[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:43:08 +0000
Subject: MP 'List of'
In message <bulk.20735.19990228173026@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Chris
Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com> writes
Hi Chris
Has a list of the MPs who supported the early day motion and the GLEAM
proposals been put out on the mailing list at any time, I will write to
our MP if he is on the list, so if it has would you send me a copy.
Thanks
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:16:12 -0000
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
Andrew Hunter, MP, Basingrad - sorry Basingstoke. A GLEAM supporter and
signature-tory to the EDM24. There is, I believe, a hole in the back of
his hacking jacket through which the likes of GLEAM and Hampshire Ways tug
the tendons that open and close his mouth. There is another hole, some
60cm below the aforementioned orifice, that produces the sound of the words
which are spoon fed by hitherto implicated organisations.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 19:20:37 -0000
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Fetcham
<<in order to meet the Nettlecombe test>>
If open to walkers and equestrians it has passed the Nettlecombe test.
>From the URL below follow the link to Byway & Bridleway and you will be
able to read about that case - if you have Acrobat Reader installed
(available on most cover disks)
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 99 09:45 GMT
Subject: Re: Country file - BBC - and _that_ lands rover
The ladies to ask are Lindsay Morris (researcher) or Kate Dylan
0121-432-8747 the prog is not shot yet (as at 0915 Monday) but I have
already suggested that _any_ mention of off-roading will produce a
complaint to TPTB.
Update at 0930 Monday - I have spoken to Tim and he and CJM are seeing the
Beeb on Wednesday...hopefully a bit of balance will prevail.
Anyone tape it? Beeb will not supply :-( coz 'its just for broadcast'
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 99 09:45 GMT
Subject: Re: MP 'List of'
> ><<<<<Can we find out who are the 65 MPs claimed to be in an anti
> >group/////////////////// which records those who have signed the EDM on
Green Lanes.
24/11/98
Rendel/David
Atkins/Charlotte Baker/Norman Ballard/Jackie
Barnes/Harry Body/Richard Borrow/David
Bottomley/Peter Brady/Graham Brake/Tom
Brand/Peter Brinton/Helen Burstow/Paul
Butler/Christine Caton/Martin Chidgey/David
Cotter/Brian Cryer/Ann Cryer/John
Dafis/Cynog Drew/David Etherington/Bill
Fabricant/Michael Fearn/Ronnie George/Andrew
Gill/Christopher Grieve/Dominic Hancock/Mike
Harris/Evan Harvey/Nick Heath/David
Howarth/Gerald Hunter/Andrew Jackson/Robert
Jones/Nigel Keetch/Paul Livingstone/Ken
Luff/Peter McWalter/Tony Mitchell/Austin
Organ/Diana Pickthall/Colin Robathan/Andrew
Russell/Bob Simpson/Alan St Aubyn/Nick
Taylor/David Taylor/Matthew Temple-Morris/Peter
Townend/John Tyler/Paul Wigley/Dafydd
52 signatures
That this House notes the work of the Green Lanes Environmental Action
Movement, and the safety and environmental implications of the use of
vulnerable green lanes used by motorised vehicles for recreational
purposes; further notes the Countryside Commission's flawed proposals to
classify all roads-used-as-public-paths as byways on which motorised
traffic would be permitted; and calls on the Government to re-examine the
law in relation to the use of green lanes as part of its work on access to
the countryside, recognising that there are designated and appropriate
areas for the use of recreational off-road motor vehicles.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 10:15:37 -0000
Subject: Re: EDM letter to MP - advice please
Tom. Hope you don't mind but I've had the red biro out. Would have sent
direct if your address had been on the mail.
<<I am concerned that you appear to support an organisation thats [who's]
aims appear
to be the removal public rights. Only about 2% of all rights of way are
confirmed vehicular, and out of these, several [many] are illegally
obstructed. >>
Otherwise a cracker
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 06:02:20 EST
Subject: Re: Suzukis in Berkshire
In a message dated 27.2.99 12:17:04 GMT Standard Time, Dave@hants-
lanes.demon.co.uk writes:
<< MD, do you not think you should qualify that a little? 4
or 2 wheels; 50cc or 11,00cc; 4x4 or 4x2. Bloody good job it's not a
Yamaha owner you seek. >>
Hang on, lads.
There is only room for one pedant around here, and I was here first.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Scott <scotbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 03:11:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Suzukis in Berkshire
I own a Suzuki Samurai, and I live in maidenhead.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 06:28:08 -0500
Subject: MP 'List of'
> Hi Chris
> Has a list of the MPs who supported the early day motion and the GLEAM
> proposals been put out on the mailing list at any time, I will write to
> our MP if he is on the list, so if it has would you send me a copy.
> Thanks
> Brian
Yes on 19/2 on RoW and 20/2 on Glass :-
> ><<<<<Can we find out who are the 65 MPs claimed to be in an anti
group?>>>>>
> You could do worse than have a look at:
> http://edm.ais.co.uk/weblink/html/motion.html/ref=24
> which records those who have signed the EDM on Green Lanes.
"24/11/98
Rendel/David
Atkins/Charlotte Baker/Norman Ballard/Jackie
Barnes/Harry Body/Richard Borrow/David
Bottomley/Peter Brady/Graham Brake/Tom
Brand/Peter Brinton/Helen Burstow/Paul
Butler/Christine Caton/Martin Chidgey/David
Cotter/Brian Cryer/Ann Cryer/John
Dafis/Cynog Drew/David Etherington/Bill
Fabricant/Michael Fearn/Ronnie George/Andrew
Gill/Christopher Grieve/Dominic Hancock/Mike
Harris/Evan Harvey/Nick Heath/David
Howarth/Gerald Hunter/Andrew Jackson/Robert
Jones/Nigel Keetch/Paul Livingstone/Ken
Luff/Peter McWalter/Tony Mitchell/Austin
Organ/Diana Pickthall/Colin Robathan/Andrew
Russell/Bob Simpson/Alan St Aubyn/Nick
Taylor/David Taylor/Matthew Temple-Morris/Peter
Townend/John Tyler/Paul Wigley/Dafydd
52 signatures
That this House notes the work of the Green Lanes Environmental Action
Movement, and the safety and environmental implications of the use of
vulnerable green lanes used by motorised vehicles for recreational
purposes; further notes the Countryside Commission's flawed proposals to
classify all roads-used-as-public-paths as byways on which motorised
traffic would be permitted; and calls on the Government to re-examine the
law in relation to the use of green lanes as part of its work on access to
the countryside, recognising that there are designated and appropriate
areas for the use of recreational off-road motor vehicles. "
I have the full details of what an EDM is, how much each ones costs us, and
it's chances of success etc. please mail direct if you want a copy.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 06:27:59 -0500
Subject: Re: EDM letter to MP - advice please
> I have just drafted this letter to send to my MP. Never having written a
> letter about ROW before, I would be grateful of any advice you may be
able
Excellent letter,
Don't forget that we can send a letter to lots of MPs by addressing them
with the names, and then putting them in a bundle and send to the H of
Commons in one go.
Chris
>.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:03:40 -0500
Subject: RA-Suffolk option
Anyone heard of the new initiative reported in the latest tramplers
newsletter?
Suffolk CC are intending to go to a court over some tracks, to get a
declaration that they are roads.
This is due to Nettlecomb, and is a display of their understanding of s130.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 07:30:24 EST
Subject: Re: EDM letter to MP - advice please
In a message dated 1.3.99 11:01:41 GMT Standard Time, Dave@hants-
lanes.demon.co.uk writes:
Can you blue-pencil a bit of red-biro?
Cross out [who's] and put [whose]. Or even [the aims of which appear...]
Explanation - the word 'who's' does exist, in the question 'who's round?',
meaning 'which person is circular' but in the context of 'appropriate to
whom' the word 'whose' is standard, as in 'whose round?' meaning 'The trip to
the bar of which person is next'?
Don't lose any sleep over it, this is one of the everyday wobblies, along with
its and it's, and Council-Counsel, appraise-apprise, flaunt-flout, loth-
loathe, honorary-honorable, etc.
Pedantry Rules OK
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 08:59:30 EST
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Fetcham
In a message dated 28.2.99 16:01:50 GMT Standard Time, hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
writes:
<< This sort of user evidence could be quite valuable (in order to meet the
Nettlecombe test) if Surrey CC decides not to pursue its s116 order, and I
apply for a DMMO. >>
The evidence could also be useful to show a s116 was not appropriate, as users
are showing the need by using the road. It may be that a canny landowner or
council has looked carefully at the legal rules, and realised that a s116
might fail if users were not able to show the need by using the route.
Accordingly, they have made the route available (but said nowt) so that they
can say to the magistrates Look, its been clear for x weeks and nobody has
used it.
It needs to be used a lot, now, in case this is the reason. Please get the
message to all clubs etc in the area, and use it or lose it.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 19:17:33 -0000
Subject: IT'S WAR!!!!
Damned 4x4s.
Bought myself a new bike (BMW R80GS) today - T reg and all - and by 11.00
this morning, some duffer in a Land Rover had reversed into it whilst it was
parked outside the village post office.
Result = rocker cover stoved in, exhaust system dented, rear light lens
chipped, slight abrasion to paintwork = cost approx £600.
A pox on all 4x4s
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 19:56:01 +0000
Subject: Last saturday C4 Rural rights.
Help!!
C4 Rural Rights about 8:00pm Last Saturday night.
Did anyone record this prog?
If so any chance of a copy.
>73s and 88s
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 99 20:45 GMT
Subject: Re: IT'S WAR!!!!
<<<<<Result = rocker cover stoved in, exhaust system dented, rear light
lenschipped, slight abrasion to paintwork = cost approx £600.>>>>
Sorry - and somewhat surprised - to hear that the Landy sustained so
much damage.....
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix) (Think I'd better be humble and quiet for a
while after this one...)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 99 20:45 GMT
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Fetcham
Matthew and I will be doing this lane on Wednesday pm (he doesnt know this
yet, the little dear) Does anyone want to join us?
Would hugh.craddock please describe the house/gent in particular so that
we might ensure high visibility.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:28:51 -0000
Subject: Re: Suzukis in Berkshire
<<Hang on, lads.
There is only room for one pedant around here, and I was here first.
<<Hang on, lads.
Take it as a compliment!!
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:41:03 -0000
Subject: Re: MP 'List of'
Hi Chris
Looked at the site quoted in your last mail. There is only one other worth
a look and that is on quiet roads - 348. Latest volume of support for 24 =
52.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 14:43:26 -0000
Subject: Re: RA-Suffolk option
<<This is due to Nettlecomb, and is a display of their understanding of
s130.
<<This is due to Nettlecomb, and is a display of their understanding of
Not a totally daft idea. If the routes are obstructed they cannot be added
to the DM as BOAT so how else are they to be recorded. Judge says yes -
legal event order. Then they are safe ground to 'do' the obstuctor.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 17:01:42 EST
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
After I wrote:
<< I've just faxed a letter off to my MP - David Drew - Stroud, Glos.>>
In a message dated 26/02/99 14:38:02, Bod wrote:
<< Would you like to share it with us?
That way we can all:
1. Learn how elequant [sic] you are
2. Be inspired to write ourselves
3. See some views which we overlooked
4. Know more that we are not campaigning alone
and if all the above fails
5. Slag you off because you write better letters than we do!!! >>
Well here's what I sent:
<<Mr. David Drew, MP,
House of Commons,
Westminster,
London SW1.
Dear Mr. Drew,
Re: Early Day Motion.
I understand that you and a number of other MPs recently signed the following
Early Day Motion:
"That this House notes the work of the Green Lanes Environmental Action
Movement, and the safety and environmental implications of the use of
vulnerable green lanes used by motorised vehicles for recreational purposes;
further notes the Countryside Commission's flawed proposals to classify all
roads-used-as-public-paths as byways on which motorised traffic would be
permitted; and calls on the Government to re-examine the law in relation to
the use of green lanes as part of its work on access to the countryside,
recognising that there are designated and appropriate areas for the use of
recreational off-road motor vehicles."
May I ask what prompted you to do so? Is it that there are a number of
vulnerable green lanes in the Stroud Constituency (or elsewhere in
Gloucestershire)?
If so could you please let me know of any particular problems in the area that
you are aware of that are caused by the use of vehicles on green lanes.
As any legislation to resolve such an issue may take some time pass into law,
what do you think should be done immediately to address these problems?>>
When (if) he replies I will engage him wearing my 'Concerned Rambler' hat
rather than the 'Incredibly Pissed-off Vehicular User' one (that seems the
vogue on this list) just to see if a 'softly-softly' approach is more
productive.
Re my Rambler hat - a straw poll at yesterday's Cambrian Council Seminar
showed me to be the only card-carrying Rambler present (unless any of the HA
and NP attendees who are in The Ramblers were keeping their heads down!)
although about a third present admitted to enjoying rambles on occasion. I am
also in the BHS. I believe it's the best way to keep tabs on what they're up
to - and I might have some little influence on attitudes in the long run, even
if it is only de-demonising at least one vehicular user in some Rambler minds.
:-)
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 17:01:43 EST
Subject: Re: Now I am cross
David,
In a message dated 27/02/99 09:24:59, you copied a letter that
ended:
<<..... Should you have any further queries, please do contact me.
Yours faithfully,
M W Johnn
Rights Of Way Oflicer" >>
Maybe you should write and ask what the HA's position is regarding members of
the public abating common nuisances on the highway.
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 22:13:57 -0000
Subject: Re: IT'S WAR!!!!
And when is expected that driver of said 4x4 will be leaving hospital?
Seriously, I am serious. Don't like to hear tales like that. My road bike
is now about 7 years old. The only scratches on it are caused by a twat in
a car - that, needless to say, was not insured. Partner carries a dent in
her cellulite to this day!!
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1999 23:02:48 +0000
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Fetcham
>If open to walkers and equestrians it has passed the Nettlecombe test.
>From the URL below follow the link to Byway & Bridleway and you will be
>able to read about that case
I think we've embarked on this debate before: in essence, not if you
subscribe to the views of the learned George Laurence QC set out in his
article in the ROWLR (to be fair, there's an equally eloquent article
setting the opposite point of view). Laurence's point was that there would
have to be evidence of vehicular use as well as equestrian <and> (sic) use
on foot to meet the test for a DMMO for byway status post-Nettlecombe. It
remains to be seen how many HAs will sign up to this point of view, though
recent postings to this group suggest a few already do.
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 18:44:33 EST
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Fetcham
In a message dated 1.3.99 23:04:52 GMT Standard Time, hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
writes [of the prevalence of Nettlecombe views]:
<< It remains to be seen how many HAs will sign up to this point of view >>
Not quite the metaphor I would have used. Signing requires positive action.
Perhaps rather than signing up to it, they are merely hiding behind it?
Snoozing in its shade with a sigh of relief all round?
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 19:57:33 -0500
Subject: Re: RA-Suffolk option
> <<This is due to Nettlecomb, and is a display of their understanding of
> Not a totally daft idea. If the routes are obstructed they cannot be
added
> to the DM as BOAT so how else are they to be recorded. Judge says yes -
> legal event order. Then they are safe ground to 'do' the obstuctor.
This is an option for Upper Lye, (see Countryfile)
Can a declaration only be done by the CC?
Is it done in the magistrates court?
Again, what are the risks? Assuming one puts all the evidence before beak,
(at short notice due to the seriousness of the situation) and they give a
declaration that it is a road.
If it fails who has the right to ask for costs? specially if a Public
Carriage road with a legal event to back it, and no 'owner' as such to ask
for costs?
But what if it went in the applicants favour, then on appeal, was
reversed? Could there be humungous costs then? But might a housholders
'legal protection insurance' step in at that point? (if held) It is after
all a separate action to the original?
And if done by an individual (if possible) and costs were demanded for the
case preparation from the HA, (for failing their s130 DUTY) and success was
achieved in the first court, wouldn't the subsequent cost (if any) fall on
the HAs shoulders?
Alternatively what are the costs and risks of bringing an injunction?
(Didn't L/O on RUPP 13 have to pay costs to the wrongly accused on RUPP13,
that *could* go towards fighting the ongoing battle. Perhaps they might
have a greater chance with a declaration before hand?)
BBp81 Suffolk v Mason went to HoL then back at Parliament for WLCA 81. That
started with a declaration. As this might be the same Suffolk that
proposed this present action, they might be well aware of this from their
case 20 years ago.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 19:57:38 -0500
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
> Re my Rambler hat - a straw poll at yesterday's Cambrian Council Seminar
> showed me to be the only card-carrying Rambler present (unless any of the
HA
> and NP attendees who are in The Ramblers were keeping their heads down!)
> although about a third present admitted to enjoying rambles on occasion.
I am
I think it was considerably more than a 1/3
> also in the BHS. I believe it's the best way to keep tabs on what they're
up
> to - and I might have some little influence on attitudes in the long run,
even
> if it is only de-demonising at least one vehicular user in some Rambler
minds.
Reading an old BHS access leaflet today, very anti vehicular generally. (No
21 Use of Byways April 96)
"a number of them have been subjected to considerable damage by the
recreational use of 4wd, the drivers of which appear to use byways simply
for the purpose of testing the capabilities of the vehicles to deal with
the worst kind of conditions (often created by their own efforts), and
including the use of winches anchored to walls hedges and trees.
And then goes on to say "agri machery, JCBs and forestry machinery can
inflict damage." Can. CAN? They did not hear what was said yesterday by
the Rangers etc.
With Asses and Mules in the BHS why do we need gleam? Fortunately I still
believe *most* BHS members have more sense and tolerance of the rights of
others than those in the Council that approved that statement on 24/4/96.
I Had a 50 min call to local RA RoW officer for N Hereford this evening.
Battle For Bridleways Group (the iliterate Dr. Harrison) had been on to
their group trying to stir it up about 4x4s. she had said some outrageous
things to Brian A (also an RA man and keen laner) about the problems,
repeating them blindly. He corrected her, I did also. It turned into a
very positive conversation with her promising RA will fight any obstruction
for any user on any RoW in this are. Pigs? Flying?
But she was very interested in the s56 admission for U Lye. wants copy.
seemed quite happy that there are only about half a dozen, of us, (hadn't
the heart to say it's only two). I am worried now they might come in and
claim they won the war! But she is interested in this and the other 22
claimed byways.
(this started as Brian put in a complaint to RA HQ about the obstructed FPs
on the land of the objectors to the BOATS at Aymestry, it then came back
via Owen Morgan and others. It pays to start at the top, locals then jump)
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 19:57:35 -0500
Subject: IT'S WAR!!!!
> Damned 4x4s.
> Bought myself a new bike (BMW R80GS) today - T reg and all - and by 11.00
> this morning, some duffer in a Land Rover had reversed into it whilst it
was
> parked outside the village post office.
> Result = rocker cover stoved in, exhaust system dented, rear light lens
> chipped, slight abrasion to paintwork = cost approx £600.
> A pox on all 4x4s
Morals.
1) Stick to green lanes. Far safer.
2) Buy a 4x4, much more resilient to lifes little mishaps.
3) buy and old one, ditto
3) Not ALL 4x4, some are driven by very nice people, (about 1% - the
laners)
4) it could have been a 2x4 that backed into it.
That is real tough, can you reject the bike and say you are not havig it
repaired, you bought a new one and are having a new one?
cj
ps Could you put a complaint into the ombudsman?
Sorry, that doesn't help either does it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 19:57:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Kennel Lane, Fetcham
> please describe the house/gent in particular so that
> we might ensure high visibility.
And don't forget to display some nice Fetching signs, the Blue Book p257
has the dimensions for the stencil, and a can of PO Red or whatever colour
number spray paint they recommend. Obviously you need a letter of
authority from the CC.
Like "Please let me know if you have any objections to..... by 4.00 pm
tomorrow"! And get a reciept of posting (free),
That also helps prove the road is required.
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 19:57:33 -0500
Subject: Re: RA-Suffolk option
> <<This is due to Nettlecomb, and is a display of their understanding of
> Not a totally daft idea. If the routes are obstructed they cannot be
added
> to the DM as BOAT so how else are they to be recorded. Judge says yes -
> legal event order. Then they are safe ground to 'do' the obstuctor.
This is an option for Upper Lye, (see Countryfile)
Can a declaration only be done by the CC?
Is it done in the magistrates court?
Again, what are the risks? Assuming one puts all the evidence before beak,
(at short notice due to the seriousness of the situation) and they give a
declaration that it is a road.
If it fails who has the right to ask for costs? specially if a Public
Carriage road with a legal event to back it, and no 'owner' as such to ask
for costs?
But what if it went in the applicants favour, then on appeal, was
reversed? Could there be humungous costs then? But might a housholders
'legal protection insurance' step in at that point? (if held) It is after
all a separate action to the original?
And if done by an individual (if possible) and costs were demanded for the
case preparation from the HA, (for failing their s130 DUTY) and success was
achieved in the first court, wouldn't the subsequent cost (if any) fall on
the HAs shoulders?
Alternatively what are the costs and risks of bringing an injunction?
(Didn't L/O on RUPP 13 have to pay costs to the wrongly accused on RUPP13,
that *could* go towards fighting the ongoing battle. Perhaps they might
have a greater chance with a declaration before hand?)
BBp81 Suffolk v Mason went to HoL then back at Parliament for WLCA 81. That
started with a declaration. As this might be the same Suffolk that
proposed this present action, they might be well aware of this from their
case 20 years ago.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 31 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 08:21:56 +0000
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
Chris Marsden wrote:
> > also in the BHS. I believe it's the best way to keep tabs on what they're
> up
> > to - and I might have some little influence on attitudes in the long run,
> Reading an old BHS access leaflet today, very anti vehicular generally. (No
> 21 Use of Byways April 96)
[ truncated by list-digester (was 18 lines)]
> inflict damage." Can. CAN? They did not hear what was said yesterday by
> the Rangers etc.
You forgot to inlcude the para (3) which says "commends organisations...codes
of Practices...applauds voluntry efforts in repairing..."
Para (4) "...agricultureal machinery can inflict damage..calls upon those using
such machines to make good..."
> With Asses and Mules in the BHS why do we need gleam?
> up
> > to - and I might have some little influence on attitudes in the long run,
Careful now. I ( with my BHS hat on) am currently defending 3 mile BOAT against
Gleam - and no representation from the motorised organisations at Public
Inquiry.
Sue Jeggo
BHS Access & Bridleway Officer Cambridgeshire
http://homepages.which.net/~phil.wadey/cambs.htm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 32 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 31 lines 1269 [forwarded 97 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 961 [content 771 forwarded 87 (cut 10) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990302 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]