Jump to content

London Royal Parks - Geocaching refused


Recommended Posts

I have signed the petition - but how come my (real) name does not appear?

 

If you go back and click on the confirmation link in the email that was sent to you, you should see your name on the list...

 

hopefully?

 

MrsB

I had already done that...

It seems that the .gov hamsters don't work at the weekend as this morning I have appeared on the list :o

Link to post

As I wrote in the FOI thread, Deceangi has pointed out that the Royal Parks own rules state that the person who must (ultimately) give permission is the Secretary of State for Media and Culture. So I take back what I wrote previously about keeping central government out of this as it seems they've taken control of the permissions aspect.

 

Petition signed.

 

Geoff

Link to post

For those of you who miss caching in a Royal Park I am pleased to anounce I have just had a cache published “GC1ZPV1 Walk around the Park “. It involves walking round St James's Park to fiind the answers to questions which will give you the coordintes for the actual cache which is outside the Park so enjoy but please do sign the petiton as I have found a really good hiding place in the Park itself which I can not now use because of the ban!

Link to post

Still 150 short of the amount it needs to be presented for consideration.

While I think it's a reasonable idea to create a petition, I can't help feeling it would have more impact if it were supported by the "general public" as well as Geocachers.

 

In any case, it will inevitably disappear in the election "brouhaha" so it makes little difference who signs it. :unsure:

Link to post

Six weeks to go and still stuck on 359.

As it needs a minimum of 500 signatures to be presented it looks doomed to fail.

I have even got non caching friends and family to sign and I think it needs others to encourage their family and friends to do the same.

 

Surely there must be more cachers out there who visit the forums who care enough to sign, London Parks today what will be next.

Link to post

Six weeks to go and still stuck on 359.

As it needs a minimum of 500 signatures to be presented it looks doomed to fail.

I have even got non caching friends and family to sign and I think it needs others to encourage their family and friends to do the same.

 

Surely there must be more cachers out there who visit the forums who care enough to sign, London Parks today what will be next.

 

I got a few signatures from my facebook caching friends and I have just reposted it :lol:

 

Cheers Diane.

Link to post

Everyone is getting up in arms on this, but perhaps there is something else going on that due to the sensitivity cannot be discussed at the moment and thus why they have gone down the route of having all containers removed from the parks.

 

The way Im seeing this is that the terrorist level is at substantial which is level 3 (out of 5 levels) and meaning an attack is at a strong possibility. Perhaps with this they want is the parks to be free of containers, so that anything that is still there it will be deemed suspicious and probably be blown up.

 

I think people are going to have to get used to security issues around Geocaches, and the way things are going, it is going to get worse because in 2 years time we are going to have the Olympics. I would not be surprised to see us being asked to remove all caches from the centre of London and those placed close to vital bits of infrastructure and olympic sporting events.

 

And don't forget those recent bomb incidents in the USA, with a number of geocaches being mis-identified as bombs. In one case, the Police department is considering pressing charges against the geocacher who placed the cache in the first place.

 

So I can see where the authorities are coming from. If there are no caches, then it is one less thing they have to worry about, so they don't waste precious time and resources on wild-goose chases.

Link to post

Everyone is getting up in arms on this, but perhaps there is something else going on that due to the sensitivity cannot be discussed at the moment and thus why they have gone down the route of having all containers removed from the parks.

 

The way Im seeing this is that the terrorist level is at substantial which is level 3 (out of 5 levels) and meaning an attack is at a strong possibility. Perhaps with this they want is the parks to be free of containers, so that anything that is still there it will be deemed suspicious and probably be blown up.

 

I think people are going to have to get used to security issues around Geocaches, and the way things are going, it is going to get worse because in 2 years time we are going to have the Olympics. I would not be surprised to see us being asked to remove all caches from the centre of London and those placed close to vital bits of infrastructure and olympic sporting events.

 

And don't forget those recent bomb incidents in the USA, with a number of geocaches being mis-identified as bombs. In one case, the Police department is considering pressing charges against the geocacher who placed the cache in the first place.

 

So I can see where the authorities are coming from. If there are no caches, then it is one less thing they have to worry about, so they don't waste precious time and resources on wild-goose chases.

 

I can't help thinking it's all part of the move to soften us up to accept "for security reasons" as the ultimate excuse for why the powers that be don't want us to do something.

 

If they really want to alienate large numbers of people who can act as your eyes and ears in all sorts of unlikely places this is a good way to do it. If the Metropolitan Police can see the sense in allowing geocaching in the SW1 area it's really hard to see how much more dangerous a sandwich box in Bushy Park might be.

Link to post

 

I can't help thinking it's all part of the move to soften us up to accept "for security reasons" as the ultimate excuse for why the powers that be don't want us to do something.

 

If they really want to alienate large numbers of people who can act as your eyes and ears in all sorts of unlikely places this is a good way to do it. If the Metropolitan Police can see the sense in allowing geocaching in the SW1 area it's really hard to see how much more dangerous a sandwich box in Bushy Park might be.

 

 

Well of course they don't want you to do things because that cause them problems.

 

You're eyes and ears argument is simply tosh - geocachers are few and far between and we are out numbered by muggles, who also have eyes and ears and that is where it all starts to unravel, because whilst we all know your lunchbox (stop sniggering at the back) is totally benign, these people don't. The police cannot but act on these suspicious packages because there is always the chance that it could be a real device.

Link to post

 

I can't help thinking it's all part of the move to soften us up to accept "for security reasons" as the ultimate excuse for why the powers that be don't want us to do something.

 

If they really want to alienate large numbers of people who can act as your eyes and ears in all sorts of unlikely places this is a good way to do it. If the Metropolitan Police can see the sense in allowing geocaching in the SW1 area it's really hard to see how much more dangerous a sandwich box in Bushy Park might be.

 

 

Well of course they don't want you to do things because that cause them problems.

 

You're eyes and ears argument is simply tosh - geocachers are few and far between and we are out numbered by muggles, who also have eyes and ears and that is where it all starts to unravel, because whilst we all know your lunchbox (stop sniggering at the back) is totally benign, these people don't. The police cannot but act on these suspicious packages because there is always the chance that it could be a real device.

 

Not only do they not want us to do things that cause "them" problems but they also seem to have forgotten who is supposed to be the servant to whom. We don't exist for the convenience of government.

 

I disagree that the argument is "simply tosh". How many non-geocachers have you seen show any interest at all in fence posts, railings, anything other than the path ahead? How many non-geocachers notice things that look out of place? We're out looking for things that don't quite match, we're out looking for places we might hide a sandwich box, we're taking an active interest in the surroundings. Most muggles, at least as far as I can see, are walking past, playing frisbee, or whatever it is they are doing paying little interest to their surroundings. If they are taking an interest in their surroundings it's in the context of the big picture and not the detail.

Link to post

Not only do they not want us to do things that cause "them" problems but they also seem to have forgotten who is supposed to be the servant to whom. We don't exist for the convenience of government.

 

I disagree that the argument is "simply tosh". How many non-geocachers have you seen show any interest at all in fence posts, railings, anything other than the path ahead? How many non-geocachers notice things that look out of place? We're out looking for things that don't quite match, we're out looking for places we might hide a sandwich box, we're taking an active interest in the surroundings. Most muggles, at least as far as I can see, are walking past, playing frisbee, or whatever it is they are doing paying little interest to their surroundings. If they are taking an interest in their surroundings it's in the context of the big picture and not the detail.

 

Well you've hit that nail squarely on the head, but you are still under-estimating the nosiness of the general public ;-)

 

As someone who has seen things from the other side of the fence, so to speak, I was constantly amazed about the number of calls from the general public about suspicious packages and the like. Each one had to have a police team dispatched to examine it, which given how low the police man power actually is, puts a considerable drain on already over-stretched resources.

 

The fact that few of these incidents ever reached the media means that the general public go blissfully unaware of such events. So just just because you're not reading about it doesn't mean it's not happening.

Link to post

Not only do they not want us to do things that cause "them" problems but they also seem to have forgotten who is supposed to be the servant to whom. We don't exist for the convenience of government.

 

I disagree that the argument is "simply tosh". How many non-geocachers have you seen show any interest at all in fence posts, railings, anything other than the path ahead? How many non-geocachers notice things that look out of place? We're out looking for things that don't quite match, we're out looking for places we might hide a sandwich box, we're taking an active interest in the surroundings. Most muggles, at least as far as I can see, are walking past, playing frisbee, or whatever it is they are doing paying little interest to their surroundings. If they are taking an interest in their surroundings it's in the context of the big picture and not the detail.

 

Well you've hit that nail squarely on the head, but you are still under-estimating the nosiness of the general public ;-)

 

As someone who has seen things from the other side of the fence, so to speak, I was constantly amazed about the number of calls from the general public about suspicious packages and the like. Each one had to have a police team dispatched to examine it, which given how low the police man power actually is, puts a considerable drain on already over-stretched resources.

 

The fact that few of these incidents ever reached the media means that the general public go blissfully unaware of such events. So just just because you're not reading about it doesn't mean it's not happening.

 

In which case why not do what the Metropolitan Police have already done and allow caching as long as they are informed where caches are, what they look like and are provided with photos. At a stroke they know it's probably a cache and a single officer or PCSO can confirm it.

 

If someone can hide a cache 10 paces from Whitehall (and there is at least one such cache) where's the danger in a cache under a dead tree in Bushy Park?

Link to post

As someone who has seen things from the other side of the fence, so to speak, I was constantly amazed about the number of calls from the general public about suspicious packages and the like. Each one had to have a police team dispatched to examine it, which given how low the police man power actually is, puts a considerable drain on already over-stretched resources.

If I was in charge of the police in such a terrorised area as London, I'd be more than happy that the public is enthusiastically reporting suspicious items. It's much better than having police time wasted in searching around in the hope of coming across such things.

Although I'm sure that almost all of these reports lead to nothing, it's useful that resources are targetted on something that at least deserves a quick check.

 

Now if only they could recruit a group of people who would regularly check all the obscure hiding places in (choosing an example at random) London parks, and make sure that there's nothing unexpected hidden in the bushes or under a bunch of twigs or a stone! That would be a real bonus. :mellow:

Link to post

 

In which case why not do what the Metropolitan Police have already done and allow caching as long as they are informed where caches are, what they look like and are provided with photos. At a stroke they know it's probably a cache and a single officer or PCSO can confirm it.

 

If someone can hide a cache 10 paces from Whitehall (and there is at least one such cache) where's the danger in a cache under a dead tree in Bushy Park?

 

The short answer is dunno, but I'd be prepared to suggest that it's probably someone who doesn't like geocaches, or given the size of the park police they think it would be too problematic to set up such a system.

Link to post

 

In which case why not do what the Metropolitan Police have already done and allow caching as long as they are informed where caches are, what they look like and are provided with photos. At a stroke they know it's probably a cache and a single officer or PCSO can confirm it.

 

If someone can hide a cache 10 paces from Whitehall (and there is at least one such cache) where's the danger in a cache under a dead tree in Bushy Park?

 

The short answer is dunno, but I'd be prepared to suggest that it's probably someone who doesn't like geocaches, or given the size of the park police they think it would be too problematic to set up such a system.

 

Which isn't so far from what we suspected all along.

 

Until the Royal Parks revoked permission the Met seemed to have no problem with caches in SW1, including the Buckingham Palace area, Green Park, St James Park, Hyde Park etc, they just wanted to know where the containers were, how they were attached/concealed and what they looked like (the kind of information that would let them know at a glance they were dealing with a geocache and not something more sinister).

 

If the Met was happy that it didn't pose a risk to security in Green Park and Hyde Park it's hard to see how it could be a security problem in Richmond Park and Bushy Park.

Link to post

Having been stopped by 2 Mr Plods in 2008 in the SW1 area, and while grabbing a cache in a non "furtive" manner, and thus after 30 minutes of thorough questioning, told to "get rid of it" I have to think that the phrase and indeed the GAGB agreement with the Met surrounding SW1 caches is somewhat benign.

If the local PC Plods have no idea what we do then such an agreement is no help at all.

Green Park and St James' Park have been devoid of caches since that agreement. (3 years now)

Their have been a few in the SW1 area of recent. Great.

But who is aware of their presence ???

Link to post

Having been stopped by 2 Mr Plods in 2008 in the SW1 area, and while grabbing a cache in a non "furtive" manner, and thus after 30 minutes of thorough questioning, told to "get rid of it" I have to think that the phrase and indeed the GAGB agreement with the Met surrounding SW1 caches is somewhat benign.

If the local PC Plods have no idea what we do then such an agreement is no help at all.

Green Park and St James' Park have been devoid of caches since that agreement. (3 years now)

Their have been a few in the SW1 area of recent. Great.

But who is aware of their presence ???

As some one who has caches in London SW1, I would ask that cachers are not put off caching in Central London. It is prefectly safe and you should not have any problems with the police. As mentioned elsewhere they are watching out for people taking photographs in case they are carryong out reconnaissance for a terrorist attack but if you are just caching you should be ok

Link to post

Having been stopped by 2 Mr Plods in 2008 in the SW1 area, and while grabbing a cache in a non "furtive" manner, and thus after 30 minutes of thorough questioning, told to "get rid of it" I have to think that the phrase and indeed the GAGB agreement with the Met surrounding SW1 caches is somewhat benign.

If the local PC Plods have no idea what we do then such an agreement is no help at all.

Green Park and St James' Park have been devoid of caches since that agreement. (3 years now)

Their have been a few in the SW1 area of recent. Great.

But who is aware of their presence ???

As some one who has caches in London SW1, I would ask that cachers are not put off caching in Central London. It is prefectly safe and you should not have any problems with the police. As mentioned elsewhere they are watching out for people taking photographs in case they are carryong out reconnaissance for a terrorist attack but if you are just caching you should be ok

 

Actually, I have it on authority they are looking out for people with beards, wearing anti-Blair t-shirts or heckle Nu Labour party leaders. It's well known that terrorists do all these things.

Link to post

Having been stopped by 2 Mr Plods in 2008 in the SW1 area, and while grabbing a cache in a non "furtive" manner, and thus after 30 minutes of thorough questioning, told to "get rid of it" I have to think that the phrase and indeed the GAGB agreement with the Met surrounding SW1 caches is somewhat benign.

If the local PC Plods have no idea what we do then such an agreement is no help at all.

Green Park and St James' Park have been devoid of caches since that agreement. (3 years now)

Their have been a few in the SW1 area of recent. Great.

But who is aware of their presence ???

As some one who has caches in London SW1, I would ask that cachers are not put off caching in Central London. It is prefectly safe and you should not have any problems with the police. As mentioned elsewhere they are watching out for people taking photographs in case they are carryong out reconnaissance for a terrorist attack but if you are just caching you should be ok

 

Indeed, it's well known that a terrorist will stand around waiting until the light is just so before performing their reconnaissance missions. And they'd never think to use something like a concealed camera, Google Street View or other little-known tricks.

Link to post

As some one who has caches in London SW1, I would ask that cachers are not put off caching in Central London. It is prefectly safe and you should not have any problems with the police. As mentioned elsewhere they are watching out for people taking photographs in case they are carryong out reconnaissance for a terrorist attack but if you are just caching you should be ok

To be quite accurate, police are trying NOT to waste everyone's time by questioning photographers (as the other thread discusses.

Link to post

61 signatures still needed to reach the magic 500 on the Petition!

 

You don't need 500 signatures to submit a petition to No 10 by hand.

In any case, they probably won't take a blind bit of notice of a No: 10 on-line petition unless it has a lot more than 500 signatures. I've signed a few and the only one they took any notice of was the one to abandon plans for road pricing. That petition got over 1.8 million signatures - so they took public opinion into account and altered their plans. However, they haven't done what the public petitioned and IMO are now trying to bribe various authorities to get road pricing introduced piecemeal until it has enough impetus for them to legitimately say that road pricing is such a mess they need to introduce a nationwide system to rationalise it.

 

Other petitions they just reject or say that they're going to do what you don't want anyway. For example, the government have changed the law so that motorists who defend themselves in court can only claim costs up to the legal aid limit (and no legal aid is available for motoring offences) where previously they could apply for their entire costs from central funds. This means that those who (for example) use an expert witness to prove that a speed camera wasn't operated correctly won't be able to recover that cost. IMO this stacks the odds against the motorist since the prosecution can spend what they like and many I'm convinced now plead guilty to a crime they've not committed rather than face the financial penalty of defending themselves. IMO they have perverted justice for financial expediency. The government effectively responded "we're doing it anyway".

 

So what makes anyone think that a few hundred signatures from a fairly silent minority group is going to change policy?

 

Geoff

Link to post

...So what makes anyone think that a few hundred signatures from a fairly silent minority group is going to change policy?

 

Geoff

I think that the publicity could help, if the petition is brought to the attention of the people in charge of the Royal Parks. At least they'll realise that it's not just a couple of locals having a grumble because their little game has been spoilt.

Link to post

You don't need 500 signatures to submit a petition to No 10 by hand.

 

Nope you don't, but the number 10 website doesn't work like that, from the FAQ:

 

What will happen to my petition once it is finished?

 

Once your petition has closed, usually provided there are 500 signatures or more, it will be passed to officials who work for the Prime Minister in Downing Street, or sent to the relevant Government department for a response.

 

So what makes anyone think that a few hundred signatures from a fairly silent minority group is going to change policy?

 

Geoff

 

If you read the rest of the thread you'll see I've already voiced that opinion. But, it doesn't hurt to give it a shot and It'll be fun to see what the response is.

 

Philip

Link to post

You don't need 500 signatures to submit a petition to No 10 by hand.

 

Nope you don't, but the number 10 website doesn't work like that, from the FAQ:

 

What will happen to my petition once it is finished?

 

Once your petition has closed, usually provided there are 500 signatures or more, it will be passed to officials who work for the Prime Minister in Downing Street, or sent to the relevant Government department for a response.

 

So what makes anyone think that a few hundred signatures from a fairly silent minority group is going to change policy?

 

Geoff

 

If you read the rest of the thread you'll see I've already voiced that opinion. But, it doesn't hurt to give it a shot and It'll be fun to see what the response is.

 

Philip

 

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I know how the website works. Petitions with less that 500 signatures can and do get sent onto the relevant people. Simply by-pass the website by printing it out and giving it in at the door '.......by hand.'

Edited by Nick & Ali
Link to post

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I know how the website works. Petitions with less that 500 signatures can and do get sent onto the relevant people. Simply by-pass the website by printing it out and giving it in at the door '.......by hand.'

Good point; I didn't realise that it works like that. Perhaps you're in a good position to hand it in? Otherwise I can easily pop by in a few days time.

Link to post

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. I know how the website works. Petitions with less that 500 signatures can and do get sent onto the relevant people. Simply by-pass the website by printing it out and giving it in at the door '.......by hand.'

Good point; I didn't realise that it works like that. Perhaps you're in a good position to hand it in? Otherwise I can easily pop by in a few days time.

 

I'm pretty sure I told you where I actually work most of the time - so that might put me in a bit of a position! :):o (Plus I'm also pretty sure I wouldn't be allowed).

 

You actually have to phone the police Downing Street Liaison office to arrange the visit. Usually a group of interested parties attend - which will look better if you have your photo done handing it to one of the civilian Custodians at the door. (I have the phone number if and when anyone needs it).

 

It looks as if the on-line petition runs until 23rd Feb, so there is still no great rush. Even if the petition does get the required 500 signatures for the on-line petition, I don't see a problem someone printing it out and then arranging to hand it in at the door of No 10 as a group. It certainly can't do any harm. Then I'd suggest asking the GAGB to get back in touch with Royal Parks, Royal Parks OCU and who ever it was from the Met POLSA team that agreed the protocols in the first place. I've no doubt that some compromise can be worked out. You seldom achieve anything by getting peoples backs up, but that doesn't mean you have to tamely go along with something you don't think is right.

Link to post

I'm pretty sure I told you where I actually work most of the time - so that might put me in a bit of a position! :D:D (Plus I'm also pretty sure I wouldn't be allowed).

Indeed! But I understand why you probably wouldn't be allowed.

You actually have to phone the police Downing Street Liaison office to arrange the visit. Usually a group of interested parties attend - which will look better if you have your photo done handing it to one of the civilian Custodians at the door. (I have the phone number if and when anyone needs it).

Good suggestion.

It looks as if the on-line petition runs until 23rd Feb, so there is still no great rush. Even if the petition does get the required 500 signatures for the on-line petition, I don't see a problem someone printing it out and then arranging to hand it in at the door of No 10 as a group. It certainly can't do any harm. Then I'd suggest asking the GAGB to get back in touch with Royal Parks, Royal Parks OCU and who ever it was from the Met POLSA team that agreed the protocols in the first place. I've no doubt that some compromise can be worked out. You seldom achieve anything by getting peoples backs up, but that doesn't mean you have to tamely go along with something you don't think is right.

Another good suggestion and good advice. I suppose the sponsor of the petition would be the best person to hand it over, along with a GAGB representative or two.

 

And perhaps Kewfriend! :D

Link to post

Another good suggestion and good advice. I suppose the sponsor of the petition would be the best person to hand it over, along with a GAGB representative or two.

 

And perhaps Kewfriend! :laughing:

 

Would quite happily do just that except that I am still over in the west country for a while but if I am back home in time, no problems.

The problem is that I am very seldom at home near to London which is the reason that I went for an online petition.

 

Oh the glory of not working!

Edited by DrDick&Vick
Link to post

Well it's broken the 500 now, just remains to be seen whether anyone will take any notice :ph34r:

It'll be interesting to see if TPTB deign to reply - at least that might tell us something of how central government view our passtime sport obsession!

 

Geoff

Link to post

Well it's broken the 500 now, just remains to be seen whether anyone will take any notice :ph34r:

It'll be interesting to see if TPTB deign to reply - at least that might tell us something of how central government view our passtime sport obsession!

 

Geoff

 

I know this is going to sound cynical, and shoot me down if you must but I can hazard a guess at the PMs reply to this already:-

 

"Geocaching is a great hobby... blah blah blah... however, security risks.... blah, blah, blah... every confidence in Royal Parks management.... blah blah blah.... trust in future you will continue to seek permission... blah."

 

Sorry but I have no faith in e-petitions, it's a convenient device to take protest off the streets and create a nice little Inbox for messages that can easily be filtered to the Spambox and effectively ignored.

 

But then, I think a passive, disinterested response like that above may actually be a good thing. Looking at how the present gubberments experiments with social engineering, I'd prefer them to stay well out of my private hobby.

 

What if the PM doesn't like the concept at all, and we see an effective government ban on all geocaches placed in the UK due to percieved security risks, whilst SOCA is authorised to investigate the activity?

Link to post

I know this is going to sound cynical, and shoot me down if you must but I can hazard a guess at the PMs reply to this already:-

 

"Geocaching is a great hobby... blah blah blah... however, security risks.... blah, blah, blah... every confidence in Royal Parks management.... blah blah blah.... trust in future you will continue to seek permission... blah."

I agree that this is the likely response. But it doesn't mean that the petition was a waste of effort. I'd hope that the Parks management are at least asked by their superiors about the background to the petition: it will make them realise that there's a certain dissatisfaction with their actions. If we just let it go they'll assume that we went away without even questioning their decision.

 

What if the PM doesn't like the concept at all, and we see an effective government ban on all geocaches placed in the UK due to percieved security risks, whilst SOCA is authorised to investigate the activity?

Can't see that happening. The PM would realise that this would be caving in to the terrorists' demand that we change our British way of life, in rather too significant a fashion.

Of course, it wouldn't stop geocaching at all whatever they decided to say. It's only hiding small items for others to find. That's impossible to stop.

Link to post

Sad news that the powers that be don't want to play ball,

 

As a relelative newcomer to the activity, were fortunate not to be anywhere near the affected areas,

 

However as soon as i saw the "P" word, i had to pipe up.

 

And its not Parks , but petitions.

 

Many years ago i read an article relating to petitions, ( odd article, but very informative)

 

A petition may seem like a good idea, 1 - 6000 people all sign a document and its presented to the powers

 

that be. Unfortunatly for some bizzare reason of which it eludes me, only the first signature on a petition is

 

actually seen as a valid signature, so the other xxxxx signatures are not seen, and everything is treated as

 

1 petition.

 

However if the same 1 - 6000 people each sign an individual petiton, and send it , it is seen as 1 - 6000

 

petitions, and far more likely to be looked at.

 

HTH

 

Mart

 

BTW "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal :)"

Link to post

I'm not sure that's a reason to dismiss petitions as a useful tool.

It's obvious that everyone who signs a petition is not necessarily passionate about the issue. So clearly a 6000-signature petition isn't as effective as 6000 individual letters of support, which would take a lot more effort to arrange.

 

But it does make the issue appear to have a measure of public support, which is better than just a letter from a disgruntled individual.

Link to post

*bump*

The response to the petition is in and........

 

.........it's exactly what I'm sure most of us were expecting :laughing:

 

The Government recognises that Geocaching is a family activity that encourages people of all ages to take exercise and make use of public spaces.

 

The Royal Parks do not allow the placing of caches on land in its care, due to concerns over conservation and security issues. We understand that, on the security issue, the Royal Parks have the full support of the Metropolitan Police (who police the parks).

 

Richmond Park is both a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a National Nature Reserve. The Geocaching Association of Great Britain has guidelines which acknowledge that such sites are unsuitable for this activity.

Link

 

 

It's almost a form letter. If you look closely, you can just about see the mail-merge fields :shocked:

The Government recognises that <subject> is a <description> that <ego-boosting-statement-in-preparation-for-disappointment>.

 

<reason-petitioners-should-shut-up-and-go-away>

Edited by JeremyR
Link to post
The Geocaching Association of Great Britain has guidelines which acknowledge that such sites are unsuitable for this activity.

Hopefully the GAGB will be absolutely incensed by the cheek of the Government using GAGB guidelines against geocachers, and will immediately put them right on this outrageous statement. :laughing:

 

Although I might wait until a few pigs have flown past before checking whether the GAGB bothered...! :shocked:

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...