Author Topic: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals  (Read 5010 times)

Offline 2xw

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 609
  • BPC, SUSS
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #50 on: April 17, 2020, 03:31:17 pm »
Quote
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.

Offline Pegasus

  • NCC
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2599
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #51 on: April 17, 2020, 03:33:32 pm »

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.

Offline NewStuff

  • Vocal proponent of Open Access
  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 783
  • www.dddwhcc.com
    • Deep Dark Dirty WetHoles
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #52 on: April 17, 2020, 03:46:23 pm »
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.
Permission? Wassat den?

Offline Robert Scott

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 489
  • A Yorkshireman with a Scottish father
    • http://www.hughendon.btinternet.co.uk
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #53 on: April 17, 2020, 04:42:23 pm »
..................

* 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.

Offline Pitlamp

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #54 on: April 17, 2020, 05:22:50 pm »
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.

Offline Oceanrower

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #55 on: April 17, 2020, 05:41:42 pm »

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.

Offline Pitlamp

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #56 on: April 17, 2020, 06:16:26 pm »
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.  ;)

Offline Madness

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 748
  • Wind-up merchant and general pain in the arse!
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #57 on: April 17, 2020, 10:20:16 pm »
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.

Offline Pitlamp

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #58 on: April 18, 2020, 09:48:29 am »
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.

Offline mikem

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3633
  • Mendip Caving Group
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #59 on: April 18, 2020, 10:03:15 am »
& potentially lose c.20% of their membership...

Offline maxb727

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #60 on: April 18, 2020, 10:09:33 am »
& potentially lose c.20% of their membership...
I don’t think this would be true. Not all Southern cavers are only in a CSCC member club - and many would probably join as a direct member anyway as they cave around other regions too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline mikem

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3633
  • Mendip Caving Group
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #61 on: April 18, 2020, 10:45:10 am »
A lot wouldn't bother joining either if they didn't have to through the clubs.

Offline Ed

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 200
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #62 on: April 18, 2020, 11:28:35 am »
& potentially lose c.20% of their membership...

Or stay as a representative body and keep 80%

Offline Brains

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2338
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #63 on: April 18, 2020, 11:50:03 am »
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.
While that is true, they are currently within the fold but are undermining the national body both from within and to outside agencies.
It would seem they want to play to their own agenda regardless of the rest of the membership - including their own unconsulted members...

Offline darren

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 324
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #64 on: April 18, 2020, 11:57:57 am »
Maybe devolution is the answer. Push as many functions as possible down to regional level leaving the national body to do what can't be done locally. Thats the way the United Kingdom is supposed to be going.

A good example would be letting regional bodies develope there own access policys based on local knowledge and circumstances.
No, I'm playing all the right notes

Offline cavemanmike

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • ucet
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #65 on: April 18, 2020, 12:05:22 pm »
This is something they already do

Offline andrewmc

  • BCA ind. rep.
  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 896
  • EUSS, BEC, YSS, SWCC...
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #66 on: April 18, 2020, 01:38:46 pm »
The difference is that the UK's devolution is (in comparison) well-planned and well-executed...

I am Welsh, and I am a big fan of devolution. But an important principle in devolution is that of accountability. The Welsh Government is accountable to the individual voters of Wales, but they are also accountable to the UK Government since they are still reliant on the UK for many things (some funding, defence etc).

It remains the case that the UK Parliament is sovereign over the regions, but that convention requires that the devolved assemblies are allowed to control all legislation within their devolved matters. If the Welsh Assembly decided to pass a law banning the English from crossing the border, the UK parliament could (and would) overrule them.

In the BCA, not only do each of the (not individually democratic) regions get positions on BCA Council and every Standing Committee, the BCA is also constitutionally barred from interfering in access matters. So essentially the BCA coughs up the cash, the regions spend it (fairly freely, since some expenditure is automatic and they control the committees that approval exceptional expenditure e.g. C&A and E&T), they can vote on BCA matters and interfere in BCA matters but the BCA is not allowed to interfere in regional matters (despite being the more democratic body).

The BCA's set-up is not devolution, which has a clear hierarchy where the regional assembly is subordinate to the national government (although the national government should not interfere without exceptional reasons). The BCA is the single national democratic body shackled to the independent regions who can freely drag the BCA where they see fit while collecting the benefits of the BCA. Fortunately, most of the regions, most of the time, work for the benefit of caving (probably they always all _think_ they are working for the benefit of caving...).

In my eyes, it is a travesty that individual cavers (i.e. cavers outside of a club, or those that are not represented by their club's voting habits) have effectively no democratic say on access issues in UK, since this is the remit of the regions, and if a region decides on a policy the BCA cannot intervene.

Offline 2xw

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 609
  • BPC, SUSS
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #67 on: April 18, 2020, 01:49:45 pm »
Devolution sounds nice but when you push all that power with no oversight on to a very small group of people for a very long time you get dumb shit like access bodies banning children from caves (as a moral choice) and no democratic way for anyone to do anything about it (and paying for it all the while!). Even the most federal of arrangements have devolved powers signing up to a set of core principles, with included oversight.

Maybe the solution is to strip regional bodies of their vote and replace them with individual member reps. Be good to get a few fresh faces that won't tolerate any of this sort of shite. BCA stuff should be decided by its members, not by sinister cabals who seem to get a kick out of driving to Birmingham and shouting at each other for 6 hours (hard to kick a 20 year habit)

Also, I'd then get to leave (please).

Offline RobinGriffiths

  • junky
  • ****
  • Posts: 931
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #68 on: April 18, 2020, 02:26:21 pm »
Hard CSCCxit.

Offline mch

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #69 on: April 18, 2020, 02:46:22 pm »

In my eyes, it is a travesty that individual cavers (i.e. cavers outside of a club, or those that are not represented by their club's voting habits) have effectively no democratic say on access issues in UK, since this is the remit of the regions, and if a region decides on a policy the BCA cannot intervene.

That only applies to regions like CSCC and CNCC, who only allow clubs to be members. We at DCA have a more enlightened and democratic stance and cavers may join as individual members and vote on access and any other issue.

Offline blackshiver

  • menacing presence
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #70 on: April 18, 2020, 02:47:31 pm »
At what point in this utter fiasco does the BCA Chairmans position become untenable?
I have a plan so cunning you could pin a tail on it and call it a Weasel.

Offline Madness

  • forum star
  • ****
  • Posts: 748
  • Wind-up merchant and general pain in the arse!
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #71 on: April 18, 2020, 06:55:16 pm »
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.

As I see it, we're NOT united.

What government agency is going to pay attention to a national body that cannot agree amongst itself?

Offline Pitlamp

  • forum hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5335
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #72 on: April 18, 2020, 07:12:03 pm »
Of course it can agree - that's what voting is for. Once a vote is taken, the outcome becomes the BCA's policy which it can then act on. If some members think that agreement is wrong they can then produce alternative proposals and have them voted on.  The CSCC's current proposals are just that - proposals. Let's see whether they meet with the majority's approval when it comes to the vote.

Offline Jopo

  • obsessive maniac
  • ***
  • Posts: 412
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #73 on: April 19, 2020, 12:20:28 am »
Maybe devolution is the answer. Push as many functions as possible down to regional level leaving the national body to do what can't be done locally. Thats the way the United Kingdom is supposed to be going.

A good example would be letting regional bodies develope there own access policys based on local knowledge and circumstances.
This is something they already do

Am I missing something? Is not a fact that the vote to instruct the BCA to follow a policy of persuading the government(s) of England and Wales that CRoW access includes caving, if successful, would become national policy. However we appear to have a influential clique (albeit democratic/representative/ or not) in the CSCC who disagree strongly and  are doing whatever they can to disrupt the initiative by effectively reversing the result of the vote should their proposals succeed. The crunch point will come if the BCA initiative is successful and the CSCC has to put up or shut up. The BCA would be supporting a national policy - like it or not new territory. For the record I voted against CRoW recognizing caving as as allowable activity because I fear for the conservation of vulnerable sites. But I am a democrat and accept the result.

Jopo BCA DIM

 

Offline Fjell

  • addict
  • **
  • Posts: 146
Re: Thoughts on the BCA AGM proposals
« Reply #74 on: April 19, 2020, 09:52:54 am »
I was under the impression that SSSI status would always trump access under CRoW, as it does for surface features? Natural England already regulates stuff on CRoW land. What is the difference?

 

Main Menu

Forum Home Help Search