Horseytalk.net/Hoofbeat EXCLUSIVE
RIDER RIGHTS
Padworth Common
Tony Barnett writes to Michele Sherman, Legal Executive, WB Council
MY CLAIM THAT THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE HAS AUTHORISED A FRAUDULENT APPLICATION TO PINS FOR ENCLOSURE, AND WORKS WHICH ARE UNLAWFUL ALREADY CARRIED OUT, THE LATER IS SUBJECT TO THE 1971-1 CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT.
S
ays Tony Barnett
I HAVE HAD FORWARDED TO ME A COPY OF YOU CORRESPONDENCE TO PINS/ROB DAVIS.
WITHOUT APPEARING TO BE FACETIOUS, I DID TRY TO ADVISE YOU ON YOUR INTERPRETATION OF COMMON LAND LEGISLATION, AS BEING INCORRECT.
YOUR LETTER TO PINS SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU DO NOT POSES THE UNDERSTANDING OF SECTION 193 LPA 1925, OR ANY LAW RELATING TO THE LEGISLATION.
PERHAPS YOU WILL ALLOW ME TO ENLIGHTEN YOU ON THE MEANING OF THE SECTION?
SECTION 193 1925 LPA;- COMMONS AND WASTE LANDS
(1) MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SHALL, SUBJECT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, HAVE RIGHTS OF ACCESS FOR AIR AND EXERCISE TO ANY LAND WHICH IS A METROPOLITAN COMMON WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE4 METROPOLITAN COMMONS ACTS, 1866 TO 1808, OR MANORIAL WASTE, OR A COMMON, WHICH IS WHOLLY OR PARTLY SITUATED WITHIN A BOROUGH OR URBAN DISTRICT, AND TO ANY LAND WHICH AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIA ACT IS SUBJECT TO RIGHTS OF COMMON AND TO WHICH THIS SECTION MAY FROM TIME TO TIME BE APPLIED IN MANNER HEREINAFTER PROVIDED.
YOUR CORRESPONDENCE REFLECTS THE DOUBT THAT PADWORTH COMMON WAS SUBJECT TO SECTION 193, THE FIRST EXAMPLE SHOWS THAT ALL COMMON LANDS HAVE PUBLIC RIGHTS, YOUR ASSERTION THAT THE "ALLEGED VENDOR" DID NOT EXECUTE A DEED OF DECLARATION AND ORDER OF LIMITATIONS WHERE PADWORTH COMMON IS THE NOW THE SUBJECT.
THE REASON WHY NO DEED OF DECLARATION AND ORDER OF LIMITATIONS WAS NOT EXECUTED IS BECAUSE THE COMMON WAS NOT AND IS NOT OF THE DEMENSE LANDS OF THE LORDSHIPS MANOR, BUT WASTE LANDS OF THE MANOR.
THE COMMON LAND HOWEVER IS A REGISTERED COMMON, WITH COMMONERS RIGHTS ATTACHED, AND AS SUCH WAS FOR THE 1965 CRA REGISTERED AS A SECTION 9 (NO OWNER COULD BE TRACED), NOW UNDER THE 2006 COMMONS ACT IS REGISTERED AS A SECTION 45 (STILL NO OWNER CAN BE TRACED).
I MAINTAIN MY CLAIM THAT THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE HAS AUTHORISED A FRAUDULENT APPLICATION TO PINS FOR ENCLOSURE, AND WORKS WHICH ARE UNLAWFUL ALREADY CARRIED OUT, THE LATER IS SUBJECT TO THE 1971-1 CRIMINAL DAMAGE ACT.
IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF WBC AND OFFICERS TO DISCONTINUE WITH THE FRAUDULENT ACTS, AND RETURN THE LAND BACK TO THE STATE IN WHICH IT WAS BEFORE THE WORK STATRED.
