Hands Off Hartlebury Common

#781: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

To date this has been an intelligent exchange. To decend into insult does you no credit nor does deleting a mild repost. I argue that the pre 1960s situation was acceptable to those grazing the common and that they considered there to be no danger to their animals. If dangerous species to horses now exist they must have appeared post the 1960s either naturally or by the hand of man. The felled oaks grew in a pattern that showed evidence of the hand of man as they were in a rough line and evenly spaced. The toxic nature of oaks is irrelevant to the debate. The site is to be lightly grazed by cattle who are not suseptable to an oaks toxin. The public inquiry heard expert evidence on the issue of grazing. No one disagreed with the benfits of light grazing of the common. The Inspector considered all relevant matters and concluded that on balance the matter should proceed. Whilst I accept your right to hold a different view in order to convince others of the value of your arguement you should be able to demonstrate where the professional witnesses were in error by evidence that can be tested. I have seen no evidence that has been the subject of peer review that would lead me to support your opposition to the proposed grazing. I bear you no ill will. Your continued stance and acceptance of legal advice from a lay source will have far reaching personal consequences. Please give some time to reflect on the matter before you delete this reply. It matters not to me. I withdraw from the debate unbowed. I have a life.