BCA AGM 2019 in Horton-in-Ribblesdale

Jenny P

Active member
Bob Mehew said:
Surely an email with the attachment of a scanned copy of a document incorporating the necessary information would have been sufficient?  As I understand it, the explicit demand for a paper version does seem unreasonable.  (As I understand it, such a document would be deemed sufficient evidence in a court of law.)

The problem may be that not everyone has access to a scanner if they happen to be away from their usual email set-up and working on a mobile phone.  There are quite a few ways to match up the original proposer and the seconder so that the two appear linked and the Secretary, on receipt, should be able to print out the two emails and could, as a final check reply to ask for confirmation.  There are several ways of doing this, provided you accept that email (if confirmed) is acceptable in the same way as writing on paper and, as I've said, the date/time record on the email ndicates when it was sent.

It would be a great pity if Will were not included as I believe he did his best to comply but, owing to being abroad and being told he was expected to produce written signatures, his proposal wasn't accepted.  I don't think this was a "conspiracy" but I do think it was something of a "cock up" with Robin trying to do the correct thing while perhaps misunderstanding the situation. 

I don't think it's helpful either to start guessing what people's view are re. CRoW and Change.  The whole point of a discussion at an AGM is to put your point of view and try to ensure that others see it your way but, if that isn't possible, you try to aim for a sensible compromise on how far you can move in the direction you want.  I would hope that we have got beyond trying to block things outright and can progress, even if it's perhaps a little slower than some would like.

CRoW is now settled as far as BCA is concerned and doesn't need to be revisited - we concentrate now on changing the views of Defra, etc. and ensuring that conservation issues are properly taken care of using the mechanism which already exists. 

Change is coming but how, exactly, and at what speed is the question now.  We have to work out how BCA Council will work in a changed situation and, IMHO, that hasn't yet been thought through properly - but hopefully this should be sorted out during the coming year.
 

Ian Adams

Well-known member
Jenny P said:
CRoW is now settled as far as BCA is concerned and doesn't need to be revisited - we concentrate now on changing the views of Defra, etc. and ensuring that


Are you stating that the mandate handed to the BCA by the result of the members referendum has been set aside, diminished or in some other way rejected?


Ian
 

Jenny P

Active member
No, I'm saying that BCA now has the mandate and doesn't need to revisit it. 

However, BCA still has to work on convincing Defra and the powers that be in government that their current stance, which equates to, "it's only legal if you don't go out of daylight ..." is rubbish.  That's a whole other argument BCA has to win, to change officialdom's mind, but we now have the backing of our members to do it and it's being worked on. 
 

Madness

New member
Has it not already been proven that regardless of the result of the BCA Members vote on the CRoW issue and the clear mandate that the BCA has to lobby DEFRA for a favourable resolution, that there are members of the BCA Council who are opposed to this.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
 

mikem

Well-known member
But enough members of the council do support it to see that something will happen, however, we are a much smaller community than the BMC (they have over 1O times the membership of BCA, as includes walkers, as well as climbers & there are a lot more people that climb regularly who aren't members, than cave too). Some members do see issues with digging permission on access land, but similar concerns were proven to be minimal issues when the Scottish access code was set up. Plus the government are tied up in other things currently...
 

Ian Adams

Well-known member
Sorry Jenny, I think we need proper clarity on your statement.

The Referendum asked this question;

Should BCA, on your behalf, campaign for The Countryside and Rights of Way Act to apply to going underground?

You stated that;

[quote author=Jenny P]
? we concentrate now on changing the views of Defra, etc. and ensuring that conservation issues are properly taken care of
[/quote]

Clearly, the referendum embodied significantly more than that ? so the question remains;

Are you stating that the mandate handed to the BCA by the result of the members referendum has been set aside, diminished or in some other way rejected?


Ian

 

droid

Active member
Jenny P said:
No, I'm saying that BCA now has the mandate and doesn't need to revisit it. 

However, BCA still has to work on convincing Defra and the powers that be in government that their current stance, which equates to, "it's only legal if you don't go out of daylight ..." is rubbish.  That's a whole other argument BCA has to win, to change officialdom's mind, but we now have the backing of our members to do it and it's being worked on.

Seems pretty clear to me, Ian.
 

Ian Adams

Well-known member
I would have preferred Jenny to simply clarify her statement. Seems we have to go down the route of mis-direction and obfuscation once again.

During the Referendum process, there were a number of BCA executives who actively fought against the proposal to campaign for CRoW to be applied. Furthermore, after the referendum, there were a number of BCA executives who actively sought to derail the result and some who simply put their hands under their arse and did nothing. As a result, we (the poor saps who go caving) suffered over two years of delays. Some people (like the CRoW liaison officer) frequently reported that he was being impeded.

In addition to all of that, there were a number of people outside of the executive who made very significant efforts to undermine and derail the referendum process by approaching other parties (including DEFRA) and pressing their own politics which were contrary to the BCA mandate. Some even went to the effort of creating a competing website.

We recently saw the resignation of the acting CRoW officer (Badlad) who had made very significant efforts (much more than just asking DEFRA to change their view) who cited the failure of the BCA executive (at least in part) to support the process/campaign.

More recently, there has been a fair bit of momentum to make some positive changes at the BCA (including the voting system)

We have already seen some ?frustrations? within the various threads with regards to making progress and fingers have been pointed towards some of the ?Old Guard?. It also seems to appear that (some of) the various candidates for the forthcoming elections are not only anti-CRoW but also anti-progress (one of whom actively fought against the referendum result). Fair enough per se.

It now appears that the wishes of the BCA referendum result are not being (properly) pursued. It further appears that (some of) the people putting themselves forward for the BCA committee are people whose interests are contrary to the CRoW mandate and contrary to the wishes of the majority of the members who voted.

The concern that BCA has diminished their mandate to pursue the members interests is not only Bona fide but, worryingly, it looks like it is about to fall under the remit of those (some) people who are entirely opposed to it. Indeed, it would be easy to suggest that the same people who have actively fought against it would now continue to do so with the power attached to being a BCA executive (whatever that actually means).

The question I asked is therefore entirely legitimate and also relevant to the forthcoming AGM. I would like it answered properly please.


Ian
 

BradW

Member
Is the BCA supposed to represent the interests of all cavers and not just those who belong to majority groups? Then if so, the best way to do this is for all interests to be present on council, and not just those who never disagree with anything.
 

droid

Active member
Perhaps attending the AGM and talking to these people, the mysterious un-nameable 'old guard' might help make progress?

You could also vote.

 

Ian Adams

Well-known member
BradW said:
Is the BCA supposed to represent the interests of all cavers and not just those who belong to majority groups?


Ian Adams said:
It also seems to appear that (some of) the various candidates for the forthcoming elections are not only anti-CRoW but also anti-progress (one of whom actively fought against the referendum result). Fair enough per se.


You seem to have missed the last four words of that statement BradW (weren?t you a solicitor?)


Mr Droid,

It is perfectly reasonable to ask a postee on a forum for clarification of a statement that has been made without escalating to AGM. Also, isn?t the matter of voting precisely one of the moot issues?


Ian


 

droid

Active member
Ian Adams said:
It is perfectly reasonable to ask a postee on a forum for clarification of a statement that has been made without escalating to AGM. Also, isn?t the matter of voting precisely one of the moot issues?


Ian

It is one of the moot issues, but you've got to be there to vote, as I understand the *current* procedure.

Play the hand you've got, not the hand you wish you had.
 

droid

Active member
You are asking for clarification of *part* of it.

In your missive above, you remarked on 'the old guard' and the anti-CRoW 5th columnists.
You have to be at the AGM to make a difference to the personnel on the Council. You have to be at the AGM to ask them what the **** they think they are doing.

That was the major part of your missive in terms of verbiage.
 

Ian Adams

Well-known member
droid said:
In your missive above, you remarked on 'the old guard' and the anti-CRoW 5th columnists.

I referred to what other people had posted on this thread (and other similar threads). I did so because I was challenged on my initial question to Jenny P (you were one such challenge). The challenges sought to address the question I asked (which, of course, they do) but neither address the wider implication to the question to which I was alluding.

The purpose of the reference(s) was to expand on the rationale behind asking the question (to clarify the intent) and to solicit a ?proper? answer.

Fair enough?


Ian

 

droid

Active member
You have had clarification.

I'm not particularly a fan of the CRoW campaign, but I saw in Jenny' replies that it was being addressed.

You are either nitpicking or not reading these replies.


You are also avoiding the question of why such a vociferous critic of elements of the BCA executive seems not to confirm they'll be at the AGM to try to influence the votes for that executive.
 

Ian Adams

Well-known member
droid said:
You have had clarification.

I have not. The question remains unanswered.

[quote author=droid]
You are either nitpicking or not reading these replies.[/quote]

Odd statement that, coming from you.


[quote author=droid]You are also avoiding the question of why such a vociferous critic of elements of the BCA executive seems not to confirm they'll be at the AGM to try to influence the votes for that executive.
[/quote]

No such question was asked. In any event, hasn?t the deadline for nominations passed? Aren?t the people named in the thread going to be appointed without a vote regardless of who does or does not attend? 

I have been asking for clarity on what the BCA are doing in respect of CRoW in lieu of the various posts made on this thread (and others) which appear to suggest foul play. Of course, those posts may be totally unfounded. The answer that Jenny P provides may well put the issue to bed.

Any sensible person may well try to ascertain details/facts before jumping to conclusions, right?  Similarly, would they not also seek to clarify a position ahead of making a decision to attend an AGM (in the event, of course, that there is no issue at all?)

I consider that you have now successfully obfuscated this thread to prevent the question I asked from being properly answered. I have therefore sent a private message to Jenny asking for clarification.


Ian



 

mikem

Well-known member
Unless Pro-CROW candidates stand for council, it is going to take longer to get there.

Or they can just go caving...
 

Badlad

Administrator
Staff member
I hope I can possibly clarify the BCA position on CRoW. 

The BCA will campaign to ensure the CRoW Act applies to caving.  That is ongoing and BCA has a CRoW group working on that which is headed by David Rose.  Myself and a few others sit on that group.  Unfortunately, there is only one issue that has dominated national policy in the last few years and that is Brexit.  Never the less we have continued the campaign where we can.  Just today the group has received some welcome support from an influential politician.

Of significance is the BCA policy on CRoW which has been ratified by the membership and which will guide any issue which comes before BCA regardless of personal opinions of any officers.  The first line of that policy is;

"1. The British Caving Association holds the opinion that the CRoW Act already permits access for recreational caving."

We do what we can with our limited resources.  The direction is set by poll, by ballot and by following the full democratic process of the BCA despite some determined opposition.  Some may disagree and that is their prerogative but the position of BCA has been determined.  We continue our efforts but BCA focus is now towards modernisation and that is what features prominently at this years AGM.  I hope the majority will support those efforts and individuals which stand for them.

(y) (y) (y)

 
Top