Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals

[Pitlamp]

No-one should feel intimidated enough to be unwilling to post reasonable, logical arguments on here. If it generates ugly responses, I'm sure our moderators would deal with them as appropriate.

All this discussion has been the result of two completely separate issues;

* the content of CSCC members' proposals

* the manner in which some people have allegedly been corresponding with our present Secretary (and other officers) in an inappropriate way.

Whether or not I agree with the CSCC proposals, I'd argue they have a perfect right to make them. If they go against what the majority want to see happen, they'll be voted out. I don't have any problem with that. I am very concerned if a volunteer, who has given so much time and energy to doing what he feels is right for the BCA, has been receiving abusive communications. Whatever one's opinion as to how BCA might move forwards, there would be no excuse for that.

 

[darren]

I've got to admit I'm guessing here a bit but from what has been posted on other threads.

CSCC didn't really want to join national organisation for fear of being overwhelmed by northern cavers.

National organisation and voting structure was set up in such a way to make things acceptable to CSCC. I.e. group votes being equal regardless of group membership. This is how parts of USA government and EU works for same reason.

Cavers, predominantly northern,  want to change rules allowing them to ignore (overwhelm) wishes of CSCC cavers.  Access arrangements are an example of this.

Looks like CSCC had a point all those years ago.

 

[mikem]

I believe that the 422 is the most online at one time, so far today. The total for the day will be very much higher as you can be sure that everyone who has been on hasn't been at the same time.

& not all of them will have bothered logging in, but it also includes bots, overseas cavers & non-members of BCA, so is ball park anyway.

Does system record how many have looked at this thread?

 

[zomjon]

I notice that DarknessBelow has just posted the CSCC proposals and their justifications, I wonder if they would be ready to print Matt?s own thoughts on the proposals to provide a balanced view for their readers!

 

[mikem]

As more people read this, I don't think it matters.

 

[cavemanmike]

I notice that DarknessBelow has just posted the CSCC proposals and their justifications, I wonder if they would be ready to print Matt?s own thoughts on the proposals to provide a balanced view for their readers!

To be fair that's a matter for matt, not darkness below

 

[darren]

I notice that DarknessBelow has just posted the CSCC proposals and their justifications, I wonder if they would be ready to print Matt?s own thoughts on the proposals to provide a balanced view for their readers!

Would you expect the Labour party website to publish an opinion from a leading conservative?

 

[Pete K]

I notice that DarknessBelow has just posted the CSCC proposals and their justifications, I wonder if they would be ready to print Matt?s own thoughts on the proposals to provide a balanced view for their readers!

Would you expect the Labour party website to publish an opinion from a leading conservative?

No, but Darkness below are not stating their support of the CSCC overtly on their website (that I can see), so your question is misleading as it is not a valid comparison.
You should be asking "Would you expect the BBC website to publish an opinions from leading conservative/labour/green/whatever candidates?".
Well, yes, obviously. A site claiming to be a one stop shop for caver news has a duty to deliver a balanced coverage, unless bias reporting is the goal to try and influence cavers one way or another.

 

[zomjon]

And to follow on from Pete?s comment, both the proposals from CSCC and their justifying points, are already posted here for all to see their arguments.

 

[Brains]

I've got to admit I'm guessing here a bit but from what has been posted on other threads.

CSCC didn't really want to join national organisation for fear of being overwhelmed by northern cavers.

National organisation and voting structure was set up in such a way to make things acceptable to CSCC. I.e. group votes being equal regardless of group membership. This is how parts of USA government and EU works for same reason.

Cavers, predominantly northern,  want to change rules allowing them to ignore (overwhelm) wishes of CSCC cavers.  Access arrangements are an example of this.

Looks like CSCC had a point all those years ago.

Seems to me the whole country has bent over backwards to try and accommodate the CSCC without success, and now they cant get their own and control the whole thing they are throwing the toys out the pram and trying to wreck the work of the BCA. It would also seem that through apathy the CSCC membership the ruling clique are allowed to do what they like and make up resolutions and proposals never seen by the majority of the people they should be representing

 

[2xw]

Well, yes, obviously. A site claiming to be a one stop shop for caver news has a duty to deliver a balanced coverage, unless bias reporting is the goal to try and influence cavers one way or another.

Just so noone is in any doubt:
The DarknessBelow editors are anti-access campaigners
One of the DarknessBelow editors spent a decade advising DEFRA and NRW that cavers do not want access
One or more of the DarknessBelow editors is intimately involved with Charterhouse and the young person cave ban.
Some or possibly all of the DarknessBelow editors have been banned from this forum and wanted a new platform for their views.
One or more of the DanknessBelow editors was involved in the Draenan legal arguments.

They do not advertise balanced coverage, to be fair, and don't provide it. They have rejected articles I've submitted in the past.

There is obviously some quality content. But they do purposefully omit a lot.

 

[Pegasus]

Seems to me the whole country has bent over backwards to try and accommodate the CSCC without success, and now they cant get their own and control the whole thing they are throwing the toys out the pram and trying to wreck the work of the BCA. It would also seem that through apathy the CSCC membership the ruling clique are allowed to do what they like and make up resolutions and proposals never seen by the majority of the people they should be representing

Seems like that to me too.

Too much pandering, too much apathy. 

BCA has brought this current situation upon itself in some ways by having pandered to the small minority for far too long.  It would be great to see strong leadership going forward, throwing out ridiculous 'official complaints', not allowing tedious monologues about minutiae of the minutes at meetings until most of those present lose the will to live etc etc

Regarding the apathy, there's nothing cavers from other regions can do about this.  Indeed one of the reasons I have decided not to stand again is because I don't see why I should be trying so hard when those who could attend meetings, vote, get involved etc simply can't be bothered and allow this nonsense to continue.

 

[NewStuff]

unless bias reporting is the goal to try and influence cavers one way or another.

That's pretty much the aim of the site as far as I can see. Lot's of finger wagging and implied ominous tones of voice if you don't do things the way they think they should be done.

 

[Robert Scott]

..................

* the manner in which some people have allegedly been corresponding with our present Secretary (and other officers) in an inappropriate way.

< snip > I am very concerned if a volunteer, who has given so much time and energy to doing what he feels is right for the BCA, has been receiving abusive communications. Whatever one's opinion as to how BCA might move forwards, there would be no excuse for that.

And this, John, is very worrying. If there is no sanction against such behaviour, can we expect the perpetrators to moderate or improve their behaviour? We are both aware our own club's "Rule 7" but the BCA doesn't seem to have such a process.

 

[Pitlamp]

But would private communications, however inappropriate (allegedly; note - I haven't seen them) actually be BCA's business?

But , hang it all - we're all cavers; we've all got so much in common. I just don't understand the need for all this angst.

 

[Oceanrower]

But , hang it all - we're all cavers; we've all got so much in common. I just don't understand the need for all this angst.

Sorry. Completely off topic but I see this a lot. Do we really have much in common apart from caving? I don't think I have much in common with any of the people I cave(d) with. No more than, for example, random people from work.

 

[Pitlamp]

We have loads in common - I can easily think of a long list. But, as you say, potentially well off topic, so I'm not going to take the bait. 

 

[Madness]

If the CSCC never wanted to be associated with the BCA in the first place as Darren suggests, why doesn't the BCA give them what they want and tell them to politely go away, do their own thing and sort their own insurance and funding. Closing date for AGM proposals is now August, so there's plenty of time should someone want to put it forward officially.

 

[Pitlamp]

The trouble is, caving is a relatively small interest group and it's probably a case of united we stand, divided we fall. Our national body needs to be able to assure any agencies it deals with that it represents all cavers, otherwise it's dealings would be significantly undermined.

 

[mikem]

& potentially lose c.20% of their membership...