BCA legal officer - Linda Wilson? Really?

[AR]

BradW, if you are going to suggest that the account of events given by Jenny Potts earlier in this thread is incorrect then will you please explicitly state why you think this to be the case. You have complained about insinuation on this forum being used to discredit people, but you describe Jenny's account as "interesting" which comes across to me as a classic example of trying to damn with faint praise. Would you care to qualify why you have described it so?

 

[droid]

The smoke screen gets thicker to obscure the truth .

and the people posting here who are hiding behind it

here's me mirror?

 

[braveduck]

BradW is Linda Wilson .

 

[PeteHall]

BradW, if you are going to suggest that the account of events given by Jenny Potts earlier in this thread is incorrect then will you please explicitly state why you think this to be the case.

If your memory is struggling BradW,  you could try contacting the BCA library. I am sure that the librarian would be more than happy to locate the meeting minutes and reports from the time to confirm precisely what happened.

 

[BradW]

Nothing is "struggling", Pete. 

I am really not that bothered whether anyone believes me or not. This is a place where we should be free to express our views, and without being pursued to identify ourselves. The main thrust of the post that sparked this interest in my memory was the dignified way in which officers used to perform their roles, and which appears in some instances to no longer be the case.

 

[Madness]

Nothing is "struggling", Pete. 

The main thrust of the post that sparked this interest in my memory was the dignified way in which officers used to perform their roles, and which appears in some instances to no longer be the case.

Can you give us 'some instances' please Brad?

 

[royfellows]

Nothing is "struggling", Pete. 

I am really not that bothered whether anyone believes me or not. This is a place where we should be free to express our views, and without being pursued to identify ourselves. The main thrust of the post that sparked this interest in my memory was the dignified way in which officers used to perform their roles, and which appears in some instances to no longer be the case.

You obviously prefer to remain "Mr Anonymous" but without knowing who you actually are nothing you say carries any weight at all. You say your not bothered whether anyone believes you or not, so why bother posting?

 

[BradW]

Nothing is "struggling", Pete. 

The main thrust of the post that sparked this interest in my memory was the dignified way in which officers used to perform their roles, and which appears in some instances to no longer be the case.

Can you give us 'some instances' please Brad?

Ask yourself how this campaign against Linda Wilson first started (not just on UKCaving) and who is most likely to have conducted it.

 

[Madness]

Nothing is "struggling", Pete. 

The main thrust of the post that sparked this interest in my memory was the dignified way in which officers used to perform their roles, and which appears in some instances to no longer be the case.

Can you give us 'some instances' please Brad?

Ask yourself how this campaign against Linda Wilson first started (not just on UKCaving) and who is most likely to have conducted it.

I haven't got a clue, but obviously you have some name in mind. Would you like to share it with the rest of us?

 

[MarkS]

I think the word campaign is overstating things somewhat, but I suspect many of the negative viewpoints may have originated from the document on CRoW that she co-authored back in 2014 (https://www.wildplaces.co.uk/html/Alternative_view.pdf). There were (legitimate in my opinion) concerns over a potential conflict of interest in a position on the BCA on the back of that public opinion, but they now appear to have been resolved.

I have never met Linda, and my general disagreement with her viewpoint on CRoW has no influence on any opinion I may form of her outside that context. However, by publicly putting her name to a statement that does not reflect the viewpoint given by the majority of cavers that responded to the BCA ballot, some criticism aimed at her is almost inevitable. I'm sure she was well aware of that before publicly making the statement she did.

I think it is worth us all keeping reply #108 on this topic in mind.

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]

Ask yourself how this campaign against Linda Wilson first started (not just on UKCaving) and who is most likely to have conducted it.

I'm not sure what paranoid fantasy you've got cooking in your head, but I assure you, no-one "conducts" me. I say things exactly as I see them, much to the consternation of people on both sides of the issue.

It's not a campaign, it's genuine concerns that you're hell-bent on brushing off. The brushing off is part of the reason so many people are pushing this issue. LW has done a gross mis-service to the members over many years, and that needs to be dealt with.

 

[Madness]

Nothing is "struggling", Pete. 

The main thrust of the post that sparked this interest in my memory was the dignified way in which officers used to perform their roles, and which appears in some instances to no longer be the case.

Can you give us 'some instances' please Brad?

Brad, you have insinuated that an officer/officers of the BCA do not perform their roles in a 'dignified way'.

Can you elaborate please?

 

[Jenny P]

Quote from: AR on Yesterday at 09:39:13 pm
BradW, if you are going to suggest that the account of events given by Jenny Potts earlier in this thread is incorrect then will you please explicitly state why you think this to be the case.

If your memory is struggling BradW,  you could try contacting the BCA library. I am sure that the librarian would be more than happy to locate the meeting minutes and reports from the time to confirm precisely what happened.

It is because I have available the Minutes of the NCA C&A Meeting and the NCA Council Meeting I referred to (they are in the British Caving Library), that I am able to say precisely what was agreed during the original discussions on access to caves in open country prior to CRoW legislation coming into force.  The Library also has the original government consultation documents and the NCA C&A Group's response to these.  I checked every detail way back in 2014 when I first began to think something strange had happened.

All BCA Council and AGM Meeting Minutes are online so anyone can check what I have said. 

There is, as far as I am aware, only one set of Minutes from a BCA (or NCA) C&A meeting during Elsie Little's time in post and I believe these are online but I can't recall the date.  (There were only two C&A Group meetings convened by her between her taking up the post in, I think 1999 or 2000, and her death in 2013, but one set of Minutes was apparently lost.)  However, there is no record anywhere available to BCA members  that I have ever seen of any discussions relating to CRoW during her time in post; there is certainly nothing in the one set of Minutes which exist.  If the subject was ever discussed during this time, it was not during a formal minuted meeting of the C&A Group.

 

[BradW]

Ask yourself how this campaign against Linda Wilson first started (not just on UKCaving) and who is most likely to have conducted it.

I'm not sure what paranoid fantasy you've got cooking in your head, but I assure you, no-one "conducts" me. I say things exactly as I see them, much to the consternation of people on both sides of the issue.

It's not a campaign, it's genuine concerns that you're hell-bent on brushing off. The brushing off is part of the reason so many people are pushing this issue. LW has done a gross mis-service to the members over many years, and that needs to be dealt with.

OK Newstuff I hear you.

When an internal document is "leaked" (intentionally or otherwise) beyond the group it was intended for, then those
that leak it should be aware that others can also do the same thing. I wonder how far it has spread? The wording of some posts here bear a striking resemblance to something I was sent, which shortly predates this thread. Of course,
it may just be coincidence, both in timing and content. Was it orchestrated? It's not possible to say, however,
there have been plenty of opportunities for those with the means to do so to stop this damaging debate from continuing.

In conclusion, if a matter of someone's appointment is being questioned, then the only place such debate should take place is between those charged with making that appointment, and not plastered all over the internet. THAT is highly
irresponsible and shameful behaviour.

 

[braveduck]

Hiding your true identity is also irresponsible and shameful behaviour.   

 

[paul]

In conclusion, if a matter of someone's appointment is being questioned, then the only place such debate should take place is between those charged with making that appointment, and not plastered all over the internet. THAT is highly
irresponsible and shameful behaviour.

Are BCA Members not allowed to have a say in the appointment, especially with the additional information which has come to light via Jenny? This is not a BCA-specific Forum but the majority of members of this Forum are BCA Members. Having a sensible discussion (ignoring the usual "rants" etc. and ad hominen attacks) is not "plastered all over the internet".

I'm sure similar discussions were prominent on online Forums when the British Mountaineering Council decided to waste a lot of money on re-branding and ended up doing a "U Turn".

 

[BradW]

Braveduck - Oh, interesting use of the word "also" - so can we take it that you agree with me?

Paul - the document I have is addressed to council. The wider membership were not, and should not, be consulted on a decision like this that is to be made within council. Particularly one with sensitive overtones. I stand by my thinking on this. If council thought it should have wider consideration before making a decision then fine. But it didn't.

 

[Madness]

Nothing is "struggling", Pete. 

The main thrust of the post that sparked this interest in my memory was the dignified way in which officers used to perform their roles, and which appears in some instances to no longer be the case.

Can you give us 'some instances' please Brad?

Brad, you have insinuated that an officer/officers of the BCA do not perform their roles in a 'dignified way'.

Can you elaborate please?

I thought not!

 

[royfellows]

there have been plenty of opportunities for those with the means to do so to stop this damaging debate from continuing.

its you thats helping to keep it going. Thread subject was in the the minutes of the October meeting of the BCA Council, or have I missed something. Where does 'leaked reports' fit into it, its getting like the Trump dossier.

 

[NewStuff]

stop this damaging debate from continuing.

The damage has already been done by the actions of a few people, over a number of years. This is just getting it out in the open where everyone gets forced to be honest about it, and things get sorted out, one way or another. That you don't like it is your own issue, not anyone else's.

In conclusion, if a matter of someone's appointment is being questioned, then the only place such debate should take place is between those charged with making that appointment, and not plastered all over the internet. THAT is highly irresponsible and shameful behaviour.

If someone is screwing over the whole membership, and has been for years, then the whole membership gets a say. Systematically undermining and going against the wishes of the members is shameful and irresponsible. You don't get to do things behind closed doors and sweep it under the carpet. That behaviour causes these responses.