BCA legal officer - Linda Wilson? Really?

[Pitlamp]

There is no such thing as a Mendip blacklist and I am annoyed that Newdtuff should suggest otherwise.
Does he have any evidence to say we are not friendly and welcoming to all cavers?

I reckon to be a Dales and Peak District caver in the main. But when I was in my mid teens my parents deposited me on Mendip for a few days, with all my worldly possessions in a rucsack. I knew absolutely no-one but the local cavers gave this scruffy kid a warm welcome and really looked after me. Partly because of this I joined the Wessex and was a member for many years. I only lapsed because circumstances stopped me getting there as often as I'd have liked.

In my experience of Mendip cavers, they certainly are an extremely friendly bunch.

I've never come across the idea of any "black list". 

 

[NigR]

As a matter of interest is Linda a member of this forum ? I rather think her partner Graham has been banned but for what reason I do not know. The consequence of this is that they have started their own forum now.

Yes, she is a member of this forum. However, looking at some of her posts, it would appear that she has been somewhat reluctant in the past to make her true identity known. Perhaps now might be a good time to have a rethink on this?

 

[Martin Laverty]

Q: BCA legal officer - Linda Wilson? Really?
A: No - she volunteered to be a Gatekeeper - not advisor or officer - and welcomed the suggestion of an advisory panel; Andy Eavis said he knew of three other legally qualified people willing to help. (Thanks to Nick Williams for giving a link to the otherwise not easy to find draft minutes - http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=about:documents:council_meetings:council_minutes_2017-10-07.pdf  It would be a good idea if more people read them before continuing with this topic).

The idea of splitting up the Legal & Insurance role vacated by Bob Mehew's (unfortunate) resignation is still up for discussion, and, I suppose, ratification and/or election at the AGM. As 2xw suggested, the idea of any formal advice being sought from a professional unconnected with caving if thought necessary sounds good to me, but an informal panel of legally qualified caving insiders is also desirable to advise the BCA officials of what they need to consider...

[Incidental moan at out of date websites: the BCA website still lists Bob as responsible for:
1 To ensure that the best possible Insurance Policies are obtained, maintained and updated;
2 Keeping a watch on new/proposed legislation in the outdoor, recreational and access to countryside areas, and taking appropriate actions;
3 Keeping our equity, and other policies and guidance documents under constant review and recommending updating as appropriate

In practice, he didn't look after the insurance side, but he was also Child Protection Officer...and I think he should have been responsible for equality rather than equity...
], and the appearance of this topic should certainly warn BCA that Linda's personal views are not always uncontroversial - just as Graham's aren't - but that doesn't mean that everything they say is controversial (I, for one, miss many of Graham's informative, and often thoughtful, contributions to this forum, while not missing the repetitive, spiteful ones...)

A puzzler for Pitlamp:
Q: Have Linda, Graham (and 'Bottlebank') set up a new forum?
A: No - but they have set up a new soapbox website named something like Underground Blackness

 

[Pitlamp]

Thanks for your prompt Martin. A quick google on the search term "Underground Blackness" took me into all sorts of weird territory . . .

Did you really mean this?  http://darknessbelow.co.uk/

I didn't know Graham and Linda were involved. I certainly find it a useful resource.

 

[royfellows]

Thanks for your prompt Martin. A quick google on the search term "Underground Blackness" took me into all sorts of weird territory . . .

Lowest prices for Underground Blackness on Amazon?

 

[Martin Laverty]

You got it Pitlamp!

Trying 'Adventures Underground' is'nt that much more weird in than my clue in (image) searchland though...

 

[Badlad]

I am writing this post as respectfully as I can whilst still informing cavers on a matter that is of interest to many.

Firstly I volunteer myself for several caving organisations and I know how hard it is to find volunteers to fill roles and how difficult it is to turn someone down when they do make an offer.

For my own part in this matter I would like to make it clear that I am not questioning anyone?s integrity but only their suitability to undertake a particular role.

There are many diverse views across caving and that is reflected at BCA council.  I would not expect that to ever change, but we are not talking here about just holding different views we are talking about actively campaigning against a BCA position (a position which has clearly been ratified by the membership).  An example of this is where the BCA chairman and officers have lobbied particular government officials only to then discover that another individual has then come along to lobby against them.  Of course this is their right but it does then create a conflict of interest if they volunteer for an influential role at the heart of the BCA.

A number of caving organisations and individuals have picked up on this conflict of interest and written accordingly to BCA exec and council.  I personally thank them for bringing it to council?s attention.

At the heart of this matter was some confusion over the BCA ?Legal and Insurance Officer? role following the resignation of Bob Mehew.  This is now clearer after the following proposal was agreed at Saturday?s council meeting.  (wording taken from my notes only)

That the post of Legal and Insurance Officer be deleted from Council agendas;
That insurance related matters be the remit of an officer co-opted by council;
As required, the executive to seek the opinion of one or more currently practising legal professionals on legal matters as they arise; such persons shall not be officers of the association and shall not be required to attend council meetings. 

This essentially means that the role of legal officer passes to the executive.  The words ?currently practicing? is intended to ensure there is some insured indemnity on any advice given.  It should be noted that the subject of this thread is retired and non-practising.  The exec have indicated that an offer to act as a ?gatekeeper? for legal enquiries will be declined.  However, it was not clear whether this applies to other vacant roles.

 

[BradW]

So: the post under consideration was never a position on council in the first place? So what on earth was all the fuss about? And how did some people get the impression that Linda was being considered as a Mehew equivalent?

 

[Ship-badger]

Thank-you for the report Badlad.

 

[And]

How did you get your position on the BCA, Badlad?

 

[Simon Wilson]

How did you get your position on the BCA, Badlad?

Tim Allen (Badlad) was appointed to his post because his wishes and his active campaigning are perfectly aligned with the wishes of the BCA which is the exact opposite of Linda Wilson.

 

[Badlad]

How did you get your position on the BCA, Badlad?

I was co-opted by council for the role.  The details of how it works are explained in the constitution.  There is a vote of council on co-opted officers every year  (there are quite a few).

The background to my own appointment started with the vote on whether the BCA should campaign for CRoW to apply to caving back in 2014.  My interest in this issue had been sparked by the discussions on ukcaving and I had researched the matter further to the point that I helped put the briefing information together for Dinah Rose QC.  Following the vote the BCA executive invited me to a round table meeting to discuss what they should do.  It was logical that any access campaign should be run through the BCA Conservation and Access Officer (C&A) with help from the exec as and when.  By mid 2015 the C&A Officer's position had become clear and he advised council that he had to step away from any campaign due to a conflict of interest with his employers.  This left a rather gaping hole in the campaign that the membership had voted for and council discussed several options including splitting the C&A role.  In the end they decided to create the co-opted role of CRoW Liaison Officer to fulfil the expectations of the members following the vote.  I volunteered for the role and was voted in.

 

[Ian Adams]

..... and I doubt a better person could have been found.

It is clear that Tim has worked extensively and tirelessly for the benefit of promoting the recreational sport of caving. I have no doubt that he has taken on and accomplished more than even the best of us have seen.

To be blunt, the BCA and caving need people like this.



Ian

 

[Ship-badger]

 

[TheBitterEnd]

..... and I doubt a better person could have been found.

It is clear that Tim has worked extensively and tirelessly for the benefit of promoting the recreational sport of caving. I have no doubt that he has taken on and accomplished more than even the best of us have seen.

To be blunt, the BCA and caving need people like this.



Ian

Hear! Hear!  Well said Ian. We all have a lot to thank Tim and Jane for.

 

[Badlad]

Thanks very much - that is almost too much for me to hear and it will incense some folk who don't agree.

I wrote a second part to the above post this morning which summarised my experience in the role until now.  I decided not to post it as I was in a rush to go caving today.  I'll rethink about posting tomorrow.  :-\

 

[droid]

The disagree-er isn't 'incensed'.

Just saddened by the amount of money and effort the BCA have spent on what is probably going to be a wild goose chase.

To those that say some (a lot?) of this money/effort was spent heading off the sour malcontents that 'lost', consider this: they set out their objections quite early on in the debate. So why didn't someone - anyone - get the Constitution problems sorted before the Ballot? 

If this money and effort had been spent on educating landowners and conservation, how much more could have been achieved now, rather than *possibly* at some point in the distant future?

 

[BradW]

Incensed? A combination of bemusement and sorrow is more like it. Credit those who hold different views with a modicum of maturity please!

 

[tony from suffolk]

Someone's sour grapes are showing.

 

[Badlad]

Very little money has been spent on an actual campaign.  In two and a half years I can only recall claiming for some travel and a pop up banner - say ?500.

The exec decided on the original poll about running a campaign back in 2014 that cost several thousand. 

The issue about section 4.6 of the constitution was dealt with by council and the exec several times.  However the anti-CRoW lobby wouldn't leave it alone and at the 2016 AGM in Mendip the chair (under pressure) accepted a motion to change the constitution at the next AGM.  That was done costing another few thousand but also included other constitutional changes.

So BCA has spent most of the money ensuring the CRoW issue is dealt with democratically and very little actually campaigning.  At last Saturdays meeting council gave the go ahead to increase insurance costs by ?8000 across the membership.  This was to meet the higher insurance demands of the Longleat estate and ensure continued access to caves in Cheddar such as Reservoir hole which could be lost without it.  Access to caves costs a lot of money too.  Safeguarding access to some 2000+ caves with a legal right seems a good idea to me.