IO540, I don't believe we've ever met and I only bring the subject up when I see misguided statements being made but you obviously know best so will leave it there
Now, if you're an airfield controlling traffic in the immediate vicinity then the best solution may well be a primary and co-located secondary feed at the airfield itself rather than getting a remote feed in from somewhere else.
The further away from the area one is looking at the worse the low level coverage will be. Thames, for example, suffers from this as it is forced to use both both primary and secondary feeds that are some distance from its area of operation.
A name and shame campaign has been suggested, well what exactly does one think it will achieve? Aside from Farnborough none of the London area airfields mentioned are in any way obliged to provide services outside CAS so in what way are they being shamed? In most cases though a service is provided if capacity allows, if it doesn't then no service may be provided. In other words you often get more than the service provider is strictly required to provide.
The decision was effectively taken at government level to turn NATS in to a commercial organisation and in the last few years the management have embraced that challenge with relish. But it's has also bitten the company in one or two areas, think infringements perhaps, and the disengagement from the light end of the customer base that had taken place over the last few years.
That disengagement though is hopefully now being addressed to some degree. Don't expect radical changes overnight but there are moves afoot that should ultimately provide better services outside CAS in the busy SE.