Drws Cefn- the next instalment?

[Simon Wilson]

Yes. And the point I was making was tangential. What I said has nothing to do with the law and nothing to do with landowner's permission. I great many surface digs are the reopening of caves that have been filled in a long time ago which is why they are often of archaeological interest. So my point is to do with conservation and ethics. The cave was there before humans and we are just continuing a process of human interaction with the natural landscape.

 

[bograt]

Surely this branch of this thread is irrelevant, as I see it the, Drws Cefn entrance was opened in 1996/1997, the CRoW act was passed in 2000, this means the entrance was in existence before the act was passed, any activity before the act is of no consequence.
Furthermore, I understand that the present owners acquired the land after the entrance was opened, so they got it knowing about the cave ---.

I am sure that any action to change the natural characteristics of CRoW land as it was when the act was passed will require special permission, this was applied for and refused IIRC.--

 

[Madness]

So, lets just say that the legal action over Drws Cefn takes place and the court rules for 'the establishment' (and lets not forget that the court is part of 'the establishment'), the ruling might be that CRoW does not apply to caving.

Then what? MP's, organisations etc are less likely to give support to a cause the has be ruled against in a English Court of Law.

Is the risk justifiable at the moment? A couple of cavers wanting to prove a point might spoil it for future cavers.

Just as a matter of record, My stance is that CRoW does/should apply to caving and that we should give the BCA efforts a chance before acting as individuals. In my opimion a large body of support is more likely to have success than a couple of individuals.

 

[Rhys]

David and Simon

Thank you for your clarifications.

 

[David Rose]

I do not follow why it would be harder to get support if cavers had lost a court action. First,  it might be that a later court action over a different cave where circumstances were different might have a different result. A judgment would be binding only if it took place in the Court of Appeal. Secondly, history is full of examples of successful campaigns to change the law or its interpretation. (NB that at present, we are talking about interpreting existing law, not changing it.)

 

[Madness]

So, if a court were to rule that caving was not included in CRoW, you believe that it wouldn't make any difference to what the BCA are trying to achieve?

Would the BCA then challenge the ruling at a court of appeal?

I'm happy to admit that I know little about how our legal system works,but surely once a legal precedent is set it gets that bit harder to argue your case.

 

[David Rose]

A judicial review about Drws would not be binding on any subsequent cases, unless one or other side appealed and the cavers lost. However, a defeat in the first tier (administrative) court would certainly be a setback, though not a crushing one.

My main concern at this point is to try to ensure that those planning the action and their advisors are clear that there aren't any special factors in play at Drws that might make defeat there more likely than at some other site. These are technical issues way beyond my knowledge. If there are no such factors, I believe that any caver who supports the view that CROW should apply to caving ought therefore to support the proposed litigation as strongly as possible.

The reason is simple: victory over Drws would probably mean DEFRA, NRW and NE would change their policy. I already find it surprising that they can be contemplating spending taxpayers' money in order to defend the closure of a cave on CROW land. Doing so again somewhere else would look indefensible, especially in light of the broad support the BCA campaign is now attracting. The BCA lobbying campaign and the legal action may end up achieving a synergy that enhances the impact of both. 

 

[Jopo]

, especially in light of the broad support the BCA campaign is now attracting.

Without getting embroiled in the core argument I wonder where statements such as this come from.
As far as I can make out from the contributors to all of the threads covering this topic if you said there were 50 in support and 50 against you would be being very generous. It is easy to make a claim on support - after all newspapers and politicians do it all the time.

Please explain how you justify such a statement.

Jopo

 

[Brains]

Would the referendum they had on the topic, mandating BCA to work for a pro clarification, not be considered enough?

 

[Peter Burgess]

That was support attracted some while ago. The comment was about support being attracted now, with the word "especially", implying a significantly greater level of support than was previously expressed. It is just as likely that cavers are now having some misgivings over how they voted, in the light of how a few cavers are now behaving. One can't really tell as it would require another test of opinion, which is not going to happen.

 

[cavermark]

That was support attracted some while ago. The comment was about support being attracted now, with the word "especially", implying a significantly greater level of support than was previously expressed. It is just as likely that cavers are now having some misgivings over how they voted, in the light of how a few cavers are now behaving. One can't really tell as it would require another test of opinion, which is not going to happen.

I don't think the actions of "certain cavers" are likely to give people misgivings over how they voted. I think people have concerns about the actions of certain cavers, because their actions might set back the ultimate outcome that we voted for.

 

[crickleymal]

Personally I'm bored by the whole thing. It just seems to be an excuse for various people to snipe at each other. This one tiny issue seems to have generated more acrimony than all the others put together.

 

[David Rose]

Jopo, I'll let Badlad handle that question. But trust me, he and his colleagues are making headway.

 

[NewStuff]

That was support attracted some while ago. The comment was about support being attracted now, with the word "especially", implying a significantly greater level of support than was previously expressed. It is just as likely that cavers are now having some misgivings over how they voted, in the light of how a few cavers are now behaving. One can't really tell as it would require another test of opinion, which is not going to happen.

You have glasses so rose tinted, they're red.

I suspect that some people are uneasy about the fact that people should even *have* to think about legal proceedings. We all explore underground, and yet some are so determined to concrete an entrance that I can't blame them for thinking it's a realistic way forward.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Well, I see feedback on this that doesn't appear on this forum, and isn't going to either. To use David Rose's phrase, "trust me".

 

[NewStuff]

Well, I see feedback on this that doesn't appear on this forum, and isn't going to either. To use David Rose's phrase, "trust me".

So, "Do what we say, we won't be telling you why, but you had better do it because we say so. Trust us".

Trust *you*??? I'd rather drop a shaft on a dynamic half rope...

Yourself and Graham seem to think that if you vaguely wave your hands a little and murmur something about "not online" then that automagically makes everything ok, we should trust you. Granted, they may not be online, and you may not be able to link us to something, but names, sources, details... you lack all of the above, it's all very wishy-washy and I'm quite inclined to say, it does not exist in any way close to what you make out it does, and *that's* why it will never appear.

Trusting yourself would lead to gates on pretty much any hole in the ground, and a permission system that requires forms that need to be filled out in triplicate, a letter from your mum saying you can do it in your underwear as you've forgotten your oversuit, and be bestest mates with whoever is the guardian of that particular gate...

 

[Rhys]

[gmod]Newstuff, please debate the issue, don't attack the individual. It's not big and it's not clever. You've had numerous warnings to this effect in the past.[/gmod]

 

[Peter Burgess]

To make it clear, the reason it is unlikely to appear here is because the individuals have absolutely no wish to come here, and have perfectly adequate other means to pass on their concerns to those that are prepared to listen. Not because I don't want it to be posted here. Hope that's clear enough.

 

[Badlad]

That was support attracted some while ago. The comment was about support being attracted now, with the word "especially", implying a significantly greater level of support than was previously expressed. It is just as likely that cavers are now having some misgivings over how they voted, in the light of how a few cavers are now behaving. One can't really tell as it would require another test of opinion, which is not going to happen.

The BCA poll/vote gave a clear majority for it to campaign for CRoW to apply to caving.  When I've travelled around the country, caving, attending meetings, etc all indications are that that majority has increased rather than anything else.  Several cavers have told me they would now vote pro either because they have been persuaded by the arguments or because they feel they should support the BCA majority rather than to continue in opposition.  My own experience at BCA Council meetings is that council members have all voted in support of my work as CRoW liason officer even though some originally voted against in the poll.  Also the recent CNCC meeting specifically voted to support the BCA campaign (all for, with one abstention).  The DCA and CCC have also given similar support (the CSCC not).

However, what I expect the earlier post was referring to was the wider support from outside caving, such as the support from other outdoor organisations, MPs and the like that was mentioned in my last report to council.  This wider support has continued to grow and will be reported on first, and in more detail, at the next BCA Council meeting.

I know some people wind each other up on this forum but please... we are trying to keep the forum civil whatever side of the debate you are on.  Thanks

 

[Peter Burgess]

I am not trying to wind anybody up, Tim. Just stating an observation. I am disappointed when innocent actions and statements are misinterpreted. I know this is inevitable on social media, but it does seem to happen quite a bit more than necessary. People should stop reading between the lines as it simply doesn't add anything to the process.