BCA CRoW Poll Result

[cavermark]

The caving world does need to have the right to be consulted by government on issues which might affect both caving as a sport and the conservation of caves.  So we need BCA to be in a position where it is automatically on the list of consultees and it really doesn't matter whether the government considers it a "governing" or a "representative" body, just as long as it is able to represent the views of the majority of cavers in any formal discussions.

Another example of this was when University clubs were being shut down through fear of litigation around 15 years ago. 
Many Student Unions asked for "National Governing Body Guidelines" on good safety practice from sports like climbing, canoeing, sub aqua and caving.  Trying to explain that caving didn't really have such a body wasn't productive. 
The creation of BCA and CHECC has really helped many clubs in this area.

 

[peterk]

Sport England recognise the BCA as the governing body for caving in the UK.
https://www.sportengland.org/our-work/national-work/national-governing-bodies/sports-that-we-recognise/

 

[nearlywhite]

There is a fair bit of 'governance' in caving and it revolves mostly around conservation and access. That's mostly held at a regional level or individual cavers/groups. The other bit as far as I can see is CHECC producing guidelines and the BCA CIC thing.

Basically it's a governing body too, which should do more of the governing IMO but by far it's most important role is representation. I wholeheartedly agree with Jenny P on that one.

I guess I should try and answer 'Bob's Question'. The BCA should trump a minority of cavers' views IF it disagrees with them. I don't think the constitution needs to be amended for CRoW hurriedly as the law of the land trumps the BCA anyway and you need to be wary when fiddling with the constitution.

I have to say 70% for a constitutional change?! Why is that necessary in this instance?

 

[Jenny P]

The requirement for a majority larger than a simple majority is common in many, if not most, constitutions; the level is often set at 2/3, 70%, 3/4, or even higher.  The point being that to alter a constitution is a fairly serious move and you need to be sure that the change will have a large majority in favour or you are storing up trouble for the future.

I have to say I tend to agree with nearlywhite's comment:

I don't think the constitution needs to be amended for CRoW hurriedly as the law of the land trumps the BCA anyway

IMHO, if it does turn out that the existing law should correctly be interpreted as giving cavers to right to access caves on land subject to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, then BCA cannot justify having a constitution which tells cavers they cannot act in accordance with the law and might then wish to consider re-wording the offending section to make this clear. 

If it appears eventually that the present interpretation of the legal position is correct and cavers do not currently have the right of access to CRoW land, then I rather think that the BCA constitution would have to be amended in order to permit us to lobby for a change in the current law.

So, let's wait and see if further discussion will clarify the legal position first.

Sorry if that sounds rather like splitting hairs but there is a different between interpreting an existing law and changing a law which is believed to be wrong.