Drws Cefn- the next instalment?

[Badlad]

My final comment was not particularly aimed at you, Peter, but supportive of the global moderator comment made by Rhys.

Anyway I hope my post was able to answer your question about the wider support the BCA campaign has been attracting recently.  More details will be published on here after they have been reported to the next Council meeting.

 

[David Rose]

Newstuff, I don't know who you are or what I've done to upset you, but I was merely referring to the fact that Badlad (aka Tim Allen) has been leading the lobbying effort to get other outdoors bodies onside and ought to answer the question. And as he's just made clear, in due course he will make a full report to the BCA.

I have always tried to be transparent and honest in debating this (and any other) issue. For example, when I spoke to the Draenen landowner and got answers that I didn't like and which didn't help the cause I posted them anyway because I believe people have a right to be informed. OK?

 

[jasonbirder]

That was support attracted some while ago.

 

it would require another test of opinion

I'm going to hazard a guess that if the CROW referendum had gone against campaigning for better Cave Access...that people wouldn't suggest it was too long ago (a year?) or that it was already time for another referendum (in the hope of a different result)

 

[David Rose]

Oh, I realise you were actually directing your comment towards Peter. I should pay closer attention. Apologies. Anyhow, I agree with Rhys. Let's all keep the ad hominem stuff out of this forum - it's been much more pleasant lately, and long may it remain so.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Thank you for making that clear Tim.

 

[NewStuff]

Newstuff, I don't know who you are or what I've done to upset you, but I was merely referring to the fact that Badlad (aka Tim Allen) has been leading the lobbying effort to get other outdoors bodies onside and ought to answer the question. And as he's just made clear, in due course he will make a full report to the BCA.

I have always tried to be transparent and honest in debating this (and any other) issue. For example, when I spoke to the Draenen landowner and got answers that I didn't like and which didn't help the cause I posted them anyway because I believe people have a right to be informed. OK?

You haven't upset me in the slightest, I think you should be applauded (along with many other people) for taking so much time to help open up access for everyone. I was referring to Peter Burgess and his hordes of offline supporters that conveniently  are not online, do not visit this site (or for that matter, any other I have found yet), and refuse to have any detail whatsoever provided about them. In most other circles, people would think he was making it up.

 

[Peter Burgess]

The last thing I made up was a lentil and bean soup, with smoked sausage chopped up in it for extra flavour.

 

[Badlad]

[admin]In response to several complaints I'm just going to lock the thread for a few hours so we can all take a break and prevent any deterioration of the thread. I hope folk agree. Back soon[/admin]

 

[Brains]

The PDCMG do not post here, and keep quite on line about their proposed activites. As has been shown here before they and there associates have planned to concrete Drws Cefn. Perhaps plans are in hand to do the deed before the case comes to court? Is that what is being hinted at?
I would imagine their views have become more negative to CRoW as the majority wish to see a clarification in favour becomes more apparent.
Maybe that is what is being hinted at?

 

[alastairgott]

I'm afraid I echo views that this issue should not go to court, at least until a decision has been made between the cavers involved as to the Best course of Action.

This will not be a test case for Open access if this discussion doesn't take place.

The reason for this is because as a community we will look disorganised. It would be much better to settle the Drws Cefn case outside of Court.

If you are going to take it to court then your going to:
a) waste time, better spent digging (or caving).
b) waste money, better spent promoting the sport (or digging).
c) have a lot of boring circular conversations.


I can see why PDCMG want to have only one entrance. having two entrances could have a detrimental effect on the Conservation of the Cave.
Yes, people who have used the Drws Cefn Entrance say that it is just as far away from the formations as the Draenan Entrance and Just as hard, but I don't know as I've never been there.
But that Is missing another aspect of Conservation relating to Draughts. If there are two entrances this could create a draught.
As far as I know, we still do not know how Helectites (erratics) are formed. with the addition of a draught created by having two entrances this could have long lasting effects on the future growth of these speleothems. That would be a crying shame.

My two pence then is that the decision on two entrances vs one Should be based on scientific merit and not based on the decision of a Bigwig in a court or some government Quango.


The whole reason why CROW Came about was because of Yorkshire cavers not being happy about a decision in the past.
This thread is seeking the same Whitewashing result for Welsh cavers to sort out in the future. It wont work.

None of you will be happy with any decision unless you make it yourselves.

 

[Alex]

I agree now a court action is not in everyones best interest as great strides are being made recently and well if we don't like the permit system up here we can simply ignore it, if it all goes wrong it could make the situation worse!

As for drafts:

Even with PDCMGs old plans which include a bat window you will still have the draft, so I think that's a non-issue unless it is completely walled off (illegal now, due to bats). There was likely a draft there anyway as that was what told the diggers to dig there.

 

[andrewmcleod]

c) have a lot of boring circular conversations.

You could argue taking it to court will settle that particular case (if not necessarily the wider issue) once and for all, quite the opposite of the usual circular conversations...

If the BCA were offered the chance to apply for a judicial review right now for a simpler case than Drws Cefn for ?1 with no potential liability, would they not choose to do it? If the court unambiguously stated that CROW did not apply to caving, then we would know that and could decide whether to push for a change in the law or not.

 

[alastairgott]

If the BCA were offered the chance to apply for a judicial review right now for a simpler case than Drws Cefn for ?1 with no potential liability, would they not choose to do it?

If you can think of a cave where there are good relations with the landowner and therefore open access is not a contentious issue then it may be wise to ask BCA if it would be worth pursuing. Badlad would know I?m sure and would probably ask the question on your behalf, or may already be doing so...