Peter Burgess said:Who are the CCC executive? Is that all those elected at the AGM (who are still in their post) or a subset e.g. Secretary/Chairman/Treasurer/a.n.other? The constitution doesn't make it entirely clear. Thanks.
That's nice. What does the landowner want?
Well saidzomjon said:As soon as I read NigRs original post, I wondered how long it would be before Graham or Peter Burgess replied! I know it was slightly provocative, but there does seem to be an element of dissatisfaction from Peter in anything to do from the recently elected committee of the CCC. I'm pretty sure that if we held a national referendum on the decision to cement a well established cave in this way, there would be a pretty strong consensus against it. So why the animosity towards anything that comes from CCC? And the immediate reference to the landowner from Graham, I think that we are all experienced enough to know how a landowner can be influenced by the 'in-group' - having just come from an evening of betting on chicken racing, how long before this thread has to be locked by moderators due to the unpleasantness that might follow?
Jackalpup said:Except in very extenuating circumstances, I don't believe any other "body" would act any differently.
2) The CCC took the view that the actions of the PDCMG contravened the constitution of both the CCC and the BCA. Furthermore, it took the view that the actions of the PDCMG were wholly detrimental to cavers in general as well as detrimental to the sport of caving.
It could be argued that the CCC would be derelict in their duty if this event were allowed to pass without challenge.
In conclusion, the CCC raised various issues and suggested an alternative that was entirely practical and one which ought to have kept "all sides" happy. It did so to protect the interest of caving (as a sport) and cavers.
Martin Laverty said:Nobody has yet mentioned that the PDCMG meeting referred to took place a fortnight ago. The draft minutes are now available via the PDCMG website ( http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/PDCMG_Minutes_140622.pdf ).
Neither has anyone yet picked up on Andy Farrant's earier mention of 'wilderness': that little-discussed concept, rather than what most would define as conservation, being the reason behind PDCMG's 'only one entrance' [lack of] access policy, as first propounded in the Conservation policy ( http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/envir.htm ).
Jasonbirder: Drws Cefn is on CRoW (common) land, but not by a path: it is in the side of a stream bed out of sight from all but a few spots. The 'landowner' is actually a Pwlldu Conservation Ltd, but the two directors do live adjacent to the land (one owns the pub, the other overlooks the Draenen entrance); whether they actually derive an income from grazing rights, I don't know.
Mel: the 'Derbyshire key' should certainly appeal - the PDCMG's main headache has always been the cost of replacing locks, whether they clog up or disappear. Also, there has always been a log book for use in Draenen - that's where the official usage figures come from...