Darkplaces Big bash Aug 2007 - Trip report

[cap n chris]

how many "near misses" or "issues" per caving trip do you have to warrant a review?

Not a criticism, merely an observation. 

None; there's no harm in applying experience gained from one trip towards planning subsequent ones.

 

[vanoord]

Indeed, some of the locations for the DP week were not named: for example I understand that in one specific case the landowner is happy for trusted DP members to go there but nobody else: that is not an 'access issue'. And one trip was to a place where the owner turns a blind eye - again the name was withheld to prevent that access being lost by attracting world+dog to the site.

And yes, some trips were to places we weren't meant to be. They didn't involve breaking and entering and I fail to see the problem.

As a denizen of north Wales, I'd make the point that there are several places where access is not strictly permitted, but where one can walk in without having to resort to the gas axe. In these cases, we go in, amble about and come out again with nobody the wiser. As, in fact, locals have been doing for years and years: it's only t'internet which has brought this to anybody's notice.

This sort of sneaky access might be an issue for a club - which I suspect would be defined as a legal entity and therefore responsible for its members - but it's not an issue for a forum. Whether or not DarkPlaces as a forum condones this behaviour is therefore pretty meaningless. If anyone is considered to be bringing the forum into disrepute, eg by graffitiing sites, then they would be removed / banned.

I'd also suggest that DP does have a side which benefits the wider world - the Cwmorthin group is perhaps the best example of this, as have been various tidying trips where rubbish or graffiti have been removed. And among recent 'projects' has been the photographic recording and measuring of sites and artifacts: these may be sites that are currently 'off-limits' and thus the records are being withheld for now. No, we shouldn't have been in some of these places, but I'll stand up and defend until I'm blue in the face that this is a good thing.

Now then...

I simply pointed out that in the UK landowners have the perfect right to exclude you from their land for whatever reasons they choose and whether you feel that those reasons are sensible or spurious has no bearing on the matter.

Well, actually it does... you see, the aim is to ensure that the landowner does not know we've been there. And unlike some UrbEx sites one could mention, there's very little of the "look where we've just broken into" attitude. But, given that these trips are publicised, you'll just have to take my word - as a trespasser - for it.

Except in that experience has shown down the years that when groups of selfish little little twerps act in such a high-handed way it actually does set back for many years the successful negotiation of access for all other cavers. There are numerous case-histories that could be mentioned here, but doubtless you would not read them anyway, as you clearly don't give a shit for the concerns of others.

Absolutely wrong. And I slightly resent being considered part of a group of 'selfish little twerps' - see above!

There are also case histories where DP members as an organised group have secured access to sites where access would otherwise have been lost. But I guess if you're going to be selective we'll have to put up with the insults.

I really can't see why people respond to the posts of this club of pillocks. The most hard core trips they seem to undertake, are the sort of things that most folks do when it's too wet/ to hung over to do anything worthwhile.

Saucer of milk, good sir?

Unless I'm very much mistaken, Mine Exploration is not caving. I really don't give a monkeys if you think that I'm in some way soft because I don't go through crawls, sumps and dangle 200' up just as a warm-up. If I wanted to spend my evenings in the pub bragging about how brave I was, I'd probably give it a go. But that's not the point, it it?


Anyway, enough of that: a couple of bits of clarification...

When is anybody forced to do anything in caving - or even mine exploration? Well for one thing I imagine that turning around would be a tad tricky, after going down the zip line.

As happens, no it's not tricky. It's quite a gentle slope and all you do is to pull yourself back using the safety line. Been there, done that.

... I guess the earlier comment(s) in the report along the lines of "it was a great event, nobody got killed..." are making allusions to people very nearly, but not actually, getting killed, then? (i.e. large falling rocks and equipment irregularities, such as those you mention above, Clunk) - were there any other "near hits", making the event a tad more Scary Mary?

It is only by learning from our mistakes that we learn properly!

As Darkplaces himself said, the cause of the rub-point problem was a bit of dislodged rubble which put itself in utterly the wrong place and had a particularly sharp edge. The problem was noticed before it got out of and and dealt with. And I suspect that the experience is going to make several people check things far more intensively than before.

As a final thought... I'm aware of several places in this part of the world where cavers have passed through on fixed rigging that DP members have subsequently improved because of safety concerns. And some of those cavers were there on organised club trips: weird, eh? But it doesn't mean anyone's more reckless than someone else, or that an organised club is better or worse than a loose gathering: it just means we're all different.

_____

And a postscript: the Croesor-Rhosydd trip is not done with the landowner's permission. Make of that what you will

 

[graham]

Now then...

Quote from: graham on August 14, 2007, 07:39:09 AM
I simply pointed out that in the UK landowners have the perfect right to exclude you from their land for whatever reasons they choose and whether you feel that those reasons are sensible or spurious has no bearing on the matter.

Well, actually it does... you see, the aim is to ensure that the landowner does not know we've been there. And unlike some UrbEx sites one could mention, there's very little of the "look where we've just broken into" attitude. But, given that these trips are publicised, you'll just have to take my word - as a trespasser - for it. Wink

But why don't you wish the landowner to know you've been there, that's really the point. It's his. You have no rights. Tough.

Quote from: graham on August 14, 2007, 07:39:09 AM
Except in that experience has shown down the years that when groups of selfish little little twerps act in such a high-handed way it actually does set back for many years the successful negotiation of access for all other cavers. There are numerous case-histories that could be mentioned here, but doubtless you would not read them anyway, as you clearly don't give a shit for the concerns of others.

Absolutely wrong. And I slightly resent being considered part of a group of 'selfish little twerps' - see above!

I am sorry, but absolutely right. I could cite chapter and verse, give you the names of the landowners and the names of the selfish little twerps. You may not like being bracketted with them, Ok, so don't act like them. Simple really.

There are also case histories where DP members as an organised group have secured access to sites where access would otherwise have been lost. But I guess if you're going to be selective we'll have to put up with the insults.

Is that access for all cavers/mine explorers? If so I applaud you and welcome you to the club.

 

[vanoord]

"You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

But why don't you wish the landowner to know you've been there, that's really the point. It's his. You have no rights. Tough.

Pretty much for the same reason that when I drive above the speed limit I don't want the police to be there. Come on, that's a somewhat daft question to ask!

And while I remember, it is no longer a right of landowners to remove me from their land in many of the places I visit since the introduction of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Albeit the bits underground are (probably) not covered by this.

I am sorry, but absolutely right. I could cite chapter and verse, give you the names of the landowners and the names of the selfish little twerps. You may not like being bracketted with them, Ok, so don't act like them. Simple really.

If you wish to consider me a selfish little twerp, then feel free: not once have I gained entry to somewhere through force, not once has a landowner removed me.

Is that access for all cavers/mine explorers? If so I applaud you and welcome you to the club.

Well I thank you: do I get a badge?

Nec precario, nec vi, sed clam

 

[graham]

And a postscript: the Croesor-Rhosydd trip is not done with the landowner's permission. Make of that what you will

Have you ever caved in the Burrington Combe area on Mendip. Virtually every trip that takes place there happens without the explicit permission of the landowner. However he is aware of what goes on and chooses to keep it that way, though I know that he sometimes worries about accidents and liability. I also know that if a group did ask for a written permission for any reason (the army used to, quite frequently) then he would not grant it, if this meant that their hierarchy would not allow the trip to take place, that was not his problem. For all I know the same thing happens at Croesor-Rhosydd. Surely you see that the lack of explicit permission is by no means the same as an explicit refusal of permission? Similarly, in some parts of Europe, landowners will not give explicit permission for fear of being landed with some form of liability. Everybody knows this, everybody knows that if you ask you will be refused, but if you don't ask nobody minds. Again, this is very different to a landowner having an explicit wish to refuse.

I'm still old-fashioned enough to believe that the landowner's wishes should be respected.

That's the word, respect.

 

[graham]

And while I remember, it is no longer a right of landowners to remove me from their land in many of the places I visit since the introduction of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Albeit the bits underground are (probably) not covered by this.

CRoW specifically does not grant a right to roam to the underground. There are good reasons for this.

 

[vanoord]

Surely you see that the lack of explicit permission is by no means the same as an explicit refusal of permission? Similarly, in some parts of Europe, landowners will not give explicit permission for fear of being landed with some form of liability. Everybody knows this, everybody knows that if you ask you will be refused, but if you don't ask nobody minds. Again, this is very different to a landowner having an explicit wish to refuse.

I entirely understand the concept: but... what you seem to be suggesting is that (a) you don't get seen by the landowner (or they turn a blind eye if they do see you); (b) you don't actually break in; and (c) you don't ask for permission on the basis that permission will not and can not be explicitly granted as the landowner would then accept a liability. Under those circumstances it would seem that you would condone someone accessing a site? But surely you could not sanction that as the decent thing to do?

As I said in my last post; Nec precario, nec vi, sed clam.

 

[graham]

Surely you see that the lack of explicit permission is by no means the same as an explicit refusal of permission? Similarly, in some parts of Europe, landowners will not give explicit permission for fear of being landed with some form of liability. Everybody knows this, everybody knows that if you ask you will be refused, but if you don't ask nobody minds. Again, this is very different to a landowner having an explicit wish to refuse.

I entirely understand the concept: but... what you seem to be suggesting is that (a) you don't get seen by the landowner (or they turn a blind eye if they do see you); (b) you don't actually break in; and (c) you don't ask for permission on the basis that permission will not and can not be explicitly granted as the landowner would then accept a liability. Under those circumstances it would seem that you would condone someone accessing a site? But surely you could not sanction that as the decent thing to do?

As I said in my last post; Nec precario, nec vi, sed clam.

My Latin is forty years rusty so forgive me for not grasping it. As for the rest, that applies in some cases but not in others. Tacit understands do not have to be explicit but explicit understandings must be respected.

 

[langcliffe]

CRoW specifically does not grant a right to roam to the underground. There are good reasons for this.

I would be very interested to see how you are able to substantiate the word "specifically" by quoting the appropriate part of the Act.

 

[graham]

CRoW specifically does not grant a right to roam to the underground. There are good reasons for this.

I would be very interested to see how you are able to substantiate the word "specifically" by quoting the appropriate part of the Act.

I suggest you read David Judson's Underground Britain: Legal and Insurance issues BCRA Cave Studies series no 12 ISBN-0-900265-26-4. http://www.bcra.org.uk/pub/cs/index.html?j=12

That covers it in far more detail.

 

[langcliffe]

CRoW specifically does not grant a right to roam to the underground. There are good reasons for this.

I would be very interested to see how you are able to substantiate the word "specifically" by quoting the appropriate part of the Act.

I suggest you read David Judson's Underground Britain: Legal and Insurance issues BCRA Cave Studies series no 12 ISBN-0-900265-26-4. http://www.bcra.org.uk/pub/cs/index.html?j=12

That covers it in far more detail.

You were referring to the CRoW - not to Dave Judson's interpretation of it.

I have read the CRoW Act a number of times, and I would like to know how you can justify your contention  that it "specifically does not grant a right to roam to the underground", by giving me a textual reference in the Act.

 

[graham]

I will cheerfully admit that, had this been a serious statement rather than a post on an internet forum I would have proof read it before release and altered teh positioning of one word so that it read

"does not specifically grant a right to roam to the underground"

I attended some of the consultation meetings when CRoW was originally discussed; I also know a little about how the interpretation of Acts of Parliament works in the courts when a meaning might be contentious or unclear - which they frequently are as parliamentary draughtsman are only human after all - and can state unequivocally that there is nothing in that act that supercedes any of the access agreements negotiated by cavers over the years nor anything that actually allows access to any caves not currently covered by access agreements.

Mines, of course are a different matter as they are covered by quite different legislation.

 

[langcliffe]

I will cheerfully admit that, had this been a serious statement rather than a post on an internet forum I would have proof read it before release and altered teh positioning of one word so that it read

"does not specifically grant a right to roam to the underground"

Thank you. In my view, because this is an Internet forum, coming out with such inaccurate definitive statements is to be avoided. If they are allowed to go unchallenged, they become part of the community folklore.

 

[cap n chris]

Langcliffe, what is the latest state of play re Caving and CRoW legislation?

 

[vanoord]

My Latin is forty years rusty so forgive me for not grasping it. As for the rest, that applies in some cases but not in others. Tacit understands do not have to be explicit but explicit understandings must be respected.

Without permission, without force, but with stealth

Possibly it should be "sed per clam" to make it obvious it's through stealth, but my remaining grasp of latin prefers the shorter version.

I will cheerfully admit that, had this been a serious statement rather than a post on an internet forum I would have proof read it before release and altered teh positioning of one word so that it read

"does not specifically grant a right to roam to the underground"

Which does alter the meaning somewhat! Like I said: "the bits underground are (probably) not covered" by the CRoW: the Act does not specifically permit access, but then it does not specifically exclude access. It would take a court to decide either way, but I can't see anyone bothering to promote a case to allow access on the basis that it would probably fail - although conversely I could see a landowner asking for a directions hearing to specifically prevent access if a load of people started causing trouble.

Am I off-topic yet?

 

[graham]

It doesn't specifically exclude a lot of other things that it doesn't address, either. the simple fact of the matter is that CRoW is not relevant to cave access.

And is certainly not relevant to mine access.

 

[langcliffe]

It doesn't specifically exclude a lot of other things that it doesn't address, either. the simple fact of the matter is that CRoW is not relevant to cave access.

And is certainly not relevant to mine access.

Interestingly enough, although the case for the relevance of the CRoW to caving is as yet undetermined (and requires a judgement by a High Court), a good case can be put forward that the Act does allow landowners to ban access to mines.

Paragraph 13 of the Act effectively indemnifies the land owner from any injury  to  someone entering their land as a result of the Act caused by natural features (and waterways), but not from injury caused by artificial features, such as mines. Taking positive steps to prevent access into such places as a means of fulfilling his obligation would be well within his rights.

 

[graham]

It doesn't specifically exclude a lot of other things that it doesn't address, either. the simple fact of the matter is that CRoW is not relevant to cave access.

And is certainly not relevant to mine access.

Interestingly enough, although the case for the relevance of the CRoW to caving is as yet undetermined (and requires a judgement by a High Court), a good case can be put forward that the Act does allow landowners to ban access to mines.


Paragraph 13 of the Act effectively indemnifies the land owner from any injury  to  someone entering their land as a result of the Act caused by natural features (and waterways), but not from injury caused by artificial features, such as mines. Taking positive steps to prevent access into such places as a means of fulfilling his obligation would be well within his rights.

And was well within his rights before CRoW was even thought of. this act has not changed that position.

 

[vanoord]

Interestingly enough, although the case for the relevance of the CRoW to caving is as yet undetermined (and requires a judgement by a High Court), a good case can be put forward that the Act does allow landowners to ban access to mines.

Paragraph 13 of the Act effectively indemnifies the land owner from any injury  to  someone entering their land as a result of the Act caused by natural features (and waterways), but not from injury caused by artificial features, such as mines. Taking positive steps to prevent access into such places as a means of fulfilling his obligation would be well within his rights.

Yes and no...

The 1954 Disused mines and Quarries Act requires the owner (i.e. the person who owns the mineral rights) of a disused or abandoned mine to secure and maintain the surface entrances to prevent any person from accidentally entering and coming to harm. This duty applies irrespective of whether or not the mine is accessible from a public place and has not been affected by the CRoW Act.

There is a second duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 which requires a landowner to take reasonable care that people do not suffer injury on their property. This applies if the landowner knows of a danger that people may come into contact with, and it is reasonable to offer some protection. If the landowner does not do this, the local council can deem it to be a statutory nuisance, deal with it and charge the landonwer the costs. I would assume that this covers caves and cliffs etc. as well as mines, quarries and anything else you'd care to consider a danger.

It is technically not the case that it is within the landowner's right to prevent access or not: rather, it is an obligation that the landowner prevents people from coming to harm. Section 13 of the CRoW Act does not lift this requirement although it modifies it: the critical quote is "being reckless as to whether that risk is created" - ie if the landowner is aware of a damn great shaft and leaves it unfenced, then he remains liable.

Aside from these two liabilities, there remains a grey area: there is no specific exclusion in the CRoW Act which excludes access underground. This may be because it could be considered that access is not permitted through other legislation, but... that other legislation requires the landowner to take reasonable steps to prevent people coming to harm.

If, for example, the access to a cave system under Access Land is a hole in a cliff 20' above the ground that can only be accessed by abseiling 60' down the cliff above, then doing nothing would be considered a reasonable thing to do as access is obviously difficult. However, if a bunch of cavers with full SRT rig turn up and abseil down and gain access that way, the landowner has complied with the law. Yet, access has been gained and I'd suspect that under such circumstances, the cavers could claim to be there legitimately under the CRoW Act.

In short, the CRoW Act does not specifically state that anything undergound under Access Land is excluded: it therefore is not excluded. It certainly does not state that it is included. So, is the CRoW Act relevant to 'underground'? Well... possibly (albeit on balance probably not) because there is no explicit guidance either way: and as langcliffe says, that will remain a grey issue until there is a Court ruling.

 

[graham]

In short, the CRoW Act does not specifically state that anything undergound under Access Land is excluded: it therefore is not excluded. It certainly does not state that it is included. So, is the CRoW Act relevant to 'underground'? Well... possibly (albeit on balance probably not) because there is no explicit guidance either way: and as langcliffe says, that will remain a grey issue until there is a Court ruling.

Firstly, it is a principle of English law that rights not specifically granted cannot be implicitly presumed to exist. There is a correct technical wording of this which I cannot remember.

Secondly, who is going to run a court case over CRoW and cave access? It'd be bloody expensive, if those running it lost then there would most specifically be a loss of any presumed current access "rights" in some areas, if those running it won then not a single surface dig would ever be allowed in this country again as no landowner is going to allow something that will, if successful, lead to his loss of control over yet more of his land. In short, it is not in the interest of cavers to push that point and given that there are remarkably few caves in this country to which there is no access, what's to be gained?