BCA membership (Split from "How many caving clubs, and how many caves?")

[Madness]

When I used to practice a particular martial art there were two national bodies. Some martial arts clubs/ associations recognised and were affiliated to one governing body, the remaining clubs/associations recognised and were affiliated to the other governing body.

Both national bodies offer various benefits to affiliated clubs, such as insurance and grants for equipment. In exchange we obviously paid them a subscription.

I think that the current perceived 'lack of action' by the BCA could lead to a similar state of affairs occuring whereby a second UK national caving body is formed. If this body were to offer a similar public liability insurance scheme, the same funding of bolting/conservation/restoration work, and have actively campaign for CRoW to apply to caving, then I think the BCA could lose enough support to make it ineffective as an organisation.

I hope this doesn't happen as I doubt that it would be benefitial to UK caving in the short term (Long term who knows?).

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.

 

[Ian Adams]

It's a shame that this has reflected badly on BCA, which is trying to follow on with the majority of members' wishes, as expressed by the ballot. 

It doesn?t seem to be. It is pandering to a minority of the minority who appear hellbent on de-railing the process (and are succeeding)

However, as a democratic organisation it really can't just ride roughshod over all dissenters but has to try to persuade them to see that theirs is a minority view and therefore the majority have to prevail.

No. They have an absolute duty to the majority whether the minority like it or not.

Ian might find it worth remembering that much of the infrastructure which all cavers rely on is supported by funding from BCA.

That sounds very dangerously like the majority are being held to ransom.  It is also a conflation and has no place in this debate.

BCA needs your support to be able move forward and it's sad if this support is removed, just when it is most needed.

No it doesn?t. It has a clear mandate already.


I am sorry you made this post Jenny.


Ian

 

[Simon Wilson]

It's a shame that this has reflected badly on BCA...

Ian might find it worth remembering that much of the infrastructure which all cavers rely on is supported by funding from BCA.  Access and conservation costs in the regions are funded by BCA -... ... rebuilding walls, installing stiles, etc.  All these things benefit all cavers, ... ... - but BCA funds them.

Likewise, BCA funds all bolt installation done by regional groups by providing or funding the necessary bolts and resin. 
...

So just bear in mind that the freedoms you enjoy to go caving when and where you like with your friends are underpinned by the efforts of other cavers whose efforts are, in turn, supported financially by BCA.

But Jenny, the deluge of criticism that the BCA is under at the moment is not about funding, it is about the dysfunctioning of the BCA in political and organisational terms.

 

[Vulcan]

I have a lot of respect for those who are involved with the BCA (Having been on the committee of a small caving club I know how hard it is organise the club and get the committee to agree on things) and are thankful for the effort they put in. And the funding/PI insurance they provide is very useful.

But it is mad it has taken a year plus (so far) the change a single sentence over a technically in the wording. Why couldn't the BCA just continued campaigning while changing the constitution at the same time as the majority of its members were in favour of them campaigning? 

The current situation reminds me of the scene in Monty Pythons Life of Brian where the Peoples front of Judea have a meeting to discuss taking action while Brian is being crucified.

 

[alastairgott]

Don't you mean the Judean people's front?

 

[Ian Adams]

Or the Popular front?  (splitters!)

Good analogy Vulcan.



Ian

 

[Jenny P]

But it is mad it has taken a year plus (so far) the change a single sentence over a technically in the wording. Why couldn't the BCA just continued campaigning while changing the constitution at the same time as the majority of its members were in favour of them campaigning? 

But BCA has been campaigning!  As I said in my earlier post, a great deal of quiet work has been going on behind the scenes while BCA has also been publicly promoting conservation, as it was asked to do at the last AGM.  The problem is that "officialdom" doesn't want to change what it claims is the status quo in law: the daft bit about "caving on CRoW land is already permitted in open shafts or large mountainside entrances in daylight - as long as you don't go into the dark!"  They insist that this is the correct interpretation of the law as it stands.  BCA has to overcome this silliness and it is already doing all that it can to change this interpretation of existing law.

Tim Allen has already done a sterling job in promoting caving and the idea of CRoW including caves to MPs, in newspapers and via other media contacts in an effort to persuade MPs to direct their civil servants to change their interpretation.  Other members of BCA Council are also doing what they can to take us forward, although their efforts perhaps haven't had the same publicity as Tim's.  BCA has not stood still on this during the last year but it has some vociferous critics who play with words, which is why there are constitutional amendments in hand at this coming AGM to prevent this nonsense and remove the excuses they keep coming up with.

But what you have to realise is that some of the nay-sayers have their own tame MP and a local paper which promotes their view and they also make use of "contacts" they have amongst those in "officialdom".  These people are waging a "dirty war" against the majority view of BCA members and making a fuss out of all proportion to their numbers.

 

[zomjon]

Well said, Jenny, we should all appreciate and support the hard work and dedication that you are all putting in. Saying that you are going to leave BCA over this issue does not help the cause at all, as many of us as possible need to be seen as singing from the same hymn sheet!

 

[shotlighter]

But it is mad it has taken a year plus (so far) the change a single sentence over a technically in the wording. Why couldn't the BCA just continued campaigning while changing the constitution at the same time as the majority of its members were in favour of them campaigning? 

Snip

But what you have to realise is that some of the nay-sayers have their own tame MP and a local paper which promotes their view and they also make use of "contacts" they have amongst those in "officialdom".  These people are waging a "dirty war" against the majority view of BCA members and making a fuss out of all proportion to their numbers.

Surely such a "dirty war" campaign to usurp the democratically mandated position of the BCA, is an attempt by the perpetrators to bring the BCA into disrepute. Does not the BCA have suitable sanctions (and the will) to deal with this?

 

[langcliffe]

But what you have to realise is that some of the nay-sayers have their own tame MP and a local paper which promotes their view and they also make use of "contacts" they have amongst those in "officialdom".  These people are waging a "dirty war" against the majority view of BCA members and making a fuss out of all proportion to their numbers.

This, of course, they are entitled to do, and good luck to them if they are not members of Council. It would, however, be morally reprehensible if they were to campaign against Council policy whilst being members of the Council.

 

[alastairgott]

who are the big shots which you refer to?
"The likes of Mullan, Brocklebank and Burgess" and have they not got the backbone to answer their side of the story (or deny involvement) of what they've been up to? [if anything]

 

[Ian Adams]

  These people are waging a "dirty war" against the majority view of BCA members.

So the BCA should act to stamp it out, not pander to them.

Ian

 

[Brains]

who are the big shots which you refer to?
"The likes of Mullan, Brocklebank and Burgess" and have they not got the backbone to answer their side of the story (or deny involvement) of what they've been up to? [if anything]

I feel I must point out that the three mentioned, AFAIK, have no way to reply to any allegations set out on this forum. Therefore nothing should be read into the lack of response on this subject.

(For the record my stance is pro access, and I choose not to make further comment at this time)

 

[alastairgott]

ah well, news travels fast sometimes, either they're "lolling" at home watching the internet feed of the "underlings" while they take their snuff, smoke their pipes and get their big tables out with croupiers rakes to move around their army pieces.

or they're wishing they could reply.

ah well, I'm sure if they're so baited by this then they'll get a tame underling to post on for them. but we should be so lucky to get an ounce of their time while they act "for the greater good!"

 

[Vulcan]

But it is mad it has taken a year plus (so far) the change a single sentence over a technically in the wording. Why couldn't the BCA just continued campaigning while changing the constitution at the same time as the majority of its members were in favour of them campaigning? 

But BCA has been campaigning!  As I said in my earlier post, a great deal of quiet work has been going on behind the scenes while BCA has also been publicly promoting conservation, as it was asked to do at the last AGM.  The problem is that "officialdom" doesn't want to change what it claims is the status quo in law: the daft bit about "caving on CRoW land is already permitted in open shafts or large mountainside entrances in daylight - as long as you don't go into the dark!"  They insist that this is the correct interpretation of the law as it stands.  BCA has to overcome this silliness and it is already doing all that it can to change this interpretation of existing law.

Tim Allen has already done a sterling job in promoting caving and the idea of CRoW including caves to MPs, in newspapers and via other media contacts in an effort to persuade MPs to direct their civil servants to change their interpretation.  Other members of BCA Council are also doing what they can to take us forward, although their efforts perhaps haven't had the same publicity as Tim's.  BCA has not stood still on this during the last year but it has some vociferous critics who play with words, which is why there are constitutional amendments in hand at this coming AGM to prevent this nonsense and remove the excuses they keep coming up with.

But what you have to realise is that some of the nay-sayers have their own tame MP and a local paper which promotes their view and they also make use of "contacts" they have amongst those in "officialdom".  These people are waging a "dirty war" against the majority view of BCA members and making a fuss out of all proportion to their numbers.

Apologises - I somehow completely missed that.

As I said before I have a lot of respect for those who do get involved with the BCA and are thankful for the effort they put in on our behalf.

 

[Badlad]

[admin]As names have been mentioned on here I will say the following. Both the user names of 'Graham' and 'Bottlebank' are permanently banned from this forum. This is due to breaching forum rules and repeatedly ignoring warnings. It is not about politics but how they chose to conduct themselves. They are unable to post in response so it is unfair to refer to them. User name 'Peter Burgess' has never been banned or moderated and is free to post. Users do not get banned from this forum because of their politics, only their behaviour. There has been little change in ban policy or number of bans since we took over administration of the forum. Those that are banned come from both sides of the political spectrum.[/admin]

 

[NewStuff]

Long time viewers will "know" me well enough that I wont shy away from naming names. I also call them out in other places where they can respond, I certainly don't reserve my gobby way of conducting myself for here, I'm the same on any forum and in person.

However, I won't make any further references to Mullan or Brocklebank. Burgess on the other hand, seems quite content to post on another forum which is quite specific in that it does not get involved in issues like this, and in a manner that means replies cannot be made. He's made himself fair game.

https://www.aditnow.co.uk/Community/viewtopic.aspx?p=178650#msg178650

 

[droid]

You are considerably less gobby on AditNow.

Mind, so am I  :-[

 

[Madness]

Long time viewers will "know" me well enough that I wont shy away from naming names. I also call them out in other places where they can respond, I certainly don't reserve my gobby way of conducting myself for here, I'm the same on any forum and in person.

However, I won't make any further references to Mullan or Brocklebank. Burgess on the other hand, seems quite content to post on another forum which is quite specific in that it does not get involved in issues like this, and in a manner that means replies cannot be made. He's made himself fair game.

https://www.aditnow.co.uk/Community/viewtopic.aspx?p=178650#msg178650

Mr Burgess is a crafty old bugger. He starts a journal on Aditnow so that he can criticise who he likes and no-one can post a response.

He uses the words trolling and argument to describe UKCaving. Talk about the pot calling the kettle.

It's about time he grew up.

 

[cap n chris]

Mr Burgess is a crafty old bugger. He starts a journal on Aditnow so that he can criticise who he likes and no-one can post a response.

Who did he criticise?