Maybe I should not do this but I need some comment good or bad, you know me I like a discussion (re: do we need offical groups post, that one lasted well). First off I'll say, I know we didnt do it.

Have a read, sorry its on another forum (I dont wanna steal your users admin as this is a fine site);
http://www.c**tplaces.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2324

Well if you're going to drag this discussion over this board then I will pass a few comments.

You stated that "We did not venture underground", fair enough. In the same gallery your member took a photograph captioned as taken through hole at the top of the door. The thread then goes on to discuss visiting the place and if need be gaining access through the use of bolt cutters.

You also agreed with someone's view that if a chain is in place it should be cut off (and your own padlock installed when you leave). You showed scant regard to access agreements and the wishes of landowners (you know, the people who own the land on which these mines sit). Presumably you also show no respect for the wishes of the people who hold the mineral rights - in some cases the closest thing to the mine owner.

Your board was organising a trip on Saturday 30th October at 10am with comments such as, "If people reading the forum don't like what they read, they can bugger off and read something else". Despite the continual comments of "Mole" not to cut off locks your other members seemed only too happy to commit criminal damage in the pursuit of gaining access.

Elsewhere on your board there is an entire thread on the access agreements in place in the FoD. One of your members is of the opinion that,

"If an area is public property (and as far as I am concerned the Forrestry Commision etc are public property) I have every intention of going and doing what I please, those who have recently decided to deny me (and my kind) access can go and shove it ********* "

Perhaps he should be reminded that Foreset Enterprise land is private property to which public are allowed limited access. There are various Bye-Laws in place which is how come a number of years ago in North Wales a group were prosecuted, taken to court and fined when they were found to have been in an abandoned mine on forestry land without permission.

Comments such as: "I work on the principle that if they can catch me, its a fair cop." and "I thought that the whole point was to go and do it, if you get caught weell tough luck" do not give a good impression. Neither do comments such as "Thats the keys for most locks, steel doors and serious locks require oxy-acetylene torches and on extreme occasions a stout chain and a Range Rover.
If all else fails there is always the Bedford 4x4 with 4tonne HIAB crane and a 3tonne Kubota digger towed behind. There is always a way in...... "



Having read all of the above on your message board, is it any wonder that Mr. Taylor should ask serious questions when the mine illustrated and spoken about is subsequently found to have been broken in to????


I'm afraid I have little time for individuals that either make, or support, open claims that they have the RIGHT to go anywhere and do anything they please. Individuals who will openly advocate criminal damage to gain entry because no-one has the right to deny them entry to private property show an astounding amount of selfishness and ignorance. I'm sure you'd not be too pleased to find on return from work that someone felt they had the right to look inside your house, so forced your back door lock and had a mooch around.

EVERYWHERE (including old mines) BELONGS TO SOMEONE - THE OWNER IS PERFECTLY ENTITLED TO DENY ENTRY TO WHOM EVER THEY CHOOSE, AND TO PLACE WHATEVER RESTRICTIONS THEY LIKE ON ENTRY IF THEY DO ALLOW IT.

Mr. Taylor's letter was carefully worded not to say you DID do it, but having read your message board I'm sure people can draw thier own conclusions.

Pitty the person who actually thinks we ride around in landrovers ramming mine entrances and spraying paint on them. The fact is that doesnt actually happen in the real world.

Paul Taylor does indeed show he thinks it was members of c**tplaces. Read the document, middle bottom "If the people who took the photographs are innocent of causing the damage....etc". This clearly shows his view. His intention was to show us as vandals rather then simply people who disaggree with over restrictive access policys.

Paul Taylor didnt bother to ask, and doesnt want to discuss. He doesnt want to know the facts. Thats the most annoying.

Mr. D****s wrote:

"....show us as vandals rather then simply people who disaggree with over restrictive access policys".

By whose definition are these access policies "over-restrictive"? - The answer, presumably, is by those self-electing urban explorers who disregard entirely reasonable (i.e. not over-restrictive) access policies.

Presumably the access policy with regard to Mr. Darkplaces' own property (and that of his supporters/subscribers/contributors) is to be invited in for a cup of tea and a nice sit down rather than having their windows smashed and their doors kicked in.

Interesting thread this.....

The first paragraph of the letter in Descent states that 'An examination of www.Darkplaces.co.uk ( a site devoted to Urban exploration) in late October showed a number of pictures from a recent trip that members of the group had made to an underground location within the Forest of Dean-a trip made without asking permission'

If you look at the comments on the photo's made by the poster, he states '....although the door is off its hinges on one side'. And on the other one 'This was taken through the hole cut in the top of the iron door'. So in those 2 pictures where does it show any evidence of anyone going underground.....none that I can see at all. All it shows is that someone made a surface visit and took 2 photo's, which i have done hundreds of times at many sites...my motto, like many others, is 'take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints'. I am not condoning illeagle access/vandlisam/paint spraying etc at all, but unfortunatly there is a minority who spoil it for the majority.

c**tplaces said:

Pitty the person who actually thinks we ride around in landrovers ramming mine entrances and spraying paint on them. The fact is that doesnt actually happen in the real world.

Click to expand...

I'm afriad we can only go by your message board members own comments.

I belive from reading the threads that the person who made the comment

(bolt cutters) "...the keys for most locks, steel doors and serious locks require oxy-acetylene torches and on extreme occasions a stout chain and a Range Rover. "

Does indeed drive a land/range rover. He also made the comment:

"I have every intention of going and doing what I please, those who have recently decided to deny me (and my kind) access can go and shove it *********"

and

"If people reading the forum don't like what they read, they can bugger off and read something else"

and with reference to your organisation of the trip on the 30th said:

"... the customary array of gate "keys" can be brought with us..."

which were subsequently identified by another member as:

"Are they the same as MY gate keys ? - two feet long.... two handles ?
They are quite heavy on my keyring I find."

A whole string of other posters seem to concur with these views, including yourself with the comment: "Actually thats an ideal compromise to access places" when referring to cutting chains (and repadlocking with your own device afterwards).

What conclusions do you think can be drawn from this??? I accept that on THIS occasion your board members may be innocent - but next time? or the previous occasion?

I'm aware of gates, padlocks and chains that have been forced to gain entry - including the use of the famous gas-axe! I'm afriad it DOES happen in the real world!

Mr. Taylor may be implying that your message board members damaged the door to gain entry, but in all fairness your message board members themselves imply they are quite prepared to! Not having been to the mine in question I don't know if that is the view over the door. Your message board does imply the person in question didn't enter on their first visit - but we know your group arranged to return and were prepared to break in if necessary.



Access agreements with landowners take time and trust to establish. The selfish actions of a few can ruin it for the many. Whilst I appreciate peoples dislike of "insurance" the plan fact of the matter is that for about £30 a year (ie. 58p / week) [individual BCA insurance membership 2003 rates] you can get the insurance that permits official access to a whole host of sites across the country - without needing to be a member of a "club".

For less than a pint of alcohol a week you can produce evidence to a land owner that you are serious, responsible and can (theoretically) be trusted. It would open up the Forest of Dean to you, certain areas of North Wales, Cumbria and a whole host of caving regions where insurance is requested - even if it is not enforced. If you prefer the not so popular regions then it can be a useful tool when negotiating with land owners to "look the other way".

To gain access to Forest Enterprise land in our part of the country we purchase a 3 year license that covers a number of plantations. None of the entrances are gated but they are all fenced. We can visit when we like without need to resort to the attitude, "...that if they can catch me, its a fair cop". In addition we get invited to give our views on future plans and usage, we are able to report any changes underground that might pose a danger to surface activities. It's a two-way thing.

Even if you do join a "club" you don't have to partake in club activities or politics. Our membership includes people that prefer to go underground on their own, they never come to club meetings and are rarely seen. They just receive the club publications and partake in the insurance scheme.



I'm afriad you'll get little sympathy from this quarter. On this subject you haven't got a stemple to stand on.

You may be innocent on this occasion...

Lincolnshire Poacher wrote:

"...but unfortunatly there is a minority who spoil it for the majority".

Compare this with the original letter by Mr. Taylor, where he states....

".. whoever it was (who forced entry/visited without permission) has moved access in the Forest backwards by twenty years".

So, correctamondo - the minority would appear to be spoiling it for the majority.

Question: in such circumstances surely the majority have a reasonable case for urging the minority to clean up their act, behave responsibly or shove off and take up knitting? After all, by doing whatever the hell they like, a handful of mavericks are having a negative impact on the legitimate and responsible pastimes of many others.

Lincolnshire Poacher also wrote "I am not condoning illegal access etc." -

Fine, but this begs the obvious question:-

Do Lincolnshire Poacher and Mr. Darkplaces condemn illegal access?

Not condoning something is not the same as condeming it. Arguably it could be stated that failing to condemn illicit activity/access is almost tantamount to tipping the wink that it is acceptable.

So where do you stand? - The Darkplaces website certainly appears to have submissions from people who revel in doing whatever they like - so, by inference, isn't the webmaster of such a site condoning, by proxy, such activities?

This topic has legs... let the debate continue....

:wink:

On his site, Mr. Darkplaces wrote:

"I am sure there are people out there who go out and intend to cause damage for no particular purpose, do these people then take pictures of this then publish them on their websites for all to see?"

Yes.

cap 'n chris said:

On his site, Mr. Darkplaces wrote:

"I am sure there are people out there who go out and intend to cause damage for no particular purpose, do these people then take pictures of this then publish them on their websites for all to see?"

Yes.

Click to expand...

...although not necessarily on the "Darkplaces" website! :wink:

Capn Chris said

Do Lincolnshire Poacher and Mr. Darkplaces condemn illegal access?

Click to expand...

Yes I do condemn illeagle access in all it's forms. I have never, and do not intend to, start cutting locks etc etc. But i have no control over what other may think/post or do!.

There is a need to control access, i realise that, but just because someone posts pictures of a broken down mine door on a site does not mean they did it!!.

cap 'n chris said:

On his site, Mr. Darkplaces wrote:

"I am sure there are people out there who go out and intend to cause damage for no particular purpose, do these people then take pictures of this then publish them on their websites for all to see?"

Yes.

Click to expand...

I would strongly disaggree with that. Vandals who would spray paint would not take a picture and post it publicly using a well known forum name. It would be rare atleast.

Do I condone ilegal activity? Fine line here, I dont proxy anything, just provide a way of people fed up with over bearing groups to explore local or not so local areas and chat about it, share pics etc etc. Sometimes you dont need a club or insurence to wander about that mine or quarry (or abandonded mental hospital) which has been open for years, just down the road. I think some organisations are over restrictive in the access policy and this directly results in (normally locals) breaking in to take a look at what all the fuss is about.

I think its important to question these self appointed unelected organisations. Sometimes hyper active do gooders need to be reminded we cant live in a world were every hole is capped because someone might get hurt. Its unrealistic.

Isnt risk part of life? Indeed required?

I also disaggree with our current idea that were all ment to have insurence, nobody claims, it does not cover the caver, its worthless really. The cost isnt the issue, its 'what next needs insurence'. Anyway thats getting off the original topic.

Can anyone disaggree that Paul Taylor's view is he blames c**tplaces because he uses the words "IF the person who took the photo is innocent"... He is clearly showing his view, isnt he?

Should he have contacted me or the user who posted the pictures and asked?

Do you really all beleave what you read in the newspapers? (newspapers with rules and regulations remember)...

c**tplaces said:

...I dont proxy anything, just provide a way of people fed up with over bearing groups to explore local or not so local areas and chat about it...

Click to expand...

I'd be careful there. Another message board I used to frequent ended up being closed down after taking legal advice. Potentially libellous comments were posted about someone, who, understandably, took offence when he came to hear about them. After contacting his solicitor a letter was send to the message board administrator requesting that not only the offending message be removed but to ensure they weren't repeated on the board. After taking legal advice the message board admin was left in the position where the only way to ensure the matter was resolved to satisfaction was to close the message board. A similar forum was subsequently started elsewhere which many of the old posters joined. The moral of the story? "I'm only the admin providing a service for others" isn't a valid excuse if things get too close to the wire. EBay were in hot water earlier this week for allowing someone to sell instructions on how to by-pass a gas meter on their website. There are other examples of web site administrators getting into trouble for "handling" illegal or offensive activities.

Whilst I don't suggest, at present, the thread concerned is saying "we've broken in". Your members openly advocate trespass on other peoples land (ie. underground in other peoples mine workings and on the surface), your members also openly advocate criminal damage to gain access to locked property (ie. disused mine workings in this case), your members show no regard to landowners rights to grant and block access to who ever they like (note: landowners not caving clubs). eg. "...those who wish to keep a tight grip on access, making themselves responsible for what should be public domain". These places are NOT in the public domain, never have been and never will be. Even if there is no gate or access agreement they are owned by private individuals and organisations. If the owner stipulates that only the insured (even if that insurance is worthless and pointless) go underground then that is the right of the owner and to go against those wishes means you are trespassing (civil offence). To then damage property to gain access means you are committing a criminal offence. Your members are openly admitting to criminal acts and advocating criminal activites to do as they please.

Your own comments with respect to cutting off chains are: "Actually thats an ideal compromise to access places 'hoodwinked' by others who think they have some devine right to block access to everyone else"

Other comments such as "I will freely admit to gaining access to place without the proper authority or the appropriate key or insurance." don't do your message board much good or show a very responsible attitude.

I think its important to question these self appointed unelected organisations.

Click to expand...

Sorry to dissillusion you, they aren't self appointed. Organisations that control access are appointed by the landowners (you remeber, the people who own these places). Organisations have often spent many hours negotiating with landowners for access to be granted, often this includes certain restrictions. When the landowner finds that someone has totally ignored the agreement they will naturally give the organisation they've negotiated with an ear bashing. Having no doubt received no end of grief from Forest Enterprises is it any wonder that Mr. Taylor should write a somewhat emotional letter when it is found that a group of people are openly advocating the removal of gates to gain access in the area concerned, the same group also are openly arranging to visit the mine concerned and will be taking equipment to break in if necessary. On this occasion your board members might not be to blame, but they certainly are a group of individuals that openly advocate this type of behaviour to gain entry and openly admit to these actions in the past.

It's no good crying when the finger of suspision falls upon you (all) after reading the comments posted on your board.

(Oh BTW: I accept your board members might not have broken in over the weekend of 30th/31st, but how can YOU be so certain none of your board members HAVE broken in - a fair number of them openly admit to breaking into places)

Should he have contacted me or the user who posted the pictures and
asked?

Click to expand...

Nope - your group didn't seek to contact him (as in Forest of Dean Caving Club) to gain permission (from the group as the appointed agents on behalf of Forest Enterprises) so why on earth should Mr. Taylor want to contact YOU?

I think your banging on about bolt cutter comments on the forum are getting a bit thin. Saying on a public forum 'I'll bring my bolt cutters' am I forever dammed?

No suspition falls on us regarding Paul Taylors outburst because he simply didnt read the description, he was simply angery surface pictures were posted in the public domain. Since when are mine entrances top secret.

The user didnt know the mine name and was hopeing to learn more by posting a picture, ideally someone, says oh thats 'whatever' mine its dangerous and you need to speak to Fod about it.

On the question of permission. THE USER DIDNT NEED ANY AS HE DIDNT GO UNDERGROUND. Can I make that very clear I dont need permission to take a picture of something, in the middle of a forest. Unless it is part of a goverment secure area, eg the UK mint locations you cant take pictures of them+others.

I think Paul Taylor should have contacted c**tplaces as a communication link between the two groups had already been established. I had made myself known.

* Members of your group openly admit to forcing entry to mines that are gated.

* Members of your group openly admit to ignoring access agreements.

* Members of your group arranged to visit a mine in the Forest of Dean without permission, equipped with tools to force entry if necessary.

* Subsequent to your visit it was found that the entrance to the mine had been damaged and the door cut off it's hinges.


Why are you surprised if members of your group are then being looked upon with suspicion ?

The original photographs simply confirm that the mine you arranged to visit is the same one that had the entrance forced.




Your continuing vitriol against any form of club, organisation or insurance on the grounds that they enforce an endless stream of rules and regulations to prevent you going underground is also wearing more than a little thin (and something that as a club member I've never experienced). The ironic thing is the members of Darkplaces have effectively created their own "club" as they arrange trips together, share information between each other and generally enjoy themselves as a group.

As for your comment

Saying on a public forum 'I'll bring my bolt cutters' am I forever dammed?

Click to expand...

I think you need to read not only my comments, but also your own! I have not passed those remarks and I have not seen you say them either. However, your comments do imply that you agree with their use to gain entry.

mine explorer - i salute you - well said

Thank you for being able to put into words so eloquently what many of us are no doubt thinking

Mine Explorer - thank you for the good work. I agree with everything you have said so far.

Dark places - paragraph 2 of the letter in Descent
'At this stage of the investigation it is impossible to be specific as to who was responsible for the damage, but whoever it was has moved access in the Forest backwards by twenty years.'
That does not say anything about who is to blame. Accusing him is potentially problematic...

No visit was arranged. Just one Visit was made (the first and only) by the user who took the photo. A discussion of 'oh that looks interesting must see that' was made and nothing else happened. In fact in the background the members who has insurence had ideas of an offical permitted visit. No return visit was made to that mine in question that was featured on c**tplaces.

Comments about forcing access were made to wind up FE because they are scared beyond reason about being sued. A situation the goverment aggree was getting out of hand when schools stopped out of school trips because of exessive insurence and the un-founded theat of legal action if a child had an accedent however small. The goverment has aggreed that peoples un-founded fears of legal action is actually damaging people in both education and physical health. Children are getting fat because they are not allowed to play sports/rugby on playing grounds deemed too hard and risk of injury and following legal action. That example is a FACT. Pupils are made to wear FULL protectic suits with pads and goggles and face masks while playing conkers because of the un-founded fear of legal action after an accedent.

THATs why I dislike organisations who feed and promote fear by pandering to it by demanding insurence not worth the paper its written on for 'LEGAL REASONS'. Nothing to do with safety. Money better spent on PPE. Not everyone who is interested in this activity has money to throw at organisations.

Anyway we seam to have wandered off topic again.

Can anyone disaggree that Paul Taylor's view is he blames c**tplaces because he uses the words "IF the person who took the photo is innocent"... He is clearly showing his view, isnt he?

c**tplaces said:

Can anyone disaggree that Paul Taylor's view is he blames c**tplaces because he uses the words "IF the person who took the photo is innocent"... He is clearly showing his view, isnt he?

Click to expand...

Again, as in my previous post
Dark places - paragraph 2 of the letter in Descent
'At this stage of the investigation it is impossible to be specific as to who was responsible for the damage, but whoever it was has moved access in the Forest backwards by twenty years.'

The bits 'impossible to be specific' and 'whoever', would, in my opinion, imply no blame being attached to any particular person. I could suggest you are being paranoid.

Anyway we seam to have wandered off topic again

Click to expand...

we?

No, you...

There is also a difference between being injured, and forcing entry to a site to which you have no legal access. One is an accident, the other could be equated with breaking and entering.

I therefore fail to see the link between the initial topic and your last post.