[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 03:43:35 -0500
Subject: How many RECORDED UCRs?
CoCo's RoW in 21st C, talks of the 3,000 Km of byways (2% of network)
and the many under recorded or not recorded RoW (para 28)
and the "Hidden Network" in para 25.
But it goes on to say there is an estimated 10,000 - 15,000 Km of
unsealed.... NOT currently recorded on EITHER the road maps OR the
definitive maps? So how many UCRs ARE recorded on the road maps?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Brian Pratt" <btp@freeuk.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:18:29 -0800
Subject: Rural Rides
Did anyone see (or video) Rural Rides Mon night/Tue morn 2.35am Chnl 4,
very interesting ..about Sue Taylor from the Pennine/Calderdale (Yorkshire)
area who is a carriage driver researching lanes to upgrade, she even has
lottery money to finance research. Apparently she has 40 case files still
outstanding in her local village alone.
Interviewed landowner Billy Spence of Cliffe Farm says .."She's the worst
thing thats ever happened to this area", adding, when asked about threats to
her " ..that the police wouldn't know where to start looking if something
happened to her !". Very sinister.
A lane on Mr Spence's land has been uncovered by Sue Taylor, he's fearful
of 4x4s and says he'll stop anyone on HIS land. Sue states that the public
owns the top soil and the farmer owns the sub soil. Spence says that once
people have walked on it and it gets muddy that the top & sub soil get mixed
up so nobody knows which they're allowed to walk on !, Ho ho !!
Brian Pratt: GLASS(Lakes/Dales) + TRF member
Email: btp@freeuk.com
GLASS Northern Bulletin website: http://www.btp.freeuk.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:48:00 -0000
Subject: Re: A new threat in Cumbria
>Roger Harris who wrote about being threatened by
>his wife with a pitchfork (in a previous edition of TRF Trail !)
If his wife is that violent to him, maybe he should let her drive :-))
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 10:47:09 -0000
Subject: Points of law
A few questions which might come in handy in negotiations with a pitchfork
bearing psychopath (to distract her while your mate creeps round the back
with a hi-lift handle <g>)
If someone has a go at you, purely verbally, are they guilty of verbal
assault?
If someone threatens you, suggesting politely that you turn around and go
back and never darken his farmyard again, what are they guilty of?
If someone threatens you with a pitchfork, what are they guilty of?
If someone takes your keys, what are they guilty of?
Can the police find you swiftly from only a NGR? (I know the AA can't cope)
They point to this is that if someone confronts you and is acting violently,
it might be possible to point out that they are so far only guilty of verbal
assault and threatening behaviour (?) and would be guilty of GBH if they
actually did anything with said gardening instrument.
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 11:37:31 +0000
Subject: Re: Points of law
Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger wrote:
> A few questions which might come in handy in negotiations with a pitchfork
> bearing psychopath (to distract her while your mate creeps round the back
> with a hi-lift handle <g>)
> If someone has a go at you, purely verbally, are they guilty of verbal
> assault?
There are numerous reports nowadays of horse riders being subjected to varying
degrees of "road rage" from motorists on public highways (as opposed to PRoW).
Varies from drivers winding down the near side window and saying "you should not
ride on the road, why dont you use bridleways" in a fairly polite(ish) manner,
to occassions when motorists stop, get out of the car and inform you, using
numerous swear words, that you are in their way. I raised the issue of verbal
aggression directed at horse riders with the Cambs Asst Chief Constable, and his
advice was that it is hard to prove an offence because the motorist is
expressing an opinion, but if foul language is used then it may be a public
order offence. In any case it should always be reported to the Constabulary.
Presumbably as a PRoW is a highway then that should (?) apply also.Sue J
BHS Cambs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 07:28:01 EST
Subject: Re: Points of law
In a message dated 2.3.99 10:57:06 GMT Standard Time,
blatchwood@btinternet.com writes:
<< If someone has a go at you, purely verbally, are they guilty of verbal
assault? >>
Assault occurs when anyone puts the wind up anyone else. Threats, even over
the phone, count, but they must be more than polite requests to turn round, or
to report you to the police etc if you don't. Any weapon, pitch fork, jack
handle, etc, makes it easier to prove.
Anything further which involves contact with your person is battery.
Taking keys is theft, and interfering with a motor vehicle.
There is also the offence of 'Action likely to cause a breach of the peace',
which depends on the circumstances, but key-stealing is well on the way.
The average policeman does not understand NGRs, or UCRs for that matter.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 07:27:52 EST
Subject: Re: RA-Suffolk option
In a message dated 2.3.99 00:59:07 GMT Standard Time, Byway@compuserve.com
writes:
<< Can a declaration only be done by the CC?
Is it done in the magistrates court? >>
A declaration of Highway Status is the fall-back option if a HA fail to
respond to s56, or deny highway rights. It is done at the Crown Court.
The court would look at all the evidence put before it, the judge would be
fully trained and experienced in evaluating evidence, we would get an answer
fairly quickly, and irrelevant objectors, firemen, and turnip planters would
not have a look in. Why don't we use it all the time?
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 99 13:10 GMT
Subject: Re: IT'S WAR!!!!
<<<<4) it could have been a 2x4 that backed into it. >>>
or even a 4x4 in 4x2 mode ( as 99.9% are deemed to be for 99.9% of the
time....)
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: alan kind <alan@highwayman.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 14:13:27 +0000
Subject: Re: Points of law
In message <bulk.6468.19990302042812@Land-Rover.Team.Net>,
TimLARA@aol.com writes
>In a message dated 2.3.99 10:57:06 GMT Standard Time,
>blatchwood@btinternet.com writes:
><< If someone has a go at you, purely verbally, are they guilty of verbal
> assault? >>
>Assault occurs when anyone puts the wind up anyone else. Threats, even over
>the phone, count, but they must be more than polite requests to turn round, or
[ truncated by list-digester (was 17 lines)]
>which depends on the circumstances, but key-stealing is well on the way.
>The average policeman does not understand NGRs, or UCRs for that matter.
Don't forget battery. That occurs when your car won't start, or you
can't remember where you put the pencells for your Walkperson and it's
nearly time for the Archers.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Scott <scotbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 08:02:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Points of law
I'll look this up tonight, but as far as I know, if someone "causes
you to feel threatened or intimidated" (I forget the exact words),
they are guilty of Assult.
I think that 'self defence' is a valid legal defence, but that would
be valid only if you you caused them to feel that they or their
property were threatened. I don't think that 'self defence' could be
stretched as far as to allow them to threaten you with a pitch fork
though.
Scott.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 22:27:17 -0000
Subject: Re: Now I am cross
Me no rite yet. me phone his boss and tell him they all tossas. Act
togeter now or big poo in fan will happen.
Boss say velly good. Thak you for bringing to attantion. Not good enough.
Lower order should remain nutural in dispute.
Me think him plenty experience crafty bastard and him just say rite fing.
Me drafting big poo and not wait for prat-itude.
Arse'ole
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 11:18:41 -0500
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
> 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
I was going to add "apart from that it was OK." which it was.
We do need the co-operation of all, and it is appalling no help is coming
for your PI, but we are all under resourced and under informed.
If you post details here, I will copy to the GLASS list, but there's still
no promise of assistance unfortunately.
You were being selective - as I said *some* ;-)
I really do think we are getting more, and need much more, inter group
co-operation, on both fighting PIs/antis and avoiding perceived conflicts,
and sorting any real conflicts.
I hope we can have more BHS, BDS, CTC and even open-minded RA people on the
list.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Brian Lewis <brian@limb.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 16:32:00 +0000
Subject: Re: Points of law
In message <bulk.12347.19990302080118@Land-Rover.Team.Net>, Scott
<scotbot@yahoo.com> writes
>to feel threatened or intimidated"
I think you are looking for 'To feel fear of physical violence' but I
think you have to have felt it twice. This part of the new Stalkers law.
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 16:45:01 +0000
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
Chris Marsden wrote:
> > 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
> I was going to add "apart from that it was OK." which it was.
Chris, you're forgiven, :>)
> We do need the co-operation of all, and it is appalling no help is coming
> for your PI, but we are all under resourced and under informed.
> If you post details here, I will copy to the GLASS list, but there's still
> no promise of assistance unfortunately.
Corporation Bank, Peterborough. Land ranger 142, TF 1735 0680 to the
Cambs/Lincs boundary at TF 2140 0920. Old road on top of a flood defence bank.
1795 Act (not inclousure award) described it as toll road, horse & carriage
etc. Described as road in FA valuation book. Plot uncoloured. Toll lapsed in
1954 as not viable. Current user approx 30% vehicle. First PI confirmed byway
status, OMA did not put widths on order so second PI (April) is into widths,
but we all know what can happen at 2nd PI's.
> You were being selective - as I said *some* ;-)
> I really do think we are getting more, and need much more, inter group
> co-operation, on both fighting PIs/antis and avoiding perceived conflicts,
> and sorting any real conflicts.
> > Sue Jeggo
Yes. We are all working to the same end - more access. Just different modes of
using it.
> I hope we can have more BHS, BDS, CTC and even open-minded RA people on the
> list.
Good. So do I, and some more girls, - I see that all the postings are from
chaps, I'm feeling rather left out now, any girls out there?
Sue
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 13:30:53 EST
Subject: Re: PIs for BOAT without motoring involvement
Can I perhaps add a comment on Sue's remarks about going it alone (without
assistance of motoring users) at a PI ?
If the evidence will stand on its own, as I believe it did in the Cambs
Corporation Bank case, and LARA members have no useful evidence to add, there
is no point in them attending. In some cases, where they are involved to no
real purpose, this can prompt unfair claims in the press, and local wind-ups,
resulting in pressure for a TRO.
I agree, most emphatically, that more co-operation between users is needed.
One way I am promoting this is by encouraging CCPR to set up a RoW Focus
Group, which has now met, and the BHS was represented by Anne Lee (and Jim
McQueen if memory serves me well). Other groups including RA and OSS could
usefully be encouraged to take an active role in the CCPR processes in this
area. The CCPR is entirely unbiased in its support of user groups.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 13:30:48 EST
Subject: Re: Sharp Points of law
In a message dated 2.3.99 16:34:26 GMT Standard Time, brian@limb.demon.co.uk
writes:
<< I think you are looking for 'To feel fear of physical violence' but I
think you have to have felt it twice. >>
I think if a pitch fork was used, you would feel it twice.
Seriously, one legal definition of Assault is -
Any act which intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend
immediate and unlawful personal violence.
Relevant Statutes include:
Offences against the person Act 1861
Public Order Act 1936
Conspiracy & protection of property Act 1875
Criminal Justice & Public Order Act 1994
Other Acts may also help.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 18:20:22 -0000
Subject: Re: Points of law
>The average policeman does not understand NGRs, or UCRs for that matter.
>Cheers, tim
So, in the situation that you're in an area which you don't know like the
back of your hand, but you have a GPS and OS map and you get challenged by
someone, how do you tell the average policeman over the phone were you are?
I'm assuming that the person challenging you isn't likely to tell you the
name of the farm you're on, obviously given more time you can provide
directions from a landmark, but you don't always have the time. Are there
any moves for the 999 switchboards to have OS capabilities?
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Susan Jeggo <derek.sue@virgin.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 19:21:25 +0000
Subject: Re: PIs for BOAT without motoring involvement
TimLARA@aol.com wrote:
> Can I perhaps add a comment on Sue's remarks
Yes, Tim, you may, :>)
> about going it alone (without
> assistance of motoring users) at a PI ?
> If the evidence will stand on its own, as I believe it did in the Cambs
> Corporation Bank case, and LARA members have no useful evidence to add, there
> is no point in them attending. In some cases, where they are involved to no
> real purpose, this can prompt unfair claims in the press, and local wind-ups,
> resulting in pressure for a TRO.
Agreed. I was not intending to be critical, merely to correct a comment about
the
BHS & GLEAM. We all need to focus on aims & objectives (and correcting the D
Map)!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: BurgDM@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:05:34 EST
Subject: Re: IT'S WAR!!!!
In a message dated 01/03/99 19:15:27 GMT Standard Time,
hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< 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. >>
BMW eh?
Aren't they owned by Land Rover now?
What you really need is something a bit more robust with, say a bull bar, roll
cage, sill guards, etc. that wouldn't suffer from the minor knocks that life
throws your way. I know, how about a Land Rover? You should be able to get a
runner for the cost of the repairs to your BMW.
Seriously though, you weren't in the PO buying your first tax disc were you?
'Cos that would mean that it was parked outside without any tax...or
insurance!
Darren Burgess
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 17:12:26 -0000
Subject: Re: RA-Suffolk option
Come on Chris, own up./ You're not sleeping are you? You are lying awake
wondering what to occupy our time on next.
Basically you get your papers together and with your legal rep, put the
matter before a judge. Not sure if this is in open court as it is not an
adversarial thing. ADK will know.
Costs should be only what you incur,
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 17:30:44 -0000
Subject: Re: Points of law
<<They point to this is that if someone confronts you and is acting
violently,
it might be possible to point out that they are so far only guilty of
verbal
assault and threatening behaviour (?) and would be guilty of GBH if they
actually did anything with said gardening instrument.
<<They point to this is that if someone confronts you and is acting
Assault in its simplest form is the victim is put in fear of their safety.
That is subjective. ie - 6' 4" rugby player is threatened by Mrs Masters
with a pitch fork is hardly likely to lead Mrs M into the dock. The other
way around would.
If the witch made an attack then she would be liable to prosecution
(without looking it up a weapon makes it aggravated assault I think). If
damage was done then it is ABH, then is real damage is done it is GBH.
Come on Matt. Who has attacked you?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:29:57 -0500
Subject: Rural Rides
> A lane on Mr Spence's land has been uncovered by Sue Taylor, he's
fearful
> of 4x4s and says he'll stop anyone on HIS land. Sue states that the
public
> owns the top soil and the farmer owns the sub soil. Spence says that once
> people have walked on it and it gets muddy that the top & sub soil get
mixed
> up so nobody knows which they're allowed to walk on !, Ho ho !!
> people have walked on it and it gets muddy that the top & sub soil get
And so he should be. 4x4 are the worst thing ever for green lanes. All the
4x4 tractors should be banned!
How ever I hope some 4x4 leisure users will carry on using it when the
evidence is examined to remove the obstruction his type keep putting up to
keep the riff-raff off, that pay for his subsidies and grants! £16 per
week for everyone of us paying into the EU for the CAP I understand.
I am wondering just how a vehicle, such as a Landrover Discovery, 90 etc,
which has a ground clearane of 208 mm or 8.19" is supposed to make such
deep ruts unless he has taken is JCB or Uni-Mog down there first?
Any ideas?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 15:29:59 -0500
Subject: Re: RA-Suffolk option
> fairly quickly, and irrelevant objectors, firemen, and turnip planters
would
> not have a look in. Why don't we use it all the time?
Sounds well worth investing in a joint user approach, perhaps one with
excellent evidence to start with, possibly with good legal advice to ensure
it all goes smoothly, and build on the experience.
There is another locked gate no more than a mile away from Upper Lye....
also has a locked gate. Also on an IA as a public Carriage road. Was on
the handover maps I seem to recall. Also on the previous county road map.
Was probably published in the local paper for the Ribbon development act.
Pre 1835 (BC?) I suspect a BOAT application has been submitted recently,
but is obviously Nettlecombed. Sure to be excluded from ownership on the
FA Incremental duty maps..... are we about there yet? Slap bang in the
middle of BBG hoodlum country, where they drive you off the road if your
4x4 hasn't got wheels 6ft diameter.
How would one go about getting one's costs? Would one have to give the HA
notice first, to ask them to put it on the LoS, or is it a No Win
situation?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Mark Smith" <MarkSmith@dataip.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 21:44:19 -0000
Subject: Re: Points of law
> >The average policeman does not understand NGRs, or UCRs for that matter.
> >Cheers, tim
> Are there any moves for the 999 switchboards to have OS capabilities?
In Staffs, there is a scheme promoted by the emergency services,
where occupants of remote buildings are informed of their NGRs to
quote in the case of need. It is used to reduce response times. So,
in Staffs at least, it should help.
Regards
Mark
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 20:16:17 -0000
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
<< I'm feeling rather left out now, any girls out there?>>
Sue, you have my sympathies, and I'm sure you are not alone as most of the
RoW people I deal with are female. But does gender matter. The list is
about access for all.
Just in case anyone was looking for a pun or some other humour I was
serious (for once)
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 17:01:27 EST
Subject: Re: Suzukis in Berkshire
Tim,
In a message dated 01/03/99 11:08:10, you wrote:
<< There is only room for one pedant around here, and I was here first. >>
No you weren't - and if you were, I demand a recount!
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 22:54:50 +0000
Subject: Re: Points of law
At 07:28 02/03/99, Tim wrote:
>Taking keys is theft, and interfering with a motor vehicle.
but might not be if the intention was "only" to prevent immediate further
use of the vehicle, so that the keys were returned to the owner, say in the
post or via the police. That would give rise to a civil claim (assuming
the confiscation was unreaonable), but it wouldn't necessarily be theft,
because there would be no intention to permanently deprive the owner of his
property. (Which is why there is an offence of taking a conveyance, since
in most such incidents, the "taking" is only temporary. "Conveyance",
incidentally, does not include a horse.)
Is interfering with a motor vehicle an offence? There's so much in the
Construction & Use Regs that it wouldn't surprise me.
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 19:35:35 -0500
Subject: Re: A Favour from all List partcipants please
I jestingly wrote:-
> With Asses and Mules in the BHS why do we need gleam?
( After some adverse comments in a BHS publication)
( After some adverse comments in a BHS publication)
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
( After some adverse comments in a BHS publication)
> > We do need the co-operation of all, and it is appalling no help is
coming
> > for your PI, but we are all under resourced and under informed.
> > If you post details here, I will copy to the GLASS list, but there's
still
> > no promise of assistance unfortunately.
> Corporation Bank, Peterborough. Land ranger 142, TF 1735 0680 to the
> Cambs/Lincs boundary at TF 2140 0920. Old road on top of a flood defence
bank.
> 1795 Act (not inclousure award) described it as toll road, horse &
carriage
> etc. Described as road in FA valuation book. Plot uncoloured. Toll lapsed
in
> 1954 as not viable. Current user approx 30% vehicle. First PI confirmed
byway
> status, OMA did not put widths on order so second PI (April) is into
widths,
> but we all know what can happen at 2nd PI's.
Can anyone help? Please contact Sue direct or via RoW list.
>> > I really do think we are getting more, and need much more, inter group
> co-operation, on both fighting PIs/antis and avoiding perceived
conflicts,
> and sorting any real conflicts.
> > Sue Jeggo
Yes. We are all working to the same end - more access. Just different modes
of
using it.
> I hope we can have more BHS, BDS, CTC and even open-minded RA people on
the
> list.
Good. So do I, and some more girls, - I see that all the postings are from
chaps, I'm feeling rather left out now, any girls out there?
Sue <<
<derek.sue@virgin.net>
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 00:48:36 -0000
Subject: Re: Points of law
>Come on Matt. Who has attacked you?
>Dave Tilbury
No-one yet (well not recently) but I've been needling Mick for a while so
it's only a matter of time :-))
Seriously, I've been challenged a couple of times on lanes, not with any
suggestion of violence I must stress, however there's always a chance things
will change for the worst. Whilst I am perfectly capable of retaliating in
kind (a Portsmouth upbringing, mixing with the Navy is a wonderful teacher)
I prefer not to, partly for the sake of my fingers and partly for the
adverse publicity. It's not just for landowners, but also for any
mudpluggers who we come across who don't appreciate having a VR pointed out
to them.
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 29 lines 1246 [forwarded 142 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 887 [content 684 forwarded 133 (cut 9) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990303 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]