J
John S
Guest
I have spent a while reading the constitution and trying to see why the statement maybe false. It all comes down to 4.6 in the constitution and the letter published by David Judson of BCA interpretation of it and the CRoW legislation. http://www.british-caving.org.uk/membership/landownership+caves_240310.pdf
4.6. That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access.
Where caving bodies have control of access delegated to them by the owners, such access should be
obtained and granted as freely as possible for all responsible cavers, within the terms of those
agreements. When obliged to make new agreements, the appropriate body should endeavour to ensure that this freedom is maintained or improved.
This means that access bodies, regional bodies and the national body all have to go along with whatever a landowners says. This may seem quite sensible on the face of it but it does produce several major problem.
A bit of history now. In 1932, 99% of the upland in the Peak District was out of bounds. A rambling club decided to go against landowners wishes and trespass. The place was of course Kinder Scout, and this set a chain of events in action. The National Council of Ramblers (RA)was formed in 1935, which pushed the agenda forward to get definite maps of rights of way published and the National Parks set up. The first being the Peak District one, surprise surprise.
In 1985 the Ramblers Association started the Forbidden Britain Campaign. After 6 years of pressure and not getting enough progress, mass trespasses were held in 1991. This lead to CRoW legislation in 2000.
So without ignoring some of the landowners wishes, we would not have an awful lot of what we take of granted now.
But what is wrong with now saying we will go with whatever a landowners says?
It ties one hand behind you back when negotiating any access as the landowners know you have to agree at the end of the day.
Secondly the requirements could be unworkable. Say that to promote equal opportunities, a landowners says ?all parties have to have an equal number of men and women, give or take one?. Nice bit of positive discrimination to promote wider participation (or any other clause/requirement you may think of). This goes to the local cave management group that has to accept it. This is then pushed up to the regional body and finally the national body. All of whom have to accept it, even if they find it against the general body of cavers interests. The landowner can then quite rightly say that their policy has the backing of the National, Regional and local caving bodies. This would then now appear to be national policy to those not in the know!
I think some reworking of this clause is required to take away the automatic agreement with the landowner. We should still consider what the landowner has to say but the cavers needs should be put first. After all it is the British Caving Association and not a Landowners Association to control cavers, or am I getting that wrong !!
4.6. That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access.
Where caving bodies have control of access delegated to them by the owners, such access should be
obtained and granted as freely as possible for all responsible cavers, within the terms of those
agreements. When obliged to make new agreements, the appropriate body should endeavour to ensure that this freedom is maintained or improved.
This means that access bodies, regional bodies and the national body all have to go along with whatever a landowners says. This may seem quite sensible on the face of it but it does produce several major problem.
A bit of history now. In 1932, 99% of the upland in the Peak District was out of bounds. A rambling club decided to go against landowners wishes and trespass. The place was of course Kinder Scout, and this set a chain of events in action. The National Council of Ramblers (RA)was formed in 1935, which pushed the agenda forward to get definite maps of rights of way published and the National Parks set up. The first being the Peak District one, surprise surprise.
In 1985 the Ramblers Association started the Forbidden Britain Campaign. After 6 years of pressure and not getting enough progress, mass trespasses were held in 1991. This lead to CRoW legislation in 2000.
So without ignoring some of the landowners wishes, we would not have an awful lot of what we take of granted now.
But what is wrong with now saying we will go with whatever a landowners says?
It ties one hand behind you back when negotiating any access as the landowners know you have to agree at the end of the day.
Secondly the requirements could be unworkable. Say that to promote equal opportunities, a landowners says ?all parties have to have an equal number of men and women, give or take one?. Nice bit of positive discrimination to promote wider participation (or any other clause/requirement you may think of). This goes to the local cave management group that has to accept it. This is then pushed up to the regional body and finally the national body. All of whom have to accept it, even if they find it against the general body of cavers interests. The landowner can then quite rightly say that their policy has the backing of the National, Regional and local caving bodies. This would then now appear to be national policy to those not in the know!
I think some reworking of this clause is required to take away the automatic agreement with the landowner. We should still consider what the landowner has to say but the cavers needs should be put first. After all it is the British Caving Association and not a Landowners Association to control cavers, or am I getting that wrong !!