Says Tony Barnett

Horseytalk has dealt with a lot of requests from members of the public over rights of access are being regulated by charities and council go-fers "rangers" supported by corrupt councils.

Recently on face book is a twitter from councils employees "rangers" still trying to force a fate accompli on the neighborhood, to which they claim lawful occupation or ownership by the council from whence the post of regulators is claimed to have been bestowed, arise Sir/Lady` Vandal.

The twitter mentions Castle Bottom, defined by these parasites as a National Nature Reserve, my questions put to a spokesman to day was; when did this peace of open countryside become a reserve for nature..(reserve to set a side for a special or particular purpose/person) as nature reserves are also selective as too type, this then extinguishes natural nature and uses, uses include ancient rights for air and exercise and access from all points of view, as is already seen by unlawful fencing etc, placed under a fate accompli scheme.

Another question I posed was the placement of the signage, whose consent was gained, we just put it up he said, but the signage is in breach of the 2000 crow act, it is unlawful and may be taken down under schedule 4 para 6 unless you can disclose law then there will be no punishment.

He went on about the ground nesting birds and the need to keep dogs on a lead it is an offence to injure or disturb habitat and birds, so you are saying that the public are inconsiderate and will not consider the breeding season, this is open countryside, it is not subject to the 1925 law of property act, therefore it is not freehold, your rites are no different to any other members of the public.

As I was writing a phone call came in from the rangers at Castle Bottom asking if I needed any help, no, I said but tell me about the re-naming of castle bottom from common land to a reserve and also your authority to regulate access and use, first the signage, is it in the right place he asked no it is not it is on public open access common land and it should not be there, so if someone bumps into it you will be liable, no he said access is by choice(no fooling this chap then), yes but the signage is man made and not natural phenomena so you will be liable, argue that with the casualties solicitor.

What do you want done then, move it and the gate, the gate is there for commoners animals, but the commoners did not erect the gates again, you will be liable for any accident, like horses and people trying to gain access,their rites, look I will pass this on to the right department he said and down went the phone.

Horseytalk staff can only do so much the rest is down to the neighborhood, of course investigations will still be made on your behalf.

Conclusion, the signage is unlawful so are the gates.