Says Steve McCarron on that tape

Not sure about the legality of the recordings, but my attitude is that I was not asked or told to NOT record and I would be un-aware of any issues arising.

Also, a challenge to the tapes would have to acknowledge the contents and statements within as evidence?

I make some very good points to my brief regarding criminality and enclosure on disc part one. Logic is not divisible, though at first she tries to say that it is.

On disc two I repeatedly ask the interviewing officer am I being questioned about the removal of a "Lawfully" erected fence, or the removal of a "Un-lawfully" erected fence. He reuses to say and I persist and repeat this to him. He then says that it is of no consequence to the interview. I then point out to him that the significance is gravely important as without proper evidence of the councils ownership my prosecution is at best unjust and at worst criminally negligent.

To date nobody has produced the slightest evidence of the councils ownership, not least the council themselves and yet our names are printed in newspapers -(PAGE 12) in fitted up slanderous tittle tattle purporting to be news. This should not have been printed, they should have just approached us for the money directly. They have now stopped saying however that:

a/ The council rightfully bought Hartlebury common form the church commissioners.
b/ They have a document of conveyance that shows title

Both of these claims are untrue and if they were evidence, then they do not want it debated publicly.

So the latest claim is a land that a land registry document that shows "Propriety" of Hartlebury common. This is the tool used to validate all sorts of actions. Unfortunately, until recently, I could have a land registry document the same as of YOUR house. The only thing stopping me from selling it from under your feet would be the epitome of title when push came to shove. This loophole was used by scammers to sell rented property for cash to gullible buyers at knock down prices. (urgent cash sale needed)

That is the validity of their document.

I would be willing to do anything I could regardless of consequence to me, as tony does, because I know that I am right, any further and arrest detention will simply add to the claim I intend to make anyway.

The criticality of what I have enclosed to you is that all our place are subject to the same fraud.

We need a domino effect

Listen to the tapes here :

Part 1

Part 2

Says Steve McCarron,
Chairman, Worcestershire Commons Association

We have done it.!!!!!!

Thank you Tony Barnett.

You have to ask yourselves, why are the police, council and judiciary stepping back?

Why was I not fined £500.00, or any of us pro-active campaigners fined anything at any time for our misdemeanors?"

So there we have it!

It can be done, take on your local junta and come out unscathed. I don't take any of this lightly, far from it but it was immensely enjoyable and as I said to the custody sergeant when he asked me how I would sum up my mood as I was being processed, "buoyant"

After four weeks of bail and investigations, NFA, or, no further action was the result. Bail has been lifted, the case quashed.

Says Craig Weatherhill

WELL DONE!!!!!!!!! The buggers CAN be beaten! You've given us all a heart restart, and refreshed resolve.

Says Steve Yandall

I hope the hangovers aren't too bad?

Back to business.

1.The decision is a direct reflection on the LA. so how can this be driven down the line to those responsible for this in NE/land registry/commerce etc?

2.Does this now prove the fraudulent use of grant funding?

3.Will the LA/WT have to repay the grant allocations thus far?

4.Is there a requirement for the LA to recompense yourself and remove ALL infrastructure on the common?

5.What is the judgment reference to quote to other LA's?

6.Does the judgment also remove the SSSI designation(if you had one)?

7.Will you be contacting the central funders to direct their attention to the multiple other cases of the(KNOWN) unlawful use of public funding?

Congratulation to both of you,and,after many years Tony,to the process of law FINALLY shining a light into the murky depths of LA behaviour,

Says Ian McNeil Cooke, (Co-ordinator Save Penwith Moors)

Brilliant - well done!!!!!

Says Maureen Comber

WOW. LETS HOPE THE DOMINOES NOW BEGIN TO TOPPLE. GOOD FOR YOU.

The demise of NE at least would save millions and make many of us much happier.

Hear for yourself Steve's interview with his local constabulary.

"Absolutley incredible'

'I could not stop laughing, you tied them in knots!!'

'A great exspose of false law, well done Steve'

Part one, after start there is a 5 mins silence as Steve's brief reads his statement.

Part two, you will have to listen a bit harder and turn up the volume a bit.

Three times you will hear Steve ask his police interviewer, "Am I being questioned about the removal of legally erected fencing, or am I being questioned about the removal of unlawful fencing?" Three times the police officer refuses to confirm either, saying it is irrelevant.

Steve then points out to him that it is extremely relevant because if he is not absolutely sure of the legitimacy of the fencing, then his captivity is an extremely grave matter. This is why he refuses to support what is supposed to be common knowledge: The councils ownership and the legitimacy of enclosure.