msg	Sender	lines	Subject
1	"Dave Tilbury" [Dave@han	12	Re: More West Berks volutary restraints
2	"Dave Tilbury" [Dave@han	22	Sorted
3	TimLARA@aol.com	23	Re: More West Berks volutary restraints
4	doghouse@cix.compulink.c	12	Re: More West Berks volutary restraints
5	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	18	Is Kings RD SW1 a Private Rd?
6	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	17	Re: More West Berks volutary restraints
7	"Chris Marsden" [byway@n	42	Re: Upper Lye
8	"Chris Marsden" [byway@n	43	Re: More West Berks volutary restraints
9	"Chris Marsden" [byway@n	30	E5221 BOAT dmmo
10	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	15	HA80 s36
11	TimLARA@aol.com	16	Re: More West Berks
12	"Rob Smith" [rob@archenl	20	RE: Warks - E5221 or BOAT?
13	"Rob Smith" [rob@archenl	26	RE: More West Berks voluntary restraints
14	alan kind [alan@highwaym	24	Re: HA80 s36
15	TimLARA@aol.com	16	Re: HA80 s36
16	Charlietrf@aol.com	32	A Farmers Guardian letter.
17	doghouse@cix.compulink.c	26	Re: Upper Lye, Babtie
18	doghouse@cix.compulink.c	10	RE: Calling West Sussex Laners
19	TimLARA@aol.com	15	Re: A Farmers Guardian letter.
20	Chris Marsden [Byway@com	18	RE: More West Berks voluntary restraints
	Majordomo		About the digest

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [ Message 1 -> end | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990126 -> | Search Archive Index | <- Browser -> ]

From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 00:58:05 -0000
Subject: Re: More West Berks volutary restraints

new West Berks Council voluntary restraint notices dated January 1999.

Are these LARA approved?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 09:13:28 -0000
Subject: Sorted

Hi

Think CJM has got me sorted.  It would appear that my mail to the list has
not been happening.  All the time and effort I put into railway bridges and
stuff al lost.

One thing I sent several on was the NWN.  I have complained to the PCC and
I did ask that those with further information on the NWN bias forward
copies.  That holds.  I would like chapter and verse on any anti
vehicle/pro GLIMER pieces.

Ta.

Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 06:45:08 EST
Subject: Re: More West Berks volutary restraints

In a message dated 25 : 01 : 99 09:14 GMT Standard Time, Dave@hants-
lanes.demon.co.uk writes:

<< Are these LARA approved? >>

No. I have said that I cannot recommend observance of these requests to LARA
members. They do not have the built-in safeguards re s116 etc that the LARA
version has. I have taken the matter up with W Berks themselves, and they will
discuss with RB of Babtie. They refer specifically to 4x4 vehicles, so as long
as you are in 2x4 mode they do not apply. Or 1x2 mode, naturally.
I have offered to Babtie the use of LARA signs, and confirmed that they have
an application form with our current adress etc. Nothing has arrived yet.

NB to avoid doubt, I have not recommended that they are obeyed or ignored, I
make no recommendation about them.

Cheers, tim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 99 11:45 GMT0
Subject: Re: More West Berks volutary restraints

Dave T. asks about VR notices.

Tim Stevens is in active corr re: these, and the answer is no, they are a 
Babtie thing. 

:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:20:18 -0500
Subject: Is Kings RD SW1 a Private Rd?

Is Kings RD SW1(?)  a Private Rd?

A book an hedges I've bin reading shows a map of W London, 1754 Rocques map
of Middx.  Shows the  City end of Kings Rd. as hedged, and it seems to say
"Private Rd"  Was it then, and if so, private for use or maintenance (or
even ownership)?  Seems if it was private use it was a direct route into
London, with no practical alternative,  and when/why did they then dedicate
as public use.

East from Bloody Bridge, North of Royal Hosp. Chelsea.

cj

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 10:20:28 -0500
Subject: Re: More West Berks volutary restraints

> No. I have said that I cannot recommend observance of these requests to
LARA
> members. They do not have the built-in safeguards re s116 etc that the
LARA
> version has. I have taken the matter up with W Berks themselves, and they
will

Make the term Voluntary Restraint Copyright, and send a thouroughly
threateneing letter to them at top.

Chris

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Chris Marsden" <byway@northhereford.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 09:16:25 -0000
Subject: Re: Upper Lye

There's a funny thing, I had come to a similar conclusion, that some kind
public spirited person will no doubt sooner or later place some little
printed labels on obstructions saying something like

"This Right of Way is OBSTRUCTED please report to Council RoW Dept. 01 432
260260"
"Daughters of Rebecca"

And perhaps another A4 sized leaflet to cover the "Are you going to let him
drive our green lanes" and Write to yor MP and other protest posters with:-

"Many Byways and other RoW have been obstructed in this area.  Please Report
all obstructions immediately to Hereford Council on 01 432 260 260.   Your
RoW Dept. can also advise on over 150 Km of little used byways, excluded
from OS maps, that are ideal for walking, horse riding, cycling and some
that may be used, sustainably, by vehicles"

That should make their blood fair boil.

CJ

Subject: Re: Upper Lye

:
:<<The notice on the top gate says, handwritten:- "Think twice before you
:drive
:down this ancient pathway all eyes of the civilised world are on you, you
:will be judged as vandals for this desecration">>
:
:Could you make a replacement:
:
:"Think twice before you drive down this ancient pathway all eyes of the
:criminal world are on you, you will be judged as protectors of the public's
:rights"

Yes, it DID make it to the list old boy!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Chris Marsden" <byway@northhereford.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 08:59:47 -0000
Subject: Re: More West Berks volutary restraints

Oh Yes.  (Note lower case this time please)

Nice one, change your plates as well.  Can we have the address for service
of the summons?  Post to the list so we know what we missed ;-)

But even more serious though, Rode-her two face, works for Babtie, a Ltd Co.
(or plc)?

They have directors, and shareholders, and competitors(?). They also have to
have the contract awarded by sqeaky clean (aka Ms Shirl Porter) councillors.
Even if they are Gloom members, you have a whole host of people you can
cause trouble with if they start mucking about with your rights, (and mine,
I walk Berks byways) ignore the law or DETR advice.  Don't stand for their
nonesense. They are there to serve.

:<<<<<This afternoon while out for my Sunday constitutional I came across
:twonew West Berks Council voluntary restraint notices dated January 1999.
:They request 4x4 users not proceed beyond the notice 'To prevent further
:surface damage'.  One sign refers to RUPP 8, Catmore (SU459803).  The
:other to Old Street, Byway 7, Catmore (same NGR).>>>>>
:
:Babties VR signs have already been  the subject of correspondence twixt me
:and Rhoda Two-face, and Tim Stevens and RB
:
:<<<<It will come as no surprise to many that Catmore is the Lord High
:Gleamer's home parish.>>>>
:
:I think that the correlation between houses, big and signs, babtie will be
:mentioned.
:
:<<<< a chap fitting DG's description was was the garden.  Our eyes met
:as he stared at me from under his cap.  I should have waved!>>>>
:
:No, you should have kicked him in the balls and said that your name was
:Michael Dyer -----I have witnesses to say where I was, he didnt
:
::-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Chris Marsden" <byway@northhereford.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 17:24:26 -0000
Subject: E5221 BOAT dmmo

The following is self expalnatory, I finks.............  With Receipts of
postings.
This is now into Mega Bucks, is cost 40p to date. I hope it's worth it.

County Solicitor,
Warwickshire County Council
Shire Hall
Warwick
CV34 4RR

25th Jan. 1999

Dear Mr Carter,
 Re: E5221 Wootton Wawen

Herewith a DMMO application for the above road.  Can you help with
identifying the owners of the land to the south of the river, and the river
bed please.  If the stopping up application goes ahead, it may be sensible
to have the other section of this road added to the DM&S as well as to the
LoS, as Susan Carter at the DETR has confirmed recently can be done.
Alternatively your Council may wish to add that section to ensure if a
Public Inquiry is to be held, the whole route can be dealt with at one time.

Your sincerely,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:23:50 -0500
Subject: HA80 s36

I had a call today, from someone who has decided to ask  the Council what
the number of a road is, as per HA80 s36(6) and to provide a map printout
to confirm routeing.  This is to ensure this disputed Pb CR goes onto LoS,
which is not currently on the list, as it has been admitted as a highway by
an s56 response.

Can anyone see any drawback of this?

cj

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:42:39 EST
Subject: Re: More West Berks

In a message dated 25 : 01 : 99 05:25 GMT Standard Time,
byway@northhereford.freeserve.co.uk writes:

<< Even if they are Gloom members >>

If they are, they must declare an interest, and withdraw from any decision
affecting motor vehicles and access.
Or is it one rule for Dictators, and another for Taxpayers?

Cheers, tim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:09:13 -0000
Subject: RE: Warks - E5221 or BOAT?

I think the local worm drowners might get a bit upset.  I could explain why
they are called 'course fishermen', but, and why they hate boats.  I think
they might have an even greater dislike to BOATs.
In the case of shallow water the general rule is 'large vessel takes deeper
water', which could be a bit unfortunate if one was in ones LR and came
across a 10ft 'pram dingy' coming the other way, just at the place where the
bottom decided to be 6 feet from the surface.

One would also have to gain knowledge of the appropriate horn signals
required when navigating flowing water - so many toots for left, different
number for right and so on - that could really get up LO's eardrums :-)

Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:09:20 -0000
Subject: RE: More West Berks voluntary restraints

In my book the word 'voluntary' implies some form of discussion and
agreement has taken place between the parties involved.
Does anyone one know if discussion has taken place, and agreement reached,
between the HA (or their duly appointed representatives) and the affected
user groups?
If not (and I suspect this is going to be the case) then these are a cheap
way of putting a TRO on....

I like CJM's idea of putting CR onto VR....
I wander if one was to say something like:-
'I hearby claim the copyright on the terms "Voluntary Restraint" and
"Voluntary Restriction" when applied to the voluntary limitation of use of
certain Rights of Ways, by selected, specified groups of users.  I vest the
authority to use these terms to 'LARA', and its successors.  Further I
transfer the Copyright of these terms to LARA, and its successors'

Makes you wander doesn't it?

Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 19:54:16 +0000
Subject: Re: HA80 s36

In message <bulk.17316.19990125102430@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Chris
Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com> writes
>I had a call today, from someone who has decided to ask  the Council what
>the number of a road is, as per HA80 s36(6) and to provide a map printout
>to confirm routeing.  This is to ensure this disputed Pb CR goes onto LoS,
>which is not currently on the list, as it has been admitted as a highway by
>an s56 response.
>Can anyone see any drawback of this?

No statutory requirement to 'number', nor indeed to 'map' - it is a
'list' of streets. It is well worth checking that the buggers do put it
in the list - they won't unless 'tweaked', I fear!

Why not get someone else to serve another s.56 notice requiring to know
if the road is numbered/shown in list. THAT would put them right on the
spot!

A

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:32:13 EST
Subject: Re: HA80 s36

In a message dated 25 : 01 : 99 06:25 GMT Standard Time, Byway@compuserve.com
writes:

<< it has been admitted as a highway by
 an s56 response. >>
 The point is, that it has been admitted as a MAINTAINABLE highway. That is
what confirms the need to have it on the List of Streets. Which, of course,
they have a duty to keep up to date.

Cheers, tim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 16:50:59 EST
Subject: A Farmers Guardian letter.

Found the following letter in the latest issue (22.1.99) of Farmers Guardian:
<<CATEGORIES OF ACCESS.
You published an article about a claimed bridleway across Mr. Akeroyd's land
at Ripponden - two years ago. At the time I wrote to you pointing out that all
the evidence was pure innuendo, there was no real evidence. You chose not to
publish that letter.
I wonder how many of your readers know that the government has agreed to make
all footpaths into bicycle and bridleways and that all bridleways and RVPPs
[sic] are to become byeways [sic] open to all traffic.
The National Farmers Union and Country Landowners Association head offices are
in agreement. Just what horse riders want.
P. Dransfield,
North Yorkshire House,
Main Street,
Great Heck,
Goole,
East Yorkshire.>>

Does anybody know this P. Dransfield? ( - NURSE! )     :-))
Is this the seachange in farmers and landowners attitudes to RoW we've all
been waiting for? Remember, you read it here (and in Farmers Guardian) first!
                                                 Regards
                                                  Charlie.
PS Before thinking of responding to this it might be wise to bear in mind
Tilbo's missive of last year regarding the care to take (re. the the general
public's impressions) with whom you pick arguements!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 99 22:34 GMT0
Subject: Re: Upper Lye, Babtie

Re: Posters - <<<And perhaps another A4 sized leaflet to cover the "Are 
you going to let himdrive our green lanes" and Write to yor MP and other 
protest posters with:-

"Many Byways and other RoW have been obstructed in this area.  Please 
Reportall obstructions immediately to Hereford Council on 01 432 260 260.  
 YourRoW Dept. can also advise on over 150 Km of little used byways, 
excludedfrom OS maps, that are ideal for walking, horse riding, cycling 
and somethat may be used, sustainably, by vehicles">>>

Perhaps the (literally) cover version should be attached to the original 
with superglue so as to render said original unusable should anyone object 
to the proliferation of paperwork in the countryside.

Re: Babtie - Oh yes all points noted and will be used when appropriate.

I for one am looking forward to a summer of F-U-N ;-). 'I'm back. Oh yes, 
I'm back'.

:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 99 22:34 GMT0
Subject: RE:  Calling West Sussex Laners

Are there any laners on the list from the Brighton/Worthing area? I think 
I might have found some fresh meatXHXHXH a new laner.

:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 17:46:50 EST
Subject: Re: A Farmers Guardian letter.

In a message dated 25 : 01 : 99 10:04 GMT Standard Time, Charlietrf@aol.com
writes:

<< Great Heck >>

I think that sums it up. Sometimes a letter is so cock-eyed that any attempt
to bring it within a day's ride of sense is foolhardy.

Cheers, tim

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:22:27 -0500
Subject: RE: More West Berks voluntary restraints

> If not (and I suspect this is going to be the case) then these are a
cheap
> way of putting a TRO on....

Burkes CC is so wealthy they can afford to spend their taxpayers money on
TROs

And another reason might be so that Gloom, or Berks CC, I'm never sure of
the difference - perhaps there isn't - can turn round and put a TRO on
saying "look we tried "VR" and it failed.  Lock the scum up I say.

cj

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  END OF * LIST DIGEST 
 Input:  messages 20 lines 804 [forwarded 23 whitespace 0]
 Output: lines 573 [content 463  forwarded 23 (cut  0) whitespace 0]