BCA CRoW Poll Result

[Ian Adams]

It is important the BCA now take it they have a majority yes vote and move forward on that basis. I would like to see the concerns of no voters taken note of and lets move on together. I would be very very annoyed and I suspect not the only one if this goes into a 'long process'. If it does then it will further divide the caving community and I fear for the fallout from it.

....Quite possibly the most important and best post made on this thread so far ....



Ian

 

[Ouan]

Bearing in mind that 77% of those eligible to vote didn't vote yes, his other point about staying aware of the concerns of no voters is also an important consideration.

77% might not have voted 'Yes', more importantly 86% didn't vote 'No'.....

 

[Stu]

Goydenman makes a very important point above; we do need to work together. Bearing in mind that 77% of those eligible to vote didn't vote yes,

Sigh... expected better from you Pitlamp. You have no idea how people would have voted, aside from the ones who did. 62% - yes. 48% - no.

his other point about staying aware of the concerns of no voters is also an important consideration.

Our BCA officers' real challenge now is to find a way forwards which the majority of cavers are comfortable with, even though the outcome of the vote wasn't a clear landslide victory for anybody.

Is it? The majority vote was for BCA to campaign for CRoW to include going underground. I can't see any resolution other than BCA do or do not campaign for inclusion. The vote is for yes, they should.

Their job will not be easy; I hope everyone remembers that they're volunteers and I think we should all give them a bit of breathing space now to reflect on things and work out the best way forward.

The way forward being to start campaigning for the inclusion of going underground within CRoW. That, after all, was what was voted on.

It might be an inconvenient truth that that is how things have turned out, but hey, that's democracy.

I hope you all have a happy and peaceful Christmas, whichever way you campaigned or voted.

This, I think we can all agree on. 

 

[Bottlebank]

Their job will not be easy; I hope everyone remembers that they're volunteers and I think we should all give them a bit of breathing space now to reflect on things and work out the best way forward.

The way forward being to start campaigning for the inclusion of going underground within CRoW. That, after all, was what was voted on.

It might be an inconvenient truth that that is how things have turned out, but hey, that's democracy.

I hope you all have a happy and peaceful Christmas, whichever way you campaigned or voted.

This, I think we can all agree on. 

I don't think the campaign can start - it would be against the constitution. I guess we have to wait for the next step, I assume around August to find out if there will or won't be one.

Until then I'm sure we'll all keep debating nicely.

On the second point - another 

 

[Pitlamp]

Stuart - all I was thinking of when I mentioned that 77% didn't vote yes was that it's a shame there isn't a clear mandate. It would have been a better outcome if there had have been a majority of cavers (rather than a majority of those who voted) in favour of one or other option, either way. That would have made things easier for our (volunteer) BCA officers who will have to try and deal with this soon enough.

'Tis the season of goodwill; let's not argue - the time for that is over.
Have a great Christmas. 

 

[Mark Wright]

I 'm a little disappointed in the numbers of people who didn't vote at all. 62.7% in fact.  Not from a clear mandate point of view, as Pitlamp suggests, but from the worrying aspect that it represents around 30 members of my own club!

I would assume though that those who chose not to vote, did so being happy to go along with the majority, whichever it turned out to be.

In this case 3819 people who chose not to vote are happy to support the majority 1402 people who voted 'Yes'. That's an 85.8% majority in favour of doing whatever needs to be done to make the necessary constitutional changes to move forward as soon as is reasonably practicable. 

Mark

 

[Rhys]

Someone please kill me now.....

 

[ALEXW]

In this case 3819 people who chose not to vote are happy to support the majority 1402 people who voted 'Yes'. That's an 85.8% majority in favour of doing whatever needs to be done to make the necessary constitutional changes to move forward as soon as is reasonably practicable. 

After a great deal of deliberation I voted NO . The YES vote won.  I don't intend to spit my dummy out. I will back the majority.
Lets hope that we get the outcome that we all want, it could be a long haul we need to present a united front.

 

[Pitlamp]

In this case 3819 people who chose not to vote are happy to support the majority 1402 people who voted 'Yes'. That's an 85.8% majority in favour of doing whatever needs to be done to make the necessary constitutional changes to move forward as soon as is reasonably practicable. 

After a great deal of deliberation I voted NO . The YES vote won.  I don't intend to spit my dummy out. I will back the majority.
Lets hope that we get the outcome that we all want, it could be a long haul we need to present a united front.

Yeah - let's not fall out overly about this.

I'm just sitting here thinking that, by and large, this has been a pretty sensible discussion right from the start. A few folk have occasionally become a bit agitated but it's also brought out the best in many people. Some very well constructed arguments have appeared. I've got great respect for these individuals, even though I've not always agreed with them on specific points. When you look at the abusive stuff that appears on forums in other circles, us cavers aren't that bad a bunch really.

As Mark Wright would say: "Good Caving!"

 

[tony from suffolk]

. When you look at the abusive stuff that appears on forums in other circles, us cavers aren't that bad a bunch really.

Indeed, this is a very gentle and well-mannered forum compared to many others on the internet. I still shudder when I think of the stream of death threats I received shortly after, in a moment of sheer madness, I happened to post on the "My Little Pony" forum that I marginally preferred "Pinky Pie" to "Princess Twilight Sparkle".

 

[cavermark]

Indeed, this is a very gentle and well-mannered forum compared to many others on the internet. I still shudder when I think of the stream of death threats I received shortly after, in a moment of sheer madness, I happened to post on the "My Little Pony" forum that I marginally preferred "Pinky Pie" to "Princess Twilight Sparkle".

  did they hold a referendum on the my little pony site?

(the "Neigh" vote probably won)

 

[NewStuff]

I don't think the campaign can start - it would be against the constitution. I guess we have to wait for the next step, I assume around August to find out if there will or won't be one.

Until then I'm sure we'll all keep debating nicely.

On the second point - another 

That's a way to make a complete farce out of the whole democratic process and I sincerely hope that it doesn't happen. You asked me if I had an issue with you via PM? I may not have then, but I sure do now.

If this actually does work as an end-run around the BCA doing what has been voted for, then in my usual posting style, **** you, and any who agree with you. I will dissolve the club and ignore anything to do with the BCA. I've tried to play nice, so to speak, but if others are playing dirty, I'm levelling the playing field.

I's been voted for. Let's do what was voted for, not ignoring any sensitive sites genuinely needing protection. Anything else is bull.

 

[David Rose]

I would say that this is a solid mandate, backed by a substantial majority, and given the strength of the views expressed over many months on this forum, and the wide airing the many issues have had, I find this is encouraging. It means the BCA can now go forward as the representative body of our sport to follow through this policy. It will of course be much easier to look for allies in places such as parliament, now that we know that this is the view of a clear majority. At the same time, landowners need not be in doubt that this is what a majority of cavers who bothered to vote think. This can only be helpful.

As the new year approaches, we should be looking to the future, and working on our strategy to get the opinion drawn up by my sister Dinah officially recognised. Equally, the reservations that some have expressed about CROW, especially over conservation, must be respected.  It would be wonderful if the rancour which has characterised the debate for so long could now ease.

 

[Rhys]

I don't think the campaign can start - it would be against the constitution. I guess we have to wait for the next step, I assume around August to find out if there will or won't be one.

Until then I'm sure we'll all keep debating nicely.

On the second point - another 

That's a way to make a complete farce out of the whole democratic process and I sincerely hope that it doesn't happen. You asked me if I had an issue with you via PM? I may not have then, but I sure do now.

If this actually does work as an end-run around the BCA doing what has been voted for, then in my usual posting style, **** you, and any who agree with you. I will dissolve the club and ignore anything to do with the BCA. I've tried to play nice, so to speak, but if others are playing dirty, I'm levelling the playing field.

I's been voted for. Let's do what was voted for, not ignoring any sensitive sites genuinely needing protection. Anything else is bull.

[gmod]NewStuff: Calm down please. The vote was yes, the campaign is in motion.[/gmod]

If CROW does apply to caving then the law of the land and the BCA constitution are incompatible. The law of the land trumps the constitution. It's not a big deal and it can and will be changed.

 

[Peter Burgess]

This is not the time to crow about being on the winning side. Neither is it the time to complain about the voting process. It is not the time to bad mouth or denigrate people for expressing their disappointment at the result. Neither is it the time to assume that everything is now resolved. It is the time to take on board the result and act appropriately. It is the time for BOTH sides to accommodate the concerns of EVERYONE. If those who have the job of working with the result can only bear in mind that there was a sizeable minority against the proposition, and that the green light actually means proceed with caution and awareness for other drivers/cavers, then perhaps this whole miserable episode will become history. If not, then I predict some car crashes.

And in response to being equated to a turkey - that is not the problem, its the implication of not having the brains to see that voting yes was the only intelligent option that is totally inappropriate. Resorting to the dictionary to justify a comment is a bit silly too. As I said, time to encourage people to work together, Tim. That would be nice Christmas present.

 

[bograt]

in a moment of sheer madness, I happened to post on the "My Little Pony" forum that I marginally preferred "Pinky Pie" to "Princess Twilight Sparkle".

AARGH, how could you??????

 

[bograt]

This is not the time to crow about being on the winning side. Neither is it the time to complain about the voting process. It is not the time to bad mouth or denigrate people for expressing their disappointment at the result. Neither is it the time to assume that everything is now resolved.

Nope, it is the time to be MERRY, HAPPY YULETIDE ONE AND ALL

 

[richardg]

:ang:HAPPY CHRISTMAS !!!! :ang:

 

[Alex]

Happy crowmass

 

[droid]

... Just 1400 out of over 6000 cavers, less than 25%, of BCA members have voted for CRoW....

... based on the wishes of less than one in four members.

... in fact over 75% in one form or another don't support it, or don't support it enough to tick a box. 

I completely agree it is a sad state of affairs but as already stated, it is democracy. Do I like it? No.

As a comparison, in 1997 the Welsh population balloted on Whether Wales should "devolve" and the result was 50.3% "yes" and 49.7% "no" with a turnout of only 50.1%

In round figures, that pretty much equates (ie. roughly this; in fact over 75% in one form or another don't support it, or don't support it enough to tick a box)

As a result, Wales devolved. I voted against it and still live in Wales. I have embraced the change, love the country and I work "with" the regime (and enjoy my life here). I could choose to be "upset" but then it would be just me that suffers. I could choose to fight but I am not likely to win and I would probably spend my life in misery.

It's the same with every democratic process, not every one votes and we all have to live with the consequences.

How we each "handle" the result of that process determines what we each (individually) get out of it.

Ian

Shockingly, and probably in total contradiction of Ian's thoughts on me, I agree with this.

The disappointing thing to me is not that nearly 900 people voted 'no' - it was a democratic option and therefore entirely valid - it was the several thousand people that didn't vote at all.

It wasn't an onerous process.

I also agree that the bickering must cease now, and that we should guide the BCA in a constructive way.

This post is part of that.