...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...