Thanks Thanks:  18
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Censorship

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    kewfriend Guest

    Default Censorship

    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.

  2. #2
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    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!
    Last edited by keehotee; 25th November 2009 at 08:01 PM.

  3. #3
    kewfriend Guest

    Default

    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.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    184

    Default

    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

  5. #5
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    Oh for gods sake....

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Anywhere the mood takes us
    Posts
    2,537

    Default

    words truly fail me

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jurassic coast
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kewfriend View Post
    Unless of course Chris aka Graculus grows up
    There is only one person here who needs to grow up..... and it ain't Chris.
    Cheers,
    Stuey
    ___________________________________________


  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

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


    I can't see how this helps.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    261

    Default

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by kewfriend View Post
    <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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •