Author Topic: Drws Cefn- the next instalment? (Read 13289 times)

cavermark · « **Reply #50 on:** February 23, 2016, 08:39:05 am »

Quote from: Peter Burgess on February 23, 2016, 08:32:05 am

That was support attracted some while ago. The comment was about support being attracted now, with the word "especially", implying a significantly greater level of support than was previously expressed. It is just as likely that cavers are now having some misgivings over how they voted, in the light of how a few cavers are now behaving. One can't really tell as it would require another test of opinion, which is not going to happen.

I don't think the actions of "certain cavers" are likely to give people misgivings over how they voted. I think people have concerns about the actions of certain cavers, because their actions might set back the ultimate outcome that we voted for.

crickleymal · « **Reply #51 on:** February 23, 2016, 08:50:30 am »

Personally I'm bored by the whole thing. It just seems to be an excuse for various people to snipe at each other. This one tiny issue seems to have generated more acrimony than all the others put together.

David Rose · « **Reply #52 on:** February 23, 2016, 08:58:37 am »

Jopo, I'll let Badlad handle that question. But trust me, he and his colleagues are making headway.

NewStuff · « **Reply #53 on:** February 23, 2016, 11:15:58 am »

Quote from: Peter Burgess on February 23, 2016, 08:32:05 am

That was support attracted some while ago. The comment was about support being attracted now, with the word "especially", implying a significantly greater level of support than was previously expressed. It is just as likely that cavers are now having some misgivings over how they voted, in the light of how a few cavers are now behaving. One can't really tell as it would require another test of opinion, which is not going to happen.

You have glasses so rose tinted, they're red.

I suspect that some people are uneasy about the fact that people should even *have* to think about legal proceedings. We all explore underground, and yet some are so determined to concrete an entrance that I can't blame them for thinking it's a realistic way forward.

Peter Burgess · « **Reply #54 on:** February 23, 2016, 11:18:26 am »

Well, I see feedback on this that doesn't appear on this forum, and isn't going to either. To use David Rose's phrase, "trust me".

NewStuff · « **Reply #55 on:** February 23, 2016, 12:20:55 pm »

Quote from: Peter Burgess on February 23, 2016, 11:18:26 am

Well, I see feedback on this that doesn't appear on this forum, and isn't going to either. To use David Rose's phrase, "trust me".

So, "Do what we say, we won't be telling you why, but you had better do it because we say so. Trust us".

Trust *you*??? I'd rather drop a shaft on a dynamic half rope...

Yourself and Graham seem to think that if you vaguely wave your hands a little and murmur something about "not online" then that automagically makes everything ok, we should trust you. Granted, they may not be online, and you may not be able to link us to something, but names, sources, details... you lack all of the above, it's all very wishy-washy and I'm quite inclined to say, it does not exist in any way close to what you make out it does, and *that's* why it will never appear.

Trusting yourself would lead to gates on pretty much any hole in the ground, and a permission system that requires forms that need to be filled out in triplicate, a letter from your mum saying you can do it in your underwear as you've forgotten your oversuit, and be bestest mates with whoever is the guardian of that particular gate...

Rhys · « **Reply #56 on:** February 23, 2016, 01:42:04 pm »

Global Moderator Comment Newstuff, please debate the issue, don't attack the individual. It's not big and it's not clever. You've had numerous warnings to this effect in the past.

Peter Burgess · « **Reply #57 on:** February 23, 2016, 01:54:30 pm »

To make it clear, the reason it is unlikely to appear here is because the individuals have absolutely no wish to come here, and have perfectly adequate other means to pass on their concerns to those that are prepared to listen. Not because I don't want it to be posted here. Hope that's clear enough.

Badlad · « **Reply #58 on:** February 23, 2016, 01:59:09 pm »

Quote from: Peter Burgess on February 23, 2016, 08:32:05 am

That was support attracted some while ago. The comment was about support being attracted now, with the word "especially", implying a significantly greater level of support than was previously expressed. It is just as likely that cavers are now having some misgivings over how they voted, in the light of how a few cavers are now behaving. One can't really tell as it would require another test of opinion, which is not going to happen.

The BCA poll/vote gave a clear majority for it to campaign for CRoW to apply to caving. When I've travelled around the country, caving, attending meetings, etc all indications are that that majority has increased rather than anything else. Several cavers have told me they would now vote pro either because they have been persuaded by the arguments or because they feel they should support the BCA majority rather than to continue in opposition. My own experience at BCA Council meetings is that council members have all voted in support of my work as CRoW liason officer even though some originally voted against in the poll. Also the recent CNCC meeting specifically voted to support the BCA campaign (all for, with one abstention). The DCA and CCC have also given similar support (the CSCC not).

However, what I expect the earlier post was referring to was the wider support from outside caving, such as the support from other outdoor organisations, MPs and the like that was mentioned in my last report to council. This wider support has continued to grow and will be reported on first, and in more detail, at the next BCA Council meeting.

I know some people wind each other up on this forum but please... we are trying to keep the forum civil whatever side of the debate you are on. Thanks

Peter Burgess · « **Reply #59 on:** February 23, 2016, 02:03:41 pm »

I am not trying to wind anybody up, Tim. Just stating an observation. I am disappointed when innocent actions and statements are misinterpreted. I know this is inevitable on social media, but it does seem to happen quite a bit more than necessary. People should stop reading between the lines as it simply doesn't add anything to the process.

Badlad · « **Reply #60 on:** February 23, 2016, 02:20:50 pm »

My final comment was not particularly aimed at you, Peter, but supportive of the global moderator comment made by Rhys.

Anyway I hope my post was able to answer your question about the wider support the BCA campaign has been attracting recently. More details will be published on here after they have been reported to the next Council meeting.

David Rose · « **Reply #61 on:** February 23, 2016, 02:22:02 pm »

Newstuff, I don't know who you are or what I've done to upset you, but I was merely referring to the fact that Badlad (aka Tim Allen) has been leading the lobbying effort to get other outdoors bodies onside and ought to answer the question. And as he's just made clear, in due course he will make a full report to the BCA.

I have always tried to be transparent and honest in debating this (and any other) issue. For example, when I spoke to the Draenen landowner and got answers that I didn't like and which didn't help the cause I posted them anyway because I believe people have a right to be informed. OK?

jasonbirder · « **Reply #62 on:** February 23, 2016, 02:26:18 pm »

Quote

That was support attracted some while ago.

Quote

it would require another test of opinion

I'm going to hazard a guess that if the CROW referendum had gone against campaigning for better Cave Access...that people wouldn't suggest it was too long ago (a year?) or that it was already time for another referendum (in the hope of a different result)

David Rose · « **Reply #63 on:** February 23, 2016, 02:27:18 pm »

Oh, I realise you were actually directing your comment towards Peter. I should pay closer attention. Apologies. Anyhow, I agree with Rhys. Let's all keep the ad hominem stuff out of this forum - it's been much more pleasant lately, and long may it remain so.

Peter Burgess · « **Reply #64 on:** February 23, 2016, 02:28:01 pm »

Thank you for making that clear Tim.

NewStuff · « **Reply #65 on:** February 23, 2016, 02:29:40 pm »

Quote from: David Rose on February 23, 2016, 02:22:02 pm

Newstuff, I don't know who you are or what I've done to upset you, but I was merely referring to the fact that Badlad (aka Tim Allen) has been leading the lobbying effort to get other outdoors bodies onside and ought to answer the question. And as he's just made clear, in due course he will make a full report to the BCA.

I have always tried to be transparent and honest in debating this (and any other) issue. For example, when I spoke to the Draenen landowner and got answers that I didn't like and which didn't help the cause I posted them anyway because I believe people have a right to be informed. OK?

You haven't upset me in the slightest, I think you should be applauded (along with many other people) for taking so much time to help open up access for everyone. I was referring to Peter Burgess and his hordes of offline supporters that conveniently are not online, do not visit this site (or for that matter, any other I have found yet), and refuse to have any detail whatsoever provided about them. In most other circles, people would think he was making it up.

Peter Burgess · « **Reply #66 on:** February 23, 2016, 03:25:27 pm »

The last thing I made up was a lentil and bean soup, with smoked sausage chopped up in it for extra flavour.

Badlad · « **Reply #67 on:** February 23, 2016, 04:05:14 pm »

Administrator Comment In response to several complaints I'm just going to lock the thread for a few hours so we can all take a break and prevent any deterioration of the thread. I hope folk agree. Back soon

Brains · « **Reply #68 on:** February 23, 2016, 10:15:21 pm »

The PDCMG do not post here, and keep quite on line about their proposed activites. As has been shown here before they and there associates have planned to concrete Drws Cefn. Perhaps plans are in hand to do the deed before the case comes to court? Is that what is being hinted at?
I would imagine their views have become more negative to CRoW as the majority wish to see a clarification in favour becomes more apparent.
Maybe that is what is being hinted at?

alastairgott · « **Reply #69 on:** February 24, 2016, 01:29:10 pm »

I'm afraid I echo views that this issue should not go to court, at least until a decision has been made between the cavers involved as to the Best course of Action.

This will not be a test case for Open access if this discussion doesn't take place.

The reason for this is because as a community we will look disorganised. It would be much better to settle the Drws Cefn case outside of Court.

If you are going to take it to court then your going to:
a) waste time, better spent digging (or caving).
b) waste money, better spent promoting the sport (or digging).
c) have a lot of boring circular conversations.

I can see why PDCMG want to have only one entrance. having two entrances could have a detrimental effect on the Conservation of the Cave.
Yes, people who have used the Drws Cefn Entrance say that it is just as far away from the formations as the Draenan Entrance and Just as hard, but I don't know as I've never been there.
But that Is missing another aspect of Conservation relating to Draughts. If there are two entrances this could create a draught.
As far as I know, we still do not know how Helectites (erratics) are formed. with the addition of a draught created by having two entrances this could have long lasting effects on the future growth of these speleothems. That would be a crying shame.

My two pence then is that the decision on two entrances vs one Should be based on scientific merit and not based on the decision of a Bigwig in a court or some government Quango.

The whole reason why CROW Came about was because of Yorkshire cavers not being happy about a decision in the past.
This thread is seeking the same Whitewashing result for Welsh cavers to sort out in the future. It wont work.

None of you will be happy with any decision unless you make it yourselves.

Alex · « **Reply #70 on:** February 24, 2016, 02:07:56 pm »

I agree now a court action is not in everyones best interest as great strides are being made recently and well if we don't like the permit system up here we can simply ignore it, if it all goes wrong it could make the situation worse!

As for drafts:

Even with PDCMGs old plans which include a bat window you will still have the draft, so I think that's a non-issue unless it is completely walled off (illegal now, due to bats). There was likely a draft there anyway as that was what told the diggers to dig there.

andrewmc · « **Reply #71 on:** February 24, 2016, 03:15:38 pm »

Quote from: alastairgott on February 24, 2016, 01:29:10 pm

c) have a lot of boring circular conversations.

You could argue taking it to court will settle that particular case (if not necessarily the wider issue) once and for all, quite the opposite of the usual circular conversations...

If the BCA were offered the chance to apply for a judicial review right now for a simpler case than Drws Cefn for £1 with no potential liability, would they not choose to do it? If the court unambiguously stated that CROW did not apply to caving, then we would know that and could decide whether to push for a change in the law or not.

alastairgott · « **Reply #72 on:** February 24, 2016, 04:01:04 pm »

Quote from: andrewmcleod on February 24, 2016, 03:15:38 pm

If the BCA were offered the chance to apply for a judicial review right now for a simpler case than Drws Cefn for £1 with no potential liability, would they not choose to do it?

If you can think of a cave where there are good relations with the landowner and therefore open access is not a contentious issue then it may be wise to ask BCA if it would be worth pursuing. Badlad would know I’m sure and would probably ask the question on your behalf, or may already be doing so...