WANTED underground surveys of Merstham and Chaldon areas

[andymorgan]

We can only wonder why they will not give the details that they would not have had without the use of the land? unless they did not have the use of the land and the surveys were done unlawfully?

Why were the surveys done 'unlawfully'. If you were refering to trespass: as Mine Explorer has already said, trespass is only a civil offence.

There is, somewhat worryingly as regards to English law, little a landowner can do against a trespasser once the trespass has already occurred.

 

[Roger Cook]

There is, somewhat worryingly as regards to English law, little a landowner can do against a trespasser once the trespass has already occurred.

... assuming, of course, that a trespass took place in the first place.

Many years ago, I obtained a survey of these workings, and I know the work was done by cavers who were exploring and studying the mines with the full knowledge of the owner who lived close by. That's what they told me, and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt them. Read my earlier missive if you want some background to my involvement in this place.

So no trespass took place (as far as I can work out), and now a new owner has emerged, who seems hell bent on causing trouble. Look back at the posts of hole_in_the_rock, and of my namesake in the uk.rec.subterranea newsgroup, and I hope you are astute enough to realise what is going on.

If you thought that someone had trespassed in your house twenty years before you bought it, what possible legal grounds could you have to prosecute them anyway?

 

[Mine Explorer]

It is so easy to try to change the wording of someones posts to suit when you grab just a few words of each sentance or paragraph.

I'm sorry if you feel I have grossly misrepresented your posts.

My intention was to highlight self contained statements you had made during your previous posts, not to assemble a new paragraph to be read as a self contained unit. I can only suggest anyone else interested in following this thread read back through from the start for themselves, that way they will be able to see everything in context and reach their own conclusions.

Obviously you had not worked out that one owner did not have much chance to look into WCMS's activities after receiving their letter because he went and died suddenly very shortly afterwards.

As someone who has never been to the south east of England, and who has no involvement with WCMS, I'm afraid I can only draw from the information you have given us in this thread. I was not aware the landowner in question had died in the last year, since WCMS had written to him.

As once again I can only go on what you've told us. I have no idea how much the late owner looked into WCMS activities between received their letter informing him they had been working on his land for the previous 9 years, when the late landowner sent WCMS a letter in response that doesn't appear to have told them to stop what they were doing, and when the now late landowner passed away. I can only think that if he was unaware of, and concerned by, WCMS' use of the land when he saw their letter, he may have told them so in his reply and asked them to explain what they had been doing on his land.

 

[hole_in_the_rock]

Lets all take a deep breath and start again, hopefully my distaste for the situation will not cloud my ramblings.

WCMS have been asked by the owners of Quarry Dean Farm, to supply details of all their activity and permissions gained for said activities since WCMS formed in 1991, after discovering that WCMS had not been

keeping an INFORMAL eye on the volume of visitors to the mine, and the condition of the site

but had in fact been the club arranging all the activities that they (the owners) knew nothing about.
This is strange, as

two of our prerequisites for activities by professional or commercial bodies to be acceptable are that permission has been sought from the owner, and that such visits do not become a regular event.

So when WCMS informed the owners of their regular evening trips, and the weekend trips with scouts, did they, WCMS, not notice that one owner was missing? Surely someone must have noticed that requests for permission were not being answered? Or did no member of WCMS or any other club bother with the prerequisites that WCMS claim they required?


Roger Cook, you deserve an apology from me for calling you an old fart. It was not very charitable of me. I do not expect you to accept, but it is a start towards releasing the doves and passing olive branches.
I will accept that you think of MW Harrison was a friend, although you "knew him" mainly through correspondance, and not the way that his real friends knew him. Therfore you would not know what people who knew him in the flesh would call him, as you were only an aquaintance.
He did not allow every caver to his property, and went as far as to keep journals about the cavers. However WCMS were born some 19 years after his death, so we are diverting away from the original request about surveys.


Cap 'n Chris did write:

Traff, you may previously not have heard of Merstham, WCMS, Surrey or Europe but that doesn't mean these topics are not of extreme emotive meaning to those people who have. The relevance of this thread to you is probably not high but its relevance to many other people is therefore I, for one, am keen to see the issue(s) resolved and if this thread can help achieve that, no matter how long it may take, then let things continue towards that ultimate goal.... all in a friendly way, of course.

I too had hoped that the initial question would meet with somekind of start towards a begining of communication between the people using the land and the owners of the said land. A few simple surveys would go a long way, as these were some of the first activities that WCMS were involed with.
It's the starting point that the owners wish to procede from. The begining of WCMS's use of the land.

If there was nothing sinister in WCMS's use and no hidden agendas by WCMS why will they not share any data that they collected from these peoples lands (with the owners, as repeatedly requested)?


Andymorgan writes:

Why were the surveys done 'unlawfully'. If you were refering to trespass: as Mine Explorer has already said, trespass is only a civil offence.

There is, somewhat worryingly as regards to English law, little a landowner can do against a trespasser once the trespass has already occurred.

So the club should have no worries about giving the owners a copy of the surveys then.


Roger Cook writes:

You have made a great noise about how important it is for people to ask permission of owners before doing things on their land. You expect those who want to do things to ask before doing them. I think we understand that.

But do you expect them to continually ask to find out if the owner is still alive? Of course not, it would the height of rudeness.

Do you know if the owners looked through recent correspondence to make sure all people who should know about their unfortunate loss were told of it? A loss in the family is a very distressing matter. Things get overlooked. But things also need to be addressed. One of those is to let people know. Its something I have had to do, more than once.

As far as I know, the family had no need to look for letters about cavers and clubs using the land, as the Surrey Mines Agent letter stated that permission would be sought before activities. So when the next activity was planned by WCMS they, WCMS, would have attempted contact with the owner, and discovered this sad loss, and could have asked the new owner for permission. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the owners were not contacted for any permissions. *****

However, I will ask them (if they are not already reading this) why they had not found the letter from WCMS Surrey Mines Agent immediately after the owners death, and worked out that the SMA was telling porkies about the way WCMS will always require permission from the owners before any activities are allowed.
Do you really think they should have realised that WCMS SMA was economical with the truth, and should have contacted them to make sure that WCMS had not overlooked permissions too?
Fantastic! With morals and attitudes like that it is hardly surprising that the owners are banning everyone at the moment. It appears that no-one gives a damn about the way the deceased owner and his successor have been duped by this very well known club.


****It is known that S Goldsmith (WCMS member) made contact early this year, after access had been denied to all and was told that until the owners know the extent of the use of the property by WCMS, the workings will remain closed. So they have asked this year.

 

[Mine Explorer]

I am intrigued. You've quoted sections of text beginning "keeping an INFORMAL eye on the volume..." and "two of our prerequisites for activities by professional or commercial bodies ....". I've searched through the preceeding posts to see the context in which these had previously been used - I can't seem to find them.

Either way, the text you're quoting gives the impression that additional permissions will be sought prior to any activities on the land by professional or commercial bodies. I accept that the scouts might be viewed as a professional organisation, but otherwise I would tend to think of these as being outdoor centres and the such like who would make money out of activities on the land, rather than WCMS itself. Perhaps WCMS thought their "day-to-day" visits to the site were made using the permission they'd already sought prior to the late partner's death... although that would very much have to depend on the permission itself. If we use your quote, assuming WCMS weren't on the land for commercial purposes, that might explain their lack of contact for yet more explicit permission each time they went. Since the people who originally gave consent would appear to have passed away, I suspect it is a subtly we're unlikely to find great details about, especially if it was only made verbally.

From your post, am I right in guessing that the problem isn't that WCMS 'have never had permission to visit', but that since one of the stake holders passed away (which was after a letter and response were exhanged in 2004, but prior to spring 2005,) the new joint landowner who has inherited a stake in the land (presumably his family?) have not been contacted by WCMS, and it is they who have not given permission and now have an issue with WCMS' presence?

I suppose WCMS' decision on how to handle this matter might have been influenced by the way in which the issue was originally brought to their attention. Initial agression by otherwise reasonably people often seems to be met by agression as a defence by other, equally reasonable people. If any solicitors have got involved along the way, well, they aren't exactly known for writing polite letters now are they!? Unfortunately, which ever 'reasonable party' we ask now, they are both likely to say they were being perfectly reasonable at the time, and it was 'the other one' who has blown it all out of proportion. <shrug>

 

[Mine Explorer]

One final thought has occurred to me, and this relates to your original request for a survey.

You say WCMS was formed in 1991.

Roger said that the surveys were carried out "many years ago". I wasn't born when the late M.W Harrison died, so that puts me much younger than Mr. Cook. But I don't tend to refer to 1991 as "many years ago". I would guess for someone older than myself this phrase would also be further back - perhaps in the 1980's?

If this is the case, then WCMS wasn't in existance when the surveys were produced. The official statement from "sma" earlier has told us that the surveys do not belong to WCMS, so on this basis WCMS aren't in a position to give copies to the landowner whether they wanted to or not.

Whether WCMS are prepared to act as an agent for the landowner and approach the owner of the surveys to request a copy? - That's a different question.

 

[graham]

What a complete pile of dogshit this entire thread is. I cannot believe that someone who is asking for assistance from cavers would spend so much time being sarcastic about cavers. :?

Trespass is a civil matter, no-one who has been down these mines need worry about any legal comeback unless they have caused any damage - and that can be proven.

Copyright is another thing completely and I am damned sure that I would not hand my copyright material to someone who has been so "difficult".

Hole in the Wall - if you want a survey of these mines then I suggest that you go and survey them.

 

[axbridgecaver]

Please could hole_in_the_rock answer this question -

Are you one of the owners of the mine?

 

[Roger Cook]

Hole-in-the-rock:

Fantastic! With morals and attitudes like that it is hardly surprising that the owners are banning everyone at the moment. It appears that no-one gives a damn about the way the deceased owner and his successor have been duped by this very well known club.

Your olive branch only seems to have been extended to people posting on this thread and not to the people you are still banging on about. When it is clear you have cleared the decks of all bad feelings, we might just start to trust you and what you write.

I would like to address something that I think has probably been conveniently overlooked by Mr Hole-in-the-rock or the landowner he claims to represent.

I have the definitive facts on when WCMS was formed!

This is important, well, Hole_in_the_rock thinks it is. Go and read the other forum where he posted under a different name - search Google Groups for Merstham, with author = Roger Cook. Yes, confusing isn't it? Let me explain. Roger Cook on this forum is me. Roger Cook in the other forum isn't me.

I have a letter from WCMS (not written recently, and certainly nothing to do with the matter being discussed here, before you ask) and at the top it says "Wealden Cave and Mine Society, founded 1967, formerly known as Unit Two Cave Research and Exploration". Now Mr Hole-in-the-rock (or the new owner) may like to claim this is just one more piece of clever deceipt by WCMS, carefully arranged many years ago just in case someone ever questioned their origins.

If they need further evidence, let me direct them (Mr H and the new owner etc etc) to a publication, called "Cave and Quarry" issue 2, which was written to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the society in 1992! And in that publication you can read that the name of the society was changed from Unit Two Cave Research and Exploration, to its present name. Charitable status was sought soon afterwards. Perhaps Mr Hole-in-the-rock might deny knowing this, but he seems to have done a great deal of research, and would surely not have missed a history of the society when browsing through the WCMS website, and which he apparently can still do as the owners took a copy of it!

I have read this club history, having printed a copy of it for myself from the website, as it mentions a few names of people from the past who I remember.

Let me quote briefly. Almost at the very end of the section "looking to the future" where the 1990 Unit Two AGM is reported, we read "the meeting was reassured that our members could carry on sport caving without the fear that a Charity Commissioner would jump out and confiscate their karabiners. A new name of Wealden Cave and Mine Society was approved."

I am waiting with baited breath to see what Mr Hole-in-the-rock has to say now.

Oh, and in case you think I haven't got a shed load more stuff to say, just wait.... There's plenty more where this came from!! But its been a long weekend, and I must give my poor brain a rest.

And we must give Mr Hole-in-the-rock a chance to think carefully.

 

[hole_in_the_rock]

Wow, a few replies to do.

Axbridgecaver wrote:

Are you one of the owners of the mine?

Already answered in the thread, but to save you time. No I am not one of the owners, but have known their family for many years

Roger Cook wrote:

I have a letter from WCMS (not written recently, and certainly nothing to do with the matter being discussed here, before you ask) and at the top it says "Wealden Cave and Mine Society, founded 1967, formerly known as Unit Two Cave Research and Exploration".

A quote from Unit 2 newletter 1990 #3 goes like this:

Club News — Winter 1990 — Peter Burgess
AGM Decision Heralds a Bright Future
The 1990 Unit Two AGM was largely taken up by discussions over a new constitution, including a change in name for the club, and the club's future. For those not there who have not yet heard, we are now officually known as the "Wealden Cave and Mine Society". It is thought that this name best reflects the nature of the club's activities, and the geographical distribution of our members.

Oh and a bit more from the same news letter:

The Secretary has the job of informing many clubs, regional councils, individuals and other authorities of our name. This is an excellent opportunity to blow our trumpet, and maybe make some new contacts. Please don't leave everything to the committee. There is much that you can do. The most useful thing would be to talk to people you know and tell them that we are now the 'Wealden'. For those who are a little sad about losing the name 'Unit Two', please reflect that the name is certain to live on. Sweatshirts still have a few years left in them, the club's printed matter will bear the phrase 'founded in 1967 as Unit Two Cave Research and Exploration' for many years, and those of us who have been with the club for a long time will probably never stop calling it 'Unit Two', just out of pure habit.

Ermmm, So what was it you were saying Roger Cook? more where that came from was it? Please do not bother.
Now can we please get back to the matter of the surveys?

As Roger Cook has so much knowledge and has the data that they have left on their site, he will no doubt have read about the underground diving that took place between 1990 and 1992 that facilitated in WCMS and the divers discovering the original entrance to the workings. These features and others that they found, were added to previous surveys.

So once again conflicting information offered to you all by Roger Cook and I.

If I said they were orange, I have no doubt that Roger Cook would say they are green

 

[Roger Cook]

Ermmm, So what was it you were saying Roger Cook?

Thank you for confirming to us that you (and, we assume, the people you claim to represent) did know that WCMS is actually Unit Two with a new name. I don't know why you chose to bring it up anyway.

As Roger Cook has so much knowledge and has the data that they have left on their site

Eh? How do you work that out?

Thanks, I suspect, to you (or the people you claim to represent) having intimidated WCMS into removing their newsletters from their website, I, and everyone else with a genuine interest in old mines can no longer see all the work that has been done, not only at Quarry Dean but many other places as well.

Fortunately I do know a thing or two. :wink:

Now can we please get back to the matter of the surveys?

Glad to.

Consider the following:

Ownership of copyright : not WCMS (see sma post above)

Obligation to pass on copyrighted intellectual property : none

Likelihood of getting what you want : depends how you ask. Being polite works for me.

If diving is involved perhaps we can excuse your reluctance to survey the place yourself. But why did you use the excuse that the owners won't let you visit the site? If you can be trusted with all the family correspondence on this, all the information they have copied from the WCMS site, and all the family background information, why won't they trust you to go to the mines? Sounds like a bit more bluster on your part rather than some simple honest truth-telling.

 

[Ouan]

Because of the OP's atitude there is now no chance that I would supply copies of the surveys.

 

[hole_in_the_rock]

I really should have read Roger Cooks post thoroughly before replying, but I had to go post a letter.

In reply to:

Your olive branch only seems to have been extended to people posting on this thread and not to the people you are still banging on about. When it is clear you have cleared the decks of all bad feelings, we might just start to trust you and what you write.

olive branch offered by way of asking said club to contact owner, and it is not me that has to make ammends, it's WCMS who have the problems.

Mr Cook feels that I am Roger, He is Roger, I am Roger elsewhere and he then stops being Roger. I am confused.


I do not claim to represent the owners, My God how you twist stuff to suit!
I was asked to enquire on this messageboard for a copy of the surveys that you dispute exist. And got into a discussion about what I know of the situation.

Thank you for confirming to us that you (and, we assume....

ASSUME: makes an ASS of U and ME. With so much data (as shed load no less) you should (all of you, as you use the word "we") not have to assume anything at all.

So are you Roger, or are you lots of Rogers, do you know who you are?

I, and everyone else with a genuine interest in old mines can no longer see all the work that has been done, not only at Quarry Dean but many other places as well.

Awwww the poor WCMS got a wittle bit intimidated did they, Awwww.
Was it intimidation that made them remove articles about Quarry Dean Farm, or a strongly worded letter of complaint from the owners solicitor?
Why would they use a solicitor if WCMS have done nothing wrong? For fun? Because they were bored or because the owners do have a legitimate problem with WCMS's use of the land?
Surely if they (WCMS), were so squeeky clean, the data would remain, the owners fears and problems with WCMS would be sorted and access might be given again.

It is not that the owners do not trust me that stops me from entering the workings, It is their express wishes that all problems are resolved before any access takes place. I am not a WCMS member, therefore the owners wishes matter to me, and I wait until such time that access is allowed again, if ever.

You RC on the otherhand are hell bent on making the original question disappear into a cloud of confusion for the readers, whilst actively TROLLING.
You obviously have nothing to do with WCMS and are stirring things up for them as much as I am.
My initial stirring was an explanation as to why the owners had asked for someone to enquire on the Internet for surveys that DID take place no matter how you try to convince people here otherwise. I did not realise that a few people might get upset, or feel intimidated as most the info I have posted is already in the public domain.

 

[cap n chris]

Why would they use a solicitor if WCMS have done nothing wrong? For fun?

According to minutes of the CSCC May 2005 meeting there was a threat of legal action from the landowners' solicitor - why? CSCC certainly didn't seem to have done anything "wrong" - at odds with the inference above that only organisations doing something wrong should have any concern about being pursued by people keen to resort to legal action.

 

[graham]

Chris is right about that: the first that most cavers knew of this "dispute" was when the CSCC chairman received a solicitor's letter from these guys. CSCC had done nothing wrong.

How to win friends and influence people - not. :roll:

 

[Roger Cook]

Calm down now, Hole_in_the_rock. I thought you wanted to get back to talking about surveys?

In case you missed it, the main point of my last post is repeated below:

Consider the following:

Ownership of copyright : not WCMS (see sma post above)

Obligation to pass on copyrighted intellectual property : none

Likelihood of getting what you want : depends how you ask. Being polite works for me.

 

[Roger Cook]

The two quotes below from Hole-in-the-rock say it all really.

One of the landowners of the area has asked me to see if anyone is willing to part with a copy of these surveys

I do not claim to represent the owners

Come on, sir, if you called a radio station phone in on behalf of your friend who "had a problem" you would be calling on their behalf, or "representing" them.

Don't play word games with us, pal.

 

[Roger Cook]

And finally, for now, please can someone explain to me how threatening CSCC with legal action is going to get WCMS to send them a survey?

I don't think I've lost the plot yet, but this one makes no sense at all.

That's three posts in a row! Don't get too confused please. That's my job. Looks in mirror. No, still Roger there.

 

[Mine Explorer]

...Was it intimidation that made them remove articles about Quarry Dean Farm, or a strongly worded letter of complaint from the owners solicitor?

Oh dear. Rather than a civilised friendly approach, it seems that it was thought appropriate to contact a solicitor and get strongly worded letters sent out to all and sundry. Given that solicitors don't tend to write polite letters, especially not 'strongly worded' ones, it's a shame the new landowners didn't try a slightly friendlier polite approach - they might have found WCMS a bit more accomodating to their requests.

I also see you've chosen to ignore my earlier posting at the bottom of page 3 where I questioned where in the thread you'd sourced the quotes stating (that presumably WCMS consider) "two of our prerequisites for activities by professional or commercial bodies to be acceptable are that permission has been sought from the owner". As I couldn't find where you'd quoted them from. At least when you felt I'd misquoted you, readers were able to go back and look at the original context of the quotes.


In the post you then used that same quote to ask why WCMS hadn't sought permission before visiting the site.

If I may remind you of the points I raised in my post. To me 'commercial' and 'professional' organisations describe the likes of outdoor centres, professional development/team building courses, commercial caver training courses etc. etc.... but not a caving club (such as WCMS).

You made the allegation that by not contacting the new landowner, or attempting to contact the deceased landowner, WCMS had not followed their own guideline (which you appear to have quoted to us) before visiting the site. As I suggested earlier - WCMS' day-to-day visits would not be an activity by a commercial body, so they would not need to seek further permission from the landowners to follow 'their own rules'.

Presumably the permission already granted by the landowners (prior to the death of one of them) was sufficient for WCMS' normal daily/weekly activities. As they would not need to keep contacting the landowners for these visits, they would not necessarily have known of the change in ownership. Even if they were aware, if the change in ownership had remained within the family following the death, presumably passing to the next of kin, why would WCMS suddenly think the permissions they'd been operated under previously would suddenly change?

It is obviously now clear they did change, and the current landowner is not happy with their presence. But perhaps a friendly personal contact would have got them further than a 'strongly worded' solicitors letter.

You alleged earlier in the thread that surveys had been undertaken in the past without permission. This also now seems to be a little wide of the mark when it appears explicit permission was only missing after the recent death of one of the partners in the land ownership, prior to the death the then landowner was aware of WCMS activities and didn't appear to stop them.

Finally, towards the top of the thread you said, and I hope I'm not quoting you out of context:

...the surveys that this club, (WCMS) claim to be responsible for....

It is clear that WCMS do not claim to be responsible for the surveys, as in their official response to this thread they stated that the surveys are not their property, they belong to someone else. (Who I assume also happens to be, or at least used to be, a WCMS member).


I also find your presence here slightly interesting as since joining you have only ever made posts regarding the Merstham site. Am I correct in assuming that your request for information regarding taking under 18s on trips was also related to WCMS' activities with Scout groups at Merstham?

Your status with the landowners also seems to have changed very rapidly. You have told us that you are not the landowner, that you do not represent the landowner, and that you have known the landowner's family for many years. From what you have told us it would seem that you are very well known and trusted by the landowner, as not only have they asked you to place posts on here on their behalf, but you've told us that they have shown you private correspondance they have had with WCMS.

Given all this information you've told us, it seems strange that on your first post to the forum you didn't know who was to blame for the closure of the Merstham site. Your only knowledge was that signs had been present for a number weeks, and you requested any other 'detectives' tell us what was going on if they knew more than you.

This seems very odd behaviour for someone so well known landowner and trusted by them. Your first reaction, rather than contact your friend, the landowner, is to register to an on-line discussion board and ask if anyone can help in your search for information. Time and again I keep thinking of the 'T' word...

 

[hole_in_the_rock]

Cap ,n Chris wrote about a solicitor contacting CSCC and uses the following record to back this up


The pdf. http://www.cscc.org.uk/Documents/CSCC_2005.05.07_Minutes.pdf

Read 9.4, from which it can be clearly seen that:
no solicitor letter was sent to the CSCC at all, and when the date for the mines closure was misreported, an e-mail was sent to CSCC asking them to sort out the mistake. It was sorted out and the person thanked them.

What section are you reading then?