"Tony Barnett is VERY honest and reliable.Someone that would be very valuable in pinpointing the very serious lapses in central activity that are regularly occurring throughout administrative bodies. He is certainly not someone to be 'brushed off' in a bland departmental response to such serious accusations

Says Steve Yandall

The UK's greatest heritage is the legal framework we all(I hope) try to live within.

If QUANGO's fail to create accountability within their spheres of responsibility(as witnessed by the issues I have drawn to your attention in the past) they fail functionally and deny their 'right' to existence whilst losing respect at great cost to our economically stressed country.

Tony Barnett is VERY honest and reliable.Someone that would be very valuable in pinpointing the very serious lapses in central activity that are regularly occurring throughout administrative bodies.He is certainly not someone to be 'brushed off' in a bland departmental response to such serious accusations

I hope you can find the time to meet,understand, and act on Tony's information rather than denying progress in the manner you dealt with our proposed 'meeting'?

Greenham and Crookham Common Commission

THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS THAT SUGGEST THAT CROOKHAM COMMON WAS EVER PARTS OF DEMESNE LANDS, SO THE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP IS UNFOUNDED AND UNSAFE, IF THE COUNCIL PURCHASED OR HAD THE LANDS GIVEN BY THE LORDS OF THE MANOR, THEN SECTION 193 OF THE 1925 LAW OF PROPERTY ACT COULD HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED ALL OVER THE LAND.

Says Tony Barnett

TO 2002 ACT FOR THESE COMMONS GIVES NO INDICATION THAT THE 2000 CROW CAN BE IGNORED, IN FACT THERE ARE FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ADDED.

NOISY AIRCRAFT, KITE FLYING, USING METAL DETECTORS ARE ALSO PROHIBITED.

(1) OTHERWISE THE REST OF THE CROW ACT IS IN TACT, LIKE IT IS AN OFFENCE TOO INTENTIONALLY OR RECKLESSLY TAKE,KILL OR DISTURB, INJURE ANY ANIMAL,BIRD,NEST,PLANT TREE OR ROOT.

PAUL HENDRY AND THE WILDLIFE TRUST HAVE VISITED ALL OF THOSE PROHIBITIONS ON CROOKHAM COMMON, TREES HAVE BEEN FELLED, SCRUB ALSO AND BURNED ON THE COMMON LAND, YET A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS IN PLACE ON THE COMMON PLACED BY THE COMMISSION, LIKE LIGHTING FIRES.

WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER OFFENCES THAT THE PUBLIC IS CAUTIONED ON, DO THOSE ACTIONS NOT BREACH 1 ABOVE? DO AS I SAY AND NOT WHAT I DO!

THE 2002 ACT ON THE COMMON LANDS IS AN ACT "TO RESTORE LAND AND THE VICINITY OF GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS AS COMMON LAND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC; TO MAKE PROVISIONS FOR THE CONSERVATION OF THE NATURAL BEAUTY(NATURAL PHENOMENA) OF THAT LAND; TO GRANT PUBLIC ACCESS OVER THAT LAND IN PERPETUITY AND TO MAKE PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO THAT PUBLIC ACCESS; TO RESTORE AND EXTEND COMMONERS RIGHTS OVER THAT LAND;TO CONSTITUTE THE GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMON COMMISSION FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THAT LAND; TO CONFER POWERS ON THE WEST BERKS DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ON THAT COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THAT LAND;AND FOR CONNECTED AND OTHER PURPOSES.

ARTICLE 6 OF THE ACT;CROOKHAM COMMON WAS REQUISITIONED BY THE MOD AND NOT PURCHASED.

ARTICLE 7 OF THE ACT; IN 1982 THE SECRETARY OF STATE SOLD LAND "AT" CROOKHAM COMMON OUTSIDE THE PERIMETER" OF GREENHAM COMMON AIRBASE TO NEWBURY DISTRICT COUNCIL, THE STATUTORY SUCCESSOR TO THE BOROUGH COUNCIL.

ARTICLE 8 OF THE ACT;26th JULY 1983 THE AUTHORITY BROUGHT THE COMMONS UNDER THE 1899 ACT AND THEN INTRODUCED BYE-LAWS AS "OWNERS"?

THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS THAT SUGGEST THAT CROOKHAM COMMON WAS EVER PARTS OF DEMESNE LANDS, SO THE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP IS UNFOUNDED AND UNSAFE, IF THE COUNCIL PURCHASED OR HAD THE LANDS GIVEN BY THE LORDS OF THE MANOR, THEN SECTION 193 OF THE 1925 LAW OF PROPERTY ACT COULD HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED ALL OVER THE LAND.

IN CONCLUSION OF THE 24 ARTICLES, THESE THAN WERE PRESENTED FOR THE ROYAL ASSENT CLAIMING THAT ALL CRITERIA NECESSARY HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH, THE EVIDENCE IN DOCUMENT FORM WAS NOT EXAMINED, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE LANDS WERE NO OTHER THAN WASTE LANDS OF THE AREA, AND ENTITLED TO HAVE BEEN REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 9 OF THE 1965 CRA.

THERE IS FURTHER GUIDANCE I WOULD GIVE AND THAT IS THE LEGISLATION HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT UPTO DATE WHERE NEW LEGISLATION HAS BEEN CREATED, THE REPEAL OF THE RIGHTS TO ENCLOSE, THE PROHIBITION OF ENCLOSURE.

THE ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL, THE WILDLIFE TRUST AND THE RSPB HAVE BREACHED THE 2000 CROW ACT, MADE APPLICATIONS FOR FUNDING THEIR AGENDAS, CLAIMING RIGHTS THROUGH LAWFUL GRANTS OF EASEMENT, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ENTIRE ACT THAT CAN GIVE SUCH GRANTS OF EASEMENT.

SECTION 9 OF THE PUBLIC REGULATIONS ACCESS STATES THAT WE THE PUBLIC ARE PROHIBITED FROM ERECTING NOTICES AND ADVERTISMENTS.

SECTION 10 OF THE PUBLIC REGULATING ACCESS STATES THAT WE MAY NOT ENGAGE IN ANY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES.

THESE ARE STIPULATION BY THE COMMISSION, IT MAY HAVE SLIPPED SOMEONE'S ATTENTION BUT THE MEMBERS OF THE WILDLIFE TRUST AND THE RSPB ARE JUST MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC!

PAUL HENDRY CLAIMS TO BE IN NEGOTIATIONS OVER "COMPROMISES" WITH CERTAIN GROUPS, THIS IS UNSAFE, DO NOT ENTER INTO THIS HIDDEN AGENDA, ONCE YOU HAVE COMPROMISED, IT WILL BE RECORDED BY THE COUNCIL THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE ONLY "PERMISIVE" RIGHTS WHICH THEN CAN BE REVOKED.

THE REGISTERING AUTHORITIES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO FENCE LAND AGAINST THE COMMON

THIS IS WHERE THE COUNCIL EXERCISE ANY POWER (BY CONSENT UNDER s194 1925 LPA) (c 20 )1925 AS APPLIED BY s35. S 194 HAS BEEN REPEALED THIS IS WHY THIS PART OF THE 2002 ACT MAY NOT BE LAWFUL. TO ERECT A FENCE BETWEEN THE COMMON OR ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE AND ADJOINING LAND, THE OCCUPIER OF THE ADJOINING LAND SHALL HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO REPAIR AND WHERE NECESSARY TO RENEW THE FENCE.

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS AND ALL OTHER ACTS UNDER THE 2002 ACT I HAVE MENTIONED, ARE IN ITS ORIGINAL FORMAT AND MAY REQUIRE AMENDING, TO COMPLY WITH THE 2006 COMMONS ACT, BUT THE PUBLIC HAVE LAWFUL RIGHTS TO ACCESS COMMON LAND AND SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE CROW ACT AND TO OBSERVE LEGAL BYE-LAWS.