[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:47:32 +0000
Subject: Re: Maintenance
In message <bulk.15983.19990124040443@Land-Rover.Team.Net>,
TimLARA@aol.com writes
>bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk writes:
><< *The one exception seems to be W&CA81 s54 (7) which specifically
> states that a RUPP reclassified as a BOAT does not need to be made
> suitable for vehicular traffic. >>
>What it says applies to the consequence of a RUPP > BOAT decision. It does not
[ truncated by list-digester (was 15 lines)]
>Except, of course, for all those BOATs which became carriageways by deemed
>dedication after the 1835 Act. (ie not many?)
Hi Tim
I am very interested in the above since this is the attitude of our Mr
Alan Burns Maintenance Manager for North Yorkshire County Council.
He said over the phone and I have written asking him to confirm it, that
once these roads are reclassified and added to the definitive Map as a
BOAT then need only be maintained as a FOOTPATH!, and this would be done
by the Yorkshire Dales National Park. I have read the section in the
Blue book and they also make the same point as you that any maintenance
liabilities remain the same, only it does point out the nothing in sect
53 or 54 of the WCA 1981 requires the HA to provide a surface suitable
for vehicles. Do you have any evidence to so that the liability does not
change, such as a DETR letter or something like that?
regards
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:02:08 -0000
Subject: PCC
What else could we expect. The issue is not dead.
Press Complaints commission
Our reference: 990010
25.january 1999
Mr Dave T ilbury
Oakbank Cottage
Oakbank Road
Eastleigh
Hampshire
S050 6PA
Dear Mr Tilbury
Furtller to our letter of 4 January the Commission has now made its
assessment of your complaint under the Codc.
The Commission members have asked me to thank you for giving them the
opportunity to consider the points you raise. However, their decision was
that there was no remaining breach of the Code. They took this decision
after having reviewed your comments and they have asked me to let you know
their reasons for this.
The commission regretted the inaccuracies you alleged and noted that the
editor said he would not print your letters as received, but that he was
prepared to publish a letter which "devoted itself to the facts in further
explaining or clarifying points from the feature". The Commission
considered that this offer was an adequate remedy of the alleged
inaccuracies under the Code.
Although the Commissioners have taken this decision, they have asked me to
send a copy or your letter to the editor so that she is aware of your
concerns.
I thank you for taking this matter up with us.
Yours sincerely
Joanna Low (Ms)
cc . Mrs Brien Bcharrel I
Editor - Newbury Weekly News Group
Newspaper House
Farady Road Newbtlry
berkshire RC13 2DW
I shall respond with the comment so far received and I ask you that each
time the NWN print someting daft to either knowck out a letter to the PCC
(prefereable) or send me info. I'd obviously rather others joined the fray
otherwise it will seem that I have a vendetta to conduct. Wish I'd never
got involved.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Chris Marsden" <byway@northhereford.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 17:43:44 -0000
Subject: Re: Sorted
Can you re-post, your cruelly wicked, sharp sense of humour, is something
to behold, and bridges are Go.
: 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.
:
::
:Dave Tilbury
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:01:19 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: OS map 125 (and Explorer 239)
Does anyone know anything about a UCR from the junction at SJ081137
NE to the end of the RUPP at 083138, N(ish) to the other end of the
RUPP at 082144, then NE to 084146? It appears to have a netting
fence across the S end (not new). There is an obvious line of the
track but it appears to have been recut by the Forestry, as does the
track heading E from here (which is OK), along the line of the old
road. It continues SW from here out of the forest as a recognisable
old road, confirming the line of the forestry bit. Has anyone used
it, and does anyone know its number or anything else about it?
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:01:43 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Chris' Neighbours
Letter in Thursday's Tenbury Wells Advertiser (local rag with a
circulation that sometimes rises to double figures) from a resident
of Marsden territory suggesting that only 4x4s that are powered by
chicken droppings or whatever should be allowed on green lanes - can
you beat that for a dumb argument?
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:02:27 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: MONTY (Map 137)
Can anyone tell me whether the RUPPs from Montgomery across Offas
Dyke are vehicular? SO227970 to 230964 (and 225963 to the same point)
are both signed bridleway and there's an additional sign saying no
vehicles. From that point I've got it as RUPP as far as Offas Dyke at
241961 then either RUPP on the Welsh side of the border to the lane
at 244953 or UCR into Shropshire to Whitley at 247961 then dual
status UCR/bw to Timberth at 252966.
I also have the ridge track along Stapeley Hill (N then NE from
SO302977) marked up as BOAT 45 with TRO but there are no signs of
either. South from that point is signed footpath. Can anyone tell me
the current status of these?
Thanks.
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 18:27:11 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Upper Lye
Chris
Did you post a spell-checked version of the notice on Upper Lye or
have they changed it?
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:12:54 -0000
Subject: Re: A Farmers Guardian 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.>>
I guess this is the result of living in a remote part of the country where
for generations there has been no female company other than their mothers
and sisters!! [surely that's Norfolk - Ed]
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 07:51:21 EST
Subject: Re: Maintenance
In a message dated 26 : 01 : 99 08:50 GMT Standard Time,
brian@limb.demon.co.uk writes:
<< Do you have any evidence to say that the liability does not
change [on reclassifuication etc], such as a DETR letter or something like
that?
>>
This is one area where the Blue Book is helpful, and i agree with their
analysis of the law.
Page 222 - the effect of WCA 81 s54(7).
I can fax the relevant section of needed.
Perhaps we could use a letter to DETR asking if the Blue Book is correct in
this instance, or if their view is different.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:42:04 EST
Subject: Re: MONTY (Map 137)
In a message dated 26 : 01 : 99 11:07 GMT Standard Time,
davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk writes:
<< I also have the ridge track along Stapeley Hill (N then NE from
SO302977) marked up as BOAT 45 with TRO but there are no signs of
either. South from that point is signed footpath. Can anyone tell me
the current status of these? >>
Do you mean that the Stapely Hill BOAT is not signed as a BOAT and not signed
as a TRO either? It is, and it is, but of course if a TRO is not signed it is
unenforceable. And the use it might get on that account is unforseeable.
Sorry, I have no info on the other details sought.
But you realise that motoring use would have to predate the building of Offas
Dike to count?
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:49:33 +0000
Subject: Re: PCC
In message <bulk.2616.19990126010602@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Dave Tilbury
<Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk> writes
>What else could we expect. The issue is not dead.
>Press Complaints commission
DT - the columns of the mighty B&B are open to you... or Lara Newts?
--
alan kind
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Chris Marsden" <byway@northhereford.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 09:49:32 -0000
Subject: Re: Maintenance
This is another nice little wheaze all good council (sic) could follow. All
UUCRs that are not tarred and used by everyday traffic, be added to the DM&S
as FP, as they admit onlt FP rights, the RA are not going to object, and
often support. The BW users will only object when there is an actual
problem, and there are far too few BY users to bother to write. Good one
Burns. Cheap, popular with most. Why not downgrade all RoW to FPs, or does
that have to wait to next years agenda?
Just you wait to see how quick it comes off the LoS when it's on the DM.
Select one that he claims is only maintainable to FP, that is OOR, that you
have some other evidence for besides LoS alone, and whack them with a s56 to
see if they will admit / maintain it to more than FP. When you have one you
can do it on others.
:Alan Burns Maintenance Manager for North Yorkshire County Council.
:He said over the phone and I have written asking him to confirm it, that
:once these roads are reclassified and added to the definitive Map as a
:BOAT then need only be maintained as a FOOTPATH!, and this would be done
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Chris Marsden" <byway@northhereford.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:22:16 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?B?UkGScyAgIEYyUg==?=
RA’s F2R
If this is not already stated widely, it is quite certain that many (as
Temple-Morris MP wants to), will turn the Private Members Bill (Gordon
Prentice, Pendle, Lancs) for Freedom To Roam 26/3/99, into an attack on
Byways and other legitimate responsible user groups. A number of MPs have
signed this Early Day Motion.
It would seem that other groups can offer their limited support of this
Private Members Bill, if we have acceptance of some basics factors, ie:-
· All RoW should be promoted at the correct status.
· All reasonable users should be accepted, benefits of multi-user
recognised, and co-operation between responsible user’s groups encouraged.
· Local joint projects should be encouraged
· Any percieved inter-user difficulties should be resolved locally whenever
possible, or at National level by User’s Association. Public disputes
between users are not helpful to furthering public access.
What, if any, lobbying should clubs be doing?
cj
The RA go on to ask EVERY group to send a coach to a rally near M40 on
14/3/99. I hope they do not wear all the FPs out on the Chiltern downlands
in one day.
The Ramblers' Association
Working for walkers
To Group Secretaries; Area Secretanes, Chairmen, Membership Secre'at
Treasurers, Pub' ticity Officers, News Editor-s, Footpath Secretaries,
Countryside Officers, Access Officers. This applies to England and Wales
only
January 13,1999
Dear Area/Group officer
Freedom to Roam Bill - We need your help now
Summary: we have on unprecedented opportunity1 with a private member's bill
in Parliament,
for immediate action. The key dotes are Sunday 14 March (rally) and Friday
26 March second readin in the House of Commons
We have an urgent and exciting new opportunity for our campcign for access
to open countryside, and it will all happen in the next ten weeks. Please
do not wait for your next area/group committee meeting, we need you to take
decisions for yourselves or ~o convene a special meeting.
Gordon Prentice MP (Pendle Lancashire) is introducing a private member's
bill to give people freedom to roam over open country. Mr Prentice came 5th
in the Private Members1 Ballot and is guaranteed time for a full day's
Commons debate and vote on his blI. This ;,~ a unique opportunity for the
campaign for access, since it will provide a debate and vote on the Pr: nci
pie of legislation for freedom to roam for the first time this century.
The Government has not yet announced what it will do following its
consuitaton on access, which ended in June 1 998. The debate and vote in the
House of Commons will take place on March 26th and will come at a crucial
stage in the process, allowing MPs to demonstrate to the Government that
there is massive support for legislation for freedom to roam. Mr Prentice is
putting forward the bill because, like many others, he is frustrated that
the Government has not yet introduced its own legislation for freedom to
roam, despite overwhelming pubic support.
One only has to look at Michael Foster's anti-hunting bill to understand the
Impact that such a debate can have on a campaign. The tabling of this new
access bill is therefore an extremely important opportunity for the RA to
draw attention to our campaign, demonstrate support for it and keep up the
pressure on the government to introduce legislation. We need your support
now
Our six-member access tean is devoting all its time between now ana 26 March
+0 This campaign, but we can only win it with your help. "We know that you
are vo~unteers and already overworked, but this really is important. So
please do everything you can to help us.
4
Yours ~
Kate Ashbrook, Access Committee Chairman
Lobbying of MPs - immediately
Gordon Prentice's bill will be debated in
the House of Commons on Friday 26th
March
1 .We need as many people as possible to write to thier MP at the House Of
Commons, London, SWiA OAA immediately asking him or her to attend the debate
on this date and to vote in favour of Gordon Prentice's bill. If you do not
know who your MP is, ring the House of Commons information service on 0171
219 4272 and quote your postcode. Please write in your own name and ask your
family, friends and fellow walkers to do the same.
We need to know whether your MP is intending to attend the debate and
whether he/she intends to vote for the bill
In your letter please ask your MP to let you know whether or not he/she
intends to offend the debate and vote for the bill. Once you receive a reply
from your MP please tell us. Write to the RA parliamentary office at 36,
Great Snuth Street, London, SW] P SBU or call 0] 71 799 1600.
2. Please attend your MP's surgery to ask him/her to attend the debate.
3. A flyer will be issued by the RA parliamentary office which you can hand
out at meetings/walks and other events asking others to lobby their MP. A
sample will be' enclosed with the next edition of Access Campaign Bulletin.
4. Areas will need to contact locally affiliated organisations as
appropriate to ask them to encourage their morn hens to lobby MPs.
------------
Media:
Areas whose MPs have signed Gordon Prentice's Early Day Motion will be asked
to orgonise walks with those MPs in their constituencies.
Access Co-ordinators to organise walks -details of MPs who have signed tho
Early Day Motion are available from the RA parliamentary office. Draft news
releases will be supplied.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Mel Mauger & Matthew Reeve" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:04:22 -0000
Subject: Re: Geological map of Newbury
>If only we could get access to the GIS data that underlies
the OS
>publications at a reasonable cost. In such an event
importing into say
>AutoCAD, or Microstation, would allow easy, accurate
overlaying of data.
>Rob Smith
There is no underlying vector image for the 1:50,000 maps.
They are constructed in the same way they always were, just
using a paintbrush type package with customised brush tools.
The CD they sell contains bitmaps which are actually
constructed by scanning in the printed maps which are
printed from their bitmaps.....
Such an organisation cannot be expected to ever make a
sensible business decision such as releasing the information
cheaply.
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Mel Mauger & Matthew Reeve" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:07:49 -0000
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)
I know of one who only has a shiny at the moment, let me
know off list and we'll get them together (if they're not
the same person)
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:37:58 -0000
Subject: RE: Maintenance
Point him at the schedules belonging to HA80, and possibly treat him to a
reading lesson...
They have to maintain the usable width to that stated, either in the DM&S,
or if nothing is stated there to between 3 and 5 metres.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:37:57 -0000
Subject: RE: Chris' Neighbours
Well that might be a good use for all that chicken & turkey effluent that
farmers have to get rid of :-)
One would have to wear suitable protective clothing when handling the stuff,
if contains all sorts of nasties, such as salmonella,...
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 11:28:19 -0000
Subject: Re: Chris' Neighbours
Chicken dropping would seem to be a renewable energy source and so make the
use of the motor-vehicle more feasible. The only drawback is that this
might then involve the ALF and vegetarians in the RoW debate.
I wonder how much fuel would be saved by connecting a pipe from the carb
side of the air cleaner to the trizer department?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Chris Marsden" <byway@northhereford.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:24:50 -0000
Subject: Re: Upper Lye
I hadn't, but as most of them cant reed and even less rite, I did not think
it was worthwhile. When I did check it, I still didn't get phone no as 260
260,
should be 260 000.
:Did you post a spell-checked version of the notice on Upper Lye or
:have they changed it?
:David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Chris Marsden" <byway@northhereford.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 17:41:14 -0000
Subject: Re: Chris' Neighbours
Andrew S? He's the Steward to this manor, I'll have you know. Same was in
last weeks Ludlow Advertiser, but H Times omitted it.
:Letter in Thursday's Tenbury Wells Advertiser (local rag with a
:circulation that sometimes rises to double figures) from a resident
:of Marsden territory suggesting that only 4x4s that are powered by
:chicken droppings or whatever should be allowed on green lanes - can
:you beat that for a dumb argument?
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Chris Marsden" <byway@northhereford.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 19:02:50 -0000
Subject: Re: MONTY (Map 137)
No knowledge on the RUPPs at Whitley:
Yes this is the infamouse BOAT 45 that has a TRO on, and a locked FC bar
gate at the northern end.
The sign is at the end of the access track as it has a car park along the
edge of road. TRO signs were at about 303 982. I have a letter I need to
deliver to Mitchel's Fold Cottage at some time. So I was going to deliver
it when the weather is a little drier, and compare the marks on the ground
with the state jsut before the TRO was imposed needlessly. (They encouraged
illegal scrambling near the BOAT to justify the ban, and that stopped as
soon as the decision was made)
The track down to Old Church Stoke 2895 is vehicular I believe. The road to
Priest Weston via 295 977 is UCR I think.
:I also have the ridge track along Stapeley Hill (N then NE from
:SO302977) marked up as BOAT 45 with TRO but there are no signs of
:either. South from that point is signed footpath. Can anyone tell me
:the current status of these?
:
:Thanks.
:
:David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Chris Marsden" <byway@northhereford.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:58:21 -0000
Subject: LQ83 SO3127
Mr Mike Eastwood,
RoW Department,
Herefordshire Council
Bath Street
Hereford
HR1 2HQ
By fax 26th January 1999
Fax. 01 432 261 702, Tel. 01 432 260 572
My Ref. 3127
Dear Mr Eastwood,
Re: LQ 83 and LV 3 Penrhewy Fm
I wrote to you on 27th Aug 1998, asking if the Council accepts there are
currently any public rights on LQ83? This might be either from the evidence
you had for the original proposed BOAT before the abandoned survey, or from
the evidence for the more recently submitted bridleway claim by the Parish.
I was manhandled off the path, even after turning to leave, whilst walking,
as you are the Highway Authority for this highway, whether or not it is
shown on the definitive map or the LoS, can you please say if you accept
the evidence for a public Right of Way exists at this moment in time? Has
any research been done yet to establish if the way will still be proposed as
Byway as in the abandoned review, or as Bridleway?
Secondly, there is an obstruction built on LV3. Can you advise if this is
being enforced, or what action is being taken?
Yours sincerely,
Chris Marsden.
_____________
Now the question is, should I add the following, or is it better to wait for
reply to see what they currently admit? If they say none, then it is
difficult to then s56, if I add it now, they are less likely to admit it
probably does have some rights now?
"As the road has deteriorated substantially since the original claim was
submitted, what would the effect be of a notice submitted under HA80 s56 as
was suggested by a local resident?"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 99 22:13 GMT0
Subject: Glass meeting in Central London
Hi y'all
Since DT and I are going to raid the Post Office in Lunnun Tarn in
February does anyone know of any GLASS meetings around there?
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 99 22:14 GMT0
Subject: Re: PCC
Well Im in on the act now
I wrote a rebuttal to Gardiners fabrications in the NWN, which I
subsequently shortened after it dawned on me that it was too long for
their optimal length.
This is the covering letter I sent with it....
23 January 1999
Dear Madam
Please find enclosed the re-written draft of a letter previously submitted
to your newspaper in response to an inflammatory letter by D. Gardiner.
I am perturbed to find that it has not been printed, and having reviewed
the original I concede that it may well exceed your 300-word optimal
length. I have therefore reduced it to 306 words, but since this includes
the address block at the bottom I expect no further reduction in its
length when printed.
I _do_ expect it to be printed since last week two letters were published
expressing anti-4x4 views, and I trust that you would seek to maintain the
record of impartiality currently enjoyed by your newspaper.
and this was the rebuttal itself
23 January 1999
Dear Madam
Your correspondent Mr. Gardiner (letters, Jan.14) seems to be confused in
his observations.
He uses the phrase ‘off-roaders', but Public unsurfaced Rights of Way
(‘Green Lanes') are by definition roads. How thencan the phrase
‘off-roaders be applied accurately?
He claims that the photograph he supplied shows Old Street. It is in fact
a picture of Green Lane at Red Lane Barn ( NGR SU467796) What his
photograph fails to show is the farmyard on the left - the possibility of
damage having been exacerbated by large agricultural vehicles does not
arise in the mind of the casual reader. Such a misidentification of an
easily recognisable landmark might be a deliberate attempt to mislead your
readers - I hope not.
There are, regrettably, founderous conditions along Old Street from NGR
SU493749 to SU492752. This damage is made considerably worse by the
passage of agricultural vehicles.
Mr. Gardiner implies that expenditure on damage was £175000 in 1994, but
the final expenditure was nowhere near that figure.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Gardiner in his last
paragraph. Voluntary Restraint is a scheme initiated by the Land Access
and Recreational Association and Babtie, the Berkshire Rights of Way
management company, has successfully applied the scheme in the past.
I wonder if Mr. Gardiner is the same Mr. Gardiner who is a founder member
of GLEAM, amongst whose aims is the exclusion of disabled people from the
countryside Rights of Way, and possibly the same Mr. Gardiner whose own
Land Rover was used to illustrate so-called ‘off-road damage' in a totally
fictitious scenario some years ago. On that occasion, it was clearly
demonstrated that deliberate attempts had been made to mis-inform an
audience.
Yours sincerely,
M.P. DYER
(‘Green Lanes') are by definition roads. How thencan the phrase
and today I recieved a faxypoo
(‘Green Lanes') are by definition roads. How thencan the phrase
Dear Mr Dyer
Thank you for your letter of January 23d concerning the letter published
in the Newbury Weekly N,%,ws on January 14'h from Mr Gardiner.
I have to say that I find it a little presumptuous on your part to
indicate that you expect it to be printed merely because our letters page
of the previous week included two letters expressing anti 4 x 4 views.
You will perhaps not be surprised to know that our postbag contains a good
more anti than pro 4 x 4 letters. We ought therefore perhaps be looking
to publish fewer pro 4 x 4 views than we do, nonetheless we are prepared
to publish an edited version of your letter of January 23 rd , even though
a number of the points you make have already been covered in the letter
published on January 2 1 st
from Mr Howard Neal in support of 4 x 4s.
As with all letters submitted for possible publication, we must use our
editorial discretion as to what is both topical and legally acceptable.
Having taken legal advice we are prepared to publish your letter in the
edited version, a copy of which is enclosed for your reference. 1 am sure
that you would not wish to find yourself a co-defendant in a libel action
in which you person. ally would be jointly and severally libel with the
newspaper for any award of damage and costs to Mr Gardiner, whose
integrity your unedited letter would seem to call into question.
In light of the editing required, you may prefer to withdraw your letter
and I will wait to hear your decision. The deadline for letters to be
published in the next issue of the N" is tomorrow (Wednesday January 2!')
at 1 1 am.
Yours sincerely
@m@ 1
BRIEN BEHARRELL
GROUP EDITOR
Proposed edited version of your letter of January 23rd, following legal
advice:
I must take issue with th@ observations of Mr Gardiner (letters January
14'h).
He uses the phrase'off-roader', but Public unsurfaced Rights of Way
("Green Lanes") are by definition roads. How then can the phrase
'off-roaders' be applied accurately?
He refers to the location shown on the photograph he supplied as Old
Street. It is, in fact, a picture of Green Lane at Red Lane Barn (NCRR
SU467796). What his photograph fails to show is the farmyard on the left
- the possibility of damage having been exacerbated by large agricultural
vehicles does not arise in the mind of the casualreader.
There are, regrettably, founderous conditions along Old Street from NGR
SU493749 to SU492752. This damage is made considerably worse by the
passage of agricultural vehicles.
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr Gardiner in his last
paragraph. Voluntary Restraint is a scheme initiated by the Land Access
and Recreational Association and BABTIIE, the Berkshire Rights of Way
Management Committee has successfully applied the scheme in the past.
M P Dyer, Poplar Avenue, Windiesham, Surrey.
("Green Lanes") are by definition roads. How then can the phrase
Never one to know when to back off, I sent off a fax to Madam Ed
tonight.....
("Green Lanes") are by definition roads. How then can the phrase
2 Poplar Avenue, Windlesham, Surrey, GU20 6PL : 01276-473907
FAX:01276-451994
26 January 1999
Dear Madam
1. YOU WILL NOT print your proposed edited version of my letter of
23rd January 1998 under my name at any time.
2. YOU WILL NOT print the original version of my letter dated 17th
January under my name at any time.
3. I note that you think it ‘presumptuous' of me to expect
impartiality from your newspaper through an equal amount of access to your
letters page.
4. I note that you ‘must use your editorial discretion as to what is
topical'.....I presume therefore that anti-4x4 sentiments are
predominantly ‘topical', whereas honest rebuttal of hysterical fabrication
is subject to whim.
5. I wonder whose legal department you consulted first - that of NWN
or Mr. Gardiner?
6. The whole thrust of my letter was to show that in my opinion GLEAM
is a mendacious, self-serving organisation originating in the NIMBY school
of denial of access to the countryside. Many of their statements submitted
to PIs, the press, MPs, etc have subsequently been shown to be based on
fabrication.
7. At no time did I express any opinion of Mr. Gardiner - if you and
your legal department were to have read my last paragraph in the letter a
little more carefully, I ‘wondered if' the two ‘Mr. Gardiners' in question
were one and the same. I would welcome the opportunity of seeing Mr.
Gardiner (your correspondent) in print denying that he was a member of
GLEAM, and I would also welcome seeing his repugnance at the tactics
undertaken by that organisation in their aims. Indeed, I will wait for a
long time for this to happen.
8. At your leisure, I would appreciate sight - on appropriate
letterhead - of the legal reasons given for your refusal to print the
letter as originally sent.
9. Your editorial assertion that you should be considering the
publication of fewer ‘pro-4x4' views than present fits well with the slant
given by your reporter Mr. Pluckrose after his trip out with our party. It
also gives a clear signal that impartiality and unbiased reporting are not
best served by your editorial policy.
10. Be advised that I shall now be submitting the entire record of our
correspondence to the PCC for review.
Yours sincerely,
M.P. DYER
,,<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So, then (all those of you still awake ;-), whaddya think of that then?
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Peter BRADLEY" <pbrad@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 21:28:42 -0000
Subject: Re: Chris' Neighbours
>Chicken dropping would seem to be a renewable energy source and so make the
>use of the motor-vehicle more feasible. The only drawback is that this
>might then involve the ALF and vegetarians in the RoW debate.
Whatever happened to the ultimate renewable energy resource ... hydrogen? I
remember watching a documentary years ago ... a bloke in the USA ... his car
and his whole house was powered by hydrogen.
They even shot a high velocity rifle bullet into the cars tank to show you
what happens if it comes to the worst. BOOM yes, but a quick boom and very
much an upwards flamethrow.
Compared with the same bullet into a full petrol tank (next sequence shown)
I think I'd rather sit on hydrogen.
Plus double bonuses - no Water Lib Front and veggies are quite happy to
drink it ('cept possibly Perrier).
Peter B
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:03:25 EST
Subject: Fwd: Chris' Neighbours
In a message dated 26 : 01 : 99 09:04 GMT Standard Time, Dave@hants-
lanes.demon.co.uk writes:
<< I wonder how much fuel would be saved by connecting a pipe from the carb
side of the air cleaner to the trizer department? >>
You would achieve a scientific miracle, the mixture quality would at the same
time become both richer and poorer. I am not sure what the effect on octane or
cetane ratings would be. You live near Portsmouth, Dave, see if you can find
someone who understands ratings.
Tim
--part0_917391806_boundary
Content-ID: <0_917391806@inet_out.mail.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk.2>
[spamkill: previously forwarded via mjrdomo? input: %s] Return-Path:
<owner-row@playground.sun.com>
[spamkill: previously forwarded via mjrdomo? input: %s] Received: from
playground.sun.com (playground.Sun.COM [192.9.5.5])
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 03:05:08 -0500
Subject: Re: PCC
Gardiners buddy dunlop say he 'understands' and that makes it OK to tell
a few porkies. Though it gives him another chance to have a rebuttal.
gloom will mobilise their members, there are more nimbys so the NWN will
always get a disproportionate no. of letters anti. It also makes better
reading (sales) to have a problem than no problem. Even their suggested
edited version is better than nothing. I would suggest not stating 'you
will NOT print' etc, sounds like a tantrum they will get even more umpty
than ever. Concentrate on the mud/tractor tracks going into
fileds/farmyard/private track, thus proviing they are the real culprits.
> easily recognisable landmark might be a deliberate attempt to mislead
your
> readers - I hope not.
NWN will not accept any criticism of themselves. They ARE perfect, they can
say so. Don't pick arguements with people that buy ink by the gallon.
> There are, regrettably, founderous conditions along Old Street from NGR
> SU493749 to SU492752. This damage is made considerably worse by the
> passage of agricultural vehicles.
Caused by, not made worse????
> Mr. Gardiner implies that expenditure on damage was £175000 in 1994, but
> the final expenditure was nowhere near that figure.
> passage of agricultural vehicles.
Even any where near is not going to go down well with readers.
> I wonder if Mr. Gardiner is the same Mr. Gardiner who is a founder member
> of GLEAM, amongst whose aims is the exclusion of disabled people from the
> countryside Rights of Way, and possibly the same Mr. Gardiner whose own
> Land Rover was used to illustrate so-called ‘off-road damage' in a
totally
> fictitious scenario some years ago. On that occasion, it was clearly
> demonstrated that deliberate attempts had been made to mis-inform an
> audience.
Theres no point in getting contentious as you want to sleep well, these
guys have the money to threaten, the experience of winding people up yet
knowing how far to go. Its unfair, but its life.
Chris
> fictitious scenario some years ago. On that occasion, it was clearly
> demonstrated that deliberate attempts had been made to mis-inform an
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 27 lines 1527 [forwarded 62 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 1143 [content 990 forwarded 55 (cut 7) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990127 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]