BCA AGM - CRoW Report
- Thread starter Badlad
- Start date
Peter Burgess
New member
No - the idea that new cavers come straight here to find out what it's all about is a fallacy. I don't think any of the Wealden's new members even know this place exists. They just want to go underground and find the club nearest to them to do it. The rest is down to you and me to inspire them.cavemanmike said:
Ian Adams
Active member
Peter Burgess said:
You are very right.
Most (some?) new cavers start out by exploring themselves (I did) and then may look for a club. Some don't get as far as a club and stick with "mates" who are like minded.
There are MANY such people (and I know plenty and I am sure most people on this forum know some).
I have "found" caves (before I was a member of a club) and not known "who" or "how" to contact the appropriate owner (all before the internet before any jumps on me). I have also found caves "gated and locked" (same problem).
I am not in the Dales but it must have happened there a gazillion times and those intrepid explorers would not have known the CNCC existed or that they needed a permit for an "open hole" (and would have no clue to even consider it).
Why make it more difficult for "new" caving enthusiasts by being clandestine?
Ian
Please try to keep the posts civil.
The report was the report that was submitted to the AGM and the report was accepted by the AGM. Some people do want to read it apparently.
Only 14% of the membership voted against the campaign, where as 23% voted for - normally considered the majority. No one knows which way the rest were leaning, all we know is that they didn't vote and therefore don't get counted. That is democracy at work, don't vote, don't get counted. Same for electing Parliament, Scottish referendums, even the European referendum. If more than 50% vote to leave Europe then we'll be leaving Europe and no amount of bleating about how it wasn't 50% of all the people is going to change that, is it?
In any case BCA has done a pretty good job so far, haven't they?
The report was the report that was submitted to the AGM and the report was accepted by the AGM. Some people do want to read it apparently.
Only 14% of the membership voted against the campaign, where as 23% voted for - normally considered the majority. No one knows which way the rest were leaning, all we know is that they didn't vote and therefore don't get counted. That is democracy at work, don't vote, don't get counted. Same for electing Parliament, Scottish referendums, even the European referendum. If more than 50% vote to leave Europe then we'll be leaving Europe and no amount of bleating about how it wasn't 50% of all the people is going to change that, is it?
In any case BCA has done a pretty good job so far, haven't they?
Or European Parliament (35.6% turnout in UK last time):droid said:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-parliament-election-turnout.htm
Even London Mayor has only had 34 to 45% bothering!
By elections were anywhere from 18-19% in Leeds & Manchester Central to c.55%, with only Winchester achieving an impressive 69%:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/by-election-turnout.htm
For comparison, general election nearer 70%:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
I particularly like the symmetry in this one - people aren't switching to vote for other parties:
http://www.ukpolitical.info/ConvLab.htm
Mike
cavemanmike
Well-known member
Jackalp said:
Peter Burgess
New member
A point that is lost on all those who don't hesitate to look for something that isn't there. Loads and loads of arguing when all Chris was making was a semantic point. He even stated at one point that he had no issue with the mandate. You lot should apply to go on Question Time.droid said:
Chris has a valid point about the wording of the report which is putting spin onto the poll result.
The BCA poll showed that 23%of its members members want CRoW rights to apply to them too, but that is 28% short of "the majority of its members"
It is an assumption that there is another 28% of the membership (who did not even vote) who want CRoW rights to apply to them too. It may be true. Or it may not be. As they did not vote we can not know what they want.
However, it is true that "The BCA poll showed that the majority of the 37% of members who voted want CRoW rights to apply to them too"
This choice of words would seem to imply we know at least 51% of BCA members want CRoW rights to apply to cavers.CRoW Liaison Officer Report to BCA AGM ? June 2016. said:
The BCA poll showed that 23%of its members members want CRoW rights to apply to them too, but that is 28% short of "the majority of its members"
It is an assumption that there is another 28% of the membership (who did not even vote) who want CRoW rights to apply to them too. It may be true. Or it may not be. As they did not vote we can not know what they want.
However, it is true that "The BCA poll showed that the majority of the 37% of members who voted want CRoW rights to apply to them too"
royfellows
Well-known member
Yesterday afternoon a thread was started on "Conservation priorities" to which no one as yet has taken the trouble to reply to the OP.
Please excuse me if I have a distorted view of things but I would think that the sole reason for gates and access controls on caves revolves around this, "conservation", yes. Any thread that starts that in any way relates to CROW has the usual keyboard warriors ready and willing to give battle, yet isn't this what the argument behind the CROW debate is about?
Please excuse me if I have a distorted view of things but I would think that the sole reason for gates and access controls on caves revolves around this, "conservation", yes. Any thread that starts that in any way relates to CROW has the usual keyboard warriors ready and willing to give battle, yet isn't this what the argument behind the CROW debate is about?
PeteHall
Moderator
royfellows said:
Roy, if your view is distorted, consider yourself excused; it is quite simply because it is the publicly stated view of those wishing to control access. I think your observation above suggests that this is in fact not the real reason they wish to control access. It seems to me that the argument about CRoW is about control, not conservation.
