BCA AGM - CRoW Report

[royfellows]

.... It seems to me that the argument about CRoW is about control, not conservation....

Yes, I agree, it seems that way to me too.

Ian

and me, although I wanted to keep out of it really.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Yes we all agree I think. The accusation is slung around that those who control access do so simply because they can and like doing it. I passionately disagree - at least from my own experience - the controlled caves I visit are that way to conserve the features of the caves. The world does have control freaks, but fortunately there are far fewer of them than some would have us believe.

 

[tony from suffolk]

I've just read an article in the latest Descent, a "Statement From The Association Of British And Irish Show Caves". I wonder who wrote that for them?

A vote was taken, the anti-CRoWers lost. The pro-CRoWers won. No amount of sour grapes posturing will alter that. The BCA will fulfill their remit of seeking to clarify that CRoW applies to caving, hopefully without going to court over the issue. One thing that'll not happen is for the BCA to stop their campaign.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I am very confident that one of the ABIS members wrote it. Why would you want to imply otherwise?
At the very best it implies they are not capable of coming to their own conclusions on the business.

 

[tony from suffolk]

If you say so Peter.

 

[Peter Burgess]

In support of the BCA, insulting the intelligence of the people who run ABIS whilst other cavers are actively trying to reach an agreement with them, is probably not very helpful.

 

[Madness]

Everybody generally wants to believe that what they are told is the truth. This includes the members of ABIS I would have thought.

Perhaps ABIS haven't be told the truth by their 'advisors'

Hence the article may have been written by a member of ABIS after being fed a few untruths

 

[Peter Burgess]

Here are more insinuations without substance. It really isn't helpful to the BCA team making amends with ABIS. The greatest source of information and opinion is probably on UKCaving where many different views may be found. Which ones they choose to give most credit to is their prerogative.

 

[PeteHall]

The greatest source of information and opinion is probably on UKCaving where many different views may be found. Which ones they choose to give most credit to is their prerogative.

UK Caving is indeed a great source of information, however, I for one would not base my company policy on the bickering of ANY internet forum. When people can hide behind their keyboards, discussions often lead to very polarised arguments. If I wanted advice of a lagal mater, I would probably turn to someone with legal experience who's opinion I felt I could trust. If that opinion turned out to be misguided, I would be none the wiser (at least in the short term).

 

[Peter Burgess]

Two different legal views were widely publicised at the start of the campaign. Rose, and Wilson. Widely discussed here and available to anybody who wanted to take a view.

 

[Ian Adams]

One being an active Queen's Counsel (Barrister) who presented an opinion.

The other being a retired solicitor who offered a critique on that opinion.


Not quite "two different legal views" are they?  Not much equilibrium is there?

Ian

 

[martinr]

Not quite "two different legal views" are they?

Er, actually they are two different legal views. That's the point.

 

[Wayland Smith]

You can get as many legal viewpoints as you want.

The only relevant FACT is that DEFRA state that in their legal experts view CROW does not apply.
In other words, until parliament changes the law, or a senior court makes different rules.
You can stick your legal opinions where the sun don't shine! (and this is not a cave!)

 

[bograt]

Interesting to note that the retired solicitor subsequently turned up at an ABIS / BCA consultation meeting, ABIS claimed as an advisor, a role she denied, all very confusing isn't it ? ---.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Only if it suits you to be confused.

 

[todcaver]

You can get as many legal viewpoints as you want.

The only relevant FACT is that DEFRA state that in their legal experts view CROW does not apply.
In other words, until parliament changes the law, or a senior court makes different rules.
You can stick your legal opinions where the sun don't shine! (and this is not a cave!)

. 


Until DEFRA change their mind then ?

 

[Ian Adams]

Martinr,
Nice of you to selectively quote and then reply out of context to "spin" the point I was making.


Wayland Smith,
DEFRA say CRoW does apply so far as the light penetrates which means CRoW does appear to allow you to "enter" the caves.

Ian

 

[Ian Adams]

Interesting to note that the retired solicitor subsequently turned up at an ABIS / BCA consultation meeting, ABIS claimed as an advisor, a role she denied, all very confusing isn't it ? ---.

Only if it suits you to be confused.

It?s not confusing at all. Someone isn?t telling truth. As already stated, Tim has it in writing from ABIS that she WAS there as an advisor and YOU say she told you she wasn?t.

No contest there.

Ian

 

[Peter Burgess]

Yes - apparently it is no longer in writing. Now I bet you are really confused.

 

[Peter Burgess]

The point was, and of course it gets buried in deliberate obfuscation, that there are enough authoritative comments, whether legal opinions or authoritative critiques of that opinion, for a third party to form an independent opinion of their own.