I WOULD ADVISE PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE ACTS/SECTIONS, I WOULD ALSO ADVISE THAT YOU MUST IDENTIFY THE TRUE STATUS OF THE COMMON LANDS AND TO UNDERSTAND THEM BEFORE MAKING ANY SUDDEN LEAP INTO SPACE.

COUNCILS AND SO CALLED CONSERVATIONIST RELY ON IGNORANCE OF THE PUBLIC IN COMMON LAND MATTERS; THEY ALSO COLLUDE WITH EACH OTHER TO STEAL YOUR INHERITANCE OF OPEN PUBLIC ACCESS COMMON LANDS.

Says Tony Barnett

THE SAYING “LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP” IS WORTH CONSIDERING WHEN TAKING ON COUNCILS AND OTHERS OVER CLAIMS THAT “THEY” OWN COMMON LANDS.

EVEN MORE SO IF CONSIDERING QUOTING COMMON LAND LEGISLATION TOO INCLUDE THE LAWS ON CONVEYANCE AND CRIMINAL LAW.

ALL COMMON LANDS HAVE ANCIENT IDENTITIES SOME HAVE TITLE DEEDS TO SHOW THAT THE COMMON LANDS WERE, OR STILL ARE PART OF THE DEMESNE LANDS OF SOME LORDSHIPS ESTATE.

THIS IS WHY ANY CLAIMS TO OWNERSHIP OF COMMON LANDS MUST SHOW THAT TITLE CAN BE TRACED TO PRE DATE 1189, THE ACT OF “QUO WARRANTO” WHICH ESTABLISHES THE CONCEPT OF TIME IMMEMORIAL IN ENGLISH LAW, DATING TO THE ASSESSION OF RICHARD 1 OF ENGLAND 1189.

THE OTHER 13th CENTURY ACT WAS ON THE 8th JULY 1290 THE STATUTE “QUIA EMPTOTIES” THIS ACT WAS PASSED, REFORMING THE FEUDAL SYSTEM; NO NEW MANORS WERE CREATED AFTER THAT DATE!

YES ALL COMMON LANDS ARE PART OF THE MANORS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, BUT NOT, OF HIS LORDSHIPS MANOR, BUT FREE LAND, WASTE LANDS WITHOUT ANY REGULATIONS, EXCEPT IF THEY BELONG TO A METROPOLITAN, BOROUGH OR URBAN, FOR THOSE COMMON LANDS THERE IS THE 1876 AND THE 1899 ACTS WHERE THE COUNCIL MAY MAKE BYE-LAWS FOR RECREATION, BUT NOT ENCLOSURE.

ALL RIGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN REGISTERED FOR THE LIKES OF COMMONERS MUST BE REGARDED BEFORE THE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES ARE CREATED.

ON COMMON LANDS WHERE IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED NO OWNER COULD BE TRACED FOR THE CENSUS OF 1925-1936 AND THE 1965 COMMONS ACT, WERE PUT INTO THE CARE AND PROTECTION OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, BUT, THE VESTING GIVES NO JURISDICTION TO THE AUTHORITY.

ACCESS THEN FOR PEDESTRAIN AND EQUESTRIAN IS FROM ALL POINTS OF VIEW IS THEREFORE LAWFUL, HOWEVER,

THOSE THAT AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THIS FACILITY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS SHOULD ANY VANDALISM, AND OTHER UNLAWFUL ACTS OCCUR (FULLY PROVIDED IN THE 2000 CROW ACT).

IT IS ALSO FOR EQUESTRIANS THAT ACCESS COMMON LANDS TO CONSIDER ANY MISHAP TO HORSE AND RIDER, NO CLAIMS CAN BE MADE AGAINST THE COMMONERS OR COUNCIL SHOULD MISHAPS OCCURR.

THERE IS AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT THAT IS USED BUT MISUNDERSTOOD, MISREPRESENTED AND THAT IS SECTION 193 OF THE 1925 LAW OF PROPERTY ACT.

CONTRARY TO BELIEFE THIS ACT WAS ONLY CREATED IN 1925 AND NOT BEFORE.

DEED OF DECLARATION AND ORDER OF LIMITATIONS UNDER SECTION 193 OF THE 1925 LAW OF PROPERTY ACT.

THE SECTION ALSO APPLIES AUTOMATICALLY TO ALL COMMONS SITUATED WHOLLY OR PARTLY WITHIN A FORMER BOROUGH OR URBAN DISTRICT.

AS I HAVE SAID EARLIER AN OWNER OF ANY OTHER COMMON MAY EXECUTE A DEED TO BRING HIS/HER COMMON UNDER THIS SECTION.

THE EFFECT IS THAT THE PUBLIC OBTAIN A LEGAL RIGHT OF ACCESS FOR AIR AND EXERCISE SUBJECT TO THREE BASIC PROHIBITIONS WHICH PROVIDES THAT IT SHALL BE AN OFFEENCE: TO DRIVE A VEHICLE, TO CAMP AND TO LIGHT FIRES.

THE SCOPE OF THE RIGHTS GRANTED BY s193 IS NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT; BUT IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PUBLIC MAY DO NO MORE THAN INDULGE IN INFORMAL RECREATION.

DOES THIS RIGHT INCLUDE ACCESS ON HORSEBACK AS WELL AS ON FOOT, I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS HAS BEEN TESTED IN ANY COURT, SO IT COULD BE INTERPRETED IT DOES INCLUDE ACCESS ON HORSEBACK.

THE PROVISO TO s193 STATES THAT THE RIGHTS OF ACCESS DO NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO TAKE VEHICLES ON THE LAND OR TO CAMP OR TO LIGHT FIRES, THIS SUGGESTS THAT OTHER RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING HORSE RIDING ARE ALLOWED.

HOWEVER, IT IS RELEVENT, TOO, THAT AN ORDER OF LIMITATIONS FREQUENTLY PROVIDES THAT HORSES SHALL NOT BE TRAINED, BROKEN IN, EXERCISED OR RIDDEN, EXCEPT IN PRESCRIBED AREAS.

THE VARIOUS SECTIONS AND ACTS ARE BEING MISINTERPRETED OR MISUNDERSTOOD, THE ONES MOSTLY ARE 193 AND 1899.

THE 1899 COMMONS ACT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A SIMPLE AND INEXPENSIVE MEANS OF ENABLING DISTRICT COUNCILS TO MANAGE AND IMPROVE COMMONS WHERE THEIR USE FOR EXERCISE AND RECREATION IS THE “PRIME” CONSIDERATION AND WHERE THE OWNER AND COMMONERS DO NOT REQUIRE A DIRECT VOICE IN THE MANAGEMENT AS THEY HAVE IN THE 1876 COMMONS ACT, THE ACT ALSO APPLIES TO VILLAGE GREENS.

THE USE OF SECTION 193 BY AN OWNER BRINGS THE SAME REGULATION FOR AIR, EXERCISE AND RECREATION AS IS PROVIDED IN THE 1899 ACT.

I WOULD ADVISE PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE ACTS/SECTIONS, I WOULD ALSO ADVISE THAT YOU MUST IDENTIFY THE TRUE STATUS OF THE COMMON LANDS AND TO UNDERSTAND THEM BEFORE MAKING ANY SUDDEN LEAP INTO SPACE.

COUNCILS AND SO CALLED CONSERVATIONIST RELY ON IGNORANCE OF THE PUBLIC IN COMMON LAND MATTERS; THEY ALSO COLLUDE WITH EACH OTHER TO STEAL YOUR INHERITANCE OF OPEN PUBLIC ACCESS COMMON LANDS.

THE RECENT STATEMENT FROM THE COUNCIL OVER PADWORTH COMMON IS DOWN TO THEIR FAILURE TO STEAL THE COMMON LAND.

THEIR AVARICIOUSNESS TO AMASS HLS WAS THEIR UNDOING, IT ALSO UNCOVERED THE FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES THAT THEY WERE PREPARED TO GO.

BASICALLY THE TRUE STATUS OF PADWORTH COMMON HELPED TO SAVE ITSELF, YES THERE WAS OTHER HELP, THIS WAS BY CRUSADERS AGAINST THOSE THAT WOULD STEAL FROM THOSE WHO THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO SUPPORT, THE RATE PAYERS OF THEIR COUNTY.

THE COMMON IS A SECTION 45 COMMON; IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY DEMESNE LANDS OF A LORD, THEREFORE LEGALLY THERE IS OR WAS NO ONE TO MAKE DEEDS OF GRANT OR EASMENT OR CONVEYANCE.

THE PART OF COMMON HERITAGE PLAYED, ALTHOUGH NOT INHABITANTS OF THE AREA WAS BY INVITATION TO TAKE PART IN THE RESCUE OF PADWORTH COMMON.

ALTHOUGH ADVICE WAS GIVEN IT, WAS STILL UPTO THE ORGANISATION SET UP BY ADELIZA COOPER TO IMPLEMENT, WHICH BY EVIDENCE PUBLISHED ON HORSEYTALK SHOWS THIS.

THE COUNCIL’S EMPLOYEES WERE FAR TOO AGGRESSIVE FOR THE LOCAL ORGANISATION TO DEAL WITH, SO DEMANDS FOR FULL DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE WAS MADE BY ME, KNOWING AND UNDERSTANDING THE LEGISLATION, I COULD BE MORE AGGRESSIVE.

DEMANDS TO THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE TO REFUSE THE APPLICATION ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE APPLICATION WAS INBREACH OF THE FRAUD ACT AND THAT THE APPLICATION DID NOT SHOW SUPPORT FROM THE CEO.

ALTHOUGH CONSENT WAS GIVEN, IT WAS ONLY PROVISIONAL AND WAS SUBJECT TO FURTHER EXAMINATION OF THE STATEMENTS AND CLAIMS MADE BY THE APPLICANT.

THIS WAS FOR THAT PERSON TO SHOW NO LAWS WOULD BE BREACHED IF THE WORKS WENT AHEAD.

AS THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION TO OWNERSHIP ETC, THE APPLICATION WAS FRAUDULENT AND THE CONSENT WAS ONLY PROVISIONAL.

THE CLAIM THE COMMON WAS SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER s193 WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE COUNCIL AND AS THE COMMON LAND WAS AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE 1899 COMMONS ACT, THE WORKS COULD NOT COMMENCE.

HAD THE APPLICANTS IGNORED THE LEGISLATION, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN UNLAWFUL WORKS AND SUBJECT TO LEGISLATION PROVIEDED FOR THE PUBLIC TO USE, THIS WAS GIVEN TO THE POLICE BY ME, THEY WOULD NOT BE TAKING ANY ACTION SUBJECT TO THAT INFORMATION.

MAUREEN COMBER ATTENEDED THE HEARING AND WAS SUCCESSFUL IN HAVING THE HEARING CANCELED, SHE POINTED OUT AN ERROR TO THE PINS OFFICER, WHICH THEN PREVENTED THE HEARING FORM ADVANCING ANY FURTHER..

THE COUNCIL MAY TRY TO APPLY AGAIN FOR CONSENT, I HAVE MADE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT THE APPLICATION MAY NOT BE MADE AS BEFORE BY CLAIMING OWNERSHIP.

THE APPLICATION MUST BE ON BEHALF OF THE RATE PAYER, IF THEY AGREE, NO HLS FUNDING UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS WILL BE GIVEN.

NO MILITANCY WILL IDENTYFIED IN REMOVING THE SIGNAGE ETC FROM THE COMMON, I WOULD URGE THAT APPLICATIONS TO THE COUNCIL TO REMOVE WHAT THEY HAVE INSTALLED AND TO CAUSE OTHER SIGNAGE TO BE REMOVED ALSO.

THESE ARE IN BREACH OF THE 2000 CROW ACT AND THEREFORE ARE UNLAWFUL, PADWORTH COMMON IS NOT AND NEVER CAN BE A NATURE RESERVE, IT IS A CONSERVATION AREA AND NOT AND AREA FOR SELECTIVE FLORA AND FAUNA OR OTHER SPECIES OF WILDLIFE.

NOW YOU HAVE YOUR COMMON LAND AND OPEN ACCESS BACK, YOU MUST PRESERVE IT FOR NATURE AND FOR THE FUTURE.