[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990128 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:10:26 -0000
Subject: Re: Chris' Neighbours
Hyderidgion eh? Well if it's that good why have not the great and good
motor car manufacturers taken up the idea .....?
Right. I see.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990128 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:18:30 -0000
Subject: A rude message
No offence intended but....
Eleven reasons why e-mail is like a penis:
11. Those who have it would be devastated if it were ever cut off.
10. Those who have it think that those who don't are somehow inferior.
9. Those who don't have it may agree that it's neat, but think it's not
worth the fuss that those who have it make about it.
8. Many of those who don't have it would like to try it, a phenomenon
psychologists call "E-Mail Envy".
7. It's more fun when it's up, but this makes it hard to get any real work
done.
6. In the distant past, its only purpose was to transmit information vital
to the survival of the species. Some people still think that's the one
thing it should be used for, but most folks today use it mostly for fun.
5. If you don't take proper precautions, it can spread viruses.
4. If you use it too much, you'll find it becomes more and more difficult
to think coherently.
3. We attach an importance to it that is far greater than its actual size
and influence warrant.
2. If you're not careful what you do with it, it can get you into a lot of
trouble.
And the number one reason why e-mail is like a male reproductive organ
1. If you play with it too much, you go blind.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990128 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 99 15:57 GMT0
Subject: Re: PCC
<<< 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.>>>>
IToo late, since publication deadline was 1100 I had to submit something
and I am NOT prepared to have some hack who allegedly is good mates with
DG put words in my mouth. I may well end up submitting those very words
myself, but they will be mine not those of some cronie.
<<< Concentrate on the mud/tractor tracks going into
fileds/farmyard/private track, thus proviing they are the real
culprits.>>>>
Indeed, and if I do submit any more wasted paper to NWN I will do so
<<<< 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????>>>>>
Good point, I'll stick it behind my ear for later
<<<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.>>>>
Well said
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990128 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Peter BRADLEY" <pbrad@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 16:43:21 -0000
Subject: Re: Chris' Neighbours
>Hyderidgion eh? Well if it's that good why have not the great and good
>motor car manufacturers taken up the idea .....?
Some possible answers at http://www.dent.dircon.co.uk/Green_Motoring.html
cheers
PB
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990128 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
dub-img-11.compuserve.com (dub-img-11.compuserve.com [149.174.206.141])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
dub-img-11.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id QAA24776
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990128 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:26:45 +0000
Subject: Re: PCC
> 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.
I didn't realise I was being used as a prawn in this case! I suppose the
letter was the one of mine they printed on Dec 31st. They (NWN) said the 10
day delay was due to an admin cock up and not that they had been bargaining
with the PCC.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990128 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 22:30:29 +0000
Subject: Re: Chris' Neighbours
Dave Tilbury wrote:
> Chicken dropping would seem to be a renewable energy source
They have to be rechargable battery hens though!
Regards.
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990128 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 18:58:16 -0000
Subject: been asleep 100 years? - don't worry, nothing's changed!
Common sense will always prevail - as you can see from the following extract
from today's Redditch Advertiser, and refers to a meeting of Inkberrow
Parish Council.
"Footpaths. The clerk stated that he had seen Mr Broom of Edgioake
respecting the footpaths which had been ploughed up. Mr Broom did not see
how it was possible for him to plough his field without breaking up the said
path.
The Council at once saw the difficulty and the matter was allowed to drop."
It is taken from their Memory Lane feature, and took place 100 years ago!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990128 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 17:44:09 -0000
Subject: Devils Spittleful, Kidderminster/Stourport on Severn
A while ago, somebody raised the issue of the above route, which passes
under the Severn Valley Railway, and is in the Kiddie/Stourport/Bewdley
triangle. A notice from the Worst County Council arrived today relating to
the proposal to upgrade the Bridleway71 and Footpath73 to Byway.
There is an accompanying paragraph with the notice, in bold capital
lettering, which I have reproduced below. This needs some sort of response,
support the order, but object to TRO.
====================
THIS ORDER
The County Council has made a Modification Order to add a byway open to all
traffic to the definitive map and statement from Kingsway in Stourport to
the parish boundary with Bewdley and to upgrade footpath 73 and part of
bridleway 71 in Bewdley to a byway open to all traffic. This Order simply
recognises the public rights which the authority believes already exist and
adds them to the Map and Statement. The Order does not create any new public
rights of way.
THIS STATEMENT DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE ORDER. It has been prepared to
explain why the Order has been made.
The County Council has made the Order after considering an application
submitted by a local resident. The evidence discovered shows that this route
is part of a former turnpike road and that the vehicular rights along it
still exist. As the path is now mainly used by walkers and horseriders its
classification should be byway open to all traffic.
********************************HOWEVER THE COUNTY COUNCIL RECOGNISES THAT
PUBLIC VEHICULAR USE OF THIS ROUTE IS NOT DESIRABLE AND THEREFORE PROPOSES
TO MAKE A TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER PREVENTING VEHICLES USING IT EXCEPT FOR
ACCESS. THIS MEANS THAT THE ROUTE WILL BE OPEN TO WALKERS, HORSERIDERS AND
CYCLISTS.**************************************
The evidence on which the County Council has decided to make the Order is as
follows:
Kidderminster Foreign Inclosure Act 1774
Kidderminster Foreign Inclosure Award 1775
Kidderminster Foreign Inclosure Award conjectural map by J Schooling 1970
Burlish Common, Lower Mitton Inclosure Act 1822
Burlish Common, Lower Mitton Inclosure Award and plan 1830
Kidderminster - lands to the west of the River Stour tithe map 1852
Lower Mitton tithe map 1849
Severn Valley Railway Acts 1853 and 1855
Severn Valley Railway deposited plan and book of reference 1854
Blackstone estate plan 1804
Taylors map of Worcestershire 1772
Cary’s map 1801
Greenwood’s map 1822
Ordnance Survey (OS) one inch to one mile map 1831
Walker’s map 1835
Dewhurst’s map of Bewdley 1837
Royal Engineers map 1840
OS first edition 25 inch to one mile map 1884
OS second edition 25 inch to one mile map 1902
OS third edition 25 inch to one mile map 1927
OS revised 25 inch to one mile maps 1938 and 1948
Evidence of use from 12 members of the public
User evidence and copies of some of the documents can be inspected at County
Hall, Worcester, during normal office hours. The original documents can be
inspected at the County Record Office, Worcester.
OBJECTING TO THE ORDER
Objections or representations relating to the Order must be made in writing
by the date stated in the Public Notice to The Head of Legal Services,
Worcestershire County Council, County Hall, Spetchley Road, Worcester. WR5
2NP.
To be relevant, objections or representations should relate to the question
of the existence or status of the rights of way in question. Representations
or objections relating to such matters as the need for the path, security or
privacy are not relevant to the evidence and cannot be taken into account.
The County Council is willing to discuss the concerns of anyone considering
objecting or making representations relating to the Order. Please telephone
(01905) 766786
The right of objection to an Order is a statutory right but should be
exercised in a reasonable way. The costs involved in dealing with objections
are normally awarded against objectors only in cases of unreasonable
behaviour.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT
If there are no objections to the Order, or if all objections are withdrawn,
the County Council will confirm the Order and the Definitive Map and
Statement will be modified accordingly.
If objections are made and these are not withdrawn, the County Council must
refer the Order and the objections to the Secretary of State for the
Environment, Transport and the Regions who will appoint an independent
Inspector to consider the Order and hear the objections, normally by holding
a public local inquiry. Objectors to the Order will be given the chance to
put their case at the inquiry and will be able to cross examine any
witnesses produced by the County Council. The Inspector may then decide to
confirm the Order, with or without modifications, or may decide that it
should not be confirmed.
========================
Richard Hawker
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990128 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 99 23:15 GMT0
Subject: Re: PCC
Howard P. Rawn states
<<<I didn't realise I was being used as a prawn in this case!>>>>
Caught you in the raw, then?
<<<< They (NWN) said the 10
day delay was due to an admin cock up and not that they had been bargaining
with the PCC.>>>>
Worth another letter, that, to complain taht they lied to you.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990128 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Elwyn York <Elwyn@ey-eg.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 00:12:36 +0000
Subject: Re: PCC
>I didn't realise I was being used as a prawn in this case!
>Howard
No, thats a fish innit? You're a Pawn!
E
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990128 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:31:24 -0500
Subject: Bush again
I have been made aware bush is spreading his scurillous stories yet again
saying naughty things about myself and another very well respected person.
One claim is still that I am 'acting' for LARA yet not a member of LARA,
something which has been confirmed that I am several times over. [+TRF
from today! - Ed] It seems however a number of people have been approached
to be Reps for AWDC that are not members of that club. It seems some sort
of Ego trip to get a show of names for his row 'Empire'. Seems so odd he
keeps repeating this 'incorrect statement' when he is a master of doing
this himself.
I have 7 names after asking just 9 people, who were asked to be a Rep for
AWDC yet not being a member, or wishing to belong to that club. Could I ask
if there are any others? Or is it some some sort of a way to poach other
club members?
Anyone go to AWDC agm? Who is the National RoW officer? Replies direct
pse.
C'yer
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990128 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Chris Marsden" <byway@northhereford.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:33:44 -0000
Subject: Re: Devils Spittleful, Kidderminster/Stourport on Severn
I drove past the end of this today, and looked for any notice appearing.
There was none visable from the Bewdley end. I walked it a few months ago,
yes there is a restricted width, but there is a very deep, but shallow
sided, sunken lane for most of its length, and it represents no significant
danger, certainly far less than passing a horse on any other byway or
bridleway. There are signs of some illegal scrambling, just to one side.
However there were no notices in the vicinity. I can not believe it can not
be managed by a sensible policy of VR, by direction, width, weight, speed,
time of day/week/year etc. (It does not look like a turnpike road, just a
wide footpath.) If that fails then apply the proposed TRO if they must.
It is illegally obstructed by a fence and anti bike horse friendly pair of
locked bars! (As well as locked gates) The surface is firm.
If WCC have adopted MBB, my view is that they should follow what they say
they will. But I know others hold a different view, it should not be
allowed to be a counter productive 'problem' lane.
I expect the AWDC anti everything practical geru will squell I am in favour
of restrictions as usual, yet be devoid of sensible ideas, - also as
usual. Lets see if I can be proved wrong?
I wonder who's asked for the TRO? And how many more will be called for when
this one has been done? Yet still there are overgrown UCRs in the County I
do believe.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990128 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 13 lines 700 [forwarded 19 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 484 [content 390 forwarded 19 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990128 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]