BCA Statement on land ownership and caves
- Thread starter nickwilliams
- Start date
whitelackington
New member
They might do it for spiteAndyF said:graham said:
Why would they do that? , since the CROW act exempts them of any liability to people making use of CROW access due to an accident with a "natural feature".
Filling something with cement makes it NOT a natural feature and liability then follows ...
They might do it if recommended by the PDCMG
Peter Burgess
New member
With all the nasty insinuations and stupid speculation here, I wouldn't be surprised if Nick never bothers posting stuff from the BCA here again, and I wouldn't blame him. There may be other reasons why this forum is not as busy as it used to be, but perhaps one significant factor can be found no further away than the posts of all those bent on creating ill-feeling and bad vibes about other people who you just happen to disagree with. Such posts are largely, I suspect, from people with little interest in anyone other than themselves, and possibly their close friends. When the only people who post here are those who just love criticising and moaning, then you will have nobody left to argue with, and UKCaving will be one small and not so very important bitch-fest. So not only intent on damaging the integrity of the only national caving body we have, you also seem bent on driving the last nail into the coffin of this forum. Further, have you considered that this just might be why nobody from PDCMG has considered it worthwhile posting here for some time now.
Peter, never has a truer word been said.
Everything that I do for caving is done for what I genuinely believe to be the benefit of caving as a whole. Sometimes I am persuaded by other people that my intended approach is not the best one, and then I change my plan. That is why it is so useful to have enough different people involved in an organisation so you can bounce ideas off them and reach the best decision in the end.
What frustrates me is that the people who moan most at the end of the process, never bother to contribute to the decision-making. They just moan afterwards. To those people, for once, please, just say "thanks" when someone's done something you appreciate, and say nothing, or at least say it to them in private, when you disagree with them.
That way the world will be a much better place!
Everything that I do for caving is done for what I genuinely believe to be the benefit of caving as a whole. Sometimes I am persuaded by other people that my intended approach is not the best one, and then I change my plan. That is why it is so useful to have enough different people involved in an organisation so you can bounce ideas off them and reach the best decision in the end.
What frustrates me is that the people who moan most at the end of the process, never bother to contribute to the decision-making. They just moan afterwards. To those people, for once, please, just say "thanks" when someone's done something you appreciate, and say nothing, or at least say it to them in private, when you disagree with them.
That way the world will be a much better place!
Les W
Active member
Having read the document (again) can I say that nowhere in it does it claim to be BCA policy. The document is clearly presented as a statement from:
Why do people insist that the document from the L & I Officer is BCA's policy? BCA didn't even exist when CrOW was drafted.
With the exception of this piece of opinion (presumably from the author of the document)
That is all it is.
Because CrOW does not include any mention of Caves, it doesn't assign any rights to them either, other than those rights that existed before CrOW. This can be challenged in law and the judiciary can rule either way. In the mean time nobody's rights have been enhanced by the legislation in respect of caves.
and concerns:
BCA's policy which can be read here is located in the constitution, within BCA's guiding principals, section 4.6, and reads as follows:
Why do people insist that the document from the L & I Officer is BCA's policy? BCA didn't even exist when CrOW was drafted.
With the exception of this piece of opinion (presumably from the author of the document)
the entire document appears to be a factual and correct summary of the legal situation at the moment.
That is all it is.
Because CrOW does not include any mention of Caves, it doesn't assign any rights to them either, other than those rights that existed before CrOW. This can be challenged in law and the judiciary can rule either way. In the mean time nobody's rights have been enhanced by the legislation in respect of caves.
Stu
Active member
"The British Caving Association is the Governing body for Underground Exploration in the United Kingdom. It represents all those persons and groups with a genuine interest in caves, karst and associated phenomena, whether from a strictly sporting viewpoint, a scientific viewpoint, or a combination of both."
BCA home page.
If the BCA were instructed by "all those persons and groups etc" i.e. cavers (paid up) to go and take the fight on (just as the Ramblers Association did in the past and the BMC do - http://www.thebmc.co.uk/News.aspx?id=3510), would they?
BCA home page.
If the BCA were instructed by "all those persons and groups etc" i.e. cavers (paid up) to go and take the fight on (just as the Ramblers Association did in the past and the BMC do - http://www.thebmc.co.uk/News.aspx?id=3510), would they?
Les W
Active member
stu said:
If BCA's members were to instruct the organisation, then it would have to do so or answer to it's membership. BCA's AGM was last weekend and apart from the officers I believe there was only one or two other people present. What is the chance of all BCA's 5000 or so members turning up to influence policy? It would be good to see them there but I don't think it would happen. Apart from a small vociferous group on here, most cavers are completely apathetic on politics.
Yes, she was there but whether or not she specifically asked for this kind of statement I cannot say as I was not present myself.John S said:
Or could it simply be that they do not want anyone outside of their own select little group to be aware of what is really happening behind the scenes?Peter Burgess said:
Roger W
Well-known member
Lots of stuff being bandied about here about this CRoW business.
I've just started to read the Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000037_en_2)
and note that it says on page 2 that "Any person is entitled by virtue of this subsection to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation, if and so long as..."
Can caving be properly defined as an "open-air recreation"?
I'll go back to stir-frying my frogs...
I've just started to read the Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000037_en_2)
and note that it says on page 2 that "Any person is entitled by virtue of this subsection to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation, if and so long as..."
Can caving be properly defined as an "open-air recreation"?
I'll go back to stir-frying my frogs...
Stu
Active member
Roger W said:
My thoughts on this question:
Yes it can. It could (I presume) make a legal case for "open air recreation" being an open ended term incorporating all manner of outdoor pursuits. Caving being one.
Although the BCA (NCA?) may have been consulted for caving to be included (a fairly certain assumption); it seems their tack was for the status quo regarding access. If they had been consulted and had pushed for inclusion I'm sure it would have been. The BMC (http://www.thebmc.co.uk/) has within its mandate a policy of actively pushing landowners for better access.
Is our NGB (although the BMC is a representative body) representing grass root opinion? Or are they truly safeguarding us from ourselves with a misdirected push for more access?
Les W
Active member
NCA was an organisation effectively controlled by its regional councils and other constituent members. To affect NCA policy it was necessary to influence opinion at regional council level.
With the formation of BCA the balance of power has shifted in favour of individuals and clubs. To affect policy now you need to get the support of a majority of voting members and place a motion before a General Meeting.
Or you could ask BCA Council to look into the possibility, but that would only be a request and have no real compulsion on Council. If a majority of council members thought it was a good idea then BCA might act without compulsion from its members, but nothing is certain.
In the absence of a mandate from the membership BCA would do what Council considered was best for the caving community.
With the formation of BCA the balance of power has shifted in favour of individuals and clubs. To affect policy now you need to get the support of a majority of voting members and place a motion before a General Meeting.
Or you could ask BCA Council to look into the possibility, but that would only be a request and have no real compulsion on Council. If a majority of council members thought it was a good idea then BCA might act without compulsion from its members, but nothing is certain.
In the absence of a mandate from the membership BCA would do what Council considered was best for the caving community.
AndyF
New member
To keep the status quo though, would have required caving to be specifically excluded (like metal detecting and driving vehicles were)... otherwise it just leaves this ambiguity untested by a court. I actually doubt a court would consider caving NOT an open air activity though I have no particular wish to see it tested, though it may clear up certain other matters if it were...
Les W
Active member
Even if a court did define caving as an open air activity, or not, it doesn't necessarily set a precedent. Case law requires that the test on precedent is that a case is very similar to the precedent setting case. A court of higher authority may set a different precedent that over rules lower courts. Only the United Kingdom Supreme Court will be able to set a binding precedent.
RobinGriffiths
Well-known member
Buttertubs and Hull Pot possibly. Hunt Pot if you can see daylight ?
Peter Burgess
New member
Peter Burgess said:
I suspect my idea is more likely, but given the hostile nature of some of the come back they get, then I think your suggestion of a 'behind the scenes' approach to sorting things out is probably quite understandable.NigR said:
Psssstt....quiet now......keep a low profile and go caving whenever and wherever you want....nobody seems to either notice or care less....if you happen to be challenged be courteous (in 30 years of caving I have only ever been challenged by other cavers, never landowners!)....enjoy your caving!! (emphasis on ENJOY)
