Hands Off Hartlebury Common
Contact the author of the petition
A warm welcome at the holly bush
2011-08-21 17:59:39steve mccarron
A warm welcome at the holly bush
2011-08-21 17:58:10steve mccarron
new petition site
2011-08-09 15:24:51Please find below a link to a new site for people who wish to leave signatures and read some more about Hartlebury Common.
Because of malicious posts, there are too many gaps in the comments page on this site and hopefully this will be a fresh start.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/hands-off-hartlebury-common/
I will be closing this site and recording the signatures before doing so
steve mccarron
In a Nutshell
2011-08-03 20:57:07Biodiversity,in the NE sense,is more to do with the niches man has created to allow natural access than the real bio support structures.The UK species 'carrying capacity',had man not been present,would be a fraction of what it is now but NE have confused what is here with what should be here and created a huge 'guilt'which feeds their existence.NE DO NOT welcome new additions to our 'human eco system species bank'but publicise/mourn the loss of species that have taken advantage of our presence to gain a foothold in the past!A dichotomy they need to account for and a dichotomy that keeps them funded.
steve mccarron
Meeting, please do not ignore
2011-07-21 20:48:48steve mccarron
More glowing reports about Un Natural England
2011-07-15 20:27:40Steve,
look at the detail of the Aarhus Convention and the hearing you got.I have found NO evidence of the UK(NE/DEFRA)complying with the pillars regarding participation/consultation.The 1992 Rio conference was a World overview but each party has looked to parochial compliance with no view of local impact on World biodiversity.At a cost,in the UK, of up to £3m per 1000hc over 10 yrs our efforts are contributing to World degradation(money being the denominator of material damage).I might add that Dr Phillips(head of NE) salary does little to exemplify personal environmental responsibility.NE have become the arbiters of life and death and what the public will and will not have access to with no accountabilities(in fact every failure,like ESA heathland,justifies further investment and intervention instead of a review of NE's competence).NE frequently support trade offs whereby 'glamour rarities'are encouraged at a cost to the wider environment but 'ignore'any science which reduces rural investment(ELS/HLS)but would achieve the same result.Challenges achieve accountability.Keep challenging with the support of Save Penwith Moors.
steve mccarron
changes
2011-07-14 00:47:50I have yet to here a valid, scientific argument either for the proposals at Hartlebury common or against my claims. I suppose this is what makes unNatural England behave in the way that they do. As early as 2008, they had started to enrage the public with nonsensical plans. The best of course was to allow the sea to reclaim parts of the Norfolk Broads, flooding three villages and displacing 4000 residents.
http://www.nvcc.org.uk/2008/05/edp-natural-england-faces-anger-over-message/
Since then, their attitude has been very much us and them. They do not take kindly to critisism. That is why the meetings for hartlebury common were deliberatley subverted.
The biggest Question that I want answering is this;
Can anyone tell me where else in the world vast amounts of money are spent to artificially sustain an unatural man made enviroment in favour of a few niche species that congregate there because it is an aberation? Can somebody tell what wildlife will benefit that do not habitat there at the moment or live in the surrounding countryside.
All this at tax payers expense
steve mccarron
More from Ian Liddell Grainger MP
2011-07-13 01:26:41Biodiversity is a slippery word. In the dictionary it translates as "life on earth". None of us objects to that, but some scientists have reinterpreted the word. It has become a religion, a cause and an excuse for changing anything and everything in the name of preserving life. Dr Phillips has allowed it to mean whatever she wants it to mean. That is what can happen when quangos are let out. They lose a sense of proportion. In addition-if I dare say this in this world of austerity-they are paid over the odds. Dr Phillips receives £144,000 a year, and six of her senior management team receive more than £80,000 a year. They have offices all over the country and around 2,000 staff to boss about. No wonder they have fooled themselves into thinking that they rule the world. Natural England has become far too big for Dr Phillips's elegant, stiletto-heeled boots.
steve mccarron
the work at the common is wrong
2011-07-11 00:37:02Campaign grows against Natural England
It's not just riders who are against it
A Westcountry MP has just launched a withering attack on the conservation quango Natural England - labelling it an invention "Dr Frankenstein would be proud of".
Ian Liddell-Granger, Conservative MP for Bridgwater, has called for the body to be radically scaled back, arguing that it has been "let loose" on "many sensitive environmental issues".
He said: "Natural England cares more about weeds than the welfare of country folk. It believes that butterflies and bats come before people".
Mr Liddell-Granger, who was speaking in a Parliamentary debate he initiated, was critical of Natural England's handling of EU grants to farmers for maintaining landscapes.
He said farmers in Withypool on Exmoor were having to do "precisely what Natural England wants", despite maintaining common land for centuries.
He said: "Natural England wants more cattle to graze on the common, and has put on the frighteners. "It wants 48 cows to graze a bit of land that would barely support half that number. For generations, Withypool Common has been known as a sheep common and, in 1950, there were more than 2,000 sheep on the hill.
"There is nothing natural about Natural England. From the word go it was a cumbersome creature, cobbled together in haste.
"Dr Frankenstein would have been proud of it."
Hear. Hear. Steve
steve mccarron
common sense
2011-07-10 00:59:58I believe that that the creation of unsustainable enviroments is just flying in the face of enlightenment in our fragile world. A holistic approach based on permaculture and sustainability would be kinder to the enviroment in every way. Hartlebury common has had more resources expended on it in the past few years than it has had in the past two hundred, and for what.
The carbon issue is easy here, leave it alone, what real benefit will come from this meddeling. The cost of everything in material terms to carry out these schemes will always outweigh the supposed gains.
Two complete trees have been taken down.
Sorry, what you say is wrong, common land was never used for intensive farming, it usually was the bit niether the lord or the lady of the manor wanted because it was useless for virtually anything profitable. Cutting down of trees for agricultural exspansion is a different generic. Which is why when you drive along, there are steep banks along the road which are often very wooded. The deforestation high water mark if you like, with clear fields behind. The two are very different practices.
The common has always been about subsistance agriculture. If you look at the records for the common this is validated by the lists of commoners and their entitlements.
The common has not been the subject of deliberate deforestation on this scale at any time, if it had there would be little of it left now, change is not necessary, the species issue is not right. The rarity of the types is overblown. Can you tell me where else in the world vast amounts of money are spent to artificially sustain an unatural man made enviroment in favour of a few niche species that congregate there because it is an aberation? Can somebody tell what wildlife will benefit that do not habitat there at the moment or live in the surrounding countryside.
Can you tell me why grazing is being introduced when this is in direct contradiction to WCC's policy?
Can you tell me how 33 cattle will have any impact on rampant fern and bramble since deforestation?
Can you tell me how the cattle can be disuaded from grazing on habitat previously "protected" by SSSI
Steve McCarron
steve mccarron