Jump to content

Freedom of Information report


Recommended Posts

I have received eight redacted documents in PDF format. If anyone emails me I'll forward them on; there are (quite properly) no personal details.

 

As far as I can see the 'security' excuse is largely spurious and dreamt up at the most senior level in the RP with no reference to the Met., so as to stop the geo-activity. Some parks reported back that of the activities in their area geocaching was the least of their worries, no surprises there. I am pretty certain some documents have been withheld as the documents submitted in no way reflect all those I once 'saw' - which makes a mockery of the FoI - again no surprises there.

 

The good news is that there are openings I think for discussing geocaching on a 'park by park' basis or even on a 'location by location' basis. The RP do not come out of this well.

Edited by kewfriend
Link to post

Having read the correspondence (which does appear to be incomplete), what it boils down to is the following. I offer this as my personal summary of the main points, without attempting to correct any misunderstanding or inaccuracy on the part of the Royal Parks management. However, I suggest that if permission is ever to be granted we'd have to address all these four points.

 

1. People leaving "packages" in the Parks could represent a serious security issue, because the Parks frequently host "ceremonial or other high profile events" (note that there's no mention that this has ever been a problem, just that it "could" be).

 

2. Burying objects in Richmond Park is an offence. Buried geocaches (and inappropriately sited caches - a football-sized cache was found up a tree) have been a problem in the past.

 

3. The GAGB specify that that SSSIs and NNRs (Site of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserves) are not suitable for caches. It's in their guidelines. As Richmond Park is an SSSI (and an SAC), then it follows that there can't be any caches placed there (this seems to be a useful weapon - our own representatives admit that these are unsuitable places).

 

4. Geocaching "is not an activity we should be encouraging".

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to post
However, I suggest that if permission is ever to be granted we'd have to address all these four points.

Well, it looks to me like points 2 and 3 are non-points because of the SSSI issue, and 1 can be addressed by obtaining permission for (small) caches at locations which are known to the park authorities.

 

Point 4, however, is the killer. Although in the face of it it's just a catch-all which says "in case they manage to find answers to our specific issues, we will assume a Hyacinth Bucket accent and get all snooty", that's probably sufficient to kill any sensible argument stone dead. You could point them at other landowners and authorities who think that geocaching is exactly the sort of activityh they should be encouraging, but they probably don't have "Royal" in their name. :laughing:

Link to post

Having read the correspondence (which does appear to be incomplete), what it boils down to is the following. I offer this as my personal summary of the main points, without attempting to correct any misunderstanding or inaccuracy on the part of the Royal Parks management. However, I suggest that if permission is ever to be granted we'd have to address all these four points.

 

1. People leaving "packages" in the Parks could represent a serious security issue, because the Parks frequently host "ceremonial or other high profile events" (note that there's no mention that this has ever been a problem, just that it "could" be).

 

2. Burying objects in Richmond Park is an offence. Buried geocaches (and inappropriately sited caches - a football-sized cache was found up a tree) have been a problem in the past.

 

3. The GAGB specify that that SSSIs and NNRs (Site of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserves) are not suitable for caches. It's in their guidelines. As Richmond Park is an SSSI (and an SAC), then it follows that there can't be any caches placed there (this seems to be a useful weapon - our own representatives admit that these are unsuitable places).

 

4. Geocaching "is not an activity we should be encouraging".

 

In regards to point 3, and your comment

this seems to be a useful weapon - our own representatives admit that these are unsuitable places

 

The GAGB Guidelines which can be found at http://www.gagb.co.uk/gagb/guidelines/guidelines.php state in section 3

No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)

(my bold)

 

Which has a completely different meaning to what your point refers to. As I'm sure your aware of, both Natural England and CCW are happy to Give Permission for [if they own the Land] or Approve [if asked to do so by the Landowner] caches located within SSSI's & SAC's which do not risk damage to the location. Which is what the GAGB Guideline states!

 

So I'd say that points 2 & 3 can be dealt with, especially point 3 by having Natural England Approve any cache placed in Richmond Park. It seems point 4 is the Sticking Point, but as this goes counter point to the Governments statement in a White Paper. That Geocaching is a suitable outdoor activity. Is a genuine reason for people to sign the 10 Downing St petition.

 

And to counter the argument that Natural England are too busy to Approve caches in Richmond Park. I've had to deal with a large number of caches in SSSI's and SAC's where the Cache Owner has first contacted them in regards to gaining permission. In 99% of the cases Natural England have had no objections to the caches, but simply pointed out that the person need to obtain permission off the Landowner.

 

I seem to be one of the very few who own a cache in a SSSI, which involved a site inspection by a officer of the Designating Authority. Possibly as I was the very first person with whom they had contact with in regards to geocaching.

 

As for point 1, well their own junior managers have shown that there seems to be no major issues. As they happily gave permission for caches to be placed within the parks, and they would be the first ones to know if a cache had caused such issues.

 

Deci

Link to post

Thank you Deci.

HH should be well aware of the GAGB guidelines - nowhere does it say in the guidelines that SSSIs and NNRs are not suitable for caches!

I'm sure he is but the Parks aren't as it is they that made the comment!

 

On the face of it they really have got it in for geocaching. In practise, I suspect it boils down to laziness. It's a lot easier just to ban something that few people know about or are interested in than to actually put in some effort to make sure it is done properly.

Link to post

Which has a completely different meaning to what your point refers to. As I'm sure your aware of, both Natural England and CCW are happy to Give Permission for [if they own the Land] or Approve [if asked to do so by the Landowner] caches located within SSSI's & SAC's which do not risk damage to the location. Which is what the GAGB Guideline states!

Perhaps I misunderstand, but just to clarify (as Pieman kindly emphasises), these are not "my " points. That's why I was at pains to point out in my first post;

I offer this as my personal summary of the main points, without attempting to correct any misunderstanding or inaccuracy on the part of the Royal Parks management.

But thanks for pointing out the actual guideline and its meaning.

 

The reason for summarising without trying to knock down these points, is that the first stage is to understand why permission was rescinded (and what logic was put forward). The correspondence clarifies this rather, but I imagine that most people don't want to wade through it all and it doesn't seem appropriate to reproduce it verbatim in this forum.

 

Later, if we judge that the Parks Management's reasoning is based on misunderstanding or misinformation, we can seek to correct this. However, I agree with SteamTraen that point 4 is the key one. If we can't convince them to make a U-turn and see geocaching as something that they WOULD like to encourage, then we don't stand a chance even if they have to concede that we have answers to 1,2 and 3.

Link to post

Which has a completely different meaning to what your point refers to. As I'm sure your aware of, both Natural England and CCW are happy to Give Permission for [if they own the Land] or Approve [if asked to do so by the Landowner] caches located within SSSI's & SAC's which do not risk damage to the location. Which is what the GAGB Guideline states!

Perhaps I misunderstand, but just to clarify (as Pieman kindly emphasises), these are not "my " points. That's why I was at pains to point out in my first post;

I offer this as my personal summary of the main points, without attempting to correct any misunderstanding or inaccuracy on the part of the Royal Parks management.

But thanks for pointing out the actual guideline and its meaning.

 

The reason for summarising without trying to knock down these points, is that the first stage is to understand why permission was rescinded (and what logic was put forward). The correspondence clarifies this rather, but I imagine that most people don't want to wade through it all and it doesn't seem appropriate to reproduce it verbatim in this forum.

 

Later, if we judge that the Parks Management's reasoning is based on misunderstanding or misinformation, we can seek to correct this. However, I agree with SteamTraen that point 4 is the key one. If we can't convince them to make a U-turn and see geocaching as something that they WOULD like to encourage, then we don't stand a chance even if they have to concede that we have answers to 1,2 and 3.

 

Sorry HH & Pieman, but HH did make a personal comment, which I quoted and answered in my post.

 

HH stated

 

(this seems to be a useful weapon - our own representatives admit that these are unsuitable places)

 

The Bold Part claims that the GAGB make a specific point, when in fact it is a misinterpretation of a GAGB Guideline by the Senior Royal Parks Management! As HH had already pointed out in just before his personal comment.

 

As for Point 4, yes they appear to have a permanent stance in regards to Geocaching. which is why we need another 200 signatures on the 10 Downing St Petition, to enable it to go forward to a Management level above the Senior Royal Parks Management. As the Agency is so divided about opinion about Geocaching between those who deal with the individual locations on a daily basis, and those who set General Policy. With those who set General Policy, seeming to be ignoring the opinion of those who deal with the individual locations. Lets get Management at a level outside of the divided Agency to make a informed decision taking into account the opinion from all sides.

 

Deci

Link to post

Sorry HH & Pieman, but HH did make a personal comment, which I quoted and answered in my post.

 

HH stated

 

(this seems to be a useful weapon - our own representatives admit that these are unsuitable places)

 

The Bold Part claims that the GAGB make a specific point, when in fact it is a misinterpretation of a GAGB Guideline by the Senior Royal Parks Management! As HH had already pointed out in just before his personal comment.

I agree that that particular comment wasn't well worded, so I don't blame you for taking it that way. What I really meant, was that from the RP Manager's point of view it appears possible to interpret the guidelines to mean that our own representatives admit that these are unsuitable places.

 

IMO, they chose to take the phrase "No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)" to mean "As every cache placement is bound to risk a measure of damage or disturbance, this guideline effectively bans caches from such areas". Perhaps the guideline should be expanded/reworded to make it less ambiguous (and harder to use against us)?

 

I agree that the extra 200 signatures could be a big help in making them re-think their attitude to the game.

Link to post

I am not sure if you know that the Royal Parks has it's own police force, maybe if you tried to get them on your side by talking to a senior officer and say that you will keep the police aware of all caches placed and give them the location. With regards to public ceremonies, the police do go into the parks and conduct a search before hand and it would be a great if they knew where any caches where laid. Also you could say to the police that with geocaches there are many more sets of eyes and if any cacher sees any thing un toward they will report it. Just a thought.

Link to post

Sorry, but I really fail to see what people are getting so het up about. Geocaches are only supposed to be placed with the permission of the landowner, and any landowner is well within his rights to remove such permission at any time, without having to give a reason.

The Royal Parks, have for whatever reason, decided to refuse permission, and thus any caches placed there have to be removed. This is something that they are perfectly entitled to do. Get over it, there is plenty more countryside out there. I fully appreciate that placing a full size cache in a city is difficult, but that as they say, is life.

 

Richard

Link to post

I know of a Royal Park, that is also an SSSI, it has hosted many Royal ceremonial events, It has a Royal palace adjacent to it, it also has a Parliament building adjacent to it. This Royal park is Holyrood and it's full of geocaches which all have a blanket permission to be placed, the only criteria for them being placed is that if damage starts to get caused the cache in question must be removed.

Link to post

I am not sure if you know that the Royal Parks has it's own police force, maybe if you tried to get them on your side by talking to a senior officer and say that you will keep the police aware of all caches placed and give them the location. With regards to public ceremonies, the police do go into the parks and conduct a search before hand and it would be a great if they knew where any caches where laid. Also you could say to the police that with geocaches there are many more sets of eyes and if any cacher sees any thing un toward they will report it. Just a thought.

 

The Royal Parks Constabulary has long since departed this world. It has been merged and is now just a tiny tiny part of 'The Met'

Link to post

I am not sure if you know that the Royal Parks has it's own police force, maybe if you tried to get them on your side by talking to a senior officer and say that you will keep the police aware of all caches placed and give them the location. With regards to public ceremonies, the police do go into the parks and conduct a search before hand and it would be a great if they knew where any caches where laid. Also you could say to the police that with geocaches there are many more sets of eyes and if any cacher sees any thing un toward they will report it. Just a thought.

 

The Royal Parks Police is a department of the Metropolitan Police Service. When the meeting between the Senior Royal Parks Managers and Dave-The Wombles representing the GAGB took place, in attendance was a Sargent from this department.

 

Sorry, but I really fail to see what people are getting so het up about. Geocaches are only supposed to be placed with the permission of the landowner, and any landowner is well within his rights to remove such permission at any time, without having to give a reason.

The Royal Parks, have for whatever reason, decided to refuse permission, and thus any caches placed there have to be removed. This is something that they are perfectly entitled to do. Get over it, there is plenty more countryside out there. I fully appreciate that placing a full size cache in a city is difficult, but that as they say, is life.

 

Richard

 

Part of the issue is that the majority of the caches within the Royal Parks, had been given permission by the Manager(s) of that (those) Park(s). Who were happy with geocaching taking place, we even have one member who had caches with permission in the Royal Parks who is a Head Gardener for them. It is the Senior Management within the Royal Parks who object to Geocaching taking place within their properties. As the Royal Parks London (to differentiate them from the Royal Parks in Scotland) are a executive agency of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. They are in affect going against their own employers the UK Government, who stated in a White Paper that Geocaching is a suitable outdoor activity

 

HH in regards to the rewording of Section 3 of the GAGB Guidelines, this is something I personally intend to bring up on their forums. The Guidelines were originally worded in 2004, the experience with the Royal Parks Senior Managements misinterpretation. Shows that it needs rewording to avoid this in the future.

 

Deci

Link to post

...

HH in regards to the rewording of Section 3 of the GAGB Guidelines, this is something I personally intend to bring up on their forums. The Guidelines were originally worded in 2004, the experience with the Royal Parks Senior Managements misinterpretation. Shows that it needs rewording to avoid this in the future.

 

Deci

Thanks. :D

I'm sure that the wording was fine in 2004, and it's not bad now - for our general geocaching purposes.

But it's a different geocaching world from that of 2004 and it would be as well to review the wording to ensure that it is keeping up with developments.

Link to post
Sorry, but I really fail to see what people are getting so het up about.

 

I'd suggest they are getting worked up about snooty bureaucrats putting arbitrary and pointless restrictions on our freedom of movement?

 

Geocaches are only supposed to be placed with the permission of the landowner, and any landowner is well within his rights to remove such permission at any time, without having to give a reason.

 

No one is disputing the landowner's possession of these 'rights', but rather whether the arbitrary exercise of these 'rights' is necessarily acceptable at face value.

Link to post

My reply to the Royal Parks

 

Ms Marks

 

My thanks to the staff of the Royal Parks for their cooperation.

 

I am aware, not least because I have seen them, of other email trails. For reasons of confidentiality and to protect those persons who showed me the email trails I cannot reveal to you how when or where I was made aware of them. It is partly because I saw these emails that I generated this FoI request. I have also received at least one email directly myself on a geocaching related topic and would, had I bothered to keep it, recopied it back to you, but it was of minor importance. Because of the narrow nature of my request I am aware that other 'letters' fall by the wayside by default.

 

I must obviously assume that emails and notes of meetings get regularly deleted if not seen as of importance, unless you of course advise me that this is not Royal Parks policy. I naively trust in the probity of civil servants so must assume that there has been no deliberate with-holding of notes and emails which would cast the writers in a 'bad light'. It is of course entirely possible that some staff in the Royal Parks, may not have thought that the FoI request applied to them, despite your good offices.

 

I do find it strange that seeing that 'security' is quoted in several documents that there are no communications with other government departments or branches of the Metropolitan Police seeking clarification on this issue.

 

I would hope that you can clarify the few points I have raised above.

 

Yours with thanks

Link to post
No one is disputing the landowner's possession of these 'rights', but rather whether the arbitrary exercise of these 'rights' is necessarily acceptable at face value.

A park typically has a charter (etc) stating what its purpose is, often received when whoever used to own the land bequeathed it to the city/nation, etc. This might contain wording saying that the park is for pretty much any recrational purpose, or it might have specific restrictions (no ball games or music on Sundays), etc.

 

I don't know if the Royal Parks have a collective chatrer, or an individual one per park, but it could be that the wording of such a document would make it clear whether the onus on the management is to accept activities unless they can demonstrate that they are actively harmful to the interests of the park or its users, or whether it's a very conservative charter with strict limits and a presumption that new ideas should generally be denied.

Link to post

snip

 

HH in regards to the rewording of Section 3 of the GAGB Guidelines, this is something I personally intend to bring up on their forums. The Guidelines were originally worded in 2004, the experience with the Royal Parks Senior Managements misinterpretation. Shows that it needs rewording to avoid this in the future.

 

Deci

 

As with all requests for changes to the guidelines, I am sure the GAGB will consider the request!

Link to post
No one is disputing the landowner's possession of these 'rights', but rather whether the arbitrary exercise of these 'rights' is necessarily acceptable at face value.

A park typically has a charter (etc) stating what its purpose is, often received when whoever used to own the land bequeathed it to the city/nation, etc. This might contain wording saying that the park is for pretty much any recrational purpose, or it might have specific restrictions (no ball games or music on Sundays), etc.

 

I don't know if the Royal Parks have a collective chatrer, or an individual one per park, but it could be that the wording of such a document would make it clear whether the onus on the management is to accept activities unless they can demonstrate that they are actively harmful to the interests of the park or its users, or whether it's a very conservative charter with strict limits and a presumption that new ideas should generally be denied.

 

I doubt that the Royal parks have such a charter as they have never been bequeathed or handed over to anybody. They remain the property of the Crown - not the state, an important difference - and the public are allowed access only through grace and favour.

Edited by keehotee
Link to post

I doubt that the Royal parks have such a charter as they have never been bequeathed or handed over to anybody. They remain the property of the Crown - not the state, an important difference - and the public are allowed access only through grace and favour.

That might be the case, strictly speaking (although I don't know). Just like the Duke of Westminster owns vast areas of England (and no-one asks him whether they can hide a cache on "his" land).

 

But it's a bit old-fashioned to think that in practice there's any "grace and favour", inferring that this could be withdrawn and the parks fenced off to the public. Imagine how far they'd get with trying to keep the public out of Hyde Park, for instance!

Link to post

I doubt that the Royal parks have such a charter as they have never been bequeathed or handed over to anybody. They remain the property of the Crown - not the state, an important difference - and the public are allowed access only through grace and favour.

That might be the case, strictly speaking (although I don't know). Just like the Duke of Westminster owns vast areas of England (and no-one asks him whether they can hide a cache on "his" land).

 

But it's a bit old-fashioned to think that in practice there's any "grace and favour", inferring that this could be withdrawn and the parks fenced off to the public. Imagine how far they'd get with trying to keep the public out of Hyde Park, for instance!

 

You're right - it's just a legal term nowadays. But, as you mention - they could fence off the parks (or ban caches) for no reason whatsoever - just as any landowner with a permissive path could close it without having to justify their actions.

Link to post

You're right - it's just a legal term nowadays. But, as you mention - they could fence off the parks (or ban caches) for no reason whatsoever - just as any landowner with a permissive path could close it without having to justify their actions.

They'd have a problem with Richmond Park as it's criss-crossed with public footpaths anyway. I suspect that we could choose to ignore the ban on caches and there would be nothing they could do about it (although I'm NOT advocating this in any way, just pointing out that we're kindly respecting their wishes, not obeying their commands).

 

On the general point about permissive paths, you're right as long as the land isn't within the 865,000 hectares of Access Land. Note that there are several such areas within a stone's throw of Richmond Park (East Sheen Common, Barnes Common, Ham Common are examples). In all these areas it would be rather difficult for the landowner to deny public access to any part of his land, and would have to point to a specific bylaw to justify removing a cache.

 

See Natural England for more info on Access Land.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to post

The Royal Parks bureaucrats are no more reasonable than the GC.com bureaucrats.

 

They have power and they wield that power without reason, simply because they can.

 

Just as the GC.com bureaucrcats have four or five thousand words of rules to "justify" their injustice, so too the Royal Parks bureaucrats have theirs.

 

??????????????????

 

That's terrible - sneaking up on all those poor shopkeepers with a tax that's been around and budgeted for since Tudor times.

My heart goes out to all the traders that moved in more than 450 years ago and so weren't aware of it............

 

Sorry - but if this whole thing wasn't so London-centric (yes, I know that's not a real word) you might get a bit more sympathy.

Where's the seven page outcry and petition pleading for caching being allowed by Somerset Wildlife Trust (80 nature reserves), or the Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire and Peterborough (2900 hectares), or Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust?

 

Personally I spend as little time in London as I possibly can - and no recreational time at all. I appreciate that some people are stuck there, without any transport or opportunity to get to anywhere but the Royal parks to get their cache fix, and I sympathise with that minority. But the Royal Parks are what they are. They have every right to stop whatever activity they wish to, without having to offer any explanation whatsoever.

It's a shame - but do any of you really think the mass (?) outpouring of angst on this public forum is going to change their attitude?

Edited by keehotee
Link to post

They have every right to stop whatever activity they wish to, without having to offer any explanation whatsoever.

Who told you that? What law allows them to do so?

...mass (?) outpouring of angst on this public forum is going to change their attitude?

A couple of people having a grumble on a forum is a "mass outpouring of angst"?! :o:angry:

:lol:

That's hyperbole to the extreme! Nice one! :lol:

Link to post

They have every right to stop whatever activity they wish to, without having to offer any explanation whatsoever.

Who told you that? What law allows them to do so?

The parks are private property - albeit the property of the Crown. (A few people on this forum seem to have a problem differentiating between crown property and state owned property). There is no law allowing them to stop any activity because there is no law, Act of Parliament, or local by-law giving anybody the right to carry out any activity there in the first place. The public have no more right to be there than you would to enter your local MP's back garden without his consent - just because he is your local MP. I would be the first to agree that property belonging to the crown is no more rightfully theirs than any other property taken by force - but unfortunately, until such time as we are a republic, we are stuck with the law as it is.

 

...mass (?) outpouring of angst on this public forum is going to change their attitude?

A couple of people having a grumble on a forum is a "mass outpouring of angst"?! :o:angry:

:lol:

That's hyperbole to the extreme! Nice one! :lol:

 

Unfortunately there's no tongue in cheek smiley available on this forum - read it in context! :lol:

Edited by keehotee
Link to post
The parks are private property - albeit the property of the Crown. (A few people on this forum seem to have a problem differentiating between crown property and state owned property).

 

Apparently some people have a problem differentiating between private property and Crown property. Crown property is not private property. It is the property of the office, not the person. Private property is property of the person. Crown property is therefore a form of state property, albeit a very specific kind.

 

And the best way to deal with absurd anachronisms is not to say "that's how it is, we just have to put up with it", but to raise awareness (by public discussion), and encourage a de facto change to the law.

Link to post

Granted - Crown Property is not private property - perhaps that was the wrong expression to use.

 

And the best way to deal with absurd anachronisms is not to say "that's how it is, we just have to put up with it", but to raise awareness (by public discussion), and encourage a de facto change to the law.

 

I don't think anybody in here is saying you just have to put up with it...

Absurd as the situation might be, it will take far more than a tiny minority of an already small part of the population discussing the loss of the ability to practise their hobby of choice in a Royal Park to bring about the downfall of the Monarchy....

 

So what has been done - outside of this forum - to bring the matter to public discussion?

What percentage of London cachers have signed the petition?

Link to post

The parks are private property - albeit the property of the Crown. (A few people on this forum seem to have a problem differentiating between crown property and state owned property). There is no law allowing them to stop any activity because there is no law, Act of Parliament, or local by-law giving anybody the right to carry out any activity there in the first place. The public have no more right to be there than you would to enter your local MP's back garden without his consent - just because he is your local MP. I would be the first to agree that property belonging to the crown is no more rightfully theirs than any other property taken by force - but unfortunately, until such time as we are a republic, we are stuck with the law as it is.

The Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997 (as mentioned by Mongoose) does have the list of powers and restrictions. The point is that the Parks only have powers because of laws like this, not some natural right to stop any activity on a whim just because they own or manage the place. It's not like someone's back garden, where you can claim rights to privacy. I'm not arguing that they have no powers to stop activities, just that they don't extend to "They have every right to stop whatever activity they wish to, without having to offer any explanation whatsoever". They have to quote the relevant Regulation, to demonstrate that they have the power to stop the activity (so they can try to stop you playing a banjo, for instance, under Regulation 4(9); but if you show that you have written permission then they'll have to allow you to continue).

 

Unfortunately there's no tongue in cheek smiley available on this forum - read it in context! :o

OK, I get it! :lol::angry:

Link to post

Sorry, but I really fail to see what people are getting so het up about. Geocaches are only supposed to be placed with the permission of the landowner, and any landowner is well within his rights to remove such permission at any time, without having to give a reason.

The Royal Parks, have for whatever reason, decided to refuse permission, and thus any caches placed there have to be removed. This is something that they are perfectly entitled to do. Get over it, there is plenty more countryside out there. I fully appreciate that placing a full size cache in a city is difficult, but that as they say, is life.

 

Richard

Have you cached or tried to set up a cache in London??? If you have you will realise how hard it is to set up anything other than a nano in the big smoke???? These Parks are a bonus to hide a proper cache.... and we own them. They belong to us..... MaxKim.

Link to post

As for

Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire and Peterborough (2900 hectares)
sorry but in the case of that Landowner. A Cache Owner who placed a cache on their land without Permission, and a cacher(s) who trampled Bluebells whilst searching for that cache caused the Landowner to Ban Geocaching on their Land. This affected one cacher who had obtained permission off them for several caches. So effectively alienating a Landowner who was prepared to give permission for geocaching on their land.

 

So it's a case of a failure to obtain permission caused the ban, which is not a situation the Royal Park caches were in, having permission off the Individual Parks Managers.

 

Also the Royal Parks are Managed by the State, via a Executive Agency! And not by the Crown Estates who manage Crown Property. The Crown Estate Properties are not the private property of the Monarch nor do they belong to the State, but are held "In Trust" by the Monarch, with all generated revenues going to the State.

 

To quote from the Crown Estates Web site

 

Does The Crown Estate manage the Royal Parks?

 

Windsor Great Park is the only Royal Park that is managed by The Crown Estate. All other Royal Parks are administered by The Royal Parks agency.

 

And the Regulations covering the Royal Parks, list the Secretary of State as the Person giving Written Permission. So it would seem that Rt Hon Ben Bradshaw MP Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport. Is the person who ultimately needs to give Permission for geocaching in the Royal Parks [until he is replaced by another MP by the Government in power at that time]

 

Deci

Link to post

 

1. People leaving "packages" in the Parks could represent a serious security issue, because the Parks frequently host "ceremonial or other high profile events" (note that there's no mention that this has ever been a problem, just that it "could" be).

 

 

Indeed. Such as GC21CHZ :angry:

 

If you can't beat them, join them! :o

Link to post

And the Regulations covering the Royal Parks, list the Secretary of State as the Person giving Written Permission. So it would seem that Rt Hon Ben Bradshaw MP Secretary of State for Culture, Media & Sport. Is the person who ultimately needs to give Permission for geocaching in the Royal Parks [until he is replaced by another MP by the Government in power at that time]

Thanks for that. I take back what I said earlier about keeping central government out of this since your post suggests that they have taken direct control of the aspect in question.

 

Petition signed.

 

Geoff

Link to post
I don't think anybody in here is saying you just have to put up with it...

 

Then I have misread certain posts; apologies.

 

Absurd as the situation might be, it will take far more than a tiny minority of an already small part of the population discussing the loss of the ability to practise their hobby of choice in a Royal Park to bring about the downfall of the Monarchy....

 

:o True enough. But what's to stop cachers simply ignoring the bureaucrats and placing caches in Royal Parks anyway? If even that tiny degree of confrontation brings a tremor of fear to Groundspeak's business plan gurus, then so be it - the caches can be listed elsewhere.

Link to post
I don't think anybody in here is saying you just have to put up with it...

 

Then I have misread certain posts; apologies.

 

Absurd as the situation might be, it will take far more than a tiny minority of an already small part of the population discussing the loss of the ability to practise their hobby of choice in a Royal Park to bring about the downfall of the Monarchy....

 

:D True enough. But what's to stop cachers simply ignoring the bureaucrats and placing caches in Royal Parks anyway? If even that tiny degree of confrontation brings a tremor of fear to Groundspeak's business plan gurus, then so be it - the caches can be listed elsewhere.

 

you related to that vicar tha advocates shoplifting?

Link to post

Just for information, Royal Parks have permitted Rat Races to use their grounds (see http://www.ratraceadventure.com/page27.asp ), and I'm pretty sure there have been orienteering races in various Royal Parks. However, Rat Races (urban adventure races) and orienteering involve many people (up to 100s) visiting certain points over a relatively short period of time (few hours), with control boxes present for only slightly longer than the event itself.

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...