Says Tony Barnett

THE 2006 COMMONS ACT SUBSTANTIALLY RE-ENACTED MOST OF THE 1965 COMMONS REGISTRATION ACT AND ACTS PRE-DATING THAT YEAR, SOME OF THE PRE-DATED ACTS WERE REPEALED, THE ONE WHICH IS MOST IMPORTANT IS THE REPEAL OF THE 1285 ACT OF APPROVEMENT, ENCLOSURE IF YOU LIKE.

SECTION 219 OF THE 1285 ACT WAS REPEALED BY SECTION 47-1 OF THE 2006 COMMONS ACT; SECTION 47-2 OF THE ACT PROHIBITS ANY ACTS OF ENCLOSURE THAT MAY SUBSIST ALONGSIDE OF THE 1285 ACT.

THE 2006 FRAUD ACT PROVIDES THAT FALSE REPRESENTATION, FAILURE TOO DISCLOSE, ABUSE OF OFFICE, LOSS AND GAIN, ARE ALL ACTS OF FRAUD.

SOME APPLICATIONS, NOW, ARE BEING MADE AS OWNERS OR ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS, SEEMS TO BE THE NORMAL PRACTICE IE JUNIOR COUNCIL OFFICER OR A GOFFER EMPLOYED BY NE OR BC.

ALTHOUGH PROOF OF OWNERSHIP IS NOT REQUIRED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE ON APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT WILL BE PROMPTED/ADVISED.

ON CONSENT BEING GIVEN, THE LETTER WILL HOLD A “SUPPLEMENTRY” NOT ALWAYS WRITTEN IN THE SAME MANNER, BUT MEANS WHAT IT SAY’S (CHRISTINE GRIFFEE PLANNING INSPECTORATE)

PROVIDING THE WORKS ARE NOT IN BREACH OF ANY ENACTMENTS THEN THE WORKS WILL BE LAWFUL.

EMPLOYEES OF NATURAL ENGLAND ARE BEHIND THE SURGE OF COUNCILS UP AND DOWN THE COUNTRY TO ENCLOSE COMMON LANDS.

CHIEF EXECUTIVES ARE GIVING DIRECTIVES TOO JUNIOR COUNCIL OFFICERS TOO APPLY FOR PLANNING CONSENT FROM THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE FOR PERMISSION TO "ENCLOSE/APPROVE" COMMON LANDS IN THEIR COUNTY, AND, TO APPLY AS THE OWNERS.

KEEPING SILENT WILL LOSE YOU EVERYTHING

WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ARE PAYING A NON COMMONER TO GRAZE CATTLE ON HARTLEBURY COMMON £8.500 PER YEAR, MISUSE OF TAX PAYERS MONEY.

VAST AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN PAID OUT FOR THE FENCING,”TAX PAYERS MONEY”, AND £59,000 FOR A "RANGER" COUNCILS CLAIM TOO HAVE MANAGEMENT RIGHTS, THEY HAVE NOT, COUNCILS HAVE NO JURISDICTION ON COMMON LAND THEY DO NOT OWN!

THIS UNLAWFUL ACT WILL, IF NOT ALREADY, BE PLANNED FOR ALL COMMONS IN ENGLAND, MAYBE WALES ALSO.

CONSIDER THE PLANNING APPLICATION, ON WHAT BASIS WAS THE APPLICATION MADE BY YOUR COUNCIL? IF AS THE OWNER, THEN THE 2006 FRAUD ACT HAS BEEN BREACHED.

THERE IS STILL THE 2006 COMMONS ACT, 47-1, 47-2

COUNCILS ARE NOT ON THEIR OWN WHEN MAKING APPLICATIONS AS OWNERS UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF NATURAL ENGLANDS EXECUTIVES LIKE HELEN PHILLIPS, SUPPORTED BY JULIE LUNT "LEGAL"

OTHER SO CALLED CONSERVATIONIST ARE ALSO IN LEAGUE WITH NATURAL ENGLAND, ONE OF THE LARGEST IS BUTTERFLY CONSERVATION.

MEMBERS OF BUTTERFLY CONSERVATION HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED A SECTION 45 COMMON, BY IDENTIFYING THE LAND UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME (AKA).

£571,000 WAS OBTAINED FROM LANDFILL TAXATION, (IT IS ALLEGED) THE APPLICATION BY BC WAS MADE AS THEM BEING OWNERS, AFTER AN ALLEGED CONVEYANCE? SECTION 45 IDENTIFIES COMMON LAND WHERE AN OWNER CANNOT BE TRACED, NO VENDOR, NO PURCHASE.

THE ALLEGED PURCHASE PRICE WAS £240,000, AND INDEPENDENT VALUER STATED IT WAS WORTH £162,000 (INNOCENTLY).

COLLUSION BETWEEN THE HEADS OF NATURAL ENGLAND AND SENIOR EXECUTIVES OF BUTTERFLY CONSERVATION PERSUADED THE INDEPENDENT VALUER TO RAISE THAT VALUATION TO £240,000.

SIR DAVID ATTENBOROUGH, PRESIDENT, ALAN TITCHMARSH VICE,PRESIDENT AND COMPANY SECRTARY, DIRECTOR OF FINANCES AND DIRECTOR OF RESOURCES JULIE WILLIAMS ALL OF BUTTERFLY CONSERVATION HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF THIS, BUT WILL NOT COMMENT, WOULD IT BE SAFE TOO ASUME ALL ARE GUILTY OF MORTGAGE FRAUD, COLLUSION, CRIMINAL DAMAGE? I SAY YES.

INNOCENT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE BEING THREATENED WITH PROSECUTION, IF OBJECTIONS AMOUNT TO BEING PRO-ACTIVE. SOME HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED AND TAKEN TOO COURT AND CONVICTED BY BIAS JUDGES, ACCEPTING PERJURY AS LITIGATION, BEING BANNED FROM ACCESSING COMMON LAND BECAUSE COUNCILS AND “CONSERVATIONIST” CLAIMS OF OWNERSHIP.

I FOR ONE WILL NOT BE COMPLING WITH ANY SUCH JUDGEMENT, WHAT’S MORE IMPORTANT, YOUR RIGHTS TOO ROAM, OR TO BE CONFINED?

KEEPING SILENT WILL LOSE YOU EVERYTHING

FUNDERS GRANTSCAPE, ENTRUST AND HMRC, ARE JUST AS GUILTY OF COLLUSION AS THE APPLICANTS, AND ALL SHOULD BE PUT ON TRIAL AS CRIMINALS, PETER HAS COPY OF DOCUMENTATION TOO DISCLOSE.

COMMONS WHERE NO PERSON IS REGISTERED AS OWNER 1965 COMMONS REGISTRATION ACT SECTION 9.

WHERE A COMMONS COMMISSIONER IS UNABLE TOO DISCOVER AN OWNER OF A REGISTERED COMMON THERE IS NO PROCEDURE FOR VESTING THE COMMON IN A LOCAL AUTHORITY.

IF, NOTHING FURTHER HAD BEEN DONE, THEN SUCH COMMONS WOULD HAVE BEEN AT CONSIDERABLE RISK OF ENCROACHMENT FROM NEARBY PROPERTIES "FOR NO MANS LAND IS IN DANGER OF BEING EVERY MAN’S LAND".

THEREFORE SECTION 9 OF THE 1965 COMMONS ACT PROVIDES THAT ANY LOCAL AUTHORITY (COUNTY ETC) IN WHO’S AREA SUCH AN "OWNERLESS"

COMMON LAND IS SITUATED MAY TAKE SUCH STEPS AGAINST UNLAWFUL INTERFERANCE AS AN OWNER IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND MAY TAKE.

THIS MEANS THAT THE AUTHORITY CAN TAKE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT 1971-1, AND ASLO CIVIL ACTION TO PREVENT TRESPASS.

IT IS HOWEVER DOUBTFUL IF THE AUTHORITY COULD SUE FOR DAMAGES SINCE THE SECTION GIVES IT NO LEGAL INTEREST IN THE SOIL.

THE SECTION DOES NOT EMPOWER AN AUTHORITY TO SPEND MONEY ON CLEARANCE OR IMPROVEMENT”REMOVE LITTER, PLANTING TRESS ETC” BUT SUCH EXPENDITURE COULD BE COVERED BY S 37 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972, POWER TO SPEND UP TO A 2P RATE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE AREA.

SECTION 3-1 FOR THE PURPOSE REGISTERING SUCH LAND AS IS MENTIONED IN
- S 1 (1) C, PERSON-S CLAIMING TO BE OR FOUND TO BE OWNERS OF SUCH LAND THEREOF BY VIRTUE OF THIS ACT 1965.
-AND RIGHTS OF COMMON OVER AND OWNERSHIP OF SUCH LAND, EVERY REGISTRATION AUTHORITY SHALL MAINTAIN; - a, A REGISTER OF COMMON LAND AND b, A REGISTER OF TOWN AND VILLAGE GREENS, AND OPEN TO INSPECTION.

4 (1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, A REGISTERING AUTHORIT SHALL REGISTER ANY LAND AS COMMON OR A TOWN OR VILLAGE GREENOR, AS THE CASE MAY BE ANY RIGHTS OF COMMON OVER OR OWNERSHIP OF SUCH LAND, ON APPLICATION DULY MADE TO IT AND ACCOMPANIED BY SUCH DECLARATION AND SUCH OTHER DOCUMENTS (IF ANY) AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED FOR THE PURPOSE OF VERICATION OR OF PROVING COMPLIANCE WITH ANY PRESCRIBED CONDITIONS.

SECTION 9 HAS NOW BEEN REPEALED; THE LEGISLATION HOWEVER HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY RE-ENACTED AND REPLACED BY SECTION 45 OF THE 2006 COMMONS ACT.

THIS SECTION IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OTHER POWERS THE AUTHORITY MAY HAVE TO PROTECT COMMON LAND.

ANY PROBLEMS WITH YOUR COMMON LAND BEING ENCLOSED,
YOU MAY CONTACT ME VIA peter@horseytalk.net