Removing Graffiti

[cap n chris]

.... ok, you can tell me when we meet up - when are we doing the pics of the new stuff over Loxton way?.... I'm free tomorrow (John Inman would be proud).

 

[Peter Burgess]

Can anyone beat 1609 with an earlier genuine date inscription?

 

[gus horsley]

P.S. Had a neat idea for a reconstruction photo yesterday - dress up in old style clothing, wearing a cap and holding a pipe in gritted teeth, picture in sepia tones and grainy of someone surfacing Sump 1. It'd be a hoot. Any takers for fame?....

Not from me. I got laughed at for scrutting about in OFD on my tod wearing wellies, shorts and a string vest. And I always thought it was standard attire.

Maybe someone should propose some rules as to what actually constitutes "meaningful" grafitti.

 

[cap n chris]

Maybe someone should propose some rules as to what actually constitutes "meaningful" grafitti.

.... probably impossible, since meaning can be derived by individuals/experts from a multiplicity of backgrounds you need to know what you're looking for before you stand much of a chance of finding it, especially when it comes to non-obvious ancient scratchings. I imagine a lot of modern day meaningful graffiti is comprised of phone booth cards of scantily clad women with mobile numbers underneath.

 

[gus horsley]

I see what you mean. So I suppose, since we can't determine what is and isn't graffiti, we shouldn't remove any of it from anywhere? Including "Baz woz ere"?

 

[graham]

.... ok, you can tell me when we meet up - when are we doing the pics of the new stuff over Loxton way?.... I'm free tomorrow (John Inman would be proud).

Andrew isn't. We thought about next Sunday but he doesn't take good photos with a hangover.

(A Pentax is better ..............boom boom )

 

[graham]

Can anyone beat 1609 with an earlier genuine date inscription?

There is a 13th century one in Postojna Jama.

I know of stuff which is older, but not offhand with a date actually there.

 

[graham]

Maybe someone should propose some rules as to what actually constitutes "meaningful" grafitti.

In the US they use a rolling cut off date of fifty years. Arbitrary, but what isn't?

 

[gus horsley]

In the US they use a rolling cut off date of fifty years. Arbitrary, but what isn't?

I wonder if that includes the "King Tut 54BC" that I saw scrawled on a crag somewhere.

 

[hole_in_the_rock]

Someone holds the responsibility, find out who before you act, is all that I am suggesting.

Easier said than done; do you have any idea how hard it is to find out who owns anything? Where do you go to ask? Do you put an advert in the local newspaper "Who owns the bit of land at (grid reference)?", "Does anyone have a clue about the owner of a hole near a hedge in a field near a road by a village?".

Yes I do know how hard it is. Go to the land registry office and find out who owns land. When they fail the local council usually have contact details of the owners. Emergency services also usually have the contact details of the owners if the site has been visited for rescues in the past.
Seems pretty simple to me.

The question is this: IF YOU own land, a cave or a mine have you put up a sign with your contact details on it so that anyone with a passing interest in the site can make an approach to ask you for more information/permission to visit? If landowners fail to assist interested parties' endeavours to seek permission then it's hardly the biggest surprise in the world if they go ahead and wander around until they get buttonholed by the site owner/manager.

ME? Yes, I have personally put up contact details for the area of land that I have an slight interest in, only to have WCMS members tear down the signs. The excuse for one of them was that he had no way of taking the contact number down. Although this man lives within a half mile of the notice, he removed it rather than return later, or return the notice.
Putting up signs is useless when these people remove them.

I also undestand the difficulties in getting the correct information out of rival clubs, and those who have been banned. I have found instances of PETER BURGESS (WCMS "Surrey Mines Agent") professing to be the contact point for access to QDF, and for enquiries about the area to go to him.
As Mr Burgess is not in contact with the owners, and has never had their permission to act as their agent, we can all see how such falsehoods can make things difficult for the genuine people.


I hope this has adequately answered Cap n Chris's questions?

 

[Peter Burgess]

Anyone else found any interesting graffiti recently?



spelling

 

[gus horsley]

Anyone else found any interesting grafitti recently?

Not recently, but I recall doing a climb a while ago where a crucial foothold was in a carved letter O which comprised the start of the second word of a well-known derogatory phrase. If the offending item of graffiti was removed (or filled in) the grade would have been 5c rather than 5a.

 

[cap n chris]

Go to the land registry office and find out who owns land. When they fail the local council usually have contact details of the owners. Emergency services also usually have the contact details of the owners if the site has been visited for rescues in the past.
Seems pretty simple to me.

Paying £35 per enquiry to the Land Registry Office simply isn't going to be done by people who want to visit a cave on unknown land (perhaps you aren't aware of the fuss generated by insurance premium increases which amounted to considerably less than this amount).

My local council do not provide a bypass service to the Land Registry route although they CAN help (i.e. give me the phone number to Land Registry) and as for your suggestion of contacting the emergency services to find out who owns a field at a given grid reference I can only say that you are clearly not serious - I expect anyone reading this read would laugh as they imagine the phone conversation....

You mention that WCMS members tore down signs you put up for an area of land you have a slight interest in... This seems odd, having read it. You obviously know who did this since you mention that you know where he lives. However, you only mention that it was for land you have a slight interest in - I guess from this that you are not the owner of the land and therefore had no right to put up a sign in the first place in which case you have no cause for complaint if someone removes it.

Being a contact point for access enquiries is no big deal - enquiring about access is not the same as asking a landowner for access; the access contact may simply inform someone of the landowner/access procedure they need to follow. It's got nothing to do with acting as an authorised agent. The Land Registry, local council and the emergency services DO NOT provide realistic opportunities for interested parties to find out about underground sites. This leaves signs placed by land owners (and replaced when/if vandalised) or the internet. IIRC an internet site providing access information was on the receiving end of legal threats.

So, if the internet details are erased, there are no signs, Land Registry costs too much, the local council are only "directory enquiries" and the emergency services tell you to sod off then NO, it doesn't seem pretty simple to me.

But then again perhaps I am missing something.

 

[hole_in_the_rock]

Maybe someone should propose some rules as to what actually constitutes "meaningful" grafitti.

.... probably impossible, since meaning can be derived by individuals/experts from a multiplicity of backgrounds you need to know what you're looking for before you stand much of a chance of finding it, especially when it comes to non-obvious ancient scratchings. I imagine a lot of modern day meaningful graffiti is comprised of phone booth cards of scantily clad women with mobile numbers underneath.

Gus,
in the past well meaning people have drawn up "rules" as to what can be removed from others property. Whilst this might be good for the clubs, some owners of the areas concerned did not agree to things being removed. The offending people thought they were safe with their set of "rules", but had not thought of the implications of their actions without the permission of the owners of the land.
The ironic thing is that the man who drew up some of these rules is a well known historian who works at the same museum that gathers in any artefacts taken using their man's guidelines, permissions granted or not by the legal owners.

The point I am trying to make is that any amount of guidelines/rules can be made by a club/society/individual, but at the end of the day, somebody owns the structure/item that has the graffiti, and they should also be involved when making the rules, keeping or removing the graffiti.


Cap 'n' Chris:

I had to smile at your comments. The first part is spot-on. Surely though, callgirl cards are artefacts, as they are not inscribed onto the phonebooth, but left behind like and old miners lamp? I wonder if people collect them like they do with phone cards?


Now then, what if the graffiti was on an entrance, in red paint and read:
"DANGER
KEEP OUT"

Does this mean: Danger has to stay away?
Does it mean: do not go in because it is dangerous?

Some will instantly move away from the entrance, some will venture until they get scared, others will go as far as possible, laughing in the face of danger. And then we have the one who removes the "graffiti" after finding it quite safe on the day he/she visited.

 

[cap n chris]

Someone removing a warning sign saying "Danger Keep Out" (meaning "this place is dangerous, stay away") could well have been doing the landowner a huge favour, especially in the event of a serious accident occurring whilst it was in place.

A sign acknowledging that somewhere is dangerous without the presence of effective barriers thwarting entry led to a successful case against a landowner after a trespasser unfortunately became paralysed from injuries sustained during an accident.

 

[gus horsley]

Often a sign saying "Danger keep out" at a mine entrance is interpreted as "Come on in, there's something interesting in here". It did to me on one occasion and I suffered the consequences of arsenic gas poisoning as a result. Hopefully not long-term.

 

[Brains]

Arsenic Gas Poisoning? Not heard of that one before - more details please, it might save someone else!

 

[cap n chris]

Often a sign saying "Danger keep out" at a mine entrance is interpreted as "Come on in, there's something interesting in here".

:shock: ... by you, maybe. By me? No.

BTW, have you ever put your hand in a liquidiser and switched it on?
:wink:

 

[cap n chris]

BTW, have you ever put your hand in a liquidiser and switched it on?

And before Hole in the Rock makes this sentence more complicated, I mean switch on the liquidiser, not your hand.

 

[gus horsley]

:shock: ... by you, maybe. By me? No.

BTW, have you ever put your hand in a liquidiser and switched it on?
:wink:

I was a lot younger (and more stupid) than I am now, but I suspect a lot of people have done the same thing. After all, you see a warning in a guide book that says "rescue of an injured person from beyond the Corkscrew would be impossible", and how many people would be put off by that. We live in a risk society, some of us being more risk-taking than others.

Not tried the liquidiser thing. Does it hurt?