[ First Message | | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 00:44:01 -0000
Subject: Re: Babtie
Well, anything would be useful. Does Rodha belong to Glimer or is she just
a supporter? What is his perception of the damage on the lanes around
Chievely - recreational or aggricultural? Why do they only enforce against
users and not landowners? Come on Ian, use you wit and imagination. Has
he any photos of RB at the christmas party that could embarass, like tonsil
tenis with DG! Is there a relationship between her and anyone working on
the Newbury Weekly News? Or for that matter Jean watsherface from the local
RA? Look I started work at 7 yesterday and at quarter to one pence an old
fart like me can still turn the cogs. Bloody nippers.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:31:24 +0000
Subject: Re: B&B back issues (was: Re: Bennett in Manchester Metro News)
In message <bulk.10948.19990208153633@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Bod
<bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>>Read B&B 1+2 1987. Private Roads - Colin Seymour.
>Some of us did not subscribe to B&B back in 1987.
>Can anyone (Alan?) let us know if back issues are available.
Hi Bod,
Yes, in principle at least all B&B back to the start in 79 is still
available. In the reasonably near future the full lot, as Acrobat pdf
files, will be available, with an index (at least partly hyperlinked).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 99 10:19 GMT0
Subject: Re: Babtie
DT raises some points which _will_ get back to the Enemy if they are
posted to this list. Regrettable, but true - and IMHO when its tightened
up by the Major it won't improve.
Short of closing the List to known individuals there is no solution either
:-(((((
However
<<<<<<<<, Does Rodha belong to Glimer or is she just a supporter? >>>>>
IMV even being a supporter should exclude her from her office since that
office (Senior Countryside Manager) should AS A Mimimum require
impartiality and as an optimum require _positive help_ to be offered to
all users. And there is FA evidence of impartiality, let alone positive
help. This is not just my perception, review Howards Mails on teh subject
<<<<<Has he any photos of RB at the christmas party that could embarass,
like tonsiltenis with DG!>>>>
David! I know its late but please keep it clean; some of us bloody nippers
aint in bed yet ;-)
Seriously, leave smears out and go for legitimate causes of complaint -
they are always easier to prove
It is known that RB did address a GLEAM AGM on (allegedly) 'the problems
of 4x4s in the Countryside', which, _when_ proven and documented, will be
the subject of much debate. Of course, should anyone have such proof
please mail me :-) Maybe RB herself, when she gets this? Oh, and Rhoda,
when I was RoWO with HBRO all those years ago, do you remember refusing to
let your Land-Rover-Owning son come out laning with us because of
'conflict of interest'? _I_ certainly remember it.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 06:02:40 -0500
Subject: Re: prosecutions.
> What's all this about AWDC & TRF members being prosecuted for driving on
> a RUPP in Herts? It is a bit alarming.
I think you will find this was an injunction, B of P stuff not beyond all
reasonable doubt. But as Elwyn says it was dropped. Unfortunately not
many details were forthcoming. As far as I know there have never been any
prosecutions for driving on a RUPP. I would hope that no one drives on a
RUPP that is clearly not vehicular to prove the point - and fail. I would
guess perhaps up to 5% or so may not be vehicular, unfortunately 90 - 95 %
seem to end up as bridleway or even footpaths.
Evidence is imperative to establish the likely status of any RUPP. The
first, easiest and most significant evidence is surely the 1910 FA, that
needs to be investigated once only. A National Database of surveyed Lanes
is the preferred method of dividing research resources effectively, avoid
duplication of effort whilst leaving big gaps elsewhere, and recording all
adopted and unadopted ways. The latter are at the greatest risk of loss.
Chris
ps
Dave said
> But the LO is still going ahead against three guys from the TRF.
> a RUPP in Herts? It is a bit alarming.
Do you know under what section, and is it a private prosecution or an
injunction? Have the CPS to decide whether to prosecute?
Was usage otherwise 'in order', ie is it purely because it was a RUPP?
If so, what evidence is there for and against V/rts?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 99 14:16 GMT0
Subject: Re: Maps available for researchers
I have some Bartholomews half-inchers, they are all cloth, good/very good
condition, priced 3, 4, and 5 shillings, which DT tells me dates them from
the 40s onwards.
Sheet 32 Sussex
Sheet 6 Sussex
Sheet 14 Oxford
Sheet 24 vale of Trent
Sheet 19 Warwickshire
Sheet 18 Warwickshire
Sheet 8 Salisbury Plain
I paid an average of £3.00 for these, some were more, some were less, but
WTH, I'll send them at a flat £3.50 each includes postage.
I might be able to get more of the same at some future date, I will post
then.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 17:28:31 -0000
Subject: Comical touches
Well its that time of the year when the comics try to out do each other with
their 'Green Laning' articles. LRO, LRW, & LRM all have fairly full house.
First glance, and that's all most have had, shows that LRW is still stuck in
the mud, so is not on this month's purchase list; LRM has some action shots
of AB getting his hands dirty (or is he posing?) MD without a picture (such
modesty...) and RF being fairly sane - on the purchase list; finally LRO has
a large section, bit of a parson's egg, good intro from MT and a few tales
from others, even publicises its own 'Tread lightly' campaign.
A fair start for the 'New' year, lets see if they can get better as the year
rolls on....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:38:54 -0000
Subject: RE: Skye
Try contacting Owen Sayer, he was last heard of as working in the 'Slough
area', but did a lot of work on VRoW in Scotland.
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:38:50 -0000
Subject: RE: Candovers
I hate these people who decide to object after the fact, to such an extent
that when I considered objecting to something local after the PI had
happened, I decided not to object...
Probably. Names like that tend not to move around the country very much,
but their eyes tend to move towards each other....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 99 19:28 GMT0
Subject: Re: Comical touches in the rags
Rob makes some points re: the rags
<<<<Well its that time of the year when the comics try to out do each
other withtheir 'Green Laning' articles. >>>>>
Wierd innit...we try and keep usage to a minimum over the winter, the rags
glorify it like we dont ever have a spring/summer/autum period which,
p*ss-poor tho' it might be, is better than the winter.
<<<< MD without a picture (such
modesty...)>>>>
You cant shoot someone if you dont know what they look like......
<<<<finally LRO has
a large section, bit of a parson's egg>>>>>
>From my POV, the analogy holds water, but it isnt that its good in parts,
rather that it stinks the closer you look at it.. Where is the mention of
LARA? Where are the suggestions I made re: other user groups?where is
any of the 1500+ words I submitted and offerred free rein to customise?
NGLD happens once a year, we can go GLing most weekends, but oh no, we get
18 pages of thinly-disguised advertising (you gotta have a HiLift, KERR
rope, GPS, anything else that our sponsor sells) Nice one Carl :-|,
another own goal IMV.
And _NO_, I am not after personal glory, I dinna give sh*t about fame, and
as for the money, since when did anyone other than the Inner Circle get
money for writing for a 4x4 rag? I'm just angry that an opportunity to
publicise the ONE national GL-only event has been lost in favour of sexier
column inches.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 99 19:28 GMT0
Subject: Re: Tim Stevens
Tim Stevens has managed to trash his computer (or did it collapse under
the workload?). Its a serious jobbie this time, his HD is partitioned into
C; and D: but the D: is being recognised as a remote drive (his words) and
refuses to play ball.
He is still open for business on 01630-657627 and fax 01630-658928 but its
all quiet on teh EMail side for a day or two
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bill" <bill@trail.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:12:38 -0000
Subject: prosecutions.
> Does anyone have any hard fact or know who can supply me with definite
> info?
On the TRF website 'http://www.trail.freeserve.co.uk/r_006.htm', its the
latest as far as I'm aware.
Cheers, Bill.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bill" <bill@trail.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:12:33 -0000
Subject: Candovers
> The two objectors were granted extensions of about 4 months to prepare
> their objection. He was told that the papers had been copied to the
> Authority and he would receive a copy in due course, and not to worry
> as he would have 14 days in which to respond.
Bias or what ???
4 Months to object and only 14 days to prepare a defence, scandalous !!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bill" <bill@trail.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:12:39 -0000
Subject: RE: Highway in A.Bennett's constituency
> It passes under railway bridge and over a motorway(M66) bridge
> so there should be some deposited plans to give enough evidence
> (hopefully) to allow it to be driven.
I'll bet it was stopped up to build the M'way. May be worth checking
that first, could save a lot of needless work.
Cheers, Bill.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 23:04:22 +0000
Subject: Re: In dip endent ?
> Once again we have been shit upon by the Media. I feel the only way forward
> is to bombard the PCC with objection to the lies published on green lane
> issues.
I seem to remember that when somebody complained about a highly biased and
inaccurate article by Libby Purvis or some such person a while ago the
newspaper defended itself by claiming that the article expessed the views of
the writer. As they are only 'views' it is therefore ok to print complete
bunkum.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 22:50:51 +0000
Subject: Re: Oxfordshire vehicular RoW
> How do you mean? They don't show dual status roads, just the DM info which
> is statutory, PAI is an extra, ONLY if not shown otherwise.
> Or have I mis-understood the question?
I was trying to save myself some work. Nowadays Berkshire is quite a narrow
strip of land and I often fall off the edge into Oxon, Wilts or Tilburyshire.
I have come across several tracks in Oxon that I suspect have vehicular rights
but are not waymarked or else they are signed as footpaths or bridleways. I
was hoping the latest issue OS maps might help provide this info. They don't
so I was trying to find out if anyone had already done the research.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:30:55 -0500
Subject: Independent, Sat
What an appalling mess, massive picture of a right mess, quite possibly
leisure use, Oareborough Hill Nr Chievely Berks Downs, courtesy of David
Gardiner.
Who has wrecked this lane? Have hoardes of mudpluggers trashed it? Why
hasn't it got VR on it? Why not at least a seasonal TRO?
But why should it be like this, if that number of people want to use it
surely it is possible to put some stone or even scalpings? to make it
indestructable?
I don't give a damn if some people say I am taking their fun away. They are
taking my right to drive lanes away from this area (see text from the
Aymestry mob). Lanes in that state are (quite rightly) not tolerated by
joe public.
Conceding that in NW Herefordshire "very few green lanes have been churned
up in the area" (sic - NONE) It's all predictive of what will happen, how
many times do I hear Berks mentioned!
So surely some one in Berks can force the issue, issue a s56 notice, force
the B*&^%ts to repair the lane, and get rid of the problem, whoever caused
it.
gleam claim 175,000 was needed to repair lanes. (sic) Pity that WAS not
spent effectively, where did all the money go? has gloom had it's snout in
the trough? chucking some LARGE stones in those ruts must cure it for 50
years or more, they cost very little.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:31:06 -0500
Subject: TROs (was: Re: West Berks Vindictive TRO (Somme) Glass & RoW)
> The illegal TRO!
illegal TRO's are non-TROs and should be defrocked immediately as Becky
might say. (de-signed)
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 18:31:05 -0500
Subject: Speed Limits (was: Re: Ridgeway Potential TRO)
> There is a 10MPH speed limit on a road near to Manchester Airport.
> The road is public and I can see no reason why the limit signs should
> not be also.
But from what you tell me about Manchester TRO's, (and obstructions not
being illegal), why should I believe these signs are Kosher?
If 10MPH limits are permited, then they should use them a bit more often
than humps, dangerous, environmentally unfriendly, etc. All shopping
streets could use them too, where vehicles are still allowed. Discourage
people from using them without actually banning. If it was good enough in
1896 then it's good enough on 'un-improved' roads now, is what I say.
Don't get me wrong, in the right place speed is OK, it's not speed that
kills, it's having accidents at speed that does.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:43:36 -0500
Subject: DMMOs DETR advise
The Planning Inspectorate's Def Map Orders book 1997, shows in para 5.6:-
So in cases where historic evidence proves a public RoW will still exist
even if the route is no longer suitable for purpose for which it was
created, or no longer passable.
So post Nettlecombe, has a circular been issued to amend the position? If
not,there can be no excuse for a CC to NOT make the order. It is up to the
Inspector to decide what to make of the order, or whether to instruct CC to
remove an obstruction. It is their duty to.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 19 lines 797 [forwarded 42 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 541 [content 417 forwarded 42 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | | <- Digest 990210 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]