• Hello From Descent

    The publication date for issue 289 is the 10th of December, meaning subscribers should receive their copies during the week leading up to that date. It is also available from caving suppliers such as Inglesport and Starless River, or from our new website

    New Descent board here:

CSCC AGM Notification

mikem

Well-known member
Possibly because they have as much right to express their views as you do. & This forum, although being open, is certainly not read by every caver & doesn't represent the views of all.
 

NewStuff

New member
mikem said:
Possibly because they have as much right to express their views as you do. & This forum, although being open, is certainly not read by every caver & doesn't represent the views of all.

You seem to be suffering from the horribly broken stance of  "because I feel it, it must be true".
The facts don't care what side of the fence you, or I, sit on. They are what they are, no matter how much some try to present "alternative facts"... maybe influenced by such well publicised practices in other countries...  Now, the question is, are those presenting "alternative facts" going to be allowed to carry on peddling this misinformation? This isn't rocket science, or opinion... it's a yes or no answer. If it's no, then there needs to be some sort of consequence if it happens again. I am very sure there would be if I were to make things up and say them about vcertain members of the CSCC, and there are on here, I'm currently on moderation again. That's fine. I'm aware my actions and words have consequences, I would however like other people to act like adults nd not spoiled children having a tantrum in the shop, and accept their words and actions have consequences as well. Should the answer be yes, they are allowed to carry on, as it's an opinion... then that will tell us all we need to know about the CSCC, and if allowed to continue further, the BCA. Again, this really isn't rocket science.
 

2xw

Active member
mikem said:
Possibly because they have as much right to express their views as you do. & This forum, although being open, is certainly not read by every caver & doesn't represent the views of all.

If I claimed CCC had banned the over 50s and popped it in the BCA minutes, this wouldn't be acceptable because it isn't true.

This sort of Trumpian behaviour has become seemingly acceptable it appears.

Mostly though, after my forced apology, we all decided not to bring it up at all, yet here we are with folks going back on their word.
 

mikem

Well-known member
I'm not suffering under any delusion & this statement tends to suggest that you need the agreement of both parties:
The Association shall not mediate between Members unless requested by them in writing to do so.
 

JoshW

Active member
mikem said:
I'm not suffering under any delusion & this statement tends to suggest that you need the agreement of both parties:
The Association shall not mediate between Members unless requested by them in writing to do so.

Which surely everyone can agree is utterly insane
 

mikem

Well-known member
Doesn't really matter what you believe, it's what the previous generation felt necessary to write into the constitution, so it applies until it's written out - the BCA is governing body for awards, but not over clubs & regional bodies.
 

NewStuff

New member
As I said a few posts ago, deliberate, decisive, behaviour designed to derail. That's the plainest "We can do what the f*** we want, you can't stop us, f*** you!" I've seen for a while.

You didn't *actually* think they were going to change did you? Why would they? It's quite evident that most of the membership in that meeting were influenced and swayed by GM and LJW's "alternative facts" and it's pretty clear that there won't be any issues for them continuing to act in this manner. They've certainly not had any in the past.
 

mikem

Well-known member
Just pointing out the reality, rather than the dream - although I don't agree with all of their stances, I do think they've got a better understanding of the legal position than some on here. BCA have no say over CCC, because they are a limited company governed by English law - so unless they break that... If they decide not to partake in any mediation all BCA can do is cut funding (but I don't believe they take any) or expel them (the only result there would be an increase in cost of access to ordinary cavers, as they'd have to get own insurance). You might be able to add preventing them voting, or even attending meetings, or that might be a violation of their human rights - I don't actually know the relevant law - but that's about it for your options, whatever the constitution says (above is what is actually already written there).

The only way you can change CCC is by lobbying or joining it, threatening will only entrench the position.

(If there was such a thing as "just the facts", we wouldn't need lawyers - there are always different interpretations of what was agreed & expectations of how the other party would act).
 

2xw

Active member
Nobody has mentioned controlling the CCC, this is yet another example of these conspiracy theories being thrown around with reckless abandon. I don't give a shit anymore, if they want to ban random segments of the BCA membership they can do - whatever they want. It doesn't matter because the locals tolerate/are bullied into tolerating it, and people don't give a shit they just want to go caving. If anyone curious, nobody tried to change the CCC Ltds position in the first place - I just asked them to explain it so that it might not happen elsewhere (if their threats of "legal reasons" held any weight it would be a disaster for young people caving).  It's not unreasonable to ask why a segment of the BCA membership is banned at all and nothing in the constitution prevents people from asking simple questions. They repeatedly refused to explain why (mostly, we discovered, because they didn't know). 


But as I made clear, after having suffered 5 years of abuse, blackmail and threats to my livelihood from these people (people - not a company, or an idea, or a lawyer), I thought they had agreed to stop. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case. I don't know if you're deliberately missing this point or perhaps I wasn't clear.
 

mikem

Well-known member
Unfortunately you've come in on the back of a long history of differences of opinion between cavers, much of which was acrimonious. Fortunately things don't seem to be as toxic as they have been in the past, but you managed to stir up a hornet's nest (just look back at some of the "discussions" on this forum over 10 years ago).

& whilst the locals mostly tolerate it, there are some who object & work towards getting it changed (but realise it's going to take some time).
 

JoshW

Active member
mikem said:
Doesn't really matter what you believe, it's what the previous generation felt necessary to write into the constitution, so it applies until it's written out - the BCA is governing body for awards, but not over clubs & regional bodies.

It?s not what I believe it?s objectively insane.

To take it to an extreme it would be like requiring both the slaves and the slave traders to put into writing that they didn?t agree with the slave trade in order for change to happen
 

NewStuff

New member
2xw said:
But as I made clear, after having suffered 5 years of abuse, blackmail and threats to my livelihood from these people (people - not a company, or an idea, or a lawyer),

They do like their dirty tricks - the same was tried (and ultimately failed spectacularly, despite varied efforts by a few people). I'm lucky though, I can ultimately gain access to pretty much anything I take a fancy to, on my terms, without damaging anything or even leaving any trace I was there at all. A lot of people do not have that luxury and have to play nice with this lot, despite not wanting to. Due a trip down to Mendip soon anyway - Want to see if my new shiny, most assuredly unapproved CSCC key works as I intend it to.  ;) ;)
 

mikem

Well-known member
JoshW said:
It?s not what I believe it?s objectively insane.
But if one party doesn't want you to mediate there's nothing you can do, whatever you write, so both have to agree anyway...
 

JoshW

Active member
mikem said:
JoshW said:
It?s not what I believe it?s objectively insane.
But if one party doesn't want you to mediate there's nothing you can do, whatever you write, so both have to agree anyway...

Isn?t the problem that the wording says interfere not mediate. Interfering could be adjudged to include starting proceedings under the complaints procedure.
 

NewStuff

New member
mikem said:
JoshW said:
It?s not what I believe it?s objectively insane.
But if one party doesn't want you to mediate there's nothing you can do...

Well, there is but most think it's a little bit... nuclear... of an option. I'm all for it though. I have plenty of popcorn and lots of time to watch the fallout... pun fully intended.
 

JoshW

Active member
mikem said:
The Association shall not mediate between Members unless requested by them in writing to do so.

?The Association shall not interfere in the affairs of a Member unless specifically requested to do so by that Member?

Literally the wording from 10.1  :confused:
 

Ed W

Member
Full wording of clause 10.1 taken from the BCA web site (https://british-caving.org.uk/about-bca/constitution/

"10.1 he Association shall not interfere in the affairs of a Member unless specifically requested to do so by that Member. The Association shall not mediate between Members unless requested by them in writing to do so."

So you are both partially right - go on give each other a slap on the back...
 
Ed W said:
lots of hard work has been put in to improving the relationship between CSCC and BCA and if it is perceived that this is not working then I can't help feeling that even more hard work is required by all involved.

I think you couldn't be more right.

From a BCA point of view we need to communicate better, transparency and the light of day puts most of this misinformation to bed pretty quickly.

That said we only have one set of post Christmas minutes available to view on the website at the moment, last year's AGM minutes are still unavailable and I've been slacking a little bit on the P&I front as unfortunately I've had multiple real world deadlines. So there's a big old list we can do to communicate more.

I would point out we are doing better at publishing, soliciting feedback and producing reports. We have a long way to go but reading the plans laid out in various minutes do show that we take it seriously. So more hard work is on the way.

All that said I do think the CSCC could be better with their reports from their representative and from my experience Ed when you've attended in person a fairly neutral balanced take is delivered. I remember attending the last CSCC AGM as an observer and was a bit horrified at how many corrections I offered (which were warmly accepted by the meeting). I think the efforts made for more transparency have only done us good - we wouldn't have had this without it so please don't be discouraged.

A strong cohesive BCA needs a CSCC that can effectively advocate for Mendip's interests and more importantly actually do things like conservation, training and recruiting the next generation of cavers. Hopefully we can get the politics to a place where it helps rather than hinders.
 
Top