BCA's Ballot on changes to their constitution

[Jenny P]

One potential complication is that BCRA is a registered charity and this severely limits how it can change its constitution or whether it can dissolve itself.  Any alteration will involve discussions with the Charity Commission and dissolution means its remaining assets can ONLY be passed to another similar charity.  I seem to remember that at one time, if BCRA dissolved itself, its remaining assets had to be passed to the National Trust! (Don't know how this came about but, at the time, there wasn't another caving charity in existence.)

Another point worth making is that not all the money held in the BCRA accounts actually "belongs" to BCRA.  For instance, a total of ?21,000 is held by BCRA on behalf of the UK Cave Conservation Emergency Fund, which is administered by a panel of regional representatives plus a BCRA representative. This can make loans (of up to 15% of the capital) or grants (of up to 5% of the capital) and is open to any caver, or group of cavers, requiring money to deal with a cave conservation emergency.

 

[nearlywhite]

Could BCRA operate realistically without being a BCA member body, with no ties to it?

What is the motivation behind this question? It is inconceivable.

Perhaps trying to generate some headlines?

 

[BradW]

Could BCRA operate realistically without being a BCA member body, with no ties to it?

What is the motivation behind this question? It is inconceivable.

Perhaps trying to generate some headlines?

what an odd comment to make. It is simply a counter to the implication in Madness's post. It's not an inconceivable idea, and there may be positives in becoming totally independent.

 

[droid]

It's unlikely, but why is it inconceivable?

 

[AR]

Over to you, Inigo Montoya....

 

[ZombieCake]

Montoya

Isn't he a Formula 1 racing driver?

 

[nearlywhite]

It's unlikely, but why is it inconceivable?

Fundamentally because most cavers are still speleologists. The work the BCRA do, and influence they have (Hidden Earth glues a national community together), they do a lot in the background. The support that the British Cave Library gets is from both the BCA and BCRA - splitting it risks turning the BCA into solely a sport caving organisation.

That's why it's inconceivable, caving is not a sport.

 

[Madness]

It is simply a counter to the implication in Madness's post.

What implication would that be then?

 

[droid]

It's unlikely, but why is it inconceivable?

Fundamentally because most cavers are still speleologists. The work the BCRA do, and influence they have (Hidden Earth glues a national community together), they do a lot in the background. The support that the British Cave Library gets is from both the BCA and BCRA - splitting it risks turning the BCA into solely a sport caving organisation.

That's why it's inconceivable, caving is not a sport.

In my opinion the BCA is already a 'sport caving organisation'.

I doubt that most cavers are 'speleologists', unless it is in the pursuit of new cave.

The BCRA, as a largely academic group, would be better off on it's own. After all, the BMA doesn't ally itself with Geology groups, does it?

 

[nearlywhite]

In my opinion the BCA is already a 'sport caving organisation'.

I doubt that most cavers are 'speleologists', unless it is in the pursuit of new cave.

The BCRA, as a largely academic group, would be better off on it's own. After all, the BMA doesn't ally itself with Geology groups, does it?

I meant caving as a sport not sport caving - the distinction I would draw with how you're using the term is the lack of competition in the latter, more akin to hiking in the mountains and appreciating nature. Therefore I think it is more than just rigging a rope and squeezing. If you include that element under sport then you would be quite correct.

I think the general appreciation of karst processes in the caving community is pretty high, when you compare them to other sports, especially climbing. I assume you mean BMC? (As I think the British Medical Association is quite familiar with rocky ground over the last few years). I don't think the parallels between the two stack up - you could argue that the RGS would be their BCRA but again I don't think there's that scientific legacy.

As for being a speleologist, it does depend on how you define it. I'd go with an appreciation of how the cave is formed and why it looks that way. So I doubt most aren't.

There's no argument put forward for it being better off on its own.

 

[droid]

Yeah. BMC. Senior moment
Mind, did you mean BGS re BMC?

I think you'll find there's plenty of climbers that are interested in the processes that gave them their crags, same as cavers interested in speleogenesis, but climbers don't use geology to find crags, whereas cavers do use karstic processes to find caves.
Whether cave formation processes are at the forefront of a cavers mind down a cave is a moot point though.
The BCRA do tend to take it to a rather higher level though, and I cannot for the life of me work out why it needs to be part of the BMC. I'd sooner see co-operation without the connection.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[nearlywhite]

BCA 

I think being a part of BCA allows them to influence things and makes the financing of things like the British Cave Library far less onerous on their finances. It doesn't cost them to be members of BCA, relatively.

BGS is probably more equivalent, I put RGS to try and give a broader scope of equivalency with expedition funding. Hmmm the age old question of Geography vs Geology. Point still stands though the two (climbing and caving) are very different with relation to science. I think cavers also use knowledge of karstic processes to read the caves themselves, as a natural consequence of navigation.

 

[droid]

BCA!!!! 

That's my pathetic attempt at a cogent argument shot down in flames..... :

To be fair, the B....C....A is moving in a positive direction so probably best for BCRA not to rock the boat...