"Placed with permission"

[CoyoteRed]

Additionally, I think it's good the OP is aware of her surrounding. I've long advocated being aware of your surroundings. I dunno, but it might be good to question whether you belong in a certain spot.

 

What's to happen if you're looking at a cache page with big bold letters that state "Placed with Permission!" Only you're not where you're supposed to be. You feel confident that you're allowed to be there, only you're not.

 

If you feel you don't belong, question it. Listen to that little voice inside your head. Bail out and regroup. Did you put the coordinates in properly? Did you do your math for that puzzle correctly? Re-check everything.

 

Don't be bull-headed and go in because you've got permission, damnit! Permission be damned--none, winked, informal, assumed, permitted, or contractual--if you're in the wrong spot.

[+DocDiTTo]

If you tell me in your writeup that permission has been granted I'll take it on good faith that you're being honest. If you make no mention of EXPLICIT permission, I'll assume there's none. That's how I keep myself out of trouble.

This is the exact reason that declaring explicit permission on a regular basis is a bad idea. When it becomes commonplace for listing to have "Placed by Permission" statements the rest will be assumed to not have any permission.

 

 

I should have corrected myself as noted in bold above.

 

Just because someone doesn't tell you they have explicit permission doesn't mean they don't have it, but if they DO tell me so, it better mean that they do. And that makes me feel better about hunting a cache in an "iffy" location -- like a cemetery, or around a private business, or in a campground, etc.

 

Based on past experience, I already assume that many caches don't have any permission. Depending on location, that may or may not be OK.

[Mr.Yuck]

In my opinion, the 'trust but verify' position would result in people using the information and contacting the land manager to verify it's truthfulness, thereby causing the very problem that I referenced above.

 

Contrary to what you're suggesting, if a cache hider tells me that he obtained permission from someone for his private-property hide I wouldn't feel the need to "verify his truthfulness". However without the hider mentioning that they have permission, I'm more likely to verify that it's OK for me to proceed with the hunt. More than once I've done so. Had the hider mentioned in the writeup that he already took care of the permission issue I wouldn't be concerned about it and I certainly wouldn't go seeking permission yet again -- per the writeup, I already have it.

 

And no, I don't assume that just because a cacher checked the box saying that adequate permission was obtained that they actually talked to someone. In my experience, permission is too often assumed but never verified. I don't need to end up with a trespassing charge just because some kid "thought" a cache would be OK on publicly accessible private property.

 

If you tell me in your writeup that permission has been granted I'll take it on good faith that you're being honest. If you make no mention of permission, I'll assume there's none. That's how I keep myself out of trouble.

 

This is an excellent post by DocDitto, and I agree most with the last paragraph; no mention of permission, I assume there is none. Lord knows I don't want to spend a night in jail with Snat.

 

Seriously though, if you have it, why wouldn't you tell people? I don't get it. I'm thinking mostly of front yard caches, or rural property caches (the majority of which mention it), but I don't see the problem in mentioning it in all private property situations. And not some guy's full name on the internet or anything. Just a mention of their title.

[CoyoteRed]

Seriously though, if you have it, why wouldn't you tell people? I don't get it. I'm thinking mostly of front yard caches, or rural property caches (the majority of which mention it), but I don't see the problem in mentioning it in all private property situations. And not some guy's full name on the internet or anything. Just a mention of their title.

You're not looking at the big picture. I've mentioned un-intended consequences to routinely posting declarations of permission. Personally, I won't post anything about permission unless the land steward asks for it. You'll just have to be content with me being a responsible placer and therefor have adequate permission.

 

Additionally, why are you guys assuming caches with no permission are going to cause you to trespass? The two aren't equal and simply confuses the issue.

 

Also, if declarations of permission did become required, would hiders lie any less than they are now? Maybe, but I doubt it. You'd simply have empty words that you can point to and I certainly wouldn't want to be confronted on my statement, "This here says the store manager said it's alright." Not when the response is "Well, you're lying because I'm the store manager." Wouldn't that, too, make us look bad, if not worse, in the eyes of the public?

 

Like I said, big picture and un-intended consequences.

[+DocDiTTo]

 

Additionally, why are you guys assuming caches with no permission are going to cause you to trespass? The two aren't equal and simply confuses the issue.

 

It's not just about trespassing, it's about being confronted. That wastes my time, the time of the property manager doing the confronting, and possibly the involvement of law enforcement. Ultimately after all is explained chances are nothing would happen but all those parties involved shouldn't have to go through that. If you tell me you have permission it reduces my chances of having to explain my actions.

 

Also, if declarations of permission did become required, would hiders lie any less than they are now?

 

I'm not suggesting that we make this a requirement. I think it's great when people mention having explicit permission on the cache page but I'm not advocating that we *require* them to -- and exactly for the reason you mention. Yes, some probably would lie about it just as they may do now by checking that little box and that is probably the best argument why mentioning explicit permission shouldn't be mandatory.

 

Wouldn't that, too, make us look bad, if not worse, in the eyes of the public?

 

I don't think it makes us look good when we become a police incident. I don't think it makes us look good when a store manager only finds out about something hidden on his property because he sees someone acting suspicious and snooping around places they don't belong. I don't think we look good when a cache placed with supposedly "adequate" permission becomes headline news because it's blown up by the bomb squad.

 

If a cache owner tells me via the cache page that he has explicit permission for a hide the chances of the above occurring are much less likely. Therefore I'll feel much better about hunting for that cache. When nothing about permission is mentioned, I have to make the assumption that the cache I'm about to hunt was probably placed with a "wink and a nod" and my searching for it could wind up with me explaining geocaching to an authority figure. I prefer the former to the latter.

[+TeamAtlas]

My opinion, for what it's worth....

 

Should you have (or need) to explicity state on the cache page that you have permission?

 

If it's on someone's private property (ie, in their yard or near someone's home, or where NT signs are posted) - YES

 

Everything else, including parks, parking lots, etc - NO

 

Personally, I don't care if it's stated on the cache page. I cache with the mindset that permission, whether adequate or explicit, is understood.

[+Castle Mischief]

I only have "Placed with permission of the land manager" on two of my caches. They are both in the same general area, one inside the "pay" area, the other at a nearby historical marker on the same property. I’ve' done this for these reasons:

 

The location is a park that is maintained by the city. There is a fee to enter the park and the on-site manger is very vigilant when it comes to keeping non-paying visitors out and does a fantastic job of keeping the park looking great. Most of the paying visitors I know would not hesitate to report anything suspicious or anything that looked like it might not belong. I want him to know what's in his park so that if a non-cacher shows up with a "you might want to check this out" story he'll know what's what.

 

I like the guy. I appreciate the quality and quantity of work that he puts into the park. I want cachers to know that the manager is supportive of the hobby and, if they feel like it, thank him for allowing us to enjoy caching in the park. He's a talkative guy when he has the time and I know that he likes folks telling him about what they did in the park and what they enjoy.

[+hycam]

I think that the point of the OP was not that he doubts that the cache owner got adequate permission. Rather that in a case where the cache has been placed on private property, it would simply be useful to know that from the cache description - in this way we could look for the cache on the private property with confidence that it really is appropraite to do so. The alternative being of course that maybe our GPS is way off and we are venturing where we shouldn't. That to me would be the real benefit of a "Placed with Permission" notice.

 

Thanks, hycam, that is exactly the point I was trying to make.

 

Perhaps the rule of thumb might be:

"If a cache hide location is "private enough" to require permission from the landowner, then it is "private enough" to need a "Placed with permission" advisory on the cache info, so cache searchers know they have permission to search on private land" ?

So I'm thinking that maybe the phrase "Placed with Permission" is not the best choice of words, given the real concern that you are expressing. This is why all of these discussions about trust are being had.

 

In effect, what you (and I, for that matter) are really looking for is an indication that the cache in fact has been placed on private property, to avoid confusion. Perhaps the simple statement: "On Private Property" is all that is required. Permission can (and should) be taken for granted by the cacher, since that is already covered off in the rules. Also, I don't advocate making this kind of statement required, simply that those cache owners that use it will be adding value to the hunt.

 

Although writing it in the description would be enough, if it were an attribute, it would be even more helpful.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Trusting people to follow the TOS that they agreed to is for chumps! Obviously, the only way to take care of this problem is to have cachers acquire a written and notorised permission form that would have to be provided by Groundspeak. The form will be scanned and presented to the reviewer who will call the person listed on the form to verify permissions and contact that person's supervisor to verify their authority to give such permissions. These forms will be valid for a year, whereupon cache hiders will have to have the permissions renewed using the renewal form, which would be provided by Groundspeak.

 

Sounds easy.

 

- Elle

Edited August 29, 2008 by HauntHunters

[+markandsandy]

Trusting people to follow the TOS that they agreed to is for chumps! Obviously, the only way to take care of this problem is to have cachers acquire a written and notorised permission form that would have to be provided by Groundspeak. The form will be scanned and presented to the reviewer who will call the person listed on the form to verify permissions and contact that person's supervisor to verify their authority to give such permissions. These forms will be valid for a year, whereupon cache hiders will have to have the permissions renewed using the renewal form, which would be provided by Groundspeak.

 

Sounds easy.

 

- Elle

 

That's over 600,000 forms to be verified each year. Assuming 5 minutes per form to call and verify the permission that's 50000 hours of labor for the volunteer reviewers. Since thay all have lives outside of geocaching, assume 4 hours per day to devote to this task, that's 34 man-years to accomplish this. Not to mention most of the verifying would have to be done during business hours, so they would have to shift their normal work hours to accomodate.

 

Doesn't sound so easy to me, especially for the small percentage of caches that make a small percentage of cachers uneasy.

 

If it makes you uneasy, don't go there.

[+Castle Mischief]

Trusting people to follow the TOS that they agreed to is for chumps! Obviously, the only way to take care of this problem is to have cachers acquire a written and notorised permission form that would have to be provided by Groundspeak. The form will be scanned and presented to the reviewer who will call the person listed on the form to verify permissions and contact that person's supervisor to verify their authority to give such permissions. These forms will be valid for a year, whereupon cache hiders will have to have the permissions renewed using the renewal form, which would be provided by Groundspeak.

 

Sounds easy.

 

- Elle

 

Are you willing to pay a potential fee to fund the staffing that would be required for GS to process this paperwork? Or are you assuming that the volunteer reviewers will continue to work in your proposed environment for free?

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

 

That's over 600,000 forms to be verified each year. Assuming 5 minutes per form to call and verify the permission that's 50000 hours of labor for the volunteer reviewers. Since thay all have lives outside of geocaching, assume 4 hours per day to devote to this task, that's 34 man-years to accomplish this. Not to mention most of the verifying would have to be done during business hours, so they would have to shift their normal work hours to accomodate.

 

Doesn't sound so easy to me, especially for the small percentage of caches that make a small percentage of cachers uneasy.

 

If it makes you uneasy, don't go there.

 

Instead of trying to debate my comment so seriously, just look up. You see that thing waaaay up there sailing above your head? That was my joke.

 

This is my favourite part of your comment:

 

that's 34 man-years

 

Just imagine how long it would be if we enlisted dogs!!!

 

- Elle

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

 

Are you willing to pay a potential fee to fund the staffing that would be required for GS to process this paperwork? Or are you assuming that the volunteer reviewers will continue to work in your proposed environment for free?

 

As a premium member, I assume everything I desire will automatically be covered in my pittance of a membership fee.

 

- Elle

[+Team GeoBlast]

Seriously though, if you have it, why wouldn't you tell people? I don't get it. I'm thinking mostly of front yard caches, or rural property caches (the majority of which mention it), but I don't see the problem in mentioning it in all private property situations. And not some guy's full name on the internet or anything. Just a mention of their title.

You're not looking at the big picture. I've mentioned un-intended consequences to routinely posting declarations of permission. Personally, I won't post anything about permission unless the land steward asks for it. You'll just have to be content with me being a responsible placer and therefor have adequate permission.

 

Additionally, why are you guys assuming caches with no permission are going to cause you to trespass? The two aren't equal and simply confuses the issue.

 

Also, if declarations of permission did become required, would hiders lie any less than they are now? Maybe, but I doubt it. You'd simply have empty words that you can point to and I certainly wouldn't want to be confronted on my statement, "This here says the store manager said it's alright." Not when the response is "Well, you're lying because I'm the store manager." Wouldn't that, too, make us look bad, if not worse, in the eyes of the public?

 

Like I said, big picture and un-intended consequences.

 

I'd like to thank everyone for some very good discussion on both sides of this issue. This is a very important issue to Geocaching that usually degrades very quickly into a flame war in this forum. I think this post above is excellent and echoes my feelings about a few things.

• Land ownership/stewardship is very complex and each situation needs be handled differently
  
• If there is a public mention of the person that granted permission, it should be at their request not a blanket guideline or rule
  
• Trying to fit all land ownership/stewardship into a neat box with a cache listing requirement can create more uncomfortable unintended situations
  

Lastly, I'm not an attorney but I would think that explicitly identifying the person that granted the permission has to add to the legal exposure in some situations. I know it would here in Hawaii.

Edited August 29, 2008 by Team GeoBlast

[+markandsandy]

 

That's over 600,000 forms to be verified each year. Assuming 5 minutes per form ...

Doesn't sound so easy to me, especially for the small percentage of caches that make a small percentage of cachers uneasy.

 

If it makes you uneasy, don't go there.

 

Instead of trying to debate my comment so seriously, just look up. You see that thing waaaay up there sailing above your head? That was my joke.

 

 

Since I didn't see a smiley on this post, I wasn't sure if you were serious or not. If I had taken the time to look back at your previous posts on this thread, I would have known better. - My Bad

 

However, I've seen similar comments on other threads, so my analysis still stands.

 

 

This is my favourite part of your comment:

 

that's 34 man-years

 

Just imagine how long it would be if we enlisted dogs!!!

 

- Elle

 

Dogs would do it more quickly.

[+TeamAtlas]

 

That's over 600,000 forms to be verified each year. Assuming 5 minutes per form ...

Doesn't sound so easy to me, especially for the small percentage of caches that make a small percentage of cachers uneasy.

 

If it makes you uneasy, don't go there.

 

Instead of trying to debate my comment so seriously, just look up. You see that thing waaaay up there sailing above your head? That was my joke.

 

 

Since I didn't see a smiley on this post, I wasn't sure if you were serious or not. If I had taken the time to look back at your previous posts on this thread, I would have known better. - My Bad

 

However, I've seen similar comments on other threads, so my analysis still stands.

 

 

This is my favourite part of your comment:

 

that's 34 man-years

 

Just imagine how long it would be if we enlisted dogs!!!

 

- Elle

 

Dogs would do it more quickly.

 

Elle, I got your joke. The first time.

 

Just think how quickly we could get it done in woman-years!

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

 

Just think how quickly we could get it done in woman-years!

 

According to my John Gray book, we'd have to calculate Venus time to figure out how long it would take in woman years.

 

- Elle

[CoyoteRed]

I just go the other route and am very open (brazen even) about searching for a cache. I assume the person who placed the cache had/has permission for it, so if I'm "caught" searching for it by someone in authority I just explain that I'm looking for a geocache, I'll even ask them if they want to help me find it....

Well done. Some folks insist that caches be treated like they have a dirty little secret. The truth is they don't. They don't entirly because every cache was certified to have adequate permission. There is no need whatsoever to hide that you are looking for a cache if a land owner/manager talks to you about the cache.

 

Of course talking about a cache is easy when you have experience talking to people about building a road through their house. The cache is downright trivial.

I don't like being brazen when searching for a cache.

 

Well, let me clarify this: I don't like caching "in the open" in such that I seek, retrieve, sign in, trade, and replace with no care about being seen. It's not about getting caught by the land owner who I'm assuming already knows it's there.

 

The reason I use stealth is for the person who watches from a distance and once I leave goes over to retrieve the cache and, not knowing what it is or for other reasons, doesn't put it back. In short, it's for the security through obscurity that is the only real cache security we have.

 

I personally think seeking brazenly--like you're supposed to be there--is a very good way to actually not look suspicious. Retrieving the cache depends on the cache. Is it a small in bushes? Then I might be the "inspector" who is checking some gizmo. This works when you're writing on something in it and then writing something in another log, like you're taking readings of some sort.

 

Micros are palmed. Easy. Just keep "looking" after the palming for a short time to throw off suspicion of the palming.

 

Larger caches can be retrieved later after you've scoped out that no one is looking. The ladies have an easier time if they carry an over-sized purse or beach bag. Just scoop it up and drop it in. Then carry it off to a nearby spot to sign in and trade.

 

Stealth is is required in the hobby, but you're right, it's not a dirty little secret.

[+daywalk]

Well, my thanks to those who have posted replies, especially those who were on-topic.

 

I'm still completely unsure about whether there are any guidelines at all about advising people searching that a cache is on private property. I had mistakenly assumed that, since you are required to obtain permission to place a cache on private property, the cache owner would automatically be expected to advise searchers if the cache is on private property.

 

I've been involved with some public access advocacy, including marking public roads, putting stiles over fences and unlocking a gate illegally blocking public roads, so I'm enthusiastic about public access rights. The corollary is that I am also very aware of my responsibility to respect the rights of private landowners, and so I don't feel it's acceptable to venture onto private property to search for a cache unless I'm explicitly told that it's okay for me to be there.

 

I'm grateful to those landowners who allow the general public to walk through their property. However, poking aroung looking for a cache is more intrusive than just walking through, so walking access does not automatically imply caching access.

 

Remember that I'm talking from the searcher's point of view. The searcher only has a GZ, and whatever search hints are on the info page (not counting the cryptic clues, which many people use only as a last resort). There might be a 15 metre margin of error, if you're under bush or near a cliff.

 

Suppose the GPS margin of error overlaps both public and private land, and you aren't told that the cache is on private land- where do you search?

Do you assume it must be on the public land, and wonder why you haven't found a one-star cache after 30 minutes when 50 other people have?

Do you just assume you're allowed to search on the private land? What if your guess is wrong, the cache isn't there, and the landowner isn't happy to have you loitering and poking around on his/her property? "I'm geocaching" is not going to be an acceptable excuse. That will just besmirch the reputation of the entire geocaching community, and make that landowner less likely to give permission for a cache if they are asked in future.

 

So can I plead with cache owners- if your cache is on private land, can you please say so. If it needs permission to be there, we need to know we have permission to go onto private land looking for it.

[+sbell111]

At the end of the day, each geocacher is responsible for ensuring that he obeys the local laws. Nothing written on a cache page will protect a geocacher from legal penalties. Verbiage stating that permission has been given to allow geocachers on property may have certainly been true (to the best of the cache owners knowledge) at time of placement, but what if that permission is overruled by higher management or management changes or the property is sold? Six months down the road, the 'Permission received' verbiage may not be useful. Also, you have the problems of people searching in the wrong location through no fault of the hider or coming from a direction that could not have been expected. Finally, you have the issue that CR brought up that I didn't even think of. If the site starts stating that caches should include 'Placed with permission' on the cache page, those caches without this verbiage may be percieved by land managers or governmental flunky to be placed without permission. This wrongheaded assumption could be very bad for the game.

[+hycam]

At the end of the day, each geocacher is responsible for ensuring that he obeys the local laws. Nothing written on a cache page will protect a geocacher from legal penalties. Verbiage stating that permission has been given to allow geocachers on property may have certainly been true (to the best of the cache owners knowledge) at time of placement, but what if that permission is overruled by higher management or management changes or the property is sold? Six months down the road, the 'Permission received' verbiage may not be useful. Also, you have the problems of people searching in the wrong location through no fault of the hider or coming from a direction that could not have been expected. Finally, you have the issue that CR brought up that I didn't even think of. If the site starts stating that caches should include 'Placed with permission' on the cache page, those caches without this verbiage may be percieved by land managers or governmental flunky to be placed without permission. This wrongheaded assumption could be very bad for the game.

At the risk of sounding repetitive - The real issue is not one of permission. The issue is to understand whether it is appropriate to be looking on private property for a particular cache. Here's the distinction: I know that wherever you've hidden your cache, you have permission (it's in the rules). But if my GPSr tells me the cache is on private property, I'm going to be wondering if I've made some mistake and I'll be hesitant to actually venture on the property to search. If you've told me in the description that it is in fact on private property, I'll be much more comfortable in going there. That's all there really is to it. It will just help me to know I'm making the right decision in venturing there.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

At the risk of sounding repetitive - The real issue is not one of permission. The issue is to understand whether it is appropriate to be looking on private property for a particular cache. Here's the distinction: I know that wherever you've hidden your cache, you have permission (it's in the rules). But if my GPSr tells me the cache is on private property, I'm going to be wondering if I've made some mistake and I'll be hesitant to actually venture on the property to search. If you've told me in the description that it is in fact on private property, I'll be much more comfortable in going there. That's all there really is to it. It will just help me to know I'm making the right decision in venturing there.

 

Your comfort should be automatic because the TOS is clear that a cache would not be placed on private property if there wasn't permission for it to be there. Obviously, every cache on private property is okay to be there and no further reassurance is needed. I'd explain this further but I've misplaced my fairy dust and the unicorn doesn't know where it is.

 

- Elle

[+Renegade Knight]

...It's not just about trespassing, it's about being confronted. ...

 

When I'm confronted it's normally by random muggles. Most times I have the ability to gage when and where to seek so that I'm not confronted by anybody. That judgment can't ever be replaced by some doofie owner certifying they have permission at a higher level of unconfirmed permission than what already exists. A certification is only as good as the integrity of the person providing it. Those who have the integrity so you could trust the "Placed with Permission" logo already have the integrity to have meant it when they checked the existing boxes.

 

Placed with permission is nothing but a feel good measure that copies the exact same philosophy used by voters everywhere as they shape the bureaucracys they hate dealing with because of all the red tape they pushed to create.

 

Bottom line. More work. Same result.

[+wigglesworth]

Seconded --- Hycam has it right

"At the risk of sounding repetitive - The real issue is not one of permission. The issue is to understand whether it is appropriate to be looking on private property for a particular cache. Here's the distinction: I know that wherever you've hidden your cache, you have permission (it's in the rules). But if my GPSr tells me the cache is on private property, I'm going to be wondering if I've made some mistake and I'll be hesitant to actually venture on the property to search. If you've told me in the description that it is in fact on private property, I'll be much more comfortable in going there. That's all there really is to it. It will just help me to know I'm making the right decision in venturing there."

[+fox-and-the-hound]

I think the worst thing about putting a "Place with Permission" mention on a cache page is that it's mere presence seems to indicate that others without it are not placed with permission when they are. When you place a cache you assume permission by signing an electronic document saying so. That should be the end of it.

[+sbell111]

Seconded --- Hycam has it right

"At the risk of sounding repetitive - The real issue is not one of permission. The issue is to understand whether it is appropriate to be looking on private property for a particular cache. Here's the distinction: I know that wherever you've hidden your cache, you have permission (it's in the rules). But if my GPSr tells me the cache is on private property, I'm going to be wondering if I've made some mistake and I'll be hesitant to actually venture on the property to search. If you've told me in the description that it is in fact on private property, I'll be much more comfortable in going there. That's all there really is to it. It will just help me to know I'm making the right decision in venturing there."

In my opinion, including this would do nothing beyond giving some cache seekers a bit of assurance that will be quickly lost when it is discovered that they are actually on teh wrong piece of private property. In other words, it does nothing that the current requirement doesn't do.

[+Renegade Knight]

... I've been involved with some public access advocacy, including marking public roads, putting stiles over fences and unlocking a gate illegally blocking public roads, so I'm enthusiastic about public access rights. The corollary is that I am also very aware of my responsibility to respect the rights of private landowners, and so I don't feel it's acceptable to venture onto private property to search for a cache unless I'm explicitly told that it's okay for me to be there. ...

 

What you do with public access rights is nothing more than claiming what already exists. When you seek explicit permission where it’s not needed you are turning your back on the very access rights that you seek to protect. As you know it’s only by fighting for and enjoying your rights that you get to keep them. There seems to be no shortage of folks trying to take them away.

 

Locally the Shoshone and Bannock tribes claim all of the USA as their cultural traditional area to use and enjoy for their benefit. While there reasons for doing that are political, there is wisdom in the claim. I share this claim. We all do. Much of this is provided for by the laws and customs of this nation.

[+Renegade Knight]

Trusting people to follow the TOS that they agreed to is for chumps! Obviously, the only way to take care of this problem is to have cachers acquire a written and notorised permission form that would have to be provided by Groundspeak. The form will be scanned and presented to the reviewer who will call the person listed on the form to verify permissions and contact that person's supervisor to verify their authority to give such permissions. These forms will be valid for a year, whereupon cache hiders will have to have the permissions renewed using the renewal form, which would be provided by Groundspeak.

 

Sounds easy.

 

- Elle

 

Very nice:

 

In my line of work we don't assume someone has the authority. We have a higher authority confirm their authority and even then we don't make the agreement effective until we ratify the agreement indicating that we accept the authority of the person with the authority as confirmed by others in authority. That's all a PITA but since money is involved it's easy to find a dance partner.

[+wigglesworth]

Yes minister extract:

Avoiding precedents does not mean nothing should ever be done. It only means that nothing should ever be done for the first time."