Northern caving needs you

[Cavematt]

Bottlebank, I think the legal implications of the proposals have been explored (I have not been involved with this, but I am of the impression this has been fully examined), and this is the reason the issue of this document has been delayed longer than was desirable. I guess that had there been legal implications then the entire motion would have been postponed pending further consideration.

 

[NigR]

I find it absolutely incredible that the CNCC are still determined to go ahead with this proposal.

Definitely a case of 'bunker mentality' to the most extreme extent imaginable.

Best of luck to Tim, Simon and friends in their efforts to bring it all crashing down in tiny pieces.

 

[Badlad]

Quite incredible to think that this proposal is still on the agenda.

You will remember that this commercial proposal was proposed by the CNCC secretary himself as stated in the September minutes. 

However, the secretary 'accidently' put in the AGM agenda that the Bradford Pothole Club and the Gritstone Club had proposed and seconded this item.  When these clubs were both contacted to ask if this was the case both clubs denied any knowledge of this proposal.  A lot of pressure had to be put on the CNCC secretary to remove their names from this proposal.

The very people this proposal applies to do not support it.  So if this is passed it will be imposed on them against their will.  The CNCC have asked BCA to support this proposal by threatening punitive measures against any instructors who breach the agreement.  Ultimately this would include withdrawal of certification and potential livelihood.

Cave instructors have made it very clear to me that this proposal was created behind their backs in an under hand fashion whilst they were still negotiating with the landowner.  I think this is actually the official position of the ACI.

What has caving come to if our regional representatives are going to continue with this proposal just to save face.  This is not about one or two personalities it is about the much bigger picture of caving in Britain and the best interests of British caving.

This proposal should be dropped from the agenda.  The micro clubs that support the present CNCC might just vote it through.  The new committee, post AGM, should review the whole proposal and consult properly with all those involved.

 

[Bottlebank]

It would be interesting to know why the instructors/ACI are opposed?

It doesn't look like a particularly bad deal from their point of view - at least compared with the present situation?

 

[Badlad]

Question:

When was DM's letter to his MP written i.e. where in the chronology of events did that letter occur?

The MP, Julian Smith, contacted the estate in late March asking the landowner to arrange a meeting with the CIC instructor so that he could make his case.

At the June CNCC meeting, having been given a copy of the MP's letter, the Access Officer stated that the ACI should make there own agreement with the estate.

A meeting took place later that month between the CIC instructor, the CNCC access officer and the estate.  According to the CIC instructor that meeting went very well and the estate was very amenable to their position.  They felt they were involved in negotiating a simple arrangement that would give them access to the Whelprigg and Shuttleworth estates. 

Following that meeting the CNCC access officer never consulted with the instructor again, or the ACI or the northern panel.  He came up with the proposal as it stands and put it to the September CNCC meeting who passed it through without fully understanding the implications. 

It would be interesting to know why the instructors/ACI are opposed?

It doesn't look like a particularly bad deal from their point of view - at least compared with the present situation?

I think the ACI objections centre around the manner in which the Access officer behaved, sidelining them and taking total control.  I think there are issues around which caves can be used and for what purpose, being dictated by CNCC only and that other types of instructed caving on the fells has not been addressed.  But I don't speak for them.  It is the rotten governance of it all that I object to and that doesn't even include the rather dodgy (and secret) second access agreement that is already in place on these fells.  Let's see how many of you know what this agreement is and who it relates too?

 

[Andy Sparrow]

It would be interesting to know why the instructors/ACI are opposed?

It doesn't look like a particularly bad deal from their point of view - at least compared with the present situation?

I can't speak on behalf of ACI but for myself the objection is to the persistent use of the word 'commercial'.  Using the 'C' word is simplistic and misleading.  It does not convey the complexity of the instructing world.

Imagine that a school or scout group wants to cave.  Consider these scenarios....

1. They have their own qualified instructor but no kit.  They hire the equipment from a commercial provider.

2. They go to a charitable organisation (eg- youth project) or non-profit making centre (eg: Charterhouse Centre on Mendip).  They pay for the activity.

3.  They go to a non-profit making centre, who (as they often do) employ a freelance professional instructor to lead the session.

4.  They go to a non-profit making centre, who (as they sometimes do) sub-contract a commercial company to lead and equip the session.

5.  They go directly to a commercial company.


The last scenario is clearly commercial, but what about the others?  Arriving in a minibus and being led by an instructor does not by default mean that a commercial business is being run.  This is the reality I would like the landowners to understand.

 

[NigR]

It is the rotten governance of it all that I object to and that doesn't even include the rather dodgy (and secret) second access agreement that is already in place on these fells.  Let's see how many of you know what this agreement is and who it relates too?

Not very secret now, is it?

Yes, I would like to know the the precise details of this agreement and who it relates to.

 

[Stu]

Thanks Badlad for the explanation.

It was as I'd thought but wanted a definite.

It beggars belief. 

 

[CatM]

I've been reading all these CNCC-related threads with great interest and unfortunately have seen a lot of animosity from both sides. I'm still a bit confused by the whole situation and don't want to get dragged into the argument, but a couple of comments/questions spring to mind:

- Just because a minibus of cavers turns up doesn't mean they're a commercial group - plenty of university clubs hire minibuses for their weekend trips

- Who is DM and why did they write a letter to their MP (I feel I've missed something here - I couldn't see any reference on the CNCC statement)?

- I was under the impression that novices weren't allowed in permitted caves on Casterton Fell - perhaps I've misunderstood but I would have thought that people on an instructor-led trip would fall under the category of "novice" so how could they be allowed access?

 

[Jon]

- I was under the impression that novices weren't allowed in permitted caves on Casterton Fell - perhaps I've misunderstood but I would have thought that people on an instructor-led trip would fall under the category of "novice" so how could they be allowed access?

They wouldn't necessarily be novices. Some CIC's have regular, competent clients.

 

[Stu]

- Who is DM and why did they write a letter to their MP (I feel I've missed something here - I couldn't see any reference on the CNCC statement)?

PM sent.

 

[Jon]

- Just because a minibus of cavers turns up doesn't mean they're a commercial group - plenty of university clubs hire minibuses for their weekend trips

Which reminds me, does anyone know who these minibuses belonged to and if they were a commercial outfit?

 

[Bottlebank]

It would be interesting to know why the instructors/ACI are opposed?

It doesn't look like a particularly bad deal from their point of view - at least compared with the present situation?

I can't speak on behalf of ACI but for myself the objection is to the persistent use of the word 'commercial'.  Using the 'C' word is simplistic and misleading.  It does not convey the complexity of the instructing world.

Imagine that a school or scout group wants to cave.  Consider these scenarios....

1. They have their own qualified instructor but no kit.  They hire the equipment from a commercial provider.

2. They go to a charitable organisation (eg- youth project) or non-profit making centre (eg: Charterhouse Centre on Mendip).  They pay for the activity.

3.  They go to a non-profit making centre, who (as they often do) employ a freelance professional instructor to lead the session.

4.  They go to a non-profit making centre, who (as they sometimes do) sub-contract a commercial company to lead and equip the session.

5.  They go directly to a commercial company.


The last scenario is clearly commercial, but what about the others?  Arriving in a minibus and being led by an instructor does not by default mean that a commercial business is being run.  This is the reality I would like the landowners to understand.

Andy,

All those scenarios have an element of commercial involvement - albeit not all for profit or all from the instructor.

If you're saying you would prefer an agreement which allowed free access for instructors working on a not for profit basis that would make sense - and from the sound of things could quite possibly be negotiated?

Or is it simply the word itself you object to?

Tony

 

[cap n chris]

I object to the term "Commercial" being used as a catch-all to cover various other types of professional or instructed caving scenarios: it is a negatively-loaded term and actually rather hateful.

On the topic of access negotiations I think there are significant pitfalls in attempting to introduce access procedures which separate one type of caving from another, in the short term they may well appear to favour the amateur status organisations but there are some easily imagined unintended consequences which many cavers can see all too clearly and which could have very detrimental repercussions. Once a system where the "highest bidder calls the shots" has been introduced it will be hard to turn back, I feel. The losers could well be the amateurs.

 

[Pete K]

I object to the term "Commercial" being used as a catch-all to cover various other types of professional or instructed caving scenarios: it is a negatively-loaded term and actually rather hateful.

Agree entirely Chris. Professional please.

 

[graham]

I object to the term "Commercial" being used as a catch-all to cover various other types of professional or instructed caving scenarios: it is a negatively-loaded term and actually rather hateful.

Agree entirely Chris. Professional please.

Another loaded term. Is anyone in this country more professional when it comes, for example to cave diving than those unpaid rank amateurs in the CDG?

 

[Jon]

I object to the term "Commercial" being used as a catch-all to cover various other types of professional or instructed caving scenarios: it is a negatively-loaded term and actually rather hateful.

Agree entirely Chris. Professional please.

Stay on topic boys, it's only a word. 

 

[Pete K]

Being professional and being a professional are different things. You can be professional and unprofessional as a professional or a non professional.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/professional

1.1 Worthy of or appropriate to a professional person; competent, skilful, or assured

It is an important distinction and the question was asked above. Sorry Jon, I'll get back OT.

 

[Bottlebank]

it is a negatively-loaded term and actually rather hateful.

Chris, to those of us engaged in legitimate commercial activities that's pretty insulting. Fortunately it's bollocks as well. It's a simple word to describe a profit making activity, (the sort of thing that pays the taxes that let much of the non profit making and service sectors exist) and is not negatively loaded, and certainly not hateful - except perhaps in your mind.

If I was as over sensitive as you seem to be I'd be offended, but fortunately I'm not.

I'd suggest any instructor running courses for profit is most definitely using his or her experience and professional qualification to engage in commercial activity (in fact I can't think of a better word for it). Obviously anyone using the same qualification running trips on a voluntary basis isn't.

Rather than objecting to the use of the word why not use the proposal and term to try and negotiate free access for not for profit trips - an extra category if you like?

Given the discussion is about the wording of a CNCC proposal it would seem to be on topic?

 

[cap n chris]

Yes, it is only a word, but there's a huge skewing effect depending on which you choose.

E.g. Are they Freedom Fighters or Terrorists?

It's very easy to demonise a category by choosing a negatively inferential term.

I'll settle for the term "Instructor" or "Instructed", if that's considered neutral!

Commercial enterprises in themselves are not hateful, but it is the wholesale lumping of all instructed caving beneath the umbrella term "commercial" which is. It is this blanket categorising which I think is hateful, not the actual word in itself.