Hands Off Hartlebury Common

#1679: John -

you need to examine your information, your intelegence and knowledge of the structure of common land, then, and only then, you would be able to put your brain in gear, until then, just let people think of you as an idiot, saves opening your mouth to remove all doubt.

janet

#1681: John -

the information you need will not be held at WCC, there isn't any, the land registry documents are incomplete ie, no conveyance,no title deeds.

the secretary of state did not, give consent retropspective or otherwise, no application was ever made to that minister.

the consent, to include a supplementry from THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE, was that as long as the works were not in breach of any enactment, they would be lawful, the enclosure act has been repealed [criminal damage to the soil and plant growth] as there is no evidence that will stand up to conveyance solicitor examination, the application was false, 2006 fraud act!

as for the car park which is unlawful, it is also not covered by public liability insurance, the cattle are not lawful as they occupy commoners rights, public unimpeded access from all, points of view, the cattle are not covered by third party insurance or any lawful protection.

janet LLP.

#1688: - Re:

I THOUGHT THIS WEB PAGE HAD BEEN CLOSED, HAS IT HAS NOT MAY I STATE THAT I HAVE NOT ABANNONED WCA, MY HELP WITH COMMON LAND LAW IS STILL AVAILABLE.

I WILL ALSO REITERATE MY STANCE ON THE INJUNCTION, IT WILL NEVER BE COMPLIED WITH BY ME, TO ENFORCE THAT INJUNCTION AND TO PREVENT ME FROM REMOVING ANY IMPEDIMENT WILL REQUIRE AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT.

TONY BARNETT

CHAIRMAN OF COMMON HERITAGE

We know for a fact that WCC do not own the common. We Know for a FACT that the work there is illegal. We have still not been persued in a criminal court? and we know exactly why.

We know for a FACT that all this work is about money and the new, industrialised conservation industry. It is just a popular? means and excuse for money from europe and nobody could be happier than the operatives..

We have not given up, just changed our tactics.

Steve

#1692: steve mccarron - Steve Mccarron

You won't change your tactics, you're also obviously back removing posts that either show your arguements as flawed or that give people alternative information to think about. Sadly people looking at this forum won't be able to see anything intelligent happening because of your 'tactics'.
Anyone with half a brain can follow the legal side of it with a bit of their own investigation, get hold of the appropriate paperwork which shows the legal progression of this urban common. Unless they're sheep who don't have the ability to do more than take your innacurate 'facts' at face value.

The theft of the publics property is reprehensible. All this "stuff" about the councils ownership, public consultation, public approval and every other bit of propoganda only pleases the naive or the corrupt but has no grounding in reality.

The common is eroding faster now than at any other time in it's recent history, the top terrace at the south is collapsing and is now changing on a daily basis as are other parts of the common.

I am not bothered by the few or the minority who support this miserable enterprise but am dissapointed by the many who do nothing.

As far as the continued removal of fencing is concerned, unfortunatley for our critics, we were not the first and no doubt will not be the last to do this. Our last excursion was preceded by calls to the police and WCC to let them know where and when in advance we would do this, any inference that we are respoisible for any other public spirited activity is simply wishful thinking on the part of our detractors who blindly choose to claim we are a one man objection group, however we do have 0ver 3000 hand written verifiable signatures in support of our objections, to put it simply, we are not a minority here.

As far as facts are concerned, we will meet any body, anywhere to debate these, however, if you are refering to the councils press re-leases as factsd, these would be a bit thin on the ground when it comes to the truth, which is why we were subject to mudslinging and childish abuse from the anonymous contributers to this forum.

In 1965, a royal commission found that Hartlebury Common was subject to section 9 of the commons registration act, meaning that there was no registered owner, no registration at the land registry, and that NO OWNER COULD BE FOUND. This would not have been the case had the church OWNED the common. It was recocgnised as being an UN-REGULATED, rural common.

This link is to the DEFRA web document which concurs with the above FACTS.
6209 is the index number for hartlebury common in the left hand common, registration number CL68 On a Google search, the listing below will be one of the top three results

[XLS]  Common land database - ARCHIVE: Defra archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/protected/common-land/comm...

The page heading describes this list as a registry of section 9 commons, or, if you like, I have enclosed a snapshot of Hartlebury Commons inclusion in 1965 as an un-owned common...........

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x395/stevemac2/section9jpeg.jpg?t=1330701567...

The church commissioners may have been lords of the manor but as a common, the common was and always was a common and not included in any title, therwise it would have been called, "Bishops Wood" or "Churchfields etc etc.

This is a very simple FACT. Hartlebury Common was always exempt from fee simple because it has been disregarded as an estate as it has always been a common.

On the 1968 conveyance document, there is one significant ommission in the most crucial part of the document. For a fee simple document, it should say "As befeficial owners", meaning the church. It does not.

Also, a fee simple document refers to a blood line inheritance, or inheritance matters, hardly applicable in the context of a freehold sale of a peice of land to a council. It is an innacurate document at best and at worst fraudulent.

What I have written here are facts. Whilst members of our community seem to be happy with the theft of our last public heritages and the disregard for the ancient protections that they still have, I am not. This is OUR heritage and the publics rights that are being dis-regarded. This mammoth land grab is being done subsequent to the biggest bastardisation of good will in recent history in this country. It has nothing to do with the welfare of our enviroment but all to do with job creation and empire building paid for by the public. These mickey mouse schemes cannott support themselves finacially, it is simply not possible, as unsustainable as the landscapes being created.

Steve McCarron

McCarron please see this print screen

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/1025/64259223.jpg

which clearly shows the same entry 6209 as you show, except I scrolled across, you can not hide the truth to fit your own agenda it there for everyone to see.