Author Topic: Access, CRoW and the BCA  (Read 76820 times)

Offline blackholesun

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: Access, CRoW and the BCA
« Reply #650 on: June 30, 2014, 01:07:58 pm »
In answer to one of your questions some time ago, Graham;
I'm interested in the QC's (Dinah Rose's) opinion as it appears that she may be about to put in a significant amount more time and thought into reaching a conclusion that NE did. In fairness they produced a reasonable and well-thought through reply to my emails, but it appeared they focussed on a literal use of the phrase open air and would have been unlikely to devote large amounts of time to the issue. Perhaps others feel the same. Perhaps people just didn't like the first answer and want another.

If Dinah Rose reaches the same conclusion, then that will become my opinion of whether CRoW covers non-open air caving.

Offline Badlad

  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1645
Re: Access, CRoW and the BCA
« Reply #651 on: June 30, 2014, 01:12:43 pm »
This is very interesting - and highlights one of the issues that was at the heart of the CNCC problems of last year.  Namely that club reps were not reflecting the views of the club members.

For example; there was a proposal put to the CNCC committee by one of the influential officers last September which was voted through unanimously.  It was somewhat controversial (as is the Drws Cefn issue) and had to go to a further vote due to a constitutional amendment.  After some publicity of the issue, many of the club reps were brought to task.  Individual club members asked questions and clubs had to seriously consider the issue they were voting for.  In the end the vote was turned around 100%, with the same proposal being rejected unanimously at the AGM.

If all the facts of the Drws Cefn issue were known I cannot believe that the majority of cavers from that region wish to see this entrance concreted in or closed in any other way.  I hope that UBSS members will give a greater consideration to what their club is doing to their name.


Offline blackholesun

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: Access, CRoW and the BCA
« Reply #652 on: June 30, 2014, 01:27:42 pm »
Peter,
I have some, limited, understanding of how UBSS works and so this is not just complete speculation. I felt others on the forum might naively think a typical caver at UB might understand and support what a representative of UBSS was proposing, when this might not be the case.

While I was on the committee of a caving club if someone had reason to think that my decisions were not representative of the club, I took it very seriously, but I was not personally offended by it. If you're a committee member or a representative of a club then you should be able to justify to yourself that your actions represent the clubs wishes, not your own, or you should get the hell out. If you can justify your actions in a civil manner to someone random on the internet, as has been done, then all the better.

I can see where you're coming from. However, there should never be any need for anger or aggression as you should either know that the other person is wrong and that you are indeed representing your club, or that they are right and that they have provided a method where you would be able to better represent your club. Or something in between.

Offline NigR

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1176
  • Grwp Ogofeydd Garimpeiros SWCC
Re: Access, CRoW and the BCA
« Reply #653 on: June 30, 2014, 01:52:12 pm »
Sigh. I would be extremely surprised if consensus (or even any informed opinions) on whether Drws Cefn should be permanently blocked, was attained from those in UBSS who actually attend Bristol University, and yet statements and decisions like these are being made partly in their name.

What involvement has Bristol University got in the proposed blocking of Drws Cefn?

None.

This statement is incorrect.

In a previous thread concerning this topic, Graham stated:

".........the UBSS Committee formally debated the matter and then instructed Pete as to the Society's official stance. As one who was present at both committee meetings where this matter has been discussed, I have to say that I was impressed by the strength of feeling of those present and by the size of the majority whose view was adopted."

The "Pete" referred to above is, of course, Pete Talling who is the official UBSS representative on the PDCMG. At every PDCMG meeting since, his opinions about the future of Drws Cefn have been remarkably consistent. Quite simply, without fail, he has spoken up (and voted accordingly) for obliterating the cave from the face of the earth by blocking it with concrete. Please let there be no doubt about this.

If this is not the UBSS official stance then why has their representative being purporting it as such for so long?

As I have previously stated, UBSS are one of the chief proponents on the PDCMG of the permanent concreting of Drws Cefn, along with Oxford University Caving Club and Morgannwg Caving Club.

Are you going to tell me now that their representatives have also not been reflecting the true views of their clubs for all this time?

Offline Peter Burgess

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 9118
  • Left ukcaving by this name
Re: Access, CRoW and the BCA
« Reply #654 on: June 30, 2014, 01:54:02 pm »
Fair point Blackholesum, but how a club appoints and directs a representative to another body has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the thread, really.  :)

That said, as the discussion descended into farce two or three days ago (I could be specific to the minute/second), I see no problem with contributing anything that takes one's fancy (insofar as it won't make a difference to the deliberations of the BCA). As far as I am concerned, most of the things I was genuinely curious about have been covered by those prepared to discuss things rationally at least. My thanks to those who recognise themselves by that description.  :thumbsup:

Offline menacer

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 992
  • Craven Pothole Club
Re: Access, CRoW and the BCA
« Reply #655 on: June 30, 2014, 03:04:51 pm »
This is very interesting - and highlights one of the issues that was at the heart of the CNCC problems of last year.  Namely that club reps were not reflecting the views of the club members.

For example; there was a proposal put to the CNCC committee by one of the influential officers last September which was voted through unanimously.  It was somewhat controversial (as is the Drws Cefn issue) and had to go to a further vote due to a constitutional amendment.  After some publicity of the issue, many of the club reps were brought to task.  Individual club members asked questions and clubs had to seriously consider the issue they were voting for.  In the end the vote was turned around 100%, with the same proposal being rejected unanimously at the AGM.

If all the facts of the Drws Cefn issue were known I cannot believe that the majority of cavers from that region wish to see this entrance concreted in or closed in any other way.  I hope that UBSS members will give a greater consideration to what their club is doing to their name.

Me too, its horrifying to think that the views of the members may not have been properly represented, not just in the UBSS but any club.  ( although i can understand the difficulty in aquiring consensus especially in clubs the size of say the wessex.)

There seems to be a strong rumbling that this selective " democracy" that exists in UK caving politics is being exposed for the charade it is.
My favorite quote was from jasonbirder on a different thread

People who ENJOY verbose and procedure driven meetings feel that decisions are best taken BY those who enjoy procedure driven and verbose meetings...as their input is obviously more valid and important than those who don't enjoy them/are intimidated by the atmosphere/haven't the time or money to participate...

It gave me an understanding how people can drive forward their own agendas, by barracking, intimidation and droning on until most non politicians get fed up and go away.

I will admit at this point to not wanting to voice my opinion on this subject/thread because of the relentless brow bashing opinions and heckling that the regular few always descend to.

As for the Derbyshire key thing, Brilliant, access for all at the consent of all. How unfashionably fair and straight forward.

The locks on mendip are often a bit of a headache to maintain, often resulting in cancelled trips or rescues when people get locked in caves.
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.

Offline Jon

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 197
    • My blog
Re: Access, CRoW and the BCA
« Reply #656 on: June 30, 2014, 03:07:59 pm »
This is very interesting - and highlights one of the issues that was at the heart of the CNCC problems of last year.  Namely that club reps were not reflecting the views of the club members.

For example; there was a proposal put to the CNCC committee by one of the influential officers last September which was voted through unanimously.  It was somewhat controversial (as is the Drws Cefn issue) and had to go to a further vote due to a constitutional amendment.  After some publicity of the issue, many of the club reps were brought to task.  Individual club members asked questions and clubs had to seriously consider the issue they were voting for.  In the end the vote was turned around 100%, with the same proposal being rejected unanimously at the AGM.

If all the facts of the Drws Cefn issue were known I cannot believe that the majority of cavers from that region wish to see this entrance concreted in or closed in any other way.  I hope that UBSS members will give a greater consideration to what their club is doing to their name.

Me too, its horrifying to think that the views of the members may not have been properly represented, not just in the UBSS but any club.  ( although i can understand the difficulty in aquiring consensus especially in clubs the size of say the wessex.)

There seems to be a strong rumbling that this selective " democracy" that exists in UK caving politics is being exposed for the charade it is.
My favorite quote was from jasonbirder on a different thread

People who ENJOY verbose and procedure driven meetings feel that decisions are best taken BY those who enjoy procedure driven and verbose meetings...as their input is obviously more valid and important than those who don't enjoy them/are intimidated by the atmosphere/haven't the time or money to participate...

It gave me an understanding how people can drive forward their own agendas, by barracking, intimidation and droning on until most non politicians get fed up and go away.

I will admit at this point to not wanting to voice my opinion on this subject/thread because of the relentless brow bashing opinions and heckling that the regular few always descend to.

As for the Derbyshire key thing, Brilliant, access for all at the consent of all. How unfashionably fair and straight forward.

The locks on mendip are often a bit of a headache to maintain, often resulting in cancelled trips or rescues when people get locked in caves.

Stop talking sense,  it's not the done thing.

Offline kay

  • Not a
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2643
Re: Access, CRoW and the BCA
« Reply #657 on: June 30, 2014, 04:02:51 pm »
This is very interesting - and highlights one of the issues that was at the heart of the CNCC problems of last year.  Namely that club reps were not reflecting the views of the club members.

For example; there was a proposal put to the CNCC committee by one of the influential officers last September which was voted through unanimously.  It was somewhat controversial (as is the Drws Cefn issue) and had to go to a further vote due to a constitutional amendment.  After some publicity of the issue, many of the club reps were brought to task.  Individual club members asked questions and clubs had to seriously consider the issue they were voting for.  In the end the vote was turned around 100%, with the same proposal being rejected unanimously at the AGM.


Unintentionally, that was quite possibly a good result. The issue was brought to the AGM and comprehensively rejected by a vote of Full Club Members. Had the motion not been passed in September (which was done in the knowledge that it was basically a motion to bring it to the AGM, since to implement it needed constitutional change) then it would have been rejected only by the CNCC Committee, and not by the Full Member Clubs, which is a less satisfactory result.


Offline graham

  • Retired
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10943
  • UBSS, Speleo-Club de Perigueux, GSG, SUI
    • UBSS
Re: Access, CRoW and the BCA
« Reply #658 on: June 30, 2014, 04:56:46 pm »
This statement is incorrect.

The statement is correct given that the UBSS Committee is not under any sort of direct control by the University itself.

Now stop trying to obfuscate. Pete's position is perfectly legitimate and does, as you have admitted, reflect the view of the UBSS committee.

Caving is for Life not just for Christmas

Offline graham

  • Retired
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10943
  • UBSS, Speleo-Club de Perigueux, GSG, SUI
    • UBSS
Re: Access, CRoW and the BCA
« Reply #659 on: June 30, 2014, 05:00:50 pm »
The locks on mendip are often a bit of a headache to maintain, often resulting in cancelled trips or rescues when people get locked in caves.

Can't speak for anyone else, but the locks that I am responsible for (and regularly service) don't cause that many complaints to be sent my way.

Of course, if folks get problems and don't tell me then there is not a lot I can do ...
Caving is for Life not just for Christmas

Offline Simon Wilson

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1645
    • IC Resin Anchor
Re: Access, CRoW and the BCA
« Reply #660 on: June 30, 2014, 05:10:20 pm »
Because universities fund their caving clubs they have rules about members of the clubs having to be members of the university. That is why I asked Graham about his involvement with the university. I was wondering of he is a legitimate member of UBSS.

I asked what involvement Bristol University has with concreting of Drws Cefn because I am concerned that  Bristol and Oxford universities could be indirectly contributing to the filling of a cave with concrete.



Offline graham

  • Retired
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10943
  • UBSS, Speleo-Club de Perigueux, GSG, SUI
    • UBSS
Re: Access, CRoW and the BCA
« Reply #661 on: June 30, 2014, 05:14:45 pm »
Because universities fund their caving clubs they have rules about members of the clubs having to be members of the university. That is why I asked Graham about his involvement with the university. I was wondering of he is a legitimate member of UBSS.

How [redacted] dare you.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 07:59:49 pm by Cap'n Chris »
Caving is for Life not just for Christmas

Offline NigR

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1176
  • Grwp Ogofeydd Garimpeiros SWCC
Re: Access, CRoW and the BCA
« Reply #662 on: June 30, 2014, 05:20:27 pm »
Pete's position is perfectly legitimate and does, as you have admitted, reflect the view of the UBSS committee.

Thank you for confirming that your representative on the PDCMG does indeed reflect the views of your committee.

So, as I have previously stated, this means that UBSS are one of three clubs intent upon the permanent sealing of Drws Cefn by means of concrete in order to prevent its future use by all cavers for all time.

Again, thank you for acknowledging this.


Offline Simon Wilson

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1645
    • IC Resin Anchor
Re: Access, CRoW and the BCA
« Reply #663 on: June 30, 2014, 05:28:23 pm »
Pete's position is perfectly legitimate and does, as you have admitted, reflect the view of the UBSS committee.

Thank you for confirming that your representative on the PDCMG does indeed reflect the views of your committee.

So, as I have previously stated, this means that UBSS are one of three clubs intent upon the permanent sealing of Drws Cefn by means of concrete in order to prevent its future use by all cavers for all time.

Again, thank you for acknowledging this.

Perhaps someone might want to contact both the university's chancellors and voice concern.

Offline graham

  • Retired
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10943
  • UBSS, Speleo-Club de Perigueux, GSG, SUI
    • UBSS
Re: Access, CRoW and the BCA
« Reply #664 on: June 30, 2014, 05:31:17 pm »
Pete's position is perfectly legitimate and does, as you have admitted, reflect the view of the UBSS committee.

Thank you for confirming that your representative on the PDCMG does indeed reflect the views of your committee.

So, as I have previously stated, this means that UBSS are one of three clubs intent upon the permanent sealing of Drws Cefn by means of concrete in order to prevent its future use by all cavers for all time.

Again, thank you for acknowledging this.

Don't be so melodramatic. I once negotiated access to a cave that had been sealed with a concrete slab many years before. We were in and had it made safe in an afternoon.


Perhaps someone might want to contact both the university's chancellors and voice concern.

And I'm sure she'll mention it to me over lunch some time.

Idiot.
Caving is for Life not just for Christmas

Online paul

  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4332
  • Orpheus CC, NPC
    • Orpheus Caving Club
Re: Access, CRoW and the BCA
« Reply #665 on: June 30, 2014, 05:37:55 pm »
Global Moderator Comment As we are now at 27 pages in this Topic and it obviously isn't going anywhere meaningful, I am locking it. If you wish to have a meaningful discussion on this Topic, start a new thread and can the usual suspects PLEASE KEEP ON TOPIC.
I'm not a complete idiot: some parts are missing!