[ First Message Last
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 08:40:21 +0000
Subject: District Councils & Maps
Tim said "When I got this far in your note I thought 'Aha, that's where
we have been
going wrong, nicely, must remember that'. But it seems you get the run
around,
too."
Yes, but I like to give 'em a chance first - (very) occassionally
somethings have been sorted out that way.
"Does it concern you that this incompetence and bungling is being done
with
your money, as well as your rights?"
Yes. As soon as the Def Map Officer lets me know what she has determined
I will know what to do. If this particulare District does have its map I
will repeat the original excercise and demand it next time. If they dont
have a D Map, I dunno.
Sue
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 08:50:51 -0000
Subject: Re: Mud, Mud, Glorius Mud!!
Hi
It may be that the way in question is in the ownership of adjoining
landowners and the public have only a right to pass and repass over that
land. In this case the landowner, and anyone s/he may grant permission to,
may use a vehicle on it. It may be that the lane, if that is the
character, is not in the ownership of the adjoining landowner but title is
vested in the highway authority, or maybe unknown. In this latter case the
adjoining landowner should treat the way as any sealed public carriageway
....
i.e. No lights; no road fund; no numberplate; total disregard for other
road users; under-age drivers (probably without an appropriate licence if
old enough). In other words with total disregard for the law.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:32:31 -0000
Subject: Re: Maps in District Councils
You mean the local plan, they said.
No, the Definitive Map, I said.
Oh, whats that, they said.
The map of recorded public rights of way in your District, I
said.
~~~~~~~~
Now that's the kind of County I'd like to move to.
Yours with spare capacity on the wooden spoon
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 08:59:01 -0000
Subject: Re: Berks TRO
<<Presumably there is a designated parking area where carriage drivers can
unhitch their trap/carriage, then ride the horse up and down the RUPP
and pick up the carriage on the return journey?
<<Presumably there is a designated parking area where carriage drivers can
This is a problem suffered in Hampshire, and is one that is being looked at
by the east Hants AONB. As some will be aware Hampshire have taken a
pro-active approach to new age travellers and erected height barriers. In
most cases these have been sighted too close to the junction with the
sealed road to allow for parking. Unfortunately the gypsy liaison officer
has been proactive and dug ditches along some routes which causes further
problems.
But then we have organisations that are above the law, like Esso. They
just gate or fence across roads to prevent access.
Must right to my MP asking him to vote against RTR.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 09:05:16 -0000
Subject: Re: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)
Could someone send me map refs for these. We will soon have nothing to
drive/ride in this area. Lanes that were easily driven in my wife's shiny
LR County some ten years ago are now all TRO'd
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 09:19:38 -0000
Subject: Re: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)
<<You will soon have to go down to Hampshire. Have you
asked Mr Tilbury if you may, when you have no lanes left? ;-)>>
Following the resignation of the RoW Manager I hear that another officer
has handed in her resignation (MS - Thursday) and with the presence of one
Merick Denton-Thompson (a man with a vision that doesn't seem to include
public access and most definitely excludes anything with wheels) and the
current colour of the Council we can look forward to the
downgrading/closure/TRO of many lanes.
I kind of think that any new appointment to RoW Manager will be made on the
grounds of compliance and not RoW knowledge. The two managers currently in
charge of the RoW maintenance teams know sweet f.a. about RoW and
protection and maintenance offices have got away with playing God.
The annoying thing is that if I knew nothing of the political background I
would think Hants was a great place to lane. Wilts is well down the
slippery slope on the anti vehicle front. And all this shit because of a
hand-full of tossers calling them selves GLEAM. (as you can see they have
won this morning)
;-(
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:05:35 +0000
Subject: Re: Berks TRO
> Presumably there is a designated parking area where carriage drivers can
> unhitch their trap/carriage, then ride the horse up and down the RUPP
> and pick up the carriage on the return journey?
I don't think so. I could ask! You would need a big horse.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:13:11 +0000
Subject: Re: Mud, Mud, Glorius Mud!!
> I accept rights of way are privately owned but can the owner of a
> footpath / bridle way drive vehicles down them on what seems to be a
> regular basis?
This was going to be my next question. This is a problem down here in
Berks. When I go out for my Sunday constitutional I make a point of
photographing vehicular surface damage to footpaths an bridleways. The West
Berks TRO referred to is totally pointless if the landowner is free to
continue churning up a public carriageway with his huge tractors. It is his
actions that have cause the danger to public safety and now the council are
rewarding him by excluding a section of the general public from his land. I
wouldn't mind the TRO so much if it was to enable repairs to be carried out.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:30:38 +0000
Subject: Re: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)
> Did you make enough of a nuisance of yourself last time?
Probably not. I believe it was brought to their attention by my reply tp DG's
letter in
the NWN
> Is it justified? If not stop them. If it is sort out the hooligans.
The hooligan is the landowner. The damage has been done by large agricultural
vehicles.
> Are all th signs still securely in place on any unjustified TROs? when are
> they reviewing them?
All the ones I know of. Probably never!
> Have they signed to accept MBB, what are there policies, have they
> consulted as 6.2, where do they get the evidence to show there is a risk to
> safety, What exactly is that evidence?
I write and ask.
> Are the Auditors interested in the wasted public money on any unnecesary
> TRO?
As above.
> What is the CoCo view on jacking you out of the countryside, first on one
> lane then another? You will soon have to go down to Hampshire. Have you
> asked Mr Tilbury if you may, when you have no lanes left? ;-)
Don't know. Never been much into circus's. Already do. I live on the border.
That'show I met him.
> Have they tried alternative measure, what when how did they fail. How many
> accidents have ther been, what do the Police investigations show as the
> cause of them?
No, none. What investigations?
> Issue a s56 for the agri damage regardless of the TRO.
[spamkill: [Mm]erchant input: %s] > Garbage in Does any councillor or
gloom merchant live along side the lanes?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Mel Mauger & Matthew Reeve" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:26:49 -0000
Subject: Re: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)
><<<<Your job is to be a far, far bigger pain.>>>
>Oh well, then, its sorted. I can do that - ask anyone who
works with/
>lives with/lives near/has ever met me.
>:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
I'll second that :-))
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:51:56 +0000
Subject: Re: Maps in District Councils
In message <bulk.10665.19990129084800@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Susan Jeggo
<derek.sue@virgin.net> writes
>Tim said
>"HA80 says they must have a List of Streets, and it must be available at
>all
>reasonable hours, free. They also need to keep copies at District
>offices.
>But, some councils cannot meet this requirement. Which ones? (I know
[ truncated by list-digester (was 15 lines)]
>apps affecting RoW. So, one sunny May morning last year I called in
>asked to see the Definitive Map.
This would make a nice little anecdote for Byway & Bridleway! Would you
be willing to flesh it out slightly and submit please?
Thanks
A
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Mel Mauger & Matthew Reeve" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:43:25 -0000
Subject: Re: Mud, Mud, Glorius Mud!!
>> I accept rights of way are privately owned but can the
owner of a
>> footpath / bridle way drive vehicles down them on what
seems to be a
>> regular basis?
> This was going to be my next question. This is a problem
down here in
>Berks. When I go out for my Sunday constitutional I make a
point of
>photographing vehicular surface damage to footpaths an
bridleways. The West
>Berks TRO referred to is totally pointless if the landowner
is free to
>continue churning up a public carriageway with his huge
tractors. It is his
>actions that have cause the danger to public safety and now
the council are
>rewarding him by excluding a section of the general public
from his land. I
>wouldn't mind the TRO so much if it was to enable repairs
to be carried out.
>Howard
Am I right in thinking that Highways Act 1980, section 131 &
131a makes it an offence to disturb the surface of a right
of way so as to make it inconvenient for the exercise of a
public right of way? If so, can this be used in this case,
especially if we could get photographic evidence of this
usage? In this situation a locked gate preventing vehicular
access to the lane, except for the landowner who has a key,
would prove the guilt...... Or is that just being devious?
On a slightly different approach, couldn't this also be used
against mud-pluggers, such as certain contributors to
magazines who have provided evidence against themselves,
including photographs and a carefully written confession?
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: BurgDM@aol.com
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:40:33 EST
Subject: Re: Maps in District Councils
In a message dated 29/01/99 16:50:01 GMT, you write:
<< Tim said
"HA80 says they must have a List of Streets, and it must be available at
all
reasonable hours, free. They also need to keep copies at District
offices.
But, some councils cannot meet this requirement. Which ones? (I know
about
Shropshire)"
>>
Just to show that it's not doom and gloom everywhere, recent visits to
Wokingham District Council in Berkshire and Hampshire County Council Offices
in Winchester produced all the right maps and lists just by walking in and
asking. Admittedly I was only there to check that some routes that I wanted to
drive were actually BOATs, but the staff were all helpfull and at least
recognised what I wanted to look at.
Bracknell Forest is next on the list...
Darren Burgess
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 11:52:34 +0000
Subject: Re: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)
> Could someone send me map refs for these.
Dave,
I added rough NGRs to the TRO notice I posted.
RUPP 13 (SU493751 to 500747)
RUPP 18 (SU494746 to 484761)
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
dub-img-12.compuserve.com (dub-img-12.compuserve.com [149.174.206.142])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
dub-img-12.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id OAA07971;
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 14:34:36 -0500
Subject: E5221, Warwicks CC sulks.
>From Warwicks CC to me:-
Date 27 January 1999
Dear Sir
HIGHWAYS ACT 1980- SECTION 116 STOPPING UP ORDER, GREY MILL LANE, E5221
Thank you for your letter of 19 January addressed to Miss Zikking and your
subsequent faxed application for an Order under Section 53(2) of the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Miss Zilling has asked me to respond on
behalf of the County Council.
As the legal and practical situation on this matter is somewhat complicated
I have prepared a statement regarding the salient points which I attach for
your information.
I would only elaborate by saying that your comments are noted and will be
taken into account by the County Council in deciding whether to exercise
its discretion under Section 116 of Highways Act 1980 to put in hand a
stopping up application. The County Council very much recognises the extent
of interest in proposals such as this. It is for this the very reason that
it has undertaken a preliminary consultation exercise prior to engaging the
various statutory procedures which would be necessary were it decided to
put in hand a stopping up application. As my summary says the County
Council will make an informed decision on the basis of the observations it
has received, this being the only appropriate way for it to consider
whether a statutory discretion (under Section 116) should be exercised or
not.
Please could I comment briefly on the notice enclosed with your letter of
19 January under
Section 56 of the Highways Act and the second notice faxed to the County
Council on 25
January pursuant to Section 53(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
I have, with respect, to suggest that neither of these notices is legally
valid for the reasons set out in the attached legal summary.
Please could I ask you to confirm in writing that you will, forthwith,
treat these notices as withdrawn. I would advise you to consider carefully
your own position on the matter of costs should you opt to continue with
the notices on an invalid basis. In order that the position may be
clarified please could I hear from you regarding the notices within the
next 7 days.
Yours faithfully
P A J Endall
for County Solicitor & Deputy Clerk of the Council
P.S. "For the assistance of the County Council investigation please could
you advise me of
any evidence you have regarding actual user of this highway prior to the
commencement of this consultation exercise
PUBLIC HIGHWAY E5221 WOOTTON WAWEN - GREY MILL LANE
SUMMARY OF LEGAL POSITION
1.The County Council has received a request from a landowner to consider
exercising its powers under Section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 to apply
to the Magistrates Court for an Order stopping up the above highway on the
grounds that it is "unnecessary" within the meaning of that section.
2. In order to enable it to reach an informed decision on whether the
County Council should exercise its power under Section 116 to make an
application a preliminary consultation exercise has been carried out and
potentially interested parties written to asking for their views on the
necessity or otherwise of Grey Mill Lane.
3. It is the County Council's standard practice to require persons
requesting it to make an application under Section 116 to underwrite the
administrative and legal costs incurred by the County Council.
4. There are currently certain obstructions along the route of the
Lane. Notwithstanding that the County Council is subject to a general
statutory duty to protect public rights of access and remove obstructions
where necessary it is considered that there is statutory authority for the
proposition that an outstanding application for stopping up/diversion
should be considered in advance of any steps being taken to remove the
obstructions (R V Secretary of State exp Cheshire County Council [1991] TPL
537).
5. It is noted that the Highways Act 1980 does provide a procedure for
making applications to stop up on the grounds that a road is unnecessary
(Section 116). As such, it cannot by itself be considered to be a breach of
the County Council's other duties under the Highways Act to pursue and
application under Section 116.
6. A highway may still be held to be "unnecessary" even where there is
some minimal level of continuing user (Ramblers Association V Kent County
Council [1990] JPR 716). In the case of Grey Mill Lane certain of the
owners and occupiers of land adjoining the Lane have expressed a wish to
retain the right to use the route of the Lane for access to the River Alne
for agricultural purposes and the County Council will give due weight to
such representations in reaching its final decision. However, no evidence
of any description has been produced by any party other than this to
suggest that there would be a significant wider public demand to access
Grey Mill Lane were any existing obstructions removed. No evidence has been
produced to suggest that efforts were being made to use the Lane prior to
the beginning of the current stopping up investigation.
7. Maintenance - as a matter of law the County Council is only obliged
to maintain individual highway to a standard consistent with the type of
traffic which might normally be expected to use it. It is in the nature of
E roads that the level of maintenance actually carried out by the County
Council is quite low and, as noted in preceding paragraphs the level of
user of Grey Mill Lane has never in the past been such as to jusfl~ any
higher standard of maintenance.
8. In addition it should be noted that for the purposes of Section 56
of the Highways Act
1980 (actions in respect of non-repair of highway) case law has
established that the
existence of obstruction such as fences do not constitute lack of repair as
such (Hereford and Worcester County Council V Newman [1975] 2 ALL ER 673 &
Westley V Hertford County Council [1998] Times Law Reports March 5th). As
such the view of the County Council is that a notice under Section 56
cannot validly be served in this case.
9. The County Council takes the view that the current status of Grey
Mill Lane as an all purpose public highway (an E-Road) is established. As
such it is not legally possible to seek the "re-register" it as some lesser
class of public right of way on the definitive map under the procedures set
out in S~53(2) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
10. Once a complete set of responses has been received to its informal
consultation exercise the County Council will review the matter as a whole
and decide whether it should proceed with an application under Section 116.
Initial thoughts
Dear Mr/Ms Endall,
Thank you for your interesting letter of 27th Jan 99, where you request a
reply within 7 days. I note this was posted 2nd class, therefore your time
scale will be somewhat exacting to meet. How ever I will do my best if you
will also assist. This reply will be faxed.
Firstly however, could you advise on*your* response time for answering
letters? I note some questions remain unanswered from my letter of 5/1/99,
for example "Has Making the Best of Byways been accepted by your council?"
and "what your response has been to your legal duty?" (in removing the
obstructions you now seem to admit you were aware of)
I confirm I have had an acknowledgement, and a note that the divisional
surveyor will be answering some points raised. If you would reply to my
request for your policy on managing minor highways (19/1/99), when I have
had a chance to peruse it, I shall consider withdrawal of the s56 notice.
Unfortunately until that time the notice must stand, and might add the
clock is still ticking.
I would be grateful to know your complaints procedure, and if you have an
official complaints form would you be kind enough to forward one to me.
Turning to the WLCA s53 notice, it would appear you are saying that a road
shown on the List of streets can not be shown on the DM&S? That there can
not be dual status roads? Is this a bylaw in Warwickshire, or is this
based on statute? I must admit to not being able to find any such reference
that a way that is used mainly for the purpose for which bridleways and
footpaths are used yet has vehicular rights can not be depicted on the
DM&S, therefore would make an application under s53 invalid, perhaps you
could advise? On reflection, could you please enclose two complaint forms.
Moving on to your statement, point 8. My s56 notice was not referring to
obstructions, but to interruption to the surface so as to make it
incommodious for "the type of traffic which might normally be expected to
use it". Are you suggesting minor fencing works recently erected
justifies an s116 application, or prevents action under s56, due to
Westley? Any way that is out of repair in Warwickshire you feel by
erecting an illegal fence, you can escape your duty to repair? Any person
that decides they do not want a highway, can obstruct and you will not
enforce? Would you please advise urgently as I am certain the Countryside
Commission for one, would be concerned. The issue of the threat of costs is
another matter they may find of interest.
I appreciate your concern and undertaking the preliminary consultation
exercise. And I can see your frustration at the responses to just this
stage. I can sympathise with your dilemma, and the sooner the decision on
this ill-conceived stopping-up is settled, the sooner sensible decisions on
co-operative management can be made.
cj
________________________
It may be that an early abatement of this fence is required? Anyone feel
like joining a picnic down by the riverside, if they keep up this
belligerant attitude?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 99 19:46 GMT0
Subject: Re: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme)
Howard aka Daniel gets nervous in the Lions Den....
<<< It has made me a little nervous which I suppose
is the intention.>>>>
Don't worry Howard I dont think they'll get us if we go in back to back ;-)
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 23:48:51 +0000
Subject: Re: HA80 s36
In message <bulk.6910.19990129053257@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Chris Marsden
<Byway@compuserve.com> writes
>Can you commence legal proceeding on ANY road that is on the map (say s56)
>on any discrepancy between the LoS and the map, and then ask for a full
>copy of the whole map for legal proceedings "The disclosure" stage? (Seek
>advice from a tame solicitor)
Yes you can have copies of the list of streets about a 1Pound a sheet!!
and if you want you can write in a letter to clarify a road but you have
to send the 10 Pounds for a reply!!
it gets better.
Cheers
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| 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 SAA09539
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:37:05 -0500
Subject: Re: TRO signs
> From: Rebecca Dorterov
> Was your Dad from Uzbekistan? How come you are called Dorterov then?
Could it be 'Daughter Of' Rebecca one wonders?
No, can't be, that was a long time ago. And it wasn't that they didn't like
the turnpikes or anything....... they just did it for a bit of fun....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:37:03 -0500
Subject: E5221 ps
I forgot the ps:-
P.S. You asked "For the assistance of the County Council investigation
please could you advise me of any evidence you have regarding actual user
of this highway prior to the commencement of this consultation exercise".
The answer is yes, I can.
BTW, anyone got any user evidence?
_________________
Now I've bin thinkin. Pause for applause.
A Silk,
or gent of similar ilk,
paid presumably, pompously pedantically postulated previously,
about the purpose,
IS being used more
on foot and horse as well as motor,
but not so much
a BOAT it can not be.
Now you might have thought that should rhyme, well it don't, there ain' t
no rhyme or reason to this RoW game.
If IS is so important for BOATs, then surely "IS unnecessary" doesn't mean
wasn't necessary, or won't be necessary, but present tense NOW means this
week or hour or right NOW. So if someone was actually on the road to be
stopped up with a mobile phone, and the learned Beak (or unlearned as the
case may be) was handed a mobile phone and invited to call...........
BTW What happens to the poor sod that might happen to be driving down it
when the JP snarls "Order Confirmed" Off with his head. And his wheels.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
dub-img-12.compuserve.com (dub-img-12.compuserve.com [149.174.206.142])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
dub-img-12.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id TAA14124
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] Received: from
arl-img-12.compuserve.com (arl-img-12.compuserve.com [149.174.217.142])
[spamkill: [^d][^2][0-9][0-9][0-9]*\.com[^a-z] input: %s] by
arl-img-12.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.17) id TAA17818
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
From: "Peter BRADLEY" <pbrad@dial.pipex.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 00:38:54 -0000
Subject: Re: TRO signs
>> From: Rebecca Dorterov
>> Was your Dad from Uzbekistan? How come you are called Dorterov then?
>Could it be 'Daughter Of' Rebecca one wonders?
*
Headline: Yorkshire humour misses by a mile.
Dinner date is off.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> end
| Table of Contents | <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 24 lines 1254 [forwarded 115 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 833 [content 675 forwarded 108 (cut 7) whitespace 0]
[ First Message
| Table of Contents
| <- Digest 990131 ->
| Search
Archive Index
| <-
Browser ->
]