Caving Politics vs Normal Politics (If this upsets you, please do not read it).

[Disgusted from Cornwall.]

I forgot to mention the distinction between cavers and mine explorers. They tend to be slightly different animals character wise. (obviously some do both).

 

[The Old Ruminator]

Off topic.  I do wish the non gated cave proponents could come up with a sensible reason for their views. Shatter, Withyhill and Reservoir Hole would be trashed by now without a gate and warden system. You only have to see the mud smears all around in the non gated remains of Balch Cave.

 

[NewStuff]

Off topic.  I do wish the non gated cave proponents could come up with a sensible reason for their views.

Yet again, *some* places need to be gated. A lot do not. There is provision for this in CRoW, should CRoW be applicable to that particular hole.

This has been stated, by numerous people, numerous times. The sensible reason, as stated numerous bloody times, is equitable access. I have yet to meet anyone opposed to every single gate, ever. 800ft shaft by a public footpath? Yeah, you probably need to put a lid on it. Derbyshire key though please. Anyone opening that is making a deliberate action.

I didn't think it was hard to comprehend... but maybe I was wrong.

 

[royfellows]

Yes, I second all that. its horses for courses, and as newstuff says, its numerous bloody times, over and over.

I am a mining man not a caver, but I can think of a cave...........................

 

[droid]

I didn't think it was hard to comprehend... but maybe I was wrong.

It's not hard to comprehend and is (and always was, but don't tell the pro-CRoWers  ) my attitude too.

Trouble is, people argue themselves into a corner and can't get out without losing face.

 

[NewStuff]

I didn't think it was hard to comprehend... but maybe I was wrong.

It's not hard to comprehend and is (and always was, but don't tell the pro-CRoWers  ) my attitude too.

Trouble is, people argue themselves into a corner and can't get out without losing face.

I've yet to meet a "Pro-CRoW'er" that thinks every gate should be removed. I genuinely can't think of anyone that thinks a sod-off shaft (natural or otherwise) or stope that easily accessible by Joe Public doesn't need a lid, even if for purely selfish purposes of not having to find/rescue/recover said Joe Public's from within it. In the same manner, I doubt you've met an "Anti" that thinks every entrance on this isle should be gated. Yes, all you really need is a barrier you can't accidentally cross and a warning sign. However, it's a case by case basis.

The issue being, when you can't gain legitimate access to that hole, because of ego's, empire building, stubborn gits, needless bureaucracy or whatever. That's when bad things happen, and any semblance of reasonableness goes out of the window. If being reasonable has got you nowhere, you don't carry on trying something which has patently failed. I've yet to resort to cutting or removing gates and locks (other than at a landowners behest when some appeared), but I get why it happens, I understand the sheer frustration that is needlessly caused.

 

[Kenilworth]

If being reasonable has got you nowhere, you don't carry on trying something which has patently failed. 

When reasonableness fails an intelligent person will continue to be reasonable. If we aren't getting what we want by being mature and kind and civil people, then we don't need or deserve it.

I think that TOR understands that "equitable access" is the goal of non-gate proponents. But no one so far has come up with a reason why equitable access is sensible. This is why making this a political issue is and has been counterproductive. There is no need for a nationwide or even regionwide policy regarding gates. They should be an entirely practical measure enacted for a variety of reasons and dealt with in a mature fashion (which will at times mean relinquishing perceived "rights") by cavers.

There are also a variety of ways to be reasonable and mature. Some involve breaking the rules. None involve whining about rights and equality and fairness.

 

[NewStuff]

If being reasonable has got you nowhere, you don't carry on trying something which has patently failed. 

... snipped waffle....
None involve whining about rights and equality and fairness.

Ah, the Troll. Given that you blocked me before I could reply to your bitchfest over PM, I'm surprised you're bothering. However, let's humour you in case someone that actually gives a damn get's the wrong impression from someone that knows sod all about it.
"If you keep bashing your head against the same wall, at some point you?re going to fall over and be still for awhile" - The being reasonable has been years, and decades. Trust me, every avenue has been tried in multiple cases.

The US system of access (what there is of it), even compared to Mendip  :tease:, is utterly piss-poor and you have zero standing to tell us what we're doing wrong. Most reasonable Americans that have actually caved in the UK back this up when talking to them. I implore you to come over to N.Wales, we'll see how long you keep your temper over access issues, and refrain from "whining about rights and equality and fairness".

 

[Kenilworth]

Sir, I have never blocked you or anyone else. I am not implying that any access arrangements are perfect, or that I know anything about them, or what anyone is doing specifically wrong. I am saying that any response that involves abandoning reasonableness is foolish.

My only caving in the UK has been carried out in much the same way as my caving here. I walked out in search of holes in the ground and went into those that I found. If I lived and caved in N. Wales I can promise that I would lose zero sleep over cave access. I am easily able to ignore, cooperate with, or peacefully circumvent any cave bureaucracy and I am perfectly willing to give up access to avoid unneighborliness.

 

[paul]

[gmod]Newstuff, please stop the personal bickering. It is up to the Moderators to decide who is a troll and then take appropriate action, not you. I see nothing unreasonable about Kenilworth's post.[/gmod]

 

[Simon Wilson]

OK let's start again. Please keep it respectful.

It's not about mines, it's not about CRoW and it's not about gates - it's about "locks on caves".

I think the main idea of this poll was to find out if there was a correlation between general polical views and attitude to locks on caves, or if people who want to lock caves (or not) are 'conservative' or not in their political views. And I think it is quite clever.

The inclusion of Brexit is a complication which doesn't detract from the result.

I'm surprised to hear what DoC thought might be the result - I expected the result that it shows.

 

[droid]

I'm surprised to hear what DoC thought might be the result - I expected the result that it shows.

So did I

 

[kay]

Since poll doesn't finish till Apr 18, and results aren't visible until you've voted, suppose we shouldn't say too much. All I can say is that cavers who answer ukc polls are not representative of the UK population as a whole nor indeed of cavers who I know personally.

 

[The Old Ruminator]

Since poll doesn't finish till Apr 18, and results aren't visible until you've voted, suppose we shouldn't say too much. All I can say is that cavers who answer ukc polls are not representative of the UK population as a whole nor indeed of cavers who I know personally.

Well it seems that 95 have voted probably quite a low proportion of total forum membership. Like I said though the anti brigade in anything tend to be the most vociferous so votes tend to be skewed. 18 of those register as a no vote as such anyway.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Obviously you can say the sample is to some degree skewed or not representative of some hypothetical population or your mates down the pub but I rather suspect the some of the subtlety in the design of the poll has been missed which is constructed to enable inverse variance weights and crossproduct matrix (both centered and standardised) to be used for regression and other multivariate analyses. The weight of an observation is assumed to be inversely proportional to the variance of the subpopulation from which that observation was sampled. We can perform a weighted least squares regression in the multivariate analysis procedures to form a weighted covariance or correlation matrix and using the data so far collected and adding temporal sampling (the reason for setting the length of time for the poll to run) we can now see that Brexit is in fact the variable which displays the highest degree of validity in the analyses carried out so far.

 

[kay]

Simon - splendid! 

And to think I analysed it as a simple 2x2x2 factorial design.