More solo games planned!

[bubba]

No, I doubt I'd be held responsible, I just don't want that sort of adverse publicity.

Also, whilst several of us on here are probably well versed with Mossdale, and when to make a safe trip into it, I'm not sure it's a good idea to over-publicise what are still technically illegal trips on here. I'm thinking it won't help any future possibility of ever having future access to the place re-instated.

There's a similar situation in the climbing world. A very famous crag has been officially banned for years now because it lies on the edge of a very important SSSI. A number of people in the know still go there, but they never mention it by name (it's known as Crag X), and because the access details are never publicised, the numbers of visitors are kept to a minumum and the authorities turn a blind eye.

Suppose a particularly over-zealous policeperson read all about numerous publicised trips into Mossdale on these boards? Suppose they then decide to completely shut down access and seal *all* entrances, etc.? If that happens then everyone loses out - surely it's better to keep a low profile?

(* Just to clarify, I'm talking theoretically here, I have no actual knowledge of the MC entrances).

I'd also like to apologise for stooping to name calling on this topic, but I'm sorry, it just got my goat to be insulted for an innnocent comment on the general weather.

 

[Johnny]

Well put bubba.

On the edge of any activity there are grey areas that need to be treated delicately.

I doubt that any cavers want to complicate access to sites. I personally have been involved in access negotiations and they can take years of patient work, often by people who are no longer active cavers but who are still so dedicated to caving that they give up large ammounts of time in order to make the activity possible for the rest of us.

 

[LoneRanger]

Well put bubba.

Yes, good points, well made.

 

[Cumbrian Neil]

I'd also like to apologise for stooping to name calling on this topic, but I'm sorry, it just got my goat to be insulted for an innnocent comment on the general weather.

Good for you... it takes gutts to do that.

CN.

 

[Simon Beck]

Whether we mention its name or not, it dosen't really matter, the landowners are not stupid, they've got eyes and ears everywhere and they know full well that its frequented on a regular basis.
Don't worry "Bubba" i don't intend on publicising my exploits anymore.
And by the way Bubba, the main reason i undertake these trips solo is cause i lack willing partners, if i had the choice, believe me i'd rather have company.

 

[bubba]

Whether we mention its name or not, it dosen't really matter, the landowners are not stupid, they've got eyes and ears everywhere and they know full well that its frequented on a regular basis.

There's more to it than just the landowner.

Don't worry "Bubba" i don't intend on publicising my exploits anymore.

Good - thankyou "Simon Beck".

And by the way Bubba, the main reason i undertake these trips solo is cause i lack willing partners

You surprise me

 

[MSD]

Sorry to stir the porridge, but I don't believe entering an open cave on the fell is illegal, whether or not the landowners or anyone else has "banned" it. It could be construed as an act of civil tresspass, in which case all the landowner can do is ask you to leave. Provided you do, you haven't committed a crime. Even if you refused, the courts might decide that a cave situated right on a public right of way was open to anyone to visit if they choose to do so. This is only theoretical, because that point has not been tested.

Of course sensible cavers tread carefuly and avoid upsetting landowners.....who in this particular case seem conspicuous only by not appearing to be that bothered.

So what's the beef? The access problem and the cave beng "banned" seems like a storm in a teacup to me. The weather is another story though.

Finally, I have actually called Simon B's bluff and went caving with him down Langcliffe. I had a nice time....the "real" Simon is perhaps to be preferred over the "virtual" one. It's easy to throw stones and/or make a bit of a fool of oneself on the net. What might go down well as bullshit in t eh boozer on Saturday night looks a bit silly in print!

Mark

 

[bubba]

You could well be right MSD but I guess I've been erring on the side of caution - any legal eagles / policepeople care to give a definitive answer, as far as this is possible?

Really, this could have all been discussed much more sensibly, as it was before - see here. Macho and insulting topics on a forum rarely result in any genuinely useful information for anyone.

Simon may well be a nice bloke in real life - if perhaps he can try to project a similar persona online then he'd probably have a much better reception on this forum.

 

[andymorgan]

According to the link posted in the previous discussion http://www.grantham.karoo.net/paul/graves/mossdale.htm it was sealed at the request of the coroner. So it seems it isn't a case of the landowner denying access. I don't know what the legal position is if you enter it, so it may not be a simple case of trespass, but also it may not have any legally binding powers. The sealing may have just been to keep people out, and if they can get around the seal, then it is their problem if anything happens to themselves.

 

[MSD]

Well of course the most important thing is that nobody gets drowned. It's a dangerous cave and needs treating with respect.

It's also thet case that angry landowners don't necessarily ask you politely to leave....but wave shotguns (yes, this has happened to me at another location not to be mentioned!) or fill the said entrance in with a few dead sheep or a trailer load of rocks.

In respect of the coroner's order I have to confess that I also have absolutely no idea whether it has any legal force. We get into tricky legal stuff here - he ordered the cave to be sealed (and it was).. 40 years later it's now open again (whether by force of nature or man or simply by finding another way in is also open to debate). It's also not very clear to me whether the coroner actually "banned" people from going down. Obviously filling in the entrance does that indirectly in a physical sense, but from a legal perspective that's not the same thing.

The problem is that testing these points is almost certainly likely to be highly counter-productive and could upset a lot of people, including the relatives of the original tragedy.

Softly softly seems the best approach.....but I think it's a bit extreme to put a lid on discussions about the issue.

Mark

 

[bubba]

Nobody has ever suggested putting a lid on discussions about Mossdale, I've just asked people not to discuss the *specifics* of planned trips into the system. That's what the PM system is for.

If there is ever a significant amount of development of the system, then I'm happy to set up a private forum for such discussions until the legal situation is clarified.