BCA Council Meeting - CRoW Discussions

[bograt]

Just occurred to me, my previous post referred to 'sides', --, how many 'sides' are there?, the 'pro' lobby does not consider landowners as a 'side' to be contested, their relationship seems to be working, the 'anti' lobby considers the landowners to be a 'side' to be defended, surely when it comes to 'sides', its BCA v DEFRA's interpretation??

If. however, the 'sides' are between Mendip cavers and the rest of UK cavers, then we have problems, are we sure this is not a 'clash of personalities' ??? ---.

 

[droid]

If. however, the 'sides' are between Mendip cavers and the rest of UK cavers, then we have problems, are we sure this is not a 'clash of personalities' ??? ---.

37% of those that voted voted 'no'.


Unlikely that this was exclusively 'Mendip' cavers....

 

[NewStuff]

If. however, the 'sides' are between Mendip cavers and the rest of UK cavers, then we have problems, are we sure this is not a 'clash of personalities' ??? ---.

37% of those that voted voted 'no'.


Unlikely that this was exclusively 'Mendip' cavers....

I think that Club-wise, it was Largely southern clubs.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I know a cave owner that matches Chris's described situation perfectly. I respect the landowner's desire not to be named publicly.

 

[Simon Wilson]

No it isn't. Can't or shan't. The premise remains valid.

Bottlebank said that some landowners might get upset; when he was asked to name any landowners he could not do. Pitlamp said that damage had already been done to landowner relations; when he was asked to name a landowner he could not do. Now you have done almost the same thing. There is a pattern - weasel words.

When Bottlebank and Linda Wilson asked the BCA council about landowner relations Council decided that your premise was invalid.

Isn't it time to give up with that one?

 

[Peter Burgess]

No. I speak the truth. Chris does as well. Repeat - respect the owner's wish not to be named here or anywhere. He follows this site closely. If he changes his mind no doubt you will be the first to know.

 

[Badlad]

We should remember that caver/landowner relations are not perfect now, nor have been in the past and there will no doubt be some difficulties in the future, CRoW, or no CRoW.

 

[Aubrey]

Naming a landowner on an open forum without his permission could be the quickest way to close caves.

 

[PeteHall]

I was pleased to see the proposed amendment to the contentious section of the constitution was made and seconded by Mendip cavers. 

Does this spell the beginning of the end of the "north-south divide"?

 

[Madness]

DEFRA have apparently said that CRoW applies to caving to the extent of how far daylight penetrates into a cave. I believe that they have also said that CRoW doesn't apply to caves - Which is it?

If the BCA get clarification and that clarification is that CRoW does not apply to caves, then will the campaign change from one of carification to one to change the law on access?

Would it mean another BCA members vote? Would the BCA constitution need another amendment?

 

[cap n chris]

DEFRA have apparently said that CRoW applies to caving to the extent of how far daylight penetrates into a cave. I believe that they have also said that CRoW doesn't apply to caves - Which is it?

You are not properly in a cave until you go beyond the limit of daylight penetration; you have merely commenced, and continue to be in the process of, entering. The cave begins where daylight ends. It is therefore not a case of "which is it?" - both statements are correct in the quote.

 

[Beardy]

DEFRA have apparently said that CRoW applies to caving to the extent of how far daylight penetrates into a cave. I believe that they have also said that CRoW doesn't apply to caves - Which is it?

You are not properly in a cave until you go beyond the limit of daylight penetration; you have merely commenced, and continue to be in the process of, entering. The cave begins where daylight ends. It is therefore not a case of "which is it?" - both statements are correct in the quote.

Hi Chris,
I disagree with your statement;
A cave begins once you are underground, either with a roof above your head in the case of a horizontal cave
or when you are below the level of the surface land in the case of a vertical cave.
How far daylight goes is actually an irrelevant distraction.
Regards
Beardy     

 

[cap n chris]

Is the base of a cliff a cave?

What if the cliff was cylindrical and fifty foot high and you were stood at the bottom, in daylight. i.e. a surface depression with craggy sides?

What if the cliff was cylindrical and 1,000ft deep and you were stood at the bottom, with daylight shining in your eyes?

 

[Beardy]

Good question,   

possibly, yes, as cliffs sometimes descend into caves
but not all cliffs have caves at their base.

Cylindrical cliffs = pothole = cave

B

 

[cap n chris]

Being at the base of a crag, where daylight reaches, is still the surface of the planet, isn't it?

 

[Peter Burgess]

If the cliff was angled at 1 degree from the vertical so that the top of the hole was wider than the bottom, it would simply be a depression in the ground. Cheddar Gorge is not a cave.

 

[Beardy]

lets try this

 

[cap n chris]

Looks like a pit. Or a road between two very wide high rise buildings.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Plan or vertical section?

 

[Beardy]

vertical section