PetitionOnline.ie
Browse Petitions Contact the petition author Contact Us Languages Manage your signatures Log in
Start a Petition

Hands Off Hartlebury Common

Contact the author of the petition

This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.

Reason for the removal: non person

This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.

Reason for the removal: non real person

This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.

Reason for the removal: Www.stevemccarron.co.uk for shit cutlery no one wants to buy

This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.

This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.

dave#1131 Jul 24, 2011, 02:54

here is the link steve


IP Address

This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.

dave#1133 Jul 24, 2011, 03:02

Or try this one

 

http://www.ip-address.org/

john#1134 Jul 24, 2011, 03:26

try this martin

http://www.ip-address.org/
Choose a nickname#1135 Jul 24, 2011, 09:50

Subject

Hmmm, they work well
Gail Jones#1136 Jul 24, 2011, 16:09
When is the meeting Steve and where? Gail
Steve McCarron#1137 Jul 24, 2011, 16:54

Re: meeting

#1136: Gail Jones -

This wednesday, 7pm

Send me an E-mail gail, I will tell you more.

[email protected]

 

Steve

Guest#1138 Jul 25, 2011, 11:00
Why are you looking at getting ip addresses?
Guest#1139 Jul 25, 2011, 11:27
Worcester County Council seems to be busy spending taxpayers money or rather, wasting taxpayers money, by fencing land that they have NO right to fence. Isn't this common land? Worcester County Council have NO TITLE to this land and shouldn't be enclosing it. Perhaps local taxpayers should be asking HOW much of their contributions have been spent so far and WHY?
Guest#1140 Jul 25, 2011, 12:34
They do own it. Hence the court decision to carry on
Choose a nickname#1141 Jul 25, 2011, 12:40

Subject

In the Medieval period, and possibly earlier, the owner of common land was the lord of the manor in which the common lay. In the case of Hartlebury the Bishops of Worcester. Ownership was then passed on to his legal descendant down the centuries. In 1968 it passed to the County Council and in 1979 was designated a Local Nature Reserve and it has SSSI status.
Steve McCarron#1142 Jul 25, 2011, 14:01

ownership

#1141: Choose a nickname - Subject

You must be aware also that all land sold or purchased will have a title of deeds showing such owners and ownerships. If their is such a document for Hartlebury Common, it will be a first.

Also, the church has no record of such a transaction, we have checked. What has been shown by WCC is a conveyencing document, not title deeds!

We have already tried to see the so called deeds, (FOI) Fiona Morgan was adamant, that she new where they were, at the land registry. They have yet to surface though, even in court.

After stating he had no expertise in these matters, the judge at our hearing accepted this erouneous document as proof of ownership.

Steve McCarron

Domski#1143 Jul 25, 2011, 14:16

Re:

#1139: -

Exactly what damage was the fencing itself doing? Surely one benefit of it is to make it safer for people to walk their dogs without fear of them straying onto the road. How much has the vandalism by Steve and his cronies cost?

Guest#1144 Jul 25, 2011, 14:21

Re: ownership

#1142: Steve McCarron - ownership 

 

So the judge is wrong? He made a decision and one u couldn't appeal against so why don't you leave it? You won't get anywhere and just wasting your own and others time.
Guest#1145 Jul 25, 2011, 14:26

Re: Re: ownership

#1144: - Re: ownership 

 

One thing we can be sure of here is that wcc owned and own fencing on that land that you and your lot have damaged and in that case you should be prosecuted. You already have an order on you to refrain from doing that which you say you agreed to. So if you adhere to this why can't you accept what the judge said?
Guest#1146 Jul 25, 2011, 14:30

Re: ownership

#1142: Steve McCarron - ownership 

 

And isn't it possible the deeds could have been mislaid? Just because they couldn't present the deeds but presented other conveyancing papers it doesn't mean they don't own it. Have you kept receipts for everything you own or have bought? I haven't but doesn't mean I don't own them.
Steve McCarron#1147 Jul 25, 2011, 14:35

Re: Re: Re: ownership

#1145: - Re: Re: ownership

judge was not qualified, he said so himself

Steve McCarron#1148 Jul 25, 2011, 14:41

Re: Re: ownership

#1146: - Re: ownership

You do not, mislay deeds, Fiona Morgan would have said IF this was the case. She very definateley was told to tell us that they were at the land registry.

Three times we asked, three times she insisted, land registry. Wrong, if the council had such a thing, it would be at county hall.

Steve McCarron#1149 Jul 25, 2011, 14:47

Re: Re:

#1143: Domski - Re:

How did people with dogs cope before?

Its a SSSI, you should not drive posts into the ground.

It is an illegal impediment.

Enclosure is illegal.

The County Council applied to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for consent under section 38 of the Commons Act 2006 to carry out restricted works on Hartlebury Common (52) and then gave legal notice that any objections should be made to the Planning Inspectorate by 9 January 2009 (53). The Open Space Society is not happy. By statute they are notified of all applications for works on common land submitted to the Secretary of State for Environment, and they have certainly objected to this one. Their local representative, Edgar Powell, doesn't think the council can lawfully erect fencing there in any case (54):
“We cannot understand why Worcestershire County Council proposes to fence the common when it must know that, under the Hartlebury Enclosure Act of 1815 (the associated award being sealed in 1821), it is illegal ‘to divide or enclose’ the common, and that it needs an Act of Parliament to revoke this clause”


Dont tell me, you did not know.

 

Not only that, they do not have planning permission for the cattle race, or the car park.

 

 

 

Domski#1150 Jul 25, 2011, 14:48

Re: Re: Re: ownership

#1148: Steve McCarron - Re: Re: ownership

So either the council owns the common or nobody does. If the latter is the case the destruction of the fences in my opinion was still an act of vandalism. If you feel that the work being done shoudln't be then take them to court. Simples.