Ship-badger
Member
With reference to Agen Allwedd. When the diggers in Isles Inlet found the beautiful Courtesan, whilst searching for a link with Daren Cilau; I made the comment on this forum after visiting the Courtesan that I hoped they would not find a connection that took the through-route past this beautiful formation.
Hoping that they do not find the connection there however, is very different to stopping them digging there. I hope that they do find a connection, just not near the Courtesan. But if it were by the Coutesan, I wouldn't concrete it up!
Hoping that they do not find the connection there however, is very different to stopping them digging there. I hope that they do find a connection, just not near the Courtesan. But if it were by the Coutesan, I wouldn't concrete it up!
Ship-badger said:
Unfortunately, there have always been certain individuals on the PDCMG who are not only all too ready to take the morally reprehensible action of filling-in other people's digs but positively delight in doing so.Ship-badger said:
For the uninitiated it may prove enlightening to take a look at the following:
http://www.oucc.org.uk/dtt/vol07/dtt7_5.htm (Picnic on Pwll Du)
http://www.oucc.org.uk/dtt/vol09/dtt9_14.htm (Chelsea Flower Show)
What jolly good fun, don't you think?
Peter Burgess
New member
NigR said:
I think it is wise to read as much as possible to best understand what this is all about, and not just two selected newsletters. For example, the editorial of
http://www.oucc.org.uk/dtt/vol09/dtt9_1.htm
Is it really helpful to select two old reports of actions you don't agree with? Is is not more constructive to put history behind you and look for a sensible way forward? Raking up the past is not going to resolve anything, I suspect.
Of course it is useful to know how things have got to where they are, but history should be used carefully if there is to be a positive outcome.
All well and good in your happy little caverland dreamworld, Peter, but totally out of touch with reality as usual.
Were you at the recent meeting? No.
If you had been you might realise that attempts were made (and, indeed, are still being made) to do precisely as you suggest but these were blocked at every stage by the same group of people whose actions all those years ago led to the situation we have today.
Were you at the recent meeting? No.
If you had been you might realise that attempts were made (and, indeed, are still being made) to do precisely as you suggest but these were blocked at every stage by the same group of people whose actions all those years ago led to the situation we have today.
Peter Burgess
New member
NigR said:
What in God's name do you know, Nig? If you had taken the trouble to explain how you perceived the recent meeting to have gone before picking a couple of old newsletters to highlight to us, perhaps the vast majority of us, who were not at the meeting, might have understood where you were coming from. Instead, we are left with the picture of stubborn people (on both sides for all we know) making snide comments about each other (or in one direction at least). It all seems very petty, unless a more detailed picture is given. Perhaps you would care to either tell us all a lot more of what is being attempted to reconcile things, or desist from what otherwise appears to be the airing of a load of very dirty laundry in public for all to see. Your condescending introduction to your last post was unnecessary and betrays a lazy attitude. Are you assuming I have never been involved in access problems, conservation issues, surveying issues? I guess you must be if you think I live in dreamland. Prove to us all that you are not an arrogant person who immediately forms a bad opinion of anyone who dares to question what you say, however politely.
Peter Burgess said:
Sorry, Peter, but I do know quite a lot about this as I've been fairly closely involved with all the hassle and resulting aggravation from the very start back in 1994.
You are quite correct on one count - it is all very petty. That is why it is so sad.
Regarding my choice of old newsletter articles, this was done to highlight the fact that the attitude of certain die-hard obstructionists has not changed one iota over the intervening years and, based upon what I observed at the recent meeting, is unlikely to do so. Hence a 'positive outcome' (as you call it) to this sorry state of affairs is as far away as it has ever been.
You ask for a more detailed picture? Fine, no problem with that at all - but don't forget you were the one who asked.
However, you will have to wait I'm afraid.
I'm off over to Llangattock now to connect Price's Dig with Craig-a-Ffynnon (well, probably not today but that will hopefully be the ultimate outcome). Something else for the moaners to complain about no doubt.
(Now there's a thought - will John Parker come out of retirement and 'blow it up' (the connection, that is) as he promised to do back in 1989 or whenever?).
See, nothing really changes does it?
Peter Burgess
New member
A positive outcome would be one where everyone is prepared to live with an agreed position, regardless of whether some would prefer a different outcome. That means that some people will have to acknowledge the uncomfortable fact that, for the time being, their ambitions are not going to be realised.
Peter Burgess
New member
So, as a neutral 'observer', can I conclude that your personal issue is not whether or not there is going to be a second entrance maintained into Draenen, but is actually the degree to which the PDCMG represents the views of those who are active in visiting Draenen (for whatever reason). Correct?
Alex
Well-known member
Reading posts like this makes me bloody glad I dont belong to any of the big clubs, if this is what they are like. I can see why the club I belong to formed, specifically to get away from this sort of thing. which to my eyes looks like just arguing for arguing sake.
Oh well, I dont want to get involved so I will leave it at that but maybe you guys should step back and remeber we are cavers we, well I assume most of us started caving to explore strange new worlds, or to challange our selves pysically. I dont think anyone started caving to have something to sit around arguing about. If you want to do that join the goverment they love this sort of thing and see how well they run the country lol.
Oh well, I dont want to get involved so I will leave it at that but maybe you guys should step back and remeber we are cavers we, well I assume most of us started caving to explore strange new worlds, or to challange our selves pysically. I dont think anyone started caving to have something to sit around arguing about. If you want to do that join the goverment they love this sort of thing and see how well they run the country lol.
C
Clive G
Guest
NigR said:
RobinGriffiths
Well-known member
Speaking of which, does anyone have his email details these days ? PM please.
cap n chris
Well-known member
Alex said:
Not entirely flippant but certainly a naive post Alex; it's arguably a bit like saying you don't want to get involved in mainstream life in the UK because you find politicians irrelevant or out of touch so you'll invent a commune and live in pseudo-isolation in a faceless suburb. It's an opinion and one you are entirely free to air but a naive one nonetheless. Caving in the UK has been around for a very very long time and access arrangements are often very complex (this thread being onesuch example) but if, as the caver you are, you wish to visit caves in the UK you are benefitting fundamentally from these sort of access agreements*, whether or not you have the slightest understanding of their background. Most people aren't interested in access issues but, if they were, they might a tad more respectful of the work done by that those who are.
* Oftentimes there are access disagreements but from debating the issues, many disagreements can be resolved into agreements. Pretty simple, despite the arduous preamble, really.
RobinGriffiths
Well-known member
Thanks Clive
Peter Burgess said:
It should be fairly obvious to anyone who has bothered to follow any of the various threads relating to Draenen that my immediate personal concern is to reach a satisfactory and realistic outcome to the whole question of further potential entrances to the system.
Does the PDCMG accurately represent the views of those who visit Draenen? No, it does not. Neither does it represent the views of the majority of other cavers who may wish to visit the cave in the future.
There is a popular misconception that the PDCMG is a democratic body. It is not and never has been. The initial core of member clubs were invitation only. A handful of other clubs have joined since but most cannot be bothered to get involved due to all the aggravation. There are now thirteen clubs on the committee, so how many cavers does this represent out of the UK's caving population? A very small proportion.
From the outset, the way voting rights are distributed between the member clubs and the Officers has meant that a small ruling clique has been in control and this continues to be the case. Currently, five of the seven Officers are drawn from two clubs and, as was ably demonstrated at the last meeting, anyone outside of those two clubs who has the audacity to stand for a post has virtually no chance of being elected. Bearing in mind that it is the same two clubs who are continuing to follow such a hard-line stance regarding the entrance question and you may begin to understand why I am so negative in my expectations that anything worthwhile is going to be achieved.
graham
New member
NigR said:
Sorry, NigR don't mean to sound cynical but does that mean anything more than that you want them to agree with you?
NigR said:
Can you tell us how you came to this opinion, especially how you canvassed the views of future cavers?
NigR said:
A similar point could be made about every access body in the UK, some even consist of only one club! So what? there are incredibly few caves that a committed caver cannot get legitimate access to in the UK.
NigR said:
Funnily enough, my club has just joined.
F
fleur
Guest
Some history for those who have requested it:
A 2nd entrance to OD was first suggested to Morgannwg CC late in 1995. At that time they were essentially controlling access to the cave and being remarkable free about letting plenty of other people join the party of exploration of the newly discovered system. This second entrance suggestion ultimately led to a consultation carried out by MCC, as this was prior to the formation of the PDCMG. MCC collated all the replies to their consultation, the majority of which were not in favour of a further entrance, and decided that a second entrance was not justified. However, works were carried out in the original entrance to facilitate passing of a stretcher should this ever be required.
Shortly after however, it became apparent that members of the CSS were actively digging to create a second entrance and this inevitably led to a lot of personal disagreements between the various parties. Attempts were made by a member of Cwmbran CC to mediate and it was agreed that digging was to be suspended. Around this time (1996) the PDCMG was formed, and in the first meeting the Chairman asked for surface digging to cease and CSS agreed.
However, at various points digging did continue and the second entrance was opened. Now the matter was dealt with by the PDCMG (in 1997 and 1998) and discussed at length through a number of meetings. It was decided by a vote of the member clubs and officers in those meetings to cap the entrance and adopt a specific policy on further entrances (available on the website http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/begin.htm).
Thus has the status quo continued for a number of years. However, there is so much history between the two sides that this unfortunately has led to a lot of animosity and two entrenched positions. On the one hand some people fear that the other side may continue to act against agreements and access licenses to open other entrances. They on the other hand feel that the PDCMG is inflexible and not representative and therefore gets what it deserves.
It is indeed sad that such a situation has arisen. However, we are where we are, and it is therefore a good thing that the issue is being discussed more widely (it is ten years since this was last done). As the new secretary of the PDCMG I am very keen to listen to people?s views and welcome opinion. It is important that the consultation happens widely and fairly, so that everyone can accept the outcome as representative of the majority feeling, whatever that turns out to be.
I would like to remind everyone that all cavers can supply their opinion to me formally at pdcmg_sec at hotmail.co.uk. Clubs who have an interest in Draenen who are not currently represented on the PDCMG are also welcome to request membership.
Thanks, Fleur.
A 2nd entrance to OD was first suggested to Morgannwg CC late in 1995. At that time they were essentially controlling access to the cave and being remarkable free about letting plenty of other people join the party of exploration of the newly discovered system. This second entrance suggestion ultimately led to a consultation carried out by MCC, as this was prior to the formation of the PDCMG. MCC collated all the replies to their consultation, the majority of which were not in favour of a further entrance, and decided that a second entrance was not justified. However, works were carried out in the original entrance to facilitate passing of a stretcher should this ever be required.
Shortly after however, it became apparent that members of the CSS were actively digging to create a second entrance and this inevitably led to a lot of personal disagreements between the various parties. Attempts were made by a member of Cwmbran CC to mediate and it was agreed that digging was to be suspended. Around this time (1996) the PDCMG was formed, and in the first meeting the Chairman asked for surface digging to cease and CSS agreed.
However, at various points digging did continue and the second entrance was opened. Now the matter was dealt with by the PDCMG (in 1997 and 1998) and discussed at length through a number of meetings. It was decided by a vote of the member clubs and officers in those meetings to cap the entrance and adopt a specific policy on further entrances (available on the website http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/begin.htm).
Thus has the status quo continued for a number of years. However, there is so much history between the two sides that this unfortunately has led to a lot of animosity and two entrenched positions. On the one hand some people fear that the other side may continue to act against agreements and access licenses to open other entrances. They on the other hand feel that the PDCMG is inflexible and not representative and therefore gets what it deserves.
It is indeed sad that such a situation has arisen. However, we are where we are, and it is therefore a good thing that the issue is being discussed more widely (it is ten years since this was last done). As the new secretary of the PDCMG I am very keen to listen to people?s views and welcome opinion. It is important that the consultation happens widely and fairly, so that everyone can accept the outcome as representative of the majority feeling, whatever that turns out to be.
I would like to remind everyone that all cavers can supply their opinion to me formally at pdcmg_sec at hotmail.co.uk. Clubs who have an interest in Draenen who are not currently represented on the PDCMG are also welcome to request membership.
Thanks, Fleur.
Peter Burgess
New member
NigR said:
Indeed it is very obvious, Nig.
However, all the other matters you complain about in your last post very clearly demonstrate to me that the matter of representation runs an extremely close second to the matter of other entrances in your list of priorities. Furthermore, if you are correct about how the committee are unrepresentative of the views of a 'majority' (whatever that is), you are banging your head against a brick wall unless a great deal more effort is put into resolving the politics. Maybe taking unilateral action, or trying to discredit those who oppose your view are easier actions to take than taking one huge collective deep breath and coming to an amicable solution. Good God, they managed it in South Africa, do you not think a few intelligent ape descendants can manage to stop squabbling over a hole in the ground in a slightly damp corner of the UK?
fleur said:
I would echo these sentiments and I have been encouraged by the tone of Fleur's posts to date.
So I would say to everyone who may have an interest in this to do as she suggests - have your say and send her your opinions. I'm sure they will be read and noted.
Just be aware, however, that all this has been done before and that, if you want things to change, you are most likely wasting your time. Somewhere along the line (at the October meeting) a vote will take place, the outcome of which is already pre-determined due to the reasons I have previously outlined.
And then it will be back to square one - again!
