Observations on the CNCC AGM

[Bottlebank]

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?

He's entitled to bang on as much as wants provided he keeps it polite, and preferably constructive. He knows full well I won't support him if he doesn't.

I'd prefer the CNCC to show compromise - not for my sake, or the Earby's but in their own interests.

It makes no short term practical difference to me whether I'm in a CNCC member club or not, especially while it's run as it has been, but in the long term I'd prefer to be in a club which plays a constructive part in a well run CNCC representing all cavers.

 

[Simon Wilson]

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?

This started when the elected representative of EPC representing the club at a CNCC committee meeting met with a very hostile response from the majority in the room when he said that the ?digging permit? system had been run in secret for the benefit of an ?in-crowd?. Thank you Bottlebank, I intend to keep ?banging away? at it.

This is not a grudge between two people; it is a matter which runs right through the heart of the CNCC. People might need reminding that the primary function of the CNCC is access to caves and the administration of access on behalf of the members and for the benefit of all the members.

There are a lot of questions which have not yet been answered some of which were asked at the January meeting. Such as, when did the ?digging permit? system start? Was it being operated on Casterton Fell as well as Leck? Who made the decision to start the system? Was it decided by the committee, and if so, why is it not in the minutes? Was it decided by the Meets Secretary/Secretaries and/or other officers?

 

[Pringletours]

Floundering about in incompetence! That's exactly what attracts me to caving.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Floundering about in incompetence! That's exactly what attracts me to caving.

     

 

[bograt]

me too, although in a pub environment most cavers prove remarkably competent!!

 

[Alex]

I wasn't Saturday in Helwith lol

 

[Cavematt]

Hi Everyone

There have been several questions asked regarding the so called ?Secret Permit? system over the last few months. These questions seem to persist on this thread; even now this system has been scrapped. I was not a CNCC officer or a member of The Committee when this system was established or active, however, since becoming CNCC Secretary I have spoken with a number of individuals and it is clear to me that many of the accusations are based on a lack of understanding. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to provide some information for those of you reading these threads who wish to know more, based on my own understanding of the system.

This system, for those not totally familiar, was a means by which late notice midweek permit issuing for Leck Fell was delegated by the Permit Secretary to another individual who would be more able to administer such requests. This was done because the Leck Fell Permit Secretary is already very busy handling weekend permits (something he has done extremely well for many years) and was not able to keep up with the demand for late notice midweek permits mostly by regular diggers.

It should be noted that the system was intended only for those requiring frequent short notice Leck Fell permits usually for digging. The system did not impact on advanced, or weekend requests for permits as these dates were blocked out and only dates free at last minute were made available via this system by regular communication between the Permit Secretary and the delegated individual.

This arrangement was not widely publicised to avoid confusion for sporting cavers, and to retain the Permit Secretary as the first point of contact for all matters relating to Leck Fell permits. The arrangement was a common sense approach established purely in the interests of expediting the short notice availability of unused midweek permits.

The aim was to encourage, and make it easier for those digging on Leck Fell to work within the access agreements in place between the CNCC and the landowner.

It remained the expectation that anyone not aware of this system who wanted regular short notice midweek permits should initially contact the Permit Secretary who would in turn explain the system and put you in touch with the correct person to assist. Therefore the system would have only been unknown to anyone not applying for a permit via the usual means, and to whom the system should therefore have no impact.

The system was intended as a common sense arrangement and I believe it is a shame to see that this approach, regardless of whether you believe it was administered correctly, has not been at least in some way applauded as an attempt to make permits easier to access for those who undertake frequent midweek trips to push the forefronts of exploration, something which benefits us all as cavers.

Following accusations that the system was unfair and secretive, the CNCC took the decision to suspend it (not because it accepted these accusations or had any evidence to corroborate them, but simply because they did not want to be faced with such severe criticism). As a result, all permits no matter what their nature are now issued only by the official Permit Secretary (thus hampering the short notice availability for diggers).

I think the criticism that has been received is disproportionate and due to a lack of understanding of the true nature and intent of the system. Perhaps it could have been arranged better or perhaps a less informal and more publicised arrangement should have been established instead. However, what is clear to me is that the system has been incorrectly portrayed as some kind of deliberate conspiracy by the CNCC, and I hope that this information will help people make up their own minds as to whether the CNCC rightfully deserves the level of criticism it has received.

Cheers

Matt Ewles

 

[dunc]

I think the criticism that has been received is disproportionate and due to a lack of understanding of the true nature and intent of the system. Perhaps it could have been arranged better or perhaps a less informal and more publicised arrangement should have been established instead. However, what is clear to me is that the system has been incorrectly portrayed as some kind of deliberate conspiracy by the CNCC, and I hope that this information will help people make up their own minds as to whether the CNCC rightfully deserves the level of criticism it has received.

Avoiding the large amount of political drivel, the final paragraph sums it up. Certain words stand out, highlighted by myself. I'm not here to pile on criticism but why hide something/keep it quiet when it could, quite obviously, have been to the benefit of northern cavers? There are plenty of people out there that cave midweek, be it digging or sport, for whatever reason (I'm one of them, work/family being my reason) - I'm sorry but it doesn't wash, no reason for keeping it hush-hush! 

 

[Bob Mehew]

They have been floundering about in incompetence for nine years trying to find a replacement to the ECO hanger.

Been away for a few days.  Clearly I take a different view.  However, I sense that Simon has developed a closed mind on certain topics so that I am of the view it is not worth trying to argue with him on it.  I can better spend my time on other matters.  If others are interested, then the next issue of Speleology will carry a short article on the topic of a replacement to the ECO anchor.

 

[jasonbirder]

This system, for those not totally familiar, was a means by which late notice midweek permit issuing for Leck Fell was delegated by the Permit Secretary to another individual who would be more able to administer such requests.

Absolute Drivel...

I'm a member of a CNCC member club...and in December 2012 I approached the permit secretary for a short notice mid-week permit - on a mid-winter Thursday for Boxhead Pot...which I simply DO NOT believe was already booked by another party...but was point blank refused...as I was specifically told they could only be supplied with the requisite notice and in writing (and on the dreaded club headed note paper)

If there ever was a secret system for issuing short-notice mid-week permits...our club (a CNCC member club) obviously wasn't party to it...

Which then raises the question who was...presumably a select clique!

So I would guess we're back to what many people have already implied...a secret permit system to "the chosen few"

 

[Pringletours]

I refer you to the previous answer of floundering in incompetence. That and entering the pit of despondency that is permitgate !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Simon Wilson]

They have been floundering about in incompetence for nine years trying to find a replacement to the ECO hanger.

Been away for a few days.  Clearly I take a different view.  However, I sense that Simon has developed a closed mind on certain topics so that I am of the view it is not worth trying to argue with him on it.  I can better spend my time on other matters.  If others are interested, then the next issue of Speleology will carry a short article on the topic of a replacement to the ECO anchor.

"Closed mind" certainly not but I would accept 'entrenched position' and I think some people will understand why that has developed. I think I should point out that my observations about anchors are focused entirely on the CNCC and not the BCA and I apologise if I made people think otherwise. I have become accustomed to people at the CNCC patting each other on the back, proposing votes of thanks and telling everybody what a good job they are doing when in actuality they have been conducting themselves in a shameful fashion.

I have been taking a close look at the BP anchors, the design and testing methods and have some concerns about them.

 

[Bob Mehew]

They have been floundering about in incompetence for nine years trying to find a replacement to the ECO hanger.

Been away for a few days.  Clearly I take a different view.  However, I sense that Simon has developed a closed mind on certain topics so that I am of the view it is not worth trying to argue with him on it.  I can better spend my time on other matters.  If others are interested, then the next issue of Speleology will carry a short article on the topic of a replacement to the ECO anchor.

"Closed mind" certainly not but I would accept 'entrenched position' and I think some people will understand why that has developed. I think I should point out that my observations about anchors are focused entirely on the CNCC and not the BCA and I apologise if I made people think otherwise. I have become accustomed to people at the CNCC patting each other on the back, proposing votes of thanks and telling everybody what a good job they are doing when in actuality they have been conducting themselves in a shameful fashion.

Simon - you made the statement on 12 March at http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=16307.msg213915#msg213915 that:

"The CNCC [snip] They have been floundering about in incompetence for nine years trying to find a replacement to the ECO hanger."

The work to replace the ECO anchor has been under the direction and control of BCA's Equipment & Techniques Committee, NOT CNCC.  Your statement is factually incorrect. 

In anticipation of your possible line of defence, whilst Les Sykes and Glenn Jones were members of  BCA's E&T, they did not direct the work.  That has been mostly under my and Nick Williams' direction as Chair of the committee.  I acknowledge that Les and Glenn (plus Bob Dearman) did a lot of work in testing anchors under the direction of E&T.

And in anticipation of your next potential line of defence and to avoid accusations of me misleading people, whilst Glenn did stand in as caretaker Chair for one committee meeting between 2006 and now, if you read the minutes http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=equipment_techniques:091010_e_t_minutes.pdf you will see that a step forward was taken under his caretakership which avoided months of delay. 

To make an apparently intentionally false statement of blaming CNCC when you know better (see http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=16086.msg211328#msg211328 and your reply); that does make me think of you as being closed minded, closed minded to the truth.

We can argue about the quality of the program of work under BCA E&T and obviously whilst I will argue it was not "floundering about in incompetence", I might have been prepared to let the second half of your statement go as a 'typical ignorant caver talking through his arse'.  I accept that it has not gone well and has taken a lot more time than may seem necessary, but I would suggest at least we did do something.

I have been taking a close look at the BP anchors, the design and testing methods and have some concerns about them.

Re your concerns, I hope you can make the meeting on 5 April to express them.  If not, can you write them down? 

 

[Simon Wilson]

There have been several questions asked regarding the so called ?Secret Permit? system over the last few months. These questions seem to persist on this thread; even now this system has been scrapped. I was not a CNCC officer or a member of The Committee when this system was established or active, however, since becoming CNCC Secretary I have spoken with a number of individuals and it is clear to me that many of the accusations are based on a lack of understanding. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to provide some information for those of you reading these threads who wish to know more, based on my own understanding of the system......

There are indeed questions that persist. Such as: When did the ?digging permit? system start? Did it operate on Casterton as well as Leck? Who made the decision to start it? I for one want answers to those questions. The full understanding of ?permitgate? is not known to most cavers and it ought to be. I specifically asked for the Secretary?s explanation of the ?digging permit? system to be put in the minutes of the January committee meeting and it has been kept out of the minutes.

?Permitgate? started last year after it became known to some cavers that the permit system was not being run fairly and they started to ask questions. The first that the EPC knew about the ?digging permit? system was on January 10th 2014 when the following email arrived from the CNCC eighteen hours before the January committee meeting. This is not a private email; it is a notice sent out to all CNCC member clubs.

> Tomorrow under AOB Les Sykes is going to recommend that the CNCC withdraws the ?digging permit?. Member clubs that wish to dig on Leck Fell will have to apply for a permit as required in the constitution. This is due entirely to the continued trouble making by a small number of individuals. It is unfortunate that it will affect clubs just enjoy their digging/caving without causing trouble, but it starting to be too much of a hassle with certain individuals being accused of issuing permits to his friends etc. les apologises to the guys who can act responsibly but the blame lies with those who you share the Fell with. <

The notice contains an admission by the then Secretary that the ?digging permit? system was against the constitution. It also shows that the attitude of the CNCC ?in-crowd? is that they think they are acting responsibly and that the ones who have challenged the ?digging permit? system are ?trouble making?. Matt?s posting shows that their attitude has not changed.

At the January meeting I asked the Secretary to explain what a ?digging permit? was. He said that it was a response to diggers (see footnote 1) going caving without permits and allowed easier access to permits. He explained that under the scheme all unallocated permits were given to Dave Ramsay to issue. Dave Ramsay was given a PDF proforma so that he could print out permits or send them by email. I asked why it had been kept secret and this provoked a raucous response from most people in the room with shouts of, ?It wasn?t a secret?. I pointed out that I have been an active digger on Leck Fell over the past few years, I?m a Mudminer (See footnote 2) and CNCC rep for a local club well known for its digging so if there was such a thing as a ?digging permit? I should have heard of it. I said that the majority of regular Leck Fell diggers do not apply for permits and that one of the reasons why diggers do not apply for permits is the very restrictive system for applying. We had no reason to think that the rules as laid out on the CNCC website were not being adhered to.

This was done because the Leck Fell Permit Secretary is already very busy handling weekend permits [...] and was not able to keep up with the demand for late notice midweek permits mostly by regular diggers.

If the Meets Secretary was too busy why wasn?t an assistant Meets Secretary co-opted instead of doing it off the record and improperly? And why weren?t the diggers told about it?

This arrangement was not widely publicised to avoid confusion for sporting cavers, and to retain the Permit Secretary as the first point of contact for all matters relating to Leck Fell permits. 

?The first point of contact? for anyone not in their little circle.

The aim was to encourage, and make it easier for those digging on Leck Fell to work within the access agreements in place between the CNCC and the landowner.

So why weren?t the diggers told about it?

It remained the expectation that anyone not aware of this system who wanted regular short notice midweek permits should initially contact the Permit Secretary who would in turn explain the system and put you in touch with the correct person to assist. Therefore the system would have only been unknown to anyone not applying for a permit via the usual means...

But people would not contact the Meets Secretary if they ?wanted regular short notice midweek permits? because they wouldn?t expect to get them.

The CNCC constitution says that only Meets Secretaries can issue permits. Dave Ramsay was not an officer of the CNCC yet he was acting as if he was a Meets Secretary but outside the rules of the CNCC. Dave Ramsay was at the time working in Inglesport. If it had been proposed to appoint him as a Meets Secretary I think it likely that the conflict of interest would have been pointed out. The January meeting was given a first-hand account of Dave Ramsay being seen on more than one occasion issuing permits on demand over the counter of Inglesport. Some permits were issued which had all the available dates for a month on one permit so that many copies of the same monthly permit could be printed off. The CNCC Secretary privately told a caver who is not a member of a CNCC member club that he would be given a permit if he asked Dave Ramsay for one.

The ?digging permit? system has been kept out of the CNCC minutes and was not communicated to the clubs or the Mudminers. As far as I have been able to find out it was a secret known only to the CNCC officers, the regular attendees of the CNCC meetings, Dave Ramsay, those involved in the Shuttleworth Pot and Cupcake projects and some acquaintances of all of those people.

If you look at the names of people directly involved in the Shuttleworth Pot project and compare it with the names that appear with regularity in the CNCC minutes you will see a striking correspondence. The first mention of Shuttleworth Pot in the Mudminers archive is a complaint in May 2011 that the dig was kept secret from the Mudminers. At least one official of the CNCC knew that the Shuttleworth Pot project and the ?digging permit? system had not been made known to the Mudminers because he is a Mudminer.

Following accusations that the system was unfair and secretive, the CNCC took the decision to suspend it (not because it accepted these accusations or had any evidence to corroborate them, but simply because they did not want to be faced with such severe criticism). As a result, all permits no matter what their nature are now issued only by the official Permit Secretary (thus hampering the short notice availability for diggers).

The CNCC are still denying that it was unfair and secretive, they are still blaming the 'troublemakers' for messing up their cosy system and they still don?t understand that the ones complaining are the diggers. But we are not complaining on our own behalf; we are complaining on behalf of all the BCA member clubs who are entitled to apply for permits on an equal basis.

Those involved have been running the CNCC as if it was their own caving club with privileged rights of access. They should give a full explanation, they should formally admit acting against the CNCC constitution and abusing their positions and they should apologise to all BCA member clubs for denying them equal access to permits.

Simon Wilson, EPC CNCC Representative.

Footnotes:
1) The term ?digging? refers to exploration caving which usually takes place deep underground. The CNCC cannot give permission for digging on the surface or for damaging caves.
2) The Mudminers are the Misty Mountain Mudmining Corporation, an online discussion group for cavers interested in extending the caves in and around Leck and Casterton Fells. They are well known and by far the largest group of diggers. There is an unwritten understanding that all digs and other relevant information should be made known to the group.

 

[Jon]

It actually sounds like a good method of issuing last minute unused permits, it's a pity it wasn't organised more officially.

 

[Glenn]

It actually sounds like a good method of issuing last minute unused permits, it's a pity it wasn't organised more officially.

It was. Lech Fell FAQ, Q2;

http://www.cncc.org.uk/about/leck-fell-faqs.php

2. I want to start a surface dig on Leck Fell, can you get permission?

Those interested must initially approach the CNCC Secretary/Access Officer. As the land is part of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), English Nature must also be consulted as well and approval given for the proposed project, before it is started. The Leck Beck Head Catchment SSSI is administered by the Kendal office of Natural England. The phone no is 0300 060 2122. Their website http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ contains specific information about this SSSI. Leck Fell is designated as being scientifically/environmentally significant, not only from the point of view if its caves and geology, but also as a result of its plant and other wild life as well. Several species of rare moss and fern are found on the fell. Also bats live and hibernate within the caves themselves, and have been the subject of scientific research.

English Nature does visit the fell to inspect this SSSI on a regular basis.

It is worth noting that permission has been forthcoming for the past four major surface digging projects on Leck Fell i.e. Notts Pot 2, Rough Pot, Shuttleworth Pot and The Cupcake.

Starting digs without obtaining the necessary approval could have an adverse impact upon not only normal sporting access to the fell, but may, in addition, also permanently damage the prospects for future exploratory work. There are no exceptions to the need for a permit and those undertaking regular visits to the fell for digging or exploration purposes, must obtain access permits via their club.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Glenn is pretending that we are talking about surface digs when we all know we are not. Permission for surface digs has to be sought from the landowner and Natural England and is nothing to do with the CNCC. The CNCC can only issue caving permits. What the CNCC called their 'digging permits' were just ordinary caving permits issued to their little group through their secret system.

 

[jasonbirder]

What's the relevence of quoting some rule and procedure about appling for surface dig permits from CNCC/Natural England...when people are querying the sytems of applying for short notice un-allocated Leck Fell permits?

Ironically the 'under the counter" system of acquiring un-allocated permits from Inglesport sounds like exactly what many people have been requesting for years...

But why was it hidden from so many people that should have been entitled to it...or benefited from it...

If an established and respected Dales digging team are kept in the dark...if Cavers from CNCC member clubs who enquire about short notice mid-week permits are told in NO UNCERTAIN terms that such requests cannot be met....its begs the questions...

Who knew about the system...how did they find out...who benefited from the permits and who decided that the information shouldn't be circulated more widely?

To me it doesn't sound like digging permits...it doesn't sound like a way of distributing un-allocated permits...it sounds like secret permits for mates and cronies...

 

[Pitlamp]

Eyup Jasonbirder,

Never mind all that - I have an email from you dated 19th March 2009 confirming that you wanted a number of Descent magazines. So in 3 days time I'll have been looking after them for you for 5 years. Want to arrange to get them to you now? (They're still all parcelled up with your name on and safely stored here.)

 

[jasonbirder]

Mega! I assumed they'd be long gone...sorry!

We'll be up in ingleton at some thursday/friday over the next few weeks...whats best way to arrange a pick up?

Cheers...i'll be too busy reading 'em to stir it up on the CNCC post then LOL

Sent from my SK17i using Tapatalk 2