Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kewfriend

  1. Hmmm ... That is the full content except for personal details edited out. My apology is on record and all previous caches etc have indeed been archived, including a sidetracked. One seeks to re-establish a sidetracked, one communicates with the appropriate authority and one receives a reply - not necessarily the reply one wished. One publishes the reply. All hell breaks loose. I surmise (but its a guess), that NR view all land, stations, objects, boundaries etc as within their purview. If NR follow up this with another 'request' it will be forwarded to any geocacher's address rendered to me, but there is no intention of my replying to this NR letter. Whatever Dec says about sidetrackeds etc and other caches on NR property, I know that I have done dozens of caches that are at the best 'problematical'. I will not list them here for the obvious reason that that could cause a 'heap of trouble' and NR could read this. There is also the separate issue that the PoT exceptional arrest provisions apply to ALL public transport property, AND nearby locations. There is the additional issue that the placement of a cache is itself only accurate to (lets say) 10 metres which means that any person seeking a cache near to public transport property may inadvertently or even deliberately stray onto such property. It would have been wrong not to place the NR communication in the public domain. It is up to the TPTB/Reviewers to either dig a little deeper into this issue.
  2. Its obviously not my 'shout' to pass this information onto Network Rail. Hopefully TPTB/Reviewers can deal with this.
  3. From Defra: One would assume that unless such permission has been specifically granted permission does not exist. Reasonable requests I suspect will be met reasonably. Other regional managers must exist but I do not know who they are.
  4. re security and the Met Police I have been told in a follow up email that no notes were taken of meetings between the Met and the RP and so no data was forwarded under the FoI. I'll leave others to make of this what they wish.
  5. I have received eight redacted documents in PDF format. If anyone emails me I'll forward them on; there are (quite properly) no personal details. As far as I can see the 'security' excuse is largely spurious and dreamt up at the most senior level in the RP with no reference to the Met., so as to stop the geo-activity. Some parks reported back that of the activities in their area geocaching was the least of their worries, no surprises there. I am pretty certain some documents have been withheld as the documents submitted in no way reflect all those I once 'saw' - which makes a mockery of the FoI - again no surprises there. The good news is that there are openings I think for discussing geocaching on a 'park by park' basis or even on a 'location by location' basis. The RP do not come out of this well.
  6. 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.
  7. I have suggested a 'way forward' to GC.COM. Until then let things lie and things may calm down. Its Thanksgiving in the US (certain irony there) and they'll need a few days to ponder.
  8. A night's rest is a wonderful think. Those who know me well understand several things. a ) I always play with a straight bat [ every cache - and thats the vast majority cf Iona - I had ever set had had explicit permission except where as in the RP permission had been assumed.] b ) I always resist bullying - and short term popularity so I can 'play' with a bully is of no interest to me c ) If I say something will happen - then it will. Jibes about toys and prams are ignored. Geocaching has always operated in a hazy arena. Basically unless a cache explicitly runs counter to the overall guidelines, then unless a cache is explicitly identified as being in the 'wrong' place then it has been allowed. The issue is that most organisations and landowners (national and local) are unaware of what is happening on their land. Given that the UK Reviewer is now operating a policy of explicit permission and seeking documentary proof of ownership and permission I am completely prepared after the weekend to assist him in taking that to its logical conclusion. For instance AFIIK the BWB is unaware of any cache on any UK waterway. Well we could explore how they feel about that - and if they grant overall permission then everyone is a winner. I have indeed archived all my caches including all those where explicit permission was granted and those on my own land. I will be delighted if those caches are visited to collect any TBs, coins etc. If sense prevails then they can be (with Reviewer assent) unarchived. Is there a compromise position? Yes there is - because like all of us I rather like the 'hazy' air in which we operate. Its fun. I have made public on GAGB the coordinates of PP on the Bayswater Road. I invite any concerned geocacher to go visit and comment. Speculating on legal 'ownership' is not what I seek but a simple comment on whether the cache can in any sensible sense be considered as cacheing within the Royal Parks. IMHO the 'hazy' world can return and PP can live again.
  9. Chris has deleted the following two logs from the Peter Pan (London). IMHO the bad old days are on the way back. This really has to stop.
  10. Tinkerbell announces that the amended Peter Pan (London) is up and running. She has a little job for Captain Hook ......
  11. Your book publisher does not have common carrier status or anything near it, but strangely enough in essence you have got the grist - which is why from time to time publishers recall books for 'pulping'. As for any criminal offence very very very unlikely unless your intent was to enable robbery with violence.
  12. Recent discussions have brought up the role of 'Reviewers' and the fact that they are not 'Approvers'. The explanation for the difference in terminology has been the issue of implied legal responsibility. In a different (but related) IT arena I have had to unpick this one. The bad news for UK Reviewers is that in UK law you are judged not by what you call something but by what actually happens. (This will justify their interventions in the Royal Parks affair). If your actions can be deemed to have encouraged or enabled illegal actions then elements of the criminal law may apply - though I'd be hard pressed to see the DPP allowing a prosecution. If your considered or reckless actions can be deemed to have encouraged or enabled a situation whereby a third party (land owner etc) suffers a financial loss then you can be sued. Strangely - (as I have discovered wrt to my own 'other issue') - if you do nothing but just publish, no moderation, then your liabilities only kick in if you fail to respond to a subsequent reasonable request from the aggrieved to immediately correct, amend or desist . This is the 'ISP-censorship' / 'blog' issue. If you make suggestions as to appropriateness of what is published but do not actually 'moderate' then again you are 'in the clear' until otherwise advised. Strangely were the GC Review/Approve process to take part wholly in the US on US servers by US reviewers you could publish details about any caches in the UK anywhere. US law is different, particularly wrt 'publishing'. The 'publishing' defence tends to take precedence over any other litigious processes. France is the other way round - as sTeamTraen will know.
  13. Thats OK Kev - we love you anyway I'm sure there will be more
  14. TINKERBELL has emailed about 250 people who have in some form signed the logs for the Peter Pan (London) cache. Here are a few comments: I'm sure more comments will follow!
  15. We wondered where you'd gone - this green & pleasant land awaits. Without question it is the precisely the refusal to embrace the Just live with it. philosophy that opened up swathes of the countryside, has kept public footpaths open, gave us the right to roam, defeated the crown in Richmond Park etc etc - the list is quite long. No - I (and others I hope) will not just live it. We will challenge it, confront it, debate it and finally we hope - change it.
  16. Do put the link to my Christmas Card to the Royal Parks as well.
  17. Yep - my mistake - its gone to the Chief Exec RP Agency. Call it early onset of senility!
  18. I have submitted an application to the Office of the Public Guardian under the Freedom of Information Act for: I hope (provided it does not cost me too much) to unravel the true reasoning - if there is any - behind the RP actions. Wish me luck!
  19. I suggest forwarding it to the Royal Parks
  20. Thanks for the suggestion. If there is a problem it will hang on the issue of cache density in HP. This may be one of those rare instances when reviewer 'discretion' may be needed re cache densities. Its not that far between the parks. The main problem on this cache is that all the relevant linked caches will need to have their first stages updated so this will not be a quick process which is why I am asking the review team not to wade in archiving left right and centre. I have already archived SPOUT in Bushy. Again I note that the RP said access after dark was not permitted in their parks. WRONG WRONG WRONG: in Richmond we have the legal rights, we exercise those rights and the RP respect that. I have real difficulties with the continual double double speak emanating from the central RP - but down on the ground in Richmond our rights are in fact respected.
  21. On the issue of Hyde Park and my Peter Pan cache, I would like suggestions and guidance. This is an international multi involving all 7 Peter Pan statues in 5 countries across 3 continents. Its immediate closure will bring down all the other six parts of the multi. Any sensible thoughts on how to keep this up and running in any form will be much appreciated. My 'beg' to reviewers is NOT to wade in and immediately archive it. Just give me time to sort things out. Re Richmond Park: both apply, rights of access from William of Orange and rights of way from the long court cases (cf above). We the populace have the rights and we must defend them. The only times the rights have been suspended have been 'foot and mouth' and 'animal culls' in recent times. Nothing wrong with that, I never KowTow to unreasonable authority and such bullying. Hopefully my views are not 'lone' views. []
  • Create New...