UKC

It had to happen sooner or later.

This morning the two entrance points have been sealed off with bright orange plastic fencing, and there are three large new signs saying that trespassers will be prosecuted. The firm claiming resposibility for this, Red Side Ltd, seems unknown to Google.

If you want to access Fly Wall or any of the other crags legally (actually, Fly Wall is part of the property and therefore presumably off limits anyway), it has to be by the 'Easy Way Down' through the Central Bay, or by one of the longer routes from north or south via the Lancaut Walk. If you choose to do so illegally, please do not do so by the garden of the Old School House adjacent to the big gate.

BMC will doubtless pronounce at greater length in due course.

John Willson

In reply to John Willson:

That's really bad news. The routes in the quarry are cleaning up nicely. And Fly Wall is quality. Will watch to see what Red Side want to do..

In reply to John Willson:

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/453b9052deae96eeb6dd9ee4a490c7d4/compdeta...

Companies House gives:

Name & Registered Office:
REDSIDE LIMITED
15 MONYPENNY CLOSE
HADLOW
TONBRIDGE
KENT
TN11 0LG
Company No. 04181662

Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 16/03/2001

Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
9999 - Dormant Company
Accounting Reference Date: 31/03
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/03/2008 (DORMANT)
Next Accounts Due: 31/01/2010
Last Return Made Up To: 16/03/2009
Next Return Due: 13/04/2010
Last Members List: 16/03/2009

lsn

In reply to John Willson:

Someone has cut through one section of the orange plastic fencing already - that's not going to help us much...

Are the same signs present if you walk up from GO Wall?

In reply to gmico:

There is a phone number on the signs - 07828771218

I've not rung it - something for someone in authority to do?

In reply to John Willson: turned up there today and saw the fences! it's a real shame as it was great way to GO wall!

Thanks for the note - BMC will look into this.

Rgds
Guy Keating
BMC A&C

In reply to John Willson:

The split in the fence may or may not have been climbers. This has happened within a week or less of every previous attempt to seal off the quarry over the past 30 years. There are many local walkers, naturalists, etc. who have long prized this area as open land as much as have climbers. The BMC will continue to monitor the situation.

John

In reply to John Willson: On Saturday morning the fence was intact and appeared to have been newly put up, by the afternoon it had been ripped down. It's possible to squeeze around the side fairly easily so presumably it was destroyed for the sake of it or to make a point.

In reply to Alex C: What, the point that climbers don't give a toss and will commit criminal damage when they feel like it? Yeah nice one...

In reply to mike kann and others:

To recap: the fencing and notices went up early on Saturday 27 June. There are two sections, one to the left of the big gate and one closing the gap just along the path to the north. The latter was slit within hours. There is no evidence at all that this was done by climbers. Climbers have always been scapegoated in the past for similar happenings, but there are plenty of locals, naturalists, etc. who have long regarded this as 'open land'. Climbers are more likely to be able to find a way round without doing damage, whereas there are many walkers who will just remove any obstacle they find objectionable. This has all the hallmarks of a political statement rather than a pragmatic act, and does not accord at all with the long-term respect climbers have given to the Forbidden Wall ban and other restrictions hereabouts, and to the generous conditional concessions offered by other cliff-top landowners, such as those of North and GO Walls.

The fence is actually very flimsy indeed and the left section has collapsed gradually over the week. This may have been at least partly accidental and due to climbers or others climbing over or just hanging on while they squeezed round.

Of course, criminal damage cannot be condoned, but the nature of the fencing means that the cost of any such would have been very small. The landowners are aware of the use to which the quarry has been put over many years, especially by climbers, and which has been tolerated by them and the company (or its predecessor) that they direct; and they do have BMC contact details. No contact was made, no warning was given, and no reason for the closure has been offered (though there may be one). Whatever the rights and wrongs, such precipitate action on their behalf will inevitably be seen as provocative, especially in the current climate of landowners nationwide increasing access for recreation (with or without legal prompting). The company also appears in breach of its statutory duty to maintain a safe fence along the top of the quarry where the Offa's Dyke footpath is adjacent. The broken posts (definitely NOT climbers!) render walking along here in a westerly gale life-threatening.

John Willson

PS This is a personal statement, not an official BMC position, reflecting my close involvement with Wintour's climbing and access over 40 years, not to mention the immediate vicinity of my own 'back yard'.

In reply to John Willson: yeah let's just hope this is a just the company making a political statement and fulfilling its statutory duty to maintain a safe fence... hopefully in a few weeks things should be as per usual.

In reply to John Willson:
Hope it's "business as normal" again soon.

As an aside, anything changed regarding North Wall after the sale of the house at the top ?

In reply to fred99:
The North Wall situation is looking promising, but the new landowner has not yet moved in and contact has not yet been made. A new fence has been erected along the cliff top but a clear and convenient gap has been left to allow the way out and the exit signs are still in place. There is a slight problem with belaying at the top of Left Hand Route as the fence prevents use of the acer. For the time being use the (inconvenient) fir tree on the left at the cliff edge. In due course we'll try to get permission to place a couple of stakes. If using this way off, please be ultra circumspect.

In reply to John Willson:

My profoundest sympathies. I know of and appreicate the immense efforts you've gone to before this, and it is never nice to be in a situation after your friends and governing body have failed to act when something you foresaw happened, and all you can say is `I hate to say I told you so'.

In reply to mike kann:

It wasn't necessarily climbers. I've met naturalists, walkers, curious tourists and teenage stoners all variously at the top of wintour's leap. If anything tearing down a fence when you can walk round it seems like a lot of extra effort for most climbers I know.

In reply to Paz: can you walk around the newly errected fence?

In reply to pep: Yes

In reply to Paz: I should point out that it doesn't really matter WHO did it, whether its naturalists, climbers, ramblers, teenage stoners, or the bloody queen. Damaging fences is very likely to be viewed dimly IMHO, and will only make things worse. If the company take offence to whoever it is pulling the fence down, then we as climbers are most likely to be viewed as potentially being the culprits, as we are one of the major users of the quarry, whether its true or not! It is totally irrelevant who did it because the land owner is perfectly within their rights to deny us access, and I don't think that making points is the way to go... entering a dialogue with them IS. I can't think of anything more depressing for John to see all his good work go to waste because of a few people not having the patience to allow the situation to resolve itself which I for one am sure it will, but it needs a bit of time.

In reply to mike kann:

Presumably you still think it's climbers though; as you're putting this point strongly on a forum where you're only adressing climbers.

In reply to bpmclimb: Not really, what I'm saying is that if anybody see anybody doing it, they should do their best to stop them! Yes, sometimes climbers do take matters into their own hands, I don't know whether this is the case here or not, and as I said it is totally irrelevant who is actually doing it... it will still have the same effect!

In reply to mike kann:

It takes two to tango.

In reply to John Willson:
I have spoken to the owner regarding the fact that climbers(unkown)have cut the orange fence(netting)with a knife to gain entry into what is private property.

In the next few days I will be keeping regular watch on the site and will have the authority to request anyone who does not have written proof of permission to be on the site to leave.

Also as security advisor I will be making the so called two entrances secure and if anyone is seen entering the site by any means, will call the police to assist in their removal.
It is and has always been private property and so no one has the"right"to be in there or climb.
I will enforce this by any legal means available.
In the past I have(along with co workers)observed so called climbers gain entry by breaking or cutting fences.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:

So is it just the quarry that is out of bounds? What about other areas of wintours leap?

In reply to John Willson:
The orange"fence"to the left of the gate was cut with a knife.
It was NOT an accident.
Also the same type of fence to the right of the old building was also cut with a knife.
I was there on the day the "fences"were cut.
I was onsite just before and when I returned after being onsite in plain view of both"fences"both had been cut.
At no time did any"hiker/walker/rock hunter or kids get anywhere near said"fences"
I had two coworkers onsite with me where they could see the fences.
The only people there on the day were climbers.

In reply to mack:
Anywhere within the boundary of the property.
IF the property also includes Wintours Leap then the answer is yes.
I will have the details of the property so that I know my rights regarding asking people to leave unless they can show proof(written and signed by owner)of being allowed to be there.
I am more than well known in the area and have other duties that require me to be around the quarry area and all legal rights of way on a daily basis.
I carry a camera at all times and a PMR.
Once the fences have been made good I will(along with co workers)be in and around the quarry area.

In reply to John Willson:
It would be helpful if you could clarify where the property boundaries are as soon as possible. I am sure that the majority of climbers will not want to cause any difficulty for you, but as far as I understand it the majority of the climbing in the area is not under the same ownership as the quarry, so climbing will not be affected as long as alternative access routes are used.
On a separate note is there any reason for the change in access? From the times I've visited it seems to be a popular area for climbers and non-climbers alike.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:
Hmm, thanks but that really doesnt help.. If you know what you're talking about then surely you would know which areas of wintours leap are within the property boundary.
What you will be getting up to on private property doesnt really interest me, I just wanted to know where was out of bounds not how important you you are..
Thanks anyway, I'll just wait for the fences to go up so I know where not to climb.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:
Sorry to bombard you with questions but I'm not entirely clear on your role or what's changed now?
Are you a new security contractor brought in to enforce the existing owner's property rights?
I'd also like to echo the other point that in order to help us work with you it would be helpful for you to clarify the exact area we should be avoiding.

In reply to Luke90:
Exactly, most folks would be happy to comply if they knew where they could climb ..

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse: 'I am more than well known in the area and have other duties that require me to be around the quarry area and all legal rights of way on a daily basis.' Can't you get a proper job then? You have my sympathy.

In reply to sam w:
At this time I do not have anything on paper regarding proprty boundaries.
I am waiting for this information after meeting/speaking with the owner.
Regarding the reason or reasons for the change in access, I have been told it is due to safety issues.

There has been an increase in people roaming around and messing around on the property and regarding the age of some of those people and what they get up to.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
It is only one of my jobs.
It is a "proper job"
Site security

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse: Has ownership of the quarry recently changed?

In reply to Luke90:
Secuity advisor/contractor.
Enforce?, if needed then yes.
Request ALL persons without permission to be on the site to leave using whatever legal means needed.

In reply to Simon S:
From what I was told by the owner then yes.

In reply to Luke90:
If and when I am given the information regarding where to avoid then it will be posted here.

In reply to mack:
I have permission to be on the property and has nothing to do with"getting up to"
Also footpath warden(gives reason to be around it)
No information regarding boundaries have been given to me at this time due to only just meeting with the owner this week.
Paperwork will be sent to me in the next week or so.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:
Thanks for the info, and we look forward to hearing more on the property boundaries. Until this is confirmed please could you bear in mind that the climbing guidebook to the area says that the quarry is separately owned to the rest of the climbing in the area, and people will probably, in good faith, climb on the other walls.
If the issue is liability in case of an accident, hopefully the BMC will be able to sort things out as they have in other places. It's a good crag, would be a shame to lose use of it long term.

In reply to sam w:
I have the book because in the past I have been a climber.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:
Out of interest, how did you come across this forum and discussion? I have to admit to some doubts over whether you're genuine but on the assumption that you are, thank you for taking the time to communicate with us.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:

I guess that probably answers my most recent question too.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:

This seems very odd. If you don't know where the property boundaries are how can you possibly ask people to leave the "property"?

Surely you can't act on the heresay of someone who says they own something when you actually don't even know the extent of what they own?

You might well be fencing off land that you have no right to actually fence off!

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:

^^ "getting up to" was not implying anything unlawful, it simply means 'what you are doing' whether it be work, walking about, being all-important or rogering dead badgers.. it's all irrelevant to what I was asking..


^^ now this is a decent answer and is all that was required..
As Sam has just said the guide books still say the quarry is separately owned and many folk arent registered on here so won't know about the change of ownership.A little politeness goes a long way and many folk would move along if asked.. Going in guns blazing like you have on here gets peoples backs up. I'm sure many would be grateful for a boundary update when you have it. Thanks.

In reply to Luke90:
Ex climber.
Cannot climb an more
Genuine?
I am.

In reply to ChrisJD:
Read my other replies.
I have only just started as site security advisor.
I have a meeting with the owner this week.
THAT is why.
Nothing to do with hearsay.
Or any other say.
I will secure and fence where told.
The quarry IS the property.
That being so then I have the right to ask people to leave the QUARRY

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:

Surely if you have only just started working for the site owner it would have been prudent to establish your full brief and the boundaries of ownership before doing anything.

I assume your brief is to prevent entry into the owners land - surely that aim would be best served in the long term through dialogue and consensus with potential trespasser groups like climbers. Unless of course you just like wearing a cheap polyester uniform and enjoy a cheap thrill from perceived power.

In reply to ChrisJD & others:

I realise this is an informal forum, but I don't think being rude to this chap is going to help anyone. It is only likely to make climbers at the crags (who are probably ignorant of whats going on) be treated in a less than polite manner. Its not going to help any negotiations that take place either.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:

I've read your other posts. You didn't see climbers cut anything. You saw some climbers and then you saw the fence had been cut. You don't know who did it or whether they were climbers or not do you?

...........if anyone is seen entering the site by any means, will call the police to assist in their removal.

Ohh they are going to love you! Of course you will know that the police have absolutely no power to assist you in removing anyone. They can of course be present to prevent or deal with breaches of the peace. The rest is a civil matter and of no interest to them what so ever.

'So called?' Did they or didn't they climb? What did you do about these criminal acts?

Are you sure your not trolling???

N

In reply to ChrisJD:
Like I said, I have only just started.
Establishing has nothing to do with it.
You try doing that on one phonecall and one meeting.
I have known the site since I was 13 years old.
I knew back then exactly where the quarry started and ended.
It is not for me to enter into anything with any group, what is for me to be doing is secure the site where it is needed.
Please do not insult me as you do not have any right to do so.
I have powers and rights that you can never have.
I do not get off on power.
Anyone on the site(quarry)without permission will be asked to leave and if they refuse to do so then police support will used.
The same thing will happen if I decide to buy part of the land.
As part owner OR security advisor I have the right to deny access to any part of the site.
The same would apply if I owned the big house on the cliftop where climbers seem to think they have the right to enter said grounds.
Just so that you all know, yes, I am an ex climber who climbed Wintours Leap without ropes at the age of 15.

In reply to Nigel R Lewis:
On the day the ONLY people anywhere by the site WERE climbers both before AND after the fence got cut.
Also I do know what police can and cannot do.
Refuse to leave the property and you are trespassing.
I have the right to prevent you or anyone else entry to said site.
"knowitalls"get nowhere fast

In reply to Nigel R Lewis:
Do you really think after being asked to leave the site and refusing to do so, you could do as you please?
Private property does NOT mean you or anyone else can do as you please.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:


Hahahaaaaaa! Brilliant.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:



Do these comments not seem a wee bit contradictory to anyone else? And manifestly incorrect as well. The first comment - within bounds he can insult you as much as he wants. The second is incorrect - unless we are talking real genuine superpowers like flying you only hold any powers through virtue of the landowner and therefore anyone else with the landowners permission can replicate them exactly. As for the third.....


If you were a climber you would know that through painstaking access negotiations climbers have graciously been allowed to exit through the grounds of one of the clifftop houses, and a path has been constructed with the blessing of one of the others to allow climbers exit from the cliff top. Surely as a person whose face is so well known about the town you should know that? Climbers do not have the right, but they have the permission, to do that.


Which route?

AJM

In reply to AJM:

Most of the comments are contradictory, either to the comment immediately before and after, or to comments made earlier in the thread. Some are just irrelevant (e.g. what he'd do in the hypothetical case of him being the site owner).

Either a good troll or he's quite funny (not sure which sort of funny). Bravo either way.

In reply to John Willson: FFS... this is what I was worried about.

Here we see the glory of the internet. Can you lot please refrain from the usual UKC bullshit, taking jabs at the bloke who has been employed to do a job. If he is less than polite then that is his prerogative, seeing as you lot are having a go, it may not help but it's up to him how he conducts his job. It's a marked improvement on the Dinorwig situation - at least he has made direct contact with us! The quarry owners have every right to deny access, and until we hear otherwise through official channels, we will not be making things any better.

Kevin, I presume you will be posted at the base of the climbs on Fly wall to prevent access to the climbs - I don't know whether the bottom is quarry property or not but if not then topping out would involve trespass so stopping people before they get on the climbs would help avoid any "situations"... Also do you think when you talk to the owners, you might direct them to this forum, (inflammatory as it is) so that they can explain their reasons first hand?

In reply to AJM:


That's totally irrelevant - it's not HIS decision to not let us climb, it's the land owners, whether he is a climber or not makes absolutely no difference what so ever!

In reply to mike kann:

I am curious as to why someone who claims to be a climber and who claims to be well known around the area and who claims to own a guidebook can make such a fundamental misunderstanding about the current access arrangements to assume that they are not done with the blessing of the owners.

Its got nothing to do with anyone's decision to let people climb or not. I'm just aware how easy it is to set up a profile and start typing, and inconsistencies like this bother me since they don't stack up with the person he says he is.

AJM

In reply to AJM: But they haven't necessarily been done with the permission of the owner - I think John Willson would be the one to answer this for definate. It may well have just been tolerated in the past. However if we don't comply and the company is serious then taking jabs at the security guards is going to make things worse. It's the owners prerogative and if they see fit to put up fences to keep us out then that is up to them... And besides you'd have to be intensely sad to spend your weekends patrolling a quarry and erecting fences when you have nothing to do with the owners wouldn't you?

In reply to John Willson:
I'm still not clear - Is one permitted to climb the Fly Wall? I was planning to go there next week.

In reply to Dassie: By all accounts, no - the top is in the quarry.

In reply to mike kann:

yhm

In reply to mike kann:
This is devestating news for the many climbers who love the Fly Wall with its beautiful view of the valley. I feel I have just been deprived of something very special.

In reply to AJM: So have you

In reply to mike kann:
Regarding what is and is not quarry property, anything above the right of way/offa's Dyke path that runs below the quarry is quarry property.
The entire old quarry workings.
Rock face from top of quarry to bottom of quarry.
Also I did not come into this"forum"to be insulted.
The owner or owners know of this forum and at this time have no interest in it.
The reason or reasons given to me by the owner is regarding safety issues.
Fencing off where possible to prevent access from the top of the quarry(at this time)to prevent kids, teenagers, junkies, others from fooling around, shooting air rifles, climbing without ropes, and anything that could result in injury or death.
Those reasons were given to me to pass on to anyone wanting to know why access will be denied to anyone who does not have permission.
It will be possible for me to check who does and does not have permission.
For all those"nice"climbers in this forum who think I am a"Troll",funny or anything else then they should know this:
I used to climb when I was younger.
I know the quarry.
I had a stroke ten years ago that left me with a lot of problems.
I did(and have proof)that I climbed the Leap without ropes(along with two others).
I am niether an idiot, stupid or mentally impaired.
I have the right to request anyone to leave the quarry and to ask to see any proof of anyone being"allowed"to be in the quarry.
Those rights or powers are given to me by the owner.
I carry written and signed proof of being able to request/ask anyone to leave.
IF anyone questions my authority at anytime on the site then they will be able to phone the owner who will tell them I have the authority.

Regarding the bottom of the quarry, ALL that I have been told at this time is that signs will be placed at the bottom where a lot of climbers AND walkers(who have no right of way thru the quarry)waring/advising that the quarry workings are private property and waning about trespassing.
IF the owners/owner tells me that I can post details of the boundaries on here then I will do so.

In reply to All:

I wouldn't normally wish to get involved in this sort of discussion, however since the above has progressed as it has, I would like to make a couple of points to all who have contributed to the foregoing 'dialogue':

1. I would urge all climbers to cease further public comment on this issue and simply observe John Willson's advice in the opening post.

2. I am local, living less than a mile from the crag. Whilst I am fairly inactive with my climbing at the moment, I (and many others) treasure Wintours as a unique venue. Considerable time and effort have been spent in the past in establishing good working relationships with our neighbours and noone wishes to see the current fragile access potentially damaged by thoughtless comment.

In reply to John Willson:

I used to climb at Wintour's regularly, but having lived in Nottingham for the past 5 years I haven't been back as much as I'd like.

I've always been amazed at how understanding the landowners at the top of the crag have been, and thought this provided a great example of how we could happily co-exist (even to the point of getting to know Mr James atop the North Wall) .

For those getting inflammatory, please don't. Kevin would appear to simply be doing his job, and experience in the past has shown these access problems can often be resolved with careful negotiation.

While I climbed there regularly we often used the quarry as an access point. The gate was "locked" with a large chain which allowed you to open it plenty wide enough to get through with a rucksack on and I don't recall any obvious damage to the fence. The chain was replaced at some point, making it more of a squeeze. I had always viewed this as a somewhat tongue-in-cheek gesture, suggesting you weren't really allowed in, but they weren't going to try to hard to stop you.

On a recent visit I was surprised to see how much some of the walls in the quarry have cleaned up. While I wouldn't be overly bothered with the loss of the quarry, loss of access to the top of Fly Wall would be a real shame.

In reply to Jem Cowen:
I live just down the road from the quarry.
The owner is concerned about certain people"messing around"in the quarry.
Regardless of what anyone thinks in this forum, or in the wording, it is NOT about stopping "climbers"from climbing, it is about preventing those without permission to be in the quarry from getting into the quarry.
The owner is concerned about safety(people tw*tting about).
IF climbers have permission AND it can be proved then there is NOT a problem
For anyone else reading this I am not a sad person who has nothing better to do but"patrol"the site on weekends.
I have other duties that require me to be in and around the quarry area thru the week and weekends.
A fence is for keeping people out and not an invitation to enter and do whatever people seem to think they can do without prmission.
Cutting or breaking fences to enter because they think that is what they should be allowed to do is wrong.
Getting into the top of the quarry by going thru the side of the garage to the left of the big gate is not funny.
Going thru the garden of the house to the left of the gate is not funny.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:


Hmmmm

In reply to katonka:
Like I said elsewhere in this forum, the main issue is to prevent acces into the quarry from the top(gate, via the side of the garden to the left of gate, by the side of gate and to the right of the old building thru chainlink fence(cut many years ago).
Kids, teenagers, junkies, people going in there to drink/smoke/shoot up/snort.......are not going to be wanting to get in by going in from the bottom.
Fencing the top where people see it as the way in is to at least try to prevent those people getting in the quarry and resulting in injury or death.
It is NOT about banning or stopping climbers who have permission.

In reply to Frank321:
IF I owned ANY part of the quarry then I would have the right to fence off and prevent anyone from being on that property.

Same goes if I rented or owned a field then I could fence it off.
Anyone would have to have permission from me to enter.
No one has the right to enter any private proprty without permission.
Land is NOT there for everyone to do as they please.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:

Is the owner intending to grant permission for climbers to climb and under what conditions, do you know? If so, how does one contact the owner to discuss access, either to the main quarry itself or the wall below it's river edge (fly wall). I'm not so bothered about climbing in the quarry, personally, but access through it and access to fly wall is of interest...

AJM

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:

How does none get permission to climb, say on Fly Wall?

In reply to Jem Cowen:

Thanks, Jem, and my opening post does answer some later questions. Fly Wall is part of the property but the rest of Wintour's is unaffected. Mr Fieldhouse's recent post is confused in stating that the OD path runs below the quarry. It does, of course, run along the top. The Lancaut Walk that runs well below Fly Wall and joins the main path below the other crags is also a statutory right of way.

All other crags can be legally accessed by using the Central Bay 'Easy Way Down' or by the Lancaut Walk from the main road below Woodcroft of from Lancaut Lane, as described in the current (and previous) guidebooks.

Mr Fieldhouse is, of course, correct in stating that the owners have a legal right to deny access, and no one on this thread has claimed otherwise. The fact is that all previous owners since the quarry closed in the mid 60s have tacitly or otherwise condoned access and climbing subject to certain conditions. The current closure therefore came as a shock, and the nature of it was bound to be seen as confrontational and provocative.

Contact was made with one of the owners in 2007 and he remarked on 'climbers trespassing' but gave no indication that it had to be curtailed. Follow-up letters (at his invitation) with suggestions regarding the future of the quarry went unanswered, and I note Mr Fieldhouse says that they have no interest in this thread. As I remarked, it takes two to tango.

John W

In reply to AJM:
EX climber and I DO have a say in who I can ask to leave the quarry.
People in the quarry without permission, NO
People who climb UP from the bottom, that to me is NOT being IN the quarry.
Prevent people from getting INTO the quarry from the gate/by the side of gate/thru the side by garage, YES.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:


Not wishing to spite this situation and in understasnding of your public safety concerns towards your own third party liabilities, may I ask how permission to access for climbing may be attained?

Sincerely,
Al.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:

To descend from the top of fly wall though youhave to follow the trackthat snakes down through the quarry... Just to be clear - Are you saying that this will be tolerated as long as people approach from the bottom?

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:


Thank you

In reply to AJM:
Anyone seen IN the quarry will be asked to leave unless they can prove they have permission to be in there.
I have made it clear elsewhere in this forum.
My"job"is to prevent anyone getting into the quarry from the top(Gate, side of gate, near old building, side of house/garage to left of gate.
Anyone(climbers)entering the bottom of the quarry to ascend any rock face on the proprty if seen by me or co workers will be asked to leave(as stated elsewhere).
If I do not (or co workers)see climbers or any other person or persons IN the quarry then there is no one to be asked to leave.
IF climbers are out of my view or sight then they are not inside the quarry.
IF I choose NOT to notice or see climbers on the rock face inside the quarry then nothing will be said.
I do not intend looking around every single part of the quarry for climbers.
Walking into the quarry(top) via gate or other ways as stated means being challenged/asked to leave.
Being seen walking down thru the quarry =challenge/asked to leave.
Into the quarry from bottom, possible challenge.
Walking up thru and seen coming out of quarry at the top where stated, challenge.

In reply to ali_mac:
From site owners when contact details are made available.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:

Kevin, thanks for coming on here and explaining your situation.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:

Hi Kevin, looks as if you are attempting to do your job in a sensible way.
As ever, any idiotic behaviour or vandalism always endangers access for all and hopefully people will a) use the legal access routes and b)keep low profile until the access situation is negotiated/clarified btween the BMC and the land owner.

In reply to John Willson:
My final words on this issue at this time(awaiting paperwork/meeting with owner/other instructions)are that I have certain powers and authority regarding preventing entry at the places stated elsewhere in this forum.
Reasons for the"closure"are due to safety issues after certain"elements" gain entry and are in the quarry without permission.

Where there IS permission granted then there is not an issue.
A certain"gentleman"who lives above the quarry and feels he has the right to walk his dogs and climb in the quarry without permission from the current owner(regardless of the fact he has"always done it"did not like being challenged or asked to leave.
Unless permission has been granted by the current owner(s)then the so called"always been allowed"is of no interest to me.
Being granted permission 10, 15, 20 years ago by some other owner does not give anyone the right to be in the quarry now.

In reply to JimR:
Thanks.
I am also security advisor for some other old quarry workings in and around the Wye Valley.
If the present owner(Woodcroft site)decides that he wants no one to be inside the quarry then that is his right.
What happens or goes on outside the quarry workings and cannot be seen goes un challenged.

In reply to duncan:
Anytime.
I have a job to do and that is all.
If the owner(s)say block it off then so be it.
I follow orders from the owner(s)and also advise said owner(s)
I am not new to the work and have been doing the same elsewhere since 1972

Just like to point out something about calling the police to eject a trespasser (so we are all clear on the matter):

www.trespasslaw.co.uk/common_misconceptions

In reply to ChrisJD: A working link:

http://www.trespasslaw.co.uk/common_misconceptions.html

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse: Hi Kevin, I think it would be very helpful if you could clearly state exactly who it is that you work for (rather than just saying "the owners"). As you might be able to tell, there are some on here who are not convinnced that you are who you say you are. There have been a couple of cases of posters pretending to be someone else to wind up the locals and it all went horribly wrong. At the moment, you are just a name on an internet forum. We have no way of knowing whether you are real!

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse: Just so we're clear, if we are hypothetically climbing on Fly wall and we were to hypothetically top out and then retreat via an hypothetical abseil, would this be hypothetically challanged or not

In reply to mike kann:

I thought it was quite clear, if you're not seen you won't be challenged and you'll only be seen if you access via the quarry or are seen in the quarry. Don't force the issue or you'll just get a black and white .. "no you're not allowed to climb there". Leave the negotiation to the BMC access rep.

In reply to mike kann: Well given you are asked to leave if seen walking down through the quarry, and you're leaving anyway (back to the base of Fly Wall) does it matter?

I don't really understand this. It sounds as though climbers unobtrusively nipping back to the base of their route are going to be left alone, in which case why all the confrontation at the start of this thread?

I'm sorry Kevin, but you really are going to have to give us further details. Some of your posts are contradictory and your message is verging on the incoherent. Coming on here and spouting off while admitting you don't have all (any?) of the details is pretty unprofessional at best if you are who you say you are.

While I won't be committing criminal damage any time soon, I'll wait to hear from the BMC access rep before changing where and when I climb based on something someone (who is as good as anonymous) said on UKC.

In reply to John Willson:

Just for info, last time I was in there, a couple of months ago, there was a bunch of teenagers at the top of fly wall getting pissed. So maybe there is an issue. It was really dodgy and not the peaceful place I am used to.

In reply to all:

I haven't responded to this thread so far to avoid being dragged into megaphone diplomacy in a public forum. However, as several people have mentioned the Access Rep, I will briefly say that climbers should avoid causing damage to the fencing or other property. If asked to leave by the owners or a representative of theirs, then I'd advise doing so - beyond that I’m not giving any advice at this stage on whether you should or shouldn't climb there.

I'd be grateful if you could let me know of any incidents by email or phone (either by emailing me through the forum or using the details on the BMC website).

I'm please to see that the tone of the comments has improved somewhat since last night - please think before posting anything that might complicate matters further

Thanks

Rick Sewards
BMC Wye Valley Access Rep

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:


Actually, and respectfully, it does: permissive rights of way can be created by established use over years that has been unchallenged. i can dig you out a link if you like, but I expect you will be familiar with access tort.

John

In reply to idc:

I must agree there. There has been an increase in the amount of broken glass at the top of Fly Wall as far as I can tell. It has also been some time since I have dared to leave my sac at the top - I did hear of at least one being nicked.
The former parking bay at the top of the "easy way down" now has bollards to prevent parking. I was always finding the residue of some sort of party in there, and many times came across groups of "youths" drinking and smoking, whilst the car stereo was blasting out - no wonder it was blocked off, at least now the house next door doesn't have to listen to it.
Remember the reason for the name of Bottle Buttress, and all the rubbish found tipped down the cliff over the years.

There is evidently a growing problem with local youngsters, which would probably benefit from something being done by the local council to provide them with somewhere else to go - somewhere safer I dare say (drinking and cliffs do not mix).
It is therefore understandable that the owner (whoever he/she is) wishes to take some steps to ensure litigation does not ensue if some (drunken or stoned) youngster gets hurt.
Whoever cut the fence did wrong - it's easy enough to use the easy way down if you're a climber, and it's better that groups of drinkers are kept out.

The best way forward surely is for the Access reps to meet either with the owner(s) or their representatives, and sort out a sensible way forward.
The location is such that complete 100% exclusion is pretty well impossible (at least unless unlimited resources are available).
However we should be at least prepared to consider accepting reasonable restrictions on access/egress in just the same way that we have on North Wall, especially if it means that we don't have to check for glass when we pull the rope in.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:

Yeah, tell him Kev! What the hell does Nigel R Lewis know about the Law anyway?

In reply to Esoterical:

I really don't think this is helping.

In reply to Dave Garnett: I don't think this Kevin Fieldhouse exists. i asked him to be exact about who he works for and to provide better details of who he is and he has gone silent. It's a wind-up!

In reply to Aiden Wright:

In a way, I hope you're right. If he's for real I don't think we've done ourselves any favours in the way we've confronted him here.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
Just so you ALL know, I do exist.
I am not here to"wind"anyone up.
I spoke to ONE of the co owners for over 30 mins last night and also told him about what was being said in this forum.
His reply to that was"I thought they would"and"I thought climbers were decent people"
IF the owener(s)do NOT want anyone in the quarry,climbers or non climbers for safety reasons then that is their right.
They via the person I answer to(a co owner)have given ME the authority to request people to leave the site and to challenge them AND ask for any form of permission to be IN the quarry.

I do not have to prove anything regarding exactly who I am OR the name or names of who I work for.
The quarry was left to one of the co owners in a will, there are more than three other co owners.
I know the name of the co owner that I answer to AND who instructed me as to what he wants done and how.
The co owners have instructed him to give me written and signed authority to do as I have said more than once in this forum.

That being so, it IS up to me who I can and cannot allow in the quarry because I represent him AND the other co owners.
It is legal and I have more than enough knowledge about such matters.

Regardless of how I word it in this very"polite"forum, I DO know where I stand regarding the law.
I am NOT hiding behind a false name or ID or anything else.
Doing as a lot of you in this forum have done so far to me by way of attitude issues and whatever else, has NOT been in your best interests.
I have in the past met more than a few very"polite"climbers(yes all the ropes and gear spread out all over the place where it should not be)who have thought it very clever to confront me or swear at me.

That will not get those of you who think it clever to do so anywhere with me.
My advice to those who do it is that doing it will stop every climber ever being in the quarry.
If my boss(or the rest of the co owners)say that I have the authority to ask people to leave, stop people going in, then that is what I will do.
The owners live over a hundred miles away and to use the words of the person I answer to,"I cannot police the site from down here so it is easier for you to because you live near the quarry".

It will not be just me, it will be me and up to six other people who all work for me.
We will ALL carry proof of authority and as we ALL represent the owners, we have the legal right as to who climbs where.
Just so you know, this information is for ALL to read in this forum.
Unless the"owners"instruct me otherwise then our(co workers and myself) word is final.
Being accused or whatever about not being who I say is NOT new to me and so will only result in a total ban from the site.
I am WHO I say and there is NO legal reason for me to have to prove anything.
As from this weekend either myself OR one or more co workers WILL be in and around the quarry area and will do as instructed.

Dear UKCers

I climb at Wintour's often, have done for many years and am very keen to be able to do so in future.

The situation seems to be that
- the owners have concerns about irresponsible/dangerous behaviour in the quarry area: they have shown no interest in stopping climbers who act reasonably
- they have decided to restrict access via the path at the top of the quarry to make such behaviour less likely
- it is not entirely clear exactly where, in terms of land, the boundaries of potentially restricted access are, but that will emerge in due course
- climbers can approach Fly Wall via the easy way down and Lancault Walk, and when they top out they can walk straight back round to the bottom again and leave the way they came in. If climbers are polite and reasonable, it seems that this will be allowed even if it turns out (as seems likely) that the path is within the boundary of potentially restiricted access
- a confrontational attitude by climbers in this forum or at the crag itself, or climbers accessing Fly Wall via the now restricted route, can only be counter-productive

In sum, let's
- be nice
- not use the now restricted route

I know some are of the view that it might help cool things off a bit if we don't climb at all on Fly Wall for a while. I'm ambivalent about that suggestion, but anyway decided to climb at another part of Wintour's the other day.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse: Hi Kevin, all I asked for was for you to say who it is you work for, and in response to that we get this massive, incoherent rant. You are still talking about “the owners”. Do they have a name? Can you give further details? Which of the co owners did you speak yo? How many co owners are there? The more you write, the more questions are raised. Why don't the "co owners" come on here and represent themselves?
You might not like the way some climbers have come across on here (and I agree, some have been over the top) but you have not come across well either. Do “the owners” know what you have been saying and how you have represented them on here? There might be "NO legal reason" (enough of the SHOUTING) for you to have to prove anything, it might just help your cause to give some straight answers. Nothing you've said so far convinces me that you are who you say you are.

Come on Kevin, give some straight, simple answers without going off on one!

In reply to Aiden Wright:

Aiden

I'm assuming you didn't get the email I sent you after your last posting. Kevin Fieldhouse is who he says is, and constantly badgering him to "prove it" isn't helping any of us here in the area. There are (at least) two co-owners, and they don't live locally as Kevin said.

To everyone else; please think before posting. If climbing in the area, please avoid damaging property, and be civil and polite if challenged.

Thanks

Rick Sewards
BMC Wye Valley Access Rep

In reply to Aiden Wright:
Regardless of what you like to think and that you see the way I reply or word things OR by using upper case(seen as shouting in forums), like I said, I do not have to justify any action or myself to anyone in this forum.
Seems to me and my boss that certain "very nice"climbers like slagging off those who will not provide information just to prove the person is who they say or names of who they work for.
I happen to work for other owners and co owners of other old quarries where certain people think they have a right to be and have had the same attitude from "very nice"climbers.

I have said how many co owners, not that it is any of your business regarding who or where.
The owners or co owners do not want any part of this forum so that is why they will not come on here.

"Do “the owners” know what you have been saying and how you have represented them on here?"
They sure do know as they have seen every word said about the"issue"on this forum.
Also the"owners"or who happens to represent them(a co owner by the first name of Glen who lives near Maidstone)do not have a problem in how I word anything in this forum.
To be honest I do not care what you think about me.
It is my word that is final when it comes to who can and cannot be in the quarry and the reason why that is so is because I have been told that I am the one that prevents people from being in the quarry/asks them to leave/whatever other action needed.
If you do not like it then it would be a good idea to stay away along with anyone else who climb in the quarry and decide to confront me.
Visit the quarry and you will soon meet up with me.
If I was not who I say then I would not be in the quarry or near it.
Other than security I have other interests in the quarry.
Like I said elsewhere, there will be site security people around the site even if not seen.
I grew up around that quarry area and know every part of it.
It would not be a good idea for anyone to confront me.
At the moment I am writing this on my laptop as I sit where I can see down into the quarry.
Anyone seeing(today)someone in a Hi-Vis vest(waistcoat)or jacket then that would have been me...............

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:


It would not be a good idea for anyone to confront me.

What do you mean?

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:

Hi Kevin

I mailed you to ask where and how I should apply for written permission. Did you get the mail?

Thanks

john

In reply to Rick Sewards: In reply to Aiden Wright

I am sorry to break ranks, Rick, but surely it is a basic right to expect someone who seeks to regulate or control your movements or actions to be prepared to produce some kind of evidence of identity and/or status.

Even that might not have been required in this case had:
a) Kevin Fieldhouse not made so many highly questionable statements on this thread;
b) In the past expressed his hostility towards climbing and climbers here in principle (and is now saying he has other 'personal interests' in the quarry);
c) Lost all credibility by the incompetent execution of his alleged duties of fencing and signing.

Of the first I will give just two examples, but there are many more:
He asserts that the slit in the RH fence was made by climbers, and must have been because there was no one much else about. On a fine Saturday afternoon in late June? Come off it! Did he not notice the more than half dozen cars parked in the field just below as guests at the Old School House? I am quite certain that they were not responsible, but they were about! Then there was, of course, the usual progression of Offa's Dykers, DofE expeditioners, dog walkers, ramblers, etc. They wouldn't, of course, all be hanging around in the quarry for him to challenge, but they were all about that afternoon. In view of this sort of absurd allegation it is surprising that no one has turned the tables and suggested he made the slit himself in order to be able to blame climbers for it.

The second example of his manipulation of the truth is his claim that when walking my dogs I didn't like being challenged and asked to leave. Actually my dogs passed away last year and the year before respectively. The occasion he is referring to was several years ago when, whatever his status now, he certainly had no authority to ask me to leave, he did not do so, and there was therefore no question of my not liking it.

On the question of his competence, the bright orange colour of the new fencing acts like a red rag to a bull. It's even visible from Wynd Cliff, for heaven's sake, and could be guaranteed to attract all and sundry passing to have a look at what it was about. And as a bit of flimsy plastic netting it was just sitting up and begging to be abused (not that I am justifying that, merely remarking on the inevitability of human nature). Then there are the flimsy plastic notices (already decaying in the wind and adding to the wind stress on the dilapidated old fencing) threatening prosecution which everyone knows is just bluff. Whether all this is due to his own inadequacy or to the nature of his relationship or contract with the owners and any directions or budget they may have imposed, we seem not to be allowed to know. That is just bound to fuel further speculation.

I not an anarchist, in fact about farthest from it! I totally respect that the owners have a right to bar access, climbing, or whatever. I am just critical of the way it has all happened. I had agreements with all the four previous landowners or their agents which, while not giving explicit permission in writing, signed and dated (which never happens), permitted ongoing access and climbing subject to certain (varying) conditions (I have plenty of documentary evidence to support this). That has not been revoked until now. I had a long and quite cordial phone conversation with one of the current owners two years ago, shortly after they had inherited the property. 'Trespassers climbing' was mentioned (which I acknowledged), but there was no indication then that he wished the arrangement to cease.

I would instance what happened in 2002 as evidence of my good will. The land agent of the previous owner (father of two current ones) visited me several times and discussed plans he had for the quarry. He was keen not to disrupt the status quo unless and until it became necessary to do so to carry out those plans. On his final visit he told me that insurers had advised that the whole should be fenced off and that he had placed a contract for the work. He asked my co-operation in persuading climbers not to breach the new fencing in any way. After conferring with Clare Bond, then BMC Access Officer, we agreed to support this. In return he indicated climbers were welcome to continue to access Fly Wall from below, and agreed to continue dialogue about how access from the top could be reinstated. We actually placed notices in the mags and on websites, and had notices made (at BMC expense) to put up as soon as the new fence was in place. For some reason, the fence never did go up, and things just went on as before.

If Mr Fieldhouse wants the co-operation of climbers I'm sure he could have it. We do, however, need to know that he has the authority he claims and that he is acting on the owners' wishes rather than his own. It would then be helpful if fencing and notices could sensibly constructed and worded. Perhaps he could also let us into the secret of just how he is going to get into the quarry himself to chase trespassers out.

Sorry for the length. I already hold the record for the two longest letters to mags!

John Willson

In reply to John Willson: Thank you John. To be honest the posters on here have actually been fairly reasonable given what they've been presented with.

Kevin could have used this forum sensibly and given us the information we need to avoid committing trespass in the future, but instead we get:


i.e. I know and you don't, so don't even try. This is then followed by:


If this is true then why bother posting on here at all? Dozens of posters have asked for clarification but Kevin continues to reply cryptically. Given this, I think many of the people here would feel that the most telling line is:


Climbers are not the ones behaving unreasonably here. We're not a bunch of tossers looking to commit vandalism and trespass at every opportunity, we just want to go climbing. If it's private property then we'll ask nicely and if told no we'll go elsewhere.

Most of the Leap is still freely accessible. Some, according to Kevin, is now not. We only want to know which bit (shouting "the QUARRY" is far too vague as most of us have no idea what the legal boundaries of the quarry are) so that we can avoid antagonism and confrontation. Given the way Kevin has comported himself on here I'm worried that the latter is inevitable whatever we do. I hope I'm wrong, but if not it's something we'll have to deal with as best we can.

In reply to Moacs:
Hi,
no, did not get your email.
There is no permission being given to anyone regardless of who they are.
If that changes then it will be posted in the forum.

In reply to John Willson:
Point 1, the "fences"(cheap orange ones)were no put there by me.
Point 2, I was right there and saw the cars.
Point 3, IF you have an issue regarding my authority then I suggest you contact me directly and I will give you the name and number of who I answer to in Kent.
That person will tell you what authority I have AND that he will be talking to me on Monday.
IF I am acting on my own wishes then jusy how would I know that the quarry was left to someone by their father in a will?
Any fencing and signs will be provided by the owners.
If you have a problem with that then so be it.
I have no reason to go around "pretending"to be what I am not.
Oh..........shame on me, I must have invented the name Glen Ansell(who I answer to in Kent).
Funny that I have his number and address is it not?.
Strange that he was talking to me a day or so ago about it all.
Now I wonder just how that came about?
I am who I am and I DO have authority from Glen.
Glen who is a co owner has said that he wants no one in the quarry right now.
Strange also that today(at the quarry) I gave Glen's name to a climber from Bristol who said that HE wanted to contact the BMC about it all.
I am not in the habit of giving false names to people.

Also I am not interested in what owner years ago said.
I represent the current owners thru Glen Ansell.
He will inform me if anyone question my authority by calling him and asking about me.
I also know that there are a number of people in Woodcroft who would not know the truth if it bit them in the rear end.

In reply to the thread: I think Kevin's been pretty reasonable when he's not been wound up by people questioning whether he's real. He's said he's been asked to stop people going through the fences at the top and messing around inside the quarry. This isn't really an issue for crag approaches to anywhere except the Woodcroft Quarry area in the guidebook as there's another way down to the bottom of the cliffs (the easy way down).

Woodcroft quarry is pretty clearly defined in the guidebook and the extents seemed pretty obvious when I climbed around the Leap - the only area I can see being in question is the top of Fly Wall. From what Kevin said in one of his posts he's prepared to turn a blind eye to climbers quietly exiting from the Fly Wall down through the bottom of the quarry but you should be prepared for a chance of being challenged (at which time you politely agree to leave and because you haven't caused damage or created a disturbance I understand nothing more can be said). I would imagine though that this thread is not making Kevin more inclined to turn a blind eye!

Maybe it would be best if we all quietened down on here and either the BMC or someone who has talked to the co-owners in the past (John?) could approach them direct and discuss either the possibility of allowing climbers to officially descend from Fly Wall through the quarry or if necessary placing abseil points at the top of Fly Wall?

People challenging Kevin on the forum isn't going to change the fact that he's been employed to remove people from inside the quarry so isn't really at all helpful.

In reply to chris j:
I met and spoke to a few people in the quarry and when challenged after being seen coming out right past me with the intention of going thru the broken fence to the left of the old building where I was in conversation with two men who were not climbers.
I also challenged two young lads from Cheltenham who were walking down thru the quarry after entering via the side of the gate.
Every one of those people listened to what I had to say regarding why the present owners do not want people in the quarry.
Every one of those people were decent about it all.
When one climber from Bristol asked me for my name, I gave it.
When he asked for my number, I gave it.
When he asked Who I work for, I gave that information.
Now is that the action of someone who is not employed by the owners and is making out he is something or someone else?
I do not think so.
There is no legal reason why I should have to give anyone other than the police details of who, what or where.
I do happen to know what is what regarding that.
Those who think otherwise need to get a life.
As to my"other interests"in the quarry, that is nothing to do with anyone other than those who give me permission to be in there.
Now let me see...........English Nature........
Glocestershire Wildlife............
rare plants.............
(by the way, this is not directed at you Chris.....it's for everyone).
To be honest, I do not really care who or who does not contact who I answer to in Kent.
I was asked by him and that is that.
The owners represented to me by Glen Ansell have made it know for whatever reasons that they do not want anyone in the quarry.
The authority I have is to ask people to leave and to preven people from getting in.
That is what I will do.
Anyone thinking of confronting me while I am about my rightful duty is not a good idea.
That can be taken in whatever way by whoever.
I am well known by a lot of people in the area and by the police and they all know how I deal with that kind of nonsense.
I know what I can and cannot do.
I will again be sending a copy of the conversation on here to Glen.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:
Point 1. If you were not responsible for erecting the fencing, then I unreservedly withdraw my remarks about this and apologise for them.

The rest of your posting comes over as the same old mixture of rant, threat, and insult.

In reply to John Willson: Sorry the above applies to your previous posting; your last one got in just before mine.

In reply to John Willson:
And you sir have the same effect on me as dog dirt does on my boot.
You rant on with your long winded"letters"and when you are told WHO I work for, just carry on as usual.
Tough aint it?
Seeing that Glen will vouch for me as to what I do.
He's in Kent, I am local.
On his say so I will do all I can to at least keep people out or at least from entering from the top of the site.
I do not intend"chasing"anyone as you put it.
Just because you think you so perfect and correct.
Sure you aint Richard Wilson?

"If you do not like it then it would be a good idea to stay away along with anyone else who climb in the quarry and decide to confront me."

"Visit the quarry and you will soon meet up with me."

"If I was not who I say then I would not be in the quarry or near it. It would not be a good idea for anyone to confront me."

I'm with John, this is outrageous stuff. Our BMC rep must talk to the owners about this. Yes we have a problem in the slate quarries but we are dealing with it sensibly, quietly and calmly. We are having regualar face to face meetings, no threats and it's all very civilised, what outcomes there will be it is far too early to say.

Try a mass trespass and see what happens!

In reply to chris j: Yes, it will be interesting to get an authoritative take on the boundaries. My understanding from all previous owners has been that the property extends from the clifftop to the river, save for the Lancaut Walk (right of way) and therefore includes Fly Wall and all its approaches from anywhere.

The side boundaries have been disputed in the past. One interpretation is that the Sunny Wall of the quarry, i.e. from Nice & Sleazy leftwards is actually part of GO Wall and therefore in bounds (but possibly difficult to get to!) The actual boundary must be somewhere around the line of the scree slope descent, though a GWT member put it way back near the north end of Fly Wall

At the other end we have always assumed that the dividing line between Fly Wall and The Forbidden Wall is the large gully just right of Can't Fly Any Higher, but have no confirmation that this is the case and it has not caused any problems. Though if it's all now forbidden I suppose the distinction is academic.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:

I rest my case.

In reply to John Willson: For £35 it's possible to do a search on the land registry and get the title deeds and a plan. Hopefully the description of the plot would be definitive enough to settle any disputes.

http://www.landsearch.net/services.asp

In reply to Mike Raine:
Oh dear...........a bunch of people see how I word certain things as threats...........
sad people aint ya..........
" It would not be a good idea for anyone to confront me"
Why?
Because I would personally keep you out for doing it, that's why.
I have the authority to do that.
"Visit the quarry and you will soon meet up with me."
Well of course you would sooner or later.
Now were those threats?
I think not.
Still question that?
Shame aint it.
Don't like the thoughts of a total ban?
Tough, go find some other place then.
The"person"I answer to has no say in how I word anything or how I speak.
People who try it on get what they deserve in life.
See that in whatever way y'all want.

These posts from KF are getting stranger & stranger.


You'll be getting people coming down just to meet you and see if 'Kev the Man' lives up to his own hype.


Come on Kev, post a profile pic !


So Kev, what was the confrontation tally today?. A daily report from our man 'Kev in a quarry' would be a winner on UKC.

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse: Thanks for again not answering any questions, going off on one and being a bully. And here I quote you:

"I am well known by a lot of people in the area and by the police and they all know how I deal with that kind of nonsense."

How do you deal with "that kind of nonsense"? Physically? Perhaps that is why you are, by your own admission, "well known by the police". If you carry on in real life the way you do on this forum, I would not like to meet you. You come across as a ranting & incoherent bully.

If I was your employer I would be holding my head in my hands and weeping at what a total mess you have made of what could have been a very simple situation.

In reply to John Willson:
Not usually one to spend my time looking at UKC forums, but rather get out there and climb, I was up to now quite oblivious to the whole scene unfolding around access to Woodcroft Quarry. So when we turned up there bright and early this morning I was a bit perplexed to see bright orange fencing by the side of the gate, but have to admit that we just proceeded as usual to quietly make our way down to Go-Wall where we spent an excellent day climbing. On the way out I met Kevin, who came across as a quiet, well-spoken chap who politely explained to me about the recent change in land ownership and resulting changes to the way access rights were to be enforced to Woodcroft Quarry. I asked him for his name and details to take up contact with the BMC about this issue (a little late in the day it would seem, looking at the above forum trail). After having read all this, my recommendation would be to follow the good advice given in the more sensible posts above; we all know what to do, so don't make it a bigger deal than it needs to be. Cheers.

In reply to John Willson:
And just on a slightly different note. We had a massif near miss today when a table size block came crashing down from the very top of GO Wall (probably the chaps topping out on King Kong) and impacted at the base of Heil Hitler, where we had stood just a minute previously. Falling blocks appear to becoming a regular occurance around the base of the Leap, especially on busy days when lots of climbers are out on the wall. On days like that it is often impossible to make out who is climbing above, so helmets should be worn at all times (although one of those is unlikely to save you from table sized falling blocks!). More importantly, extreme caution should be exercised when climbing on large blocky terrain, especially towards the top of routes; remember, it may not just be you taking a small fall onto gear, but there may just be the unlucky soul wandering the base of the cliff in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Sorry for the safety rant, I'm sure yall know what you're doing...

In reply to msoldn:

Excellent posts. Thanks for getting some calm sense back to the thread.

J

In reply to all:

Well, a lot of that made fairly depressing reading after coming back from a day’s route-checking at Symonds Yat. I penned several responses, none of which passed the overnight test, so I’ll confine myself to answering some specific points raised.

In response to Mike Raine, yes I will be contacting the owners, initially to try and establish what their actual concerns and intentions are, and the reason for the sudden change. I expect I will also draw their attention to some of the comments made on this thread.

To those asking what the affected area is, John Willson’s post at 19.19 yesterday explains what we know of the boundaries of the land in question – basically, this includes all of Fly Wall and Woodcroft Quarry, with some uncertainty about the area left of Still Nice and Still Sleazy. GO Wall and everything to its left is unaffected. Make your own decisions about whether to climb there – I am not advising for or against it – but as I said earlier, please avoid any further damage to the fencing and remain civil if challenged. Please let me know (thanks msoldm) of any developments or incidents.

Thanks
Rick Sewards
BMC Wye Valley Access Rep

In reply to Aiden Wright: Dude, this kind of response isn't helpful - according to your profile you live up in Yorkshire so probably don't climb down here too often. So you're not exactly concerned about aggravating Mr Fieldhouse as you'll never run across him. For the rest of us who do climb around there it would be helpful if posters don't go around calling him a bully and making him think we're all abusive yobs up for a scrap, this isn't just some anonymous internet flame war, these forums do spill over into the real world once in a while.

To be blunt guys, on a delicate subject such as this, think what you're going to say and if you don't have anything constructive to say, then please think twice before posting it.

Let's face it, when the BMC does get in touch with the owners of the quarry, the first thing that will probably happen is the owners will hold out the discussion on here so let's at least look reasonable and not descend any further into name-calling.

</end sermon>

In reply to Kevin Fieldhouse:
Kevin,
As an occasional visitor to Wintour's Leap could I politely request that, if you make any judgements based on this discussion, you judge UKC as opposed to the entire climbing community. It's well known that people tend to be far more antagonistic when shielded by the anonymity afforded by the internet. It seems that you've already had some much more constructive discussions with climbers in the flesh and I'd hope that these will be more representative.

In reply to Luke90:
There will not be any more "judging"of anyone as from now(at least on here) and as from today I will not be a part of this forum.

Thanks to all those who made constructive(not a word I use too often)remarks or comments, it proves there are some decent people about.
To anyone else who took anything I said as a threat or that I am a bully then you should know that I am known by the police for the civilized way I conduct myself when confronted or when threats are made face to face.

When surrounded by six idiots and yes, I will call them that because that is what they were, who decided they were going to shove me over the edge of the quarry one day just because I challenged them as they where trying to blow chunks of rock up to see how far they would fly in the air, the first thing I was going to do was defend myself.
That is what I did and that could have been seen as me being a"bully"
I could not bully anyone seeing that I had a stroke ten years ago.
For those that do not want to believe that then that is up to them.
Both things happened.
The person I work for happens to know what I can be like when needed.
If some clever person decided to try it on then I would defend myself in whatever way needed.
That is legal.
I have friends in the police and have talked about that issue loads of times.
To anyone I met and spoke to on Saturday, it was good to meet you.