Author Topic: bca meeting 25/3 /2017  (Read 28563 times)

Offline ZombieCake

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Dun cavin'
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #300 on: May 17, 2017, 11:13:06 pm »
Probably not overly relevant, but in the name of levity & jest a while back I was in a board meeting (not caving related) and my thoughts for the minutes were simply:

1) Various members of the board talked bollocks for some time.
2) The rest of the board concurred.

I in no way wish to decry the efforts of the BCA, which in my view is a force for good, and certainly recent posts on the library are a bit of a revelation to me.  Does anyone know if they have anything on witches and caves? (area of research I'm looking at).
 

Offline cavemanmike

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 408
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #301 on: May 18, 2017, 08:11:42 am »
Didn't the BCA(in the old days) decide to omit cave from the list

Offline AR

  • Black shadow
  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • PDMHS, ATAC, ANHMS
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #302 on: May 18, 2017, 09:40:13 am »
Quote
The current CRoW act does lists some activities which are forbidden, caving is not one of them and so it is allowed despite the interpretation placed by DEFRA.

However one could say that having a list  means that everything NOT shown as a permitted activity is excluded.

Jopo

Generally speaking, English law works on the principle that unless something is explicitly prohibited or constrained, it is permitted.
Dirty old mines need love too....

Offline Alex

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3479
  • BRCC, UWFRA.
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #303 on: May 18, 2017, 03:12:40 pm »
The same cannot be said for Spain. There it's everything is illegal unless the law says its allowed. At the moment you have to get a permit for the cave as normal, then when you arrive you have to phone the Garda-civil and when you leave you phone them again! I certainly don't want to see anything that ridiculous here, but that's what can happen when you start getting all officious and power-crazy big organisations. Especially government. The reason behind this whole thing was down to one organisation after another sticking their ore in and wanting to be involved.
Anything I say is represents my own opinion and not that of a any club/organisation that I am a member of (unless its good of course)

Online Badlad

  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1163
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #304 on: May 18, 2017, 05:17:58 pm »
This is slightly off the topic of the OP but may help with the excluded activities argument. It has been said of a principle of English Law that,

“England, it may be said, is not a country where everything is forbidden except what is expressly permitted: it is a country where everything is permitted except what is expressly forbidden.”

Further reading on CRoW shows parliaments intention;

The Minister stated that the CRoW Act chose the 1949 formula (National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act).  This used the method of listing excluded activities.

During the passage of CRoW the Commons proposed an amendment which stated;

" 'Open air recreation' means recreational activities usually carried out in the open air."

The Minister's response was,

"The Government have chosen the route of listing excluded activities".  "We are trying to allow everything that is not specifically excluded."

In the Lord's a further amendment was proposed,

" 'Open air recreation' means recreational activities necessarily carried out in the open air."

In response the Minister stated,

"The term was not defined in drafting the bill because we considered that a definition would be undesirably restrictive and unnecessary"

Both amendments were withdrawn.

This is a quick snapshot which was covered in far more detail in our submission to the QC, but this does demonstrate just one aspect of the strength of the CRoW argument.

Offline Kenilworth

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #305 on: May 18, 2017, 11:30:37 pm »
Caving and caving politics are two distinct hobbies that have no meaningful connections with one another. Apparently, the CROW issue that is the primary topic of this and countless other debates is of very little importance to cavers. It follows that the BCA is the governing body for the hobby of caving politics, and with few exceptions (primarily the library referenced above) is not particularly useful or at all necessary to cavers. I suspect that many cavers, including some active in these debates, would find refreshment in a maturation of purpose marked by focus on practical, physical, real-life activity and complete abandonment of political games.

Offline Cap'n Chris

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 12041
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #306 on: May 19, 2017, 07:21:57 am »
Caving cannot be termed an open air activity because although some of it is, much of it isn't. Cave diving and passages or chambers containing less-than-fresh-air being two examples that might easily confound such a definition.

Online NewStuff

  • Vocal proponent of Open Access
  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • www.dddwhcc.com
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #307 on: May 19, 2017, 12:52:09 pm »
Caving cannot be termed an open air activity because although some of it is, much of it isn't. Cave diving and passages or chambers containing less-than-fresh-air being two examples that might easily confound such a definition.

We've been over this, ad nauseum. It's in the umbrella of "open-air" activity (Climbing, Canyoning etc).
Deep Dark Dirty Wet Holes - The Right honourable Lock Persuader in Chief.

Offline Alex

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3479
  • BRCC, UWFRA.
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #308 on: May 19, 2017, 01:36:20 pm »
I must say I agree with Kenilworth on this one. Stop playing games and get on with job. This is taking longer then leaving the EU which is an entirely much more complicated subject matter. Surely it can't be that hard in the grand scheme of things.
Anything I say is represents my own opinion and not that of a any club/organisation that I am a member of (unless its good of course)

Offline cavemanmike

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 408
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #309 on: May 19, 2017, 04:09:48 pm »
I Surely it can't be that hard in the grand scheme of things.

it can when half of the bca exec are against the crow act and are fighting poor old tim all the way instead of giving him there FULL SUPPORT

Offline badger

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 603
  • WSCC. WCC
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #310 on: May 19, 2017, 06:01:22 pm »
is that the exec or council,
the council the majority are in favour of crow

some of those opposed are opposed on the grounds that the bca has acted against its constitution hence a proposed vote to change it.

Offline cavemanmike

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 408
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #311 on: May 19, 2017, 06:49:48 pm »
smoke and mirrors badger smoke and mirrors

Offline 2xw

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 181
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #312 on: May 20, 2017, 10:23:07 am »
Caving cannot be termed an open air activity because although some of it is, much of it isn't. Cave diving and passages or chambers containing less-than-fresh-air being two examples that might easily confound such a definition.

Presumably you're not allowed on the moor if someones burning a few miles away or if the farmer has spread muck. What a silly argument.

Offline cavemanmike

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 408
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #313 on: May 20, 2017, 05:52:11 pm »
Be careful 2xw he's a landowner you know  :lol: :lol:

Offline Cap'n Chris

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 12041
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #314 on: May 20, 2017, 07:43:18 pm »
What a silly argument.

Fully agree. Being outdoors, with an open-air view of the sky, constellations, the Universe etc. even if you're stood next to a smelly bonfire or whiffy muckspreader is at the polar opposite end of the scale from being inside the planet's skin, encapsulated and surrounded by rock, where no light can enter and where the air might be dangerously high in CO2. The former is most clearly open air, and most leisure pursuits there in which you might be engaged would be obviously be defined as open air activities, while the latter is without doubt not the open air blah blah blah.

To argue otherwise would be considered by many to be the height of folly. Caves (beyond the limit of daylight penetration) are not an open air environment and caving within them is not an open air activity.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2017, 07:58:12 pm by Cap'n Chris »

Offline Cap'n Chris

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 12041
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #315 on: May 20, 2017, 07:50:32 pm »
Be careful 2xw he's a landowner you know  :lol: :lol:

An(other) example of ambassadorial excellence at forging goodwill between the caving world and landowners? Will it work, though?

There's a well established (but perhaps not well known) quote about who the best people are at cocking up access to caves....
« Last Edit: May 20, 2017, 08:00:01 pm by Cap'n Chris »

Offline Kenilworth

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #316 on: May 21, 2017, 02:07:22 pm »
I must say I agree with Kenilworth on this one. Stop playing games and get on with job. This is taking longer then leaving the EU which is an entirely much more complicated subject matter. Surely it can't be that hard in the grand scheme of things.

In fact, I'm not suggesting that BCA get on with it. I'm suggesting that "cavers" get on with it. An astounding lack of independent thought has allowed otherwise (apparently) respectable and intelligent people to be drawn into embarrassing, degrading word games and heated arguments over an "issue" that is utterly inconsequential.

Online NewStuff

  • Vocal proponent of Open Access
  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • www.dddwhcc.com
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #317 on: May 21, 2017, 03:08:21 pm »
Caves (beyond the limit of daylight penetration) are not an open air environment and caving within them is not an open air activity.

You think it's the height of folly to class Caving as open air, but then go on to say with a presumably straight face, that it's only beyond the limit of daylight? I'm going to risk angering Jane, or you abusing mod powers (again) and suggest you're mentally ill or mentally retarded.
Deep Dark Dirty Wet Holes - The Right honourable Lock Persuader in Chief.

Offline Cap'n Chris

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 12041
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #318 on: May 21, 2017, 04:12:23 pm »
Au contraire, pot/kettle. At present I believe the only legally functioning definition for a cave that stands much scrutiny is indeed the sub-surface rock-enclosed void beyond the limit of daylight penetration; if you can see daylight you are still on the surface, even though you may be many hundreds of feet lower than adjacent surface terrain. I'm not a legal whizzkid but can certainly see that defining a cave for a legal description isn't as easy as many people glibly presume it to be.

Kenilworth: on this one I'm going to have to disagree: the issue isn't utterly inconsequential: far from it - there are major consequences. It is easy to understand why many cavers would vote for the prospect of an easy-win improvement in their personal access and the easement thereof to tracts of land containing caves. I suppose it boils down to personal benefit, at base a selfish concern. However, to attempt to use force of law to institutionally (BCA level) and grass-roots level (individual) ride rough-shod over landowners and to enshrine antagonism and disrespect towards them is an unwise move; short-term it is akin to a "jam today" mentality - lots of people would vote for that - but long-term it will have negative repercussions that won't necessarily harm present-day cavers but most certainly could materially harm the structure, bodies, and individuals who will in later years be engaged in caving in this country.

The short-termists clearly don't (or won't) see this. They may have popular support now, and may be riding the crest of a wave, but once they are past it, or dead, by that time.... (or sooner).... caver goodwlll relations with landowners looks like they will have become terminally damaged.

The other significant and sinister unintended consequence is this: when a critical mass of cavers genuinely believe that the law is on their side and supports them in pursuing access to caves, ...any caves, ...all caves, ...even those which are in private ownership, it will wittingly or unwittingly make criminals of them because they may commence routinely engaging themselves in criminal damage to force entry to barred sites. This then has a knock-on effect of tarring the caving community, wholesale, by association, or by dint of tacit support due to the absence of condemnation, as outlaws. That is not a good category in which to belong, and looks like being one which we are teetering on the cusp of falling into, as it can progress with a momentum of its own without paying heed to national policy or due process.

I am not satisfied that National Council has put in sufficient consideration of logical consequences and that it has abrogated its role, and washing its hands of responsibility for the outcomes after having allowed the crowd to have it say.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2017, 04:33:03 pm by Cap'n Chris »

Offline Ian Adams

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 1145
  • UCET
    • UCET Caving Club (North Wales)
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #319 on: May 21, 2017, 05:00:47 pm »
An awful lot of "if's", "might's " and "maybe's" in there Mr Cap'n Chris.

How many people (since the CRoW debate) have (attempted) forced entry to your cave?


Ian
A door, once opened, may be stepped through in either direction.

Offline Cap'n Chris

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 12041
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #320 on: May 21, 2017, 05:08:04 pm »
irrelevant and digressionary. Won't fall for that. Try again.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2017, 05:21:17 pm by Cap'n Chris »

Online NewStuff

  • Vocal proponent of Open Access
  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 535
  • www.dddwhcc.com
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #321 on: May 21, 2017, 05:08:53 pm »
Attitudes like yours Chris, are why we left the BCA. As long as they persist, we want nothing to do with it.

Funnily enough, I went digging and caving today, not giving one solitary damn about the politics of it and there's a lot of them as it's N.Wales. More people should do that, it's very invigorating.
Deep Dark Dirty Wet Holes - The Right honourable Lock Persuader in Chief.

Offline Cap'n Chris

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 12041
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #322 on: May 21, 2017, 05:10:47 pm »
This place appears to be akin to an online lynch mob, almost entirely devoid of debate any longer. Whatever happened to the concept of a forum? Anyone willing to read, consider and respond to the points in the thread or is it simply a case of weight of numbers of nay-sayers nowadays? I think most people familiar with this place know the answer to that but it would be nice to see it in black and white.

Here's one for debate:

Has the pursuit of the CRoW topic been a force for good in the BCA and the wider caving community?
« Last Edit: May 21, 2017, 05:30:36 pm by Cap'n Chris »

Offline Cap'n Chris

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 12041
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #323 on: May 21, 2017, 05:17:28 pm »
Attitudes like yours Chris, are why we left the BCA. As long as they persist, we want nothing to do with it.

Try a mirror sometime.

You're opposed to BCA? That's genuinely surprising as I got the impression you were majorly pro-BCA policy? How do you provide landowner reassurance and caver bona fides without BCA green card(s)?
« Last Edit: May 21, 2017, 05:35:20 pm by Cap'n Chris »

Offline Brains

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2257
Re: bca meeting 25/3 /2017
« Reply #324 on: May 21, 2017, 05:21:24 pm »
Does the good captain have a part time job as a spin doctor, perhaps a career in mainstream politics awaits, who knows what the future holds for any of us. More doom mongering than the Mayhem slating Corbyn?

Best legal opinion at present says caving on CRoW land is permitted, BUT bodies that have a say in the mater are fudging the issue for a variety of reasons. Clarity is required, not more confusion. Perhaps an interested body sh/could seek that clarification at a level that will have some meaning?