Guardian article

[jasonbirder]

"This meeting confirms that the Constitution allows BCA to seek clarification from DEFRA and Natural England on their existing guidance on The CRoW Act and its application to caving."

I believe this doesn't allow the National Council to pursue a very public campaign. 

The argument about the constitution is just sophistry by those that feel decisions should be made by committees rather than the general membership...

The majority of members want the BCA to be active in campaigning for greater access under CRoW legislation...nit-picking tiny pedantic constitutional points that most BCA members have no interest in is just foot dragging...

 

[Cookie]

Until the Constitution is changed this motion set out the limit of what the AGM thought possible in trying to satisfy the wish of the membership.

So what is the timetable for amending the BCA Constitution?

See http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=about:documents:bca_constitution

8.4. Notice of any matters to be raised at a General Meeting of the Association, including all proposals for constitutional change, must reach the Secretary by midnight on the day of the National Council meeting preceding the AGM.

Which this year is April 9th.

 

[alastairgott]

"This meeting confirms that the Constitution allows BCA to seek clarification from DEFRA and Natural England on their existing guidance on The CRoW Act and its application to caving."

I believe this doesn't allow the National Council to pursue a very public campaign. 

The constitution does not need amending, it already allows for the Clarification to be sought in either a public or a private manner. The meeting merely pointed this out.

http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=about:documents:bca_constitution

Section 3 talks about the aims of the Association.
3.1 is about "encouraging the development of access arrangements at national, regional and club level in accordance with national, regional or club practice."
3.3 is about acting as "a national spokesman and negotiating body on behalf of Members, when required by them to do so; to protect members' interests; and provide facilities, when required, to co-ordinate effort where interests overlap. "

Section 13 goes on to talk about interpretation- in that they say that the general meeting shall be the final interpreter of the constitution. They have interpreted that clarification can indeed be sought, and it seems in this case in any manner (whether that be public or private!).

 

[alastairgott]

And isn't it a bit late now.

Don't they say "after the horse has bolted"?

Should you have raised your concerns at the meeting? maybe you did?
Afraid I wasn't there either.

 

[Cookie]

I was at the meeting.

As per section 13 the AGM interpreted the Constitution and passed that motion to instruct Council at the 2015 AGM.

I kind of expected the Council to abide by the AGM's instruction.

 

[PaulW]

Sorry to point out the obvious but the article was written by a journalist not the BCA.

 

[Badlad]

The BCA poll stated,

"Should BCA, on your behalf, campaign for the Countryside and Rights of way Act to apply to going underground"

In the event of a majority of members saying "yes", BCA will ...

There then listed a number of bullet points including;

"lobby MPs and other persons of influence to push for CRoW to apply to going underground"

Another bullet point stated;

"seek to change section 4.6 of our constitution at the June 2015 AGM"

Neither was conditional on the other - or on any of the other bullet points.  Nowhere does the BCA constitution state that it cannot campaign for a legal right to apply to caving.  The same section referred to above also states that access should be obtained and granted as freely as possible for all responsible cavers.  The constitution is not specific enough for it to be used to prevent the will of the majority of members over this particular issue.  The BCA has been clear on what action it is taking on behalf of members, it has justified those actions and reported them fully.

Should any organisation choose to ignore the majority of its members it would risk stepping into very dangerous territory indeed.

As for the Guardian article, it was they who phoned me up for an interview.  However it was clear that they had already been talking to other cavers.  I gave the BCA position as best I could.  I don't know what other reasonable response BCA members could expect from me - I am the BCA CRoW liaison officer after all.

 

[Mrs Bottlebank]

Not too sure how many times the BCA are going to ask for clarification.

DEFRA says no, George Eustace says no, etc.

Is there just a load of money going to be wasted hoping that one day someone might say yes. Its like a child repeatedly asking for a sweetie, please can I, please can I, please can I, why not, why not, your just SO unfair (boohoo) and then running to a grown up (the press) to say its so unfair!

Just my point of view perhaps I am just getting tired of the question

 

[Brains]

Quite so, however the ongoing legal action over Drws Cefn will yield some sort of result. The establishment will maintain the status quo until change is the easy option, as with the Kinder Trespass many moons ago. The current standpoint of DEFRA and NE/NRW is illogical, but that has never been a reason for change before! Many of the terms are debateable,  but again that doesnt mean anything.
Bottom line is the law needs clarifying, and NE/NRW or DEFRA dont do that. Parliament, the Privy Council (subject to ratification), and judiciary can make, change and interpret law. All else is hot air. Government seems to have little wish to bring this to parliament, but perhaps a SWales court will come up with the goods...
A definitive result, either yay or nay, will then be had...

 

[steviet_scg]

Not too sure how many times the BCA are going to ask for clarification.

DEFRA says no, George Eustace says no, etc.

Is there just a load of money going to be wasted hoping that one day someone might say yes. Its like a child repeatedly asking for a sweetie, please can I, please can I, please can I, why not, why not, your just SO unfair (boohoo) and then running to a grown up (the press) to say its so unfair!

Just my point of view perhaps I am just getting tired of the question

There's a difference between asking a question and running a campaign. A majority who voted wanted a campaign. That's what we have.

Steve

 

[David Rose]

Enough defeatism. There is a campaign, supported by a vote, and whatever Defra now says simply means we haven't won yet.

But we will.

 

[droid]

What is the difference between being 'defeatist' and being 'realistic'?

Caving is very important to people here. It's largely irrelevent  to most of the general public. That doesn't mean that a change in interpretation of CRoW isn't achievable, but it is by no means inevitable.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Those officers that ignore the decisions of council simply make the BCA a laughing stock. The knot to be unravelled simply gets more tangled every day.

 

[BCA Chair]

This is one of those very difficult and divisive issues where a lot of people have strong views. Unfortunately, therefore, whatever BCA does there are almost bound to be some very unhappy people.

The issue is on the agenda for the next BCA Council Meeting a week on Saturday. I'm not going to try to pre-empt here what is decided.

One quick query though:

Peter Burgess says:

Those officers that ignore the decisions of council simply make the BCA a laughing stock.

I am not aware that any Officer has ignored the decisions of Council. If you are, please let me now.

 

[Peter Burgess]

What is the BCA exit strategy for the campaign? To simply say "when we've won" is not good enough, because it doesn't take into account the possibility of not winning, however remote some might think that possibility is.

 

[steviet_scg]

Perhaps it'll just Peter out ...  :-\

 

[RobinGriffiths]

This is a gloriously ambiguous bullet point from https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-your-right-to-roam if you choose to read it literally rather than in a common sense way - restrictions -' taking animals other than dogs on to the Land.'

What animals do they have in mind? Cats? Horses? Dead crabs? Lice? Ticks?

And you can drive a mobility vehicle anywhere if you want to. Which puts me in mind of the chap who got arrested driving up Snowdon in a 4x4 a few years ago. If he stuck to a mobility scooter with extra traction and a very big battery he would have been OK.

Robin

 

[RobinGriffiths]

PS Eustace is happy not to toe the party line when it comes to pasties. Someone so beholden to savoury pastry products is obviously a very fine fellow indeed. I now see the errors of my ways and concede Crow does not apply to caving.

 

[Mark Wright]

What is the BCA exit strategy for the campaign? To simply say "when we've won" is not good enough, because it doesn't take into account the possibility of not winning, however remote some might think that possibility is.

Should BCA, on your behalf, campaign for the Countryside and Rights of way Act to apply to going underground"

For me that means the BCA should be campaigning for the CRoW Act to apply to going underground until such time as it does. Whilst this might not be good enough for those who voted against the BCA ballot, i'm sure it is for the 63% majority of 'members' who voted in favour.

With regards to the constitution, I think the 63% of positive voters would expect the necessary constitutional changes to be made without question. Not doing so would surely bring into question how representative the BCA is of its membership and could bring into question its very existence.

For me the ability of the BCA's 'second chamber' to veto a very positive (and very expensive) full membership vote is ridiculous.

I think it would be in the best interests of the BCA to ensure the necessary constitutional changes are made to ensure the best interests of the majority of its members are looked after.

Note: It's late and I've had a few,

Mark

 

[droid]

63% of those who voted, voted 'yes' That means that 37% voted 'no'.

Why did over a third of voters reject the seemingly reasonable proposal to campaign for a clarification of CRoW to include caving? Maybe if some attempt was made to understand that, and address the 'no' voters' concerns, then the bitchiness that has characterised this entire 'debate' might be lessened.