Darkplaces Big bash Aug 2007 - Trip report

[vanoord]

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.

Absolutely. And poorly-drafted legislation can also accidentally create rights that did not previously exist.

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?

I would only suspect that a Directions case would be brought by a landowner to obtain a specific ruling that there was no right of access underground following series of alledged acts of trespass by a person or persons who claimed that they had a right to be there under the CRoW.

But as I keep saying, in all likelihood, the CRoW does not give a right of access, merely that under some interpretations it could be argued that it might.

 

[graham]

Point taken. Now, if anyone (or any group) has pushed a landowner that far, then they are certainly doing us all a disservice by waking any sleeping dogs that might be lying peacefully around.

 

[langcliffe]

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.

No - I cannot see your interpretation holding up in court. It would mean putting a fence around any natural hazard in the country, which goes against common sense. They certainly didn't find John Farrer culpable when the scout fell down Jib Tunnel (although if I remember rightly, this was partly because there was a generic notice in the YDNP car park, and it was before the CRoW Act was enacted).

 

[vanoord]

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.

No - I cannot see your interpretation holding up in court. It would mean putting a fence around any natural hazard in the country, which goes against common sense. They certainly didn't find John Farrer culpable when the scout fell down Jib Tunnel (although if I remember rightly, this was partly because there was a generic notice in the YDNP car park, and it was before the CRoW Act was enacted).

I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but all the same if I was a landowner defending myself against being charged for having someone plummet down an unfenced shaft, I wouldn't be all that confident.

 

[BAZZA666]

anyone got plans to free the ladder in that cool looking mine, an please could i tag along :idea:

 

[darkplaces]

Free the ladder?

er? 're-reading though this amazing topic, what kind of pictures is Cap'n Chris posting? ment to achieve?

(bottom of page 5 for the hard of understanding)

 

[vanoord]

Free the ladder?

er? 're-reading though this amazing topic, what kind of pictures is Cap'n Chris posting? ment to achieve?

(bottom of page 5 for the hard of understanding)

Dunno guv'nor. Perhaps he's renamed a couple of files and got confused?

The two alternatives - both being suggestions of what the denizens of DP might be -  are such a slur on the Cap'n's good name that I don't dare put in writing...  :-\

 

[clunk]

anyone got plans to free the ladder in that cool looking mine, an please could i tag along :idea:

Would you be referring to the ladder bridge in croeser?

 

[BAZZA666]

HERE IT IS

!!!wow!!!

 

[vanoord]

HERE IT IS

Thought I recognised the pic

Although this is a subject for a different thread.. the bridge has been rolled sideways a bit and freed of the rock that brought it down. In the future it will no doubt be removed from the lake it (half) sits in and then a decision made about its future.

 

[BAZZA666]

MY BAD :chair: BUT THANKS

 

[bubba]

Great pic - amazing how clear the water is in there and a sobering reminder as to how dodgy the roof is. Imagine being halfway over the bridge when that happened

 

[darkplaces]

Regarding the cap'n chris image I think hes been the victim of a security change I made to block hot-linking, didn't realize till someone told me as I still see the DP logo (as I am 'inside' the domain) and I am told its changed for the image link I used on an anti-hotlink-script.

Maybe the topic should be removed or edited.
...

Oh the roof is fine, you should see the chamber of horrors! 

 

[clunk]

Regarding the cap'n chris image I think hes been the victim of a security change I made to block hot-linking, didn't realize till someone told me as I still see the DP logo (as I am 'inside' the domain) and I am told its changed for the image link I used on an anti-hotlink-script.

Someone got rid of some posts but not all.

 

[wormster]

I reckon it needs a nutty diver to go down and attach a couple of flotation bags to the underwater end, and the other end unbolting from its anchor, then it could be lifted out, repaired and re-installed to its original position.

 

[darkplaces]

We just need to built a boat and a landing stage at the otherside.

 

[wormster]

We just need to built a boat and a landing stage at the otherside.

How's about a couple of carbon fiber racing coracles? should do the trick, light weight and indestructible, be good on the last watery crossing for sure, no more punctured Rachael's, no more hauling un-inflated Rachael's and pumps about.

 

[Walrus]

We just need to built a boat and a landing stage at the otherside.

What about a ferry-type system with a boat on a pulley? Then it could stay on either side and be pulled back when needed!

 

[darkplaces]

I thought all cavers had beards? Plus being international we would have all manor beard tastes....

So Walrus thinks we need to construct a ferry?

Question is, will it hold my car...? I think Vanoord has already calculated the zip line would take a tonn or something so maybe it would have to be a lightweight land rover. The 4x4 would help in the chamber of horrors. Recommend hard top though!

The other option is to lob rocks in till we have created a causeway, so we can appear to walk on water, (as some of us do already).

Put that in your cavers pipe and smoke it!

 

[vanoord]

Indeed, I enjoyed the three Big Bash trips I went on


On topic!  


(Zipline - designed for a certain gentleman who would exert 1.5 tonnes (there or thereabouts) of force The specified components have a breaking strain of about three to four times that figure.)