Legal Action about Access - relevant to debate on access under CROW Act

[Simon Wilson]

But the CDG are irrelevant to this anyway as bathing in non-tidal waters is specifically excluded by the act. 

I'm sure the CDG are well aware of what the act covers and what it doesn't. The CDG members are cavers.

 

[Bottlebank]

2) Fairly relevant that an organisation representing landowners (as the anglers typically own or lease the fishing rights) have seen fit to threaten legal action against a sports governing body over that sport's interpretation of how access to land (caves, water, etc). This indicates that there is a risk of legal action/costs to the BCA (I wouldn't like to be drawn into estimating either likelihood or impact of this risk); and if my understanding is correct (and I am happy to be corrected), as the BCA is an unincorporated association, its members would be jointly and severally liable under any action. I suspect that means that many or most of those posting on this debate could be liable - in reality, there shouldn't be much cost (other than lawyers fees) if the legal action is just about not publishing material

The total costs of losing could be fairly high - I assume (maybe wrongly) a court may force the sports governing to pay the legal costs of the other side if they lose.

I've no idea what funds the BCA have to fight a case with, but at the rates barristers charge I doubt it would last long.

 

[Bob Mehew]

The type of action being threatened by the Anglers Trust on BCU is (at this point in time) not relevant to BCA since BCA as a body have yet to take a stance.  But I agree with Graham that it is clearly one point BCA will need to consider as a potential threat to its assets of ?173,000 and then to its members as Bottlebank has rightly commented upon.  However at the current moment, those most at risk are myself, Tim Allen and Jenny Potts.  One substantial difference between our situation and that of BCU is that you should all recall that I said "I would add that if any person wishes to use this opinion by itself as sufficient reason to defy an existing access agreement, then they are in my judgement, fools.", see https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0RTfmWzkLQMeUVqM2R3NnNaSjg/edit?usp=sharing as announced in my contribution at http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=16816.msg221265#msg221265 .  So I think it would be difficult to make a similar charge against us at this point in time. 

One might however ponder that perhaps this is a brilliant strategy by BCU to get themselves into a situation where they are the defendants of a court case where the key point is going to be whether their view point of the law on navigational rights is correct.  And as defendant they get the last word in the case before the judge / jury retires to consider a verdict.  Whilst the complainant has to work out every line of defense in advance and seek to provide evidence countering each line in making their case.

You may also recall that my original motion did include an explicit reference to keeping land owners informed.  Something which has yet to be taken up by BCA.  But hopefully it will be at least one thing both pro and anti can agree on doing and implementing tomorrow.

 

[Bottlebank]

The type of action being threatened by the Anglers Trust on BCU is (at this point in time) not relevant to BCA since BCA as a body have yet to take a stance.  But I agree with Graham that it is clearly one point BCA will need to consider as a potential threat to its assets of ?173,000 and then to its members as Bottlebank has rightly commented upon.  However at the current moment, those most at risk are myself, Tim Allen and Jenny Potts.  One substantial difference between our situation and that of BCU is that you should all recall that I said "I would add that if any person wishes to use this opinion by itself as sufficient reason to defy an existing access agreement, then they are in my judgement, fools.", see https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0RTfmWzkLQMeUVqM2R3NnNaSjg/edit?usp=sharing as announced in my contribution at http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=16816.msg221265#msg221265 .  So I think it would be difficult to make a similar charge against us at this point in time. 

I believe QC's can charge as much as ?5000 a day - and having one on your side must encourage the opposition to employ someone of equal calibre!

One might however ponder that perhaps this is a brilliant strategy by BCU to get themselves into a situation where they are the defendants of a court case where the key point is going to be whether their view point of the law on navigational rights is correct.  And as defendant they get the last word in the case before the judge / jury retires to consider a verdict.  Whilst the complainant has to work out every line of defense in advance and seek to provide evidence countering each line in making their case.

Not sure getting yourself involved in a court case is ever a brilliant strategy if it can be possibly avoided! Just my opinion!

You may also recall that my original motion did include an explicit reference to keeping land owners informed.  Something which has yet to be taken up by BCA.  But hopefully it will be at least one thing both pro and anti can agree on doing and implementing tomorrow.

I hope so too, in fact if the BCA do decide to persuade NE to change their view I think diplomatically it would be a very good idea to canvas the opinion of landowners first and if possible make the results public - you never know a majority may be in favour - which would bolster your case.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Not sure getting yourself involved in a court case is ever a brilliant strategy if it can be possibly avoided! Just my opinion!

I am absolutely sure it is not a brilliant strategy. No doubt about it. Negotiation has always got to be better than confrontation. You get something that should last and gives both sides something to walk away with. Including an intact bank balance.

 

[Bob Mehew]

I hope so too, in fact if the BCA do decide to persuade NE to change their view I think diplomatically it would be a very good idea to canvas the opinion of landowners first and if possible make the results public - you never know a majority may be in favour - which would bolster your case.

an interesting thought. I will ensure it is mentioned tomorrow.

 

[Bottlebank]

I hope so too, in fact if the BCA do decide to persuade NE to change their view I think diplomatically it would be a very good idea to canvas the opinion of landowners first and if possible make the results public - you never know a majority may be in favour - which would bolster your case.

an interesting thought. I will ensure it is mentioned tomorrow.

Thanks Bob, although I should have said "if the BCA decide to try to persuade NE....".

If the outcome eventually is that CRoW does apply it may make some landowners feel they were part of the process than simply slapped with it afterwards. If the majority were in favour it would be a bonus for you - but I'd prefer to see the results published no matter which way they are inclined.

 

[peterk]

I don't know what side I'm on because I can see no reason to take sides but I do see a conflict that on insignificant scale is like those entered into by Bush and Blair. There's too much "I'm right because I've got this report in my hand", a refusal to understand why anyone else can hold differing views and little consideration as to the reaction or tactics of those who currently control the access we want.

People in the anti-CroW camp keeping going on in this vein and it is quite wrong. At the June CNCC meeting there was much discussion of the issues of conservation and landowner relationships. The chairman had to repeatedly remind the meeting that the motion under consideration was not whether or not cave access under CroW would be good for caving, the motion was about whether or not the CNCC wanted to see the BCA endorse action to seek clarification of the law.

The CDG wrote a short submission to the BCA C&A meeting. I think it puts quite succinctly the position held by the vast majority of thoughtful cavers.

Simon
I didn't mean to give offence and I now know that  the information available to me at time of invading Iraq posting was not, with hindsight, as comprehensive as it should have been if we had known now what we knew then. (George, Is this a speech on Alzheimer's? Tony B).

Was the second sentence of your contribution the start of a new paragraph ? I can't see its relevance to the first sentence.

 

[Simon Wilson]

I don't know what side I'm on because I can see no reason to take sides but I do see a conflict that on insignificant scale is like those entered into by Bush and Blair. There's too much "I'm right because I've got this report in my hand", a refusal to understand why anyone else can hold differing views and little consideration as to the reaction or tactics of those who currently control the access we want.

People in the anti-CroW camp keeping going on in this vein and it is quite wrong. At the June CNCC meeting there was much discussion of the issues of conservation and landowner relationships. The chairman had to repeatedly remind the meeting that the motion under consideration was not whether or not cave access under CroW would be good for caving, the motion was about whether or not the CNCC wanted to see the BCA endorse action to seek clarification of the law.

The CDG wrote a short submission to the BCA C&A meeting. I think it puts quite succinctly the position held by the vast majority of thoughtful cavers.

Simon
I didn't mean to give offence and I now know that  the information available to me at time of invading Iraq posting was not, with hindsight, as comprehensive as it should have been if we had known now what we knew then. (George, Is this a speech on Alzheimer's? Tony B).

Was the second sentence of your contribution the start of a new paragraph ? I can't see its relevance to the first sentence.

Peter, the second sentence was an inadequate attempt to explain why I think you were wrong. I understand that you said that you don't know which side you are on but I disagree with everything you then went on to say if it refers to the 'pro' side.

> There's too much "I'm right because I've got this report in my hand"< The anti-CRoW side have tried to make out that there are people demanding access which is not the case. Everybody I have spoken to who are 'pro' are concerned to get clarification of the law and end the argument which is a completely different thing to claiming to be right. Those who have been assuming access under CRoW have been doing it consistently and quietly and continue to do so, they won't feel a need to do anything different because of any report.

> a refusal to understand why anyone else can hold differing views< The anti-CRoW side have been been claiming that the 'pro' side are refusing to consider their views. Again, this is not the case. There has been much discussion of the possible consequences of CRoW  and the people on the pro-clarification side appear to be just as concerned about the issues as anybody else.

  >and little consideration as to the reaction or tactics of those who currently control the access we want.< I can only speak for the North where mostly those who control the access are the land agents/owners and the CNCC. In the North the pro-clarification side are the same people who cooperate to control access. The CNCC committee voted unanimously to support the motion for the BCA to seek clarification (the motion that the BCA didn't allow to be on their agenda) and nobody is more concerned about the reactions of the landowners than the CNCC.

 

[graham]

Everybody I have spoken to who are 'pro' are concerned to get clarification of the law and end the argument which is a completely different thing to claiming to be right.

Do you think that this sentence really applies to those who, or so we are told, are putting copies of Ms Rose's opinion in their car windows up on the fells instead of displaying the required permits?

Where the issue for paddlers is somewhat different to that for cavers is that they actually have a fairly minimal impact on the environment through which they travel. The same cannot be said of cavers whose passage is subsequently obvious for all to see.

In this debate, who is speaking for the caves?

 

[Bottlebank]

Do you think that this sentence really applies to those who, or so we are told, are putting copies of Ms Rose's opinion in their car windows up on the fells instead of displaying the required permits?

If Mrs Rose opinion is correct then the permits aren't required
As the situation stands currently - if the Landowner or their agent feels strongly enough about it they could challenge Cavers on his land and ask them to leave...as it is no-one seems to be batting an eyelid...which puts the whole "antagonising Landowners" argument in a more realistic light...

It could be the landowners assume cavers are generally abiding by the agreements made and will be a little upset to find agreements are no longer valid, which is why I suggested that it would be a good idea if the BCA consult landowners after todays meeting PRIOR to asking NE to reconsider, if that is what is decided.

In this debate, who is speaking for the caves?

Whatever you feel about how Graham expresses his views the point is a valid one. Is the right of cavers to have free access more important than the need to protect caves?

This has nothing to do with people speaking for less cavers or less caving, most of us are in favour of improved access, I certainly am. Most people in favour of CRoW accept that most who are against are still in favour of improved access overall. The debate is about how we achieve it, do we negotiate better access, or do we use CRoW to demand it? You can distort that if you wish but by doing so it's you that's being contrary.

Try these questions, when considering whether CRoW should apply to caving:

What is best for our caves?
What is best for caving?
What is best for cavers?

If your answers to the first three are different what priority do you give the three questions, which is the most, and least important?

Some may feel they are equally important, I happen to feel that our priority should be caves, caving, then cavers. That way we get the best long term balance, cavers acting in the interests of caving, and caving in the best long term interest of caves.

 

[nice but damp]

extremely well put Bottlebank 

 

[graham]

Thank you, Tony.

Try these questions, when considering whether CRoW should apply to caving:

What is best for our caves?
What is best for caving?
What is best for cavers?

If your answers to the first three are different what priority do you give the three questions, which is the most, and least important?

Some may feel they are equally important, I happen to feel that our priority should be caves, caving, then cavers. That way we get the best long term balance, cavers acting in the interests of caving, and caving in the best long term interest of caves.

My worry is that all too many cavers aren't even asking the first question.

 

[martinm]

Try these questions, when considering whether CRoW should apply to caving:

What is best for our caves?
What is best for caving?
What is best for cavers?

If your answers to the first three are different what priority do you give the three questions, which is the most, and least important?

Some may feel they are equally important, I happen to feel that our priority should be caves, caving, then cavers. That way we get the best long term balance, cavers acting in the interests of caving, and caving in the best long term interest of caves.

Hi all. Just back from the BCA meeting which went well (much better than expected) and was very constructive. (Long day though, phew!)

I'm not going say much about it except that decisions were made and a statement summarising things will appear in due course on the BCA website. However, I can say that the 3 questions above were most definitely discussed and considered and probably the order of priority was as suggested above.

Virtually everybody at the meeting made useful contributions and actions will hopefully be being taken before the next BCA Council meeting in October.

A provisional date of 22nd November 2014 has been set for a follow-up BCA C&A meeting.

Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer.

 

[damian]

Thank you to all who took the time to contribute, either in person or by written submission, to today?s Conservation & Access Committee meeting.

BCA Executive will now be seeking a meeting with Natural England to ask it to consider its advice on the CRoW Act and its application to caving. It is hoped that this will take place in the coming weeks. There was also an extremely useful discussion about the best ways to conserve our caves and following on from this Andrew Hinde, BCA?s Conservation and Access Officer, will now lead on a review of all BCA?s current conservation documentation. The Committee will also move forward with a number of new conservation initiatives. Further details will be published in the draft Minutes which will be available as soon as possible (but not realistically for at least a couple of weeks).

On behalf of BCA, I would like to thank everyone at today's meeting for their extremely constructive approach.

Damian Weare
BCA Secretary

 

[cap n chris]

[mod]Tit-for-tat personal bickering, largely off-topic, removed. Considering locking this thread if there's more - to be in with a chance of keeping posts included AVOID ad hominem nit-picking.[/mod]