Premature action on CRoW?

[Chocolate fireguard]

Do you not think we are over-thinking this a tad?

That would be a first for a CRoW thread on this forum.

 

[bograt]

Interesting point is that caving is specifically named as being allowed in the Scottish version of the act -----.

 

[ttxela]

Some caves do have doors.

A number of show caves have them, and of course Bagshawe is entered through a little stone hut with a door to it.  By any account that one must be "indoors."

When I last went to a football match in about 1972, I had to go through a door to get into the stadium. Does that mean that football when played on a pitch open to the sky, is an indoor game?

Assuming there was no other way of leaving other than by a door, then yes of course. However you were outside since you were in the open air. So inside the stadium you were indoors and outside but once you left you were outdoors and outside.

 

[cavemanmike]

Some caves do have doors.

A number of show caves have them, and of course Bagshawe is entered through a little stone hut with a door to it.  By any account that one must be "indoors."

When I last went to a football match in about 1972, I had to go through a door to get into the stadium. Does that mean that football when played on a pitch open to the sky, is an indoor game?

Assuming there was no other way of leaving other than by a door, then yes of course. However you were outside since you were in the open air. So inside the stadium you were indoors and outside but once you left you were outdoors and outside.

does that equate to inside out

 

[ttxela]

Now can someone explain what offside is.....

 

[badger]

surprisingly how quickly the original thread has gone completely off track, that is, is BCA operating outside it constitution.
personally I am not sure for me as I understand
at this moment in time caving was not included under crow, but also was not excluded, left in no mans land, someone at defra/ne has then decided because it was not included it must therefore mean its excluded.
However a QC has reviewed the case and has made an expert opinion that as she sees it, that in the reading of the crow act caving is included.
so all that is happening at the moment is people are asking for defra/ne via MP for a clarification, and that there understanding is wrong,
but who knows I could have completely misunderstood altogether

 

[Alex]

Another view to take, is the actives it does include. It includes climbing, walking and bouldering. Well is that not what we do underground so therefore caving is covered as it combines all of that? Only issue is I don't think crawling is included, god forbid you crawl to the cave entrance then.

But rationally, the open air clause is only to stop people breaking into peoples houses or barns on CROW land and using CROW as an excuse, it was not meant for caving. I would bet the people who drafted it had never heard of caving likely living in Westminister.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Is it safe to assume that the debate on the issue of CRoW has been had by cavers?  There has been numerous informative articles in Descent and other sources of information freely available on line.  A quick check of ukcaving shows that in the last ten years there have been 35 specific topics raised on CRoW.  This has produced 4481 posts in reply and all together they have been viewed 235,510 times!

Very poor use of statistics. That could equate to only 52 cavers reading each of the numerous posts only once. My club alone has way more than double that number of members. I believe the vast majority of cavers take little interest in this subject. And if you reasonably assume that many cavers gave up reading all the updates, that still is only a hundred or so cavers taking an interest in the CRoW debate here. Poor use of statistics is the realm of the propagandist, the press, or lazy people.

 

[droid]

The other point to make is that the number of active contributors to this forum, as a proportion of active cavers, is likely to be tiny.

I'm struggling to think of a case where someone has changed their views on CRoW substantially through reading the discussions on here.

 

[Peter Burgess]

In the light of the publicised visit to GG, may we take it that it was done with the full sanction of the BCA?

 

[jasonbirder]

Does it matter?
Something good was done...result!
Obviously it doesn't fit with your "anti-caving" agenda...but they've done something a thousand times better than carping on the sidelines...

 

[braveduck]

Well said jasonbirder ! 

 

[Peter Burgess]

Well, as was argued before, it does matter. Go and read what others said. If a national representative body doesn't do it's business in a proper manner, it should matter to all of its members. That's why I asked whether the GG event had the full sanction of the BCA.

 

[Peter Burgess]

The other point to make is that the number of active contributors to this forum, as a proportion of active cavers, is likely to be tiny.

I'm struggling to think of a case where someone has changed their views on CRoW substantially through reading the discussions on here.

But they have done so by discussing it elsewhere, in a civilised and thoughtful way.

 

[droid]

The other point to make is that the number of active contributors to this forum, as a proportion of active cavers, is likely to be tiny.

I'm struggling to think of a case where someone has changed their views on CRoW substantially through reading the discussions on here.

But they have done so by discussing it elsewhere, in a civilised and thoughtful way.

Absolutely.

Forums tend to promulgate the extreme. If you cannot answer a point made you can just ignore it. Face-to-face that's much more difficult, not to say embarrassing.
No doubt that's the real reason why some of the more outspoken members of this forum have gone rather quiet recently.

 

[Peter Burgess]

It was on Facebook, which is pretty close to face to face.

 

[Brains]

Well, as was argued before, it does matter. Go and read what others said. If a national representative body doesn't do it's business in a proper manner, it should matter to all of its members. That's why I asked whether the GG event had the full sanction of the BCA.

I woul reckon that in view of the referendum carried out by BCA, the actions regarding the trip to GG are well within the scope and intent of the mandate. Indeed I was beginning to wonder what was happening with regards that bit of democracy. Of course that implies the trip was sorted by the BCA, rather than the LAF or the CRO...

 

[damian]

In the light of the publicised visit to GG, may we take it that it was done with the full sanction of the BCA?

Depends what you mean by "with the full sanction of the BCA". It was organised by BCA's CRoW Liaison Officer, so I guess that ticks some boxes.

On the other hand, as far as I am aware, neither BCA Council nor BCA's Executive knew about the trip until it had happened. (I should probably add that organising such a trip is definitely within Tim Allen's BCA remit, so there is no reason why he should have informed Council or Executive in advance).

Does that help?

 

[droid]

So making a few phone calls was impossible?

 

[Brains]

So making a few phone calls was impossible?

From whom to whom, and why?
The mandate was already in place