Hands Off Hartlebury Common
Contact the author of the petition
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
Reason for the removal: Re post 1625:
I don't assume that anyone's 'truth' is the truth, which is why I'm interested to see how the work on the common pans out.
An open area of oak fringed common, heathland, that has traditionally been well worn by the public for generations will still change over time given certain factors.
On any of these areas you could graze or not with varying results due to types of grazer, soil and plant structure, weather exposure, human traffic, new species introduction and length of project time. Rarely would two sites be exactly the same so what works on one site will damage another and vice-versa.
With the main damage being down to weather conditions and human foot traffic, I did sometimes wonder if the grazing scheme was simply to discourage visitor numbers (but the common seems well used still) as well as being a way to advertise that something is being done by putting work on public view.
What would you do if an historically naturally sustaining area had an influx of invasive flora, and existing flora and identity of the area was threatened by such? Should it be left to itself and ignored or not?
STEVE AND TONY HAVE WON
THANKS TO YOU TWO FANTASTIC GUYS
WE HAVE OUR COMMON BACK
WCC DO NOT OWN THE COMMON
GET OFF COWS!!!!!
nO MORE INNOCENT TREES TO GO!!!!!
ONE VERY EXCITED CAROL
thankyou thankyou
Re: STEVE AND TONY HAVE WON
#1628: CAROL - STEVE AND TONY HAVE WON
Carol You're either bored because no ones bothered posting or youve been feed some right rubbish because nothing at all has changed since July 6th when Steve McCarron and Tony Barnett had their claim that the council didnt own the common rejected in court.
We still have our common and its owned by the council so put on your wellies get up there and enjoy the place.
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
Reason for the removal: Carol You're either bored because no ones bothered posting or youve been feed some right rubbish because nothing at all has changed since July 6th when Steve McCarron and Tony Barnett had their claim that the council didnt own the common rejected in court.
We still have our common and its owned by the council so put on your wellies get up there and enjoy the place.
Re: Re: STEVE AND TONY HAVE WON
#1629: - Re: STEVE AND TONY HAVE WON
also if you read this weeks shuttle, their appeal was thrown out as well. So now they have to pay costs, matter ended in my opinion lets enjoy the place and not get angry over very little
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
Reason for the removal: also if you read this weeks shuttle, their appeal was thrown out as well. So now they have to pay costs, matter ended in my opinion lets enjoy the place and not get angry over very little
This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
Reason for the removal: Just spotted that too! 'Damages and costs of more than £6,000 awarded to Worcestershire County Council following a court judgement in relation to damage at HartleburyCommon will be enforced, the authority has confirmed.
Worcester County Court ordered on October 27 that an appeal by Steve McCarron and Vanessa Wright, both of Hartlebury and Anthony Barnett, of Market Drayton, against the order made on July 6 be struck out.'
...'the court was also satisfied that the authority owned the commonb, as it was the registered proprietor at HM Land Registry, and that fencing was erected lawfully folowing the decision of an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment in September 2009'...
...'This latest judgement allows the county council to seek to enforce the damages and costs awarded to it relating to the damage which totals £6,092.
Full article Page 12 The Shuttle November 17 2011
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
Reason for the removal: http://www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/9369424.Council_will_seek_damages_over_common/
CORRUPT COUNCIL.
How come NO FURTHER ACTION was taken when Steve was last WRONGFULLY arrested the police DO NOT let people off for nothing!!!!!!!!
The council DO NOT own the common they cannot produce the CORRECT papers!!!!!!
The council have had the county auditor in and have been told they CANNOT put any money through their books that relates to the common!!!!!
Trish Hanes Chief executive of WCC could NOT show any REAL proof that WCC OWNED the common!!!!!
At least the auditor had more common sence than the STUPID judge that heared the case in the begining!!!!!!!!!!!!
All this shows just how CORRUPT WCC ARE!!!!!
All the CRAP about TAX PAYERS MONEY in the shuttle is TRUE that's what they will have to use cos they won't be getting any other funding!!!!!!!!!!!!
As for the SHUTTLE a CATTLE STAMPEDE has been reported to them where 8 CATTLE STAMPEDED TOWARDS 5 PEOPLE is they had not moved in time this could have been a fatal accident.This was reported the very next day the shuttle even took photo's at the common where it happened.Has this appeared in the paper NO why because the paper is hand and hand with the council,as for the SHUTTLE not even worth WIPING YOUR ARSE ON YOU WILL ONLY READ WHAT THE COUNCIL WANT YOU TO HEAR!!
When all this comes out THERE WILL BE CHANGES.
RANGERS WILL GET THE CHOP!!!!
CORRUPT COUNCIL WORKERS WILL TOO!!!!
We can all WELCOME THE COMMON BACK HOW IT SHOULD BE!!!!!!
YES I AM STILL SMILING WITH ME WELLIES ON
YOU WON'T BE FOR MUCH LONGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.
This comment has been removed by the person who wrote it.
Reason for the removal: £6,092 of no action. Which will be enforced because McCarron et al are legally the ones not in the right.
As I've said, the work on the common is interesting. It may work, it may not, but it needs testing to see the outcome. If someone's daft enough to get themselves £6,092 of 'no action' for behaving like a bull in a china shop, then that's their problem. Getting your knickers in a twist about things and carrying on a line of rant, when you have absolutely nothing to back it up except the word of those that are out of pocket, is also counter productive.
Some IDIOT that cannot listen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have you read what I have written???????????????
Funny how you are a guest cannot even put your name so you ent worth talking too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: Some IDIOT that cannot listen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#1639: Carol - Some IDIOT that cannot listen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
word is spreading that "council" for the objections to the fencing has withdrawn from the melie
guest
This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.
Guest at 1640 would have to confirm that though?
Re:
we understand the reason for "councils" resignation was due to the main objector looking for recognition status, however there has been no confirmation, or that the common will not still be a consideration, we are still in contact with council
It is all one big joke
This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.
This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.
Horses Looses
Very sad but true.!!!
This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.
This comment has been removed by the author of the petition.
| This discussion has been closed. |
An open area of oak fringed common, heathland, that has traditionally been well worn by the public for generations will still change over time given certain factors.
On any of these areas you could graze or not with varying results due to types of grazer, soil and plant structure, weather exposure, human traffic, new species introduction and length of project time. Rarely would two sites be exactly the same so what works on one site will damage another and vice-versa.
With the main damage being down to weather conditions and human foot traffic, I did sometimes wonder if the grazing scheme was simply to discourage visitor numbers (but the common seems well used still) as well as being a way to advertise that something is being done by putting work on public view.
What would you do if an historically naturally sustaining area had an influx of invasive flora, and existing flora and identity of the area was threatened by such? Should it be left to itself and ignored or not?