"We need a nationwide group to make sure the laws of this country - passed by Parliament and given Royal assent - are obeyed "

Says Tony Barnett

Going to court to save or to regain our open access's to the countryside, is a nightmare, judges, district. magistrates and Crown support the local authority, so do the police,so do solicitors, barristers, the high court, chancery etc will support the local authority you are in disagreement with, sorry but that is fact.

Before 2005-6, applications were heard before a representative of the secretary of state, documentation to validate applications for works on common land were required, representatives from the Minister were able to adjudicate because of their experience in conveyance, Pins are not so gifted, so consent, followed by a supplementary is only required of them, there is no knowledge of common land law,conservation or criminal acts needed.

Any consent given, can only be challenged in the courts.

The Blair government sacked the common commissioner and landed us with pins, this was to be able to gain monies from the EU, to effect the gain of EU monies was for land to be turned into conservation area's,but from freehold land, not common land, so English nature was nationalised and became Natural England.

The funding HLS, gained from EU,was used once land has been identified, visits it is alleged are made by members of NE to see if it fits the bill, which first is to identify ownership, then to see it fits all the other criteria, common lands that are freehold may not benefit from HLS, neither may other common lands, so why do NE condone fraudulent applications, why do they not demand full disclosure, because NE once it has identified land makes the arrangements for the consent to go a head with pins for consent so that enclosure can go forth and then for them to go back to the EU for more money.

The claims are that SSSI has been identified, more often than not, flora and fauna.

Flora and fauna is for wild herbivores, commoners livestock, it is for the general public to walk on, sit down and have a picnic on, but with the claim of sssi comes threats of prosecution for wilful damage, I have had threats of up to £20,000 fine on common land where I live by Chris Hogarth of NE, but like Yateley this is not freehold land, it is not a nature reserve, it common land with commoners rights and lawful access from all points of view by the public, let me assure you, unless it is privately owned, council and the other what I call hangers on to natural England have no jurisdiction, the law have no powers of arrest, unless of course there is an afray.

A lot of folk have their own view on common land law, however the only true guidance is by the statutes, passed by Parliament and given Royal Assent, it is writtten, but through my time it cannot be forced, or there is no one willing to force it.

The reports to the press by locals that the common is to be fenced or has been, that trees,shrubs and other flora has been removed and burned will never on site will be stopped from being reported, radio, tv will not cover the news, but, let any of the "charities" make a report to the media etc, it will be given full coverage, why you might ask?

When laws of this land were created, it was agreed that we give up our natural freedom and comply with the law makers, once the agreement is broken, then all bets are off and the agreement is no more, it does not seem right that one party breaks the law but the other must comply.

Let's start with laws/statutes that have the greatest ancient beginnings, lets go to the 1189 act, the proof of ownership of lands, no history lesson, but what proof of title to lands/property, set in stone by Edward 1 of England, this was after lands that had been stolen, but regained under the statute Quo Warranto, 1189 was the cut off date to prove ownership of lands/estates being claimed, it is also the date to which the Assent of Richard 1, then Quia Emptories, the end to subinfeudation 1290, the rights for land owners to convey their property, feesimple, no new manors were allowed to be created after that date.

Come down to the lands registration acts, 1925 and 1936, Lords of the Manor or other land owners that could show ownership of their estates to pre-date 1189 were registered as such, this would include waste lands of the Manor/demesne lands, they then are freehold lands/ common lands, but regulated by the owner.

We then have waste lands of "A" Manor, the village waste lands, each county has several, Metropolitan, Urban,Borough and Rural, these were brought under registration in 1965 by order of the Government, these were not claimed or could not be claimed as demesne lands, no owners could be traced, they were then subject to the Commons Commissioners judgement and subsequently registered as section 9 of the 1965 act and "vested" into the protection of the local authority, however no jurisdiction was given to the registering authority, the council can take steps as on owner in possession of the land could and institute proceedings.

I am trying to help persons that are willing to fight for their rights to access from all points of view to open access land that is why I am bringing up so many acts.

Certain common lands are subject to regulation by local authorities, the 1876 metropolitan act gives powers to those where such commons are situate, here provisions for the public for air,exercise and recreation are created, the owners of such commons are not consulted, but the commoners are subject to registered rights.

The commonlands that are situate in Urban or Boroughs, these are subject to the 1899 act and are managed in the same way as the Metropolitan commons, air,exercise and recreation, again subject to commoners consultation.

The Rural commons, where their is an owner in possession then that common land can be regulated by using section 193 1925 law of property act which is also the act of rights to access by the public, but where the owner/Lord makes a deed of declaration and order of limitations, here the possessor restricts mode of access by footpaths, states that no dogs, no horses, no straying off the footpaths, to stray is trespass.

But then there is the Rural where there is no regulation and are vested in the care and protection of the registering authorities, these are the ones that are open to range warfare, the ones we could lose through fraudulent activities, and yes, they are subject to registered rights.

Footpaths and Bridlepaths are on an ancient route, and would predate 1189, or gained from the 1832 prescriptions act and entered onto the definitive plan and statement, but the rights are still subject to 1189, Paul Stafford of the chancery Bar explained this in a hearing involving the land registry, although the applicant owned the Manor House,he did not own the common, but as the court was understanding, the applicant was given rights of common, but not ownership of and therefore was not allowed to lease,let, sell or extinguish the rights of common.

As there is now a lot of folk objecting to the corruption of our local authorities, charities, National Trust, forestry and other quango's to include the OSS, there is a need to join forces to rid the country of the likes just mentioned, none, have any locus stan-di on land they do not own or have legal occupation from person-s that can show pre-registration of titles.

Through the face book and other on line pages, there is a belief that those alledging to have job security on common land also have authority and knowledge on conservation and are therefore able to regulate access, well, I am a registered slaughterman, have been since 1958, and I can therefore compare Rangers to judas the sheep, we had one, save rounding up the sheep to get them into pens, Judas was used, he would be in the pen, his name was called, he went one way and the flock went another way, the rangers are employed by the council as judas was employed by us, by misleading the flock.

This is my reason for suggesting that a nationwide group, led by ? is formed to make the laws of this country, passed by Parliament and given Royal assent to be observed, the Ministers that have responsibility for Communities and Local government and the Minister for policing and justice are the ones we need to confront,the enclosures will have no law to protect them, all need to understand that, when anyone has been in court as often as I, you will also understand that the courts also have no power unless it can be disclosed by pre registration of titles can be disclosed.