BCA secretary gives notice of standing down

[Brains]

This is a very complex situation and throwing mud about (in my view a very apt metaphor) doesn't help. I think anybody posting should have attended meetings both of BCA and CSCC before they make comments

Perhaps those that havent attended CNCC meetings, or DCA, or anything else shouldnt comment? 
This is clearly a case of sour grapes and revenge proposals from the the CSCC, from what I have seen they care more about politics than caving  :doubt:
Rather than Matt Gary and Jane resigning, perhaps the CSCC should resign from BCA and go it alone as they so obviously want. Then they can gate, lock and concrete their local caves for their own local people?

 

[BradW]

We can only read one side of the disagreement here, so we can only make a judgment based on partial evidence.

We can read the other side of the disagreement here if you post it.

Mark

How true. Sadly I am as much in the  dark as the rest of us. Mrodoc may know something perhaps.

 

[mikem]

I think you'll find they care more about caving than they do the BCA...

Cheddar Gorge also required the setting up of a local rescue team before they allowed climbing (& the recently deceased Marquess of Bath became their patron).

BMC have produced an occupiers' liability booklet, that doesn't even mention insurance:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=944

 

[Brains]

I think you'll find they care more about caving than they do the BCA.

CSCC dont care for caving unless on their terms and f*** the rest of the country.
An empire of locked caves and a throne built from keys, padded with permits on a plinth of concrete.
If they cared for caving they would work with BCA, not against it

 

[Ed]

May be no regional council or club there of should be an access controlling body.

That way conflict of interests are avoid and regional councils can work on behalf of their members only

 

[mikem]

So who should manage access? - BCA have specifically stepped away from it in past.

It's actually mostly the landowners who insisted on caves being locked - after instances such as the scout falling 50ft down Coral Cave, because it's next to a footpath - many others are in their fields, with livestock. This hasn't always been managed in the best possible way & some cavers have got carried away with it, but it does mean the access situation is very different in Mendip to the Dales.

 

[DavidGibson]

BMC have produced an occupiers' liability booklet, that doesn't even mention insurance:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=944

That's interesting; but the reason it doesnt mention insurance might be because it explains only the occupier's duty
of care towards the visitor. It does not cover the opposite situation, where the damage is suffered by the occupier. An example would be a caver damaging a fence so that some livestock fell down an open shaft. That's what the insurance is for - (or, originally, anyway). That is: the insurance is not in case the caver sues the landowner (for "letting" him get himself injured in a cave), it is so the landowner doesnt have to go to the bother of suing the caver for the loss of his cow. (Or, at least, that is my understanding

 

[ali_mac]

So who should manage access? - BCA have specifically stepped away from it in past.

It's actually mostly the landowners who insisted on caves being locked - after instances such as the scout falling 50ft down Coral Cave, because it's next to a footpath - many others are in their fields, with livestock. This hasn't always been managed in the best possible way & some cavers have got carried away with it, but it does mean the access situation is very different in Mendip to the Dales.

Doesn't seem all that different to me - plenty of caves around the UK are on land near footpaths or land with livestock.
The locks and keys down south seem to me to be pointless empire creation. 
Where a degree of "security" is required, what is so very wrong with a Derbyshire key?

I'm a southern caver by the way.

 

[mikem]

Hi Ali,

The difference is it was originally driven by the landowners, not the cavers - they wanted to only have to deal with one entity, rather than all the separate groups.

 

[JoshW]

I'm really intrigued as to what the 14 proposals are? have I missed these somewhere?

What are the 5 new positions and 2 new standing committees they're proposing? Whilst it's highly likely they are excessive, it would be good to be able to make that judgement myself.

Is there anything stopping the BCA publishing these proposals?

 

[Oceanrower]

Hi Ali,

The difference is it was originally driven by the landowners, not the cavers - they wanted to only have to deal with one entity, rather than all the separate groups.

Why do they have to "deal" with anybody? Plenty of climbing is on private land and the owners don't "deal with anyone".

A. They allow it. Great, crack on.
B. Tolerate. Ok. Crack on discretely.
Or C. Don't allow it. Normally respected...

Why does anybody have to deal with anyone?

 

[Brains]

Hi Ali,

The difference is it was originally driven by the landowners, not the cavers - they wanted to only have to deal with one entity, rather than all the separate groups.

Same for the Peak but DCA havent locked everything in the area or put in silly permits. Only the sites that MUST be are treated this way. The Mendip attitude has been lock it first, leave it locked.
The Mendip mafia as highlighted by the clique running Dimness Underneath are very much anti caver but pro empire and control

 

[Stuart France]

BCA is now in the confused position where its members, both individual and group, have voted to abolish the group vote and to extend the individual mandate as widely as possible via electronic voting.  Yet one group, the CSCC, or some individuals therein, are trying to reverse BCA?s democratically chosen direction of travel and generally being disruptive in the eyes of many.

BCA?s constitution has no means to remove individual or groups that are unwanted for whatever reason.  Many regional councils are similarly handicapped by their own constitutions.

One solution is for the individual caver members of BCA, as they now control BCA, at least in theory, to amend its constitution to abolish the BCA group membership class.  That would remove all the regional councils etc as BCA members.  It's the logical next step after removing their vote last year and then finding some of them embark on a wrecking mission.

The regional councils would then have no formal role in BCA.  The RCs would still have operational roles within their own geographic areas but would not participate at national level except at observer or advisory level.  This would be done by deleting 5(1)(e) which grants them Full Member status (whatever that means) and by amending  8.4 to read ?Notice of any matters to be raised at a General Meeting of the Association must reach the Secretary by midnight on the day of the National Council meeting preceding the AGM.  All proposals must be signed by at least 20 Individual Members.?

This would bring other knock-on amendments that we can't expand on here, but it is one way out of the internecine warfare inside BCA short of winding up this conflicted organisation and starting afresh with a clean sheet that brings together a coalition of only the willing, positive and ambitious.

The engagement of many individual cavers with the BCA problem is desperately needed; also the attendance of large numbers of individual cavers at the next BCA AGM to make plain their displeasure with this rabble;  and vote through the agreed changes that they have planned, and vote off BCA officers with the wrong backgrounds, along with people who occupy chairs in BCA meetings but say nothing:  effectively they are representatives that stand for nothing except undermining the democratic and representational process by their silence.





 

 

[kay]

Is there anything stopping the BCA publishing these proposals?

Presumably the fact that the deadline for proposals was 3 days ago and it takes a little time to draw together all the proposals and add them to the Agenda?

 

[JoshW]

Is there anything stopping the BCA publishing these proposals?

Presumably the fact that the deadline for proposals was 3 days ago and it takes a little time to draw together all the proposals and add them to the Agenda?

Oh sweet, look forwards to seeing it

 

[Pegasus]

Well said, Kay.

....and who will be working hard putting the documents together?  That's right, Matt our soon to be ex secretary, wouldn't blame him if he put the whole lot on the metaphoric  fire, however of course he won't. Matt will treat this with his usual professionalism
Please bear with him as he is working full time, including over Easter. 

 

[mrodoc]

We can only read one side of the disagreement here, so we can only make a judgment based on partial evidence.

We can read the other side of the disagreement here if you post it.

Mark

How true. Sadly I am as much in the  dark as the rest of us. Mrodoc may know something perhaps.

A lot of this has to do with the approach to cave conservation and here, I am going to stick my neck out and say that Mendip and Welsh caves, are, on the whole better preserved. I feel I can comment on this subject having been an active caver for the last 55 years and have  visited virtually all caving areas in the UK. The worst damage seems to be for reasons that are unclear to me, in the caves of the Yorkshire Dales. I was surprised when I first visited Easegill in the 1970's how much damage there seemed to be in Easter Grotto. More recently on my first trip into GG I was amazed at the messiness of the formations en route from Main Chamber to Mud Hall.  I believe CSCC are concerned that the conservation budget is being diluted or even threatened..  I am putting my money where my mouth in and have donated funds to the purchase of jet washers by CSCC. If I had the opportunity I would love to have go at cleaning up GG with one of them! That outlines one issue where there might be differences in approach.

 

[mikem]

Why does anybody have to deal with anyone?

That's just the way it's been historically - means they have one contact if they wished to change the agreement, or needed work done on the entrance.

Of the main caves in last Mendip Underground, approximately:
35 are open
27 are landowner controlled
27 are leader trips or digs
20 are CSCC padlocks
9 are club / other group controlled
14 are denied access

So majority are not controlled by cavers

 

[mikem]

BMC have produced an occupiers' liability booklet, that doesn't even mention insurance:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=944

That's interesting; but the reason it doesnt mention insurance might be because it explains only the occupier's duty
of care towards the visitor. It does not cover the opposite situation, where the damage is suffered by the occupier. An example would be a caver damaging a fence so that some livestock fell down an open shaft. That's what the insurance is for - (or, originally, anyway). That is: the insurance is not in case the caver sues the landowner (for "letting" him get himself injured in a cave), it is so the landowner doesnt have to go to the bother of suing the caver for the loss of his cow. (Or, at least, that is my understanding

This seems to contradict your previous post - BCA includes public liability (covers caver) & landowner liability (FAQ 74)

 

[DavidGibson]

This seems to contradict your previous post - BCA includes public liability (covers caver) & landowner liability (FAQ 74)

I dont think so. I was explaining the original rationale behind needing insurance to protect access. Sure, the BCA policy is more comprehensive than that: it had to be "sold" to cavers.  I think part of the problem - the reason I used the word "millstone" - is that BCA has needed to persuade cavers that they need this insurance, without there being any really simple, clear view of "why"; and the original rationale behind it has - possibly - been lost.