[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 99 09:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Survey forms
Surely it would'nt be that hard. How many laners on this list? each takes
2-3 other vehicles on a pre-arranged date. All forms are then copied and
collated.
But is it _really_ a good idea?
The only problem I can foreseee is that the antis would then say 'Look
this proves that there are 35000 4x4s wrecking the countryside seven days
a week, just like we've always said there are'. It wouldnt matter then if
the laning had been done on different days, JP would 'percieve' that it
was an activity proporttional to the number of forms seen being handed
over on the box, ie, the more there are, the worse the 'image'.
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 09:30:01 -0000
Subject: Re: Rural Rides
I started down that road. In conversation the heritage and sports lottery
people were less than enthusiastic on the phone but the literature (which I
still have) was more encouraging.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 99 10:59 GMT
Subject: Re: Survey forms/Downing Street
The more I think of this, the more I'm minded of banana skins. So sorry,
people, for the purposes of publicity, IMV its a big no-no.
BUT......the idea should surely have merit in another arena, namely a
snapshot to prove to _someone_ that mud baths aren't the norm, that there
arent rampant hordes afoot (well there are, but I mean the vehicular ones
;-), and that some sensibleness (?) is needed by some CoCos.
Could we develop the idea on these lines?
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 99 12:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Consultation from DETR and MAFF
Tim wrote
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,a copy of 'Rural England, a discussion document'.
Some of you may see this anyway, others who might like to comment can get a
copy, free, from -
DETR, PO Box 236, Wetherby, W Yorks LS23 7NB
tel: 0870 122 6236, fax: 0870 122 6237
(Yes, the telephone numbers are not 01- numbers.)
Or the website: www.detr.gov.uk
you can reply - with the title 'Discussion Document' - to
rural.development.detr@gtnet.gov.uk
LARA - part of the solution
Tim Stevens, mrdo.>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well for the tightwads amongst you, like me, a non-rip-off number for this
office is 01937-845381
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 99 12:55 GMT
Subject: RUPP 35 Finchampstead 'Warren Lane'
Babtie has sent me (received yesterday, dated 23.02.99...hmmmm) bumph on
this reclassification. Does anyone have any info which might be relevant;
they say its at least a Bridleway, they've loked at Tithe maps 1846,
FA1910 early maps 1761-1811 and OS 1878-present. Seems sewn up :-( but any
other suggestions?
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:53:02 -0500
Subject: RUPP 35 Finchampstead 'Warren Lane'
> FA1910 early maps 1761-1811 and OS 1878-present. Seems sewn up :-( but
any
> other suggestions?
Sorry, its me again, WHAT do FA maps show? If it is not excluded from the
colour wash it will be nigh on impossible to get byway out of it. Except in
a few instances, it wasn't in 1910. What does 25" base map show. If FP,
you might need user to get bridleway out of it.
What do FP4s say, for any other RoW joining it, or even FPs that were
deleted close by because RUPP was there, stated as a road.
Your local friendly helpful RoW office will help you with all of that.
cj
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:53:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Consultation from DETR and MAFF
> Well for the tightwads amongst you, like me, a non-rip-off number for
this
> office is 01937-845381
0870 is a national number, so unless you happen to be Local or Regional
call rate from 01937 area (Wetherby) it will not make any difference - it
is not a Premium or Super premium or Hyper Premium call rate.
What you really need is a good telphone call management system. Gives you
[spamkill: [Ss][Aa][Ll][Ee][Ss]@ input: %s] all that information. Try
www.oak.co.uk or sales@oak.co.uk
http:\\www.detr.gov.uk\
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:53:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Survey forms
> The only problem I can foreseee is that the antis would then say 'Look
> this proves that there are 35000 4x4s wrecking the countryside seven days
> a week, just like we've always said there are'. It wouldnt matter then if
> the laning had been done on different days, JP would 'percieve' that it
> was an activity proporttional to the number of forms seen being handed
> over on the box, ie, the more there are, the worse the 'image'.
I think a better approach may be to accumulate ALL the independent reports
that show that agriculture and forestry, followed by lack of maintenance
wreck many times more lanes than every other source put together.
It may be a valid suggestion, but it could be counterproductive, and
easier to aquire every bit of info published by groups other than laners
(who it might be said have a vested interest). Besides MBB RoW21c and the
RW TRO PI, who has any other report that might be helpful?
This project is ongoing and info is needed now.
Lets also keep challenging gloom to justify their lies, and lobby all MPs
and all other bodies with the facts. Lets accumulate addresses, fax nos,
Email addresses of other groups. Many of the problems are due to
misunderstanding, and a failure to put our message over.
For every obstruction lets make sure about 10 or more different users
report it at least twice a year until removed, and that 6 - 12 other bodies
are informed of these problems every year by all users clubs.
Unless of course no one cares about lanes or our rights?
Chris
ps MD says:-
>>BUT......the idea should surely have merit in another arena, namely a
snapshot to prove to _someone_ that mud baths aren't the norm, that there
arent rampant hordes afoot (well there are, but I mean the vehicular ones
;-), and that some sensibleness (?) is needed by some CoCos.
Could we develop the idea on these lines?
>>BUT......the idea should surely have merit in another arena, namely a
(Would you reserve CoCo for the Countryside Commission, and CC for County
Councils, and cc for cover copy or carbon copy? clear?)
Possibly a survey of lane users, to ask who wants to see mud baths, or
attractive sustainable lanes, or over-surfaced urbanised lanes?
Clive Williams RoW manager for Neath & PT CBC, showed some slides at
Cardiff on Sunday and said "Thats not out of repair" and thats not.... They
are far worse than some shots claimed to be 'damage' by Powys, but he then
went on to show ones that were out of repair. Quite clearly focusses the
mind as to what are the range of acceptable conditions, and a few IPROW
members in agreement with our interpretation, would be far more
profitable time than collecting users forms for TB or JP.
Firstly find out what is OOR before deciding what the cause is before
deciding what to do about it.
The CLA agree. "Don't just do something, Stand there"
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 11:53:22 -0500
Subject: Re: Rural Rides
> I started down that road. In conversation the heritage and sports
lottery
> people were less than enthusiastic on the phone but the literature (which
I
> still have) was more encouraging.
It is not Gov policy to promote motoring. Low Key motoring on byways
should be accomodated.
Our Heritage of lanes should be protected.
Try squareing the circle.
To me it seems that some lobbying ideally by multi-users, or failing that
Users that use lanes for multiple purposes, would be most likely to stand
any chance of 'that' support.
If you just say you want to drive/ride a lane, don't expect lots of help
from most HA's. If you want obstructions removed and you also walk, cycle
ride horses, etc, and this inhibits you, you will find it much easier, and
you will get more information sent if you mention l activities that you are
interested in. As a motorist only, you may still have rights, but in the
real world don't expect them to be upheld willingly by people, many of
whom are pejudiced. They will forget to send Orders, or to send invitations
to forums or be fully subscribed.
How many of us are interested in driving lanes ONLY, and don't care about
it's history, sustainability, or being able to use it by other modes than
motoring, or don't want others to? (If so what are you doing here?)
If we do not use, or wish lanes to be used, more by walkers, cyclists,
horses, HD carriages, we might as well stick to the tarmac!
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Mark Smith" <MarkSmith@dataip.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 18:28:38 -0000
Subject: GLD - Staffs Clearance
Rob,
Spoke to Simon Cooper from Staffs & Shrops LRC about getting a
few people together to do this lane clearance in Dilhorne. He will
ring around and hopefully get us 3-4 people who are interested.
You, me , Lee, possibly the other Rob plus the 3-4 from S&SLRC
may be enough to do it in the day.
He will give me a ring back early next week.
Are you going to get something official on paper from Paul Pytlik at
Staffs CC, or do we just go ahead? Could we confirm the insurance
position with him too? I am assuming it is all okay as long as we
only use hand tools.
Which is the preferred day 28 or 29th?
Speak to you later.
Mark
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 15:44:03 -0500
Subject: PCC Indepugnent
Any comments this evening, I propose getting this off by first thing
Friday?
Orleton Manor
Orleton, Nr Ludlow,
SY8 4HR
01 568 780 811
Press Complaints Commission
1Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8AE
By Fax. 0171-353-8355
Phone. 0171-353-1248
4/3/99
Dear Sir,
Re: Complaint - Independent 6/2/99
I am making a complaint regarding an article in The Independent on 6/2/99.
I understand you have a time limit of 1 month in which a complaint may be
made, however I have had to undertake some detailed research to establish
that the article DID give a totally erroneous picture and impression.
I have sent a letter to the editor at the address for ‘letters to the
editor’ by Email 3/3/99, as yet I have had no acknowledgement.
Would you please forward a copy of your Code of Practice, and advise if
there is any reason why such a complaint may not be within your remit.
These are some of the statements from the article:-
The ground is in a dreadful state, with the winter braking records for
rainfall springs are bursting out all where none have flowed before, top
soil is being eroded by the ton, and mud with the consistency of porridge
lies knee-deep in gate-ways trampled by cattle.
Small wonder, then, that land-owners, walkers and riders are at
daggers-drawn with the drivers of 4x4 vehicles which churn green lanes,
bridleways and footpaths into a morass.
The 4x4 vehicles DO NOT churn up bridleways and footpaths. To drive a
motorised vehicle on a bridleway or footpath IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. There
is no suggestion or shred of evidence provided that this has happened. To
even ‘churn up green lanes into a morass' is simply not true. There is no
evidence provided to support this. All independent reports have concluded
that there is NO EVIDENCE of this either. On the contrary, examples
include:-
· The DETR Inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State to determine
whether the calls by Mr Gardiner’s cohorts warranted a ban on motorised
vehicles. The result? Not only was there NO case for a ban, but it
stated "Most Parties now accept that agricultural vehicles have been
responsible for most of the damage to the surface"
· Countryside Commission Rights of Way in the 21st Century:-
· No evidence a widespread problem exists
· No case for a general ban
· Low Key motorised use should be accommodated
· Prosecuting Farmers is not a sufficient deterrent, and considers
withdrawing subsidies
· Blames under performing Highway Authorities for many problems.
· The DETR’s ‘Making the Best of Byways’:-
· Heavy tractors are worst
· Horses and Livestock may cause severe damage
· A major problem is lack of maintenance
· Whilst most leisure use is Spring to Autumn, Horse riders use lanes all
year round.
· Farmers may use MORE lanes intensively in winter
· Encourages minimum use of farm machinery.
· Extols the virtues of the user’s voluntary restraint initiative
· Advises it is improper to show unsubstantiated prejudice against a
particular class of user
· Motorised lane users are more aware of their responsibilities using when
byways.
· That minority interests are not to be disadvantaged
· Complainants blame 4wd for damage when in reality it is caused by
farmers
· Focusing on 4wd would not solve the problem
· Problems do occur when HAs incorrectly record roads as paths or
bridleways.
One notorious theatre of dispute is the Ridgeway; the ancient track that
runs east and west along the summit of the Berkshire Downs: a hiker
recently described the stretch above Marlborough as being like the
battlefield of the Somme.
"A 30-ton articulated lorry is the same in law as a pony and trap," he
says, "and a green lane byway no different from a six lane dual
carriageway."
This is not the case. A six lane dual carriage way is likely to be a
"Special Road" that prohibits walkers, and a 30-ton articulated lorry,
unlike a 4wd car, on a green lane could clearly lead to prosecution under
HA80 s59.
Skirmishes between the two sides are going on all over the country; and
nowhere more vigor-ously than in Herefordshire, where the county council is
considering nearly 20 applications to have paths and bridleways declared
Boats -Byways Open to All traffic.
The council have accepted many roads are incorrectly classified as
bridleways, which are in law already vehicular highways and should be
corrected on the Definitive Map of RoW.
The Act expressly denies councils the right to take into consideration any
impact on environ-ment, wildlife, amenity or archae-ology: decisions must
be based entirely on evidence gleaned from historical records. when a
decision is announced, objectors may call for a public inquiry; and they
have a month in which to prepare counter-claims; but the inspectors who
preside over the inquiry are equally bound by history; and they may not
take environmental considerations into account.
This is grotesquely distorted. The Act replaces the flawed 1968
Countryside Act which tried to consider suitability and legal rights, and
was torpedoed by the courts (Riley Case) and subsequently after very
careful consideration by parliament in the WLCA 1981, where the legal
status is determined by evidence, and the suitability or otherwise is
determined under s14 of the RTA 1988, or its then predecessor.
The 4x4 clubs are well-funded, and they've retained a lawyer who can
devote a major percentage of his time to this work
This is another of ‘Dr.’ Harrisson’s oft repeated lies. He is well aware
that this is not the case. I therefore ask you to identify the person, and
establish their qualifications.
I would also like to have ‘Dr.’ Harrison’s qualification to that title
verified.
Yet even he (David Keown-Boyd) concedes that very few green lanes have been
churned up so far a point made by one of his most active opponents,
"very few" gives the impression that SOME have. The group have never been
able to identify any. We have not, and we have surveyed every single lane,
in North Herefordshire on more than one occasion to monitor any change.
The RoW Officers have confirmed there are none. It is absolutely safe to
conclude without any proof forthcoming that there is none. If you have
proof please provide it.
Chris Marsden, co-ordinator of the Marches Historic Lane Preservation
Group, which is directing the research in county archives.
This is not true. I am not conducting research or directing any other
people to do so in these lanes. This has been done by the applicant alone,
and will be the duty of the County Council to further investigate.
He contends that the damage to such lanes is "fairly light from any sort of
vehicles", and that "in most counties there is absolutely none from
recreational vehicles". Almost all the damage that does occur; he
maintains, is done by farm tractors and trailers, and by the 4x4 trucks of
the utility com-panies and so on.
Indeed, he claims that most lanes would positively benefit from an increase
in recreational traffic of between 10- and 50-fold, and should be promoted
as a "leisure re-source". Such extra use, he be-lieves, would help keep
ancient routes clear and maintain their character He is, of course,
"ab-solutely against any form of tres-pass", but equally he has no doubt
that: "People who want to keep the public away from their little bit of
olde England - they're the menace."
This is an important part of my complaint. The above is quite correct.
Due to the accompanying faked representation of agricultural damage
purported as leisure user damage, it makes the above statement, appear to
be condoning the deplorable damage that has occurred, and suggesting users
would wish to see it compounded. (The above is very selective part of what
was discussed, although I make no complaint of this, but Mr Hart-Davis did
not divulge his intended biased angle of reporting, claiming not to have
heard of Gleam, which I understand is not the case.)
Mud-pluggers - the true addicts -pay £100 a day or more for instruction in
a really foul environment.
The difficulty is that they actively want what other legiti-mate users of
the countryside most hate - ruts, slippery slopes. water mud up to the
axles; and if they find such amenities freely available in the country they
will take to the lanes in hordes.
I understand the going rate for Off-Road driving is about £15-20 a day, is
often run by farmers, and encouraged as diversification. This is a
perfectly legitimate thing for people to do that wish to get their pleasure
that way, at £20 it provides a low cost days fun. At the exaggerated figure
quoted of £100 a day, Mr Hart Davis’s claim might seem plausible.
The Making the Best of Byways report deals with this matter thus:-
7.3 "It should not be assumed that all motor vehicle users seek [off road
facilities] Trail riders or 4wd drivers who take pleasure in travelling
along historic row are unlikely to drive round a purpose built course and
are more likely to be aware of their rights and responsibilities when using
byways"
The claim of "taking to the lanes in hordes" is patently untrue. His close
neighbour, Ian Brown has illegally erected locked gates on a public road.
Other have followed suit. 27 obstructed, unusable public roads have been
reported to the Highway Authority in the last year. Not a single
unsurfaced green lane is overused in the county by leisure vehicles, a fact
confirmed by the Highway Authority.
The article clearly indicates users or motorised vehicles want to see muddy
conditions. This is complete tosh, to sell an article. Making the Best of
Byways states this is not a widespread problem. It does say some cowboys,
generally not club members and proper maintenance would discourage such
activities. ALL the user groups support this view. I have summarised
above some of the conclusions of Making The Best of Byways should you think
I have been taking quotations selectively.
Yours sincerely,
Chris J Marsden.
Dear Mr Gilbert,
Editor, Hereford Times
4/3/99
To keep you informed of the latest ranting by Dr Harrison, this leader of
the lunatic fringe in Upper Lye, I send you a copy of my complaint to the
PCC, which I hope is self explanatory. Please Email or write/phone if
anything is not perfectly clear. I do not doubt you are being bombarded
with his groups media dribble. If so, these facts may be of assistance.
Yours sincerely
Chris J Marsden.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 99 20:47 GMT
Subject: Re: RUPP 35 Finchampstead 'Warren Lane'
CJ gives us all a good laugh
<<<<Your local friendly helpful RoW office will help you with all of
that.>>>
In this case lfhRoWo=Babtie, and yes the _overwhelming_majority of the
Babtie workers are OK, but they have a Wicked Witch to Watch their Work....
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 13:23:44 -0000
Subject: Re: GOODBYE
From: Elwyn York <Elwyn@ey-eg.demon.co.uk>
Subject: GOODBYE
>Dont work too hard!
Well if the members of this list don't work too hard for the protection of
our lanes then who is going to do it for us and everyone else both current
and future.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Hugh Craddock <hugh.craddock@cwcom.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 22:17:21 +0000
Subject: Re: Points of law
><<<<<but it wouldn't necessarily be theft,
>because there would be no intention to permanently deprive the owner of
>his property.>>>>
But surely this would have to be clearly understood by both parties (?and
recorded?) before the handover of property?.
>My reading of such a handover would be that it was as a willing gift, and
>the new 'owner' could do what he likes.
Well, I'm no lawyer, but I don't think there needs to be any understanding
in advance. So long as the person taking the keys can show (after the
event) that he had no intention to "permanently deprive the owner", that
ought to be enough. After all, the average joyrider has no "understanding"
with the owner of the vehicle taken, but is prosecuted (if at all) for
taking a conveyance, not theft.
Hugh
--
Hugh Craddock
(Epsom, Surrey)
hugh.craddock@cwcom.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 16:15:53 -0000
Subject: Re: RUPP 35 Finchampstead 'Warren Lane'
Is this the lane along side Warren Lodge?
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 99 05:12 GMT
Subject: Re: RUPP 35 Finchampstead 'Warren Lane'
<<<<<<<<Is this the lane along side Warren Lodge?>>>>
Yes...according to Babtie the eastern end of WLane was moved to pass
around the northern side of Warren Lodge sometime between 1846 and 1878,
but gave no evidence about public rights along WLane. Inclosure Route
carries staright on.
Lemme guess, WLodge is owned by ????????????
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 16 lines 864 [forwarded 33 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 715 [content 601 forwarded 33 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990305 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]