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
Tony Barnett calls on the Charity Commission to investigate Conservation charities calls for funding
- The charities actions and that of all concerned defraud the public of rights, rights of access to open country and destruction of ancient bridle and foot paths,
- The Charity Commission is not fit for purpose
Says Tony Barnett
Margaret Hodge MP (Dame) recently chaired a select committee investigation into the fraudulent statements and claims and applications for funding and it also appears applications to be registered as charities, the judgement was that the charity commission was not fit for purpose.
For this post I will deal with "conservation charities", the like of the Butterfly Conservation, National Trust, RSPB, and Wildlife Trusts that I know have applied for funding under false representation, and the National Trust for allowing the 1971 S 23 of the act to be used by organisations and councils not entitled.
The results by the charities actions and that of all concerned defraud the public of rights, rights of access to open country and destruction of ancient bridle and foot paths, the money used is that of fraudulent applications for funding which goes unchecked by the funders and the charity commission.
The statement by the select committee is accurate when you consider the pathetic response to the question from the committee as to why investigations into applications for funding are not made, Lawyer for the commission Michelle Russell stated "if you are working in compliance you aren't generally wanted because not many charities want an investigation and some are hostile".
The Charity Commission has the backing of the courts, it can assist the police, it can freeze assets, it is obligated to search records, it is also a government body and as such may remove the charitable status, so why give a toss to any hostilities confronting the investigation? Michelle Russell is of the profession able to take court action.
Landfill Subsidiaries fund good causes, it also funds other agenda's, like charities making false statements to make gain at the loss to the community, this is in breach of the 2006 fraud act, take Julie Williams of Butterfly Conservation and Chris Hogarth natural England involving registered common land in Shropshire and Matt Young of Grantscape, the funders.
The land in question is Whitchurch Heath Common CL 21 aka prees heath, Williams applied to Chris Hogarth of Natural England for finances/funding to purchase this common land, Hogarth had to refuse because the application was made by using the aka, which he knew was fraud, 1, because the aka was not viable and 2, the common land was not freehold, however, he did support the application for funding which was arranged by Matt Young of Grantscape to gain funding from Landfill which was £571,000.
Grantscape did not search the commons register, neither did Landfill, so I approached Liam Carroll of the charity commission and disclosed evidence to show that fraud had been committed, my efforts were binned.
Entrust is the government body that over sees all application for funding from Landfill, the procedure is that the land must be owned by the applicant or permission from the land owner, the other requirement is that the project must be within a 10 mile radius of a landfill site, the common is not freehold,prees heath is only a logo and is registered to Common Heritage, there is no one to make deeds of grant or grants of easement let alone conveyance, however, Entrust allowed the funding, I have in mind the statement by Paula Sussex "we cannot give charities benefit of doubt" equally you should not support fraud, but PINS, another government body is equally as guilty of supporting fraud by giving consent to fraudulent applications by charities.
The loss to the public is freedom to access to ancient rites of way, commoners grazing and all the flora and fauna attributed to natural phenomena being cut down, turning the land into desert, lifeless, devoid of inhabitants once numerous.
Langstrath and Coombes fell, a local firm applied to PINS for consent to enclose a vast area of the fells, this was subject to collusion by the National Trust, the trust allowed the national trust act 1971 s 23 to be used, this act is only for land owned by the trust, it does/did not own the fell and the legislation is not transferable, yet PINS gave consent and funding was applied for and gained, Carlisle council refused to investigate even though commoners rites are in situ, public ancient rites are on the definitive plan and statement, the charity commission also refused to intervene, whats that again Paula "we cannot give charities benefit of doubt" why not examine the registered rites of the general public?
The wildlife trusts jump on the band wagon once consent is given by PINS, but lets look at the consent given by PINS, the consent is provisional, it is given alongside a supplementary which states "providing the works are not in breach of any enactment or bye-law they will be lawful" the first enactment is false representation (2006 fraud act) so all works WILL be unlawful, the works will not carry any public liability certificate because they are unlawful.
The RSPB applied for funding from the heritage lottery funding (Camelot) to carryout works on Hazeley Heath Common Hampshire, they were not entitled to any funding, they hold no lawful occupation yet the officer for that area overseeing funding gave £900,000 to the RSPB, joining in the claims of legal occupation were HWT and Butterfly Conservation this common land is subject to the 1965 CRA and to claim otherwise would defeat the recommendations of the report of the Royal Commission 1958 (Lord Templeman)so again public money misuse, again, charities given benefit of doubt.
A word on SSSI, this only has effect on private land, common land is open access to the public, Rural common land, not of freehold encumbrances, is not regulated by bye-laws, access is from all points of view, sssi is 90% flora and fauna, animal fodder, trees subject to collapse, flora can/may be damaged via access or mouth, not a crime and nothing to do with natural England or any other organisation, yet applications for funding state that the money is needed to SAVE, "fencing and gates" they say is to stop fly grazing and tipping, this is for the local authority, police and commoners to deal with, just as fraud by false representation by charities is for the commission and police.
Let us get back to the responsibility of the the Charity Commissions Director of Investigation, Monitoring and Enforcement officer Michelle Russell who is also head of Charity Commission Compliance Division, who claims that "if you are in compliance you aren't generally wanted because not many charities want an investigation and are hostile", but she has also confirmed that serious incidents reported to the Commission rose by 70% in the past year, I think the reasons are that no investigation are carried out by her division, so the statement by Dame Margaret Hodge MP is correct and the commission is not fit for purpose.
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