The Kwenchy Kup was an extemely popular alternative to carbonated soft drinks readily available on the market.The kwenchy Kup was so named by its makers by its supposed ability to quickly kwench a thirst.Freezing of the kentchy was made easy due to its plastic packaging and proved a bestseller with school children.Each Kentchy Kup came with a small red straw provided.Though Kwenchy Kups came in many diffrent flavours both oronge and cola proved to be by far the most popular.By the late 1990`s the kwenchy Kups popularity had faded which led the owners to stop producing the product.
The term Land Litigation has quickly become the root of an ongoing reaction to a spatial crisis everywhere. The amount of land on a continent or within a country is limited, and as populations grow, open areas tend to become scarce.
The United States, according to the U.S Census Bureau, has a population of 303,328,637. This is at a fairly rapid growth rate of an estimated 2.5 million each year. With this estimation, the U.S. projected population will grow to 394 million by the year 2050. These relatively high growth rates are the result of medical advancements and an increase in agricultural productivity. However, current research has shown a decline in rate of growth in recent years. But how many people can the U.S. hold? The United States of America has an area of 3,793,079 square miles and our current population density is 80 people per square mile. 80% of the American people live in urban areas where there is a much higher density, but this gives an idea of where we are spatially in the U.S. These urban areas are attractive to the American people because they provide a close proximity of housing, jobs, services, and other accommodations that make living easier.
In many instances a phenomenon called urban sprawl is occurring where cities are becoming too small to hold a demanding and growing population, and further development is needed. This requires further development that in turn encroaches on areas that were used for agricultural production or otherwise natural areas. Many view this as a detrimental yet necessary process for economic and anthropogenic need. How much development is too much?
The ability to own, control, and use land continues to hold a special place in our society because it is inextricably tied to the concepts of individual liberty and property rights. Although these properties were not inherited via merit or prior appropriations, land has become a basis of wealth, and it is closely tied to natural resource use. Property rights have a long history of protecting owner and private land, and several law doctrines have developed. Today, a wide array of statutes regulate land use either directly or indirectly. Direct land use controls are those whose primary focus is the regulation of all activities on specific pieces of land. These controls include zoning laws, and laws protecting critical environmental resource areas. Statutes that control land use indirectly include several major federal environmental statutes such as the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Protection Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act, and so on. These statutes protect different environmental concerns that could be protected by form of land litigation.
For effective governance, citizenship, urban planning, and economic strategy in metropolitan areas, every level of government and the private and civic sectors must collaborate across jurisdictional boundaries. Public policy and urban management today generally do not correspond to the reality of metropolitan regions as fundamental units of market activity, social interaction, culture, transportation systems, land-use planning, and environmental protection. Zoning has been a powerful tool granting power to communities. This model, which has been updated several times since its original introduction, restricts the range of permitted zoning schemes in accordance with the limits of the state’s police power and other constitutional requirements. The goal of zoning is to separate, as much as possible in an already built environment, residual areas from commercial and industrial uses and to isolate the most noxious industrial uses from other uses. As we become increasingly aware of the environmental impacts of human land development, zoning is becoming a vital part of land litigation.
Zoning and other land use regulations have been used to preserve open space, protect watershed and wetland areas, save areas of aesthetic and historical value, and promote general environmental goals. A few problems associated with zoning show that it can have a significant effect on property values. Zoning pushes real estate prices down when it forbids valuable uses and drives up when it prevents noxious uses from being introduced nearby. As demand in an area changes over time, the original zoning litigation and titles may give way to new realities. This is when urban sprawl and extended development plans come to play. Another issue with zoning is that the traditional goal of segregating land uses may have unassessed indirect costs in energy consumption and environmental pollution. The traditional model forces people into longer, inefficient commutes to get from their residential areas to the limited industrial and commercial areas where they work. Large-lot zoning for single-family housing forces any further new development to spread and consume important environmental landscapes. The general consensus is that zoning, at times, tends to disarrange development from the path it would follow if permitted to progress naturally.
As more problems caused by traditional zoning have come to light, new and more flexible techniques have been created that permit communities to control development but with greater flexibility. Enabling communities to have proper standards that are specific to that particular environment is a vital benefit to land use. One zoning technique that plays a vital role in land litigation is Transferable Development Rights (TDR). To implement a TDR an urban area designates one area or plot of land as a preservation district and another as a development district. The landowners in the preservation district lose some rights to develop their land, but they are given development rights that they can sell to landowners in the development areas. These landowners are then able to develop their land more densely than they potentially could have without the new rights. TDRs are particularly useful because they allow cities to create restrictions in the preservation district that would otherwise constitute a “taking”, without having to pay direct compensation to the affected landowner. Prior to many statutes, such as TDR, the government could legally deprive a person of their private property without pay or just compensation through eminent domain, regulatory reasons, or confiscation by repossession. With TDR in effect, the city pays the landowner indirectly by allowing them to sell the right of development which he or she can no longer exercise. This type of policy can keep land that should not be developed in a preserved state and furthermore, protect the environment. Where unlimited growth causes local environmental problems, restricted growth plans or moratoria have been upheld. In the case of Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo (N.Y. 1972), a town adopted a plan that significantly restricted development for a period of eighteen years. The plan called for the city to build the infrastructure needed to support the planned development. This was a case where land litigation ended with the interest of the community and future development. The court noted that the plan would impose a severe restriction on landowners for a significant time, but it determined that the overall public purpose of the statute fell within the general planning powers envisioned by the zoning enabling statute. Land litigations that followed this case led to other zoning decisions that had adopted a broad definition of what “public welfare” could be promoted through zoning and land use regulation.
In some cases, communities have been permitted to ban all new construction by imposing a moratorium. Although viewed by courts as extreme action, moratoriums are used widely with utility connections to new development areas. It is important that in the event of a moratorium, along with other growth restrictions, that the actions are taken when there is a proven threat to public health or safety. Otherwise such litigation can be found arbitrary and capricious.
Two other common law land- related doctrines are applied in efforts to conserve and protect environmental resources. Under common law of waste, a current inhabitant of a piece of land is forbidden to do anything to diminish the value of land if it subject to a future interest. This doctrine prevents current possessors or users of land from extracting resources from the land or from polluting or altering it in any way that would devalue the property. The application of this process in a land litigation viewpoint is sometimes hard to play when there is a split in ownership between current and future interest. It is also hard for courts to decide if cases are actionable due to the assessment of the land and whether the action was an improvement. Nuisance is a branch of tort law that is used to protect a landowner’s right to quiet enjoyment to their land. A nuisance is any unreasonable use of land that interferes with another land owners quiet enjoyment of land, but falls short of physical trespass. Nuisance doctrines are most widely used to prevent air, water, and groundwater pollution, and in some cases erosion. Standards are typically set to protect the public and the polluter in this case, but if a polluting party violates regulatory standards, the plaintiff has the option of pursuing administrative remedy or suing under nuisance law. The violation of regulations often shows evidence that a nuisance exists. The use of waste and nuisance law both can serve the environment as well as public interests to properly litigate lands.
On a proponent side for the development of lands would often argue that sustainable development is compatible with human welfare, and there is a way that lands can be used for both development and preservation purposes. Sustainability entered the global debate in the early 1980s, when the United Nations’ secretary general asked Norway environmental prime ministers to produce a “global agenda for change”. The resulting report, produced by Oxford University, called Our Common Future defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Oxford U. Press, 1987). The report acknowledges that limits on population and resource cannot be known precisely, that problems may arise gradually rather than suddenly and will more than likely be marked by rising costs. It also outlines that limits may be redefined by technological innovations. They exist and must be taken into account when governments, corporations, and individuals plan for the future. Its kind of amazing that this report produced several years ago, is so accurate and yet we are still facing the forecasted problems, even after reports like this one have been made public. Still sustainable development is viewed as a realistic answer to many development planning issues. Not surprisingly, many people consider sustainable development to be in conflict with business and industrial activities, private property rights, and even some human freedoms. Many opponents argue that the sustainability of development practices can rarely be taken into account until after buildings and roads have been built and the damage is already done. This is why government policies are at the forefront of land litigation, and have the responsibility to make sure that with every development plan comes a proper management practice. Environmental Impact Statements, a process mandated in NEPA, are often used before a final decision is made to assess different environmental factors in the area that may be adversely affected by the development. NEPA states that an EIS must be prepared whenever “ proposals for legislation or other major federal actions significantly affect the quality of the human environment” (102(2)(C)). EIS often play as a required environmental advocate and serve as and aid in many land litigation cases. There are a number of methods to make sure that developers play a responsible role in their additions to landscapes. These have increasingly been the trend as human impacts are seen in land-use issues all over the world.
Land litigation is a complex, yet important part of environmental law that can protect both human health and environment. As we find ourselves in a world with increasing population and diminishing environmental returns, we as environmental scholars must use our clout. It is important that both consumers and developers asses the necessity of development plans, and above all, require that landowners and the government hold people responsible for the impacts that their actions inflict on our land.
References:
Davidson, Julie L. Sustainable Development: Business as Usual or a New Way of Living? Johannesberg: United Nations World Summit, 2000.
Karl, Kehde. "The Smarter Land Use Project." 1989. 1 Dec. 2007
Kendall, Douglas T. Takings Litigation Handbook. Amer Legal Pub Corp, 2000.
Mandelker, Daniel R. "Land Use Law." Washington University Law. 3 Dec. 2007
Payne, Dinah M., and Cecily A. Raiborn. "Sustainable Development." Journal of Business Ethics os 32 (2001).
Peterson, Craig A. Handling Zoning and Land Use Litigation: a Practical Guide with 1985 Supplement (Contemporary Litigation Series). Lexis Law Pub, 1982.
Thomas, Easton A. Environmental Issues. Guilford, Conn: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
The United States, according to the U.S Census Bureau, has a population of 303,328,637. This is at a fairly rapid growth rate of an estimated 2.5 million each year. With this estimation, the U.S. projected population will grow to 394 million by the year 2050. These relatively high growth rates are the result of medical advancements and an increase in agricultural productivity. However, current research has shown a decline in rate of growth in recent years. But how many people can the U.S. hold? The United States of America has an area of 3,793,079 square miles and our current population density is 80 people per square mile. 80% of the American people live in urban areas where there is a much higher density, but this gives an idea of where we are spatially in the U.S. These urban areas are attractive to the American people because they provide a close proximity of housing, jobs, services, and other accommodations that make living easier.
In many instances a phenomenon called urban sprawl is occurring where cities are becoming too small to hold a demanding and growing population, and further development is needed. This requires further development that in turn encroaches on areas that were used for agricultural production or otherwise natural areas. Many view this as a detrimental yet necessary process for economic and anthropogenic need. How much development is too much?
The ability to own, control, and use land continues to hold a special place in our society because it is inextricably tied to the concepts of individual liberty and property rights. Although these properties were not inherited via merit or prior appropriations, land has become a basis of wealth, and it is closely tied to natural resource use. Property rights have a long history of protecting owner and private land, and several law doctrines have developed. Today, a wide array of statutes regulate land use either directly or indirectly. Direct land use controls are those whose primary focus is the regulation of all activities on specific pieces of land. These controls include zoning laws, and laws protecting critical environmental resource areas. Statutes that control land use indirectly include several major federal environmental statutes such as the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Protection Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act, and so on. These statutes protect different environmental concerns that could be protected by form of land litigation.
For effective governance, citizenship, urban planning, and economic strategy in metropolitan areas, every level of government and the private and civic sectors must collaborate across jurisdictional boundaries. Public policy and urban management today generally do not correspond to the reality of metropolitan regions as fundamental units of market activity, social interaction, culture, transportation systems, land-use planning, and environmental protection. Zoning has been a powerful tool granting power to communities. This model, which has been updated several times since its original introduction, restricts the range of permitted zoning schemes in accordance with the limits of the state’s police power and other constitutional requirements. The goal of zoning is to separate, as much as possible in an already built environment, residual areas from commercial and industrial uses and to isolate the most noxious industrial uses from other uses. As we become increasingly aware of the environmental impacts of human land development, zoning is becoming a vital part of land litigation.
Zoning and other land use regulations have been used to preserve open space, protect watershed and wetland areas, save areas of aesthetic and historical value, and promote general environmental goals. A few problems associated with zoning show that it can have a significant effect on property values. Zoning pushes real estate prices down when it forbids valuable uses and drives up when it prevents noxious uses from being introduced nearby. As demand in an area changes over time, the original zoning litigation and titles may give way to new realities. This is when urban sprawl and extended development plans come to play. Another issue with zoning is that the traditional goal of segregating land uses may have unassessed indirect costs in energy consumption and environmental pollution. The traditional model forces people into longer, inefficient commutes to get from their residential areas to the limited industrial and commercial areas where they work. Large-lot zoning for single-family housing forces any further new development to spread and consume important environmental landscapes. The general consensus is that zoning, at times, tends to disarrange development from the path it would follow if permitted to progress naturally.
As more problems caused by traditional zoning have come to light, new and more flexible techniques have been created that permit communities to control development but with greater flexibility. Enabling communities to have proper standards that are specific to that particular environment is a vital benefit to land use. One zoning technique that plays a vital role in land litigation is Transferable Development Rights (TDR). To implement a TDR an urban area designates one area or plot of land as a preservation district and another as a development district. The landowners in the preservation district lose some rights to develop their land, but they are given development rights that they can sell to landowners in the development areas. These landowners are then able to develop their land more densely than they potentially could have without the new rights. TDRs are particularly useful because they allow cities to create restrictions in the preservation district that would otherwise constitute a “taking”, without having to pay direct compensation to the affected landowner. Prior to many statutes, such as TDR, the government could legally deprive a person of their private property without pay or just compensation through eminent domain, regulatory reasons, or confiscation by repossession. With TDR in effect, the city pays the landowner indirectly by allowing them to sell the right of development which he or she can no longer exercise. This type of policy can keep land that should not be developed in a preserved state and furthermore, protect the environment. Where unlimited growth causes local environmental problems, restricted growth plans or moratoria have been upheld. In the case of Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo (N.Y. 1972), a town adopted a plan that significantly restricted development for a period of eighteen years. The plan called for the city to build the infrastructure needed to support the planned development. This was a case where land litigation ended with the interest of the community and future development. The court noted that the plan would impose a severe restriction on landowners for a significant time, but it determined that the overall public purpose of the statute fell within the general planning powers envisioned by the zoning enabling statute. Land litigations that followed this case led to other zoning decisions that had adopted a broad definition of what “public welfare” could be promoted through zoning and land use regulation.
In some cases, communities have been permitted to ban all new construction by imposing a moratorium. Although viewed by courts as extreme action, moratoriums are used widely with utility connections to new development areas. It is important that in the event of a moratorium, along with other growth restrictions, that the actions are taken when there is a proven threat to public health or safety. Otherwise such litigation can be found arbitrary and capricious.
Two other common law land- related doctrines are applied in efforts to conserve and protect environmental resources. Under common law of waste, a current inhabitant of a piece of land is forbidden to do anything to diminish the value of land if it subject to a future interest. This doctrine prevents current possessors or users of land from extracting resources from the land or from polluting or altering it in any way that would devalue the property. The application of this process in a land litigation viewpoint is sometimes hard to play when there is a split in ownership between current and future interest. It is also hard for courts to decide if cases are actionable due to the assessment of the land and whether the action was an improvement. Nuisance is a branch of tort law that is used to protect a landowner’s right to quiet enjoyment to their land. A nuisance is any unreasonable use of land that interferes with another land owners quiet enjoyment of land, but falls short of physical trespass. Nuisance doctrines are most widely used to prevent air, water, and groundwater pollution, and in some cases erosion. Standards are typically set to protect the public and the polluter in this case, but if a polluting party violates regulatory standards, the plaintiff has the option of pursuing administrative remedy or suing under nuisance law. The violation of regulations often shows evidence that a nuisance exists. The use of waste and nuisance law both can serve the environment as well as public interests to properly litigate lands.
On a proponent side for the development of lands would often argue that sustainable development is compatible with human welfare, and there is a way that lands can be used for both development and preservation purposes. Sustainability entered the global debate in the early 1980s, when the United Nations’ secretary general asked Norway environmental prime ministers to produce a “global agenda for change”. The resulting report, produced by Oxford University, called Our Common Future defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Oxford U. Press, 1987). The report acknowledges that limits on population and resource cannot be known precisely, that problems may arise gradually rather than suddenly and will more than likely be marked by rising costs. It also outlines that limits may be redefined by technological innovations. They exist and must be taken into account when governments, corporations, and individuals plan for the future. Its kind of amazing that this report produced several years ago, is so accurate and yet we are still facing the forecasted problems, even after reports like this one have been made public. Still sustainable development is viewed as a realistic answer to many development planning issues. Not surprisingly, many people consider sustainable development to be in conflict with business and industrial activities, private property rights, and even some human freedoms. Many opponents argue that the sustainability of development practices can rarely be taken into account until after buildings and roads have been built and the damage is already done. This is why government policies are at the forefront of land litigation, and have the responsibility to make sure that with every development plan comes a proper management practice. Environmental Impact Statements, a process mandated in NEPA, are often used before a final decision is made to assess different environmental factors in the area that may be adversely affected by the development. NEPA states that an EIS must be prepared whenever “ proposals for legislation or other major federal actions significantly affect the quality of the human environment” (102(2)(C)). EIS often play as a required environmental advocate and serve as and aid in many land litigation cases. There are a number of methods to make sure that developers play a responsible role in their additions to landscapes. These have increasingly been the trend as human impacts are seen in land-use issues all over the world.
Land litigation is a complex, yet important part of environmental law that can protect both human health and environment. As we find ourselves in a world with increasing population and diminishing environmental returns, we as environmental scholars must use our clout. It is important that both consumers and developers asses the necessity of development plans, and above all, require that landowners and the government hold people responsible for the impacts that their actions inflict on our land.
References:
Davidson, Julie L. Sustainable Development: Business as Usual or a New Way of Living? Johannesberg: United Nations World Summit, 2000.
Karl, Kehde. "The Smarter Land Use Project." 1989. 1 Dec. 2007
Kendall, Douglas T. Takings Litigation Handbook. Amer Legal Pub Corp, 2000.
Mandelker, Daniel R. "Land Use Law." Washington University Law. 3 Dec. 2007
Payne, Dinah M., and Cecily A. Raiborn. "Sustainable Development." Journal of Business Ethics os 32 (2001).
Peterson, Craig A. Handling Zoning and Land Use Litigation: a Practical Guide with 1985 Supplement (Contemporary Litigation Series). Lexis Law Pub, 1982.
Thomas, Easton A. Environmental Issues. Guilford, Conn: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
Baby tossing was a sport practised by the English gentry in the Middle Ages as a source of entertainment. A human infant was literally thrown from one player to another.
One notable incident was the death of King Henry IV's infant brother. The baby was accidentally killed while he was being tossed from window to window and fell to his death.
One notable incident was the death of King Henry IV's infant brother. The baby was accidentally killed while he was being tossed from window to window and fell to his death.
Independent Schools Barbarians
A new Barbarians team was launched by Chris Terry and Roger Uttley of Harrow School in 2006 to expose the talents and expand the opportunities of players from a number of independent rugby playing schools. The idea is to give the boys a platform to play which is above and beyond their school’s 1st XVs.
Said former England international and Harrow School's Roger Uttley OBE, “The Heads of Rugby of a number of independent schools are keen to give above average performers the opportunity to play a higher standard of rugby and develop as players while maintaining the educational ethos of the schools they attend. They feel that a representative game would give players an incentive to achieve something higher than a first XV honour, while providing an additional opportunity for club and representative side coaches to watch them play at a truly competitive level.” - RFU Press Office
The first game was played in beautiful spring sunshine on “The Close” at Rugby School on the 25th March 2007, witnessed by Mickey Steele Bodger, President of The Barbarians, who has given his blessing for the use of the term Barbarians for this venture. Ten schools were involved in this first match and included some famous names. They were Harrow, Eton, Tonbridge School, Radley, Stowe, Oundle, Oakham, Wellington, Rugby School and Uppingham.
The ten schools involved nominated their best players not currently involved in the Academy or representative structure. These players were divided into two non-geographical teams to reflect the Corinthian ideals of the Barbarians, with players from the same school playing against each other. The name ‘Barbarians’ has been used as a means of indicating the sort of rugby that the matches aim to encourage.
The game itself was a wonderful display of champagne rugby, played wide and fast by players obviously delighted to be completely free to fully express their rugby talents. In the end after a close fought game the Light Blues beat the Dark Blues by 30 points to 14.
Further Development
Sunday 16th December 2007 saw the first games of the Independent Schools Barbarians after their expansion to include more schools both from the South of England and for the first time from the North of England. Over 40 Independent Schools nominated their best players not currently involved in the RFU representative system.
Two games were played in the bright sunshine and cold conditions at Oundle School, firstly the South game followed by the North game. Both games were wonderful exhibitions of expansive and elegant rugby. The play flowed from end to end and from side to side in true Barbarians style with the participants given free reign, free from the pressures of victory, to show their rugby talents at their best. Many tries were scored by all four of the sides in two evenly matched contests. Due to the nature of the event it is unimportant who actually won the games but what is important is that it without doubt showed the depth of talent that there is in English rugby which is willing and waiting to be tapped. After the matches at the post match supper the Barbarians management invited 25 of the players to represent the Independent Schools Barbarians against the Irish Exiles U19s at Harrow School on the 6th January 2008 (kick-off 2.15pm). This was a somewhat unpleasant job for the Barbarians management as with such a depth of rugby talent on offer it was difficult to decide between so many excellent rugby players.
First Representative Game
Sunday 6th January 2008 saw the first game for the Independent Schools Barbarians against representative opposition, namely The Irish Exiles U19s. The game was played in bright sunshine on the Sunley Field at Harrow School. The Barbarians team consisted of 24 players invited to play from the 100 boys who played in the North and South Barbarians matches held at Oundle School on the 16th December 2007.
The game was a tough first encounter for the Barbarians against a very strong Exiles side with contained some very good and very physical players, including a number of Ireland U18 caps from last season. The game was played at a tremendous pace on a fine pitch which was perfect for flowing, running rugby. The score line of 39-0 to the Exiles indicates what a fine team they were. The Irish team was powerful, fast and skilful and featured many players that we are sure we will be seeing much more of in future years.
The game was however much more competitive that the score line may suggest.
The level of skill on both sides was excellent and the Barbarians also played some excellent expansive rugby especially in the second half as the Christmas break was slowly purged from the players system and the Barbarians started to gel as a team, even though they had only met and trained together for one hour that morning, coached by two former Barbarians John Olver (Oundle) and Ian Smith (Oakham).
There were two main differences between the sides. Firstly the fact that the Irish players were a year older made quite a difference; they were bigger man for man and more physical at the breakdowns and in the contact situation. This meant that at times the Barbarians were starved of the fast clean possession the backs craved. The second difference was the way in which the Irish players converted their opportunities which was truly superb despite the valiant defence of the Barbarians. They scored 4 or more tries purely due to the fact that they kept the ball alive in the tackle and had the players in support to convert these attacks into points when the Barbarians defence had hoped they had snuffed them out.
As the game progressed the Barbarians did start to win some quality ball due to the determination of the lighter Barbarian’s pack. Tom Lund (Bradford) the Captain was impressive as was his second row partner Marco Cengarle (St. Pauls) who was fast around the park and worked very hard at trying to tame the physicality of the Irish Pack. When the Barbarians gained good quick ball the backs looked fast and dangerous. Both fly-halves that played for the Barbarians Joe Barnett (Uppingham) and Rob Halliday (Ashville) got the backs playing wide and exciting rugby in true Barbarians style. However, the Barbarian attacks were well defended by a quick covering and powerful Irish defence and the Barbarians just failed to get points on the scoreboard on a number of occasions, not least being held up over the line right at the end of the match. Many players could be mentioned in the Barbarians back line but in particular Joe Massarella (Mount St. Marys) at full back and Gareth Stoppani (KCS Wimbledon) were particularly dangerous and elusive with the ball in their hands.
The game was excellently refereed by Rowan Kit allowing both sides to play exciting, heads-up rugby and the Barbarians are most grateful to him for taking time to referee this match (Rowan will have refereed three games in three days)!
All in all this was a great experience for the Barbarians players and very beneficial for them and for the development of this Barbarians venture. It very much showed what a depth of young talent there is in British rugby!
The Barbarians are very grateful for the sponsorship support of 118118, without whom this new venture would not have been possible. Not least they have provided all the kit for the boys and much organisational support for both of the Independent Schools Barbarians days as well as the newly formed Prep Schools Barbarians venture. The Barbarians have even obtained their very own cheer leaders in the form of the two 118118 runners who have been at all our games this year and have brought a totally new dimension to the Barbarians warm ups!
Barbarians Players
1. Henry Brooke, QEGS
2. Luke Fletcher, Barnard Castle
3. Alex Edler, QEGS
4. Tom Lund (Cpt), Bradford
5. Marco Cengarle, St. Pauls
6. George Milligan, St. Peters
7. Will Parker, Sedbergh
8. Richard Leigh, Yarm
9. Alex Crampton Smith, Radley
10. Joe Barnett, Uppingham
11. Gareth Stoppani, KCS
12. Rory Jones, KCS
13. Adam Gadsby, Wellington
14. Henry Spurrier, Oundle
15. Joe Massarella, Mnt St Marys
16. Fergus Austin, Oundle
17. Joshua Taylor, Oundle
18. Adam Murgatroyd, Rugby
19. Tom Ransom, Oundle
20. Rory Weston, Rugby
21. Charlie King, Royal Hospital
22. Graham Baxter, RGS Newcastle
23. Rob Halliday, Ashville
24. Tom Hart, Arnold
Prep Schools Barbarians
Due to the success of this venture and the interest in it from a number of Prep Schools, The Independent Schools Barbarians have now also set-up the Prep School Barbarians in conjunction with Chris Hoy, Director of Sport at St. Piran’s Prep School. This new venture will run on very similar lines to the senior model, aiming to give the boys it involves enjoyment and chance to play at a level beyond school level.
Following on from the success of the Independent Schools Barbarians venture, set up by Chris Terry and Roger Uttley, OBE of Harrow School last year, it was thought that it would be an excellent idea to create a Prep School version of the event. This would foster the same Corinthian principles as the senior model and follow a similar format, but involving boys in the U11 and U13 age groups.
Many Prep School games staff have felt that at present there is no real extension or opportunity for their top rugby players to progress upwards. The Barbarians concept appeared to be an ideal opportunity for the region’s top Prep School rugby players to be given the opportunity to play against boys from other schools selected by their coaches as players having real potential for the future. Many of the players, due to their busy school commitments do not yet play club rugby, and it would also provide an opportunity for the RFU’s CB Schools of Rugby which starts at U13 to identify potential players.
The concept was quite simple. As this was our first year of organising the event we wrote to all the schools on our playing circuit and asked them to put forward 2 players from the U11 age group and three from the U13s.They were then put in to four non-geographical teams (two at each age group) to play two one-off festival games at Harrow School. It was hoped that this would thus provide an amazing opportunity for the boys to really ‘test their metal’ against the other top rugby playing boys in the South East.
The boys arrived on the day they were handed their playing and training kit which they received courtesy of our generous sponsor for the day 118118. They were then taken off by their coaches for a morning training and organisation session, theses coaches included Roger Utley, OBE and Tosh Askew.
The boys then got to play on the 1st XV pitch at Harrow with the U11s playing first followed by the U13s. The standard of play was quite exceptional and all the boys appeared to have a fantastic day where they learnt a great deal and got to play with and against a much wider group of rugby talent than they are used to.
We were very fortunate to have Gregg Davies (ex IRB referee and Headmaster of Shiplake College, Henley) to referee both matches.
After the matches the boys were taken to a post match meal in the dining room at Harrow School where they were all presented with a polo shirt as another memento of the day.
In terms of the future, we have recently found out that our sponsors 118118 have agreed to work with us for next year and are very keen to expand the concept of pushing rugby talent at a grassroots level. We now have in place a Barbarians management team who are looking to recreate the same package as we had at Harrow with schools in the South West (Blundell’s School), Midlands (Rugby School) and the North (Neil Rollins). In time it is hoped that this may lead to inter-divisional games and the selection of a U11 and U13 representative team to represent the Barbarians and perhaps even the undertaking of a short tour.
Schools Involved this year:
Winchester House,
Eagle House,
Gayhurst,
Caldicott,
The Dragon,
St Johns, Beaumont,
St. Johns, Northwood,
Oratory Prep,
The Beacon,
Papplewick,
Aldro,
Davenies,
Moulsford,
St Pirans,
Ridgeway,
Danes Hill,
Chesham Prep.
Sponsor
The Barbarians are sponsored by 118118 the Directory Enquires Service.
A new Barbarians team was launched by Chris Terry and Roger Uttley of Harrow School in 2006 to expose the talents and expand the opportunities of players from a number of independent rugby playing schools. The idea is to give the boys a platform to play which is above and beyond their school’s 1st XVs.
Said former England international and Harrow School's Roger Uttley OBE, “The Heads of Rugby of a number of independent schools are keen to give above average performers the opportunity to play a higher standard of rugby and develop as players while maintaining the educational ethos of the schools they attend. They feel that a representative game would give players an incentive to achieve something higher than a first XV honour, while providing an additional opportunity for club and representative side coaches to watch them play at a truly competitive level.” - RFU Press Office
The first game was played in beautiful spring sunshine on “The Close” at Rugby School on the 25th March 2007, witnessed by Mickey Steele Bodger, President of The Barbarians, who has given his blessing for the use of the term Barbarians for this venture. Ten schools were involved in this first match and included some famous names. They were Harrow, Eton, Tonbridge School, Radley, Stowe, Oundle, Oakham, Wellington, Rugby School and Uppingham.
The ten schools involved nominated their best players not currently involved in the Academy or representative structure. These players were divided into two non-geographical teams to reflect the Corinthian ideals of the Barbarians, with players from the same school playing against each other. The name ‘Barbarians’ has been used as a means of indicating the sort of rugby that the matches aim to encourage.
The game itself was a wonderful display of champagne rugby, played wide and fast by players obviously delighted to be completely free to fully express their rugby talents. In the end after a close fought game the Light Blues beat the Dark Blues by 30 points to 14.
Further Development
Sunday 16th December 2007 saw the first games of the Independent Schools Barbarians after their expansion to include more schools both from the South of England and for the first time from the North of England. Over 40 Independent Schools nominated their best players not currently involved in the RFU representative system.
Two games were played in the bright sunshine and cold conditions at Oundle School, firstly the South game followed by the North game. Both games were wonderful exhibitions of expansive and elegant rugby. The play flowed from end to end and from side to side in true Barbarians style with the participants given free reign, free from the pressures of victory, to show their rugby talents at their best. Many tries were scored by all four of the sides in two evenly matched contests. Due to the nature of the event it is unimportant who actually won the games but what is important is that it without doubt showed the depth of talent that there is in English rugby which is willing and waiting to be tapped. After the matches at the post match supper the Barbarians management invited 25 of the players to represent the Independent Schools Barbarians against the Irish Exiles U19s at Harrow School on the 6th January 2008 (kick-off 2.15pm). This was a somewhat unpleasant job for the Barbarians management as with such a depth of rugby talent on offer it was difficult to decide between so many excellent rugby players.
First Representative Game
Sunday 6th January 2008 saw the first game for the Independent Schools Barbarians against representative opposition, namely The Irish Exiles U19s. The game was played in bright sunshine on the Sunley Field at Harrow School. The Barbarians team consisted of 24 players invited to play from the 100 boys who played in the North and South Barbarians matches held at Oundle School on the 16th December 2007.
The game was a tough first encounter for the Barbarians against a very strong Exiles side with contained some very good and very physical players, including a number of Ireland U18 caps from last season. The game was played at a tremendous pace on a fine pitch which was perfect for flowing, running rugby. The score line of 39-0 to the Exiles indicates what a fine team they were. The Irish team was powerful, fast and skilful and featured many players that we are sure we will be seeing much more of in future years.
The game was however much more competitive that the score line may suggest.
The level of skill on both sides was excellent and the Barbarians also played some excellent expansive rugby especially in the second half as the Christmas break was slowly purged from the players system and the Barbarians started to gel as a team, even though they had only met and trained together for one hour that morning, coached by two former Barbarians John Olver (Oundle) and Ian Smith (Oakham).
There were two main differences between the sides. Firstly the fact that the Irish players were a year older made quite a difference; they were bigger man for man and more physical at the breakdowns and in the contact situation. This meant that at times the Barbarians were starved of the fast clean possession the backs craved. The second difference was the way in which the Irish players converted their opportunities which was truly superb despite the valiant defence of the Barbarians. They scored 4 or more tries purely due to the fact that they kept the ball alive in the tackle and had the players in support to convert these attacks into points when the Barbarians defence had hoped they had snuffed them out.
As the game progressed the Barbarians did start to win some quality ball due to the determination of the lighter Barbarian’s pack. Tom Lund (Bradford) the Captain was impressive as was his second row partner Marco Cengarle (St. Pauls) who was fast around the park and worked very hard at trying to tame the physicality of the Irish Pack. When the Barbarians gained good quick ball the backs looked fast and dangerous. Both fly-halves that played for the Barbarians Joe Barnett (Uppingham) and Rob Halliday (Ashville) got the backs playing wide and exciting rugby in true Barbarians style. However, the Barbarian attacks were well defended by a quick covering and powerful Irish defence and the Barbarians just failed to get points on the scoreboard on a number of occasions, not least being held up over the line right at the end of the match. Many players could be mentioned in the Barbarians back line but in particular Joe Massarella (Mount St. Marys) at full back and Gareth Stoppani (KCS Wimbledon) were particularly dangerous and elusive with the ball in their hands.
The game was excellently refereed by Rowan Kit allowing both sides to play exciting, heads-up rugby and the Barbarians are most grateful to him for taking time to referee this match (Rowan will have refereed three games in three days)!
All in all this was a great experience for the Barbarians players and very beneficial for them and for the development of this Barbarians venture. It very much showed what a depth of young talent there is in British rugby!
The Barbarians are very grateful for the sponsorship support of 118118, without whom this new venture would not have been possible. Not least they have provided all the kit for the boys and much organisational support for both of the Independent Schools Barbarians days as well as the newly formed Prep Schools Barbarians venture. The Barbarians have even obtained their very own cheer leaders in the form of the two 118118 runners who have been at all our games this year and have brought a totally new dimension to the Barbarians warm ups!
Barbarians Players
1. Henry Brooke, QEGS
2. Luke Fletcher, Barnard Castle
3. Alex Edler, QEGS
4. Tom Lund (Cpt), Bradford
5. Marco Cengarle, St. Pauls
6. George Milligan, St. Peters
7. Will Parker, Sedbergh
8. Richard Leigh, Yarm
9. Alex Crampton Smith, Radley
10. Joe Barnett, Uppingham
11. Gareth Stoppani, KCS
12. Rory Jones, KCS
13. Adam Gadsby, Wellington
14. Henry Spurrier, Oundle
15. Joe Massarella, Mnt St Marys
16. Fergus Austin, Oundle
17. Joshua Taylor, Oundle
18. Adam Murgatroyd, Rugby
19. Tom Ransom, Oundle
20. Rory Weston, Rugby
21. Charlie King, Royal Hospital
22. Graham Baxter, RGS Newcastle
23. Rob Halliday, Ashville
24. Tom Hart, Arnold
Prep Schools Barbarians
Due to the success of this venture and the interest in it from a number of Prep Schools, The Independent Schools Barbarians have now also set-up the Prep School Barbarians in conjunction with Chris Hoy, Director of Sport at St. Piran’s Prep School. This new venture will run on very similar lines to the senior model, aiming to give the boys it involves enjoyment and chance to play at a level beyond school level.
Following on from the success of the Independent Schools Barbarians venture, set up by Chris Terry and Roger Uttley, OBE of Harrow School last year, it was thought that it would be an excellent idea to create a Prep School version of the event. This would foster the same Corinthian principles as the senior model and follow a similar format, but involving boys in the U11 and U13 age groups.
Many Prep School games staff have felt that at present there is no real extension or opportunity for their top rugby players to progress upwards. The Barbarians concept appeared to be an ideal opportunity for the region’s top Prep School rugby players to be given the opportunity to play against boys from other schools selected by their coaches as players having real potential for the future. Many of the players, due to their busy school commitments do not yet play club rugby, and it would also provide an opportunity for the RFU’s CB Schools of Rugby which starts at U13 to identify potential players.
The concept was quite simple. As this was our first year of organising the event we wrote to all the schools on our playing circuit and asked them to put forward 2 players from the U11 age group and three from the U13s.They were then put in to four non-geographical teams (two at each age group) to play two one-off festival games at Harrow School. It was hoped that this would thus provide an amazing opportunity for the boys to really ‘test their metal’ against the other top rugby playing boys in the South East.
The boys arrived on the day they were handed their playing and training kit which they received courtesy of our generous sponsor for the day 118118. They were then taken off by their coaches for a morning training and organisation session, theses coaches included Roger Utley, OBE and Tosh Askew.
The boys then got to play on the 1st XV pitch at Harrow with the U11s playing first followed by the U13s. The standard of play was quite exceptional and all the boys appeared to have a fantastic day where they learnt a great deal and got to play with and against a much wider group of rugby talent than they are used to.
We were very fortunate to have Gregg Davies (ex IRB referee and Headmaster of Shiplake College, Henley) to referee both matches.
After the matches the boys were taken to a post match meal in the dining room at Harrow School where they were all presented with a polo shirt as another memento of the day.
In terms of the future, we have recently found out that our sponsors 118118 have agreed to work with us for next year and are very keen to expand the concept of pushing rugby talent at a grassroots level. We now have in place a Barbarians management team who are looking to recreate the same package as we had at Harrow with schools in the South West (Blundell’s School), Midlands (Rugby School) and the North (Neil Rollins). In time it is hoped that this may lead to inter-divisional games and the selection of a U11 and U13 representative team to represent the Barbarians and perhaps even the undertaking of a short tour.
Schools Involved this year:
Winchester House,
Eagle House,
Gayhurst,
Caldicott,
The Dragon,
St Johns, Beaumont,
St. Johns, Northwood,
Oratory Prep,
The Beacon,
Papplewick,
Aldro,
Davenies,
Moulsford,
St Pirans,
Ridgeway,
Danes Hill,
Chesham Prep.
Sponsor
The Barbarians are sponsored by 118118 the Directory Enquires Service.