as an "Ex-Pat" I question your authority to pose this submission
I think as a caver Graham has every right to pose the question, and in fact it that's kind of attitude - the "How dare you question what we do" that get's my back up as well, and does occasionally make me wonder whose benefit caving bodies are run for.
And behind my question is this, the original discussion document appeared to be released for to us, as a CNCC member club, at the very last minute which gives the impression (as do the minutes) that it was a done deal. This is my opinion, not necessarily the clubs. It also gives the impression that the permits will be issued from those available to us. Both of which do suggest that we are not being represented too well.
As a former chairman of a largish club I was asked several times, by email and in person, to help get our members to work with the CNCC and use the permit system, which I did, and got a lot of stick for it, because the system is a joke - you'll never get every caver who wants to go down Lancaster to apply in writing three months in advance. It will not happen. Whoever negotiated that one was asking for trouble, and not even representing reality, never mind the best interests of cavers.
So if the CNCC have really agreed to give two permits of ours a day to commercial cavers then I would say this is a slap in face to people who have tried to back them, but I'd like to find out if that is what happened before I say they have done that.
Can anyone shed any light on the decision?