WANTED underground surveys of Merstham and Chaldon areas

[Roger Cook]

What happened? I thought you wanted to talk about surveys?

Please stop going off topic Hole-in-the-rock.

 

[axbridgecaver]

This is an exact copy of the text that was sent to the CSCC -

Dear Mr Chairman,
> please be advised that Quarry Dean Farm, Merstham is
> being advertised on your Website as being open until
> 15th April 2005.
>
> Take notice that the land is not at the moment, nor
> will it be in the future open to cavers or members
> of the public without the written consent of the
> land owners, my family.
>
> WCMS were served notice by our solicitors that the
> land is off bounds. NOW not sometime in April!
>
> I ask you politely to put the correct information on
> your website within the next 24 hours, as we do not
> want a multitude of people trampling over our land,
> with what appears to be your clubs blessing and
> approval. Notices barring all and sundry from our
> land were put up about 3 weeks ago and the cave
> entrances were locked up by myself.
>
> I have taken a hard copy of your web pages which I
> shall be passing on to our Solicitor tomorrow, along
> with my request to you
>
> Should you need confirmation, please either e-mail
> me and I will happily get my Solicitor to serve you
> the same notice.
>
> Or you could ask the WCMS Chairman for his copy of
> the letter my solicitor sent dated 07 March 2005
> from Buttler David Grey & Co. I feel sure you may
> even hear him blush as you request the information.
>
>
> I thank you for any co-operation you may give in
> this matter.
>
> Martin Harrison

Here was my reply -


The CSCC “News” web page has been amended to –

"All caving access rights have been removed by the landowners for Football Field also known as No4 and Quarry Dean Farm also known as No2 . Any person found on site will be prosecuted by the land agents"

I think that just a request to amend the page would have been sufficient – you did not need to threaten with legal action.

 

[Roger Cook]

Axbridge Caver:

The threatening undertones in that email seem very familar......

Very interesting!

 

[hole_in_the_rock]

Mine Explorer,
I thank you for the interest you are showing.

I shall try my best to answer all your questions, though some will be with questions in return, not just for you to ponder over, but also for the other readers.

The politeness shown to WCMS by the owners solicitor is no more than anyone would expect to get if before his death, the owner had found out that WCMS were not keeping an eye on the property as they had stated in a letter to him, but were running it as a going concern. His whole side of the family looked into WCMS and found many things had gone on without their family members permission. It is not just these few things mentioned here. There were other occasions when the landowner had written to some of the historical societies, insisting that they contact him to arrange access to his own land. He found out just before his death that the reason they made no contact regarding access was because WCMS had allowed them access. It was known to the family that he wanted to find out more and take action to stop any further invasion of his property, not only by WCMS, but anyone stupid enough to have listened when WCMS said they had access rights.
Perhaps WCMS were not aware that they were not wanted, as they did not make contact for permissions and allowed others who knew they needed permissions to use the land anyway.


The quotes I used were from a letter from the SMA to the deceased owner.

Commercial:
adj.

Of or relating to commerce

commerce

noun {U}

the activities involved in buying and selling things.

A trip to the mines:
Temporary insurance and membership are not charged at cost, an admin charge is made, and the coffers fill up slowly with monies gained for these things. Commerce.


Presumably the permission..... please do not presume, that is why this thread has got so long. I do not mean this nastily. I have said that WCMS did not have proper permission to use this land, and they have not proved this wrong in any way shape or form. They have offered not one scrap of proof, because they have none, as access rights were not given to them by the previous owner or the new owner.


I feel I have answered the next bit about deceased owners, permission that they never gave and so on. How can WCMS not be responsible when they allowed things to happen on the land whilst claiming to hold the access rights to it? They have written about numerous events that WCMS allowed to happen, not the Pope, or your nextdoor neighbours cat, but WCMS said could go on. Please explain how you work out they are not responsible for their own actions and those they encouraged to go there? Because once again I am at a loss.

My question about under 18's has very little to do with Merstham and has nothing to do with the Scouts. I shall enlighten you a little. Two of the archaeology group that I am in, are under 18 and we have been hoping to go to the mines for a little research of our own (been waiting so long that there used to be four!). The owners required that I check all the legalities, insurances etc before considering access, and the forum was a good starting point for information.

Is it really odd behaviour to ask what others know about a situation? I know the owners, this does not mean that I contact them every day, or spend every day contacting them, especially not after a death in their family. A letter of condolance certainly, the odd phone call, maybe, but worry a greiving family who had much to deal with, not me.
When contact was made I asked about any surveys they had for the area, and was told about matters previously discussed here. They said that if i could get one from one of the cavers off the Internet, I could have a look at it. This was not commissioning me to be their representative.

The "T" word?

 

[Roger Cook]

Two of the archaeology group that I am in, are under 18 and we have been hoping to go to the mines for a little research of our own (been waiting so long that there used to be four!). The owners required that I check all the legalities, insurances etc before considering access, and the forum was a good starting point for information.

Please! I can't take any more of this!

You mean YOU can't go to the mines to survey them, but you may be allowed by the owners to take some young archaeologists there, AFTER the mines have been closed to ALL. Please! Tell us more.

The hole you are digging is so deep now, I don't think there is a rescue team in the country with enough equipment to rescue you! Assuming, of course, that they want to!

Fantastic! (Look that up in the dictionary!)

 

[hole_in_the_rock]

axbridge caver,
That is not a solicitor letter is it? It is a copy of an email from one of the family.

So CSCC got asked to stop advertising that the site was open, when it was not open.
I'm not surprised that the owners would want this corrected to stop further intrusion of their land. Imagine discovering WCMS advertising it, then the CSCC effectively saying that people still had time to go there.

Perhaps these caving clubs should not misreport important facts, that could cause owners further distress through further unauthorised access.

Once again a caving club lays blame for their own shortcommings on someone else.
Who initially told CSCC that the mines were open until 15th april, because it is their fault that the site gave the wrong information, not mine, not the Pope's, not Martin Harrison's, not Roger Cook on Sub Brit not the landowners, but the idiot that gave the wrong info in the first place.

So your point is what? A landowner got annoyed that their private land was being advertised, and wrongly at that.

FAIR PLAY TO THE OWNERS!

 

[hole_in_the_rock]

Roger Cook wrote:

Nothing that made any sense to those who know that I have already said that I am waiting for resolutions with the owners before any access can take place, and in no way suggested that I am going to get access.

Roger (Troll) Cook will now be ignored, write what you like Roger, as I refuse to let your stupidity prompt me to make the thread longer by replying to your nonsense.

 

[Roger Cook]

Well, you've ignored the advice of everyone else here, so I don't actually feel on my own here. Whatever I write may, of course be read by others, remember.

Sleep well.

 

[Roger Cook]

Hi everyone!

Hole-in-the-rock said:

So your point is what?

The point is, (and I know you can't resist reading this) that threatening legal action against the CSCC on the first occasion the owner contacted them was unnecessary. A polite request is all that is necessary to get things done. The Harrison family you know so well clearly have the idea that the best way to get things done is by throwing their weight around. It's not the Harrison family I remember. What has happened?

 

[Mine Explorer]

Mine Explorer,


The politeness shown to WCMS by the owners solicitor is no more than anyone would expect to get if before his death, the owner had found out that WCMS were not keeping an eye on the property as they had stated in a letter to him, but were running it as a going concern.

Now I am interested. In what way were WCMS running Merstam as a going concern? Tourist trips at £12 a head leaving on the hour, every hour???

If someone wishes to visit a site with a club where insurance is required it is usual for them to gain temporary membership of the BCA scheme, this costs money, but if someone already has insurance then that would not be required.


Of course, having received a less than polite letter from the landowner's solicitor, I am not surprised that WCMS have no wish to represent the landowner in approaching the owner of modern mine surveys and asking for copies on the landowner's behalf.

His whole side of the family looked into WCMS and found many things had gone on without their family members permission. It is not just these few things mentioned here. There were other occasions when the landowner had written to some of the historical societies, insisting that they contact him to arrange access to his own land. He found out just before his death that the reason they made no contact regarding access was because WCMS had allowed them access.

So I presume the landowners are now pursuing the historical societies just as vociferously for not complying with their direct wishes by visiting the site in the company of WCMS rather than writing directing to the landowners as they had been explicitly directed to do so.

It was known to the family that he wanted to find out more and take action to stop any further invasion of his property

Perhaps WCMS were not aware that they were not wanted, as they did not make contact for permissions

Perhaps they weren't aware.
Perhaps that was because in previous correspondance with the late landowners they had not been told they were not wanted and the relationship between both parties had been harmonious, to the extent that WCMS didn't need to keep asking for permissions.

During the period of better relations, the late landowner must have been aware that WCMS were visiting the site on numerous occasions without constantly seeking futher permission? If he was not happy with this state of affairs then he could have mentioned it in one of his letters to WCMS that you say exist. Given that this did not occur, it is hardly surprising WCMS continued to visit without constantly asking for further permission.


As you appear to have access to the late landowner's correspondance you might be in a better position to know the form of relationship that exisited. Of course, if all you have to go on is formal written letters, then you may be missing part of the story. It is possible that further clarifications or requests were discussed verbally. The late landowner is no longer with us to confirm or deny this. As I doubt he had any plans to die, I wouldn't be surprised if the content of some conversations wasn't passed on to the landowner's surviving family either.

The quotes I used were from a letter from the SMA to the deceased owner.

Blimey. You must be on exceedingly good terms with the deceased owner's family for them to give you copies of private correspondance to quote on here, especially as you do not represent them.

Commercial:
adj.

Of or relating to commerce

commerce

noun {U}

the activities involved in buying and selling things.

I suppose you could say that a club 'sells' membership to it's members. But that's a very tenuoius link to claim the club is then a commercial organisation. As for insurance? Currently that is provided by BCA. Members of most clubs in the UK purchase the insurance through BCA at cost. It costs clubs money to gain insurance, they don't make money from it. So I still fail to see how you classify WCMS as a commercial organisation.

Presumably the permission..... please do not presume, that is why this thread has got so long.

Quite, you presumed everyone would belive your carefully crafted words that, whilst not lying, do not give the whole picture.

I do not mean this nastily. I have said that WCMS did not have proper permission to use this land, and they have not proved this wrong in any way shape or form. They have offered not one scrap of proof, because they have none, as access rights were not given to them by the previous owner or the new owner.

Well, very wisely WCMS have decided not to be drawn into on-line correspondance concerning the site with an unknown third party who does not represent the landowners. In this respect we have no idea what proof of permission WCMS have. For all you or I (or even the current landowners) know, WCMS may have a letter from the late MW Harrison giving them permission to do exactly as they please on the land.

So far you have not been able to provide any proof that WCMS were not given permission to access the mines, and your whole argument seems to be that WCMS were operating outside the permissions to visit that they were given. You claim that there was no permission granted when the surveys were carried out 'many years ago', yet from what you've written it seems that 'many years ago' WCMS was on reasonable terms with the then landowners and did have permission to visit.

I feel I have answered the next bit about deceased owners, permission that they never gave and so on. How can WCMS not be responsible when they allowed things to happen on the land whilst claiming to hold the access rights to it?

I'm sorry, I can't see where WCMS have claimed to control the access rights. You have of course quoted WCMS saying that they don't hold control of access, they keep an informal eye on who is using the site. Presumably as a fellow caver you will be aware that it is normal for visitors from elsewhere in the country to visit sites as the 'guests' of clubs who have arranged permission with landowners.

My question about under 18's has very little to do with Merstham and has nothing to do with the Scouts.

My mistake then. You have mentioned the scouts in relation to Merstham and WCMS a number of times. I obviously made a wrong connection.

Is it really odd behaviour to ask what others know about a situation? I know the owners, this does not mean that I contact them every day, or spend every day contacting them, especially not after a death in their family.

In the intervening months you would seem to have spent an awful lot of time "contacting" them. You seem to be intimately aware of all permissions the current landowners are aware have and haven't been granted. You seem to know the complete life history of WCMS, all it's activities and members. You have been given copies of correspondance between the landowner and WCMS so you can post extracts on here....

A letter of condolance certainly, the odd phone call, maybe, but worry a greiving family who had much to deal with, not me.

Do you mind me asking when the late landowner actually passed away? You obviously saw the signs go up and after a couple of weeks or so still didn't know why. For the landowner to pass so much information to you now, I would suggest your relationship is a bit more than you just 'know' them. I still find it exceedingly hard to believe that you thought asking on this forum about gossip was a better way of finding out what had happened than tactfully and compassionately contacting the new landower and either asking for permission to visit the site yourself, or just bluntly asking what was going on.

The "T" word?

"T"rouble maker?


So far I have not seen anything in your posts that gives me the impression you are being totally straight with us. On virtually all occasions you've subsequently posted information that either contradicts what you've already said, or significantly changes the meaning or inference of what you've previously posted.

You may not be the landowner, but based on the obvious trust the landowner places in you - you aren't the 'Martin Harrison', mentioned in a previous posting are you? ...Or are you some other relative of the late landowner's family?

Perhaps the 'T' word I was thinking of was 'Troll', having gone away to research the origins of the phrase, it seems to fit rather well. I've seen the phrase "don't feed the trolls" before, I think I'm fast understanding why!





PS: I keep seeing spelling mistakes - one day I'll lurn ow 2 spul

 

[Mine Explorer]

Whoops - I appear to have double posted... second copy now removed!

 

[cap n chris]

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?

I never mentioned a letter! - I originally observed that... "According to minutes of the CSCC May 2005 meeting there was a threat of legal action from the landowners' solicitor - why?". The word "letter" does not feature in this sentence.

I was looking at the May 2005 CSCC Minutes "9.4 - Merstham Stone Mines & Chaldon Bottom Quarry (p.4):

..."On 17th March AG received a tersely worded email from the landowner threatening legal action if the CSCC website details were not amended further"

I take the expression "A tersely worded email from the landowner threatening legal action..." to be the equivalent of my original observation that "there was a threat of legal action from the landowners' solicitor". I suppose it's easy to confuse the two but then there are a lot of things in life which are confusing.

 

[hole_in_the_rock]

My thanks to the anonymous sender of
QDFMAP.JPG showing the lower workings survey.

Have you any for the other parts of this area please?

 

[Mine Explorer]

Given that private messages tell you the user name of the sender - even if you don't know who that may be. May I suggest you try a PM as it might produce a quicker response for you.

 

[graham]

My thanks to the anonymous sender of
QDFMAP.JPG showing the lower workings survey.

Have you any for the other parts of this area please?

Induge me: you don't know who sent this thing to you and it cannot have been sent by email without you knowing the sender - as your email address is not in your profile.

So how did it get to you?

 

[Darko]

Hole-in-the-rock wrote
<Quote>Perhaps WCMS were not aware that they were not wanted, as they did not make contact for permissions and allowed others who knew they needed permissions to use the land anyway<quote>


Hmmmmmm, I wonder who you are.

 

[hole_in_the_rock]

Graham wrote:

Induge me: you don't know who sent this thing to you and it cannot have been sent by email without you knowing the sender - as your email address is not in your profile.

So how did it get to you?

Printed ou on A2 paper via Snail mail. Obviously it is from someone who has met me recently, and has my details. This brings the list down to members of:

WCMS,
Sub Brit,
Chelsea Speleology,
Croydon Caving Club,
Historic Palaces,
Highways Agency,
Scouts (not just the local scouts),
One of the surveyors,
Surrey County Council,
Reigate & Banstead Council,
Reigate police,
Guildford Museum,
Croydon Natural History and Scientific Society,
The Bourne Society,
Surrey Archaeology Society,
English Heritage,
Landowners,
National Association of Mining History Organisations,
The Charities Commission,
Railway enthusiasts,
The BBC,
Various universities,
Other caving/mining/exploring clubs,
The BCA,
The CBA,


To name but a few that could have sent such.

Please remember that the owners knew nothing about this invasion of their property, and numerous communications have been sent by them and me in connection with the situation, so it could be anyone.

 

[andymorgan]

Tut, tut. I hope it was the owner of the copyright who sent it to you. If not I'm sure from the high moral ground that you take that you would not condone such 'unlawful behaviour'.

 

[hole_in_the_rock]

Andymorgan wrote:

Tut, tut. I hope it was the owner of the copyright who sent it to you. If not I'm sure from the high moral ground that you take that you would not condone such 'unlawful behaviour'.

I have no reason to suspect that the person sending it did not have the rights to do so, and have no way to check up.

I apprecaite you saying about the moral high ground. It is about time someone in the community acknowledged that higher morals can be acheived by certain members of the caving community.

 

[cap n chris]

As the last Tory government discovered, the problem is no-one knows what morals are - it's a commonly used word that defies easy definition.