Landowners - what did they ever do for us?

[Ian Adams]

No there isn't 'evidence', Ian. Unless your definition of 'evidence' is an untested opinion.

Of course a QC's opinion is evidence.  I did not state it to be fact or law, I suggested it be "looked into" ....

Ian

 

[droid]

'Evidence' is fact.

You have none.

 

[Ian Adams]

As Per the Collins English Dictionary;

Evidence

(1) Something which provides ground for belief or disbelief

(2) Law  matter produced before a court of law in an attempt to prove or disprove a point in issue

Ian

 

[droid]

Is there any evidence to support the contention that cavers have always had the right since the advent of CRoW ?  Yes, there is.

:-\

Ian

Here. before you edit.....

 

[Ian Adams]

You seem to have made my point for me Droid, thank you 

Ian

 

[paul]

[gmod]We are starting to head towards personal bickering again. Please keep to making your points civily and avoiding personal attacks.[/gmod]

 

[Peter Burgess]

Still think you are sat on the moral high ground Peter ?

I have never claimed this, Ian. Do you not think it is better to stand back and wait, while clarification is sought, than act sneakily? At least it's more honest. Seeking clarification is not a problem, only that some who want the clarification have acted and continue to act presuming that the clarification has already been achieved, and that it is in our favour. How does that look to a landowner (since landowners is what this topic is about). Not only that, but they are quite open about it on a public forum. It's not very discrete, is it?

 

[droid]

Fair enough Paul. it seems to me that we have a fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes 'evidence'. As far as I'm aware, if I'm to be prosecuted in Court, there needa to be factual information that I was guilty. Not someone's 'opinion' that I was.

The Court's decision will be decided on 'fact' not 'opinion' in other words.

In this case, the truth of Ian's comment will be decided if DEFRA change the status of caving within CRoW. They have shown little inclination to do so as yet, and I'm not convinced that BCA is going to make any difference to that.

If they do, I will happily concede. Not before.

And this isn't 'bickering' it's debate.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Yes, Paul, I am very wary of what you say. I will not make personal comments - and although I referred directly to David's comments, my observations about people caving where they did not have permission are entirely general - there have been quite a few comments along these lines over the years.

 

[paul]

And this isn't 'bickering' it's debate.

[gmod]Which is why I said it was heading toeards personal bickering. Debate away by all means but do try and rerfain from tdescending into being personal about it.[/gmod]

 

[Ian Adams]

we have a fundamental disagreement as to what constitutes 'evidence'

I was using (and quoted) the dictionary definition.  If you can substantiate a different definition then that may help us to understand your position.

In  the case of the dictionary definition being correct, then there is ?evidence? that cavers have had the right of access since the advent of CRoW and, that being the case, landowners may not have realised that their own liability has abated/reduced in that respect.

? not wave the "it's morally right to have free access" banner everywhere?

I am not aware anyone has been ?flying that flag? and suggesting that people are wandering around waving flags stating they are ?morally right? is not helpful to either the landowners (who you might alienate with such a statement) or the efforts of those seeking to clarify the position with regards to CRoW (and I see that you are in favour of that);

... Seeking clarification is not a problem ...

Ian

 

[droid]

If evidence isn't factual then it will not be accepted in Court. What you have is 'opinion' not fact.

Contrary 'opinions' have been produced that you have not accepted as 'evidence'. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Peter Burgess]

We are asked to declare our preference. Both Yes and No votes will result in the BCA acting properly, I simply prefer that we don't waste our time and money on such a risky and inappropriate solution to resolving a few poor relationships between cavers (some of whom can't be arsed to respect access issues) and landowners. Remember the landowners? The subject of the topic?

So, no, "clarification" is not a problem, but I don't think we should be bothering to seek it when there is no need. It's a cop out solution.

 

[Simon Wilson]

I'm not advocating mass trespass anywhere.

I've been down Langcliffe twice clandestinely, and I remember feeling quite uneasy.

Legally, not a great deal of difference. Only in scale.

Perhaps this is one reason I am less than happy with what the "yes CRoW" campaigners are about. There is a fair sprinkling of this attitude amongst a few of the strongest advocates. The best way to gain the moral high ground is to demonstrate you have high morals in the first place, not wave the "it's morally right to have free access" banner everywhere.

No, I am not trolling, or being mischievous, just trying to understand my unease in all this. And, no, I don't pretend I haven't been places that I shouldn't have been, but I am prepared to work with the way things are, and achieve better results for cavers through current good practice, with respect to landowner relationships.

Peter, your weasel words are getting worse. There is a fair sprinkling of what attitude? You have completely failed to say what anybody has said that gives you any justification for claiming there is any "class war" or "mill worker attitude" going on.

About forty years ago I was taken on a walk around the Great Whernside and Grassington Moor area by one of my caving mentors who told me we were standing above the greatest challenge in British caving. The challenge he talked about was not the difficulty of the known caves but the unrealised potential for the biggest caves in Britain. Forty years later and there have been no significant discoveries in that area.

Have you ever once set foot on Great Whernside and do you have even the slightest understanding of what we are talking about when we talk about it? I doubt it.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Simon. Please refrain from the personal comments. I haven't belittled anyone and neither should you. You debate well enough without doing this.

 

[Ian Adams]

To continue the debate;

If evidence isn't factual then it will not be accepted in Court. What you have is 'opinion' not fact.

Contrary 'opinions' have been produced that you have not accepted as 'evidence'. You can't have it both ways.

I am having some difficulty trying to work out if you don?t understand what has been presented or whether you are being deliberately antagonistic.

I expressly stated that we have a QC?s Opinion and also that I was not stating fact. No where have I rejected the ex-solicitors critique as evidence.

Simply, I have stated (seemingly a number of times) that there is Evidence that cavers may have been entitled to Access from the inception of CRoW and landowners may have been unknowingly benefiting from reduced liability.

So, no, "clarification" is not a problem, but I don't think we should be bothering to seek it when there is no need. It's a cop out solution.

I don?t understand this oxymoron (sorry). You seem to be saying you have no problem with it then saying you have a problem with it. Since Landowners also benefit, it could be seen as a ?win/win? scenario and it would be irresponsible to not clarify the position if not grossly stupid.

Ian

 

[Simon Wilson]

Simon. Please refrain from the personal comments. I haven't belittled anyone and neither should you. You debate well enough without doing this.

What personal comments? I think the "mill worker attitude" you have referred to is imaginary, I think you are using weasel words and I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. Can you come up with any evidence for your "mill worker attitude"? On the contrary I think your accusation of a "mill worker attitude" is more of a personal comment but it does not offend me in the slightest. It does not offend me but I do want to be allowed to challenge it.

I also think you have very little understanding of the situation regarding Great Whernside. It is not belittleling to suggest that and to suggest that you have never been there; most people have never been there, most people are not cavers and most people do not understand the frustration of being a caver banned from caving on land with the greatest cave potential in Britain.

 

[Peter Burgess]

It's all irrelevant to my point anyway. Of course I can understand and appreciate frustration. No degree of frustration excuses ignoring access matters. I have never said there is no problem with the places you want to visit legitimately. I don't have to be familiar with an area to read and understand what other people say about them. I don't have to be familiar with an area to understand that if you are not supposed to visit an area, then it is technically wrong to do so, and unwise to publish the fact that you do.

 

[Simon Wilson]

It's all irrelevant to my point anyway. Of course I can understand and appreciate frustration. No degree of frustration excuses ignoring access matters. I have never said there is no problem with the places you want to visit legitimately. I don't have to be familiar with an area to read and understand what other people say about them. I don't have to be familiar with an area to understand that if you are not supposed to visit an area, then it is technically wrong to do so, and unwise to publish the fact that you do.

Nobody is "ignoring access matters". People are working hard to improve access by legitimate legal means and to improve relations with landowners as well. Nobody is advocating going caving without permission but people do go caving without permission all the time. There are many caves that you either go down without permission or don't go at all.

You keep going on in the class-war vein and cannot justify it so please drop it. There is land owned by a group of people which happens to contain some of the biggest caves in the country. Those people will not give access for caving and some cavers want to get access. The social class of the owners and the social class of the cavers is irrelevant.

Please don't take this as any sort of personal attack. I think I am right in thinking that you live several hundreds of miles away from the land that we are discussing and that you never go there. I have lived most of my life in close proximity to grouse moors and have been marched off moors by gamekeepers very many times from an early age and I'm fairly certain that you don't know how that feels. I also think that you will have no concept of the scale of the caves and the scale of the challenge of exploring the caves that we are discussing. I think that a great part of your opposition to CRoW is because you really don't understand the mindset of those who want to see the acceptance of caving under CRoW.

 

[droid]

To continue the debate;


I expressly stated that we have a QC?s Opinion and also that I was not stating fact. No where have I rejected the ex-solicitors critique as evidence.

Ian

Your memory is rather selective.

You spent considerable effort belittling the statement to which you refer, mainly in a 'my Dad's bigger than your Dad' stylee.

It is of little moment. The decision as to whether CRoW cowers caves will be made and I wiill happily live with the consequences. I hope you will too.