Says Steve McCarron, Worcestershire Commons Association, who is currently subject to an injunction and bail preventing him from visiting Hartlebury Common.

Hartlebury Common was recognised with SSSI awards in 1955 and 1987. These awards reflected the wonderful interdependency of species and also the mosaic of habitat. It has not been "managed" in any significant way for over one hundred years.

In April 2009 a report was submitted by Worcestershire Wildlife Consultancy for a future "Management" plan to Worcestershire County Council, Countryside Services.

http://www.worcestershire.gov.uk/cms/pdf/Complete%20Implementation%20Plan%20for%20Hartlebury.pdf

This document, for all its bluster is identical to all the other pseudo consultative epics produced to validate the misappropriation of the last of our physical public heritages. Because of this document there has been more significant intervention at Hartlebury Common in the last twelve months than in the past twelve decades. This has caused loss of species, disturbed habitat and caused considerable erosion of the landscape. Also lost has been flora and fauna which existed happily during the previous SSSI listings. The projected management plan happily subscribes to the further destruction of these habitats. The naturalists who bequeathed the previous listings to SSSI status could not have ever imagined the future of Hartlebury Common.

I believe that the writer of the report, Nick Button, believes what he is doing is correct and relevant, after all he has been given a green light by everybody in authority above him but does it mean that is correct? Apparently so because all this misappropriation is backed by the secretary of state. Now if this work was being carried out on agricultural or rural land, I would not be bothered by the sandpit doodling of naturalists. Even the fact that this work is financed by peoples tax contributions would not bother me too much because that is what Quangos do (NE). However what has really upset me and many other people is that this worthless exercise in laundering our money through Europe is being carried out on our heritage spaces. The dismantling of our living history bit by bit might prick peoples conscience, but not enough to care it seems.

It is not just a huge coincidence that suddenly feverish activity to intervene in any land available to un-Natural England within such a short time span. Our open spaces were left to fend for themselves, as they have done for hundreds of years. They were of no interest to anybody other than the people who rode or walked and enjoyed them for what they were. Of course, our spaces had been blighted by misappropriation and self interest but generally, they were lucky to have escaped to remain here today.

The big change came when tax payers money became available under the guise of nature conservation. I say under the guise because there was no need in this country to subscribe to such funding because we had no blue thin tuna to re-stock, no rain forest to maintain. In fact, at the time there was little or nothing that we in this country could not address to maintain our natural indigenous habitat ourselves. We could replant our forests and stop spraying upland heath from helicopters with Asulox to get E.U. subsidy for agricultural landmass. But these things are not empire building cash junkets.

So therefore, through design and evolution the hapless, so called neglected spaces, i.e. commons, chases, heaths, moors, etc were deemed to be suitable basket cases for so called “restoration” and cash facilitators. Unfortunately, very soon there were protests to the mass carnage inflicted and promised by un-Natural England. The most famous was their attempt, only thwarted at the high court, to re-introduce seawater to vast areas of Norfolk to benefit niche bird species. The loss of three villages and the displacement of over 4000 people was deemed expedient.

It could not be more glaringly obvious to any one with a modicum of experience and intelligence that something was and is very wrong with NE, against overwhelming opposition they have bulldozed their policies and to what ends?

The only reason that there can be for this behaviour is financial reward and nothing else, because very little of what they do has engendered public support to any significant degree and their fence, cow, cash regimes have yet to fulfil the glowing promises of their conservation publicity machine.

What puzzles me is that more people don’t seem to connect this singular failure with the colossal sums of money available from Europe and the sudden, co-ordinated rush to save lowland heath!

How can you have exactly the same blue print for all topography, landscape and natural environment resulting in the loss of species, loss of habitat, destruction of forest and woodland and the creation of massive soil erosion. I could talk more about these effects at Hartlebury Common but these effects are widespread signatures of un-Natural England’s destruction of our environment. I can say no more than invite you to visit Heathland Madness, the juggernaut of Nature Conservation (Mark Fisher) and Save Our Scilly isles (David Badcock). Marks site has gathered together an invaluable guide of Natural England’s destruction and David’s site is a detailed exposé of what to expect and reflects the work that has bee done so far to Hartlebury Common exactly.

As a founding member of Worcestershire Commons Association, we are representing (when no one else seems interested) the objections of one local resident. At a recent site meeting for the public to “meet the cattle” She regaled an incident whereby elderly members of the public had a narrow escape as the cattle were stampeding, pursued by a dog. The farmer Adrian Bytom at that meeting stated that he was within his rights to shoot their animal. My complainant stated that the dog was somebody else’s and enquired as to the legality of his claim. He restated his right and this claim was supported by Martin Barnett of Worcestershire Countryside Services. There is no danger of libel here, the person we will be representing has made a full and frank statement and we will be accompanying her to the local police to make a formal complaint.

Threatening to discharge a firearm in a public space is a serious offence and his behaviour in saying so was behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace. We take this matter very seriously and will seek full legal redress for this irresponsible behaviour to a member of the public. However, what really saddens me is that this occurred on a common. If I had been told that this would happen in such a space just a year ago, I would have thought it ludicrous. How times have changed.

The creation of some fictitious wildlife theme park is just an excuse to enclose, bar, restrict, own, and turn into a commercial enterprise our spaces. Unless we stand together, to maintain the legal, historic statuses and protections of our spaces, we will be looking to left and right as they vanish forever until it is our turn.

The common has been enclosed so that horse riders have to negotiate gates which require dismounting. Not so clever for young or inexperienced riders and dangerous to boot. Subsequent to the fencing, up to 30 cattle have now been introduced to the site for the first time in it’s history. There have been numerous reports of standoffs between the cattle, members of the public, dogs and their owners since.

As I write this, I am subject to an injunction and bail preventing me from visiting Hartlebury common, I believe that Worcestershire County Council do not own Hartlebury Common. Six months ago, me and others removed fencing as a direct challenge to the council to disclose. We have never answered to, or been accused of committing a criminal act even though the fencing cost £4000 to re-instate. The council at an injunction hearing subsequently, merely sought to recover this cost. We were given 14 days to pay and we replied that we would never. To date, we have had not as much as a letter requesting payment. Why, because to pursue the claim we would make sure that a criminal court would have to deal with us. We would then ask for proof of ownership as this is the false claim of WCC. If they cannot prove ownership, then our actions are validated. The council have gone to great lengths to conceal their non ownership as we are taking great lengths to expose this corrupt policy.

To put this in context, if I was to damage a bus shelter, the police would arrest me, I would be charged with criminal damage, I would subsequently have to appear in a criminal court, I would be fined and costs levied. If I contested ownership of the bus shelter, I would be dismissed as an idiot. None of this has happened and never will.

Therefore, should WCC decline to prosecute us in the future, we will have no other option than to place ourselves through sheer determination in a criminal court. We will not have our claim snuffed out by a compliant judiciary and if our acts are perceived as criminal rather than ethical, then so be it. We have learned a lot from Tony Barnett.