Problems looming for BCA?

[Bob Smith]

Yep, screw the rules if you can't do it properly do it quickly. You can always pick up the pieces later.

 

[Ian Adams]

Yep, screw the rules if you can't do it properly do it quickly. You can always pick up the pieces later.

Rules?

The issue Badlad is referring to has always only been a matter of interpretation.


Ian

 

[droid]

Where's me popcorn?

 

[NewStuff]

Yet another attempt by the anti-CRoW lot to bitch, moan and try to weasel things through by the back door. You wonder why we get annoyed? Shit like this is why we get annoyed. If you put as much effort into accepting defeat helping move things forward, then caving in the UK would be in a far better place.

Grow a pair, accept you lost, STFU, and get on with it instead of acting like you're on a primary school playground.

 

[Dave Tyson]

Unfortunately the BCA are now committed to making changes to the constitution which were debated at the last AGM in Mendip. If the new postal vote fails to gain the required % to make the constitutional changes then presumably the existing constitution will stand. The anti CRoW folks will then push the BCA  to stop campaigning for the CRoW act to apply to caving as its against the constitution. At that point I guess one of two things could happen:

(a) The BCA decides it should carry on campaigning as it is what a majority of cavers want and sod the naysayers. I guess the opposition could ask for a judicial review... 

(b) The BCA implodes and BCA Mark II improved arises from the ashes.

Come to think of it (a) could force (b) to happen anyway...

Dave (tongue firmly in cheek)

 

[droid]

Don't Panic!!!!

People will still go caving whatever the BCA does or doesn't do.

Inflated hyperbole won't make any difference: most of the people it's aimed at have been weeded out, and if Ian's IH was aimed at me, it's wasted (again).

I voted 'no'. Partly from conservation concerns, partly from concerns that the BCA was going to expend an awful lot of effort (and more importantly *money*) on a wild goose chase.

Nothing that's happened (and it isn't much) or said (rather more) has changed that opinion.

Knock yourself out.

 

[royfellows]

I still think to make things clearer that the first comma has to go, regardless of risk of my emails being hacked, a potential CommaGate scandal, or accusations of bed wetting. I cant quite see Comma Riots, but one never knows.

 

[Ian Adams]

, and if Ian's IH was aimed at me, it's wasted (again).

Not to stray off topic (but I guess I am) I don't know what "IH" means.

Regardless, I was very careful not to have a go at anyone at all. I was specifically as generic as I could be to avoid any finger pointing.  I also can't remember what you have previously said and I very much doubt any of us will ever trawl back over the countless threads.

Ian

 

[Disgusted from Cornwall.]

It's a load of empire driven bellendery by henpecked sweaty little men.

Silly napoleons holding each other's willies over the most petty nonsense imaginable. I read the BCA bolting thread and I nearly poked a hole in my computer screen so that I could administer some virtual vigilante bum rape justice over it all, either that, or try to beat myself unconscious with my anglepoise lamp in an utter futile frustrated rage.

The BCA and the whole pyramid of nonsense surrounding it and the adjacent empire related silliness in caving clubs is the core reason that I could never belong to a club.

Take an awesome, challenging, interesting hobby, filled with interesting people and just rot it's very framework out with irrelevant fungus.

Make it stop!!!!

 

[Judi Durber]

Roy

I disagree with the possible adverse interpretation of the amendment as it specifically relates to the granting or withholding of access. This could possibly be made clearer by removal of the first comma.

Do you mean this sentence?

?That any rights held by the owners or tenants of property or mineral rights, to grant or withhold access, be respected?

would become:

?That any rights held by the owners or tenants of property or mineral rights to grant or withhold access, be respected?

Please clarify if I have it wrong. 

 

[cavemanmike]

if the bca doesn't respect the wishes of it's (majority ) members i envisage i substantial drop in there membership.

 

[droid]

Not to stray off topic (but I guess I am) I don't know what "IH" means.

Regardless, I was very careful not to have a go at anyone at all. I was specifically as generic as I could be to avoid any finger pointing.  I also can't remember what you have previously said and I very much doubt any of us will ever trawl back over the countless threads.

Ian

IH = Inflated hyperbole.

As for the rest, accusing those that 'lost' of 'undermining....in some cases with poison and vitriol' is hardly 'avoid[ing] finger pointing'

And if we leave it at that, I'll not respond.

Except to say that if the BCA had done things logically, ie change the Constitution either before, or along with (ie 2 ballot papers) vote for a 'campaign', then a lot of this nonsense would have been avoided.

D

 

[Ian Adams]

.... if the BCA had done things logically, ie change the Constitution either before, or along with (ie 2 ballot papers) vote for a 'campaign', then a lot of this nonsense would have been avoided.

I am sure that, in hindsight, things could have been done better. In fairness to the BCA, I don't know that they could have had the foresight to envisage the problems that are now evident and I don't think there were any reasonable grounds prevalent at the time which may have swayed them down a different route.

I think they acted in the way they thought best and with the right intentions.

It is unfortunate that this "nonsense" has manifested - I seriously doubt they expected any of it.


Ian

 

[cap n chris]

if the bca doesn't respect the wishes of it's (majority ) members i envisage i substantial drop in there membership.

That old chestnut.

Majority. 

Majority of the vote, or majority of its membership? You decide.

Read BCA's own official figures, here, and ponder deeper:

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

 

[droid]

Yes, hindsight always has 20:20 vision.

I too would just like to get on with it. The decision has been made.

 

[MarkS]

It seems bizarre to me that the constitution should contain any sentence that could, in some circumstance, prevent the BCA acting for the benefit of caves or caving. Given the issue that sentence has caused after the vote in favour of campaigning for CRoW, I would have thought the BCA would want to be seen to be trying to avoid any further potential headaches like this.

 

[cavemanmike]

It seems bizarre to me that the constitution should contain any sentence that could, in some circumstance, prevent the BCA acting for the benefit of caves or caving. Given the issue that sentence has caused after the vote in favour of campaigning for CRoW, I would have thought the BCA would want to be seen to be trying to avoid any further potential headaches like this.

well said that man. i just wish the bca where a lot more pro-active in doing something about it. to many anti crow on the exec if you ask me

 

[Ian Adams]

.... too many anti crow on the exec if you ask me

Not sure that is entirely fair.

Certainly some of the exec voted against. However, I have heard (1st hand) from some of those exec that they have accepted the vote and are getting behind it. I know couple of the people involved and trust their integrity.

I think (and I actually believe this) that the problem is the same problem that appears to be "trending" with the other four (non-caving) examples I gave. Specifically, there is a minority of the minority that are causing a tremendous fuss. This leads to the "anti's" (no matter which side of the fence again) feeling that they should support or at least empathise with the vocal "minority of minorities". It even seems to have become vogue with the American election with celebrities jumping on the minority bandwagon.

How many instances exist of the "minority of minorities" dictating a change in the UK? How many in Europe? How many have we "suffered" already?

I believe that the BCA exec are attempting to appease the "anti's" while doing their duty to uphold the majority verdict.

Sadly, the two are incompatible (as with the four non-caving examples) and no good can come of it.

We need a strong leadership that is prepared to grasp the proverbial bull by the horns and get the job done that they were mandated to do.

Ian

 

[royfellows]

Roy

I disagree with the possible adverse interpretation of the amendment as it specifically relates to the granting or withholding of access. This could possibly be made clearer by removal of the first comma.

Do you mean this sentence?

?That any rights held by the owners or tenants of property or mineral rights, to grant or withhold access, be respected?

would become:

?That any rights held by the owners or tenants of property or mineral rights to grant or withhold access, be respected?

Please clarify if I have it wrong.

Yes. I think that the meaning, becomes clearer in that it specifically relates to access, and could not be interpreted differently.

 

[JasonC]

It seems bizarre to me that the constitution should contain any sentence that could, in some circumstance, prevent the BCA acting for the benefit of caves or caving.

Another agreement.  The sentence "That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access" has no place in the BCA constitution.  Just cut it.
Whatever the outcome of the CRoW saga, the rights of landowners and tenants are determined by law (or interpretation thereof) and are entirely unaffected by whatever is in the BCA constitution.