MJenkinson
Member
Badlad said:
This.
BCA legal officer - Linda Wilson? Really?
- Thread starter NewStuff
- Start date
This.
droid
Active member
How much did the ballot re the Constitution change cost?
And with a bit of preparation, could this not have been combined with the CRoW ballot?
I'm not accusing Badlad of going on BCA-sponsored freebies, and fully appreciate the amount of his OWN time he's spent on this subject, but feel the entire process was very inefficiently managed.
Hindsight has 20:20 vision though....
And with a bit of preparation, could this not have been combined with the CRoW ballot?
I'm not accusing Badlad of going on BCA-sponsored freebies, and fully appreciate the amount of his OWN time he's spent on this subject, but feel the entire process was very inefficiently managed.
Hindsight has 20:20 vision though....
cavemanmike
Well-known member
droid said:
you could always get off your arse and volunteer your own free time
cavemanmike
Well-known member
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
droid said:
Even now it still seems surprising that it was necessary to take the same subject which appeared repeatedly decided (referendum, council ruling etc) so far. Probably in actual legal terms, if ever tested in court, there was never any doubt that the constitution did not provide any impediment to campaigning as it stood. But it was sadly necessary to demonstrate this again and again... It was no doubt cheaper and easier to just change the constitution to appease the minority than (somehow) 'test it in court', and in any event the political aspect was far more important than the actual technical one - it didn't matter if people were correct in thinking that the constitution provided an impediment, it merely mattered that they _believed_ it did, or chose to appear to believe to support their overall political stance, and it was unacceptable to be seen to be ignoring even a minority of BCA's members' concerns, well-founded or otherwise. At least the issue _finally_ seems settled...
Like you say, hindsight.
cavemanmike
Well-known member
droid said:Mike: why the f**k should I volunteer to help something I don't agree with?
I won't stand in the way of those that do, and I've said before the BCA should just crack on, but that's as far as I'm going on that one....
I don't know why the likes of you bother caving at all, you think because "the majority " of the caving community are pro-caving, you think we Are anti conservation.
Ian Adams
Active member
Every single caver I know (both pro-CRoW and anti-CRoW) respect the environment they are in and both proffer and practice conservation (including some very well known people on here). I don?t even know why ?conservation? is an argument in the CRoW debate.
Regardless, it is the ?militant minority? that has consistently thrown proverbial spanners in the work, the ?militant minority? that have consistently driven to undermine the wishes of the majority, the ?militant minority? that has sought to derail the majority vote on technicalities (like the interpretation of the constitution) and it is the ?militant minority? who have wasted the money of the BCA.
They are still doing it by whatever means they can muster.
Get a grip people.
Ian
Regardless, it is the ?militant minority? that has consistently thrown proverbial spanners in the work, the ?militant minority? that have consistently driven to undermine the wishes of the majority, the ?militant minority? that has sought to derail the majority vote on technicalities (like the interpretation of the constitution) and it is the ?militant minority? who have wasted the money of the BCA.
They are still doing it by whatever means they can muster.
Get a grip people.
Ian
cavemanmike
Well-known member
Fair play Ian.
Eloquently put
Eloquently put
NewStuff
New member
BradW said:
A few of those who oppose CRoW have caused immense problems, and seem to be hell-bent on carrying on doing so, irrespective on what the outcome of the vote was. Seems much like my daughter - appears to be lovely, right until she she can't get her own way and throws a strop. Difference is, she's 9 and is chancing her arm to chocolate for breakfast, not old enough to know better and trying to de-rail a democratic process.
Maturity? Might want to ask "your side" to brush up on that first, before going slinging mud around.
cap n chris
Well-known member
Ian Adams said:
I can help with an answer.
It is good to hear that all the cavers you know respect the cave environment: sadly, however, people who do not respect the cave environment venture underground. We know this for a fact because of:
graffiti, scratched and spray painted
broken gates
broken formations
trampled tape or
removed tape
litter, including faeces
photographs of people sitting on, or putting their arms/legs around, standing on, or leaning against delicate formations
mud sculpting
mud throwing
One of the reasons why conservation education has relevance to the CRoW topic is that the legislation will provide statutory rights to anyone - i.e. uneducated, uncaring public - to venture into caves on tracts of access land.
tony from suffolk
Well-known member
Indeed, why should anyone volunteer to represent something they happen to disagree with unless they've got their own agenda to pursue?droid said:
Reading the comments appearing here, anyone would think Linda's proposed role (if indeed there ever was one) was to provide direct legal support and advice to Tim Allen for his campaign. Perhaps it was never thus, but let's not spoil a good bit of banter with truth and logic. Have you ever thought that perhaps there are wider legal issues that need attention now and again that have s*d all to do with CRoW?tony from suffolk said:
