[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990129 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 06:53:44 EST
Subject: Re: Devils Spittleful, Kidderminster/Stourport on Severn
I am seriously concerned about Worcs.
They only consult the statury list for TROs, so we do not discover them on
routes we do not use regularly. This means we must find was of using them
regularly, and if we notice any that need mending, we say so using s56.
That is a silly way to manage us, and us, them.
Who is active in Worcs? (I know about CJ and RH).
There is a TRO proposed on a RUPP to the west of Bewdley, that is all the info
I got before I was told that RoW are not for motorcyclists tear-arseing about.
Any more details, anyone? Please have a look.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990129 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 99 11:56 GMT0
Subject: Re: Mystery Briddleway sign (1/1)
Attached to this message is a .bmp file showing a sign I found at the
junction of a Bridleway and a Byway in ?Berkshire? a few years ago.
can anyone shed light on any aspect of it - Originators, validity,
legality (then or now) any other instances, etc.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
X-deleted-[spamkill: @[0-9][0-9]* input: %s]
M#A@3$A,5#0T4#PT2#@\1#`\1#!`2"Q(5#1`2#A,4#A$4#`\4#Q46#143"Q`2
[spamkill: @[0-9][0-9]* input: %s]
M#A$3$!(1#!(2#1(0#!$1"Q(1$!(/$1$0#A$2$1(1$1`1#Q,2#A@3#Q42$1`0
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990129 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Ian Boddison" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:58:23 -0000
Subject: Re: Sorted
>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.
So that explains why the list has been so quiet!
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990129 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:33:05 -0000
Subject: Re: PCC
Howard
I don't think you are being used a prawn. I think the letters referred to
are my attempts to get one published.
Clearly the fact that they offered to print a none letter gets them of the
hook.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990129 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:40:44 -0000
Subject: Re: Bush again
With regard to the non-member AWDC Reps I can say that I acted as a Rep for
that club for a number of years although I was not a member for the last 4
years. By default - as the real AWDC rep attends NO meetings at all - I
speak for Hampshire's 4x4 users despite being a TRF member.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990129 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:35:38 -0000
Subject: Re: Devils Spittleful, Kidderminster/Stourport on Severn
Ask the authority what the problem is - or is it just a fear. Can public
dosh be expended on a fear?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990129 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:10:36 -0000
Subject: Re: 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.
HA80 s36 (6) only requires a list to be kept and for that list to be
available for public inspection. It is not a map and does not
relate to location of routes. Furthermore, there is no requirement
to number roads that are shown on the list.
Generally though it will be accompanied by a map which is drawn up for
the council's own internal use - it should not be treated as
authoritative in the same way as the Definitive Map is.
Cheers,
Bod.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990129 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 13:42:58 -0000
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
[ truncated by list-digester (was 12 lines)]
>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
>I wrote a rebuttal to Gardiners fabrications in the NWN, which I
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
>their optimal length.
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
>23 January 1999
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
>23 January 1999
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
>(‘Green Lanes') are by definition roads. How thencan the phrase
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,
>‘off-roaders be applied accurately?
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
>‘off-roaders be applied accurately?
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
>‘off-roaders be applied accurately?
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,
>He claims that the photograph he supplied shows Old Street. It is in
>23 January 1999
[ truncated by list-digester (was 18 lines)]
>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
>Yours sincerely,
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
>Yours sincerely,
>He claims that the photograph he supplied shows Old Street. It is in
our
>editorial discretion as to what is both topical and legally
acceptable.
>Having taken legal advice we are prepared to publish your letter in
>from Mr Howard Neal in support of 4 x 4s.
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
>Yours sincerely,
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
>23 January 1999
[ truncated by list-digester (was 11 lines)]
>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
>@m@ 1
>BRIEN BEHARRELL
>GROUP EDITOR
>23 January 1999
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
[ truncated by list-digester (was 10 lines)]
(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
>("Green Lanes") are by definition roads. How then can the phrase
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
>He refers to the location shown on the photograph he supplied as Old
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.....
(NCRR
[ truncated by list-digester (was 20 lines)]
>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
>M P Dyer, Poplar Avenue, Windiesham, Surrey.
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
>("Green Lanes") are by definition roads. How then can the phrase
your
>letters page.
>4. I note that you ‘must use your editorial discretion as to
>impartiality from your newspaper through an equal amount of access 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
>impartiality from your newspaper through an equal amount of access to
NWN
>or Mr. Gardiner?
>6. The whole thrust of my letter was to show that in my opinion
>impartiality from your newspaper through an equal amount of access to
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
>impartiality from your newspaper through an equal amount of access to
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
(NCRR
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
>letterhead - of the legal reasons given for your refusal to print the
of our
>correspondence to the PCC for review.
>Yours sincerely,
>M.P. DYER
>,,<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>9. Your editorial assertion that you should be considering the
>publication of fewer ‘pro-4x4' views than present fits well with the
(NCRR
.......
>So, then (all those of you still awake ;-), whaddya think of that
then?
>:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
>Yours sincerely,
That's what we like to see Mick
Short snappy and to the point postings!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990129 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Elwyn York <Elwyn@ey-eg.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 23:00:24 +0000
Subject: Lightweights
Hi
Sorry to crosspost. Do anyone on these lists have a Landrover Lightweight,
that I havent already contacted. If so, please could you send me your
details, including Web site, email (obvious!) name, area, vehicle details.
Cheers
Elwyn York
LR S3 '72 (Very Dented) Lightweight. [47 FL 06]
"Sub Aerodynamic Green Brick" ICQ: 17087824.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990129 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 99 00:47 GMT0
Subject: Re: Hants RoW 4x4 representation.
Dave Tilbury is a little wrong on his last post.
<<<. By default - as the real AWDC rep attends NO meetings at al >>>
This is correct if it reads ' as the real AWDC _regional_ rep attends no
meetings at all
<<<l - I speak for Hampshire's 4x4 users despite being a TRF member.>>>
Dave is welcome to speak up on behalf of 4x4s as users of Byways -
additionally, I have official AWDC sanction to speak OBO AWDC on the HCC
forum.
To underline the point - Dave could have said Soddit in the face of what
appears to be AWDC disinterest, but has kept our interests alive - thanks
Dave.
I will be open to raising all 4x4 problems any of you may have in Hants
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990129 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 10 lines 31761 [forwarded 227 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 523 [content 279 forwarded 196 (cut 31) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990129 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]