BCA secretary gives notice of standing down

[alastairgott]

How many sites have Mendip got which fall into this category of open access? (ballpark to nearest 10?).

There is a thing called a CROW restriction. If there?s say ten sites you could consult with the landowners to restrict access one by one, starting with the easiest to converse with.
And then ask them whether they would like to restrict their CROW land to be restricted access with the current key arrangement. It would arguably be a better situation than currently where they could tell you to ?do one? with your keys ?not on my land you filthy animals?. It would allow you a long-standing arrangement on paper.

I don?t know, just a thought. There?s been one in Foolow not far from the BCA address in GH. But that was full lockdown. https://consult.defra.gov.uk/natural-england/open-access-restriction-at-silence-mine-2/

If there?s 10 sites you may be able to do one per month in... x amount of time.

 

[Fishes]

While we have deviated to a difference between North and South which has some bearing on the main thrust of this thread I can say this. Down here most caves are on farmland. West Country farmers have an inherent dislike of bureaucracy and feel threatened by it. We get by better by using a personal approach by local cavers. Perhaps this rubs off a bit on the way CSCC interacts with the BCA.  In any case in a democracy certain tactics are supposedly acceptable We only have to see the workings of Parliament to appreciate that. Anyway back to farmers. A major cave dig at Twin Titties on Mendip was closed precisely because the farmer thought that he was coming under pressure from national organisations who wanted to curtail his rights on his own land.

Many farmers in Derbyshire also think the same way. CROW will not directly affect access to most (if any) sites in Derbyshire but I see the whole debate setting cavers against landowners and making access to dig sites in my area more difficult.

 

[2xw]

We've had years and years (5, 6, 7?) of debate and due process as regards Crow, time to crack on.
We've been pushing for electronic voting for four years, again, time to crack out.
There's a balance to be struck between due process, proper discussion and actually getting things done, and it isn't being struck.

 

[mikem]

Don't think anyone in government is going to be worrying about it for a while...

 

[andrewmcleod]

A major cave dig at Twin Titties on Mendip was closed precisely because the farmer thought that he was coming under pressure from national organisations who wanted to curtail his rights on his own land.

Which organisation, and how did that happen?

I honestly believe that access reps in the North and South have more in common than they have differences - they are both working with local landowners to gain access to caves for cavers.

And while I'm not a fan of gating caves in general, it's easier to get a CSCC key than an OFD key...

 

[braveduck]

After the recent big vote the result seemed a little slow to come out ,so I looked on Darkness Below.
They claim to be purveyors of all the accurate caving information . They just did not publish the result.
So I wrote to them to ask the result of the ballot ,I got no response  from them at all .
I do not think you have to look far to see who is stirring this pot of trouble ! 

 

[Ed]

If a landowner insists on gating access and someone 'byeoasses' it and has an accident - landowners liability is massively increased.

Hence why many formerly land owners on open access land don't try to prevent climbing.  Yes I know I mentioned access Land but that is geography.

 

[2xw]

If a landowner insists on gating access and someone 'byeoasses' it and has an accident - landowners liability is massively increased.

Just so noone is worried and at the risk of being incredibly boring, this isn't really true. See Tomlinson 2003 and Keown 2006 as case law or PM me for an eye wateringly dull discussion of it.

BMC has a whole leaflet about it to reassure landowners of their low/negligent liability and the BCA should produce one along similar lines to be honest.

Of course, a certain circle of folks would be opposed to this and they are the same circle of people abusing Matt and holding up the BCA by actual years.

 

[JasonC]

We've had years and years (5, 6, 7?) of debate and due process as regards Crow, time to crack on.
We've been pushing for electronic voting for four years, again, time to crack out.
There's a balance to be struck between due process, proper discussion and actually getting things done, and it isn't being struck.

I don't want to mention the B word again, but it struck me this was exactly the argument Boris was putting forward at the last election (remember that?).  It seemed to work for him 

 

[crickleymal]

If a landowner insists on gating access and someone 'byeoasses' it and has an accident - landowners liability

How do you work that one out? If you bypass a gate then it's your fault not the land owner

 

[kay]

I honestly believe that access reps in the North and South have more in common than they have differences - they are both working with local landowners to gain access to caves for cavers.

This. With the caveat that "working with local landowners" may mean working with both landowner (or agent) and tenant farmer.

 

[HardenClimber3]

After the recent big vote the result seemed a little slow to come out ,so I looked on Darkness Below.
They claim to be purveyors of all the accurate caving information . They just did not publish the result.
So I wrote to them to ask the result of the ballot ,I got no response  from them at all .
I do not think you have to look far to see who is stirring this pot of trouble ! 

Ah yes, and BCRA seem to be doing their bit in pointing web traffic to Darkness Below (from their FB page)

 

[alastairgott]

This is your exclusive reporter, I can report that it is a new day today, we will report back on the midday bulletin and answer the question on everyone lips, where will the sun be.

Must have been a slow news day over at darkness, and crazy that they pointed people to their own website rather than the BCRA Board on the british-caving website. https://british-caving.org.uk/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=29

Stay indoors kids, it's sunny outside.

 

[Ed]

If a landowner insists on gating access and someone 'byeoasses' it and has an accident - landowners liability is massively increased.

Just so noone is worried and at the risk of being incredibly boring, this isn't really true. See Tomlinson 2003 and Keown 2006 as case law or PM me for an eye wateringly dull discussion of it.

BMC has a whole leaflet about it to reassure landowners of their low/negligent liability and the BCA should produce one along similar lines to be honest.

Of course, a certain circle of folks would be opposed to this and they are the same circle of people abusing Matt and holding up the BCA by actual years.

That's my point - as BMC say. If it's  natural feature you are fine. If you make a man made feature ie gate then you do have a duty of care. That is why many Dales landowners accepted Crow & opening up previously banned climbing spots ie most of Nidderdale

In McKeown liability was split. Tomlinson injury not duty to state of premise, partly as lake turned back to natural state.....


Basically if you lock it, you have to consider it may be broken in to.

Leave it natural & fine.

Mind you not sure how that applies in Mendip, what with all the dug entrances

 

[Bob Mehew]

If a landowner insists on gating access and someone 'byeoasses' it and has an accident - landowners liability

How do you work that one out? If you bypass a gate then it's your fault not the land owner

If you are trespassing then more liability falls onto your shoulders.  But not necessarily all liability.  If the land owner let's you in, then you are a visitor and a different level of liability applies.  (See Occupiers Liability Act of 1984 for persons other than visitors and of 1957 for visitors.)  That becomes more significant with an Access Controlling Body as they can hardly argue they did not know the hazards within the cave.   

 

[mikem]

& you certainly don't want to get dug entrances filed under the mines & quarries act..

 

[2xw]

None of this, importantly, has ever happened. Yet is constantly used to fearmonger, and here, as an excuse to abuse volunteers and waste members money.

 

[royfellows]

& you certainly don't want to get dug entrances filed under the mines & quarries act..

My turn now with the legal, LOL

This could not happen unless some of the material extracted was sold. This is the part of the law which distinguishes "mines" from other excavations such as a basement or cellar, or railway tunnel etc. It lies in the legal definition of a mine.

 

[mikem]

I know, but it's just one logical extension of the spectrum from naturally occurring entrances to dug shafts. Landowners tend to be more circumspect if people or animals make a habit of falling down holes, however they opened up.

 

[Ed]

The bit about Mendip and dug entrances wd tongue in cheek.... Guess folk just getting a bit tetchy