BCA stuff we voted on
- Thread starter Ian Adams
- Start date
Ian Adams
Active member
droid said:
That, Mr Droid, may be just the ticket
Joshw,
I am afraid I am still not understanding or I have made a poor job of asking you the right question.
The link that was earlier provided to the current ?equality and diversity policy? does not contain any of the wording set out in the ballot question. For the avoidance of doubt, I mean this;
There are six types of discrimination set out in the Equality Act 2010 and this policy covers all of them (in conjunction with the association's bullying and harassment policy).
? Direct discrimination ? where someone is treated less favourably than another person because of a protected characteristic.
? Associative discrimination ? this is direct discrimination against someone because they are associated with another person who possesses a protected characteristic.
? Discrimination by perception ? this is direct discrimination against someone because others think they possess a particular protected characteristic. They do not necessarily have to possess the characteristic, just be perceived to.
? Indirect discrimination ? this can occur when you have a rule or policy that applies to everyone but disadvantages a person with a particular protected characteristic.
? Harassment ? this is behaviour deemed offensive by the recipient. Employees can now complain of the behaviour they find offensive even if it's not directed at them.
? Victimisation ? this occurs when someone is treated badly because they have made or supported a complaint or grievance under this legislation.
Is that now being included in the wording and part of what we are voting on?
Secondly, I don?t understand your answer for the question I asked regarding whether clubs and associations will be expected/compelled to comply. Clubs and associations cannot be included as they are not the BCA and cannot act as the BCA (and are therefore outside of the scope but are INCLUDED within the wording of the proposal). Further, individuals (or bodies) would, prima facie, only be within the scope if acting as the BCA (seemingly officer and employees) as, otherwise, they would not be acting as the BCA (merely they would be a member of it) ? could you clarify the position please?
Thirdly, there is the issue of section 195 of the act which deals with ?Sport? - link above. This specifically exempts many cases within sport. For instance, where failure to discriminate puts a party at risk. This would seem to be a ?big deal? in the world of caving. Can you clarify whether the lawful exemptions within the act under section 195 apply or whether the BCA intends to ignore those exceptions?
Sorry to keep harping on, I am trying to understand the position properly.
Ian
JoshW
Well-known member
No apologies needed at all.
I?ve proposed that that wording is inserted into the existing policy.
My understanding, as the association is merely an agreement between members, is that by being a member you ?are? the BCA.
The exceptions stated within the legislation would of course apply, as you state the policy cannot trump the law (and we wouldn?t want it to) but I actually think that there are very few instances where the exceptions would apply in caving. Out of the 9 protected characteristics, realistically one (disability)might put a party at risk, the rest wouldn?t in the slightest.
The policy already states ?the BCA is committed?to pro-actively tackling and eliminating discrimination?, and as such I would hope member clubs are taking practicable steps to overcome discrimination. I?m hoping to generate some guidance for clubs that can help overcome what might seem like big hurdles.
(Apologies, I?m typing from my phone so this may not make fully coherent sense and I may have missed some points you made, so feel free to keep shooting questions my way.)
I?ve proposed that that wording is inserted into the existing policy.
My understanding, as the association is merely an agreement between members, is that by being a member you ?are? the BCA.
The exceptions stated within the legislation would of course apply, as you state the policy cannot trump the law (and we wouldn?t want it to) but I actually think that there are very few instances where the exceptions would apply in caving. Out of the 9 protected characteristics, realistically one (disability)might put a party at risk, the rest wouldn?t in the slightest.
The policy already states ?the BCA is committed?to pro-actively tackling and eliminating discrimination?, and as such I would hope member clubs are taking practicable steps to overcome discrimination. I?m hoping to generate some guidance for clubs that can help overcome what might seem like big hurdles.
(Apologies, I?m typing from my phone so this may not make fully coherent sense and I may have missed some points you made, so feel free to keep shooting questions my way.)
ChrisJC
Well-known member
andrewmc said:
For reference, I am out of touch - I voted against it. Simply because the word Chairman is applicable to both male and female human beings.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/chairman
A bit like the word mankind including all human beings rather than just those with a p*nis.
A chair is something I put my arse on, and is not capable of running a meeting.
Chris.
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
ChrisJC said:
Incidentally, the language argument is both incorrect (because Chair is perfectly accepted as a word for the leader of a committee; see Civil Service guidance about removing gendered terms apparently) and irrelevant (because it's not the intricacies of language that matters, it's that there was a single woman at the AGM last week and what you had was a Zoom wall of older white men, and I say that as someone heading in that direction).
Also, I've never heard anyone say 'so who is chairmaning the meeting'...
aricooperdavis
Moderator
andrewmc said:
I am the source of the "apparently" here as I brought this up at the AGM. I was referring to this guide for gender neutral drafting which includes:
Ian Adams
Active member
Joshw,
Thank you for your reply.
It?s obviously too late now, but, it may have been more helpful for the BCA to simply state (on the lines of) ;
The BCA is committed to the Equality Act of 2010
The online statement could include the link;
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpga_20100015_en.pdf
The statement could/should include a reference to the disciplinary process where someone falls fowl of the act.
That?s all I think it needed.
Personally, I think the BCA?s statement (with proposed amendments) is confusing, misleading and unnecessary.
Anyway, that?s just my thoughts and (as I said above) it?s all too late now anyway.
Thanks for answering my questions.
Regards,
Ian
Thank you for your reply.
It?s obviously too late now, but, it may have been more helpful for the BCA to simply state (on the lines of) ;
The BCA is committed to the Equality Act of 2010
The online statement could include the link;
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpga_20100015_en.pdf
The statement could/should include a reference to the disciplinary process where someone falls fowl of the act.
That?s all I think it needed.
Personally, I think the BCA?s statement (with proposed amendments) is confusing, misleading and unnecessary.
Anyway, that?s just my thoughts and (as I said above) it?s all too late now anyway.
Thanks for answering my questions.
Regards,
Ian
menacer
Active member
andrewmc said:
Well, speaking as a woman, I can tell you exactly why this female doesn't bother with meetings.
They are always stuffed full of civil servant type pen pushers that care more about crossing t's and dotting I's than getting anything that actually matters, done.
Historically they are often the control freaks, they like to legislate to prevent people doing things that they don't like as well as keep our the people they don't like.
And I can tell you now, this next generation doesn't look any better to be frank.
You talk of inclusivity but it's smoke and mirrors.
You are the simply the next generation manoeuvring to get the people you don't like or disagree with out the way.
It never changes.
Most caving females are out there caving with the folk that' actually get things done.
My god, the last ballot was just full of non caving related amendments in order to promote inclusivity?!
What a bore.
Please don't think changing the name "chair" is going to have woman flocking to AGMs ( in any meaningful uncoerced sense) - it isn't.
Why so negative Menacer?!
The BCA are chipping away at decades of exclusivity, doesn't happen over night but every little change is a change for the better. Just think the AGM was online for any member to join, you just had to register, or you could watch it live, or watch it all after the meeting. That is such a change from 3 years ago where you had to register, attend on the day in person.
A question, the pen pushing civil servant types who love an agm (hello :-[ ) are not 'getting anything that actually matters done'
What is it that as a women (who I assume is a BCA member? and therefore able to bring forth proposals to the AGM) would class as actually mattering? If you can bring up some ideas the BCA doers (willing, capable, enthusiastic volunteers) will absolutely get cracking.
I suggest Ari, Andrew, Josh, Jenny, Rostam, Russell all who post in the forum are all only a message away.
Conservation projects
Education and training opportunities
Newsletter articles
Safety warnings
Any opportunity for deploying the fake cave BCA has?
I've no ideas myself, I'm a civil servant type pen pusher who loves to sit behind his keyboard (but at least I recognise it).
The BCA are chipping away at decades of exclusivity, doesn't happen over night but every little change is a change for the better. Just think the AGM was online for any member to join, you just had to register, or you could watch it live, or watch it all after the meeting. That is such a change from 3 years ago where you had to register, attend on the day in person.
A question, the pen pushing civil servant types who love an agm (hello :-[ ) are not 'getting anything that actually matters done'
What is it that as a women (who I assume is a BCA member? and therefore able to bring forth proposals to the AGM) would class as actually mattering? If you can bring up some ideas the BCA doers (willing, capable, enthusiastic volunteers) will absolutely get cracking.
I suggest Ari, Andrew, Josh, Jenny, Rostam, Russell all who post in the forum are all only a message away.
Conservation projects
Education and training opportunities
Newsletter articles
Safety warnings
Any opportunity for deploying the fake cave BCA has?
I've no ideas myself, I'm a civil servant type pen pusher who loves to sit behind his keyboard (but at least I recognise it).
JoshW
Well-known member
And if you do have ideas Menacer, about ways we can up diversity by improving inclusivity, please do feel free to contact me at youth@british-caving.org.uk or on here.
A big part of my remit is development and my election statement for youth and development officer was to be pushing D&I issues. I've got some potential projects that I'd like to get started in the coming months/years around this, but covid and general life has gotten in the way of this.
Steph Dwyer has been involved with a group called black girls hike, getting them underground, and outreach like this is something I'm definitely keen to promote on a wider scale.
A big part of my remit is development and my election statement for youth and development officer was to be pushing D&I issues. I've got some potential projects that I'd like to get started in the coming months/years around this, but covid and general life has gotten in the way of this.
Steph Dwyer has been involved with a group called black girls hike, getting them underground, and outreach like this is something I'm definitely keen to promote on a wider scale.
nearlywhite
Active member
I'm quite proud to be a civil servant pen pusher, and I don't think the 'sod the rules' approach gets as much done.
My approach during my time in Y&D was to do the boring paperwork on behalf of the members, find kit and get them caving. That started 4 new university clubs and kept a few more open. We also had a paperwork fight to get online voting into the BCA - so that we could include more opinions. A bit of bureaucracy can go a long way.
As for non caving amendments; there was one proposal updating the equality and diversity policy and one slight change to wording to reflect what is actually used by the organisation. It was only put in as there were other amendments to the constitution.
A bit ironic to be upset at it being both controlling and totally ineffectual.
Pretty sure all this talking has taken up about 100 times the time and effort I spent writing and submitting the thing
My approach during my time in Y&D was to do the boring paperwork on behalf of the members, find kit and get them caving. That started 4 new university clubs and kept a few more open. We also had a paperwork fight to get online voting into the BCA - so that we could include more opinions. A bit of bureaucracy can go a long way.
As for non caving amendments; there was one proposal updating the equality and diversity policy and one slight change to wording to reflect what is actually used by the organisation. It was only put in as there were other amendments to the constitution.
A bit ironic to be upset at it being both controlling and totally ineffectual.
Pretty sure all this talking has taken up about 100 times the time and effort I spent writing and submitting the thing
menacer
Active member
Lots to respond to here.
I'll endeavour to answer most things in one hit
The diversity and inclusivity role, ethos, position mission statement or whatever you want to call it appears to be a red herring.
There have been recent posts from folk claiming they want this but all they really want is the right people with the right thoughts in their gang.
This is actually human nature. It can't be stopped but let's not dress it up for something it's not.
Everyone does it, every clique does it, every family does it every neighbor hood, every county, every club.
Cliques develop of like minded people. It's why we have wars, different religions and different regimes across the globe, not every one thinks,says or does or believes in the same thing.
What is most important to you is not necessarily very important to me and vice versa
A recent example
Someone from this forum one of the " diversity promoting cavers" recently referred to a who person attended the agm with different ideas on life was classed as " not a good look "
So diverse!
So welcoming
Another, alluded that if "x" proposal didn't go through they wouldn't want to represent an organisation like the BCA.
They don't sound very diverse and inclusive to me.
They sound like agitators.
Many assuming motives from people they don't even know.
So what if someone doesn't believe in being politically correct, just ignore them.
So, I'm going to ask the diversity and inclusivity promoters a question or too because I think we all need to know what it is we are and aren't allowed to say these days of this is the best way forward you see for bca
How welcome would I be of I voted brexit.
How welcome would I be if I wasn't vaccinated
How welcome would I be I thought the government response to climate change was incorrect
How welcome would I be if respected you for your caving ability rather than your virtue signalling and politically correct mission statements
How welcome would I be if I really don't give a monkeys about your title. .
These are ridiculous questions but from what I've viewed on this forum they seem to be coming all too important to some
The BCA needs to be smaller not bigger.
The civil servant type needed to run it should really be seen and not heard.
Like all organisations we need to hear about what can be done not what's too difficult or to red tape or too unfashionable
There are too many people making rules and talking points and amendments and changes for the average caver to be remotely interested.
Like every politician you will likely lose your audience, become detached from reality.
Cavers want to go caving, shared the experience with their friends and socialize after
That's it.
On a personal level, the BCA does everything I need it to, most my caving is overseas so I don't use it's funding as much as some but I'm having that c&a access costs are covered by it in regions and a democratic vote to push through crow was respected.
It also provides a repository library for those researching info, training for those that want it and a website to promote caving.
What British caving doesn't need from the BCA is for those closely linked to it, to come onto an independent privately owned forum and dismiss, censor shun or label anyone with different views or ideas.
I'll endeavour to answer most things in one hit
The diversity and inclusivity role, ethos, position mission statement or whatever you want to call it appears to be a red herring.
There have been recent posts from folk claiming they want this but all they really want is the right people with the right thoughts in their gang.
This is actually human nature. It can't be stopped but let's not dress it up for something it's not.
Everyone does it, every clique does it, every family does it every neighbor hood, every county, every club.
Cliques develop of like minded people. It's why we have wars, different religions and different regimes across the globe, not every one thinks,says or does or believes in the same thing.
What is most important to you is not necessarily very important to me and vice versa
A recent example
Someone from this forum one of the " diversity promoting cavers" recently referred to a who person attended the agm with different ideas on life was classed as " not a good look "
So diverse!
So welcoming
Another, alluded that if "x" proposal didn't go through they wouldn't want to represent an organisation like the BCA.
They don't sound very diverse and inclusive to me.
They sound like agitators.
Many assuming motives from people they don't even know.
So what if someone doesn't believe in being politically correct, just ignore them.
So, I'm going to ask the diversity and inclusivity promoters a question or too because I think we all need to know what it is we are and aren't allowed to say these days of this is the best way forward you see for bca
How welcome would I be of I voted brexit.
How welcome would I be if I wasn't vaccinated
How welcome would I be I thought the government response to climate change was incorrect
How welcome would I be if respected you for your caving ability rather than your virtue signalling and politically correct mission statements
How welcome would I be if I really don't give a monkeys about your title. .
These are ridiculous questions but from what I've viewed on this forum they seem to be coming all too important to some
The BCA needs to be smaller not bigger.
The civil servant type needed to run it should really be seen and not heard.
Like all organisations we need to hear about what can be done not what's too difficult or to red tape or too unfashionable
There are too many people making rules and talking points and amendments and changes for the average caver to be remotely interested.
Like every politician you will likely lose your audience, become detached from reality.
Cavers want to go caving, shared the experience with their friends and socialize after
That's it.
On a personal level, the BCA does everything I need it to, most my caving is overseas so I don't use it's funding as much as some but I'm having that c&a access costs are covered by it in regions and a democratic vote to push through crow was respected.
It also provides a repository library for those researching info, training for those that want it and a website to promote caving.
What British caving doesn't need from the BCA is for those closely linked to it, to come onto an independent privately owned forum and dismiss, censor shun or label anyone with different views or ideas.
Interesting post Menacer, I disagree with you on a few points.
Being politically incorrect is not ok when it harms others, or in this case an organisation you represent on behalf of others and people are right to challenge it, including BCA members.
How to challenge it is open to interpretation of course but your suggestion of just ignoring it, in my opinion is not dissimilar to acceptance, which is not dissimilar to agreeing.
I rarely challenge anyone because I'm a wimp, glad the BCA volunteers are tougher than me.
Being politically incorrect is not ok when it harms others, or in this case an organisation you represent on behalf of others and people are right to challenge it, including BCA members.
How to challenge it is open to interpretation of course but your suggestion of just ignoring it, in my opinion is not dissimilar to acceptance, which is not dissimilar to agreeing.
I rarely challenge anyone because I'm a wimp, glad the BCA volunteers are tougher than me.
If you remind yourself whenever you hear the term Politically Correct that it is supposed to mean, for example, demonstrating respect for others who are not like you, it makes it easier to decide whether you agree with something or not. PC is a horrible term which is why lazy people use it. Lazy people who expect you to agree with them and join them in perpetuating the comfortable inertia of doing nothing.
menacer
Active member
How do you define "harms" Ian
Who defines it, who determines whether any interference is required. . Who should dictate any level of admonishment.
Be careful what you wish for.
You may be currently on the right side of a political force that agrees with your interpretation or view but politics is fluid.
You are trying to pigeon hole complex human interactions emotions and interpretations into an easily identifiable solution when it is rarely the case.
Who defines it, who determines whether any interference is required. . Who should dictate any level of admonishment.
Be careful what you wish for.
You may be currently on the right side of a political force that agrees with your interpretation or view but politics is fluid.
You are trying to pigeon hole complex human interactions emotions and interpretations into an easily identifiable solution when it is rarely the case.
ChrisJC
Well-known member
menacer said:
That is the fundamental issue with the rewriting history shenanigans currently in vogue. Perfectly acceptable, normal even during one time period might become deemed harmful in a different period. Who are we to judge the past, and the future even. And who are we to judge people who we are not. You end up with the other nonsense of people being offended on somebody elses behalf! (most likely they themselves aren't offended either)
The other complication is when insult and offence are considered harms. Makes things much more difficult.
Sorry for wandering even more OT :spank:
Chris.
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
Let's be entirely clear what we are debating here.
We are choosing whether to either use the word 'chairman', a gendered term with baggage from when the assumption was that it would be a man, or 'chair' which is a perfectly acceptable non-gendered alternative.
We are not choosing between 'virtue signalling' or 'doing something useful'; we are choosing whether to continue using increasingly outdated language
No-one is harmed by choosing 'chair' over 'chairman'. There are no people who will be disadvantaged as a result of choosing 'chair'. There are no people who are included by the word 'chairman' that are not also included by the word 'chair'. There is no subtle background of sexism that 'chair' upholds or is rooted in. If this is the 'thin end of the wedge', I can't see what the actual disadvantage to non-gendered language becoming universal is. In other words, there is no good reason to choose 'chair' over 'chairman'.
So why make a fuss? Why is this even a debate?
Instead of making sweeping strawman arguments about society in general, can anyone give me a clear example of one good reason to choose 'Chairman'? (both words being common, and Chair probably being more common than Chairman these days)
And yes, this is apparently the hill that I am willing to die on. Probably because sexism is important, and caving isn't (relatively speaking).
We are choosing whether to either use the word 'chairman', a gendered term with baggage from when the assumption was that it would be a man, or 'chair' which is a perfectly acceptable non-gendered alternative.
We are not choosing between 'virtue signalling' or 'doing something useful'; we are choosing whether to continue using increasingly outdated language
No-one is harmed by choosing 'chair' over 'chairman'. There are no people who will be disadvantaged as a result of choosing 'chair'. There are no people who are included by the word 'chairman' that are not also included by the word 'chair'. There is no subtle background of sexism that 'chair' upholds or is rooted in. If this is the 'thin end of the wedge', I can't see what the actual disadvantage to non-gendered language becoming universal is. In other words, there is no good reason to choose 'chair' over 'chairman'.
So why make a fuss? Why is this even a debate?
Instead of making sweeping strawman arguments about society in general, can anyone give me a clear example of one good reason to choose 'Chairman'? (both words being common, and Chair probably being more common than Chairman these days)
And yes, this is apparently the hill that I am willing to die on. Probably because sexism is important, and caving isn't (relatively speaking).
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
ChrisJC said:
We are but human, but you can't just completely deny all responsibility to judge morality - that's intellectual laziness. We can look back at history and pretty unambiguously say 'that was wrong' about a lot of things. We can do the same about things today. Yes, things are always complicated, but the moral thing to do is to make the best choices we can, and that means making judgements about right and wrong (and shades of grey).
If I painted your house pink, I'm sure you would judge me then - as would a court.
Also, the more things change the more they stay the same - most of the 'ills of modern society' are not new, and you can find people saying the same thing through the centuries.
I would suggest that re-writing history is, if anything, _less_ in vogue than in centuries past, courtesy of a free press, easy access to publication and a relative lack of censorship...
