
I have nothing to offer as to why Eldon Hole was excluded.

Having said that, it has been to many years since I was at the entrance so I have no recollection as to whether the entrance is truly within woods or indeed within the boundary wall shown on the map.  It is too late to appeal against the original designation but if NE decide to do a review of the map (it has been put off until 2019/20 an could be delayed again) but perhaps it could be questioned as part of that exercise, along with Eldon Hole. 

I would add a word of caution.  The mapping exercise was accepted as being 'large scale' so the presence of shading indicating open country does not mean that 'micro' areas within it are excluded.  CRoW Schedule 1 lists specifically excluded types which often are not shown excluded on maps.

 

[JJ]

I had some involvement in the Dales with the introduction of CRoW access land and the appeals procedure. It is fair to say that  there were anomalies, a number being successfully appealed.

The surveying process was entirely map based, only on appeal did the planning inspectorate visit a site.

It is my opinion that many small enclosures below 0.01 hectares were just assumed to be "cultivated" land. The enclosure in Ribblesdale at SD784777 being just one such example - who knows why it was excluded. The two caves cited may be other such examples.

 

[Rhys]

My opinion, which is about as valid as his as I have naff all legal training either, is that he has a connection to a purveyor of exceedingly good hallucinogenics, and it was under the influence of these it was written.

Newstuff; rather than attacking the mental state of the author, why not address the points made in the article? There are some holes in it.

 

[droid]

When considering the validity of the opinions from a QC and a non-legal person, it might be wise to consider that those opinions are formed from the available information.

I very much doubt that the information supplied to the QC was neutral, given it's likely source.....

 

[Badlad]

The material for the opinion, delivered to the QC was largely put together by me and Bob.  There were three huge files, some 700 plus pages of it and references on that. It was a huge volume of work and covered every aspect we had come across related to the issue.    It included all the arguments put forward by the anti brigade of the time and of course those of Defra/NE.  We highlighted the two big caves that were excluded from access land and other factors that might not have sat so well with a pro CRoW argument.  We wanted the judgement to be based on all the evidence available and it was.  All the material supplied to the QC was made public so that those anti groups could see for themselves and I've not heard any substantiated complaints of bias yet.  The QC herself commented that the material supplied was better presented and more thoroughly researched than she received from most professional law firms.  I was proud of the work we did on that, Bob was an absolute trojan, and that is why I have full confidence in the QC's opinion being the best it can be.

 

[droid]

Could the 'anti groups' comment on here without fear of pre-moderation or ban?

 

[Bob Mehew]

The material for the opinion, delivered to the QC was largely put together by me and Bob. 

You forgot Jenny Pott's efforts which were significant in their own way. 

And if any one wants a copy of the material given to the QC, then pm me.

 

[droid]

Let's get one thing straight.

I'm not saying there wasn't effort put in to the submission.

What I'm saying is submissions from the 'anti groups' - not mediated by 'pro groups' - were noticeable by their absence.

 

[NewStuff]

My opinion, which is about as valid as his as I have naff all legal training either, is that he has a connection to a purveyor of exceedingly good hallucinogenics, and it was under the influence of these it was written.

Newstuff; rather than attacking the mental state of the author, why not address the points made in the article? There are some holes in it.

Because it is yet more propaganda, and as such, deserves no serious discussion. DEFRA acknowledge that we *do* have the right to enter caves, the *only* issues being some silliness about how far, and a few, vocal old curmudgeons resenting "losing power".

 

[droid]

Best way to combat 'propaganda' is to present a cogent argument against it.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Best way to combat 'propaganda' is to present a cogent argument against it.

We don't need to because there is one already that none of us could better.

A bloke with no training in law disagrees with a legal opinion written by one of the most eminent lawyers in the country...

 

[NewStuff]

Best way to combat 'propaganda' is to present a cogent argument against it.

I'm past caring now to be honest. People have repeatedly threatened my job by putting my real name out there. It's the low down, scummy, nasty tricks they're using - and you know what? It's worked. I can't have an opinion because some old codger got his knickers in a twist and wants to play dirty. They have used something totally and utterly unrelated to caving and got what they wanted. That's the levels they're willing to go to to throw shit all over things.

So now I just go out and do what I want. I'm not part of the BCA, CCC, any other club or organisation, we don't have to worry about besmirching anyone else's name. **** your locks, gates, sensibilities, leader systems, permits. I tried to play nice, to do the right thing, but you a lot of "your" side forced my hand Droid, although you yourself have appeared to play fair.

Rest assured, I'll be catching up with those responsible, make no mistake. I'll show them what underhanded and nasty *really* is. In the meantime, I'll go where I want, when I want, and I'd *love* to see someone try to stop me.

In short - **** politics, I'm going caving.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Could the 'anti groups' comment on here without fear of pre-moderation or ban?

You are doing.

The reason why you don't see many more comments by the "anti groups" is because they are very small in number.

 

[Badlad]

[gmod]Calm please - New Stuff and Droid or we'll moderate and lock the thread. None of it does any good, people want informed discussion not threats.[/gmod]

 

[Badlad]

Could the 'anti groups' comment on here without fear of pre-moderation or ban?

Oh come on Droid.  Ukcaving has got thousands of posts,probably tens of thousands, on the subject of CRoW from both sides of the argument and going back more than ten years.  How much more anti crow comment do you want?

BCA ran a poll on running a CroW campaign which was supported with a 62% majority.  The impediment in the constitution the 'anti group' then put up to thwart that campaign was then defeated 85%/88% (club/individual votes) by the BCA membership.  Only a handful of people are banned from this forum and that is for breaking the rules and not for their views on CroW.  Two of them are big names 'anti group' who set up the Darkness Below site, that is their right.  Two others who you won't hear much from were raving pro-crowers.  Again banned for breaking forum rules not for their views on CroW.

If the author of this latest opinion wants to discuss it on here I would welcome that.  Although I expect many forum readers will despair.