Statement from the Trustees of Pwll Du Cave Management Group

[Jopo]

I cannot be the only one who finds it funny that directly beneath the statement from CCC is a photo of David Rose on the traverse in the Twll Du entrance.

When I looked just now http://www.cambriancavingcouncil.org.uk/ the picture looked like and is titled Dan yr Ogof Crystal Pool. Has something been changed since your posting?

I think the BCA and CCC have made a good first step.

Perhaps a little breathing space is now required and the hope that someone with a axe doesn't screw it up.

BTW Ship-badger. Thanks for changing to 'GSS member'

Jopo

 

[ChrisJC]

It's bureaucracy gone mad. SSSI's, Protected Landscapes, AONB's, what a load of balls. It's a post industrial landscape. What bloody difference does an extra hole in the ground make. I doubt if the original builders of the tramway bothered with any of that tripe.

Having a 20th Century attitude in the C21st Century is no longer a defensive position.

Aha. Read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_trespass_of_Kinder_Scout

That was highly illegal at the time, but those brave souls opened the door to the sort of outdoor access that we all take for granted today.

I'm OK with illegal acts as long as they are morally sound.

Chris.

 

[John S]

I find it odd that we have not had the full wording from the CADW document. CADW preserve Bronze age sites and Victorian sites with the same set of laws. Of course an act may well be illegal but they will deal with them in very different ways depending on the site. How many times have you walked along a Victorian track/tramway/railway to find the local authority has dug a ditch through it to stop fly tipping? I bet the work to site the footbridge a 100m away did more damage to the tramway in making its footings level.

The key will be the context of the statements within the wider document.

As CADW  is a public body, the documents can all be got by Freedom of Information Requests I believe, so lets have the full letters disclosed now, to see the context.

 

[Ship-badger]

I cannot be the only one who finds it funny that directly beneath the statement from CCC is a photo of David Rose on the traverse in the Twll Du entrance.

When I looked just now http://www.cambriancavingcouncil.org.uk/ the picture looked like and is titled Dan yr Ogof Crystal Pool. Has something been changed since your posting?

I think the BCA and CCC have made a good first step.

Perhaps a little breathing space is now required and the hope that someone with a axe doesn't screw it up.

BTW Ship-badger. Thanks for changing to 'GSS member'

Jopo

Yes Jopo it has been updated since I looked at it earlier. Ah well; it was funny while it lasted.

Thanks for making me aware that I hadn't updated my profile for years and years. I'll keep on top of it in future.

 

[cap n chris]

I cannot be the only one who finds it funny that directly beneath the statement from CCC is a photo of David Rose on the traverse in the Twll Du entrance.

When I looked just now http://www.cambriancavingcouncil.org.uk/ the picture looked like and is titled Dan yr Ogof Crystal Pool. Has something been changed since your posting?

I think this was what was being referred to:
http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php

 

[nickwilliams]

In response to the point made by JohnS, I need to make it clear that BCA's role in this has been limited supporting its constituent body CCC in publicising the statement. We have not seen or been involved in any discussions with Cadw or anyone else on this matter.

Nick Williams
Acting Secretary, BCA

 

[BradW]

I'm OK with illegal acts as long as they are morally sound.

Chris.

Chris: Do you consider illegal damage to a Scheduled Ancient Monument, to be "morally sound"?

 

[BradW]

Okay, BradW, that's done.

I hadn't noticed any condemnation of criminal damage to the Scheduled Ancient Monument. So, no, it's not done. Passing on a message from Cadw and asking cavers to stay away is all we have. Those with a duty to uphold good standards of caving in this country appear to remain ambivalent about what has happened.

 

[NewStuff]

I'm OK with illegal acts as long as they are morally sound.

Chris.

Chris: Do you consider illegal damage to a Scheduled Ancient Monument, to be "morally sound"?

Depends entirely on the monument. Stonehenge? No, not even for Bouldering ;-)

A trackbed I suspect the rain and runoff will naturally do damage to on a regular basis? Yes.

I'm not fussed about condemning people as it was a layer of grass and roots pushed through, not major excavation or rock removal. If someone was running around with a few pounds of bang and making lots of gravel with it, you might actually have a point.

 

[cap n chris]

It would be helpful if BCA made a public statement condemning any caver who thinks criminal damage is acceptable. It would be even more helpful if BCA cancelled their membership too.

 

[Rhys]

I find it odd that we have not had the full wording from the CADW document...

The key will be the context of the statements within the wider document.

As CADW  is a public body, the documents can all be got by Freedom of Information Requests I believe, so lets have the full letters disclosed now, to see the context.

Cambrian CC have issued a statement and appear to be accepting what Cadw have said. I would imagine the Cambrian Conservation Officer has been through it all in very fine detail. So perhaps Cadw do have a point.

 

[Simon Wilson]

It would be helpful if BCA made a public statement condemning any caver who thinks criminal damage is acceptable. It would be even more helpful if BCA cancelled their membership too.

What a good idea. We could maybe add something to the constitution along the lines of 'All members must obey the law.' Or how about 'All members must respect the rights of landowners... oh! no forget that...

 

[cap n chris]

It would be helpful if BCA made a public statement condemning any caver who thinks criminal damage is acceptable. It would be even more helpful if BCA cancelled their membership too.

What a good idea.

Glad you agree.

 

[BradW]

I find it odd that we have not had the full wording from the CADW document. CADW preserve Bronze age sites and Victorian sites with the same set of laws. Of course an act may well be illegal but they will deal with them in very different ways depending on the site. How many times have you walked along a Victorian track/tramway/railway to find the local authority has dug a ditch through it to stop fly tipping? I bet the work to site the footbridge a 100m away did more damage to the tramway in making its footings level.

The key will be the context of the statements within the wider document.

As CADW  is a public body, the documents can all be got by Freedom of Information Requests I believe, so lets have the full letters disclosed now, to see the context.

Note sure if this is what you want? It doesn't say who wrote it or if it's the same info sent to CCC. Seems pretty genuine though.

http://darknessbelow.co.uk/news-ogof-draenen-update/

 

[Minion]

It would be helpful if BCA made a public statement condemning any caver who thinks criminal damage is acceptable. It would be even more helpful if BCA cancelled their membership too.

BCA, NRW and CCC have all been supplied with photographic evidence of a ?new and very active? club in South Wales damaging the formations in a cave scheduled as a SSSI, along with evidence of the club publicly bragging about stealing formations for their ?pretties collection?, all three institutions have been shown to be uninterested, toothless and unwilling to act.

What makes you think they?ll change their tune on this one?

 

[Simon Wilson]

I find it odd that we have not had the full wording from the CADW document. CADW preserve Bronze age sites and Victorian sites with the same set of laws. Of course an act may well be illegal but they will deal with them in very different ways depending on the site. How many times have you walked along a Victorian track/tramway/railway to find the local authority has dug a ditch through it to stop fly tipping? I bet the work to site the footbridge a 100m away did more damage to the tramway in making its footings level.

The key will be the context of the statements within the wider document.

As CADW  is a public body, the documents can all be got by Freedom of Information Requests I believe, so lets have the full letters disclosed now, to see the context.

Note sure if this is what you want? It doesn't say who wrote it or if it's the same info sent to CCC. Seems pretty genuine though.

htt.p://darknesbelow.co.uk/news-ogof-draenen-update/

It says ...and further asks cavers to refrain from ?making any remarks in any place which might encourage anyone to use or seek out this cave entrance.? and no doubt it will be all over social media with all the information to make it very easy to find.

It's here  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill%27s_Tramroad

There's a new cave wide open but DON'T TELL ANYBODY.

CAN YOU ALL HEAR AT THE BACK?

 

[danthecavingman]

I'll be suitably outraged when someone shows me a photo of the damage done to this "ancient" monument... Photos please? In the meantime it sounds a bit picky to defend a route forged through the hillside built on clinker and whatever that served a quarry that destroyed limestone in an RIGS....
Can we have this in sensible perspective please?
Maybe as has been suggested we should step back from the rhetoric and have a chaired and moderated discussion about this in the real world and not posturing on a forum?
Ogof Draenen is far older than the tramway and in some people's view point far more relevant / important than a bit of (albeit interesting) wanton industrial vandalism of the hillside less than 200 years ago....

Ancient as defined by the OED... https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/ancient

 

[And]

I cannot be the only one who finds it funny that directly beneath the statement from CCC is a photo of David Rose on the traverse in the Twll Du entrance.

When I looked just now http://www.cambriancavingcouncil.org.uk/ the picture looked like and is titled Dan yr Ogof Crystal Pool. Has something been changed since your posting?

I think this was what was being referred to:
http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php

Yes, I found it amusing too - a picture of David R with a cheeky little smile in the entrance with the statement above saying Do not use the entrance!    I have a screen shot!

As an aside, I thought the BCA article was a little unwise in the first place, but couldn't be arsed to write a post on that thread. It is somewhat unclear what the BCA's strategy on CROW is - and it doesn't seem like associating itself with the tomfoolery in Wales was the ideal way forward.

 

[andrewmcleod]

You know when people aren't really trying to solve a problem, and are just trying to defend and justify their position, when they suddenly start caring deeply about tangential things they wouldn't normally care about much but which support their position.

e.g. I don't believe that the PDCMG and supporters have always had a deep-seated and religious conviction about the critical importance of never, ever causing any alteration of any kind within the boundary of a scheduled monument without permission. Equally I don't believe the 'other side' (whoever they are) care nothing for history and are totally fine with causing damage to scheduled monuments...

Any damage to a scheduled monument, given it was discovered from underneath, was surely accidental... one could argue it was careless, but it was hardly a brazen act of criminality.

The BCA would be wrong to take sides. They have, very wisely, called for restraint. It would be wrong of them to issue a condemnation of illegal acts in this case because that would be taking sides. While they can, should and have made reasonable suggestions which will benefit caving and cavers (i.e. holding back from using the Twll Du entrance until the situation is clearer), they are not the police. Policing cavers is not a role they, or any other caving body, should take, and only the most egregious of acts against caves or caving should result in membership cancellation (and nothing else) - certainly not a disagreement over access where there is not consensus.

 

[MJenkinson]

Thing is, even if this wasn't a scheduled monument, then even by digging from the inside out, they have disturbed the surface which as far as I am aware isn't covered under CROW.  So they have done something wrong.

As an avid open access proponent, I can still see that stuff like this is what will get land owners backs up. Then next time someone wants to do a surface dig they will be told to f*** right off.