BCA legal officer - Linda Wilson? Really?

[droid]

Let's get this into context.

We're leaving the EC
NHS is going south.
Part-time working and the gig economy is robbing people of stability in finances

etc, etc.

And people are mithering about CRoW. How many caves that aren't accessible now WILL be accessible with CRoW? Admittedly there'll be less faff getting down some, but is that really so onerous?

It's a fine and noble ambition to get free access CRoW caves, and I accept that the Law as it stands is illogical, but who really thinks this is going to be any sort of priority to Parliament?

Easy going community my arse.....

 

[2xw]

Droid that's a classic case of whataboutery isn't it. You can keep saying things are low priority until you eventually can only really worry about the inevitable heat death of the universe.


Not like we're lobbying parliament anyways, there's not going to be any great CRoW debate in the chamber. They'll be no Mail headlines with Corbyns public support of Tim Allen, that's silly.

 

[alastairgott]

more context, there aren't going to be any brand new planning permissions for million pound buildings which require environmental nouse from Defra, as there isn't going to be a company to build them!

So, I guess Defra have some time to Werrit about Crow.

Context: Carillion Liquidation 15/01/18

 

[BradW]

:blink: Is there anyone here still sane?

In my now distant past, I had dealings with relevant governing bodies.

My recollections of how things were done is that a degree of professionalism and duty was the norm, and was expected of officers. Jenny's interesting post certainly is not how I recall things. I am sure my memory is good on this.

The current sad state of affairs is not helped by the way things are being managed. We seem to have a very factionalised and one-sided bunch of people now, seemingly content to see personal retribution being exacted on individuals. Does the BCA sanction the use of kangaroo courts? Representing the views of a majority of members is no excuse for attacking individual members.

Rise above it for goodness sake. Nothing is to be gained by the crass keyboard warfare, seemingly being allowed here.

I wonder if a kind of gas-lighting is going on here. I sincerely hope not.

 

[RobinGriffiths]

Wonder how Cadw managed to avoid being subsumed into Natural Resource Wales ? It seems to sit in quite a strange position for a government (Welsh) body as the public can join National Trust style.

 

[Graigwen]

Wonder how Cadw managed to avoid being subsumed into Natural Resource Wales ? It seems to sit in quite a strange position for a government (Welsh) body as the public can join National Trust style.

It is the Welsh equivalent of English Heritage. The word "join" just means a payment for free access to the sites that they charge admission for. I am a "member" of English Heritage and just get a plastic card for free entry, a magazine and loads of e-mails. Join does not imply an active role in the body. Not quite the same as the National Trust, although it probably looks similar to some members..

.

 

[braveduck]

We are getting off topic !

 

[MarkS]

[mod]Yes, we are getting a bit off topic. Let's stick to the BCA legal officer subject (although it appears to have been clarified and essentially concluded earlier in the topic). Feel free to start a new topic on other access matters.[/mod]

 

[David Rose]

It's no secret that my views on CROW access differ strongly from Linda Wilson's. But I think an unpleasantly personal tone has begun to creep into some parts of this thread, and this doesn't help those of us in favour of open access win converts. If anything, it's going to put them off.

As stated, I don't agree with Linda about access, but her ideas about, for example, improving the BCA's media profile are excellent.

I had a conversation with her recently in which we  both agreed that people who hold different opinions on some subjects ought nonetheless to look for common ground, and treat each other with respect. So could we now perhaps move on? It's evident she isn't going to be the BCA's legal officer, but she has much to give the organisation in other ways. Let's accept our differences and argue our positions fiercely, but avoid denigrating our opponents.

 

[NewStuff]

It's a fine and noble ambition to get free access CRoW caves, and I accept that the Law as it stands is illogical, but who really thinks this is going to be any sort of priority to Parliament?

Droid - It doesn't need to go to Parliament.
Brad - How does would your recollection go? What is wrong/mistaken about Jenny P's account of events?

 

[paul]

It's a fine and noble ambition to get free access CRoW caves, and I accept that the Law as it stands is illogical, but who really thinks this is going to be any sort of priority to Parliament?

Droid - It doesn't need to go to Parliament.
Brad - How does would your recollection go? What is wrong/mistaken about Jenny P's account of events?

I don't see how someone whose identity is unknown can contradict a known individual with any credence.

 

[Ship-badger]

Come on BradW. You really need to tell us what you mean.

 

[royfellows]

Is this a daft question or why is it that some people have to post anonymously, or is it me that missing something?

I can be outspoken and my identity is there for all to see. My address is plastered all over the Internet, my email address is there on the wall at Dinas.
So what

Something likely to happen to me? There has been no bloodbath at Greengables so far


A quick ps
Newstuff I know with you, no problems.

 

[BradW]

I don't see how someone whose identity is unknown can contradict a known individual with any credence.

No?

It happens regularly here. The OP, for example, is a case in point (not just him). Why should we believe everything he (or anyone else) says? Yet lots of people do. Unless I am being singled out as it suits the "cause".

Another element I have picked up in this thread, and also elsewhere, is the use of the half-truth. If you wish to propagate a falsehood, the half-truth is by far the most effective tool to use (especially if the majority of what is written is true). Let's for the sake of argument say the "three-quarters" truth is the most effective. Or alternatively the partial truth with other inconvenient facts removed.

There have been identifiable members on this forum whose credibility has been seriously questioned, and not always with good justification - it's got nothing to do with knowing who someone is, and everything to do with dismissing the message you don't want to hear.

It's called politics. And caving politics in particular is suffering from it,  thanks in part to this sort of debate.

So let's give Linda Wilson a break.

 

[braveduck]

Linda you are totally off topic .  

 

[paul]

I don't see how someone whose identity is unknown can contradict a known individual with any credence.

No?

It happens regularly here. The OP, for example, is a case in point (not just him). Why should we believe everything he (or anyone else) says? Yet lots of people do. Unless I am being singled out as it suits the "cause".

Another element I have picked up in this thread, and also elsewhere, is the use of the half-truth. If you wish to propagate a falsehood, the half-truth is by far the most effective tool to use (especially if the majority of what is written is true). Let's for the sake of argument say the "three-quarters" truth is the most effective. Or alternatively the partial truth with other inconvenient facts removed.

There have been identifiable members on this forum whose credibility has been seriously questioned, and not always with good justification - it's got nothing to do with knowing who someone is, and everything to do with dismissing the message you don't want to hear.

It's called politics. And caving politics in particular is suffering from it,  thanks in part to this sort of debate.

So let's give Linda Wilson a break.

I have said nothing about Linda nor what others have posted.

You said:

My recollections of how things were done is that a degree of professionalism and duty was the norm, and was expected of officers. Jenny's interesting post certainly is not how I recall things. I am sure my memory is good on this.

I have nothing against users posting anonymously but where two individuals report on events which happened in the past, and they appear to be contradictory, I would tend to believe the person who I can identify as someone who was highly likely to have been there at the time rather than an individual who is not identified and I have no way of knowing if they were also present.

 

[droid]

Are you likely to know who was there, paul?

 

[braveduck]

The smoke screen gets thicker to obscure the truth .

 

[paul]

Are you likely to know who was there, paul?

No, I wasn't there myself, but I am more likely to take jenny's recollection of what happened as more likely as she is identifiable and was involved in NCA and BCA at the time in question whereas I have no idea if someone identified as 'BradW' was.

 

[royfellows]

The smoke screen gets thicker to obscure the truth .

and the people posting here who are hiding behind it