Hands Off Hartlebury Common

#1702: - Re: Re:

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 credebility.

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 1958, 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.

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