BCA secretary gives notice of standing down

[AR]

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.

No, third party cover is not about one caver suing another. It covers a landowner or tenant against any claim made against them arising from the actions of a caver covered by the policy leading to injury against a third party, hence why it's called third party cover. The example I'd use to describe it in action (and I hope we never see happen) is if a caver leaves the lid on a shaft open and a curious member of the public manages then falls down the shaft, then they/their family sue the landowner. The landowner would then raise a claim against the BCA cover as the accident was caused by the actions of the caver, who held the third-party cover.

 

[darren]

I'm not old enough to remember, or connected enough to check.

But I believe the insurance claim mentioned in

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_Leer

Resulted in a cliam against the for runner of the BCA type insurance.

Happy to be corrected

"In 1974, an un-lifelined caver fell off a ladder in Lamb Leer Cavern, and a novice caver who was at the bottom of the ladder was badly injured, resulting in legal action against the caving club for damages"

 

[alastairgott]

I think the BMC claim was one member of the BMC belaying another, who ended up with spinal or a brain injury, making it necessary to have a comprehensive care package for the rest of their life (obviously it was not the person who was injured but the family that brought the claim). If I was the person laid out and needing care for the rest of my life, i'd want the person responsible to have insurance.


(I don't actually know the case so this is just supposition, but a likely scenario).

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.

 

[Robert Scott]

It's nice to see how, like so many internet discussions, this topic has moved on to something totally irrelevant to the original topic such as "3rd party insurance via BCA". So dear caving friends, look at the topic in the Subject line and if that ain't concerning the issue raised there then may I politely ask you to start your own thread.

 

[Fishes]

It's nice to see how, like so many internet discussions, this topic has moved on to something totally irrelevant to the original topic such as "3rd party insurance via BCA". So dear caving friends, look at the topic in the Subject line and if that ain't concerning the issue raised there then may I politely ask you to start your own thread.

I don't this this is irrelevant. Its probably the main reason most people are involved in the BCA.

 

[Fjell]

I think the subject was the BCA is pants and that it and all previous incarnations have been a bit rubbish looking after cavers interests with things like CRoW. But some people like it that way and resist change.
Something like that?
Got that point decades ago. Luckily more enlightened people in CNCC have done a really good job recently getting of the morass, and no way are we going backwards.

 

[Fjell]

And the local and overseas insurance is literally the only reason to be in BCA at the moment for anyone I cave with.

 

[cavemanmike]

I thought this thread was to discuss matt's resignation not insurance, there is a separate thread for that.
Keep on topic folks

 

[mikem]

And the local and overseas insurance is literally the only reason to be in BCA at the moment for anyone I cave with.

& for that it's fairly good value...

The whole thread has been about how we ended up in this situation.

 

[Stuart France]

I think the subject was "The BCA is pants" and that it and all previous incarnations have been a bit rubbish looking after cavers interests with things like CRoW. But some people like it that way and resist change.

So who are these people that like "being rubbish at looking after cavers' interests", and thus resist change?  Then how do we get rid of them, and for good?

The answer is to rid the BCA of Regional Caving Councils (RCCs) and the other intermediary organisations and make it into an "Individual Member Only" organisation by changing its constitution.  The Individual Members now have the sole power to bring this about.  OK, it is too late to schedule it for the 2020 AGM, if one happens at all, and it needs discussion as to the details, but let's decide on the principle now of an all-caver and caver-focused BCA and "get it done" in 2021.

I'm sure that CNCC and Cambrian won't mind being removed so long as CSCC and their stooges get the chop.  Yes RCCs could still attend BCA Council meetings to give their views and listen to others but not to propose motions and not to define national policy.

BCA should exist to represent cavers' interests and not those of vocal self-interested RCCs.  BCA won't reform itself so this needs to be imposed from the outside - i.e. you and many other cavers must engage and in great numbers.

I'm very sorry to see Matt and the others leave, but it is inevitable the same fate awaits any other would-be reformers unless there is fundamental change in BCA's constitution to provide them with a solid platform for doing good.

 

[Kenilworth]

"Modernize democracy" What a humorous phrase, whoever wrote it.

There is no such thing as a democratic club. There is no way to have large-scale engagement and agreement. That is why caving large caving organizations rely on the shiftlessness and disinterest of their membership for continued existence. If all of the membership were engaged in the workings and policies of BCA, it would long ago have shattered into a thousand bits. National organizations are inherently foolish as national boundaries do not define a patch of like circumstances or values.

From an outside perspective, the collapse of BCA has seemed overdue for some time, for the reasons already mentioned in this thread and more.

I acknowledge that there may be egomaniacal villains among the group the bulk of this forum view as the enemy. That group also seems, however, to have a monopoly on a certain kind of wisdom that I find very attractive. Of course I am an "anti-caving" caver, whose values are probably foreign more even than theirs. It is important to remember though, that this does not make me, or anyone with convictions radically different from your own, an evil person. It is well, whenever possible, to give each other credit for trying to do our best.

I have found that it takes large measures of work and restraint and humility and sacrifice and love to do what often appears to the world simply as spiteful tyranny. Think more carefully.

 

[NewStuff]

I've said for a while that despite the stellar efforts of a few, the BCA needs to be turned into ashes and started anew - The CSCC is doing just great on the former part of it. I suspect they're banking that no-one will want to start something from scratch, and they'll get exactly what they want, as they're used to when they throw a tantrum, much like a spoiled child.

So, wwhy don't we start a United Kingdom Caving Council or similar, no issue with BCA copyright shenanigans, design it as a modern fit-for-purpose organisation designed to further it's members intrests, not serve as a personal vehicle for the aggrandisement of a few. Let them try to struggle on with the BCA in the fashion they want to know it, with massively depleted numbers and an insurance nightmare.

If there's the will to do this, If I can help further it, feel free to call me to back this up. If the CSCC wants to take it's ball home so no-one else can play - let them, We'll bring our own ball.

 

[Stuart France]

The BCA needs to be turned into ashes and started anew - The CSCC is doing just great on the former part of it.

I?d like to clarify something that perhaps some cavers at large don?t yet understand.

You might well think that when we cavers voted to change the voting system for AGMs at the 2019 AGM so that the two-house system was abolished and subsequently only individual cavers can vote now at AGMs that this has somehow fixed the BCA problem.  It hasn?t.  It has only done half the job that is needed.

The old two-house voting system still applies to BCA Council meetings.  It works like this.  There are 29 voting members on BCA council of which only 2 are ?Individual Caver Reps?.  The other 27 are ?Club Reps? plus Groups like BCRA, William Pengelly Trust, Regional Councils, Scouts, Caving Instructors etc, and BCA's officers.  The list goes on and on.  In theory these Groups and Officers can outvote the Individual  Caver Reps 27 to 2 on BCA Council.  You don't need me to tell you how many of the officers are or have been CSCC personnel, including the BCA chairman.

What happens at Council meetings is that when a serious bun fight starts up between various Regional Councils, almost invariably involving the CSCC, then the other more level headed people sat around the table try to calm it all down or steer it towards a compromise.  But CSCC don't give up and it all happens again at subsequent meetings which is why decent folk like Matt, Gary and Jane just give up.  I too feel the need to share (or halve) the nightmare of attending these BCA council meetings via a jobshare with the Cambrian Secetrary.

What I proposed yesterday about abolishing all Groups within BCA and thus making BCA into a caver-only organisation has in effect already been achieved as far as AGMs goes, except that the wretched Groups are still members of BCA and so they can propose motions and influence business at AGMs even if they can?t vote now in AGMs on the hayhem they?ve proposed!  That regrettable aspect can be fixed by completely abolishing Groups as BCA members of course.

Abolishing all Groups as BCA members needs a significant constitutional change which will also solve the problem of the lipservice paid to individual caver representation on the BCA Council - its management body - as there just won?t be any Groups on Council anymore to wag the dog by its tail to the detriment of individual cavers' interests.

So I think the next step must be to set up a BCA Restructuring Group comprising like-minded CIMs and DIMs only (i.e. BCA?s club individual member and direct individual members) which is totally independent of the present BCA machinery to work out what constitutional changes will be needed to restructure the BCA on the lines set out above and get those changes put to a vote the 2021 AGM.  We would, in the process, identify the very people who would stand for elected positions on the New BCA and lead it in the coming decade.

I'm suggesting that we the cavers take over and redefine our BCA rather than burn it to ashes.

 

[Alex]

To me it sounds like its the CSCC that need abolishing.

 

[andrewmcleod]

The BCA needs to be turned into ashes and started anew - The CSCC is doing just great on the former part of it.

The old two-house voting system still applies to BCA Council meetings.  It works like this.  There are 29 voting members on BCA council of which only 2 are ?Individual Caver Reps?.  The other 27 are ?Club Reps? plus Groups like BCRA, William Pengelly Trust, Regional Councils, Scouts, Caving Instructors etc, and BCA's officers.  The list goes on and on.  In theory these Groups and Officers can outvote the Individual  Caver Reps 27 to 2 on BCA Council.  You don't need me to tell you how many of the officers are or have been CSCC personnel, including the BCA chairman.

I wouldn't disagree that BCA Council is a somewhat unwieldy beast that could do with some trimming, but some of this isn't entirely accurate.

There are actually 4 individual representatives. There are four 'club' representatives but while they are supposed to represent the interests of clubs in general they don't represent any club in particular so they aren't really dissimilar to the individual representatives. The three executive positions, the P&I officer and the four standing committee chairs also get a vote. So there are 8 core 'BCA' votes and 8 votes given to interested cavers (the club and individual reps) all from people elected at the AGM.

The only true 'group' votes are the five regional councils and the eight 'constituent bodies', which is 13 votes. So if the core BCA elected positions and the elected representatives vote together, they will outnumber the groups. In practice, despite endless bickering and arguing, the votes are usually fairly one-sided...

There is certainly an argument for streamlining, however...

As for creating a new group, that was already done and is the purpose of the Vision group. It is, however, currently suffering from a lack of volunteers or time from the volunteers it does have (myself being very guilty here).

 

[Andy Sparrow]

The BCA would seem to be a house divided.  Having thought it over these seem to be the issues that cause that division:

Generational
My generation, born in the 50s & 60s, have been prominent at the helm of British Caving for decades.  Most of now don't cave so much (if at all) but feel protective of our legacy.  We feel we have a deeper understanding of issues than the incoming generation, that ideas and changes that may seem superficially beneficial conceal threats to our caves and our freedom to explore them.

Regional
The Dales are riddled with naturally open cave entrances.  There is a traditionally rebellious attitude towards distant, aristocratic landowners and a groundswell feeling that the hills and the caves below them belong to everyone.  On Mendip most caves are on private land.  Most systems were dug into and are gated at the request of the landowner.  Access to the caves depends on caver/landowner relations.  Hence the great north/south civil war over CROW.

Conservation versus access or caves versus caving
There is a spectrum and we are all on it somewhere.  At one end is the caver who enjoys the physical challenge, adventure and camaraderie of caving but has no great interest in the caves themselves.  At the other extreme is the speleologist for whom the cave is a precious and delicate time capsule.  Some people love caving and some people love caves, but the former isn't always beneficial to the latter. 
We're all mostly in the middle of the spectrum, but yet far enough apart for issues like the Draenen second (third & fourth) entrance debate and CROW to precipitate civil war.

Amateur v Professional
BCA represents both amateur and professional caving.  A high proportion of BCA time and resources  is diverted to the management of BCA caving award schemes.  Many older cavers view the professional arm of BCA with deep suspicion.  This is because of long held concerns that landowners or government might use the award scheme to regulate and restrict our access to caves.  Some older cavers feel that BCA should function as a watchdog over the professionals and this is why the post of BCA Training Officer has been held by some older Mendip based cavers.

This one actually can be solved!  There is both a complete and a partial solution.

Complete Solution ? Abolish all the BCA award schemes.  The professional arm will have no choice but to create their own organisation to run the awards. 

Partial Solution ? Keep the CIC scheme and abolish LCMLA.  The outdoor industry doesn't need LCMLA because they have an easy opt out ? statements of competence (SOC) written by CIC holders.  I used to be an LCMLA trainer/assessor but I now only offer bespoke training and SOCs.  I have observed in recent years that in my area (Mendip) the number of candidates progressing through LCMLA has fallen in proportion to the uptake in SOC to the extent that it's no longer worth jumping through the hoops required to maintain trainer/assessor status.  I suspect that based on this trend LCMLA will be unworkable in the southern region within a few years, and that other regions may follow.  Actually I prefer SOC to LCMLA ? it's more bespoke, more flexible, more customer friendly and much less bureaucratic.

 

[Fishes]

If the BCA isn?t about improving access, what other function does it have worth talking about or paying for?

The only reason I and many other cavers have been BCA members is access to its insurance scheme. Access is sorted out by local cavers, clubs and regional bodies. None of the landowners I have dealt with would even consider dealing with outsiders from a national body.

 

[DavidGibson]

The three executive positions, the P&I officer and the four standing committee chairs also get a vote. So there are 8 core 'BCA' votes

...although the Chairman's vote is only a casting vote.

 

[Cavematt]

Fishes and Fjell; Without wanting to get too defensive of the organisation I will be stepping down from in Autumn, it is important to remember that the BCA provides most of the funding to our Regional Councils, who in turn organise/coordinate/encourage a lot of the access, conservation, anchoring and training events in their own regions. I would love to think that people join the BCA in the interests of 'paying their bit' towards all this work.

For example, in my own northern region, the BCA funded all the anchors the CNCC needs to see a continuation of the anchor scheme for the next several years (?4500). The BCA funds a large amount of the CNCCs conservation initiatives too, and the CNCC is now looking forward to a new series of training opportunities for cavers, which will also be BCA funded. The CNCC, like many other regional councils has no other source of income other than donations, so relies on BCA to cover its costs.

Every regional council benefits from BCA funding, and most cavers in turn benefits in some way from the work of regional councils. You'd have to have had a fairly sheltered life as a caver not to have in some way benefited from BCA funds at some point, even if indirectly.

The BCA also funds work directly such as the ongoing work to better understand radon and work to maintain the British Caving Library. We help to fund national events such as Hidden Earth, and charities such as Ghar Parau, as well as supporting student clubs and other events/initiatives and promoting caving. Furthermore, BCA funds are currently being used to support a national initiative to challenge the decision of a Government body to exclude caving from its review of countryside access (which will costs many ?1000s).

Therefore, I have always proudly paid my ?17 per year into the BCA kitty in return for membership, knowing that this is going back out to support caving all over the UK and that I am supporting the body that is delivering this funding. For the first year in a long time the BCA will be spending more money than it receives! The insurance, to me, is simply a great additional benefit of membership. Since June, I have been trying hard to encourage more people around to this way of thinking.

I'm just so dismayed that an organisation that can do so much good is being undermined by a small minority, with coordinated attacks and blockades against anyone who shows some glimmer of enthusiasm to make things better.

 

[Mike Hopley]

That's a thoughtful post by Andy. It's helpful to have someone making those points in a calm and rational way.

Most of now don't cave so much (if at all) but feel protective of our legacy.  We feel we have a deeper understanding of issues than the incoming generation, that ideas and changes that may seem superficially beneficial conceal threats to our caves and our freedom to explore them.

This is a valid point. I hope that regardless of cavers' differing views on access, we can all agree that cave conservation is important.

Nevertheless, political skulduggery and personal vendettas are not the way to pass on your legacy. To be clear, I'm not accusing you personally of anything (and you don't seem the type), but there does seem to be a good deal of scheming and toy-throwing going on.

It won't be that many decades before all the cavers of your generation are dead. The future belongs to the young, and you cannot protect your legacy by trying to control it. Think longer-term.

The way to pass on your legacy is to cooperate with the next generations of cavers. Remain their friends, not their enemies. If you make people perceive you as crusty power-mad bastards, they won't listen to a word you say. You cannot persuade people who aren't listening. Then your experience, knowledge, and wisdom will die with you.

Accept that some things will change, accept that the choices of the future are not yours to make, and become mentors not manipulators.