[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 03:45:25 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: who
whoo row
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:02:26 +0100
From: Owen Sayers <central4x4@zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: who
In message <199704080345_MC2-13F1-53AB@compuserve.com>
Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com> writes:
> whoo row
Was this an attempt at finding out who is on the list,
or a sort of exclamation of spring induced euphoria?
;-)
Owen
(In Scotland where we're still hibernating....)
--------------------------------------------------
Central 4x4 Outdoor Leisure Off-Road Driving Centre
3 Clover Place, Bo'ness, West Lothian, EH51 0QW
(+44) 01506 516448, (+44) 0370 471277
Web Page: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/central4x4/
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 10:20:16 +0100
From: Owen Sayers <central4x4@zetnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Scottish Inclosures
In message <970407170827_1683674338@emout11.mail.aol.com>
TimLARA@aol.com writes:
> 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
[ truncated by list-digester (was 10 lines)]
> Ben Nevis, Cairgorm, Sutherland, and not a Nat Park between them? Come on,
> what other reason could there be?
> Cheers, tim
Yep, you're right about the clearances...but look on the bright side...
Without the clearances, and the later periods of extreme hardship like
the potato famine, there wouldn't have been widespread poverty,
which in turn wouldn't have led to Destitution Roads, and as such we
wouldn't be able to drive on them....
(Destitution roads were so named because they were built by the crofters
and farmers who were dispossessed of their lands, and the surface was
built from the stones used to build the croft houses and farms. In return the
crofters were given food - but after the destruction of their homes, they
had no option but to leave the area...)
As far as Nat Parks go, another reason might be that Scotland was always
considered to be the (very) junior partner in the Union - and
perhaps this is still the case (Poll Tax was introduced in Scotland as a
test a year before the rest of the country, Cold weather payments are
based on temperatures from the home counties whilst Scotland is a
somewhat colder area in which to live, and Nursery vouchers were
introduced a year later in Scotland than the rest of the UK). So perhaps
it was more a matter of "Who cares what happens in Scotlan?", they'll do
as they're told anyway. Never mind, when we vote in the SNP we'll get
our country back. Then we'll take all the oil, and you won't be
able to afford to drive your 4x4's anymore. (Owners of V8's can
identify best with the last sentence) ;-)
Certainly as far as the Lords bit goes, I was amazed to find that even
next to my house - 15 miles west of Edinburgh, the residents of local
villages and farms are very much led by the wishes of the local Lord.
Even the local council rarely goes against the plans of the estate.
To the extent that they will not speak against the estate at PI's.
Feudal system still in action.....Tim, we need you up here to sort
them out.
Owen
--------------------------------------------------
Central 4x4 Outdoor Leisure Off-Road Driving Centre
3 Clover Place, Bo'ness, West Lothian, EH51 0QW
(+44) 01506 516448, (+44) 0370 471277
Web Page: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/central4x4/
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 11:17:29 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Disputed route questionaire.
This may be another one of my many silly ideas. If so,I am sure you will
all be kind enough to say so, or does it have scope for development to a
useful document.? I would envisage it completed by the impeded party and
any person challenging the right to drive or ride a route. The aim is to
show that the user cares about and has a certain degree of knowledge of
RoW.
Chris
Disputed route survey form
Route___________ From NGR____ ____ to NGR ____ ____
In order to resolve disputes in a non-confrontational and constructive way,
please answer the following questions:-
Is there a track of some description at the location in question?
Is this a road?
Does this road have public vehicular, equestrian, footpath rights?
Is it on the list of streets or definitive map? (N.B. a definitive footpath
may also be a UCR)
If not what reasons are there to believe PVR exist?
i.e. RT/Occupation/Public Carriage rd./pre1835 public rd/legal event/other
_____?
Is there an impediment to proceeding?
If so, what is the nature of the impediment?
Natural / Manmade?
If Natural is it
undergrowth/overgrowth/both/difficult to determine?
Is it planted to obstruct or natural?
Lack of repair?
Damaged apparently by leisure use?
damaged by agricultural or forestry use?
If man-made does it appear:
deliberate, to impede use,?
careless actions?
Does it make use impossible?
Possible by making a detour?
More difficult or dangerous?
Is the obstruction recent? (ie say last 12 months)
Please return to HA / ROW dept.
________________________ County Council
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 12:41:49 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Tractors
Hi
I seem to have Mr Bradleys address wrong. I sent this for him but it was
returned:
"Hi Peter
Herriard 9 - in Hampshire - was like the Somme as the result of timber
extraction (about half a dozen 4x4 County tractord) and consiquently was
'driven' every weekend by 4x4s from London, Basingstoke etc. Come
reclassification it became 'bridleway' largely due to no user evidence. And
the landowner went on TV in a 110 claiming he couldn't use his own lane due
to 4x4 anuse - the 110 was stuck fast.
Peter what is the correct address?
DT
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 12:52:53 +0000
From: Peter Bradley <hm50@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Blue Book
My copy of the blue book arrived today.
It's an epic tome, more so than I expected.
Ah well, here goes .......
Peter B
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 20:02:52 +0100
From: USER <john.o'reilly@virgin.net>
Subject: Re: Disputed route questionaire.
Chris Marsden wrote:
> This may be another one of my many silly ideas. If so,I am sure you will
> all be kind enough to say so, or does it have scope for development to a
[ truncated by list-digester (was 44 lines)]
> Please return to HA / ROW dept.
> ________________________ County Council
Hi Chris
Not a bad idea. But on most routes we have allready confirmed have
vehicle rights prior to setting out on them.
But a useful form in part as an obstuction notification to CC's.
Cheers John
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 21:18:59 +0100
From: USER <john.o'reilly@virgin.net>
Subject: Modification Order Pirton 21 in Hertfordshire
Hi Steve
Can you tell how to contact the TRF rep in Hertfordshire. The above
Modification order on the above RUPP has gone as Bridleway. It appears
that the CC surjested BOAT but the Inspector said no. I belive the TRF
used the route a lot in the past but supplied no user evidence. Were
they notified about this order??
The Secretary/Chairman Herts Footpath Society is appealing to the
Secretary of State. He knows that this route should have been BOAT and
that is what he wants. His reason the CC has not been able to stop one
of the farmers plougung a route while it was a RUPP what chance has a
Bridleway got. He also genuinely that all routes should have the correct
status, and the more that we have to drive the less strain on any one
route.
We need urgenty any extra infomation that was not put before the PI or
any other infomation that may help.
Cheers John
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 21:26:24 +0000
From: Peter Bradley <hm50@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: Tractors
Tilbo
> I seem to have Mr Bradleys address wrong. I sent this for him but it was
> returned:
Wow. It's not often I get called Mr. Bradley ! More usually "Hey
Ratbag",
or "Oi you ! Yeah, the scruffy one !".
> "Hi Peter
> Herriard 9 - in Hampshire - was like the Somme as the result of timber
[ truncated by list-digester (was 6 lines)]
> extraction (about half a dozen 4x4 County tractord) and consiquently was
> 'driven' every weekend by 4x4s from London, Basingstoke etc.
This is very sad mentality. I am sorry to say that I have seen this
first
hand up here. The worse the track becomes, the more the idiots come
flocking
in to try their hand at "the challenge". Like it's the Camel Trophy for
free, and without the not inconsiderable inconvenience of being bitten
by
a large, and very poisonous spider.
My "adopted" road, known generally as Dead Man's Hill, has become a
magnet
for these sad puppies. Most seem to drive Fronteras and Nissan Patrols.
They appear to have a little competition amongst themselves to see who
can get the most stuck in the surrounding peat bog. Judging by the way
they drive, they have big, fat, heavy wallets. Maybe it's the weight of
their wallets that drags 'em down ?
> Come reclassification it became 'bridleway' largely due to no user
> evidence. And the landowner went on TV in a 110 claiming he couldn't
> use his own lane due to 4x4 anuse - the 110 was stuck fast.
Oh dear. Well, I must say that I'd be pretty aggrieved if I were the
landowner, but tell me, was he responsible for the timber extraction
process ? (Thus the original damage).
> Peter what is the correct address?
Well, you can always get me at :-
hm50@dial.pipex.com
and you should be able to get me at :-
pbrad@dial.pipex.com
The pbrad address has become less reliable since some of Pipex' software
went belly-up on me.
cheers
Bradders
------------------------------
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 20:36:47 +0000
From: Peter Bradley <hm50@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: Disputed route questionaire.
Chris Marsden wrote:
> This may be another one of my many silly ideas. If so,I am sure you will
> all be kind enough to say so, or does it have scope for development to a
[ truncated by list-digester (was 7 lines)]
> show that the user cares about and has a certain degree of knowledge of
> RoW.
Chris
I would say that something along these lines can only be a good thing.
Could it be endorsed by LARA, and/or any other "official" body ?
Bradders
------------------------------
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Tilbo@aol.com
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 17:47:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: All subjects for all readers
Hi gang
Went to the East Woodhay PI today. Plumbe accused Miss Lewis (HCC Review
Officer) of have a closed mind - Mr Best (HCC Solicitor) suggested Mr Plumb
had an empty one. A good time was had by all - except Plumb and the Inspector
who copped it in the neck from all sides. I asked if he could explain in his
decision letter how he could publish a valid decision after turning away
local people who had attended the last Inquiry to support BOAT status. I
personally have a problem accepting that the ways are bridleways - as
Inspector James Coyne suggeste - when they are recorded as Public road on
deposited railway plans, were district and are now County maintainable roads
and have been RUPPs from the inseption of the Definitive map.
I tried to find an net address for Channel 4 the other night but failed. Let
me know if one is discovered.
I did report a long list of obstructions - only minor - to CLA at the start
of teh scheme but have had no response.
Small JPGs on request - my thoughts.
Tim - get hold of PaintShop Pro. It is on many cover disks. Currently they
are shipping V4 which has 30 day limit and in my view is not as good as V3
which you will find on older cover disks. It is an excelent package in that
it will read and convert to more fomats than you can shake a stick at; has a
browser to make the selection of numerically named files easy to find; allows
instant preview of gamma, colour changes etc. In short it's so good if I had
the money I would register and pay the dosh - if I had it.
I like the idea of a calender. I will look into cost and could well be able
to do the necessary.
Further to Tims comments on the lads riding past Mrs Mills Front door I
would like to point out that this FOOTPATH is obstructed across the entire
width at the southern end by gates that are not authorised under sect 147 HA
80 and, for the most part, is tarmac between hedges just like all the other
roads in the area.
Urn petty wazzo told me recently that the proposed TRO at Longparish (Hants
version of Bucklebury 64 - TRO cause of bridge out of repair) is urrrrm ...
likely to be resloved by haveing the mill owner repair to withstand 3 tonne
and make the order to suit.
FN - nice one Chris. - see I do read the mail.
Richard - private eye - great. Best of luck with the wife thing - mine
(sorry, my partner (that I married 25 years ago)) won't even take a phone
message "You'll have to call back - I'm not his secretary" :-(
Did you receive my mail re GIF file. Some demon sent is back.
"Loverly picture but mine has a little white arrow on it - ooooh it moves!!"
------------------------------
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 1997 23:29:26 +0000
From: Peter Bradley <hm50@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: C4
Er .... beam me up, Scotty .........
http://www.schools.channel4.co.uk/
Channel Four
Bradders
------------------------------
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 00:35:06 +0100
From: Mike Cattell <Mike@mikecat.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Channel 4
Email can be addressed to:-
right2reply@channel4.com
or write to:
Channe Four Television Corporation,
124 Horseferry Road,
London SW1P 2TX
You can also telephone the duty office 24hours a day on:-
0171 306 8333
The web site is:
http://www. channel4.com.uk
if writing to right to reply ask them to forward to the Commisioning editor of
Countryside undercover. They have on past experience been reliable for
doing this.
Wed 9.4.97 is the last in the series so when the follow up programme will
be who knows? I have written asking for a date
regards
Mike Cattell, West Cheshire.
http://www.mikecat.demon.co.uk
LandRover series 3, SWB, Diesel, 1975
------------------------------
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 02:58:20 +0100
From: USER <john.o'reilly@virgin.net>
Subject: Re: C4
Peter Bradley wrote:
> Er .... beam me up, Scotty .........
> http://www.schools.channel4.co.uk/
[ truncated by list-digester (was 8 lines)]
> Channel Four
> Bradders
Hi All
If you visit the Channel 4 site you can contact them direct via the site
and take part in discussion on any of thier programes. I have allready
put in as a new topic"Danderous Walks (Countryside Undercover)".
Who knows we may get some interesting feedback.
Cheers John
------------------------------
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 1997 03:09:22 +0100
From: USER <john.o'reilly@virgin.net>
Subject: Re: Countryside undercover
Hi All
I have just sent the following to Channel 4
Can you please let me know what is happening with the infomation /
evidence gathered re the "Dangerous Walks" episode.
Obstruction is a criminal offence not to mention the acts of assault
witnessed.
Are you taking any action yourselves, eg have you spoken to the police
to press charges, or the County Councils concered to see what action
they now propose to take.
Your answer would be greatfully recivied.
John O'Reilly
Press Officer for Glass
The Green Lane Association
------------------------------
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 15 lines 688 [forwarded 88 whitespace 156]
Output: lines 544 [content 340 forwarded 33 (cut 55) whitespace 142]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970409 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]