PetitionOnline.ie

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: rule98

CAROL#1502 Sep 17, 2011, 21:05

Re: Re: INCIDENT NUMBER1

#1501: Carol stockton - Re: INCIDENT NUMBER1 

 That is the exact reason why they should not be loose on the common where the public have the right to work.

I AM NOT A STUPID COW.             IT DOES NOT COST NOTHING TO BE POLITE.

Steve McCarron#1503 Sep 17, 2011, 22:12

Re: Re: INCIDENT NUMBER1

#1501: Carol stockton - Re: INCIDENT NUMBER1

"Course they will spook they're live animals. Like dogs can attack but most don't. Stupid cow."

 

You really have to try much harder than this.

"Like dogs can attack, but most don't. Just like cattle"

I completley agree with you  but calling somebody else stupid beggars belief this time 10/10

Unlike the other site this one has a wide following, highly entertaining stuff from the pro lobby, and more support for us

Having talked to Carol, she is neither stupid or a cow, get your facts right before you spout this stuff.

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

Reason for the removal: rule98

Guest#1505 Sep 18, 2011, 13:35

Re: Re: Re: INCIDENT NUMBER1

#1502: CAROL - Re: Re: INCIDENT NUMBER1

HEY CAROL, DON'T ANSWER THEIR STUPID RHETORIC, LEAVE THEM TOO STEW

TONY BARNETT

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

Reason for the removal: rule98

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

Reason for the removal: bet the post above is removed so;

'LET THEM STEW IN THEIR OWN FRUSTRATION', 'LEAVE THEM TOO STEW', 'Unlike the other site this one has a wide following', 'highly entertaining stuff from the pro lobby'.

Why on earth would anyone be frustrated. The common's owned by the council as proven by paperwork and registration with the Land Registry. The common's an urban common so riders can take their horses on it. The correct lines have been taken and legal permission has been given for the work there. A much smaller amount of trees than first though have been removed or will be over a LONG time not all together. The public can access the common all over the place. The cattle are there grazing. Hopefully it wll all work.
If that's all highly entertaining stuff then fine.
There isnt another site to compare anything to is there, you saw to that with your stupid games and everythings better in one place anyway isnt it?

Guest#1508 Sep 18, 2011, 14:31

Re:

#1506: -

THERE MAY NOT ANOTHER SITE TO COMPARE WITH, BUT THERE IS SOMEONE YOU MIGHT LIKE TO CHALLENGE ON WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW AND WHAT IS FACT, I WOULD EVEN BE PREPARED TO CHALLENGE YOU ON YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF HARTLEBURY, CONVEYANCE, YOUR DOCUMENTS AND EXPERTISE ON HORTICULTURE.

 

YOU NAME THE TIME AND PLACE AND I WILL ACCOMMADATE YOU

TONY BARNETT

Steve McCarron#1509 Sep 18, 2011, 17:26

Re:

#1506: -

"Why on earth would anyone be frustrated. The common's owned by the council as proven by paperwork and registration with the Land Registry. INCORRECT

The common's an urban common so riders can take their horses on it. RURAL COMMON

The correct lines have been taken INCORRECT

legal permission has been given for the work there. ILLEGAL PERMISSION

A much smaller amount of trees than first though have been removed or will be over a LONG time not all together. NO TREES SHOULD BE FELLED

The public can access the common all over the place. THE DISABLED CAN'T, NIETHER CAN ABLE BODIED PEOPLE

The cattle are there grazing. Hopefully it wll all work. IT WONT AND THE DAMAGE WILL NOT BE REPAIRABLE


If that's all highly entertaining stuff then fine. THE OTHER POST WAS ENTERTAINING YOURS IS BORING


There isnt another site to compare anything to is there, you saw to that with your stupid games and everythings better in one place anyway isnt it?" START YOUR OWN SITE?

 

Why do you keep coming back if we are so irrelevant?

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

Reason for the removal: rule98

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

Reason for the removal: As before the above post will be removed.
"Why on earth would anyone be frustrated. The common's owned by the council as proven by paperwork and registration with the Land Registry. INCORRECT

A) Why 'incorrect'? It's there in black and white. Are you saying that the registration doesn't exist then, surely youve got a copy. Havent you?

The common's an urban common so riders can take their horses on it. RURAL COMMON

A) No, urban. Look back at how the area was organised. Check your council and boundry alterations and youll see that Stourport was classed as urban and had an urban district council.

The correct lines have been taken INCORRECT

A) The correct lines have been taken. They wouldnt have got as far as they could via the correct methods otherwise.

legal permission has been given for the work there. ILLEGAL PERMISSION

A) All legal and above board. As before, surely youve got the paperwork?

A much smaller amount of trees than first though have been removed or will be over a LONG time not all together. NO TREES SHOULD BE FELLED

A) If no trees (saplings, scrub, whatever) are removed then itll end up woodland. The main areas or woodland wil be fine, the central areas will be kept open or opened up to protect or preserve the heathland. Over time.

The public can access the common all over the place. THE DISABLED CAN'T, NIETHER CAN ABLE BODIED PEOPLE

A) We can access the common from all over the place in all the places we normally access the common whatever our ability.

The cattle are there grazing. Hopefully it wll all work. IT WONT AND THE DAMAGE WILL NOT BE REPAIRABLE

A) It might, it might not. We wont see until some time passes will we. Of course it will be repairable if it doesnt work youve already said that the area will repair itself, that nature does that.

If that's all highly entertaining stuff then fine. THE OTHER POST WAS ENTERTAINING YOURS IS BORING

A) You find it 'boring' because it goes against what you say.

There isnt another site to compare anything to is there, you saw to that with your stupid games and everythings better in one place anyway isnt it?" START YOUR OWN SITE?

A) I dont want to start my own site so stuff may as well go on here hadnt it.



Why do you keep coming back if we are so irrelevant?

Did I say you were irrelevant? I dont think I put that?

Steve McCarron#1512 Sep 18, 2011, 22:57

Yawn

#1510: -

 

Just because you talk polite does not make it right.

This site IS one sided, the clue is in the title of it. I have spent the last two months faithfully trying to answer questions but when you find yourself replying to the same person, with the same question and having to answer them as before, over and over again, there has to be a cut off point. We will never agree because we do not share the same philosophy and never will. The public share my point of view, not yours.

We have covered so many topics so many times and enough is enough. I am not stupid, I can see the difference between valid objection, spiteful playacting, and dishonest representation.

You had your chance with the other site but you couldnt make it stick. This site is a place for people with an objection to the work at the common or people who sincerely want more information.

I will delete what I want and if you do not like it, you know what you can do.

 

"Like dogs can attack, but most don't. Just like cattle"

A Guest

 


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

Reason for the removal: I'm not frustrated. I'm happy to see the cattle. I'm not the person who posted politely either. Im the one who called carol a stupid cow as I think she's fickle. The facts are you objected to the work and wcc have carried on regardless of your pathetic campaign. That's my proof of ownership. They listened to you realised what a clown you were and carried on. End of. You make me laugh with the comments. You can do nothing about it.

Steve McCarron#1514 Sep 19, 2011, 11:06

flotsam

"Reason for removal: I'm not frustrated. I'm happy to see the cattle. I'm not the person who posted politely either.

Who knows who you are?

Im the one who called carol a stupid cow as I think she's fickle.

Do you call that a measured response?

The facts are you objected to the work and wcc have carried on regardless of your pathetic campaign.

Quite a good campaign actually

That's my proof of ownership.

Glad its good enough for you, they will take your garden next then.

They listened to you realised what a clown you were and carried on.

Who HAVE they listened to?

End of.

You make me laugh with the comments. You can do nothing about it."

Cannott stop you laughing, have you been to a doctor

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

Reason for the removal: rule68

Guest#1516 Sep 19, 2011, 13:41

Re: Re: flotsam

#1515: - Re: flotsam

WHAT A GOOD IDEA, CAN WE THEN START WITH THE MR GUEST THAT HAS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW WCC HAVE GOOD TITLE, WHERE AND WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DISCLOSE, I THINK IT ONLY FAIR THAT IF HE CANNOT ANSWER OR DISLCOSE SHOULD HE NOT KEEP SILENT UNTIL HE CAN?

TONY BARNETT

Steve McCarron#1517 Sep 19, 2011, 14:49

Re: Re: flotsam

#1515: - Re: flotsam

Been tried before I'm afraid, ok up to a point, like when somebody is prepared to pick up the phone 01299 251 497 and discuss, otherwise it is a pointless comments tennis.

Generally there is enough information around for people to make their minds up. A lot of the public were aware of our concerns and really we are just representing them. I will give any amount of time to genuine face to face discussion but for the questions that have just posted about, ownership, rights, erosion etc, these have been dealt with time and time again and are addressed on the petition front page.

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

Reason for the removal: Barnett you'll be dead soon. You old twat. Mccarron your a waste of space. Cant even keep your own business running so how can you represent the people of hartlebury???

Guest#1519 Sep 19, 2011, 15:12

 

RE; BARNETT YOU WILL BE DEAD SOON YOU OLD TWAT., ALTHOUGH REMOVED BY THE WRITER, THIS STILL SHOWS HOW UNEDUCATED THIS FARMER IS, AND NO THREAT IS TO OUT LANDISH FOR HIM TO MAKE.

 

LET ME RESPOND TO THE WELL WISHER, THERE WAS A GOOD NUMBER OF IGNORANT PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT NEVER HAD THEIR WISHES COME TO FRUITION, I BELIEVE IN NATURAL EVOLUTION/PHENOMENA, MY TIME WILL COME NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT, BUT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THAT WILL CONTINUE,SO WHAT DO YOU WISH FOR NOW,TOTAL CLEANSING?

 

 

TONY BARNETT

Steve McCarron#1520 Sep 19, 2011, 19:07

Twat?

Reason for removal:

"Barnett you'll be dead soon." Mr Guest, are you an astrologer or a hit man?

 

"You old ?" Well done Mr guest, Mr Barnett is of senior years.

 

"twat" Is that a sound effect from the old Batman series on telly

 

"Mccarron your a waste of space." I have  managed to take your time up, so I have achieved at least one good thing, and  anyway, lots of people disagree with you Mr Guest  which is why our campaign  is  financially supported by members of the public.

 

"Cant even keep your own business running" Which business, is it your business or mine, do you know?

 

"so how can you represent the people of hartlebury???" I can't tell you it's a secret, but if your very good and sign my petetion I can coach you on how to communicate with people.

 

"Course they will spook they're live animals. Like dogs can attack but most don't. Stupid cow." This is definatley not the way to do it, naughty Mr Guest, stand at the back of the class!

Steve McCarron#1521 Sep 21, 2011, 12:26

common values

I cannot emphasise too much that they are attempting to restore the common to some earlier, fantasy appearence. Natural England say that due diligence has been excercised and that the public have been consulted about all the changes to Hartlebury Common. Did YOU know about these changes? No of course not, we are all to stupid apparentley to understand their position and so they keep the proposals very, quiet. Instead, we have pathetic signage, simplistic, propagandist litereature and lies.
Guest#1522 Sep 21, 2011, 12:27
This common is one of the few places locally where us non landowners can walk unrestricted and enjoy 'natural' countryside. I say 'natural' because I subscribe to the view that the common is evolving in a natural way and should be left to evolve without interference. Surely the purpose of an area such as the common is to encourage the public to engage with it? This is done by feet on the ground. Will I be walking my dog on a lead through cattle with my 6 yr old son? No! I am very aware of the dangers of dogs in the vicinity of cattle. So we will be effectively banned from this common. No longer will my son be able to engage in the wildlife, vegetation and fauna which is so abundant on the common. Another example of those elected to protect out interests failing to look after the interests of the electorate.
Guest#1523 Sep 21, 2011, 14:08

Re:

#1522: Guest -

your rights to have the cattle removed are still intact, so why not demand WCC have the cattle removed?

tony

Guest#1524 Sep 21, 2011, 17:24

Re:

#1522: Guest -

Very odd, a copy and paste of a post (#353) from June 29th 01:33

No new users on this site then?

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

Reason for the removal: And because the comment above will be deleted

re post #1522

Very odd, a copy and paste of a post (#353) from June 29th 01:33

No new users on this site then?