Censorship

[kewfriend]

Chris - Graculus has deleted the following logs from Peter Pan (London)

TINKERBELL HAS BAD NEWS

Tinkerbell has been informed that Hook and the Crocodile have teamed up in the form of the Royal Parks agency to ban geocaching. Tinkerbell has very strong views indeed on grown ups who upset children and has gone back to 'magic school' to find a useful 'spell' which will work with her sparky wand.

Tinkerbell suggests that you might like to send the Royal Parks a Christmas Card to protest and how they are treating little children at Christmas.

In the meantime Tinkerbell is trying to find a way round the nasty nasty nasty Royal Parks. She thinks this typical of grown ups, and particularly upsetting in her anniversary year.

[keehotee]

Let's hope the Royal parks don't also read the forums to see how we're reacting to the decision.... they're almost certainly keeping an eye on any caches it affects though - and their logs!

[kewfriend]

The review team archived Peter Pan after I declined to seek written proof of ownership of a railing on the Bayswater Road. All my caches are now archived and I will never set another cache. I am also sorting all caches in the UK by likely land owner and writing to all landowners asking whether they are aware of the caches on their land and whether they have given permission. I am starting with the major landowners: local authorities and government. I will then inform any landowner that the reviewers did not seek evidence of such permission and that they must be held jointly responsible with the cache setter. I have the money time and inclination to ensure that caches are only placed where formal written permission is in the hands of the UK review team. i expect 95% of UK caches to be shut as a result.

Unless of course Chris aka Graculus grows up and reinstates Peter Pan.

[lost it]

I'll donate a rattle to you kew if you want to throw it out of your pram

If you want to be the one to spoil other people experiences then thats just stupid behavior for the sake of either obtaining permission or just moving the cache

[keehotee]

Oh for gods sake....

[DrDick&Vick]

words truly fail me

[kewfriend]

words truly fail me

It wasn't you to whom this happened!

I suggest that Chris appeals to GC.COM on my behalf in absentia and supports the appeal against his own ruling.

The location in question is N 51° 30.634 W 000° 10.971.

I suggest that any member of GAGB go there and make up their own mind. Its exactly opposite 100 Bayswater Road to decide.

I'm quite happy to hold back till after the weekend and give time for this to be resolved.

[Stuey]

Unless of course Chris aka Graculus grows up

There is only one person here who needs to grow up..... and it ain't Chris.

As the normally gobby and blunt member I have to say that words really do fail me............


I can't see how this helps.

[von-horst]

The location in question is N 51° 30.634 W 000° 10.971

Having looked at both Google Maps and Google Earth, the coordinates appear to be in the middle of the road junction between Bayswater Road and Leinster Terrace...which doesn't really help.

You stated that the micro was attached to a railing - would that be a railing along the edge of the Royal Park, and therefore within the area the RPA have banned caching? That would be my conclusion based on the information you have given. If that is the case, then the reviewer would have had no choice but to disable the cache.

Regards,

Mike

[The Hornet]

I have mixed feelings about this issue and while I have a fair bit of sympathy with Kewfriend I think maybe in this case a period of reflection is a good idea before embarking on his crusade.

<snip> I will then inform any landowner that the reviewers did not seek evidence of such permission and that they must be held jointly responsible with the cache setter.<snip>

As an ex-reviewer (as Lactodorum for anyone who is not aware) I was responsible for publishing many thousand UK caches and the above statement implies that I, and my ex-colleague Eckington, and for that matter our predecessors Tim&June, Richard&Beth, Moss Tooper et al are to be held jointly liable for any actions landowners make take against cache owners. I don't know how things are done these days but I suspect it is very similar to when I was involved. That process was, in the absence of a formal agreement or a specific request by a landowner, to publish caches based on the submitters' stated assurance that adequate permission was in place. It was not our place to assume cachers were mostly blatant liars. Also be assured that in my time I summarily archived many caches at various landowners' requests. In all cases I explained the the cache owners why I had done so but the caches remained archived, and in some cases all reference to the original location was removed.

If your intention by making this statement is to put the reviewers in a position where they feel obliged to archive the roughly 95% of UK caches published on trust then I suspect you will fail. I cannot see any way that we volunteers could be jointly responsible in UK law.

As many will know, I have no great love of how Groundspeak handle themselves in various matters and I would agree with you that the censorship of the wording of your log was heavy handed. I also have sympathy with those who prefer to fight the "jobsworths" at the Royal Parks Management rather than meekly accepting their diktat.

I do however think that your stated intention is misguided. If you feel that geocaching as controlled by Groundspeak Inc. is being mishandled then why not be constructive and support an alternative? I fear that if your intention is carried out it will hurt you more than those you seek to impugn.

[Stokesy]

I don't normally post on the contentious subjects, but I'm making an exception here.

I'm right in thinking that this is just a game?

OK, we all get "attached" to our own caches, but the reviewers do a difficult job under (sometimes) difficult circumstances.

What has happened cannot be avoided IMHO, and it will no doubt happen again. Rather than be critical of the Royal Parks, let's celebrate the fact that many land owners are happy to have geocaching on their land.

Going on a crusade to get 95% of the UK's caches archived will achieve little other than annoy 95% of the UK cachers, myself included.

My advice, for what it's worth; take it on the chin, collect the containers in, and place them somewhere else so we can enjoy caching.

[kewfriend]

I'm hoping that container collection will prove not required. I have proposed a compromise.

Actually I am not "attached" to any cache.

The issue in the end resolves about 1cm maximum distance of a container smaller than my thumb in which are written a few words detailing onward coordinates. The Chief Executives (Kensington & Chelsea - or the Parks) will rock with laughter at geocachers and these arcane stupid arguments - as if they bl**dy care - particularly in this instance.

There a far wider issues here which go the heart of geocaching. Let us take the simple scenario of caches on 'road signs' of which I have done countless. The Transport Ministry has never given its permission and any road safety advisor will veto any thought of permission - that's the easy bit. The reviewers still agree the cache as per usual and then all hell breaks loose - a child is killed by a passing car whilst reaching for the cache. Now if you were the parent, who do you sue: the car driver possibly, the cache setter, probably, the reviewer who explicitly agreed it almost certainly. Now should I - as a responsible citizen - draw the attention of the Transport Ministry to these caches. Probably - but I havent so far. Should GAGB criticise me for suggesting that I should - wow - don't got there! That is the reason why I have such little sympathy for the 'toys & prams' jibes etc. If GAGB wants to play by the small print in the rule book, then it must accept the consequences. Siding with the UK reviewer on this is very very very stupid - only harm will result.

What result would I like - a common sense fudge style result - because any other result will cause serious problems.

Do I believe the compromise will be agreed - yep I'd give it a 60:40 chance. So I am happy to cooperate and wait - for a while.

[keehotee]

- a child is killed by a passing car whilst reaching for the cache. Now if you were the parent, who do you sue: the car driver possibly, the cache setter, probably, the reviewer who explicitly agreed it almost certainly.

The parent might sue any of those people - but would almost certainly not be successful in their suit.
Who was supervising the child while they were retrieving the cache?
Where were the parents?
What offence or civil wrong were any of the people named committing?

The reviewer has agreed to a cache being listed on a website - nothing more, nothing less.
The driver, presuming he has followed the highway code, and unless you can prove they are guilty of another offence, has done nothing wrong.
The only person committing any wrong might possibly be the cache hider - if they can retrospectively be found to have trespassed in placing the cache. They would then be liable for any damages due to the property owners - not the grieving parents.

[Bill D (wwh)]

Should GAGB criticise me for suggesting that I should - wow - don't got there! That is the reason why I have such little sympathy for the 'toys & prams' jibes etc. If GAGB wants to play by the small print in the rule book, then it must accept the consequences. Siding with the UK reviewer on this is very very very stupid - only harm will result.

I may be missing something here, but I'm not aware of any statement by GAGB on this matter. I've only read posts by individuals expressing their own opinions.

[Loony Londo]

Having looked at both Google Maps and Google Earth, the coordinates appear to be in the middle of the road junction between Bayswater Road and Leinster Terrace...which doesn't really help.

You stated that the micro was attached to a railing - would that be a railing along the edge of the Royal Park, and therefore within the area the RPA have banned caching? That would be my conclusion based on the information you have given. If that is the case, then the reviewer would have had no choice but to disable the cache.

Regards,

Mike

I look at the coordinates on Google Map and the cache seemed to be on the other side of Bayswater Road ie outside Hyde Park area. So I would have thought the cache was lawful.

[kewfriend]

OK ...

I havent posted for a while to let the dust settle and a sense of proportion, including my own, return.

There are lots of separate issues - my own hasty fury being one of them, and I apologise.

I have proposed a compromise to GC.COM. I am in direct discussions with the CEO Royal Parks. I have greater hope with the latter than with the former re Peter Pan.

With respect to the other issues:

1) GC.COMs behaviour - no further comment from me.
2) Geocaching in general - well if written proof of title ownership of land and/or permissions in future is required that opens a can of worms. Thus that includes whether (for instance) The Department of Transport etc is entitled to know which geocaches are placed on the public highways and to decided on their appropriateness. Your call - but you'll get the drift.
3) Unarchiving caches - out of my hands

I will do nothing hasty and I have calmed down. My apologies to all.

[natterjacktoad]

Respect to Kewfriend for being big enough to apologise. Appreciated.

NATTERjACKTOAD