bca meeting 25/3 /2017

[cavemanmike]

How is ensuring that the required consitutional changes will be discussed at the AGM 'kicking it into the long grass'?

If you read tims review properly you will see his amendment had been edited  unlike anyone else's.
Hardly fair if you ask me

 

[Speleotron]

How is ensuring that the required consitutional changes will be discussed at the AGM 'kicking it into the long grass'?

If you read tims review properly you will see his amendment had been edited  unlike anyone else's.
Hardly fair if you ask me

And it's taken 3 years  :-[

 

[Ian Adams]

It is quite patent that the 62% of BCA members who voted ?in favour? when asked to do so in the ballot have been shafted.

The sole purpose of that ballot was to establish member?s views and to act upon them.

The members voted. There was a result.

Some people didn?t like the outcome and did what they could to frustrate the process at the expense of the majority and especially at the expense of a small number of people who worked hard and tirelessly to fulfil the desires of the majority.

I am quite certain we have all experienced situations where we didn?t get what we wanted. I am equally certain that when we lost democratically to others, we didn?t fire proverbial mortar bombs or behave like idiotic children (recent political events excepted).

Regardless of the intentions of the BCA committee, the matter is now a total shambles and the issue has become obfuscated with technicalities and (to be blunt) crap.

I know some very respectable members of the BCA who voted against the motion acquiesced and agreed to get behind the majority (which is honourable). However, a small number who had persistently sought to de-rail the process are not only now making themselves into a re-incarnation of the devil, they are bringing disrepute upon their fellow colleagues of the BCA. They are also disrespecting the view of the majority.

It is not just shameful, it is an utter disgrace.

The BCA committee should get off the fence, stop hiding behind technicalities, stop pandering to the bitching minority minority (yes, the minority of the minority) and they should stop lurking in the shadows. Grow a backbone and do what the members mandated you to do.

Stop f*cking about.

As for Tim and those other few that have worked hard to progress caving (as per the mandated vote) I would take heart in knowing the majority are with you. Keep pushing forward and ignore the BCA committee and the technicalities. You have a mandate provided by the majority ? use it. If the committee seek to discharge your position then they risk the wrath of the majority. In fact, they would risk the relevance and existence of the BCA itself.

Unless, of course, I have mis-understood the definition of democracy?

Ian

 

[cavemanmike]

 

[Brains]

Well said, extract the digit...

 

[Ian Adams]

I'm not a member of the BCA, but I have been intending to join for a while. However, I'm now questioning whether I should bother or not.

..... there's another unhappy caver.



Ian

 

[NewStuff]

Tim, that's exceptional dedication to a cause. Hats off.

But this type of underhanded tactic is why we want nothing to do with the BCA. We o my stayed in last year due to the sterling efforts of people like Tim etc.

The people (yes, I am looking for at you, Mullan, Brocklebank, Burgess) who behind these shenanigans will cause a total loss of confidence in the BCA's ability to represent our pastime as a national body. This is the beginning Ning of the end unless spines are miraculously produced from somewhere.

 

[Kenilworth]

This is the beginning Ning of the end [sic]

Of?

 

[droid]

The 'shenanigans' might have been avoided had the BCA sorted out the Constitution *before* launching the ballot.

It's a pity that none of the obviously committed people behind the campaign thought of that....

 

[NewStuff]

This is the beginning Ning of the end [sic]

Of?

The BCA.

Should this sort of thing be allowed to continue (and I can't see any reason it won't, despite good people's intentions), then the people that voted "for CRoW" will realise that it changed nothing, and the old empire builders are carrying on as usual, and that the BCA is not fit for purpose.

Now, I know you'll love that, but I'll be sorry to see it go. The idea is fine, but the current execution of it, at this point in time, is not something we will be associated with. We are a principled lot, and we don't really care what people think about us, hence we left. 

 

[Madness]

I can't personally see why the wording even needs to be changed. Of course landowners have the right to restrict access - unless that access is granted by law. No-one, as far as I'm aware trying to is trying to change this.

The tiny minority working against what has been democratically decided, are surely working against the majority. As such they are surely working against the BCA and therefore should be excluded from membership.

Perhaps at the BCA AGM someone should table a motion to exclude these individuals.

 

[braveduck]

Any democratic meeting committee or otherwise should only last as long as
the chair person of that meeting wants it to last .

 

[RobinGriffiths]

I see that one of the protagonists has today started a personal journal on AN, where presumably he can post, and is awaiting a bite. To date, no bites are forthcoming.

 

[AlanH]

Tim, that's exceptional dedication to a cause. Hats off.

But this type of underhanded tactic is why we want nothing to do with the BCA. We o my stayed in last year due to the sterling efforts of people like Tim etc.

The people (yes, I am looking for at you, Mullan, Brocklebank, Burgess) who behind these shenanigans will cause a total loss of confidence in the BCA's ability to represent our pastime as a national body. This is the beginning Ning of the end unless spines are miraculously produced from somewhere.

Newstuff,

for someone who's not even a member of BCA are you truely arrogant enough to think that your views or opinions on what decsions the BCA makes have any validity?

Alan

 

[NewStuff]

for someone who's not even a member of BCA are you truely arrogant enough to think that your views or opinions on what decsions the BCA makes have any validity

The sole point of your post is to try to scare me off the topic by using my real name, which undoubtedly you know my employer does not like, given the industry/sector I work in.

[admin]Amended back to newstuff[/admin]

You want to do caving politics? I'll debate all day. But deciding to drag my life outside of caving into this? That is low, underhanded and dirty.



If you can't argue a case on it's merit's, and have to resort to that, you have no case.

I'm not a member of the BCA anymore *because* of idiots like you desperately attempting to resist change. I would like to be a member of the BCA again, if idiots like you are removed. It's a simple concept to understand, but evidently you are significantly more simple than it is.

 

[cavemanmike]

I see that one of the protagonists has today started a personal journal on AN, where presumably he can post, and is awaiting a bite. To date, no bites are forthcoming.

If Simon has got any sense he will delete the topic (not like he hasn't done it before)

 

[royfellows]

I see that one of the protagonists has today started a personal journal on AN, where presumably he can post, and is awaiting a bite. To date, no bites are forthcoming.

Replies cannot be posted to personal journals because that is what they are, not discussion topics.

 

[zomjon]

I think it is pretty pathetic of us to turn this discussion, which has become very important to a lot of people, to being about Peter's blog. He is quite right in a way, his name should not have been highlighted on this site in the first place. That was trolling really, waiting for him to react.

 

[royfellows]

He is not even posting here but as soon as his name gets into the thread we all start falling out.

Something to think about.

 

[MarkS]

[mod]Please can we try and keep posts on the topic of the BCA meeting.[/mod]