BCA 'referendum' on CRoW

[Peter Burgess]

How much ??? is it costing to find out that the answer is yes?

Well North of ?3000 and similar for the follow-up ballot. 

That money could have been spent investigating an efficient and virtually free online alternative to letters and stamps, which is what I presume this money is being used for.

 

[estelle]

Just a thought as the BCA annual renewal is only just over a couple of months away - would it be more sense to wait until after then and use the renewal to ensure that the BCA has as many email addresses as possible and up to date contact details for those not on email in order to do some sort of mainly online process rather than spending ?3k+ on a postal ballot?

 

[kdxn]

That kind of money would be better spent signing up to an electronic voting system and then all BCA members could vote on AGM issues and not just those with the money and time to attend the AGM.

 

[Bottlebank]

That kind of money would be better spent signing up to an electronic voting system and then all BCA members could vote on AGM issues and not just those with the money and time to attend the AGM.

 

[Peter Burgess]

The reason "not everyone has an email address or goes online" doesn't work, before anyone brings it up. Of our 130-ish club members, only three actually need things posted to them.

 

[Bottlebank]

The reason "not everyone has an email address or goes online" doesn't work, before anyone brings it up. Of our 130-ish club members, only three actually need things posted to them.

I agree. At the very least an online registration system where you can opt in and vote would minimise postage.

 

[Pete K]

Now ?3k sounds a lot to me personally but I'm certain that the BCA can afford to do this. Not everyone has an email address or wishes to correspond electronically. It would probably take years to get the membership details of everyone checked and updated to include an email address. To change the way cavers vote at AGM's to an online ballot would be progressive. It would however, probably require it's own postal ballot first.

I for one am pleased that my representative body is making the effort to seek the opinion of it's members and, although there is a cost involved, I support the ballot. This is an exceptional circumstance that requires an abnormal response. Once the direction of the wind is known then the decision making process can go back to BCA AGM and committees etc..

As for rolling the 2 ballots to one, I see why this makes financial sense but it would be a bit presumptuous to have a follow on 'yes' question and no 'no' question. Would there be a follow up to a 'no' majority vote?

The situation with the canoeists (and all river users) is barely comparable on the surface. Anyone with knowledge of this area knows that the right to navigate inland waters was enshrined in Magna Carta and has not been removed save for a few places. They have a law on their side and an opposition with a good PR campaign and money, they are not seeking a clarification of the law like we are. This is a poor comparison.

Well done the BCA, don't let the moaning get you down!
Come on the rest of you, surely (and hopefully) a confirmation of greater freedoms is worth the effort?

 

[Peter Burgess]

I am not moaning. Making observations and thinking of a better method for the future is not moaning. Also, spending a bit of time making it more efficient and more likely to elicit a reply (online methods tend to get better responses than posted paper ones), saves the money for something else, equally worthwhile. What difference does a few weeks or months make either way?

 

[Pete K]

Sorry Peter, I'm not really free to get into a debate, I just wanted to put a positive post up on UKCaving for a change.

As for waiting a few weeks or months - I suspect that would play exactly into the hands of one of the sides in this debate.
One word: Momentum.

 

[graham]

As for waiting a few weeks or months - I suspect that would play exactly into the hands of one of the sides in this debate.
One word: Momentum.

I have already been criticised on this, or a similar point, upthread, but it really is nonsense. This legislation has been in place for 14 years. So why will a few weeks either way make any difference to how a process might go?

It really does sound more to me like the other side of this debate are worried that too much information in the hands of the membership might go against them.

Why the rush?

 

[Peter Burgess]

Well, I think being accused of moaning does not fit into the category of a 100 percent "positive post". Of course it's good that members' views are being sought. 

One thing I don't think is clever is undue haste. It isn't urgent. We aren't all going to have our boots and helmets confiscated if we don't do it immediately. I shall still be caving with or without this process getting underway in the coming days.

 

[Pete K]

Some quality UKCaving word twisting.
Never said we need to rush things.
Never accused anyone personally of moaning (the lady doth protest too much...), just the overall tone of the topic (and frankly the site recently)
Stuff it, shall save my input for the vote.

 

[Bottlebank]

As for rolling the 2 ballots to one, I see why this makes financial sense but it would be a bit presumptuous to have a follow on 'yes' question and no 'no' question. Would there be a follow up to a 'no' majority vote?

The situation with the canoeists (and all river users) is barely comparable on the surface. Anyone with knowledge of this area knows that the right to navigate inland waters was enshrined in Magna Carta and has not been removed save for a few places. They have a law on their side and an opposition with a good PR campaign and money, they are not seeking a clarification of the law like we are. This is a poor comparison.

Two ballots into one isn't presumptuous. Given that:

2) The ballot paper will be accompanied by a summary of how BCA will proceed if the overall answer is "yes" and how it shall proceed if the answer is "no". It will also encourage members to research the issue as fully as they can and provide a link to the Act itself, but nothing else.

It's cheaper. It's a simple "if this then what" question. It may also get a better response, people wouldn't have to vote twice.

With all the canoeists PR and a campaign which has lasted many years and probably cost many thousands they still haven't persuaded the powers that be - that's the comparison. Until someone comes up with a better one it's the closest we have to an indication of how this may go.

Let's not forget if the result of the ballot is yes the BCA could be embarking on an equally long, expensive and unproductive campaign. Personally I think they have better things to do. Has anyone considered the effect of this on-going access negotiations for example?

And I agree, there does seem to be an unseemly rush but I'm inclined to feel that that's because those in favour are concerned that the initial easy sell of "right of access for all" which sounds great on the face of it will be a lot harder once people start to think in depth about what it really means.

 

[graham]

With all the canoeists PR and a campaign which has lasted many years and probably cost many thousands they still haven't persuaded the powers that be - that's the comparison. Until someone comes up with a better one it's the closest we have to an indication of how this may go.

For sure. And there are many more of them, with better PR than we'll ever have.

Let's not forget if the result of the ballot is yes the BCA could be embarking on an equally long, expensive and unproductive campaign. Personally I think they have better things to do. Has anyone considered the effect of this on-going access negotiations for example?

Shh, don't confuse 'em!

And I agree, there does seem to be an unseemly rush but I'm inclined to feel that that's because those in favour are concerned that the initial easy sell of "right of access for all" which sounds great on the face of it will be a lot harder once people start to think in depth about what it really means.

Quite right, people really do need to think through all the consequences of their actions.

As someone who negotiates with landowners, I am really not looking forward to explaining the proposed constitutional change to them. I cannot see that going well, at all.

 

[Mark Wright]

I have read everything that is available on the subject and will certainly be voting in favour of a greater freedom of access to our caves. The ?3K cost of a referendum is not that expensive in the scheme of things and I'm sure the powers that be will be looking at the pros and cons of the various methods of carrying it out and it will take as long as it takes. I'm happy to go with whatever they come up with. As Pete K says, 'This is an exceptional circumstance that requires an abnormal response'.  I don't think anyone on the 'yes' side is worried, as Graham suggests, about the available information going against them. 

If Graham is not looking forward to explaining the proposed constitutional changes to the landowners, then maybe someone else should take up that challenge.

One of the outcomes of a 'yes' vote could be that we finally get rid of the ridiculous requirement for everyone to hold insurance cover. Lets face it, its most unlikely anyone will ever make a claim and if they did make a claim its most likely the insurance company would try and wriggle out of paying (that is, after all, how they make their money) and whatever happens here will certainly result in the insurance premiums for the future being unaffordable.

The likely outcome of a 'no' vote would be that those who are so inclined would just go down the affected caves anyway without a permit as they have been doing for some time. 

I'm sure Graham and his followers will be there to keep an eye on how we look after the conservation issues that he rightly has concerns over. He probably won't be happy with the outcome but you can't please all the people all the time.

Cheers,

Mark Wright

   

 

[graham]

The likely outcome of a 'no' vote would be that those who are so inclined would just go down the affected caves anyway without a permit as they have been doing for some time. 

Some of the affected caves, maybe. Just goes to show that some people have not thought this through and have not considered the fact that this affects more than just a couple of fells in one part of the country.

I'm sure Graham and his followers will be there to keep an eye on how we look after the conservation issues that he rightly has concerns over. He probably won't be happy with the outcome but you can't please all the people all the time.

So, if I'm not happy about delicate and fragile caves being trashed because of this other people will be happy, will they?

Great.

 

[Blakethwaite]

One of the outcomes of a 'yes' vote could be that we finally get rid of the ridiculous requirement for everyone to hold insurance cover. Lets face it, its most unlikely anyone will ever make a claim and if they did make a claim its most likely the insurance company would try and wriggle out of paying (that is, after all, how they make their money) and whatever happens here will certainly result in the insurance premiums for the future being unaffordable.

Not all caves are on CRoW land, this will have no effect on the requirement to hold insurance in certain caves. Incidentally, many and perhaps most insurers pay out more in claims than they receive in premiums. The profit is made on investments made in the intervening period. Boring true but there you go... 

 

[Bottlebank]

One of the outcomes of a 'yes' vote could be that we finally get rid of the ridiculous requirement for everyone to hold insurance cover. Lets face it, its most unlikely anyone will ever make a claim and if they did make a claim its most likely the insurance company would try and wriggle out of paying (that is, after all, how they make their money) and whatever happens here will certainly result in the insurance premiums for the future being unaffordable.
 

Can't quite see why - the policy is a public liability policy which protects us against claims from third parties, not just landowners. You can choose not buy it if you want - there's no requirement to do so that I'm aware of, but I'd sooner have the cover, just in case. As an argument in favour of CRoW this is irrelevant other than it would reduce the likelihood of a claim by indemnifying us against claims from some landowners.

 

[Aubrey]

One of the outcomes of a 'yes' vote could be that we finally get rid of the ridiculous requirement for everyone to hold insurance cover. Lets face it, its most unlikely anyone will ever make a claim and if they did make a claim its most likely the insurance company would try and wriggle out of paying (that is, after all, how they make their money) and whatever happens here will certainly result in the insurance premiums for the future being unaffordable.

This is rubbish!

Many non-CROW land access agreements require that we have adequate insurance. We will loose access to these caves without the insurance.

We all hope there is never any claim but there was a claim against our club following the accident in Lamb Lair and the insurance company DID pay out. (It was before the BCA insurance scheme was introduced).

Also how many people would join BCA if it was not for the BCA insurance scheme?

 

[Jenny P]

In fact electronic ballot and voting were considered by BCA Council on 11th. but it was realised that currently BCA does not ask for email addresses as part of its registration details so we would have to start collecting this information from scratch.  This is likely to take a year or more before it could be implemented properly, including setting up suitable security precautions.  This is already in hand for the future but it isn't feasible at present and may not be until 2016.  There was a feeling that BCA needed to know the view of its members in time for the January 2015 Council meeting to know whether, or how, it should go forward on the issue of CRoW and access to caves.  After some discussion we felt this could only be done at the present time by a postal ballot.

I am involved in emailing to a club and a regional council so I am aware of the issues.  I do not have an email address for 13 out of 105 members of the club, i.e. about 12%.  I do not have an email address for 8 out of 51 individual members of the regional council, i.e. about 16%.  I have no idea what percentage of email addresses we would get out of the 5000 or so BCA individual members but it certainly isn't going to be 100% so you would still have to post some ballots.

Perhaps (just a suggestion) it could be possible to put on the ballot paper an additional question on the lines of "would you prefer an electronic ballot system if this becomes feasible in the future".  It's possible that some would prefer not to do this, even though they have email addresses.