Hands Off Hartlebury Common

Oh what a joke Martin Barnett and adrian the so called farmer talking a load of rubbish about the cattle.The thing that upset me the most was Adrian saying that he has the right to SHOOT YOU DOG if they bother the cattle,on common land what a joke.
One day he WILL get the smug look knocked off his face, but I suppose all the money he is racking in he would have a smug look on his face who would'nt.
Very sad the cattle should go and we should have our common back.
Today while walking the cattle were being chased by a dog and stampeeded 4 people including myself had to get out the way pretty quick.Not our fault not our dogs chasing the cattle.
One day there will be a very bad accident or maybe a fatal one.If you hear cattle running get behind the nearest tree.

Carol

#1: -  

 it woulds seem english heritage now sides with commoners of stourport and have changes there rules accordingly so the  36  sites of scientific intrests  can  now be kept as  it is what a result  which means it is now against rules not to look after all 36 sites of scientific intrest that make up the peoples common land hartlebury common note the word common worcestershire  county council bandits

#1606: tony - Re:  

 the cattle only have no right to be there and are supposed to be restricted to a small area and should not be roaming around on a public common farmer and council should be sued for damage to vast areas of crasslands ect..... what  is happening is incontravention of english heritage rules  recently changed and eu law ..true

#1606: tony - Re:

Interesting, but you'll have to put a link to the report/news article/English Heritage site that shows us a bit more about that?

In our area (Herefordshire and Worcestershire) We have 36 protected geological SSSIs that are looked after/protected by Natural England, being an SSSI doesn't make them common land though and Hartlebury common has two 'commoners'. We live in the area and have access but just living round here doesn't make you a commoner of course.

#1607: peter - Re: Re:

direct qoute from English heritage website

"English Heritage is the Government's statutory adviser on the historic environment. Officially known as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, we are an executive Non-Departmental Public Body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Our principal powers and responsibilities are set out in the National Heritage Act (1983)."

Basically a group that has no dealings with natural environment and are essentially the same as natural england but for buildings

So the work at the common has nothing to do with them, end of!

#1608: - Re: Re:  

 type in search box  natural england have look on web site

#1612: - Re: Re: Re:  

 position changed just the other day

#1612: - Re: Re: Re:  

 yes correction the quango involved english whatever!!! has changed its guide lines just the otherday

#1608: - Re: Re:  

 look up laws for commoners rights in law and also definition of as you well know any one that uses for any purpose as prescribed in said laws ect...

#1612: - Re: Re: Re:  

 SILLY

#1617: - Re: Re: Re:

'look up laws for commoners rights in law and also definition of as you well know any one that uses for any purpose as prescribed in said laws ect...'

I'm not 100% sure what you mean there (so sorry if I get you wrong), but if you mean that anyone who uses the common is a commoner then I'm afraid you're wrong. Any member of the public can use the common for exercising on or walking accross because it's land that the public have access to, but it doesn't make them commoners. There are only a couple of 'commoners' for Hartle bury common, 'commoners' being the people who have 'common rights'. The couple of commoners with rights on Hartlebury Common have the right to dig sand and stone for their own personal use.

#1614: - Re: Re: Re:

I've had a look, but it doesn't affect Hartlebury common anyway? It just looks like a paper pushing exercise on guidance that does basically what the system already does.
In fact as it talks about discussions between landowner and commoners, I'd worry that it would narrow area discussions down to just that: owner and commoners, in the case of Hartlebury (if this had previously been in place of course as it doesn't apply now) one owner and two commoners who don't graze anyway.

#67: Steve McCarron - Re: Re: hands off hartlebury common

Hi Steve.

Some of your correspondents mirror NE in their research,science and motivation.

I do not intend to dwell but would ask readers to understand that heathland is one of the Worlds rarest ecosystems(as many state) and that,in that context,NE do that ecosystem a huge disservice in concentrating on human 'constructs' whilst not resourcing/protecting the few self sustaining,natural heathlands that exist from prehistory in England.In essence NE propound a part truth.Heathland is rare BUT NOT the heathland they attend to.

NE are SO expert they denied the existence of natural,self sustaining,heathland until I took the issue to Jim Paice who confirmed I was correct.

The problem?In the words of SB Chapman(World renowned heathland researcher)"self sustaining heathland should never be grazed" but NE in not accounting for this World rarity in their HLS handbook expose it to grazing and degradation by default and ignorance.

A World rarity(mostly on coasts and at elevation) exposed to degradation by self professed experts that prefer agendas and financial rewards to surveying,studying and preserving what may the last wild environment in England.

Further,Johnstone in his Antrim Chough study stated that grazing to aid Choughs would degrade coastal heathland but NE encourage it.

McNanch in his Red Billed Chough claimed a greater correlation between the decline and recovery of Rabbits and the decline and recovery of the Chough than the grazing of domestic stock.So why graze?

Perhaps small,but a very damaging agenda that is driven by grazing,money and NOT best practise.

An NE senior manager told myself,Craig Weatherhill and Ian McNeil Cooke that they would be considered successful if all they did was put money into the rural economy(they actually meant farmers).

MY POINT.

Those that question yourself should take the same tack with NE to expose the full truth rather than assuming that NE's truth is THE truth.NE deny succession and freely promote suspension at the cost of our global environment and in the promotion of an international industry that is,perhaps,a greater beneficiary than the biodiversity they freely market as their objective.