Finance Act 1910 evidence appears the most commonly twisted and often abused common law evidence by instigators and Planning Inspectorate (DEFRA’s) inspectors’ and agent provocateurs’.
“Have you heard the one about a gap in the hereditament line on a Finance Act 1910 map?”
(Answer) “It’s a nonsense that’s regularly abused!” a contrived hearsay built upon quicksand.
To explain:
It is/has been regularly claimed, and accepted by those bias to creating public rights of way – when there’s proof beyond reasonable doubt that specific public rights of way do not exist; that a gap or break in a hereditament line on an Inland Revenue surveyors map (marked with coloured overlay) at the time of the Finance Act 1910, is evidence of a public road.
Why; the afore baloney is passed off as ‘uniformity’ satisfying the 1910 Act, it’s an illicit absolute nonsense sanctioned by DEFRA to add public rights of way to the Definitive Map because of political desire and bias.
The uniformity of the I.R. field books re Uffculme & Culmstock, lies not only in the calligraphy* of the primary administrator [*the unique handwriting: its composition & colour of ink used], ─but also in the diligent recording of known ‘public’ footpaths within the surveyors field books held at the National Records Office Kew, the entries often identifying O.S. survey plot numbers. The surveyors would not have made many overt sporadic** entries re public footpaths. [**without a logical reason; public footpaths were recorded where they were known to exist. It is irrational (and contrary to common sense) to allege the I.R. surveyors were recording public information willy-nilly (corruptly).]
The false and inappropriate rhetoric, that that I identified above re hereditament marking, is clearly not written in the statute or recorded within official guidance, nor breath of mentioned within the significant court & inquiry records and decisions of the period: 1910 to c1917; References to Decisions of the Courts of Law Under Part 1. of that Statute,* by A.H.F Pretty, Barrister-At-Law [Finance Act (1909-1910) 1910]
If an Ordnance Survey map has been marked with hereditament lines by the Inland Revenue surveyors to identify the location of hereditaments; it is absolutely reckless to perceive two or three enclosed areas on a map identify the road or lane between to belong to another landowner or that it is public without looking at the facts objectively.
Just because the track or lane terminates at a public place – it does not mean that the track or lane is a public thoroughfare. Nor is it true that the track or lane belongs to someone else: look at the gross acreage written down in the surveyors field books and any other official I.R. record books/documents. The Devon Heritage Centre (Devon Record Office) holds official I.R. valuation books that correlate to the 1910 Act; the acreages within naturally tally with the acreages that are written in the surveyors field books at Kew.
Heed: the individual plot/survey numbers marked upon an Ordnance Survey (O.S.) map purely records the area of survey; not necessarily the factual ownership boundaries – ‘fact!’; [The same applies to tithe maps.] the hereditament lines, and features portrayed on tithe maps are often purely ‘for identification purposes only’, or to enable its (the map’s) orientation; you have to read any supporting paperwork or other significant substance to be sure.
In simple: compare the recorded acreage within the surveyors field books with the outline of the hereditament marked on the surveyors maps (which were marked purely to assist the surveys, the marking of which, are not mentioned/written within/into the Act – a significant legal argument) and then add the individual acres of the O.S. plot numbers up, then compare their total (the total acreage) with the figures written within the surveyors field books, and it may soon become apparent whether an accommodation road, track or lane; is taxable (or tithe-able [in the case of tithe documents]) – compare your findings with overseer and tithe acreages, you will soon have a reasonable comprehension of the truth according to the balance of probabilities.
Of common law evidence that can indicate land acreage and its category of use … to establish whether a lane or significant track was deemed a public road (we’re not attempting to establish the existence of minor paths such as footpaths):
By gathering information such as poor law overseer records & reports, tithe records e.g., apportionments and maps re Tithe Act 1836, and 1936 [Ordnance Survey sheets with the layout of the original tithe map(s) imposed upon them.], and Finance Act 1910 field books maps and audit cum account books; it is possible to see [particularly if you have any (earlier?) conveyance documents] regular patterns of whether tithes and/or overseers rates/levies were paid; and from Finance Act 1910 records, whether the land was deemed (in simple) agricultural or undeveloped. – Once you’ve got your facts written down you can compare total acreages:
Sometimes the acreage numbers may vary because (for instance) additional tithes being paid may be located elsewhere within the parish; this can be reasonably easy to resolve by referral to the tithe maps: warning – always ensure that any map that you are using for a specific purpose is the right map, do not get complacent; official tithe maps will have identification numbers and statements on them linking them to respective tithe apportionment. Ensure the dates correlate.
Devon County Council public rights of way department in corroboration with with the British Horse Society have wilfully misrepresented an overseers for the poor map as tithe maps to enhance the success of their public fraud. To do so the aforesaid county council wilfully re-titled and re-dated the map.
An area of land on which there is a substantial track on which tithes or overseers rates are paid, thus ‘encumbrances’ = ‘a pecuniary burden’; would negate an inference that the road or lane was public road for vehicular traffic. And would hold affinity with agricultural land.
Thus; if land of a lane is deemed agricultural* or undeveloped** within Finance Act 1910 papers, it reasonable to infer it is not a public road. [*It can be dug up, covered with manure (a taxable commodity) or have fruit trees or potatoes etc., planted upon it. ─ If it’s been awarded the status of agricultural land with higher pecuniary sporting value, and payment has been made by the landowners for the status; think!]
[**It would be against logic (and the common law) for Parliament to have its inland revenue collectors approach a landowner for, or infer, a revenue payment is outstanding for sporting land according to the Finance Act 1910, and, conterminously/at the same time, allow a local (government) authority possess/have/carry a legitimate claim that the enclosed area is a (significant) public road open to all traffic.]
Thus if you can establish the footprint of an (agricultural) estate, from an early period, and you can see symmetry over time, such as an identified map or sketch that enables a reasonable record of location and acreage; and other documents that also give reasonable land area and location, such as wills etc., that can provide any informative fact to corroborate.
One can then find if it is reasonable to record a consistency of ground area and location that correlate ‘one document with another’ with reasonable accuracy to establish whether or not, the land in question was considered a public road.
Inland Revenue took over from poor law overseers in c1925, due to a Finance Act of that period. Thus using a combination of documents, one is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, whether a track, lane or accommodation road was deemed public or private at the time of the said documents.
Tithe Act 1936 documents may only reiterate existing tithes at the time of any survey re the 1936 Act, but (in simple) that is all one requires. Tithes were paid up until c1976 – when Queen Anne’s Bounty was deemed to have been satisfied:
From 1936 the payment of tithes were often wound up early, thus when a farm was purchased, the buyer may have been able to pay off any outstanding tithe encumbrance early; if you can establish from farm or estate (land) tenancy, purchase papers or sale documents, if tithes were paid; particularly in the 20th century, ─e.g., at the time of a sale in 1964; it would assist, in conjunction with other evidence such as tithe, overseer and/or Finance Act 1910 records; whether land was, or was not, deemed a public highway.
Fraudsters will use any trick in their book to expropriate private land because its layout is configured in the shape and profile of a road, lane or track.
This is particularly apparent when regular participants that, ordinarily, should not: wilfully & publicly misrepresent Finance Act 1910 records.
There is nothing written into the Finance Act 1910 – or within the professional guidance literature of the period regarding the marking of Inland Revenue maps. Nor can it be found within the accounts of the public inquiries and hearings, the court cases & disputes between the Inland Revenue and landowners etc., during the period of 1910 to 1917.
And of (the use of) roads; the following on permissive roads correlates with Devon County Council’s 1940s records re the proposed adoption of the many unadopted accommodation roads within the county, and, the more recent promiscuous activity since c1995 ─ present day overt criminal selectivity of documents and their wilful misrepresentation to add paths to the Definitive Map.
From: A Collection of the Reports of Cases, the Statutes, and Ecclesiastical Laws, relating to tithes; with a copious analytical index: by F.K. Eagle, Esq. LL.B. and E. Younge, Esq. of the Middle Temple, Barristers At Law – Vol. IV. 1826: section VIII. (Tithes) How to be paid and taken. Paragraphs 1. to 28. on pages 481 – 482:
1. Of common right, every person may enter to gather his tithes, and to turn them until they are dry… 19. If a parson be prevented from carrying his tithes by the usual roads and passages, he may sue in the spiritual court for the disturbance, and no prohibition lies, by reason of the covin. ─6 Car. B.R. Halsey v. Halsey. i.371* [*omitted for concision] …
24. The parson is, generally speaking, entitled to use the same road for carrying away his tithes which is used by the occupier for carrying the other nine parts; and if road be stopped up or obstructed, he may bring an action on the case for damages.
25. Where two several distinct farms had formerly been in the occupation of one person, and a road or communication from the one to the other, and thence to the high road, had been used during such occupation, it was holden, that when the farms became occupied by different persons, the parson was not entitled to use that road, though the nearest and most convenient; for, that as the several occupiers might have no right to use it, the parsons could have none. ─ 18 Geo. 3. Scacc. Bosworth v. Limbrick. ii. 310*
26. A parson is not entitled to carry his tithes home by every road which the farmer himself uses for the occupation of his farm. Semble, that he may only use such road as the farmer does for the occupation of the close in which the tithes grew.─47 Geo. 3. C.B. Cobb v. Selby. ii. 554*
[~ To reiterate the afore, from: ‘A Treatise on The Law of Tithes’ by Sir Samuel Toller, Knight – The Third Edition Corrected: with additions, 1822 (Google books):
In the case of Cobb v. Selby, 1 N. R. 466, it was laid down, that the tithe owner is entitled to make use of the road ordinarily used, for the ordinary occupation of the close in which the tithe is taken; but that he has no right to use any road but that which the farmer used in taking his nine parts.~]
27. …
28. Tithe owners cannot control the farmer … provided he act bona fide, and without fraud.─5 Geo. 4. Scacc. Lewis v. Young, Bart. iii. 1135*
─It is fact that DEFRA and their agent provocateurs have regularly inverted the many valuable informations that can be gleaned from: (a) Land Tax records 18th century, (b) overseer surveys early 19th & 20th century, (c) Tithe Acts 1836 & 1936, (d) Inland Revenue – Finance Act 1910 records, (e) Rights of Way Act 1932, (f) local authority records 1940s, and (g) the original parochial surveys made to satisfy the 1949 Act
─if the afore [a) to g)] are the most accurate public records that can be obtained, and they are supported by wills and public records of events as far back as the mid 9th century (a gift to Glastonbury) and other royal events & licences of 12th & 14th century; then it is for the public to know of the corruption and the inquiry fixing frauds that Hilary Benn appears to enjoy and assist.
DEFRA & its Planning Inspectorate inspectors appear to have/follow an unofficial & illicit policy of prevarication and sophistry; to affront and undermine old documents (common law evidence) nexus statute and statutory surveys that, when interpreted correctly, can cogently provide probative evidence of whether a track, lane or road; was considered to be public or private in the mid 20th century.
DEFRA clearly acts within its own bias political remit ─ not that of Parliament. If Parliament’s purpose is not to endorse socialism and illicit purpose, i.e. its ethos is to promote democracy; then, somehow, it is clearly failing by allowing DEFRA’s inquiry fixing frauds to continue.
If you believe you have fallen victim to the bias & fraudulent/deceptive behaviour of a DEFRA inspector such as Peter Millman, Helen Slade or Susan Doran, and believe you have supportive evidence to corroborate the fact; please feel free to explain.
What do the triad above have in common with the arrogant and lubricious schemers that put doctored reports and calculated claims of discovery before them?:
They all clearly present themselves as knowledgeable re tithe Acts & Finance Act 1910; but somehow, be it jobbery, entryism; or merely just bad faith & political (socialist?) extremism; don’t appear able to report upon the events of quasi public inquiries without applying their own subtle sophistry & embellishment to corrupt the recorded fact.
When Parliament creates statute and legislation its interpretation is via the common law; an example of the illicit inversion that a victim will encounter from DEFRA’s collaborators and agent provocateurs (such as the Devon County Council public rights of way depart) is the wilful and planned withholding & refraining from presentation of evidence, that stored by the county council and ordinarily not available to the general public.
Members of the public rights of way department of Devon County Council have been actively involved in stealth and scheming to procure public rights of way since at least the early 1990s (one can infer since the early 1980s).
Fraudulent and fictitious discoveries have been made after decades of stealth & misfeasance in public office to falsely claim that discovery in accordance with the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, deem public right of way exist, and it is within the remit of the aforesaid Act, that changes to the Definitive Map have to be made.
The Highways Act 1980 identifies the required uninterrupted 20 years of landowner dedication,* to enable a valid claim, no untoward activity (such as stealth) should be visible. [*Written into the W & C Act 1981]
The wilful suppression of evidence during instigated public inquiries by corrupt departments of county councils and DEFRA’s departments at the Planning Inspectorate has taken us ever closer to socialism. DEFRA’s creation in 2001 appears mighty convenient nexus 20 years.
The House of Lords findings re Godmanchester in the summer of 2007 made the workload: stealth & skulduggery, of the criminals and corrupt much greater; naturally and unethically the Planning Inspectorate have absorbed the bad faith and immoral activity, are accountable for deceit.
Noticeable is the way the Planning Inspectorate tell you to bowdlerise and emasculate your submissions so the truth is either not within your documents or, if it’s within your offers of proof, they won’t pass it on to others/accept it as substance for the inquiry; and how the Planning Inspectorate’s own inspectors such as Peter Millman, Helen Slade and Susan Doran absorb the rhetorical nonsense, and make statements re the expertise of those perverting the truth, in what appears their own common cause of sophistry and embellishing, fictitious reports.
All the above, and much more, takes its toll on those innocently trying to protect their lives and others from the evils of socialism encroaching communism; it is alleged that we live in a democracy, unfortunately it’s not that simple; access to justice is becoming increasingly difficult and the corrupt elements of DEFRA appear to exploit the vulnerability of those of limited means (not just pecuniary).
State organised crime is overt in nature, and leads to lack of confidence in those departments wilfully perverting the truth.
The truth has a habit of not wanting to be suppressed; it may surprise you to know that justice tends to catch up with those that bully and affront the truth. ─ See the Attorney General’s 9th January 2007 introduction to the Fraud Act 2006 re the situations that necessitate a charge of ‘conspiracy to defraud’; think of the following authority: 18 Jun 2010 – Del Basso and another [2010] EWCA Crim 1119; where the appeal judge referred back to, and agreed with the original trial judge:
The appellants “…have treated the illegality of the operation as a routine business risk with financial implications in the form of potential fines, at worst, injunctive proceedings. This may reflect a more general public impression among those confronted by enforcement notices with the decision whether to comply with the law or to flout it. The law, however, is plain. Those who choose to run operations in disregard of planning enforcement requirements are at risk of having the gross receipts of their illegal businesses confiscated. … In this respect they are in the same position as thieves, fraudsters and drug dealers … .”
L.I.P. (Live in peace), or at least we should be able to do so, if we live in a democracy!
James Field 30.03.2016 (updated 30:09:2016)