Response to recent comments regarding the CNCC

[Alex]

Good reading Glenn, this post is tying up quite a few loose ends. Perhaps a modifeid version of the statement should be posted in the next descent, so that people really do know you have thier best interests at heart.

 

[Bottlebank]

Glenn,

I just realised you'd only answered one of the questions, the other was:

Would you be willing to confirm how many full member clubs there are presently, if you know?

If not an accurate figure could you give us a rough idea?

One of the proposals for the AGM is to change the voting structure. In some ways I'd be in favour of this and not in others, I'm not really too concerned who the clubs are but it would be good to know how many to get an idea of the effect of this change - for example if there are only fourteen to twenty in total then in wouldn't have much impact, whereas if there are fifty or sixty I'd want to give it more thought.

Thanks,

Tony

 

[Glenn]

Glenn,

I just realised you'd only answered one of the questions, the other was:

Would you be willing to confirm how many full member clubs there are presently, if you know?

If not an accurate figure could you give us a rough idea?

One of the proposals for the AGM is to change the voting structure. In some ways I'd be in favour of this and not in others, I'm not really too concerned who the clubs are but it would be good to know how many to get an idea of the effect of this change - for example if there are only fourteen to twenty in total then in wouldn't have much impact, whereas if there are fifty or sixty I'd want to give it more thought.

Thanks,

Tony

Tony, in, whatever year it was when BCA was created, CNCC Full Member Clubs numbered 51. Today, we know that of those 51, 29 are known to be still active, 2 are known to be defunct and the status of the remainder is unknown, as they are not answering emails or letters. I hope this answers your question as I have to go back to work now.

 

[graham]

Imagine a local authority keeping the electoral register secret and people turning up to vote only to find out that they had been removed from the electoral register.

Sounds like Florida under Jeb Bush.

 

[graham]

Tony, in, whatever year it was when BCA was created, CNCC Full Member Clubs numbered 51. Today, we know that of those 51, 29 are known to be still active, 2 are known to be defunct and the status of the remainder is unknown, as they are not answering emails or letters. I hope this answers your question as I have to go back to work now.

Interesting. The status of those clubs that are also BCA members should not be in doubt, of the others, do non-BCA clubs not pay a sub, as they do in, for example, the Cambrian? If they do, then there's your answer, if they don't then there's your problem.

 

[Bottlebank]

Tony, in, whatever year it was when BCA was created, CNCC Full Member Clubs numbered 51. Today, we know that of those 51, 29 are known to be still active, 2 are known to be defunct and the status of the remainder is unknown, as they are not answering emails or letters. I hope this answers your question as I have to go back to work now.

Me too, thanks Glenn.

 

[cap n chris]

[mod]Publicly stalking a named person and swapping titbits from trawling seems a bit out of order: topic split and archived[/mod]

 

[exsumper]

With regard to Micro-clubs, you still haven't said who the membership secretary of the CNCC-TG is, how many menbers it has and how to join!

Alex, I am prepared to provide a full answer to your question, if you can explain why it is of so much interest to you.

It is of interest to me (and I would suggest most cavers) because the nature of the CNCC TG and the other micro-clubs has a bearing on the democratic legitimacy of the CNCC committees unilateral decision to propose "cash for access" 

Given that the proposal is extremely detrimental to grass roots caving throughout the UK, and against the best interests of the majority of cavers,

It begs the question as to whether or not those who proposed and voted for this measure were commercial cavers or have any financial interest in commercial caving? A question that I have asked previously! this question requires an answer!

I think I have answered most of your query re CNCC TG in my reply to Bottlebank. No one in CNCC TG has a financial interest in commercial caving.

Yet more evasion!! My question was wether any of the committee members of the CNCC responsible for this proposal are commercial cavers or had/have a financial interest in Commercial caving? Not whether the members of CNCC TG have.

 

[NigR]

My question was whether any of the committee members of the CNCC responsible for this proposal are commercial cavers or had/have a financial interest in Commercial caving?

Yes, and your question was clearly answered by several informative posts from different people. However, these posts (along with all the enlightening information they contained) have now been entirely removed from the forum.

 

[Simon Wilson]

No one in CNCC TG has a financial interest in commercial caving.

I think that this statement by Glenn should not go unchallenged. The name of the member of the CNCC TG and the name of the commercial caving business that he operates can be found in several places on the CNCC website. The information is contained in an email address and so must not be posted on here. But you can find it here:
http://www.cncc.org.uk/documents/2013-03-02_AGM.pdf    (page 9)

There is also considerable evidence to the fact that this business has been operating since 2004 offering adventure caving as well as various types of training.

Apparently an unacceptable posting was made on here which I did not see but I have been told what it contained. I would definitely not have posted it and I apologise for making it possible for the person who posted it to find it on the internet.

I have respect for the aims of the CNCC when it was founded but I am dismayed by the way that it has been manipulated in such a way as to have become a consolidated little empire apparently run by and for the benefit of a small number of individuals. It is extremely difficult to challenge that empire without it being interpreted as animosity towards the individuals involved. I want to assure people that I am trying to stick to the facts and challenge the 'little empire' without making personal attacks. I apologise if people think I have occasionally strayed away from that a tad too much.

 

[NigR]

Your efforts are much appreciated, Simon.

Rest assured that you are not alone in your dismay at what has been allowed to transpire.

Personally, I have always been somewhat suspicious of the CNCC although, like you, I acknowledge that it played an important role in improving access back when it was first founded. To be honest, even when I lived up north I had very little direct contact with it (What's a permit?!). However, in recent years, particularly when it has come to disseminating anything but the most basic of information or answering potentially awkward questions, the CNCC has (in my opinion) become distinctly more shadowy. The reasons for this are, sadly, now becoming apparent.

Best of luck with trying to put things back on an even keel at the AGM next week.

 

[exsumper]

No one in CNCC TG has a financial interest in commercial caving.

I think that this statement by Glenn should not go unchallenged. The name of the member of the CNCC TG and the name of the commercial caving business that he operates can be found in several places on the CNCC website. The information is contained in an email address and so must not be posted on here. But you can find it here:
http://www.cncc.org.uk/documents/2013-03-02_AGM.pdf    (page 9)

There is also considerable evidence to the fact that this business has been operating since 2004 offering adventure caving as well as various types of training.

Apparently an unacceptable posting was made on here which I did not see but I have been told what it contained. I would definitely not have posted it and I apologise for making it possible for the person who posted it to find it on the internet.

I have respect for the aims of the CNCC when it was founded but I am dismayed by the way that it has been manipulated in such a way as to have become a consolidated little empire apparently run by and for the benefit of a small number of individuals. It is extremely difficult to challenge that empire without it being interpreted as animosity towards the individuals involved. I want to assure people that I am trying to stick to the facts and challenge the 'little empire' without making personal attacks. I apologise if people think I have occasionally strayed away from that a tad too much.

Thanks Simon and Nig, Unfortunately I missed the answers. As it was my question, perhaps the MOD who removed the posts could PM me with the answers?

Glenn Jones: For now I'll put to one side the whopping lie you've apparently told me about the lack of commercial interests in the CNCC TG!

As the proposal for "cash for Access" is not and never will be to the benefit of amateur cavers! The question for you is;

"Cui bono"

"To who's benefit" Glenn"??

Who on the CNCC committee  benefits from the proposal??

Not rude or abusive, just a straight honest question that requires a straight honest question?

Believe me  it isn't a small minority who'd like to see you tell the truth for once!

I await your reply!