BCA CRoW Poll Result

[Moose]

Should it get to the stage where BCA are negotiating with the 'powers that be' on the whole issue, I do rather hope that none of the people who they intend to open a dialogue with have enough time on their hands to read this thread.

 

[droid]

No chance of that, I think: most cavers won't have read this thread.....

 

[And]

Maybe the majority of cavers didn't vote on it because they don't have particularly strong views either way and don't particularly care about caving politics.

Caving is a bit of fun and should be an escapism from the boring stuff of day to day life rather than adding to it!

 

[Peter Burgess]

That's true. No doubt about it. An insightful comment. You have to 'And it to him.

 

[ChrisJC]

Also remember that most of the mine exploration community have BCA membership, but have been advised that it doesn't apply to mines. I therefore suspect that it was largely ignored by that section of the membership.

Chris.

 

[droid]

Not by this bit.

 

[NewStuff]

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

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.

I was plenty calm enough when I wrote it. It sums up my level of disdain for that kind of shenanigans. Given it is mentioned in several posts, it will not surprise me to see these spanners try to gain some traction with this, and I'm perfectly serious about walking away from all of this. As has been said, Underground should be fun, and this isn't.

 

[Pitlamp]

Maybe the majority of cavers didn't vote on it because they don't have particularly strong views either way and don't particularly care about caving politics.

Caving is a bit of fun and should be an escapism from the boring stuff of day to day life rather than adding to it!

In my case I held back till the last minute to vote because I could see many pros and cons and I found it very hard to decide. I know many other cavers who were similarly uncertain and they never were able to decide, so the default was their ballot papers weren't sent in. Droid (several posts above) is right - the process of voting was made easy for us. The difficult bit was deciding how to use that vote.

Excellent point in your second sentence And - this is why I frequently mention how grateful I am for the time our BCA officers put in because, like you and me, I'm sure they'd rather be out there caving too.

 

[Mark]

Should it get to the stage where BCA are negotiating with the 'powers that be' on the whole issue, I do rather hope that none of the people who they intend to open a dialogue with have enough time on their hands to read this thread.

My thoughts exactly Moose, I am glad our patch doesn't really need all this bollocks.

 

[cavermark]

Happy crowmass

(I hope everyone gets some shiny new toys off Santa (ready to be thrown out of the pram in the new year  )

 

[Bottlebank]

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

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.

I was plenty calm enough when I wrote it. It sums up my level of disdain for that kind of shenanigans. Given it is mentioned in several posts, it will not surprise me to see these spanners try to gain some traction with this, and I'm perfectly serious about walking away from all of this. As has been said, Underground should be fun, and this crap isn't.

You might have been calm, but I'm not sure why you got upset with me over it, the BCA have set out the procedure and are following it, not me?

They made it perfectly clear before the poll that if the answer was yes they would need to change their constitution before they could campaign for CRoW.

That will take some time, as they have their own procedures to follow, it looks like the earliest it could happen is August.

If it doesn't happen, then I'm not sure what they'll decide to do.

 

[NewStuff]

You might have been calm, but I'm not sure why you got upset with me over it, the BCA have set out the procedure and are following it, not me?

They made it perfectly clear before the poll that if the answer was yes they would need to change their constitution before they could campaign for CRoW.

That will take some time, as they have their own procedures to follow, it looks like the earliest it could happen is August.

If it doesn't happen, then I'm not sure what they'll decide to do.

Because your post screams that you are revelling in the idea of a long delay, presumably hoping that the momentum runs out, or people forget about it.  I'm constantly told "Do it the official way" "make sure it's legit" and the like. Attitudes like yours are the reason a lot of people think stuff it, and just go underground anyway. I am very tempted to go back to doing that.

 

[Bottlebank]

You might have been calm, but I'm not sure why you got upset with me over it, the BCA have set out the procedure and are following it, not me?

They made it perfectly clear before the poll that if the answer was yes they would need to change their constitution before they could campaign for CRoW.

That will take some time, as they have their own procedures to follow, it looks like the earliest it could happen is August.

If it doesn't happen, then I'm not sure what they'll decide to do.

Because your post screams that you are revelling in the idea of a long delay, presumably hoping that the momentum runs out, or people forget about it.  I'm constantly told "Do it the official way" "make sure it's legit" and the like. Attitudes like yours are the reason a lot of people think stuff it, and just go underground anyway. I am very tempted to go back to doing that.

Try reading what I said not what you think I said.

It was a reasonable reply to a reasonable post from Pitlamp.

If you think back to October I was the first person to ask why they couldn't combine the two referendums, to save cost and time, so don't tell me what I'm revelling in.

This was never as simple as one vote and the campaign starts, however much you'd like it to be.

 

[paul]

[gmod]Ok, no more bickering or the Topic will be locked. Everyone is entitled to their opinion whether you agree with it or not. Happy Xmas (hopefully). [/gmod]

 

[Bob Mehew]

I will admit that yesterday I started to respond to the posting that BCA would need a constitutional change before doing anything and then decided to leave it for a while to calm down.  From my perspective and put simply, BCA Council had agreed a line of approach to this 'problem'.  They decided to remain neutral in the run up to the poll to respect the constitution, despite concerns being expressed that this was not providing members with information.  They put into the statement announcing the poll what they would do if it went for or against.  In the absence of a General Meeting, then Council have the right to decide what actions are within the constitution and what are not.  And in doing so, they are only answerable to a General Meeting. 

The result of the poll gives Council a clear mandate to move along a number of lines which includes negotiating with DEFRA & NE, approaching land owner representatives as well as proposing a change to the Constitution in June 2015.  The only way this work can be stopped is if someone calls a General Meeting before June 2015 to try and reverse the mandate given by the poll.

I will (perhaps injudiciously) remind all antis that the reason I have campaigned for BCA to lead the process, is because I have much more faith in BCA achieving an outcome which keeps land owners on side whether or not CRoW applies to caving, than might be achieved by independent cavers.  Please remember that it only takes one stupid caver to not only trash a cave but also piss off a land owner.  The biggest threat at this time to land owner relationships is a caver insisting to a land owner of his (possible) rights under CRoW. 

 

[Cookie]

The result of the poll gives Council a clear mandate to move along a number of lines which includes negotiating with DEFRA & NE, approaching land owner representatives as well as proposing a change to the Constitution in June 2015.  The only way this work can be stopped is if someone calls a General Meeting before June 2015 to try and reverse the mandate given by the poll.

To claim the result of the vote gives the BCA Council more powers than it actually does will do little to dissuade those in the NO camp from the ongoing feeling that they are being rail-roaded.

The Council can not act against the Constitution until it has actually been amended. To negotiate* with DEFRA & NE would clearly be acting against the Constitution.

The information with the poll said "continue our dialogue with DEFRA, NE and NRW". Fact-finding is very different from negotiating.

* presumably in favour of access under CROW for cavers.

 

[Simon Wilson]

To claim the result of the vote gives the BCA Council more powers than it actually does will do little to dissuade those in the NO camp from the ongoing feeling that they are being rail-roaded.

It isn't a railroad; it's democracy.

To negotiate* with DEFRA & NE would clearly be acting against the Constitution.

Would you like to explain exactly why you think that?

 

[martinm]

To claim the result of the vote gives the BCA Council more powers than it actually does will do little to dissuade those in the NO camp from the ongoing feeling that they are being rail-roaded.

It isn't a railroad; it's democracy.

To negotiate* with DEFRA & NE would clearly be acting against the Constitution.

Would you like to explain exactly why you think that?

I'd like to know as well please. I started reading the BCA constitution this morning trying to find evidence of this, but gave up due to boredom. I'm not into politics just caving and conservation. There is I believe a BCA meeting in January. Why can't BCA just declare an SGM to be held immediately before the next meeting (which DCA sometimes find necessary to do) to change the constitution as necessary. Following 'rules' too closely can sometimes be counter-productive to progress. Just a thought... Oh, and I thought Bobs post above was very good, just saying....

 

[jasonbirder]

You have to love the prevarications and weasel words from the "anti-CRoW" camp...

Unconstitutional...can't do anything till Aug 2015...procedures to follow...act appropriately...wait for the next step...

And countless little snide attempts to suggest that a substantial majority in an open referendum doesn't give a CLEAR mandate as to what the BCA membership want their representative body to do...

There's been a vote, it was yes by a substantive majority...lets crack on and make it happen...

 

[Peter Burgess]

Oh dear. Looks like I will have to go and find a weasel image for my avatar now. The work just never ends!