BCA secretary gives notice of standing down

[mrodoc]

And just be glad you aren't in Eire where all caves are on private land and there is no right to roam and virtually no public footpaths.

 

[Alex]

This reminds me why I have a life-long pledge not to join any committee, sub committee or anything like that. Sad to see you go Matt, it looks like you were one of the sensible ones and have done so much work that we don't generally see.

I guess if things go back to where they were, I will go back to ignoring the permit system again...

 

[DavidGibson]

...incidentally, although the online FAQ says Q8: Were there ever any claims on the old BCRA policy? A: No. I think there was a claim under the old BCRA policy. I seem to remember something about a cow escaping from a field. Or perhaps my memory is confused, after all this time, and that was not an actual insurance claim,merely an "incident"?

 

[mikem]

The first post talks about landowner certificates, which cover their liability, the second one is about caver liability.

The cow would only be a claim if it was lost or injured - not if cavers repaired the damage.

 

[The Old Ruminator]

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

This sort of quote really typifies the way we on Mendip are viewed. We are all power-mad keyholders who only let our mates down " our caves ". No wonder there is such antagonism. This thread also gives the "gate bashers" a chance to spread their spite re Mendip caves and cavers. People down here work just as hard keeping caves open and mollifying landowners as people who run caving politics. Reservoir Hole and Fairy Cave Quarry are typical of the way access has been maintained. People forget that FCQ was shut to cavers for many years and only the hard work of the Management Committee have kept the caves open. I know them personally. None seem to be power-mad autocrats. The landowners require a controlled access and that's what is provided. The warden system provides some conservation control as well otherwise we go back to the bad old days of Shatter Cave with troups of junior leaders barging through. So-called wardens like me have to give up their own time and fund their own travel to keep the system going which it does very well. Part of the whole problem regarding this thread is the way some people up North view us lesser mortals down South and the spiteful way they announce it.

 

[Badlad]

But what has this view got to do with BCA and modernising democracy, transparency and the administration of the organisation?

The recent changes to regional funding was opposed by CSCC.  At BCA meetings they oppose a lot by the way, but what the regional spending did was increase 'paid on account' C&A spending from ?500 to ?750 and removed practically all the things which weren't eligible before, making more BCA money available for both conservation and access across all the regions.  Any C&A claims over ?750 now needs to go before the C&A committee for approval where as before it went before the finance committee.  CSCC sit on both so there is little difference other than bringing it into line with other committee funding.  I just never understood why they were so opposed other than for opposings sake.

The mantra I hear from the CSCC rep is always - we like things the way they are and we don't want no change.  What about the rest of the regions who do?

 

[mikem]

Unfortunately, it does seem to have reached that point, & everyone involved needs to ask themselves why?

 

[nearlywhite]

Part of the whole problem regarding this thread is the way some people up North view us lesser mortals down South and the spiteful way they announce it.

There is the 'Hunter's is the centre of the universe' attitude and that certainly wasn't helped by Hidden Mendip as it became known (we all know there wasn't any other option!). The 'lesser' mortals thing is about a very small clique who have had a hand in creating a huge amount of trouble - writing in policy into the BCA/NCA constitution, setting it up to be toothless and inert, drawing up such successful access agreements such as that D word and other welsh trouble, not to mention banning kids from caves.

The point there is, there's a lot of potential frustration that can cause, and it's not from mendip - just a very small vocal minority who attend the boring meetings the rest of caving don't go to (very poorly attended!). Mendip is great fun but it needs to rein in some of its politicians. The civil service (wardens and the like) do a fantastic job and are a large part of why it can feel like the centre of the universe. I hope that reassures you somewhat OR,

 

[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

This sort of quote really typifies the way we on Mendip are viewed. We are all power-mad keyholders who only let our mates down " our caves ". No wonder there is such antagonism. This thread also gives the "gate bashers" a chance to spread their spite re Mendip caves and cavers. People down here work just as hard keeping caves open and mollifying landowners as people who run caving politics. Reservoir Hole and Fairy Cave Quarry are typical of the way access has been maintained. People forget that FCQ was shut to cavers for many years and only the hard work of the Management Committee have kept the caves open. I know them personally. None seem to be power-mad autocrats. The landowners require a controlled access and that's what is provided. The warden system provides some conservation control as well otherwise we go back to the bad old days of Shatter Cave with troups of junior leaders barging through. So-called wardens like me have to give up their own time and fund their own travel to keep the system going which it does very well. Part of the whole problem regarding this thread is the way some people up North view us lesser mortals down South and the spiteful way they announce it.

Walks like a duck, quack likes a duck... Only spite I see is from the usual suspects of the Mendip mafia that seem to rule the roost 

 

[Fishes]

CSCC is there to support the views of its members. If their views differ from others in BCA then so be it. The same for other regional bodies.

I'm sorry if a few of the new officers are offended by this but I don't think that they should publicly comment until they have already designed as their views are their own and not of BCA as a whole. Now you will probably understand some of the shit that previous officers have gone through.

I'm not a southern caver but I do like their approach to conservation and I've never had any issue getting access on Mendip.

Lets not turn this into a public s--t throwing competition just because we have different views.

 

[nearlywhite]

Unfortunately, it does seem to have reached that point, & everyone involved needs to ask themselves why?

I think that some of the proposals were submitted with the democratic ideal of having a discussion - I don't know I haven't seen them and I'm on council. We're all a bit blindsided and there's a total lack of leadership and clarity. The groundwork certainly hasn't been done to try and convince anyone and that's likely because the meeting was cancelled. I don't think it is arguable that 8 proposals from one region and 6 from an individual who is a member of that council is plainly unfeasible at an AGM. The agenda is already very full and I can guarantee no meaningful discussion will be had. Just as a matter of procedure. There won't be time.

This, in combination with some of the emails I've seen are harassing in nature - the fact that the child protection officer sent an email round listing slights against the secretary and pleading for it to stop should be a stark warning. At the last council meeting, the chair, the likely aggrieved council member, and the cscc representative sat in a corner akin to a boxing match. The rest of the executive sat at the top table as normal. I thought it obscene. I can see (and remain to be validated by seeing these proposals) how such an aggressive rehash of old debates, impugning his character could lead to such a statement.

What this does is damage the whole of British caving and it's why only 6 people turn up at regional council meetings half the time. I don't think the people involved realise how damaging this is for anyone trying to do things, like bringing in new people into caving so that there are cavers to replace the hut wardens, treasurers and leaders when baby boom passes on.

And I'm not a new officer, this deserves to have a light shone upon it.

 

[Stuart France]

But what has this view got to do with BCA and modernising democracy, transparency and the administration of the organisation?

Answer:  nothing.

When someone posts ideas for modernising democracy, transparency and the administration of the BCA then the usual suspects immediately bury that under a pile of new postings and nobody goes back to read postings a page or two ago.  All part of the forum game.

The answer, as I said a couple of pages back, is to remove all the groups from BCA Council, especially the regional councils, and make it truly an individual member-only enterprise.  Groups would be moved to an observer/advisor status and can't then propose motions or vote.  Every single caver fed up with this faff has to engage with politics for a while to restructure the BCA.  Then leave it to some new team that understands it is responsible to the individual cavers across the whole of GB and not these regional caving councils and other intermediary bodies.

And I'm on a RCC.  But it one where the present executive know their place - serving the interests of cavers and making it easier to go caving.

 

[alastairgott]

Regional councils and other bodies have their place, you can't disenfranchise them entirely. They bring ideas to the table and are the arteries that keep each region and specific faculty going. without them things simply wouldn't get done.


I could do a python-esque "what have the regional councils ever done for us?" but I fear it would add more pages to this veritable SS.

 

[Stuart France]

They bring ideas to the table

I'm suggesting the place of regional councils is to have an advisory and observer status only on BCA, not to be in a position to determine the business and direction of BCA.  BCA's business needs to be determined and decided by individual cavers only.

 

[alastairgott]

That's your opinion Stuart.
I could bring the opinion that the council should stand around a sofa have a chat about what the business and direction of the BCA should be, pour petrol on the sofa and set it alight.
Then we wait and see which way the smoke blows to make a decision on the direction of the BCA.


We could still do that but without having the people in the room who have a vested interest in THEIR local area, then you might be left with a room of weekend warriors who don't care for any region and don't mind if they all fall into the S.
(well aware that presently the "BCA room" is filled with great people, with great ideas who want to make the BCA great again)

 

[Badlad]

During my time I?ve seen BCA bend over backwards to accommodate the CSCC concerns. Certainly members of the exec have given a disproportionate amount of time to them. What I think you need to ask is where is the compromise, where is the acceptance of democracy and why is it the CSCC way or no way?  Of course it suits CSCC to keep BCA as dysfunctional as possible hence the sort of tactics we have seen for the last few years.

 

[Fjell]

If the BCA isn?t about improving access, what other function does it have worth talking about or paying for?
I still can?t work out the purpose of the insurance. It was doubled to ?10mln apparently to cover the risk of one caver suing another. Did I get that right? What has that got to do with access? That is a huge sum for property damage considering any property is almost certainly insured already.

 

[Dave Tyson]

I still can?t work out the purpose of the insurance. It was doubled to ?10mln apparently to cover the risk of one caver suing another.

I think certain landowners wanted a higher level of cover in return for providing access. I think this was originally a sticking point in the negotiations with North Wales Wildlife Trust over access to Minera Quarry. Not sure what has happened over this as the virus has knocked access on the head anyway.

Dave

 

[Badlad]

It was more to do with a BMC claim which reached ?9 million and pre empting a general move to increase upper limits. The insurance company loves us of course.

 

[Fjell]

Would a policy just to indemnify the landowner not be vastly cheaper? What can possibly happen to them? You could buy a very large farm round here for ?10mln. In the Dales almost all caves are on CRoW land, so anything on surface is irrelevant.