[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970408 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 97 12:40 BST-1
From: srawlings@cix.compulink.co.uk (Stephen Rawlings)
Subject: Re: GLEAM et al.
Now have the all relevant articles to hand from FN. Sadly, they will not
scan so can send as fax only AFTER 6pm.
Steve Rawlings
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970408 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 10:47:28 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: obstructions-again
Owen,
> We unfortunately didn't have the Inclosure Award system in Scotland.
I bet there were many squaters and crofters that would not have been any
too happy about inclosures - legalised robbery by the landed classes eh
Tim?.
BTW Geoff Brookes said "you have to be carefull about referring to
"squaters cottages" at PIs. People who live there tend to get upset about
it". He nows says "the houses with the big chimneys" or some such thing!
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970408 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 10:47:31 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: CLA success
> C'mon Chris, name names!
Names, what really say who?
Ok then, Julian Salmon at Hoddle Fm. Nr Evenjobb
Lane ref 2365
Gate was at SO235 644
Reported it to Dr. Alan Woods, CLA, 0171 235 0511
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970408 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 10:47:35 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Public Rights of Way.
Steve, thanks for fax, how about this for starters:-
(Tim, the point could also be made that the CLA hotline has been set up for
both landowners and users. The user complaints of obstructions far out
number reports from landowners. Perhaps some one else could make that
point?)
The Editor,
Farming News.
FarmingNews@farming.co.uk
7/4/97
Dear Sir,
The recent correspondence concerning RoW over farmland seems to be an
Advertorial for Solicitor Michael Woods.
I have foot and vehicular Rights of Way on my land. I would dearly love to
have them closed. It will increase the sale value, increase privacy and
security. But I also enjoy using other RoWs - I know I can't have it both
ways. I have bought land with those restrictions taken into account, I
must, and do accept them.
Purchasers of land should be made aware of all highways and definitive
roads, in searches, and if the land was enclosed, consult the Enclosure
award.
Your articles portray farmers as wishing to close RoW down - this is unfair
to those who take management of the countryside seriously - upholding RoW.
We all want them, just so long as they are not in our back yard.
RoW are not an imposition, they are a public right going back nearly a
thousand years, the disgracefull TV performance (Ch4 Dangerous Walks) of
Marlene Masters is not something a respectable farming newspaper needs to
be associated with.
Come on FN, stop playing into the hands of money motivated solicitors
offering to assist in getting rid of RoW, they will just get rid of money.
C J Marsden
Hereford
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970408 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: 07 Apr 97 16:31:50 EDT
From: Richard Brownlee <101360.3273@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Embarassment
Hi all
Has anyone considered using Private Eye to scorn and embarass CCs and top plod?
My wife (a Journalist) was thinking of putting a few pieces together for them
about some of the inaction/double standards RoW cases that have been mentioned
recently.
Good idea? Bad Idea? What?
Regards
Richard (grasping at another straw to get wifey interested in laning)
ps brill article Owen
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970408 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 17:10:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Scottish Inclosures
I am biting my tongue on this one, with things like clearances in mind.
The Inclosure process was clearances sanitised, the results for the poor just
the same. The English poor made the Industrial Revolution work, the Scottish
poor made the Empire work. Emphasis on Work, both times.
Scotland has no DM because, in my guess, there was a stitch up between the
Labourr Party in 1949 and the House of Lords, which went like this:
You socialist chappies can have your National Parks and Access to the
Countryside Act, but not on our land, ie Scotland.
Ben Nevis, Cairgorm, Sutherland, and not a Nat Park between them? Come on,
what other reason could there be?
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970408 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 97 00:00 BST-1
From: srawlings@cix.compulink.co.uk (Stephen Rawlings)
Subject: == No Subject ==
>>Ok then, Julian Salmon at Hoddle Fm. Nr Evenjobb
Lane ref 2365
Gate was at SO235 644
Sounds familiar. Probably from runs with Jeremy in the distant past. Not
shown on my marked map though!
Steve Rawlings
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970408 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 7 lines 214 [forwarded 5 whitespace 59]
Output: lines 219 [content 93 forwarded 5 (cut 0) whitespace 58]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970408 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]