AS A RURAL COMMON, UNLESS A PREVENTION OF NUSIANCE ETC HAS BEEN PLAACED ON THE COMMON, THEN ACCESS BY HORSE RIDERS IS LAWFUL FROM ALL POINTS OF VIEW.

Says Tony Barnertt

CONSERVATION GRAZING, THIS SUBJECT HAS BEEN PUT TO BHS NUMEROUS TIMES, TO MANY TO MENTION, BUT NO ACTION.

JAMES BONDS STAMPING GROUND.

HANKLEY COMMON IS NOT OWNED PARTIALLY OR UNDER ANY CONDITIONS BY THE MOD, THE MOD "REQUISITION" COMMON LAND WHETHER THERE IS A LORD OF THE MANOR OR NOT, THE ONLY LAWFUL OCCUPATRION AS IS STATED IN THE MAGAZINE IS THAT IT IS USED AT WEEKENDS BY THE MILITARY, THEREFORE, THE COMMON LAND WOULD NOT BE REGISTERED AS OWNED(FREEHOLD) IN 1965, HOWEVER, AS IT IS /WAS LAND CAPABLE OF RIGHTS OF COMMON, THE LAND WAS NOT SUBJECT TO BE REMOVED FROM FROM THE COMMON LANDS REGISTER.

THE CLAIM THAT THE "OTHER" HALF IS REGISTERED AND SUBJECT TO 193 FOR HORSES IS TOTALLY MISLEADING AS IS THE STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP BY THE MOD..

THE MOD MAY NOT ISSUE TICKETS TO ACCESS COMMON LAND, THE LAND IS REQUISITIONED FOR ONE PURPOSE ONLY AND THEREFORE HAVE NO OTHER JURISDICTION OR OTHER RIGHTS.

I HAVE BEEN RELIABLY INFORMED THAT HANKELY COMMON IS RURAL, THEREFORE THE DEED OF DECLARATION AND ORDER OF LIMITATIONS UNDER STATUTORY DECLARATION UNDER 193 1925 LPA, BY "AN OWNER" WITHOUT PRE-REGISTRATION OF TITLES WOULD HAVE BEEN A REVOCABLE DEED, AND THEREFORE DOES NOT EXIST.

AS A RURAL COMMON, UNLESS A PREVENTION OF NUSIANCE ETC HAS BEEN PLAACED ON THE COMMON, THEN ACCESS BY HORSE RIDERS IS LAWFUL FROM ALL POINTS OF VIEW.

AGAIN, AS THIS COMMON LAND IS RURAL, BYE-LAWS HAVE NO PLACE, ANY THAT IT IS ASSUMED ARE IN PLACE THROUGH "ANCIENT" CUSTOM ARE POWERLESS, AS FOR THE £500 FINE FOR ANY "BREACH" IS JUST ABSURRED.

Read Background