Observations on the CNCC AGM

[NigR]

Has anyone else caved without a permit?

Yes, lots of people from many different clubs for a long, long time.

If you read through the several related threads on this topic you will find there are reliable estimates from local cavers that only one third of current trips are being done with permits.

 

[martinm]

I think that this whole thread is detrimental to the pastime of caving. What on earth would a newcomer to this wonderful pastime make of all this ridiculous politicking? Please can somebody in authority (British Caving Association?) show their mettle and take a stance and stop the ridiculousness. Caving is an enjoyable recreational pastime - please can we keep it that way.

There are many people 'in authority' in different regions councils, clubs, etc. discussing stuff on this forum and most are probably members of the British Caving Association.

Like Kay said; "You don't have to read it!" 

There are plenty of places all over the UK where you can cave without permits, etc. even in the Yorkshire Dales. (Eg:- Kingsdale, Chapel le Dale, etc.) Occasionally have to ask landowner / tenants permission, that's all.

And like Kay also implied, there's a lot of (voluntary) work going on behind the scenes in all the caving regions by members of regional councils (supported by BCA) to allow you to go caving!

Just join BCA, either individually or through a club, get your insurance,  cos u r gonna need it for many caves, then go caving. Leave the rest of us to sort out the "politicking", whatever that is! 

 

[Simon Wilson]

Kay what has this got to do with going caving?

Quite a lot. It's because of the continuing work of the CNCC that you are able to cave on particular fells, that caves get bolted, etc. So it's quite reasonable for cavers to want to know how the CNCC committee is made up and so on. You don't have to read it!

The CNCC have been doing an extremely bad job of both of those two functions. They have been running a clandestine permit system which gave privileged access to permits for their friends while denying the same access to other cavers and then had the nerve to criticise people for caving without permits.
They have been floundering about in incompetence for nine years trying to find a replacement to the ECO hanger.

 

[Smiley Alan]

it's still a minefield to understand how it functions...

club reps and commiittee members  make descisions .

i can see  why making  descisions takes a long time becos the CR  will need to return to their own clubs commiittee meeting & discuss it and then  explain ( publised in newsleter?) to members  who then have  to vote  so the CR knows what  members want & then go to  teh next cncc meeting  with their result .

but ... . does this  reallly happen ?

my hunch  is CRs do meetings as they reckon is  best as  most club cavers are'nt botherd  with poltics .

 

[Bottlebank]

Clearly top to toe reform is needed and it would be great if the CNCC could get on with it with the enthusiastic assistance of the new secretary.  Unfortunately all his energy is being wasted, channelled into sorting out the mess left by the last secretary in his efforts to 'get one over' on the Earby Potholing Club for daring to speak out, probably a loose / loose situation for all but the Earby.

I agree, it's a shame Matt is having to waste his time and energies over this.

It is difficult to see what the Earby have to loose by being suspended. It would certainly free the club of the ability and therefore the obligation to obtain permits. That looks like a loose for the CNCC and everyone else as a result.

Given the numbers of cavers from all the major and many smaller clubs that have regularly caved for many years without permits and continue to do so it seems odd to pick on the Earby for it, so as you say this does appear to be more of a personal problem with the previous secretary.

 

[SpeleoTrog]

Along with all the other threads on this subject, this appears to be just another pointless debate.
After all the rant, only one officers position was contested and only one club went forward for full membership. The only way to make any change is from the inside, democratically.

If you're a member club and you don't like what's coming out of cncc meetings then you have the power to elect a new rep at your club agm. If the rest of your club don't see the need for a new rep and vote for the current one then you're obviously in the minority and will have to live with that decision or find a club you can agree with.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Bottlebank]

Along with all the other threads on this subject, this appears to be just another pointless debate.
After all the rant, only one officers position was contested and only one club went forward for full membership. The only way to make any change is from the inside, democratically.

If you're a member club and you don't like what's coming out of cncc meetings then you have the power to elect a new rep at your club agm. If the rest of your club don't see the need for a new rep and vote for the current one then you're obviously in the minority and will have to live with that decision or find a club you can agree with.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

It's not pointless. I want the CNCC to change, and represent all cavers. I don't care who the officers are, I care what they do. I not interested in overthrowing the incumbents.

The signs are, partly as a result of discussion on here, that is now happening.

 

[Jon]

Along with all the other threads on this subject, this appears to be just another pointless debate.
After all the rant, only one officers position was contested and only one club went forward for full membership. The only way to make any change is from the inside, democratically.

If you're a member club and you don't like what's coming out of cncc meetings then you have the power to elect a new rep at your club agm. If the rest of your club don't see the need for a new rep and vote for the current one then you're obviously in the minority and will have to live with that decision or find a club you can agree with.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Saying that debating issues on here is pointless is in itself pointless. Do you expect the whole issue to be solved at one AGM? It'll be a long slow progression as more cavers become interested in the issues and talk about it to their reps. Progress has been made already with a new Secretary and I increased attendance at CNCC meetings. Patience padwan, you have much to learn about the force.

 

[Rhys]

To an extent, I have to agree with JessopSmythe on this one. After all the ranting and apparent bad feeling, I was absolutely amazed that only one post was contested at the CNCC AGM. In contrast, at the Cambrian CC AGM last weekend, no less than five posts changed hands and more than that were contested.

Rhys

 

[SpeleoTrog]

I'm saying debating on here is pointless. The debate has to happen within the member clubs who then give their rep a mandate to take to the cncc. As you say, it's going to be a long slow process and that assumes there's a majority in favour of change. If the member clubs decide that they're happy with the status quo then no amount of ranting by individuals will change that. Perhaps badly targeted is a better way of describing the debate.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Bottlebank]

Debate on here has stimulated debate within clubs. There has been more debate amongst my club about the CNCC because of debate on here than ever before.

 

[graham]

It is difficult to see what the Earby have to loose by being suspended. It would certainly free the club of the ability and therefore the obligation to obtain permits. That looks like a loose for the CNCC and everyone else as a result.

Given that the agreement on access with the landowners requires permits, how does the inability to obtain permits free a club of the obligation to obtain same if they wish to legitimately access the caves?

 

[graham]

To an extent, I have to agree with JessopSmythe on this one. After all the ranting and apparent bad feeling, I was absolutely amazed that only one post was contested at the CNCC AGM. In contrast, at the Cambrian CC AGM last weekend, no less than five posts changed hands and more than that were contested.

Rhys

[Vested interest]
Has the treasurer changed?
[/vested interest]

 

[Rhys]

To an extent, I have to agree with JessopSmythe on this one. After all the ranting and apparent bad feeling, I was absolutely amazed that only one post was contested at the CNCC AGM. In contrast, at the Cambrian CC AGM last weekend, no less than five posts changed hands and more than that were contested.

Rhys

[Vested interest]
Has the treasurer changed?
[/vested interest]

Yes. See http://www.cambriancavingcouncil.org.uk/ccc_officers.html

Note: Any more comment on the Cambrian topic will require separate thread, so as not to de-rail this CNCC one...

 

[Bottlebank]

It is difficult to see what the Earby have to loose by being suspended. It would certainly free the club of the ability and therefore the obligation to obtain permits. That looks like a loose for the CNCC and everyone else as a result.

Given that the agreement on access with the landowners requires permits, how does the inability to obtain permits free a club of the obligation to obtain same if they wish to legitimately access the caves?

I'm not sure legitimate is the right word. Access agreements are between the CNCC on behalf of cavers they represent and the landowners. If the CNCC throws a club out it no longer represents them and so where that club chooses to cave is nothing to do with the CNCC, and equally as the CNCC no longer represents them the club has no further obligation to the CNCC.

 

[graham]

It is difficult to see what the Earby have to loose by being suspended. It would certainly free the club of the ability and therefore the obligation to obtain permits. That looks like a loose for the CNCC and everyone else as a result.

Given that the agreement on access with the landowners requires permits, how does the inability to obtain permits free a club of the obligation to obtain same if they wish to legitimately access the caves?

I'm not sure legitimate is the right word. Access agreements are between the CNCC on behalf of cavers they represent and the landowners. If the CNCC throws a club out it no longer represents them and so where that club chooses to cave is nothing to do with the CNCC, and equally as the CNCC no longer represents them the club has no further obligation to the CNCC.

But I'm not interested in their obligation to the CNCC, I am interested in their obligation to the landowners who, or so we are told, do not wish unfettered access to their land by cavers.

 

[Bottlebank]

It is difficult to see what the Earby have to loose by being suspended. It would certainly free the club of the ability and therefore the obligation to obtain permits. That looks like a loose for the CNCC and everyone else as a result.

Given that the agreement on access with the landowners requires permits, how does the inability to obtain permits free a club of the obligation to obtain same if they wish to legitimately access the caves?

I'm not sure legitimate is the right word. Access agreements are between the CNCC on behalf of cavers they represent and the landowners. If the CNCC throws a club out it no longer represents them and so where that club chooses to cave is nothing to do with the CNCC, and equally as the CNCC no longer represents them the club has no further obligation to the CNCC.

But I'm not interested in their obligation to the CNCC, I am interested in their obligation to the landowners who, or so we are told, do not wish unfettered access to their land by cavers.

My point was that it's the CNCC who lose by expelling or suspending a club.

The Earby have a pretty good track record of working with and respecting the wishes of farmers when digging for example. Unfortunately the CNCC have allowed or created a situation where cavers in certain areas can't negotiate with landowners direct, and yet at the same time the CNCC won't issue them permits. Adding a long standing club to the list of DIM's etc that can't get permits doesn't really affect the club - after all two thirds or thereabouts of trips according to the best data we have don't trouble the permit system at present.

So in effect at best all the CNCC will achieve is to reduce their support base by one (pretty active) club, increase the number of permit free trips (albeit not by a lot), increase the risk of complaints from landowners, and potentially the risk of access agreements breaking down.

The club will no doubt, as would most clubs, simply carry on as normal - but without the effort of having to bother sorting the paperwork out.

At the same time cavers generally will be wondering why one fairly small (thirty five or so members) is suspended for doing what members of every major club have done for years and no doubt reach the conclusion that a grudge between one member of the CNCC and one Earby member has been allowed to get seriously out of hand.

 

[graham]

It is difficult to see what the Earby have to loose by being suspended. It would certainly free the club of the ability and therefore the obligation to obtain permits. That looks like a loose for the CNCC and everyone else as a result.

Given that the agreement on access with the landowners requires permits, how does the inability to obtain permits free a club of the obligation to obtain same if they wish to legitimately access the caves?

I'm not sure legitimate is the right word. Access agreements are between the CNCC on behalf of cavers they represent and the landowners. If the CNCC throws a club out it no longer represents them and so where that club chooses to cave is nothing to do with the CNCC, and equally as the CNCC no longer represents them the club has no further obligation to the CNCC.

But I'm not interested in their obligation to the CNCC, I am interested in their obligation to the landowners who, or so we are told, do not wish unfettered access to their land by cavers.

My point was that it's the CNCC who lose by expelling or suspending a club.

The Earby have a pretty good track record of working with and respecting the wishes of farmers when digging for example. Unfortunately the CNCC have allowed or created a situation where cavers in certain areas can't negotiate with landowners direct, and yet at the same time the CNCC won't issue them permits. Adding a long standing club to the list of DIM's etc that can't get permits doesn't really affect the club - after all two thirds or thereabouts of trips according to the best data we have don't trouble the permit system at present.

So in effect at best all the CNCC will achieve is to reduce their support base by one (pretty active) club, increase the number of permit free trips (albeit not by a lot), increase the risk of complaints from landowners, and potentially the risk of access agreements breaking down.

The club will no doubt, as would most clubs, simply carry on as normal - but without the effort of having to bother sorting the paperwork out.

At the same time cavers generally will be wondering why one fairly small (thirty five or so members) is suspended for doing what members of every major club have done for years and no doubt reach the conclusion that a grudge between one member of the CNCC and one Earby member has been allowed to get seriously out of hand.

Please don'lt get me wrong, I am not showing any approval of this attempt to suspend this particular club in this particular way0

 

[jasonbirder]

Perhaps instead of going Caving...the members of The Earby (If excluded) just walk from their car to the Cave Entrance kitted up carrying tackle bags...across the open access land...obviously if they duck down out of sight in a shakehole for a "rest" for a couple of hours...who's to criticise them!

 

[Blakethwaite]

that a grudge between one member of the CNCC and one Earby member has been allowed to get seriously out of hand.

In fairness, your club rep is still banging away on here like a participant on the Jeremy Kyle show. If you want the CNCC to compromise then perhaps Earby should as well?