Says Naomi Smith
It is all too possible to round a corner on horseback and come upon a group of cattle with no prior warning -this WILL result in a horse being badly spooked at best, bolting at worst -it is only a matter of time ........... read more
Having access problems ?
"Horseytalk.net welcomes enquiries from all that are having or have had their rights to lawful access and other rights on common land stolen or unlawfully regulated "
Says Tony Barnett
Horseytalk.net welcomes all that are having or have had their rights to lawful access and other rights on common land stolen or unlawfully regulated by corrupt councils, Quango's and self assembled charities, whereas councils can have no mitigation at all where rights (democratic) or registered are/have been denied, stolen through false representation, some registered rights are being used as collateral by councils, trusts where demands for rights to use those registered rights by those which claim rights of a higher status, but such corrupt acts need collusion, protection of county courts, mindless police officers that don't have powers of arrest on common lands, or civil matters on such as removing impediments, ignoring rangers directions where their is no locus stan-di.
Rural common lands, that do not have evidence (documentary to pre-date 1189) of owners/lord of the manor, have open access from all points of view, this information is a available from the registering county council to show that the land was registered in compliance with the 1965 commons registration act, where commons such as Frensham were registered as a section 9 of that act, which means that no owner-s could be traced so the common was "vested" into the care of the council for protection of rights, unlawful activities and to support the registered commoners rights, however, the vesting gave no jurisdiction, section 9 was repealed in 2006, the legislation though was substantially re-enacted and was filed under section 45 of the 2006 commons act.
I have been involved with Frensham common when a horse rider was set on by one of the councils rangers, (they have no authority), this approach was because the lady was riding on the verge of the Great Pond, which is common land and registered as such with CL 232, the complaint was that horses leave little messages, that has nothing to do with anyone, commoners cattle and other livestock would make smoke signals and every right to do so.
Since becoming involved there has been promises that no longer will horse riders be approached and that no riding and others unlawful signs will be removed.
Just recently an other conflict has broke surface subject to a fall out among the fisher men belonging to Farnham Angling Society which resulted in a ban of a member because on information gained from horseytalk that the act of fishing the frensham ponds was a criminal act of poaching, encroaching on commoners registered rights to Piscary, this information is recorded on the rights register held in the office of Helen Gilbert at Surrey County Council, registered and recorded as per section 4 (1) of the 1965 CRA.
Along one side of the "Great Pond" registered in compliance with the 1965 act and registered Common Land 232 is a sandy area, free to access as is all of the Frensham Common for horse riding and walking without disturbance by either the unlawful fishing, sailing and ranger fraternity, none have any jurisdiction and should be ignored.
Farnham angling society claim to have rights on their side to order horse riders off the "beachy area" because their rights to take fish has a higher status than horse riders, I have a saying to such statements, however I will refrain because some are deficient in that area, instead rubbish.
Frensham common is registered with commoners rights, grazing is Prairie, some have rights of eastovers and some have piscary, as Frensham is registered as where an owner-s cannot be traced, then there is no one to give consent, make grants of easement/deeds of grant or conveyance and as the council have no jurisdiction cannot make bye-laws, other claims of rights to ownership and rights to agist are well catered for under the 2006 fraud act, as is provided under the 1965 legislation Frensham common's was vested into the care and protection of the authorities, but gives no jurisdiction, how then do they allow unlawful activities such as regulations on access or using the land as collateral or accepting poaching on the ponds or erecting signage to deter public rights and allow misuse of commoners rights?
The rights of Piscary as is provided in Part 11 of the Commons Registration act; rights of common Piscary: the rights to fish in another persons lakes, ponds or streams, as no Lord of the Manor cannot be traced, then the actions by commoners were registered with soul rights to ponds etc and foreshores, the proviso states; that the fish must be taken in reasonable quantities for consumption in the commoners house hold, the authorities on Piscary were noted in Chesterfield-V-Harris (1908) 2 Ch 397 upheld on appeal to the house of Lords as Harris-V-Chesterfield (1911) AC 623, Piscary cannot exist in the sea or in tidal Rivers since there is a public rights to fish there.
Fish Poaching in England and Wales; it is an offence to take or destroy or attempt to do so in water which is private or in which there is a private right of fishery (registered commoners) this includes all forms of fish whether game or course and is covered by the 1968, schedule (1) theft act, where the fish are owned, ie enclosed waters where their is no Route for escape or where the fish have already been reduced into possession, they can be regarded as property rather than wild animals, then they are dealt with under the 1968 (1) act of theft,as frensham commons CL 430 and CL 232 great pond and little pond respectively are.
The 1968 theft act schedule 1; a person who unlawfully takes or destroys or attempts to take or destroy any fish in water which is private property or in which there is a private right of Piscary on level 5, is open to a fine of £5000, in Well's-V-Hardy (1964) Lord chief justice Parker defined this; Taking does not include an element of "Asportation" (ie carrying the fish away from the water), it means to lay hands upon the fish, to grasp, to seize or capture, this means than an individual still commits the offence if the fish are retained in a keep net, the offence is also committed if the angler is fishing but has yet to catch anything, the evidence required is straight forward: the time, date, location; description of the offender, tackle and bait and whether a baited line was in the water.
Where Frensham ponds are an issue, the angling club are poaching, a licence is in-valid under such theft act, the parts played by the National Trust and Waverley council and surrey county council are in collusion where the act of false representation and permitting annexation of commoners rights for profit are guilty.
In conclusion, any member of the public should apply under section 41 of the 2006 act to the county court, they may wish me to do so, they have the rights also to apply to the chief constable under the 1968 (1) theft act.
I am to make an application to the Chief constable to engage the 1968 (1)theft act.
Says Linda Wright
We moved to a Shropshire location a year ago having surveyed the local OS map and noted the significant number of bridleways around the property. Sadly the map appears a total fiction. Scarce any of the bridleways are usable ........... read more