Hartlebury Common

Sorry, forgot to include this also....

hartlebury common reasons

This enclosed video is not a crank video but it illustrates part of the mindest behind the aquisition and destruction of our commns subject to agenda 21.

Please try to watch it to the end. I know it is USA based, but the same applies here. what it does not mention is that the funding subject to agenda 21 comes from you the tax payer. You are funding the destruction of Hartlebury Common and the theft of all of our common lands and open spaces.

The work at the common IS subsequent and dependant on agenda 21, and you are paying for all of it. sorry if that sounds biased David Shepherd.

Enjoy, Steve McCarron

http://www.jbs.org/news/agenda-21-how-will-it-affect-you

The rape of our common lands

Graham Llewellyn.

Below sumarises the deceptions here. I have amended the site front page also.

Steve McCarron

1/ ANY money for funding subsequent to agenda 21 is supposed to be to preserve 'NATURAL', non man-made (anphropogenic) enviroments.

2/ Agenda 21 funding is NOT for the creation of artificial habitat which is subsequent to anphropogenic effect. Unatural, habitat in other words.

3/ There are NO comparable schemes to ours in Britain, in the world in terms of the above transgressions. ie, deliberatley creating the unsustainable.

4/ SSSI recognition exists  to protect 'natural' enviroments. At Hartlebury, the enviroment is UNEQUIVOCALLY declining as the landscape sucumbs to so called 'management'. The enviroment is being damaged criminally therfore. A clear violation of SSSI protections, which would normally result in prosecutions.

5/ The same method of intervention cannot be employed on all topography and landscape regardless, the length and breadth of the country, but it is, why?
The reason is, this is how it HAS to be, that this is how funding is secured.

6/ The grazing aspect of Natural Englands policy within newly corraled open spaces is to underline a sham claim of sustainable agriculture when non exists, except on paper to claim subsidy.

7/ The funding which is claimed from the EU to preserve natural habitat is derived in the first place from tax payers.

8/ Tax payers money is 'laundered' through the EU to fund employment therefore.

9/ Deliberatley, un-susutainable schemes have been invented to ensure the on-going momentum of this enterprise.

10/ The most important factor to Natural England is for them to be able to bully everyone into compliance to accept it's fencing, felling, grazing mindset regardless of the damage to the enviroment. Also planning applications are flouted and ignored, 'new' SSSI protections are blunt instruments to achieve it's aims and objective to secure cash into the treasuries coffers.
Any reasonable intelligent person can rest assured that these unfortunate facts are true. Expediancey is the order of the day, if it was thought the troublesome public mindset could have  been convinced that turning all our green spaces and woodlands, commons, heaths, chases, ridings and moors into car parks, to achieve the achieve the same finacial endgame, this state- goverment, john prescott would have done so.

11/ The finacial claim from the EU each year is at least 800 million pounds

I would and have debated this with any body and have done, none can refute my observations, it is just a matter of theft.

Bit of a lenghty one but this explains a lot

Agenda 21 is a non-binding and voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development. It was a core work product from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. Succinctly, Agenda 21 is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally, and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans directly affect the environment. The "21" in Agenda 21 refers to 21st Century. The blueprint has been affirmed and modified at subsequent UN conferences.

Agenda 21 has 300 pages (approx 351 in PDF & HTML) divided into 40 chapters, grouped into four main sections:

Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions

This section is directed toward combating poverty, especially for developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population and sustainable settlement in decision making.

Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development (chapters 9-22) concern:

• combating deforestation (chapter 11);
• managing fragile ecosystems: combating desertification and drought (chapter 12);
• managing fragile ecosystems: sustainable mountain development (chapter 13); promoting sustainable agriculture and rural development (chapter 14);
• conservation of biological diversity (chapter 15);
• environmentally sound management of biotechnology (chapter 16);
• protection of the quality and supplies of freshwater resources (chapter 18);
• environmentally sound management of solid wastes and sewage-related issues (chapter 21).

Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups

Includes the roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and workers and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their community and farmers.

Section IV: Means of Implementation

Contained within  section ll (above and  highlighted) of agenda 21 on bio diversity is the wording which directs us  to encourage;

"Natural species, in their natural environments, in their natural places" As if free from human interference and not subsequent to anthropogenic effect.

Agenda 21 also sought to address the issues of sustainable agriculture and industrialization and reduce or redress human kinds impact on the environment relative to the above.

Attendees or subscribers could  claim financial subsidy from a central subscribed fund  to  financially offset the changes necessary to reduce anthropogenic effect on their environments. For example;

The Japanese government could apply for a financial  payment to pay fishermen to reduce fishing, or to fish elsewhere and to be involved in re-stocking programs to maintain the existence of the blue fin tuna.

South American governments  could apply for financial aid, to maintain  programs to stop  farmers slashing and burning  the Amazon rainforests with unsustainable agriculture. To pay for farmers to change their habits and to provide sustainable forestry (tree planting) and grazing.

There is hardly a country on the globe that is not involved in the Rio accord, the notable exceptions being China, the USA and Russia.

Funding for subsidy which countries apply for, is predominantly provided by government and major group donations which in turn is provided via direct taxation of its citizens. That is an irrefutable fact.

In this country subsidy claims should aspire to, or be similar to schemes in  South America. We should be rebuilding  our  forests, encouraging  farmers and key participants to re-engage with low intensity agriculture, and promote the concept of rough pasture and  to increase the size of field margins left fallow. The re-introduction of our natural forests and wildernesses in Britain is significant as we only have 12% of our natural woodland left which is our ‘natural’ habitat.

We have not done any of these things with a resolve befitting the Rio accord, and in particular the adherence to the principal of agenda 21 (to maintain and sustain natural species, in their natural environments, in their natural places") so why not?

Replanting forests and establishing a better and more sustainable agricultural practice does not require an ongoing demand for funding. Once good practice and  tree planting has been put in place, it would only have required administering under the forestry commission and DEFRA albeit with some additional staffing levels and legitimate funding proportionate to the aims of

agenda 21.

The questions of employment and income is key here which is why the preceding  proposals have been deliberately misinterpreted.  A ‘Natural England’ would mean letting nature take it’s course, but there would not be a claim to subsidy with that policy.

This country has had  a disastrous decline of our industrial past. Up to 70%  of our GDP is now based on service industries and it is for that reason the Rio funding has been fortuitous. The state- government has targeted the mechanism in the most cynical way, perverting and re-interpreting  the original aspirations of the RIO subsequently creating a nature conservation industry that offsets unemployment.

This mechanism of mass employment, and funding (for it is nothing else) was the brainchild of the previous administration’s party mandarins and the state. During his last labour administration as  ‘Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.’

John Prescott, created Natural England, which in turn has facilitated the destruction of the material and historic health of our only public and freely available English heritages by allowing the re-defining of the enforcement of the SSSI.

New ‘legislation’ allowed local authorities to act as if ‘Owners’ for the first time in the history of commons and  to illegally apply for the planning permissions for fencing, the erection of cattle races and the encirclement of commons.  Provisions where created whereby  for the first time, centuries old protections and traditions could and would  be swept aside.

I say ‘illegal’ applications for planning permissions since the overwhelming majority of local authorities in this country  cannot show legal ownership of the majority of England’s commons.

Subsequent to frequent land registration acts and enactments, local authorities where ‘vested with the responsibility of guardians of these spaces, and nothing more. “To protect them in every way from interference as if they were owned”   http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1965/64/section/9 Obsequious local authorities  flout there responsibilities in regard to this enactment and talk of the commons as being ‘their’ property (Hartlebury Common, et, al)

Natural England are the enforcing body which now supersedes The Forestry Commission, DEFRA, the National Trust, The Planning inspectorate, the public, English Heritage and anybody who gets in the way, into touch on these matters. It robustly  enforces  a new mindset on land management which includes the re-defining of  the implementation of  SSSI regulatory emphasis which is  used  to enforce  compliance of the new schemes to guarantee the flow of cash. The courts and the threat of  withdrawal of funding are the common tools used to silence These bodies for instance.

The vast majority of commons in England are un-owned and un-regulated. Local authorities in the rush for  funding status have falsely declared ownership of their spaces with a Natural England, Land registry and Planning inspectorate   that has not asked to many questions, and seem to have a collective amnesia of responsibility. Due diligence has NOT been observed in a  triumvirate of expediency.

Natural England are the organization that wanted to allow the re-introduction sea into large areas of  Norfolk  This was to re-introduce wading birds. The plans to abandon parts of the coast of Eastern England to the sea, followed the suggestion that six villages around the Norfolk Broads might  be given up to flooding within the next 100 years. six Norfolk villages at risk under the Natural England proposal where Eccles, Sea Palling, Waxham, Horsey, Hickling and Potter Heigham. However, There are fears that dozens of historic villages would have been abandoned to the sea also.

This was early in their career and their application was only stopped at the high court. To this day, Natural England are far from contrite stating that the high courts decision was the wrong one. Since then, they have gone from strength to strength basking in their self penned complimentary un-attributed way making people and landscapes miserable.

A large part of their current strategy is dealing with the negative attitudes they often encounter with individuals or groups what have either better practical experience in nature conservation or a more informed intellectual mind, or both. These are not to be tolerated and assimilation is the name of the game, with guidelines available to staff to assist in dealing with troublesome objection. In fact, within Natural England, this mindset has as great a presence in consultative issues as the conservation questions. The issue of hearts and minds is rolled out like a beachhead in an co-coordinated effort, like an invasion.

If the UK could invent a claim subsequent to Agenda 21 there would be a limitless supply of never-ending funds available for the state.

For employments sake, the state-government had to find a means of re-securing tax payers money back into the UK to fund employment. Laundering if you like. As mentioned above, there are obvious schemes which would be suited to the Rio principles, but these have not been used for the reasons  I have explained

An environmental claim had to be found. Eventually, in around 2004 a “Frankenstein monster of such a scheme” ( Ian Liddell Grainger MP, Hansard) was realized.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101026/halltext/101026h0002.htm

A merciless scheme was hatched to pervert the agenda 21 principles to fit into this landmass mindset. The historic English commons and open spaces would be  grazed and managed in an unsustainable way for the first time in their histories. This would be done to create an income in perpetuity.  Agenda 21 therefore could be used to finance employment in this country.

Some 330000 hectares of English common and open lands have existed in this country for over a thousand years. They have belonged to no man, or no person, and they have formed a quiet and undisturbed part of the English mosaic. Protected by strict and never changing commons laws. The principle guarding them is simple.

“No one person or persons can behave as if they are owners and form an impediment to another’s enjoyment in any way” With the majority of these spaces being wildlife wilderness sanctuaries free from the meddlesome interference of man. Without signage, gates, fencing and any other impediments or restrictions on movement.

The 21% of landmass and open access land could not exist In this diverse and arcadian and simple way forever. Historic open spaces which were the last great public access heritage left in this country would be gone forever and would exist in name only, re-branded as nature reserves, which is technically what they had been anyway for hundreds of years anyway, and re-sold to a beguiled public. Principally by erecting mass fencing and creating false livestock farming to unethically claim mass subsidy.

“Lowland Heath” is the rallying cry for Natural England in these matters, touting it to be  rarer than rain forests as an emotive claim.  However it does not stand up to intellectual scrutiny. Lowland heath is a product of anthropogenic effect. The very effect  that the Rio accord and our subscription to it sought to reduce and eradicate. It is rarer because it is not a natural part of our landscape and naturally it is succeeded by our natural landscape. (succession) Natural England refuse to acknowledge these inconvenient truths, however, by making repeated absurd claims of it’s unique bio diversity, it has become fixed in the minds of many as the acceptable, justifiable homicide of our open space heritages.

We have chosen the most absurd snapshot of mans  damage to the landscape by deforestation to preserve  something unsustainable, unnatural and downright wrong and the great and the good seem willing to subscribe to this baloney. By throwing a few cattle on this land we get an unethical claim as widespread farmers preserving quaint England and it’s rich tapestry. It Is a con, a fraud and at the publics expense.

The justification for this fixation on maintaining a unsustainable snapshot of our agricultural past (Heathland subsequent to failed grazing subsequent to deforestation) is that there is huge diversity of species, especially invertebrates.  Hence, “Bio diversity. However, this diversity comes at a price and is unnatural. For example, once one ecosystem is depleted, or removed, another will take it’s place. In this instance, by deliberate human interference, I don’t know how to make this any clearer. Once again I say, this is a flagrant breach of section two of agenda 21. It is not natural, and the diversity is an anachronism in our landscape.  Heathland does exist quite naturally in it’s place “without succession”, where  a “Natural” environment exists for it, and does not need interference.

The cattle are significant as they address the issue of agenda 21’s (to maintain and sustain natural species, in their natural environments in the presence of human need, industry and agriculture) By having pretend grazing this  relates to the sustainable agriculture part of the Rio accord.

To smooth over their sudden presence  the  English Nature publication, ‘Livestock grazing and its benefits for nature conservation’ is referred to as the academic justification. This  publication is unsupported and has no accreditation  and was produced concurrently as the introduction of cattle to facilitate this concept in the minds of the public and anybody else with less than rudimentary knowledge of cattle grazing. The presence of token herds  is just to further a claim of sustainable practice, where in fact non exists. It avoids mentioning that grazing cattle are very hard on an environment, causing compaction of the ground, and eating desirable flora and fauna.

The publication is an assembly of nonsense which cares not for place or circumstance but sees grazing as a panacea. Cattle are grazed in pockets not reflecting true industry production but as showcase exhibits, secretly exceeding to the “Sustainable” tag and claims to funding from the EU.

The use of rare breeds cattle, is an attempt at further “Oldie, worldy “ qualification that is founded on nonsense, such as  the size of the breeds hooves and the cattle’s visual impact which matters not as they churn up the landscape.

The mantra of “Fencing, cattle, tree felling, Fencing, cattle, tree felling, Fencing, cattle tree felling,” is used universally across the country, regardless of demographic to acquire subsidy from the EU.

Buzzwords and acronym’s,  BAP’s, or bio diversity action plans and Species Action Plans (SAPs), HLSS, Higher Level Stewardship Schemes, are terms used freely in the nature conservation industry. In this country they are used with pseudo authoritarian zeal to   that are used  (expediently) to refer to our supposed commitment to maintain ecological diversity, but not as Rio wanted it. We are going to maintain the non maintainable and unsustainable, the diversity of our anthropogenic effect as unsustainable as it is a mockery. Our natural biodiversity lies in it’s indigenous natural woodlands, and anything else is a made up nonsense. We now  are subject to a fascistic mindset of the clearly absurd and unpalatable.

Instead of receiving funds subsequent to the ideals of agenda 21, we are  doing the opposite.  ‘Creating unnatural’ habitats, for unnatural species in unnatural places. All of this subject to anthropogenic effect?

The is the  opposite of what we are supposed to be doing. The mindset, or mantra is that we are re-creating “Lowland Heath”, itself a product of man’s damage on the environment, itself  a unwanted result of a desire for grazing land. Cattle do not feed on heather.

An internet search for wildlife trusts will return a plethora of organizations, consultancies, overseeing bodies, regulatory bodies, the lists are endless and the scale of the enterprise for our countries engagement in the wildlife of the country is fierce. Former playing fields, commons, village greens, parks, quarries and any available spaces have been re-branded as nature reserves and bio zones.

Across the country, new fencing has enclosed roadside verges and pockets of land of ridiculously small proportions whilst the people are encouraged to gawp at grazing rare breeds cattle engaged in saving the planet, all in all, a ridiculous charade, or pantomime of what was a good ideal. The  wildlife trusts  are a convenient vehicle for our new eco egalitarianism but are  themselves are a parody of the ideas of the founder Charles Rothschild who resented anthropogenic effect and humans for that matter, even building  on stilts, so that there would be minimum impact on the ground below. There is no irony anywhere here also that the symbol of his movement was the badger. However , like so many inconveniences,  expediency rules and the agri, and eco enemy number one, is soon to face mass genocide by gassing.

On common lands, right of access has been removed for the first time since the Norman invasion. Dog owners are being told to keep their pets on leads and footpaths are being blocked. Mature and juvenile woodland, and forests are being destroyed and removed. Erosion of formerly stable habitat is rampant once this insane so called management  is initiated and formerly fire resistant habitat is being turned into massive climate change exasperated tinder boxes as a result (Dorset heath fire, Upton Heath). Ironically we are now doing the exact same thing pursuant to the claim of money as what we have condemned south American farmers for doing and in an eerie parody of this cattle are being introduced within the newly fenced open spaces.

The level of control of free access by all is under threat. Walker’s,  rambler’s,  horse owner’s and rider’s, dog owner’s, or anyone who has taken these places for granted have found, their legal historic rights and freedoms curtailed  already. This is not scare mongering, this is already happening and will increase.  Restrictions on access and movement have been put in place on open spaces that belong to us, and if anybody thinks nothing of this, they to will find a day when what they formerly enjoyed, removed, or restricted.

A Case Study: Hartlebury Common, Worcestershire

This is a detailed account, but it’s validity here is because; as the policy of land conversion is a repeated carbon copy for the hundreds of different sites across the country, the damage and objections are carbon copies also.   ‘When’ consulted, the overwhelming majority of all communities do not want their historic open spaces changed.

Hartlebury common has never been registered as a grazing common, it has existed only for soil and mineral extraction since 1150.

However, for the first time in it’s history it is being systematically  grazed. Natural England know this as I have contacted Francis Flanagan, the Worcester area manager, and have forwarded this document,   http://archive.defra.gov.uk/rural/documents/protected/common-land/common-land.xls    showing this fact and explaining this anomaly.  Unfortunately he has not, and will not discuss this matter and chooses to rely on hearsay rumors of  traveler grazing than a commoners register. Therefore, the place is falling to bits and is in a worse state subsequent to so called management that any time in its history.

The level of so called expertise  here is questionable beyond expert belief. Irrelevant post war shoddily erected stonework erected by a farm laborer from a demolished stone barn to mark out  a farm boundary has been awarded the title of a ‘revetted bank’ and has been re-branded as ‘ancient stonework’.  It is in fact reclaimed ashlar work stone blocks  scavenged from a demolished  barn in the early 1950’s  and  re- assembled as an un-coursed rubblework low wall. The only thing holding it together was the scrub, soil and roots of small trees and bushes recently removed by an earnest work party. Once it starts to fall apart again, there will have to be another consultancy with Worcestershire wildlife consultant (Nick Button) to decide what to do next.

There has been yet more damage from the cattle owner regularly off roading on the delicate substrata and his insistence of driving boldly where no one has gone in the history of this place in his Land Rover. Jointly, the volunteer, work party vehicles have created roads where there where non.  The common is decaying and it’s demise is in response to gravity and extremes of weather with large tracts of the upper terrace collapsing into oblivion below. This decay is irreversible and is accelerating.

Perfunctory and carbon copy hearings that precede the chainsaws, fencing, cattle and destruction are and were just another step in the ‘inspectors’ rubber stamp of un-lawful authority across the land at all sites , at  Hartlebury common, the Open Spaces Society, Edgar Powell said at the inspectors hearing, and I quote;

“The council has sought the consent of the environment secretary under section 38 of the Commons Act 2006. As our local correspondent Edgar Powell points out: ‘We cannot understand why Worcestershire County Council proposes to fence the common when it must know that, under the Hartlebury Inclosure Act of 1815 (the associated award being sealed in 1821),

it is illegal to divide or enclose the common, and that it needs an act of parliament to revoke this clause.”

Whilst  ‘changes to legislation’ have facilitated the drastic changes happening in our open spaces these laws and other laws of protection (there are many) need an act of parliament to revoke, annul or extinguish. None of this has occurred which is why the open spaces society Edgar Powell calls this sort of behavior Illegal. If anybody should know, it should it should be him.

http://oss.panther.webexpectations.net/concern-about-hartlebury-common-fencing-plan-%E2%80%93-7-january-2009concern-about-hartlebury-common-fencing-plan-%E2%80%93-7-january-2009/

I have contacted Kate Ashbrook to ask what she intends to do about what The Open Spaces Society say’s is  clearly  an illegal act. After all, this is specifically within there charitable remit and what affords them their status as such. Much to my surprise, she replied,  “The past was the past and we have all moved on?”

What she really meant to say, was that the open spaces society had subsequently become Natural England’s latest “Uncle Tom” in matters of our countryside.

In the future, she would not have to include paragraphs begging for funding as a marginal pressure group( http://www.oss.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/281732-open-spaces-spring-09.pdf)

Instead of campaigning for the legitimate maintenance of our historic accesses, she too, now has embraced the corralling of England to upgrade her organizations status as supporters of this nonsense after previously condemning it?. She now extols the virtues of our new fenced England seemingly at any cost. Complainants of this attitude say that since the OSS clearly  identify the illegality of Worcestershire County Councils position, but choose not to make a legal challenge, and by acting in this way and in other similar cases The Open Spaces Society and Kate Ashbrook are in breach of there charitable status’s and that the charities commission should investigate this anomaly immediately.

Worcestershire county councils application as owners was incorrectly not made  until 2007, when they needed qualification  of ownership for  Natural England cash through supposed ownership and planning permissions. To this end, they provided a solitary, miss-worded  1968 conveyance document which  is technically and willfully inappropriate, only being in existence because historically some body either mistook their authority to  “Sell” the un-sellable in the parish, or deliberately colluded in a potential land grab at that time.

They ‘bought’ the common  from the church commissioners apparently.  However, not only do the Church of England have no records of ownership of the common, the council have no pre-registration titles, a common owners register and no legal lineage which should have accompanied this purchase, and indeed registration.

As local authority owners, they were compelled to register their ‘owned’ common repeatedly up until now, but have never done so. On top of this, there have been numerous land registration acts and enactments which would have flagged up the ownership of the common historically. These would have provided the extra documentation (pre-registration titles), which would have led ‘some’ credibility to the councils claim of good title. As if this where  not enough to undermine the claim of ownership on it’s own, there has been  a royal commission survey (1955-67), as to the status’s of  the common’s in England conducted by Aberystwyth University. As with most commons in England, it was found to be subject to section 9. Which means, “Where no owner can be traced”

The local HM Land registry (Howard Slegg) has been told of these facts, but do not seem to want to get involved, suggesting “That since the date of the conveyance was 1968, it confers good title because it exceeds 15 years of un-opposed time . Of course, it was un-opposed, because  a trusting public had no need to ‘check up’ on their local authority. As with all commons, it is only when fencing is erected and the cattle arrive, and when landscapes are changed that there are questions, but by then, it has all been sewn up, or so it seems.

Extrapolating what Mr. Slegg has told the public of Hartlebury, as long as a document is pre-dated beyond question, it becomes in itself lawful beyond question. Therefore, through a negligent and careless system, anybody through calculation, could lay claim to any spare bit of land unopposed.

The council repeatedly states that the HM registration is lawful proof of ownership, “and that is that”; whilst avoiding the fact that the Land registry apparently (Howard Slegg) “does not question applications but relies on public vigilance and legal process” The council themselves are deliberately obtuse on this point of LR policy. In other words, the legality of an application is dependant on the applicant’s due diligence and honesty, but also and reciprocally it should also depend on the due diligence observed by the HM land registry. Where exactly is a complainant supposed to go if these two bodies, supposedly in positions of responsibility fail to act with each other.

To put this miserable state of supposed legal affairs into a legal simile, it would be like purchasing, or selling a car with no other documentation than a hand scribbled note.

A claimed public mandate was achieved (supposedly) by the local authority for the secretary of state, when an orchestrated public meeting was arranged and stage managed so that questions would not be heard from the floor, but could only be addressed  in private, in small groups away from each other, in different parts of a room, with replies being supplied by post. This was subsequent to an earlier attempt at a meeting (which was halted) when the publics overwhelming distaste for the “Proposals” was met with anger and was postponed.

Later, to accede to the rubber stamp and the  forgone conclusion of the appointed inspector, reporting back to the secretary of state he walked the common alone and could see no impediment for the implementation of works thereof. (He was not just an agent of the home office, but had wide-ranging expertise on wildlife and nature also so it seems.) Just prior to this, a poorly advertised hearing was arranged for in the middle of the week in the daytime. Some sixty people attended, thirty voted and twenty six found in favor of the proposals, most, associates of the council. By this time, the public had given up on protesting to what they considered a  forgone conclusion.

Conversely, an opposition group had no trouble in collecting just under 4000 signatures against the proposals in little over one month.  (Worcestershire Commons Association)

Hartlebury Common has had it’s SSSI status recognized on a number of occasions. Notably, in 1955 and again in1984. Recognition was for it’s unique interdependency, diverse mosaic and species cohabitating within it’s boundary. This included existing Heathland which occurred naturally in areas where succession by trees and scrub did not occur. There is substantial edge effect also of visiting and migrating species and interdependences. Unfortunately, Natural England insist (As they now do) that the local authority is compelled to maintain it’s SSSI status. This is the excuse and precursor for some fairly un-natural changes everywhere across the country. As I have said before,  fencing, tree removal and  the introduction of cattle are the norm and they are here. Then a genocide of the formerly established, sustainable and balanced landscape takes place. The program for Hartlebury is ongoing. According to Francis Flanagan of Natural England; “The program of work at Hartlebury common will continue in perpetuity, succession will never be allowed to happen,”. In the real world, succession has never really been an issue for the common, by the councils own  admission it has never been managed in earnest in 100 years. By now, therefore it should all be wooded, but it is not and had reached it’s own equilibrium a long time ago.

Objectors pointed to the  Google earth image of 2007  to compare with an Arial image taken in 1986. There was little difference in the amount of woodland apparent. The reply from the protagonists and Natural England was to promote a photograph taken from ground level, across the common showing nothing but treetops.

The greatest damage has and is being done to the trees, flora and fauna, and landscape which were present at both previous acknowledgements of it SSSI status. All this is being changed, felled and removed and it should not be as it had been present previously and acknowledged.  Before the SSSI was re-invented as a cash facilitating cudgel, it existed to recognize environments and enforce protections for them to be left alone. Intervention against natural phenomenon would be of the last resort only, for example against the invasion of non indigenous foreign species, Russian Vine, Himalayan Balsam, Blue Toxic Algae, etc.  Even so, action to mechanically interfere with a SSSI environment would be strictly as a measure of last resort and where no other solution could be shown.

Yesterdays implementations and adherences to the protections of the SSSI would ironically mean that today summons’s would be issued to our countrywide protagonists of so called nature conservation.

Incorrectly, or otherwise a ‘stand’, or square plantation of Scots Pines is one of the plantations destined for the chainsaw, (the other plantations are of oak). The plantations were created in more innocent times and are at least an addition to the landscape. The pine plantation was created by children carrying a single seedling walking from local schools to the common. I have met with the men who supervised that day and have also met some of the grown up children who have grandchildren of their own on the common. The oak tree plantations, where also planted by children. The dismay,  bewilderment and anger of these people is equaled  only by the corrupt sense that it is all a forgone conclusion and that nothing can be done.

At other sites, whole woods planted in memory to some person or other and for the benefit of a community have suffered the same fate. At Kinver, a meeting was held, such was the public opposition to the proposed removal of woodland by Natural England. An agreement was reached to leave at least some trees alone. However, once the chainsaws had started, nothing was left. The excuse, the trees were ‘rotten’. This ‘rot’ was curiously missing from the cores of the trees, so local residents could only conclude that if it did exist, it was somewhere else.

At Hartlebury Common, Trees that existed that were of no impediment to the previous listings of SSSI at Hartlebury Common (including all plantations) have been, and are going to be felled. ( The majority being oak trees, the oldest examples are 90 years old) http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x395/stevemac2/DSCF6601.jpg

In the visitors car park a sign proclaims that “Tethered grazing has been stopped at Hartlebury Common because of the potential damage that may be caused to desirable plant species” It can only be imagined that the specially selected un-tethered cattle will be selective in where they tread and what they feed on!  Therefore, the very habitat and mosaic is being destroyed in a campaign of un-sustainable eco bias to facilitate an income of laundered tax payers money back into the country.

As if this was not enough, the site is situated on friable exposed sandstone bedrock (not relic sand dunes) and  because of our changing weather patterns, it is particularly vulnerable to the weather cycles we now have of extreme drought and extreme flood. This is causing massive and subsequent decay to the strata and archaeology which is apparent particularly around areas of recent tree, scrub, and plant removal, which had kept the site stable.

The bane of the local opposition to the destruction of Hartlebury Common is a publication called ‘Hartlebury Common. A Social and Natural History’ by TUCKER, J.J, S. Zaluckyj and P.J. Alma. (1986)

S.Zalukyj was present at the hearing for Hartlebury Common and commended the use of cattle as protectors of the archeology  at the site. The reality, like at Penwith Moor and everywhere else is that cattle are quite punishing and combined with new vehicular traffic and the farmers propensity for off road driving around the archaeological remains on the top terrace irreparable damage has been done.

The book itself is based on conjecture rather than facts, with numerous omissions, spurious conclusions and inaccuracies. It is not on it’s own in this respect, but can hold it’s head up high with a catalogue of similar spastic journals which owe more to over enthusiasm and ego than practical knowledge and skill. It is doubtful that any of the protagonists of this useless book would find themselves able to meet on site to examine the results of their theories and natural England’s endeavors. No matter, any physical damage to the strata can be, and has been covered up with inadequate birch brash (branches)in an attempt to offset the desertification and erosion of the common.

It annoys me that our government and state and stupid public wants to play at being God with nature, creating artificial wildlife theme parks and pretend livestock farming agriculture that is suspended in time like a contemporary quaint Victorian village. I would prefer it  if they did it on legitimately acquired  land far away. I resent the theft of our commons and open spaces, the ongoing misappropriations of our heritages to fulfill a states greed to offset mass unemployment.

I would prefer it if the income for all this enterprise was obtained with a public mandate, where exactly do the public think the money comes from to finance thousands of miles of fencing, millions of pounds in subsidies to pretend farmers, the purchase of peoples extended back gardens, and the payment of the gigantic plethora of staff.  Which includes, wildlife trust employees, wildlife consultants, rangers, sub-contractors for fencing. Contractors to spray Asulox, tree surgeons, inspectors, vets. Then there is the transport and logistics for this supposedly sustainable enterprise, the list goes on and is growing all the time. WHO IS PAYING FOR ALL OF THIS?

It has been suggested to me that a  conservative annual figure of no less than 800 million a year is required to finance the countries local authorities and  to finance our new industrialized conservation industry. This figure has never been disputed, and a quick internet search and totting up would validate such a figure. It is not just the financing of the publicized schemes, it is the financing of the un-publicized infrastructure that is where the real money is spent.  800 million pounds of laundered tax payers money.

http://www.self-willed-land.org.uk/heath_madness.htm

http://www.saveourscilly.co.uk/page_2570898.html

http://www.savepenwithmoors.com/

Steve McCarron, Representing,  Worcestershire Commons Association. 2500 signatories and counting

18 August 2012

Simon mallinson is a cretin

We have confirmation at last from Lambeth Palace, the Church of England as follows.

1/ They have NO record of ownership of Hartlebury Common. Ever!

2/ They have NO record of any sale or transaction relating to the council in 1968 or at any other time.

3/ They do not have any record of, and have never had any records of title relating to hartlebury Common.

4/ The 1968 conveyance for the sale of the common to the council can only be a fraud, which is what it is.

Damages and claims for compensation to follow.

This case has already been submitted to a firm of lawyers therefore.

Mallinson, Pollock and haines were informed of this a long time ago.

Contact me steve@stevemccarron.co.uk for a copy of the documents, or call, 01299 251 497

Where is the public consultation regarding the changes to publics open spaces????

Why dont you stick to what you think you know, the 1968 conveyance document and the land registry document, both a load of fraudulent mishmash, but at least you will be on familiar ground. Mind you, you'l be to busy tarting up the common and increasing it's appearence to the Mohave desert. well done, some hobby horses cannott be resurected, no matter what you might think or have been told.

Until recentley, our heaths, commons, chases, moors and other open spaces where the last publicly available heritages. Now they are in the control of individuals. You might feel comfortable handing over our heritage on  a plate to an industrial faux conservation movement, but us and the vast majority of people are very unhappy with this state of affairs.

You must feel PROUD

Steve McCarron

Q/ Who owns the common? A/ No one

Cod Law

Apr 13, 2012, 23:31

THE MOST INANE POST FOR A LONG TIME, Enjoy....

Simon mallinson

We visit the common every day, and have yet to be arrested? or even censored. Put it this way. If someone jumps in your garden, you contact the police to say you have an intruder and have them removed. If they keep doing it you obtain an injunction to stop them. If they do it again you contact the police, who notify the court and a prosecution takes place.

However, if you consistentley refuse to take action, the police will quite rightley advise that their time is being wasted and the situation is not enforcable as you will not allow either a criminal prosecution subject to arrest, or the enforcement of an injunction.

The reason that worcetsrshire county council will not take us to court is because they know that....

a/ Their planning application for work to hartlebury common was fraudulent and illegal subject to false claims of ownership.

b/ Ditto, their application for funding from Natural England.

c/ The 1968 conveyance document was manufactured by a worcestershire county council employee or employees.

d/ If the council had purchased Hartlebury Common in 1968, thery should have registered it then with the land registry, this would have been compulsary.

c/ they have no other documents than other than the 1968 conveyance which is evidenced as fruadulent by at least the land registration acts registrations and the royal commission survey.

Their is more, much more which would have to be disclosed in open court but the rotten core of corruption plays their silly games of claims of ownership with the vain and ignorant and plays out this charade of belief.

Simon Mallinson might critizise my "Canard of belief" about the ownership of the common but in comparison he and his councils behaviour and assertions through the court process (If it can be called that) is like something out of Alice in Wonderland.

Simon, if you cannott wake up to reality, or choose not to, then you are the worst of public servants as are your sycophantic gullibal lackies. Therefore you are not fit for purpose and are a liar.

Steve McCarron

Our latest post, sue, sue sue, if you please......

Only someone like you could use text abbreviations to make a smiley face. Not very mature are we.

The grandiously titled phase 2. Do you mean the continued landscaping of hartlebury common. I don't know if you listen to the news, we are already facing hosepipe bans and they are already in place in the south east. This IS important and relevant because it is unprecedented and given the strata of the common potentially dangerous to all the species of  life there. Heather will not grow on sand, very little will and yet the promotion and growth of sandy areas is a result of the policy executed at the common.

This defoliation is dangerous and unnecesary but worth it if it gives you credibility. We are now experiencing the driest two years in recorded history which is why the common looks like the Nevada desert when viewed from the worcester road. There is now LESS biodiversity than at any time in the past 100 years. Well done.

Put it this way. One day, funding is provided for a eec promoted inititave. The conservation, restoration, excavation and the re-creation of our buried, archealogical past. There would be limitless funds providing the work began in earnest. Suddenley, the marginalised and ignored would hold sway. They would never turn down the opportunity to re-locate existing housing whatever the cost to human misery (re-flooding norfolk broads), infrastructure chaos to farming could ensue as protection orders are slapped all over the place as an archealogical monster grows out of all proportion and our landscapes are changed out of all recognition

The operatives themselves would be the last people on earth to question this gift of power and influence. This is why, in the face of such misery and destruction your grinning local ranger will tell you that there is no damage to the scilly isles or hartlebury common. Like archaeologists, these rangers. et al, shared the same status up until recently. They would not want to see the truth even if you put it in their lap. I believe that this mentality runs up to the highest levels of administration, if it was paying your mortgage, why worry. I am certain given the deliberate re-interpretation of the rio accord though, that social modelling is at work here after the demise of british industry. 76% gdp in britain is through the service industries now and increasing. Natural England, et al, were dreamed up by some oxbridge wiseguys who's lateral thinking is used to keep the country on course. All but those at the very top believe in this illusion of BAP's and HLS's and bio diversity. What we are doing in this country has NO relationship to the aspirations of agenda 21.

"Subsequent to the 1965 commons registration act, Hartlebury common was vested to the local authority as a rural common, or should have been for guardianship puposes only. To maintain the commons ancient and lawful protections. NOT as owners, the local authority had no more rights than anybody else. The commissionars direction was as such. They had the authority to COMPELL a local authority to do this , I think this is where you are getting mixed up."

The above in quotes is taken from my previous post, I could also add to this paragraph the following FACTS. In 1925 and again in 1938, the land registration acts seeking to identify land ownership in the british isles failed to flag up Hartlebury Common ownership. Three times in total, the ownership of the common by the church has eluded detection. The lord does move in mysterious ways, including invisibilty.

The facilitation for the enlosure similtaneously of 1000's of miles of our formerley open spaces accross the british isles and there grazing with cattle is neccesary to facilitate cash from europe and nothing more. Trouble is, it is being done on land that traditionally was free from this kind of interference, but also the funding comes from the tax payer. The goverment could not be seen to be creating this many jobs and empires directly, so the money has been laundered through europe.

So called "Natural England" and "Bio diversity" are just the patsies

Steve McCarron

PS.

Martin Barnett, Worcestershire County Council, countryside services, is a liar and has provided false evidence, statement  to a court.

David Shepherd, Worcstershire County Council, countryside services, is a liar and has provided false evidence, statement to a court.

June Salter, former councilor, former mayoress, is a liar and has provided false evidence, statement to a court.

I could go on, whether it is certain members of the police acting, innapropriatley, and unethically, or other members of the  council behaving in the same way. I might be minded to describe actuall events and apologies recieved but it sufices to say that these people know who I am talking about and why.

Share this petition

Help this petition to reach more signatures.

How to promote a petition?

• Share the petition on your Facebook wall and in groups related to the topic of your petition.
• Contact your friends
  1. Write a message where you explain why you have signed this petition, since people are more likely to sign it if they understand how important the topic is.
  2. Copy and paste the web address of the petition into your message.
  3. Send the message using email, SMS, Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, Skype, Instagram and LinkedIn.