BCA legal officer - Linda Wilson? Really?

[Pitlamp]

Well, I hope no-one thinks my most recent post above amounted to a "personal attack" on anyone, because it certainly wasn't.

To be honest though I despair at the tone of some of the posts above; I just wish people would write more about actually going caving. We've recently identified a need to try and encourage more youngsters into our pastime. Perhaps that thought should be borne in mind each time forum members hit the keyboard, so it may influence the way we write?

Madness; you mentioned that Linda Wilson is a forum member - but I think you misunderstood me. The point I was making is that if anyone is banned from this particular forum (even for perfectly good reasons) then they can't participate in BCA-related matters via this forum. Therefore use of this forum for BCA business can't be representative of BCA membership. I was only speaking generally and I don't particularly want to become involved in individuals' own affairs. I wasn't criticising anybody - just pointing something out.

Thanks for correcting me Badlad about BCA having its own forum. Perhaps BCA officers could usefully encourage us ordinary members to make more use of it?

(Damn - spotted a typo, so I'll have to "modify" this post as well. Sorry, awaiting delivery of new glasses from Specsavers.)

 

[adam]

If you, Sir, are suggesting for one second that ANY of this should be kept secret, then I suggest you take a hard look at yourself.

Sir Bradley Wiggins?  :bow:

 

[droid]

I've been subject to personal attacks.

Ask me if I'm bothered: attacks from people that don't know you, and don't bother to read posts properly are trivial.

 

[NewStuff]

Same camp as Droid, not really that bothered by it when it happens. If you remember that there is slim to no chance they would say this to your face, it puts it all in perspective.

 

[royfellows]

Same camp as Droid, not really that bothered by it when it happens. If you remember that there is slim to no chance they would say this to your face, it puts it all in perspective.

Like

 

[Badlad]

I try to rise above it all and mostly succeed.  I think every now and again it is worth making a point of it to those who you are volunteering for.  See here for a statement I read out to the BCA council meeting in October 2016.  It didn't get minuted for some reason, other than the fact I made a statement, here it is in full;

"Very briefly I would like to take you back to a meeting of the Cave Research Group in 1949.  This is at the time of the establishment of the first National Parks under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (NPAC).  Here the group are recommending to individuals that they lobby MPs, as the group has done itself, for cave access under the Access to the Mountains Bill.  They state, ?Although we are interested in being able to walk across the country-side to the entrances of caves, our prime objective is to be able to gain access freely to the caves?.

In 1976 the National Caving Association (NCA) and the BMC working with the Central Council for Physical Recreation instigated a statement on access which clearly backed public access for both outdoor recreations and highlighted how voluntary agreements weren?t working as intended by NPAC.

1n 1998 the NCA made a detailed response to the consultation paper on the CRoW Act.  Despite what others have said since it is clear from the actual submission that the NCA supported the inclusion of caves and caving in the Act.

When the CRoW Act was introduced, Michael Meacher, Minister for the Environment, stated in the House of Commons that the Bill, ?finally achieves the aims and aspirations of the great post-war Labour legislation the NPAC, fulfilling the yearnings of the British people?for full rights of access to the beauties of the countryside?.and finally bringing to reality the dream of Lloyd George that nobody should be a trespasser in the land of their birth.?  He went on to remind the house that, ?the decision to legislate has been supported by very substantial majorities in the responses to extensive consultations and opinion polls.?

The public majority was reflected in BCAs own poll of December 2014 when members gave a clear mandate for BCA to campaign for cave access under CRoW.  BCA Council has very much supported that position but a minority has worked tirelessly to undermine it.

There have been, for example, a number of unwarranted comments made about my BCA role at the AGM, that I was ?running around like a loose cannon?, ?upsetting landowners?, and much worse on social media by certain individuals ? I?m sure you all know who.  There is an obvious attempt by some opposed to CRoW to cast doubt on my integrity and to undermine my position with these assertions - for their own ends and no one in the BCA should be fooled by it.  I would like to emphasise that since I became CRoW Liaison Officer I have reported my plans in advance to Council as my report to the October meeting a year ago clearly shows.  And I have reported in lengthy detail, far too lengthy detail on my actions on behalf of BCA.  All and I repeat ALL of these have been accepted by council and anything contentious approved by vote ? unanimously.  I ask you not to be swayed by the lies of a few individuals.
Thank you."


Being accused of "riding rough-shod over the BCA constitution" and play ground name calling I sadly have to take.  The worst perhaps when friends try to support me and are accused of being paedophiles of some sort on other social media.  Even after this statement rumours were being spread on facebook of how I was deceiving the BCA membership because I wasn't actually an officer.  On it goes - throw enough mud and some will stick.  Keep doing it and even those at the top believe it.  Caving politics can be a tough old game - no wonder there are few volunteers
.....and I expect this thread hasn't revealed the worst of it yet.

 

[thomasr]

Their you are then. Is it any wonder contributors in both camps wish to remain annonymous .  Like angry colonels [ retired ]  tunbridge wells . Some little details however could do no harm ie  did they attend a good university , guardian or mail reader maybe  buying  multigrain loaf at waitrose  or white slced at tesco Then maybe we could get a measure of them 

 

[Robert Scott]

Their you are then. Is it any wonder contributors in both camps wish to remain annonymous .  Like angry colonels [ retired ]  tunbridge wells . Some little details however could do no harm ie  did they attend a good university , guardian or mail reader maybe  buying  multigrain loaf at waitrose  or white slced at tesco Then maybe we could get a measure of them

 

[Fulk]

I guess I'm getting a feeling of d?ja vu here . . . but I still don't understand why any caver would want to oppose open access to caves to be included under CRoW.

 

[alastairgott]

...and i expect this thread hasn't revealed the worst of it yet.

I think your bang on the money there. But there are people out there who are aware of monkey business.

 

[ZombieCake]

I'm listening to Zombie by the Cranberries while reading this thread and other UK Caving stuff.  Bit abstract, but seems strangely and oddly suitable.

RIP Do'R

 

[mikem]

I guess I'm getting a feeling of d?ja vu here . . . but I still don't understand why any caver would want to oppose open access to caves to be included under CRoW.

Because they worry that it will stop cavers being able to dig (how many landowners are going to be happy giving permission when they know it might increase the number of people accessing their land).

Mike

 

[BradW]

Their you are then. Is it any wonder contributors in both camps wish to remain annonymous .  Like angry colonels [ retired ]  tunbridge wells . Some little details however could do no harm ie  did they attend a good university , guardian or mail reader maybe  buying  multigrain loaf at waitrose  or white slced at tesco Then maybe we could get a measure of them

Guardian? Yes
Mail? Yes
Waitrose multigrain? No but Sainsbury's Multigrain Yes. White Sliced Tesco? Yes. Hope that helps you, Thomasr. 

 

[Fulk]

Oh dear ? I went to modify that post and delete 'right-minded', but it seems that I somehow failed to do so.

Heck, I don't know what's going on here; when I signed in this morning I found my original post that had 'right-minded' before cavers, but I thought I'd deleted that. It now seems that I have, and somehow the 'old' post came up first thing ? heaven knows why.

 

[Fulk]

Because they worry that it will stop cavers being able to dig (how many landowners are going to be happy giving permission when they know it might increase the number of people accessing their land).

I'm sure that this has been done to death somewhere on the forum, but I've manged to miss this line of reasoning, so apologies for bringing it up (again) ? but surely if diggers find a nice new cave, then cavers will want to go and visit it with or without CRoW.

 

[JasonC]

Fulk - you may come to regret poking a stick into this hornet's nest.... 

But I think the argument is that a landowner on Access land is less likely to grant permission to dig if s/he knows that any finds will attract extra traffic from cavers who have  a right to access rather than having to seek the landowner's permission.

Personally, I'm not convinced of the strength of this argument - some landowners may react like this, others won't, no doubt it will depend on personalities of all involved - nor are the majority of the BCA, hence our current position.

But whether or not the BCA's position on CRoW turns out to be a good or bad thing, it doesn't excuse the sort of nasty personal attacks Badlad describes - shame on those responsible!

 

[BradW]

it doesn't excuse the sort of nasty personal attacks Badlad describes - shame on those responsible!

Agree with that, Jason.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Because they worry that it will stop cavers being able to dig (how many landowners are going to be happy giving permission when they know it might increase the number of people accessing their land).

I am surprised that no one has yet pointed out that paragraph 1(l) of Schedule 2 of the CRoW Act explicitly prohibits persons from ?intentionally removes, damages or destroys any plant, shrub, tree or root or any part of a plant, shrub, tree or root,?.  So that effectively stops any digging on CRoW access land without getting permission.  Mikem?s concern applies equally to any prospective cave location whether it be on or off CRoW access land.

 

[Fulk]

Thank you Jason for clarifying that point.

 

[Rhys]

Fulk - you may come to regret poking a stick into this hornet's nest.... 

But I think the argument is that a landowner on Access land is less likely to grant permission to dig if s/he knows that any finds will attract extra traffic from cavers who have  a right to access rather than having to seek the landowner's permission.

Personally, I'm not convinced of the strength of this argument - some landowners may react like this, others won't, no doubt it will depend on personalities of all involved - nor are the majority of the BCA, hence our current position.

I was always of the view that if a landowner allows digging, they won't be bothered about general caver access - after all, the disruption and mess is often more during digging that the routine tourist visits that follow. I voted for CROW to be recognised for caving on that basis.

What we're seeing at the new Twll Du entrance to Ogof Draenen is a worrying development which I think is potentially damaging to the hopes of CROW ever being recognised for caving. Some cavers have been asserting on the forum that this new hole, which was covertly dug without permission, now has a right of access attached to it thanks to CROW. Surely this couldn't be what the law was intended for? Effectively, it means that you can dig anywhere you please on CROW land without permission and once the hole is open, the landowner can do nothing about it. There seems to be a legal absurdity here. We've all been told that CROW doesn't give a right to dig, but in practice that seems to be the outcome here.

[all this is of course ignoring the protected monument issue, which is a further complication!]

Rhys