QC says cavers DO have access to caves under the CROW Act

[Bottlebank]

I would like to see a study of the historical reasons for many of the current access controls, I suspect many of them will be rendered obsolete by the advent of CRoW (Grouse Moors, private land, etc.) whilst others can be legitamised on the grounds of conservation or general public safety. Such a study could indentify which systems can sensibly retain restrictions and those that no longer require them.


Interesting  that there has not been much response to this suggestion, maybe too much to hide?

I agree, and I've nothing to hide. Although I remain hopeful that BCA will decide not to adopt CRoW in which case a study like that would still be helpful with any ongoing negotiations with landowners as well.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Well Trinkhopping certainly doesn't appear on the list of included activities (which does exist BTW),

Could you provide a link to this list?  I am aware of several lists made by Natural England and thought they all had a caveat as to not being comprehensive.  The act contains no list of included activities.  And I thought the Minister made it clear that the definition was left open so any activity could be included provided it did not go against the prohibitions. 

The legislators did consider caving as it is mentioned in the analysis of responses to the consultation paper.  I quote "Responses were mixed on whether a new right of access should extend to cyclists, horse riders, climbers, cavers and canoeists." taken from the analysis of Proposal 15 which can be seen using this link http://web.archive.org/web/20000208084449/http:/www.wildlife-countryside.detr.gov.uk/access/analysis/index.htm.  (Thanks to who ever it was for that suggestion.)  But as it appears that having sent a 'pro CRoW covers caving' message, the legislators then got an 'anti CRoW covers caving' message, it is of little surprise that they then gave little further thought to making the topic explicitly clear.     

I would like to see a study of the historical reasons for many of the current access controls,

Interesting  that there has not been much response to this suggestion, maybe too much to hide?

I think it will be one of the consequential actions of the Working Group.


Lastly, in the interests of keeping this thread polite, I am going to try and avoid responding to comments which appear to ignore one or more of my prior postings and just state a contrary position.  I am going to assume the commenter has read them and concluded they are not persuasive.  But I have sympathy with Graham when unnecessary side swipes appear.  Can we please keep this thread on topic? 

 

[Simon Wilson]

Spoil sport.

 

[Bottlebank]

Well Trinkhopping certainly doesn't appear on the list of included activities (which does exist BTW),

Could you provide a link to this list?  I am aware of several lists made by Natural England and thought they all had a caveat as to not being comprehensive.  The act contains no list of included activities.  And I thought the Minister made it clear that the definition was left open so any activity could be included provided it did not go against the prohibitions. 

The legislators did consider caving as it is mentioned in the analysis of responses to the consultation paper.  I quote "Responses were mixed on whether a new right of access should extend to cyclists, horse riders, climbers, cavers and canoeists." taken from the analysis of Proposal 15 which can be seen using this link http://web.archive.org/web/20000208084449/http:/www.wildlife-countryside.detr.gov.uk/access/analysis/index.htm.  (Thanks to who ever it was for that suggestion.)  But as it appears that having sent a 'pro CRoW covers caving' message, the legislators then got an 'anti CRoW covers caving' message, it is of little surprise that they then gave little further thought to making the topic explicitly clear.     

I would like to see a study of the historical reasons for many of the current access controls,

Interesting  that there has not been much response to this suggestion, maybe too much to hide?

I think it will be one of the consequential actions of the Working Group.


Lastly, in the interests of keeping this thread polite, I am going to try and avoid responding to comments which appear to ignore one or more of my prior postings and just state a contrary position.  I am going to assume the commenter has read them and concluded they are not persuasive.  But I have sympathy with Graham when unnecessary side swipes appear.  Can we please keep this thread on topic?

Hi Bob,

Sorry, you're right, I was looking at the DEFRA and NE lists.

Looking at the analysis it seems more an acknowledgement that they received a response than a confirmation it was considered?

Tony

 

[Simon Wilson]

You could list some included activities as examples. Like DEFRA did when they list activities "like climbing". When they did that I thought it was all settled. I thought, there's nothing more like climbing than caving.

You couldn't have a list of all included activities, obviously!

By the way, trinkhopping is the outdoor version of trinkethopping.

 

[Simon Wilson]

OK I'll try to take you lot seriously.

This meeting on the 16th. What are they going to talk about? A bunch of barrack room lawyers going over all the same stuff again? Why? They won't have long enough. Talking about whether or not CRoW is desirable to cavers? What would be the point? If the meeting decides that they will welcome it if NE accepts the QCs opinion, will that help sway NE? Surely NE have to objectively consider it from a strictly legal point of view and not consider what cavers or landowners want. They have to only concern themselves with what the law is. And for the time being until there is a court case the QC trumps all. You might not agree with that but I think most cavers will.

 

[graham]

OK I'll try to take you lot seriously.

This meeting on the 16th. What are they going to talk about? A bunch of barrack room lawyers going over all the same stuff again? Why? They won't have long enough. Talking about whether or not CRoW is desirable to cavers? What would be the point? If the meeting decides that they will welcome it if NE accepts the QCs opinion, will that help sway NE? Surely NE have to objectively consider it from a strictly legal point of view and not consider what cavers or landowners want. They have to only concern themselves with what the law is. And for the time being until there is a court case the QC trumps all. You might not agree with that but I think most cavers will.

I think you'll find that DEFRA's lawyers trump a QC until the time any case reaches court.

 

[graham]

Why can't we all just - get along? All opinions have value, don't they?

We are getting along. Tony's baiting me and I'm not rising. I baited Graham and got a rise. 1-nil to me so far.

Does that really give you pleasure. Jesus Christ!

 

[Simon Wilson]

OK I'll try to take you lot seriously.

This meeting on the 16th. What are they going to talk about? A bunch of barrack room lawyers going over all the same stuff again? Why? They won't have long enough. Talking about whether or not CRoW is desirable to cavers? What would be the point? If the meeting decides that they will welcome it if NE accepts the QCs opinion, will that help sway NE? Surely NE have to objectively consider it from a strictly legal point of view and not consider what cavers or landowners want. They have to only concern themselves with what the law is. And for the time being until there is a court case the QC trumps all. You might not agree with that but I think most cavers will.

I think you'll find that DEFRA's lawyers trump a QC until the time any case reaches court.

Oh no it doesn't.

 

[Bottlebank]

Why can't we all just - get along? All opinions have value, don't they?

We are getting along. Tony's baiting me and I'm not rising. I baited Graham and got a rise. 1-nil to me so far.

Does that really give you pleasure. Jesus Christ!

Graham, sorry if I brought that on Linda, I hadn't realised I was baiting him.

I must remember never to disagree with him.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Why can't we all just - get along? All opinions have value, don't they?

We are getting along. Tony's baiting me and I'm not rising. I baited Graham and got a rise. 1-nil to me so far.

Does that really give you pleasure. Jesus Christ!

2-nil?

 

[paul]

[gmod]Yet again, a Topic with 28 Pages and not going anywhere. There's no point dragging this out any further so I am, once again, locking the thread. It remains for future reference but further contributions are pointless as it obviously will go nowhere.[/gmod]