[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
------------------------------
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970606 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 03:55:02 -0400
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Subject: Stockton Ride
Hi all,
I went into the Lions den last evening at a Parish meeting and supported
the County Councils case for a Byway. They were not there, and needless t=
o
say it was not quite what the Parish wanted to hear. =
They asked for donations to their fighting fund, and perhaps got 20 or 30=
quid which seems a bit short of what is required to mount a challenge in
the high court. =
As it was a cease to maintain order in the Quarter Sessions of 10/Feb/186=
8
they seem to have just missed the 42 day window to object to the ruling -=
by about 130 years. =
It would therefore seem unlikely that either a PI would be needed as the
legal event has established its status as a road, or that there is any
reason why a legal challenge can now be made. The CC can hopefully just
enter it on the Def Map as a Byway?
Adrian, if you drive it, do be aware that near the Hawthorns there is a
possibility of an upturned harrow in the long grass. (Warning from some
horse riders to frightened to use it) The forerunner of the Police Stinge=
r?
They were quite insistant that it was impossible to drive, trees would ha=
ve
to be felled and it would cost thousands of pounds before a vehicle could=
use it.
When I told them I had driven down it that afternoon, they were quite
astonished, one chap insisted I was a liar. Then someone else confirmed
they had seen me leaving the lane, so disproving their, and the CCs claim=
it was impossible. I expect they are out there this am looking for the
ruts. What a dissapointment, just slightly ruffled vegetation. (I did al=
l
the clearance over the past few months)
Chris
------------------------------
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970606 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 97 09:39 BST-1
From: srawlings@cix.compulink.co.uk (Stephen Rawlings)
Subject: Re: LARA appeals for help & dosh
What a depressing decision, however, it is an argument that has been used
by antis on several occasions and was bound I suppose, to receive a
favourable hearing eventually. What is suggested as a way forward now?
Ignore PI and ride on the basis of evidence NOT presented to the
Inspector? Leaves the onus on the Police to prosecute. Trouble being,
Magistrates may well be unlikely to look with favour at off-road users in
many cases.......
Steve Rawlings
Telford, Shropshire.
------------------------------
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970606 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 15:46:04 -0400
From: Andy Bush <andy_bush@compuserve.com>
Subject: Interesting precedent...
Going Equipped
The was a lady who was charged this week with going equipped with two
pieces of furniture to commit a fraud. The charge was dropped when she
demonstrated she was not going to commit a crime.
It seems to depend on the police being able to say you were off to do a
crime, and that you intended to commit a crime.
=2E
Andy Bush =
------------------------------
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970606 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 15:46:51 -0400
From: Andy Bush <andy_bush@compuserve.com>
Subject: Corrieyairick
Hi Chaps
The reason I warn about the problem with obstructions and automat=
ic
extinguishments, is so that people are aware of the problem.
If you read the Scottish Rights of Way Society book, they specifically wa=
rn
about this underhand method of eliminating a road. We do not know what is=
in the minds of those who are trying to close the road, so it is as well =
to
consider all the options.
Andy Bush
------------------------------
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970606 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 20:08:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: LARA appeals for help & dosh
In a message dated 5-6-97 16:21:52, you write:
>Do I understand there was scant documentary evidence for BOAT, but adequate
>20 years user evidence but only since 1930?
Answer: Yes, in a nutshell. The full document is 25 pages, but I will
condense it (ie use smaller letters) and perhaps put it onto RoW@ if you wish
to see it all. The bit I quoted is the bit we should challenge, and I am
advised by AK that as a litigant-in-person it should not be too costly (ie no
more than four figures, max). More info on this shortly.
And ta for the offer. I hope that such offers to underwrite the appeal will
not be called-in, as we might win. But there is also a proposal to set up a
LARA RoW Fighting Fund for such action in future, perhaps supported by events
run by clubs, etc, as you are suggesting.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970606 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 20:08:36 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Automatic extinguishment
Andy is right about Scotland, they do not have the principle - Once a
highway, always a highway.
We have section 116 (of the 1980 Highways Act) which allows extinguishment at
magistrates court on the grounds that the route is not necessary.
Need is judged on use, only.
So, use them or lose them, which ever side of the border you are on.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970606 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 1997 20:08:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: LARA appeal
What is suggested now is that we * fight the case by appeal. Go down, or go
down fighting when you might win, are the two options. Would you support the
TRF providing last-resort funding for such action? Could your group help eg
by under-writing some of the potential costs?
* means all who benefit from RUPPs becoming BOATs, trail riders, 4x4 users,
carriage drivers, husky racers, handcarters, hot air balloonists, elephant
and camel riders, etc.
Even bicyclists.
Cheers, tim
------------------------------
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970606 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 03:23:16 -0400
From: Andy Bush <andy_bush@compuserve.com>
Subject: LARA appeals for help & dosh
Hi Tim
The law quoted says that vehicular use of a bridleway or footpath=
is illegal. However a RUPP is neither, so the law does not apply.
If we read it again
Section 14 of the Act reads
Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a
person drives a motor vehicle
(a) on to or upon any common land moorland or land of any other
description,
not being land forming part of a road,
(b) on any road being a footpath or bridleway,
he is guilty of an offence.
A RUPP only becomes a footpath or bridleway after reclassification.
And reclassification does not extinguish higher rights.
Can we have more about the Robson Adair case please
Andy Bush
------------------------------
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 970606 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 8 lines 285 [forwarded 5 whitespace 70]
Output: lines 264 [content 125 forwarded 5 (cut 0) whitespace 69]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 970606 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]