Premature action on CRoW?

[Peter Burgess]

Have a care chaps - the topic will get locked

 

[Pegasus]

[admin]OK - enough - please, back on topic. Thank you[/admin]

 

[Bob Mehew]

Are there any caves which require keys or permits, but are not leader-led, where there are checks about the competency of the cavers applying (i.e. not just that they are in a club)?

There are almost certainly a 'few' where access is dependent upon you being known to the access controller, rather than just being a member of a club.  Some will have formal systems, others are on the basis of 'if you are known' and include both those gated as well as those which are 'hidden' by being kept secret.

Has the introduction of CROW caving in Scotland made any obvious differences? Have some gated/leader-led caves had to be opened up? Has access to any caves been lost or gained? How does it work - is the entire cave CROW if the entrances are on CROW land, or is only the portion of the cave beneath the CROW land accessible?

Not to my knowledge nor can I recall any gated / leader lead systems in Scotland.  I doubt if there are any examples where the Scottish cave goes outside the land covered by their act.  But there is a Scottish cave system where legal control is applied to ban digging underground.  Fortunately it only impacts on part of the system.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Droid - Of course CRoW is not going to be applicable to mines, that's been covered to death, as well you know.

I have disagreed with part of this view before now.  Whilst I agree CRoW can't apply to active mines (Reg 16 of the Mines Regs 2014 trumps CRoW Sec 2(1) by virtue of Sec 2(3)), it may well apply to abandoned mines.  A summary of my position including a potted summary of specifically why, can be read in the down load at https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0RTfmWzkLQMVkdfNlNFeU1MeFk. 

 

[RobinGriffiths]

Very interesting and well considered document. Thanks Bob.

Robin

 

[royfellows]

True, a very well written and researched document, however a point of law

Quoting Star Energy V Bocardo, the brocard usque ad coelum was found impossible in the modern world, the obvious being that of an airplane plying over land under different ownerships that would be committing multiple trespasses.

A transcript of the hearing is very heavy reading, however anyone wanting chapter and verse on this will find copy in the web

 

[Peter Burgess]

While on the subject of mines, I have just read the latest NAMHO newsletter: http://www.namho.org/newsletters/2015-nl12-74.pdf

Quoting from it (Letter from Tim Allen to NAMHO): "Last year the BCA ran a poll of its entire membership asking whether it should campaign for the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to apply to going underground. This was returned with a clear majority for it to do so and I am now spearheading that campaign."

So ......

When did a poll on whether BCA should seek a clarification of the law, turn into a poll  "asking whether it should campaign for the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to apply to going underground."

These are not the same thing, although one may lead to the other, of course.

Yes, I know I have made this point before, but this is a new instance of this curious metamorphosis of what we actually voted about.

And there's that word "campaign" again. Why did "DC" feel uncomfortable about that word?

 

[braveduck]

What is it with Democracy you do not like ?

 

[HardenClimber3]

As we are trying to be accurate try reading:

http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=about:crow_poll_result_2014.pdf

I hope the Electoral Reform Society got this right:

Should BCA, on your behalf, campaign for The Countryside and Rights of Way Act to apply to going underground?
37% of the roll voted and 62% of those said yes.

I don't see any conflict in upholding a right and campaigning to change that. Obviously actions such as organised trespasses, for example would e rather different.

We've had a vote. There is a clear majority and it is a bit disappointing that some of us are wasting energy trying to subvert that choice, rather than moving it forward.

 

[Badlad]

Dear Peter

The exact wording of the BCA poll question that was sent out to all members was;

"Should BCA, on your behalf, [size=14pt]campaign for the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to apply to going underground"[/size]

Did you read the question before you voted no?

There was also a clear list of what would happen if the membership voted 'yes', including "lobby MP's and other persons of influence to push for CRoW to apply to going underground".

 

[cavemanmike]

What is it with Democracy you do not like ?

i think peter would like a dictatorship " his" 
some peoples pint are always half empty

 

[PeteHall]

Dear Peter

The exact wording of the BCA poll question that was sent out to all members was;

"Should BCA, on your behalf, [size=14pt]campaign for the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to apply to going underground"[/size]

Did you read the question before you voted no?

There was also a clear list of what would happen if the membership voted 'yes', including "lobby MP's and other persons of influence to push for CRoW to apply to going underground".

Where's that "like" button got too 

 

[braveduck]

In that case Peter ,should go to BCA  AGM at the weekend and stand for a vacant
committee post and take over ! Democracy ! Bet he won't.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Thanks for the correction guys. How embarrassing.....

 

[droid]

In that case Peter ,should go to BCA  AGM at the weekend and stand for a vacant
committee post and take over ! Democracy ! Bet he won't.

Red herring.

Many people complain about MPs.
Very few people are in a position to canvass to become one.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Despite the comment that I am trying to subvert the result of the vote, far from it. I just want those given a mandate to take this forward to take note of the framework they were to work within and not ignore it, as per my original post, which is titled "Premature" not "disallowed" action on CRoW. Simple really. At least my mistake above was embarrassing unintentional!

 

[braveduck]

Both of you have the chance to stand for the committee to change things !
you two are so committed you should .But then you would find out what people really thought
of you ,so you must be frit ! :-\

 

[Peter Burgess]

Yeah, must be.

 

[Cookie]

On the poll was a list of things the BCA would need to do if there was a yes vote. One of the items was "seek to change Section 4.6 of our Constitution".  That was because it was felt that "campaigning" would be against the Constitution and it would have to be changed first.

That view was upheld when BCA passed the following motion at the 2015 AGM with virtually everybody voting in favour.

"This meeting confirms that the Constitution allows BCA to seek clarification from DEFRA and Natural England on their existing guidance on The CRoW Act and its application to caving."

Hence the belief BCA was constrained by the Constitution and the AGM motion to only clarify rather than campaign. However it would seem BCA has changed its mind.

 

[cavemanmike]

at least tim is being pro-active in his duty and not kicking it into the long grass which seemed to be the case before he took on the role .i remember when the ramblers ass campaigned for the crow act, everyone thought they were going to see people walking through there back gardens/yards and all kinds of scaremongering . but look at what has been achieved over the years
all we are looking for is a fair level playing field(hole) and some flexibility