British Eventing
Horseytalk.net is now on Twitter

British Horse Society
Horseytalk.net is now on Twitter
World Horse Welfare
Advertise an Event with Us

Haynet - Social blogging for the Equine World
Robinsons - The uks No equestrian Provider
Horse World
The Brooke
Four Paws
Equine Grass Sickness
Veteran Horse Welfare
Sussex Horse Rescue Trust
Horseytalk.net is now on Twitter

British Horse Society
Horseytalk.net is now on Twitter
World Horse Welfare
Advertise an Event with Us
Haynet - Social blogging for the Equine World
Robinsons - The uks No equestrian Provider
Horse World
The Brooke
Four Paws
Equine Grass Sickness
Veteran Horse Welfare

Horseytalk.net/Hoofbeat EXCLUSIVE
RIDER RIGHTS

click here to read more

The Governement should sycamore rider-friendly policy !

Adeliza and that forest warden.

""I am very sorry that you felt aggrieved but can ensure you that this was not the intention.""

Says Simon Barnett, Countryside Officer, West Berkshire Council

I have spoken to the Countryside Ranger Sarah McWilliam regarding the incident you describe.

Sarah was working on the common with a conservation volunteer, close to the public footpath that cuts across the north of the common when she noticed a horse coming down the public footpath, she called to you 3 times 'excuse me' to which she received no response.

She then walked parallel with your horse for a short distance and asked you to please use the bridleway and not the footpath. She has stated that her dog did not chase your horse but came along with her. She has stated that her dog is well used to horses, encountering them every day at the yard and regularly on the common and at other sites and has never given any cause for concern. I understand that you had short conversation regarding this, the topic of ownership of the common and proposed fencing thereof, then you rode on and Sarah returned to her work.

I do understand that if your horse is inexperienced and would be concerned about a vehicle being on a part of the common where you usually rode you would wish to avoid the vehicle (I believe there were also some Southern Electric contractors on site at the same time so there were also other vehicles present on the common) so I can appreciate your reasons for taking a detour off the bridleway.

However it is part of the rangers' role to enforce the common byelaws and Sarah would have been unaware of the necessity for the detour at the time unless you had explained this to her. This was what she was doing by asking you to keep to the bridleway rather than the footpath.

I am very sorry that you felt aggrieved but can ensure you that this was not the intention.

Adeliza and that forest warden.

"THE TREATMENT AFFORDED ADELIZA IS SYNONYMOUS TO THAT OF INVADERS FROM ANOTHER WORLD, TOTALLY WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF CIVILISED EXISTENCE, AND WITH THE UP BRINING AS ONE COULD EXPECT OF LOUTS."

Says Tony Barnett

Says Tony Barnett

THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN "CLASS DISTINCTION" AND ALWAYS WILL BE BETWEEN PEOPLE FROM DIFFERENT BACK GROUNDS, ACCEPT IT!

HOWEVER, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN BOTH SECTIONS ARE, AND SHOULD BE WILLING TO COME TOGETHER TO DEFEAT "INVADERS" SUCH AS WE HAVE IN OUR MIDST NOW.

THESE INVADERS HAVE COLLUDED WITH OTHERS [LOCAL COUNCILS] TO CAPTURE ONE OF OUR THE GEMS OF THIS ISLAND, OUR COMMON LANDS, RICHES, ONCE GONE, CAN NEVER BE REPLACED!

COMMON LANDS EXIST THROUGH NATURAL PHENOMENA, THEY ARE CONSERVATION AREA'S, AND THROUGH CONSERVATION REST'S "NATURAL PHENOMENA" WHICH WE, THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE AS A BIRTH RIGHT "TO PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT AND LAWFUL ACCESS".

THE INVADERS WE NOW HAVE ARE FROM WITHIN, BUT ACT AS VANDALS FROM "ANOTHER CORRUPT FORM".

THEY WISH TO ADDRESS NATURAL PHENOMENA AS "BIO DIVERSITY" AND AS SUCH STATE THAT THEIR INTENTIONS ARE TO "ENHANCE" BIO DIVERSITY, AND THE INTRODUCTION OF ENCLOSURE AND LIVESTOCK WILL DO JUST THAT, "RUBBISH"!

BOTH NATURAL PHENOMENA AND BIO DIVERSITY MEANS THE SAME, TO ENHANCE AS THEY CALL IT, EXTINGUISHES THE NATURAL AND REPLACES IT WITH "COMMERCIALISATION" A GARDEN CENTRE, WITH DON'T GO AREA'S, NEW LAWS, THEIR LAWS.

LEGISLATION HAS BEEN EFFECTED BY PARLIAMENTARY BILLS, WHICH HAVE RECEIVED "ROYAL ASSENT", THIS LEGISLATION IS TO PROTECT NATURAL PHENOMENA, THE RIGHTS OF THE PUBLIC TO ENJOY AND ACCESS AREA'S OF LAND TO WHICH PARLIAMENTARY LEGISLATION PROVIDES.

THE 2000 COUNTRYSIDE RIGHTS OF WAY ACT [CROW] RECEIVED ROYAL ASSENT IN NOVEMBER 2000, AND IDENTIFIES ACTS THAT ARE PROHIBITED TO QUOTE SOME THAT EVIDENCE SHOWS HAVE BEEN DIS-REGARDED;- " A PERSON IS NOT ENTITLED TO BE ON ANY LAND, IF IN OR ON THAT LAND HE/SHE.... COMMITS ANY CRIMINAL OFFENCE, LIGHTS OR TENDS A FIRE.... INTENTIONALLY OR RECKLESSLY TAKES,KILLS, INJURES OR DISTURBS ANY ANIMAL BIRD OR FISH, EGGS AND NESTS. INTENTIONALLY REMOVES, DAMAGES OR DESTROYS ANY PLANT, TREE, SHRUB OR ROOT OR ANY PART THEREOF, AFFIXES ANY ADVERTISEMENT, BILL, PLACARD OR NOTICE.

IN RELATION TO ANY LAWFUL ACTIVITIES WHICH PERSONS ARE ENGAGED IN OR ARE ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN ON OR ADJOINING LAND, DOES ANYTHING WHICH IS INTENDED BY HIM TO HAVE THE EFFECT: OF INTIMIDATING THOSE PERSONS SO AS TO DETER THEM OR ANY OF THEM FROM ENGAGING IN THAT ACTIVITY, OF OBSTRUCTING THAT ACTIVITY, DISRUPTING THAT ACTIVITY, DISRUPTS,ANNOYS, DISTURBS, OBSTRUCTS PERSONS.

THE ACTIVITIES OF COUNCIL EMPLOYEES ARE IN BREACH OF THE 2000 CROW ACT, ALTHOUGH AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE FOR THE WORKS, THEY DO NOT HAVE THE CONSENT FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE AS SUCH APPLICATIONS WOULD REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING, THE PLANNING INSPECTORATES ACTIONS ARE THAT OF MALADMINISTRATION, RECKLESS!

"These people are the establishment Mafia. "

Says Tony Barnett

Says Steve Yandall

"Totally agree Tony.

These people are the establishment Mafia.They believe that,as a gang,they can impose,beyond their legal or moral remit,on a public that will never think to question that rights are being compromised,heritage destroyed and a divorce being prosecuted.

Bullies hiding behind the states skirts!

'Protecting'the environment is the biggest protection racket this country has ever faced and the demand for protection money is 'justified' on the basis that if we don't pay we will be robbed of biodiversity. The reality is that we have a false biodiversity and NGO's want to retain England as a zoo.

If they wanted REAL success half their budget would go into education. "


The same thing happened to me

"You are now challenged to disclose documents; pre registration of titles, copies from the "common owners register and the commoners rights register"."

Says Tony BarnettSays Tony Barnett

I AM RESPONDING TO THE QUESTION RAISED IN ADELIZA'S LETTER, WITH A COPY OF A LETTER THAT IS IN MY BOOK, SENT TO ME AT MY REQUEST.

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO THIS LADY WHEN APPROACHED BY SOMEONE AS MAD AS THE FEMALE THAT ACCOSTED ADELIZA, ONLY THIS NUTTER DID ACTUALLY ATTACK, NOT LONG AFTER THAT INCIDENT, THE SAME NEUROTIC COW RAN ME OVER BY HER 4X4.

I TOOK THE GATES DOWN IN 2001, AND WAS CLEARED BY SHREWSBURY CROWN COURT IN THAT YEAR.

IN 2003, THIS WAS THE YEAR OF YET ANOTHER JUDGEMENT IN MY FAVOUR,AND SUBSEQUENT REFUSAL BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE RE-ERECTION OF GATES I HAD TAKEN DOWN PREVIOUSLY.

MRS MORGAN WAS NOT PROTECTED BY THE POLICE, AND THEREFORE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMPENSATION,BUT, JUDGEMENT DAY 1-1-2003 IN COURT, AND LATER ON IN 2003 REFUSAL BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE MEANT THAT OERLEMANS AND TAYLOR GOT WHAT WAS COMING TO THEM, THEY HAD SPENT £20,000 ON AN INDOOR MÉNAGE, AND NOW THEY COULD NOT USE IT, OR THE "ENDLESS OFF ROAD HACKING" OUR COMMON, THAT WENT SOME WAY TO SHOW JUSTICE/REVENGE FOR MRS. MORGAN

perhaps you may wish to argue with me on what you think are your/council rights on Padworth Common, this can be best argued in court? you and WBC have no locus stan-di, a fact I am willing too demonstrate this in the high court.

I, will take down any enclosure, I will advise all, that to obstruct, and to totally ignore you and the idiots you have with, is lawful.

You are now challenged to disclose documents; pre registration of titles, copies from the "common owners register and the commoners rights register".

My application for these documents is lawful no matter my post code, for this I forward my address. ADELIZA Cooper is more entitled to roam Padworth Common in the manner does, more than the way HOODLUMS do.

To read the letter concerned Click here

Have you had a similar experience? If so, please e-mail and tell us what happened.

Adeliza and that forest warden

"No apology is there!"

Says Adeliza

Says Adeliza

One dog did chase after me, both seperated from her......I suspect the worst of the two dogs may have been the volunteers.......I saw no other vehicles around I do not know why he mentions the electricity board, I did see them on the common the following day......no apology is there!........


Adeliza and that forest warden

"I will chase up Shirley as she is also writing to complain about two run ins with SMW and will get her to send hers to the complaints officer as well."

Says Margot

This is appalling. I would be tempted to go back to simon, copied to PH. With a short statement.

' thank you for your response, however I do not agree with S McWilliam's version of events and take exception of the way it has been portrayed by you as fact. Therefore, please advise me of your formal complaints procedure. '

The procedure is on WBC's website, and there is a complaints officer. I will chase up shirley as she is also writing to complain about two run ins with SMW and will get her to send hers to the complaints officer as well.

Adeliza and that forest warden

"Her employers do not own the land to which the byelaws apply thus if the enforcement of any byelaw is in contradiction of national law the Ranger is also liable."

Says Steve Yandall writing to Tony Barnett,Says Steve Yandall writing to Simon Barnett,

I note that you refer to the right of your countryside ranger to enforce Padworth Common byelaws.

Please be mindful of the following two points;

1) it is every citizens responsibility to protect the UK's greatest,and most complex heritage,the law (to which Mr Tony Barnett's letter refers).That includes you,and your ranger.

2) an academic point but your Ranger,being endowed with the responsibility to enforce byelaws,is working within an illegal framework i.e.her employers do not own the land to which the byelaws apply thus if the enforcement of any byelaw is in contradiction of national law the Ranger is also liable.

Adeliza and that forest warden

"Her employers do not own the land to which the byelaws apply thus if the enforcement of any byelaw is in contradiction of national law the Ranger is also liable ".

Says Tony BarnettSays Tony Barnett

perhaps you may wish to argue with me on what you think are your/council rights on Padworth Common, this can be best argued in court?

you and WBC have no locus stan-di, a fact I am willing too demonstrate this in the high court.

I, will take down any enclosure, I will advise all, that to obstruct, and to totally ignore you and the idiots you have with, is lawful.

You are now challenged to disclose documents; pre registration of titles, copies from the "common owners register and the commoners rights register".

My application for these documents is lawful no matter my post code, for this I forward my address.

ADELIZA Cooper is more entitled to roam Padworth Common in the manner does, more than the way HOODLUMS do.

Adeliza and that forest warden

"The fault lies with an officious Warden whose ignorance indicates that she has no business being involved in countryside services."

Says Craig Weatherhill.Says Craig Weatherhill.

You do begin to wonder how much these Countryside Officers and Countryside Wardens know about the countryside.

A rider generally knows his/her horse. What it's likely to be nervous of, etc. It's obvious to me, by her account, that the rider in this case was exercising due care, as there was unusual activity that might upset her horse.

Most people with any sense at all know that some horses are nervous types, others are not, but people like this Warden/Ranger have no idea what sort of disposition an approaching horse has and so you expect them to exercise due care as well. I've lately been riding a totally unflappable old guy, but if we approach anyone with a dog, that person will call the dog in, attach a lead and keep it close as I pass. Common sense. I know the old horse wouldn't give two hoots, but the dog-owner doesn't know that, and so does the sensible thing.

What did this person do? Chase after the horse with loose dogs! The irresponsibility and stupidity beggars belief. That Warden's actions could easily have caused the horse to panic and bolt, risking serious injury to both horse and rider. A horse is, in the wild, a prey animal and this is an instinct that remains, to varying degrees, in the domesticated horse. In a situation like this, where the horse is being chased by predators (as dogs are), its instincts will often be to turn and run for it. Some horses, particularly those who are used to dogs, will assess the situation first and decide that there's no danger, but the point is that the Warden has no idea how this horse will react. She should have exercised common sense by assuming the worst scenario, and to approach with all care. She did not.

In this case, the fault lies with an officious Warden whose ignorance indicates that she has no business being involved in countryside services. As far as I can tell, no fault whatsoever lies with the rider.

I think the Countryside Officer should get a letter based on this advice, and reminding him in no uncertain terms, that if accident or injury had occurred, his Authority would be liable for a damages claim on the grounds of negligent and irresponsible conduct.

Tony Barnett writes to West Berkshire Council

"THE/YOUR APPLICATION IS A FRAUDULENT ONE, THAT IS BY YOURSELF CLAIMING TO BE THE "OWNERS" OF THE COMMON LAND IN QUESTION."

Says Tony BarnettSays Tony Barnett

WEST BERKS COUNCIL DOES NOT HAVE ANY LOCUS STAN-DI ON THIS COMMON LAND, HOWEVER, UNDER SECTION 9, OF THE 1965 COMMONS ACT, YOU DO HAVE POWERS TOO PROSECUTE FOR ANY UNLAWFUL TRESPASS, WORKS AND ANY OTHER FARMING ACTIVITIES THAT THE COMMON IS NOR REGISTERED FOR, BUT, NO JUSTIFICATION.

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO GRANT ANY LEASE OF COMMONERS RIGHTS[IF ANY], AND YOU CERTAINLY MAY NOT LEASE ANY PART OF THE COMMON LAND, YOU DO NOT OWN IT, OR HAVE ANY "MANAGERIAL ROLL".

I HAVE OBJECTED TO YOUR APPLICATION ON THOSE AND OTHER GROUNDS, AND WILL ADD ANY OTHER COMMONS IN YOUR AREA THAT YOU WISH TO "STEAL".

"I have passed the matter onto the relevant manager who will seek legal opinion."

Says Nick Carter, Chief Executive, West berkshire Council Says Nick Carter, Chief Executive, West berkshire Council

As regards this Council's intentions to fence the Common we have recently made a S38 Commons Act 2006 application to erect stockproof fencing. A copy of this application can be viewed on our website at the link below;

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=23546

I am grateful for the information you have provided regarding the ownership issue and I have passed the matter onto the relevant manager who will seek legal opinion. As a further reassurance however, matters subject to S38 are not determined by the Council but by an inspector appointed by the Planning Inspectorate. I am certain that these and other relevant issues will be addressed accordingly by the inspector before a decision is made. Rather than comment on the specific issues you raise I will leave this matter to the relevant authority.

As far as the outcome is concerned we welcome the involvement of an independent 3rd party in determining these issues and will of course abide by whatever outcome is forthcoming.

"I HOPE YOU WILL REFLECT ON THIS INFORMATION AND RE THINK YOUR APPLICATION, FALSE REPRESENTATION IS FRAUD 2006 FRAUD ACT."

Says Tony BarnettSays Tony Barnett

THE APPLICATION MADE BY YOURSELF AS OWNERS OR EVEN WITH MANAGEMENT RIGHTS IS FRAUGHT WITH MALADMINISTRATION, EVEN IF THE APPLICATION DID NOT COME FROM YOURSELF, YOU MAY BE HELD LIABLE IN AS MUCH THE APPLICATION MADE IS AS OWNERS OF PADWORTH COMMON.

I HOPE YOU WILL REFLECT ON THIS INFORMATION AND RE THINK YOUR APPLICATION, FALSE REPRESENTATION IS FRAUD 2006 FRAUD ACT.

I HAVE MADE A WRITTEN OBJECTION TO THE APPLICATION FOR ENCLOSURE, AND ALSO FOREWARNED KATRINA SPORLE THAT THE APPLICATION IS IN BREACH OF THE 2006 FRAUD ACT, SHOULD THE CONSENT BE GIVEN, THEN IT WILL BE LAWFUL FOR THE PUBLIC TO REMOVE THE WORKS.

I SAY THIS TO YOU BECAUSE ANY COURT ACTION YOU WISH TO PROCEED WITH, WILL RESULT IN AN APPEAL FOR FULL DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE TO YOUR CLAIMS OF LOCUS STAN-DI

Join the debate Do you agree with Adeliza?
Have you had a similar experience.
Please e-mail and tell us

I pine for a more sensible approach to saving our forests

Read more here


Email this to a friend !!

Enter recipient's e-mail: