BCA CRoW Poll Result

[Bob Mehew]

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.
* presumably in favour of access under CROW for cavers.

The words of the constitution claimed to be against seeking CRoW applying to caving are "That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access."  I suggest that does not preclude negotiation / discussion to change the land owners or even DEFRA / NE mind.  (If not, then the words are clearly ridiculous since it would mean one cannot even go and try to persuade the land owner to change their mind to provide access.)  But I think the words actually used in the statement accompanying the poll are different, something like 'continue a dialogue'.  Can someone look them up and quote the precise words.

Changing the constitution requires notice to be given of a SGM which requires at least 12 weeks notice.  Plus I admit that a constitutional change requires 70% majority in both houses.  My guess is that currently the house of groups (i.e clubs) will not vote above 70% judging by the responses of a number of clubs.  It appears that many people are afraid to vote for the motion because they fear land owners will withdraw access permission.  I am hoping that work by BCA will show this fear to be groundless.

 

[Ian]

As one of the minority who voted no I believe we should now let the BCA Council take this forward as the ballot identified.

If we had won (IF the majority had voted no) we would have hoped that the pro camp would have accepted the no mandate with good grace and we should do the same for the yes mandate success.

We should also remember that we all have the safe keeping of the caves at our hearts (or we wouldn't bother with the aggravation and we'd just pirate all the caves). We may have differing views on how to do it but we should now support this ballot to get the best outcome possible for all caves and cavers.

 

[Badlad]

Peter.  For the record I really like your current avatar.  Made me laugh out loud.  Merry Christmas

 

[Peter Burgess]

Yeah, Thanks - I am thinking of keeping it long-term! Much more in keeping with being told to get stuffed at regular intervals. I also consider myself to be an old sage that knows his onions.

 

[oldboy]

Nearly two thirds majority yes vote.

http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=news_events:start

Or put another way, 23% of BCA members voted yes!

 

[NewStuff]

Nearly two thirds majority yes vote.

http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=news_events:start

Or put another way, 23% of BCA members voted yes!

As already stated, anyone on either side that manipulates the result figures to better reflect the agenda they have is , if I'm honest, a bit of a twit. Of those who bothered or wanted to vote, it was roughly a 60/40 split in favour. End of discussion.

 

[Ouan]

Or put another way, 23% of BCA members voted yes!

Or put another way, 14% of BCA members voted no!

 

[Cookie]

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.
* presumably in favour of access under CROW for cavers.

The words of the constitution claimed to be against seeking CRoW applying to caving are "That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access."  I suggest that does not preclude negotiation / discussion to change the land owners or even DEFRA / NE mind.  (If not, then the words are clearly ridiculous since it would mean one cannot even go and try to persuade the land owner to change their mind to provide access.)  But I think the words actually used in the statement accompanying the poll are different, something like 'continue a dialogue'.  Can someone look them up and quote the precise words.

Negotiating with the landowners would not contradict the BCA Constitution since the decision " to grant or withhold access" remains with the landowner.

But to negotiate with a third party such as DEFRA/NE to take a landowners right to withdraw access away would be against the BCA Constitution since cavers would be working to undermine "That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access.". Surely that is self evident?

My point is that BCA can't act against its own Constitution despite the ballot. To change the Constitution requires due process which will inevitably take time. That's democracy.

 

[Trotsky]

Why oh why is this going this way? The vote has been and gone, counted and the result out. Whichever way we voted now is of little consequence because a democratic process has been followed. I personally voted no because I felt that things could be sorted in a more amenable way, but fully accept the yes vote as being the majority point of view. Regardless of whether a mandate is valid because of numbers or otherwise I will accept the outcome. However what is totally appalling me at the moment is some peoples childish, churlish, and downright offensive comments. I am completely with another couple of posters on here that have sensibly suggested that if folk elsewhere see the bickering, bad language and bitterness then they will tar us all with the same brush. To a couple of the really guilty sorts on here I would ask that before you vent your vitriol via your keyboard , please think about who can see it because your words and actions reflect upon all of us.

 

[cavemanmike]

The words of the constitution claimed to be against seeking CRoW applying to caving are "That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access."  I suggest that does not preclude negotiation / discussion to change the land owners or even DEFRA / NE mind.  (If not, then the words are clearly ridiculous since it would mean one cannot even go and try to persuade the land owner to change their mind to provide access.)  But I think the words actually used in the statement accompanying the poll are different, something like 'continue a dialogue'.  Can someone look them up and quote the precise words.
[/quote]

Negotiating with the landowners would not contradict the BCA Constitution since the decision " to grant or withhold access" remains with the landowner.

But to negotiate with a third party such as DEFRA/NE to take a landowners right to withdraw access away would be against the BCA Constitution since cavers would be working to undermine "That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access.". Surely that is self evident?

My point is that BCA can't act against its own Constitution despite the ballot. To change the Constitution requires due process which will inevitably take time. That's democracy.
[/quote]

as i have  said before the bca will not represent a YES vote because most of them voted no.
just another way of squirming out of your responsobility

 

[NewStuff]

Why oh why is this going this way? The vote has been and gone, counted and the result out. Whichever way we voted now is of little consequence because a democratic process has been followed. I personally voted no because I felt that things could be sorted in a more amenable way, but fully accept the yes vote as being the majority point of view. Regardless of whether a mandate is valid because of numbers or otherwise I will accept the outcome. However what is totally appalling me at the moment is some peoples childish, churlish, and downright offensive comments. I am completely with another couple of posters on here that have sensibly suggested that if folk elsewhere see the bickering, bad language and bitterness then they will tar us all with the same brush. To a couple of the really guilty sorts on here I would ask that before you vent your vitriol via your keyboard , please think about who can see it because your words and actions reflect upon all of us.

I assume you're directing that at me? At least come out and say it. In light of the comments I have highlighted, then no, I won't. I *will* put my oar in on something I feel very strongly about, especially if I see an attempt to steer it away from a direction the majority have said they wish it to take.

The majority want to see it happen, we have figures from an independent vote that says it quite clearly in black and white. Choosing to interpret things in such a way that causes delay will just cause more resentment. The vote has been taken, and the outcome published. Let's just get on with it.

Should the BCA pander to the whims of those who still cling to the hope of keeping the cosy little empires they have built as is, then I want nothing to do with it in the future. My lot have tried to play it the "official" way, but if this is the outcome, then I know every single one of them will be with me when I dissolve the club, and ignore all missives from an organisation with the spine of a jellyfish. I won't be the only club that has problems with a body that acts in this manner either.

 

[cavermark]

NewStuff - it's only 2 days since the ballot result came out.. and this is just a discussion. I wish you a relaxing and happy festive period 

 

[NewStuff]

NewStuff - it's only 2 days since the ballot result came out.. and this is just a discussion. I wish you a relaxing and happy festive period 

That's the kicker. Already people are trying to do an end-run around it. If they manage it, what was the point of having a vote at all? Get's my goat, irrespective of the time of year.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I love the comedy show here tonight. better than the usual tired stuff on the telly. And what's more, it's not a repeat, just an entertaining rehash of a show I recall watching here a few weeks ago!

 

[NigR]

The very fact that these sorry individuals (representing the long standing control freaks and empire builders) should choose to respond as they have is, in my opinion, highly encouraging. It clearly demonstrates that they are fully aware their time is over and shows how desperate they are to cling to the last vestiges of their former power. Yes, it is appalling but it is hardly surprising. Just be patient, they will soon be gone.

 

[Peter Burgess]

The majority of No supporters, if you care to check, have been gracious in accepting the result, and some have politely asked that the "winners" do not totally ignore their concerns. A few question how easy it will be to proceed, and maybe the "winners" need to simply take these "heads up" comments on board so as to avoid pitfalls moving forward.

The majority of Yes supporters posting here have likewise held back from making silly remarks and are intent on spreading seasonal cheer.

It isn't difficult to see where the openly offensive comments have come from. It's not BCA that needs to get a grip, it's the mods on here!!!!! And Merry Greetings to all our mods as well. 

Anybody looking for some last minute kiddies pressies need only check the pavement next to that pram over there.........

 

[NewStuff]

The majority of No supporters, if you care to check, have been gracious in accepting the result, and some have politely asked that the "winners" do not totally ignore their concerns. A few question how easy it will be to proceed, and maybe the "winners" need to simply take these "heads up" comments on board so as to avoid pitfalls moving forward.

The majority of Yes supporters posting here have likewise held back from making silly remarks and are intent on spreading seasonal cheer.

It isn't difficult to see where the openly offensive comments have come from. It's not BCA that needs to get a grip, it's the mods on here!!!!! And Merry Greetings to all our mods as well. 

Anybody looking for some last minute kiddies pressies need only check the pavement next to that pram over there.........

You will note I have quite clearly stated, both on this thread, and all along, that genuine sensitive sites need consideration. I have no issue with a genuine conversation issue. entrance next to a footpath? Fair enough, no issue. I don't know of Any "pro" person that thinks otherwise. Stop attempting to attribute things to me that I quite clearly did not say or infer.

If you find me openly offensive, there's an ignore button. Useful thing that, one click, and "poof", my posts no longer appear to upset your delicate constitution.

As for seasonal cheer, it matters not one jot what time of year it happens to be. I will call these shenanigans out for what they are at any time.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I would never dream of attributing things to you, that you didn't say or infer. Never. I am going into shock at the very thought. I would never ignore you either, you have to be REALLY special to get on my "ignore" list.  :hug:

 

[Bob Mehew]

But to negotiate with a third party such as DEFRA/NE to take a landowners right to withdraw access away would be against the BCA Constitution since cavers would be working to undermine "That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access.". Surely that is self evident?

We are not requesting BCA Exec to negotiate to take away a right, just to clarify what right the land owner actually has or does not have.  If they don't have the right to withhold access because CRoW does apply, then they can't deploy it.  So the clause does not apply.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Negotiating with the landowners would not contradict the BCA Constitution since the decision " to grant or withhold access" remains with the landowner.

But to negotiate with a third party such as DEFRA/NE to take a landowners right to withdraw access away would be against the BCA Constitution since cavers would be working to undermine "That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access.". Surely that is self evident?

My point is that BCA can't act against its own Constitution despite the ballot. To change the Constitution requires due process which will inevitably take time. That's democracy.

The BCA constitution needs changing because it is not in line with the law and hasn't been since 2006. The owners of Access Land do not have the right to withold access. DEFRA have admitted that CRoW gives us access to "open caves and potholes". A QC and many cavers think CRoW gives us access to all caves on Access Land.