[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Mike Thomas <miket@sqf.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 12:58:14 +0000
Subject: Re: Dere Street
Michael Dyer wrote:
> Dere Street is not a monument at all, it is an ancient Right of Way with
> modern Rights and obligations. If English Nature should be minded to
> reclassify it as a National Monument then everyone would suffer, since no
> person, animal or artifact would presumably have access to it.>>>>>>>>>
Note that this section is in Scotland so Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)
or The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of
Scotland (RCAHMS) will be more appropriate to reference.
Both of these bodies seem active in the Corrieyairack access dispute but
the 'ancient monument' issues there seem centred around a couple of
bridges.
> Its not a strong argument but it might make them tighten up on their
> emotive approach.
I'm with you here - they haven't got any sensible sort of argument
Mike
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:25:27 -0500
Subject: Countryfile/ Obstruction
If anyone saw a program on television yesterday of an obstructed road, with
some large gates, they may wish to know who could answer any further
questions. The following might be some of the questions that spring to
mind. Please post any letters sent or received.
;-)
Chris
Mr Neil Pringle,
Chief Executive
Herefordshire Council
Brockington
35 Hafod Road
Hereford
HR1 1SH
Fax 01 432 340 189
Email mdavies@herefordshire.gov.uk
Dear Mr Pringle,
I saw on television yesterday a Mr Brown admit that HE erected gates on a
road at Upper Lye, as "he had them laying about spare".
Could you tell me please, is this road a highway, as was also claimed on
the program?
Has your Council made an admission to a HA80 s56 notice that it is a
highway and that your Council is the responsible authority?
If so, will you be prosecuting, now you have an admission of who has
obstructed the highway?
If not considered a highway, can you explain why councillors have passed a
resolution to make an order to modify the DM to BOAT?
Has this order been made yet, if not, who has interfered with, or delayed a
resolution of the Council?
If the council has made such a resolution, will you be correcting Mr Brown
that he was not telling the truth in saying "The Council has been unable to
find any evidence that it is a Right of Way"
Would you confirm if the 5ft bridleway gate at the other end of this lane
with a "Hereford & Worcester County Council" sign on, is supplied or was
erected by the council?
If so, why should a gate be supplied, then padlocked? If it is supplied at
the public expense, should it not be available for use by the public?
If you were in receipt of the modification order application when the 5ft
gate was erected, was it not a waste of money, and potentially illegal to
erect a gate on a "Public Carriage Road"?
Can you confirm if your council are paying the person who has admitted
obstructing this public road for part of Mortimers Trail Long Distance path
to be routed over it?
If so, would you justify this please.
Yours sincerely,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:26:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Independent/ PCC
> <<<<<<<<There can be no doubt that was misleading by showing tractor
> damage and claiming it to be leisure user.
Thanks for your helpful posting, Mick. Unfortunately I was unable to open
RUTS3 I wonder if you could try again Dave, (perhaps as a Jpeg) it could be
important to have all this info, I think this is a strong case we have for
exposing gloom lies.
I sent Howard's 'Somme' photos with 8 proofs of tractor damage highlighted
to PCC today.
(Inderepugnant called today, they had difficulty getting fax, so I
explained I was faxing a complaint - he sounded quite surprised!)
What can/should you do now on s56? I would suggest asking
"Does your Authority agree that the ways described are Out of Repair or ?
If so please provide details of your proposals to repair these roads, and
the time frames in which this work will be completed. Please will you also
give details of steps that will be taken to ensure the repairs will be
adequate to cater for the heavy agricultural equipment that is now using
thee roads. Do you have any assessment of the volume and type of usage,
leading to the damage sustained?"
Perhaps anyone else would comment on this approach?
Would a local or national AWDC representative, GLASS and TRF make a
complaint on headed paper along the lines:-
Mr Adam Heard
Press Complaints Commission
1Salisbury Square
London
EC4Y 8AE
By Fax. 0171-353-8355
Phone. 0171-353-1248
Dear Sir,
It has been brought to our notice by (a number?) of our members that the
article in the Independent Newspaper dated 6/2/99, unfairly, and
misleadingly describes damage to a public unsealed road at Oarborough Hill
as being caused by leisure 4x4 vehicles.
This is most detrimental to the interests of clubs, who have worked hard
to ensure legitimate users cause no inconvenience to any other user, to
have a distorted article printed by a pressure group, Gleam is not helpful.
These club efforts have been accepted and welcomed by the DETR.
Other members of our club have inspected these roads independently, and
conclude all substantive damage is caused by large agricultural machinery.
Yours sincerely
Can anyone from these clubs arrange this?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:26:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
> Thing is, we've been co-operating like nice compliant citizens for years,
> and all it has achieved is a rash of TROs and no help at all with illegal
> obstructions.
The overiding point to remember is that RoW depts are *usually* on the
users side, often for all status ways equally, (not always the case in
highways - depends on officers and managers ie John Owen Powys strongly
opposed to any vehicular use of his UUCRs)
Councillors are invariably against higher rights and often any rights.
Councillors are nearly always behind TROs. They 'ASK' the officers to apply
them. They can make officer's lives very difficult if they do no comply.
You have to be a lying, devious, bullshitter that can duck, dive, pass the
blame, and grab all the glory going, if you are to be a successful
councillor.
So treat officers with great respect, but do give them the ammunition to
help you,
ie solutions to problems, (VR where helpful- and VR does not have to
prevent use) reports of obstructions etc.
Call then on the fone, you will get lots more background info, if they know
who you are, and you make the right noises. The same might apply to
councillors, and pigs fly.
Remember VR should be tried first, can be flexible, - one way, numbers in
convoy, don't use when wet, speed, weight, width..... (What you are
probably doing already anyway, but it is a reminder to tramplers and
coboys that clubs do not regard that as the norm.)
If you can't devise a VR that allows ALL normal local use to take place,
then there must be a big problem.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 99 14:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Dere Street
The aforementioned Mick Dyer will now try and brazen out his typical
Sassenach sense of geography............
Of _course_ I know the difference between England and Scotland, I was
just testing, the North of England is the cold wet bit up top and Scotland
is the cold wet bit further up top.
(I'll just get me coat)
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 99 14:23 GMT
Subject: Re: Independent/ PCC
<<<<<<,Unfortunately I was unable to open
RUTS3 I wonder if you could try again Dave, (perhaps as a Jpeg) it could be
important to have all this info, I think this is a strong case we have for
exposing gloom lies.>>>>>>.
I had the same trouble IE4 was the only software that would allow these to
be viewed, apparently there are 2 flavours of JPEG, PaintShopPro4
(shareware) will do almost anything, it certainly sorted it for me....
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 16:40:09 -0000
Subject: R.O.W.
charset="iso-8859-1"
Please add me to the list. I,m doing research in Staffordshire. If =
anyone else is /has - please let me know.
Andy
------=_NextPart_000_0020_01BE6982.548F6060
[ Original post was HTML ]
[digester: Removing section of: Content-Type: text/html; ]
[Attachment removed, was 20 lines.]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: BurgDM@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:41:14 EST
Subject: Re: RUPP 35 Finchampstead 'Warren Lane'
In a message dated 05/03/99 18:49:01 GMT Standard Time,
doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk writes:
<< GRs are 788645 ESE to just beyond Warren Lodge to 795644 >>
I know where you mean now. Aren't there private houses down there? How will
they fare if the road is classified as a bridleway?
DMB
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: BurgDM@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:41:09 EST
Subject: Re: Suzukis in Berkshire
In a message dated 05/03/99 13:49:14 GMT Standard Time,
mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk writes:
<< Is 10 miles the maximum distance a Suzuki can travel?
Or is it maximum distance that anyone can stand travelling in one???
>>
Its the minimum distance you need to be away from home before risking being
seen in one.
DMB
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 15:04:12 EST
Subject: Re: Inspectors
In a message dated 7.3.99 00:07:38 GMT Standard Time, Byway@Compuserve.com
writes:
<< What does the word turned mean in this context? >>
In modern terms I think you can say turned = diverted.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 15:04:10 EST
Subject: Re: Dere/Deer Street
My understanding is that is is not an ancient monument at all, in any legal
sense.
There are cobbles a foot down under the dirt, and it is being claimed that
riders and drivers will destroy these, but tractors wont. We will still get a
Public Inquiry (in Edinburgh, perhaps, or N St Boswell, in perhaps 6 months.
Or the council might abandon the idea.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 15:04:07 EST
Subject: Re: Suzukis in Berkshire
In a message dated 5.3.99 13:49:14 GMT Standard Time, mbcx4ib1@mail1.mcc.ac.uk
writes (about Suzukis):
<< Or is it maximum distance that anyone can stand travelling in one??? >>
It all depends on whether they have to follow a L*nd R*ver.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 15:04:03 EST
Subject: Re: Survey forms
In a message dated 4.3.99 16:55:33 GMT Standard Time, Byway@Compuserve.com
writes:
<< Lets also keep challenging gloom >>
Ah yes, the Graft, Lies & Obnoxious Obstruction Movement.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 15:03:34 EST
Subject: Re: IT'S WAR!!!!
In a message dated 2.3.99 20:07:43 GMT Standard Time, BurgDM@aol.com writes:
<< Cos that would mean that it was parked outside without any tax...or
insurance! >>
No it wouldn't. Insurance is entirely independent of the taxed or not state of
the machine.
Entirely. By law.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 20:23 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
> The overiding point to remember is that RoW depts are *usually* on the
> users side, often for all status ways equally, (not always the case in
> highways - depends on officers and managers ie John Owen Powys strongly
> opposed to any vehicular use of his UUCRs)
My point is that we are talking about our rights as enshrined in law. The
RoW Depts are there to ensure that these rights are upheld. Mr. Powys
should be removed from office if he is expressing opinions and making
decisions that run contrary to these rights. Remember, the authorities
have a *DUTY* under law to maintain these byways. It's time we stopped
letting them off the hook, every byway that gets closed is lost forever,
it won't be long before we have none left.
> Councillors are invariably against higher rights and often any rights.
> Councillors are nearly always behind TROs. They 'ASK' the officers to
> apply
> them.
See above. Councillors and MPs are *our* representatives.
Of course, we are on the losing end of the tyranny of the majority, which
is why I say we need to actively fight for our rights, not always be
apologetically dancing around on the back foot, defending against unlawful
decisions.
> They can make officer's lives very difficult if they do no
> comply. You have to be a lying, devious, bullshitter that can duck,
> dive, pass the
> blame, and grab all the glory going, if you are to be a successful
> councillor.
Then we should be as strong as it takes to over-come said lying, devious,
bullshitters. We are currently acting weakly, and it ain't working.
> So treat officers with great respect, but do give them the ammunition to
> help you,
Absolutely! Right up to the point where they stop earning that respect,
at which point I would contend we should be the biggest thorn in their
sides that they have ever experienced, going above their heads at every
available opportunity, reporting every last little piece of damage on the
highways for repair, and generally getting them to act like our public
servants, not as some power unto themselves.
> ie solutions to problems, (VR where helpful- and VR does not have to
> prevent use) reports of obstructions etc.
Like the VR that's just been slapped onto 35 miles of the Ridgeway? This
*stinks*, I was up there on Saturday, there's no serious damage at all, I
saw a bog standard Disco on road tyres driving one of the worst sections
without problems.
VRs are not the answer. Back in the early '70s, motorcyclists lost the
fight to be allowed choice of helmets, because the vast majority were
already wearing helmets.
I am *vehemently* opposed to any VR that isn't a short-term measure as a
package of work on a road. Just slapping a VR onto a road and doing
nothing else helps no-one.
> Call then on the fone, you will get lots more background info, if they
> know
> who you are, and you make the right noises. The same might apply to
> councillors, and pigs fly.
I am currently establishing relationships with my local HA RoW dept., with
a view to doing a lot of research around Carmarthenshire, and hopefully
opening up some historic RoW. I have already had one result, being given
a decent historic map of the area that has lots of useful information on.
> Remember VR should be tried first, can be flexible, - one way, numbers
> in
> convoy, don't use when wet, speed, weight, width..... (What you are
> probably doing already anyway, but it is a reminder to tramplers and
> coboys that clubs do not regard that as the norm.)
> If you can't devise a VR that allows ALL normal local use to take place,
> then there must be a big problem.
Sensible use, yes! But VRs present *exactly* the wrong image to the
public. One walker I met on the Ridgeway on Saturday seemed to be of the
opinion that a VR meant no vehicles under any circumstances.
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 22:58:20 -0000
Subject: Dan DeFoe
Hi
Read some interesting RoW related stuff in a DeFoe essay recently. There
follows a book list, including some soft porn [I have your attention,
yes?], or if you prefer, romance. But some titles I do not know. I
currently have little time for reading so wondered if anyone out there
wanted to read one and then report to the list if it contained important
RoW background info - like references to Cross-Roads or bye-lanes.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 21:23:48 -0000
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
Geoff
In a broad sense I agree with you. Hampshire have a reasonably good record
of defending our rights in the past but 'things' are a little delicate in
Hampshire at the moment. Whilst I think it valid that local users/user
reps make their feelings know MD's invite to the nation to bombard the
authority with objections is not currently helpful. If the county receive
a lot of objections from 4x4 users (and those objections pass through
another office prior to reaching CP if faxed) it could strengthen the hand
of the enemy within. MD should realise that not all on the list are
responsible and his request could entice the mischievous to contribute.
There is a need for a 4x4 representative to speak up for 4x4 users. I have
been doing so although it is known that I am a TRF member. Virtually all
Hants TROs ban 3 or more wheels. Speaks for itself dunit.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 18:43:55 -0500
Subject: OareboroughHill again.
Is Oarebourough Hill still a RUPP?
If so, the Road should be used more for the purposes that FPs and BWs are
used?
So if it appears that vehicular damage has occured(!), it is surely
encumbent on the HA to establish who has caused the damage, with a view to
prosecuting under s59 as extraordinary traffic?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 18:44:03 -0500
Subject: Re: RUPP 35 Finchampstead 'Warren Lane'
> I know where you mean now. Aren't there private houses down there? How
will
> they fare if the road is classified as a bridleway?
> DMB
Interesting. If there is a Landowner who is capable of giving authority
they may be OK. They may have negotiated an easement before purchase. It
might be worth asking what rights they have, (knock on a few doors with a
suit and clip-board) to see if they think they bought a hice on a roadway?
A local road into an Estate nr Lingen has a private road sign at the start.
a small bridleway sign painted (The estate wouldn't have an ordinary sign)
invertical lettering. The first 180 yards is UCR on LoS, and goes to the
village hall. How do people drive up to VH, as it is a definitive BW? Is
it with owners permision? Owners won't remove private sign, say to Council
prove it is a public road.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 18:44:09 -0500
Subject: They Listened !
Michael Meacher
Announced there will be a freedom to roam if a voluntary agreement does not
work, but significantly they will have the right to close for a month a
year to allow shoots, repairs etc. One of the measure we suggested as a
quid pro quo.
This seems to disprove the leaks that were being announced this morning.
CLA didn't seem too happy. So what is to be announced on Thursday?
I do have a seat reservation if anyone is still wishing to go and does not
have a seat/info pack reserved.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 18:54:02 EST
Subject: Re: Country File
In a message dated 7.3.99 20:49:52 GMT Standard Time,
mikeandchris.taylor@virgin.net writes:
<< a couple of wet grotty looking blokes
in a wet grotty looking lane. >>
The most useful part, in my view, was what it did not show. Not one inch of
'damage', even though there was a lot of tractoring in a couple of filming
spots. And no mention of gloom. Thanks to Chris for rearranging his day at
very short notice. Just the sort of trick we expect from a stooge, don't you
think?
PS Who said Junketting? We had to buy our own lunch shock horror.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 18:54:06 EST
Subject: Re: Countryfile
In a message dated 7.3.99 21:14:47 GMT Standard Time, Byway@Compuserve.com
writes:
<< The second interview image was reversed. >>
Sorry mate, you must be mistaken. White Disco Man parts his hair on the other
side.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 23:59:35 -0000
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
<< It's time we stopped
letting them off the hook, every byway that gets closed is lost forever>>
And hants know that for every one lost I will claim one - and I will make
that claim where it hurts.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Mark Smith" <MarkSmith@dataip.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 00:20:54 -0000
Subject: Re: R.O.W.
Andy,
This has gone to the list and direct, cuz I don't know if you have
subscribed yet.
> Please add me to the list. I,m doing research in Staffordshire. If =
> anyone else is /has - please let me know.
There are a few of us in Staffs. The ones that spring to mind are
Rob Smith and myself (appologies if I have forgotten who else is in
Staffs).
I am based in the County Town and don't get much time to do any
research, nor any time to do any driving. Rob lives over in
Tamworth and I am sure he will respond separately.
Between us, (and many others) we have found out a fair bit around
here - what is your particular interest and where are you based?
P.S. Do you want to get involved in our Green Lane Day clearance -
just to the East of Stoke-on-Trent?
Mark Smith dataIP Computer Consultants
tel. +44(0)1785 609520 fax. +44(0)1785 609521
smtp:MarkSmith@dataIP.co.uk http://www.dataIP.co.uk/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:21:03 EST
Subject: Re: OareboroughHill again.
In a message dated 8.3.99 23:45:31 GMT Standard Time, Byway@compuserve.com
writes:
<< with a view to
prosecuting under s59 as extraordinary traffic? >>
On the basis, I suppose, that anyone using a Suzuki more than 10 miles from
home is very extraordinary indeed.
Tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 19:21:08 EST
Subject: Re: They Listened !
In a message dated 8.3.99 23:45:46 GMT Standard Time, Byway@compuserve.com
writes:
<< So what is to be announced on Thursday? >>
We now know why Roger Ward was being so extra-coy in saying he couldn't
possibly give us the remotest clue. I suspect he knew what Meacher was about,
and had been sworn to secrecy (Ha ha ha, we know where your granny lives, Mr
Ward...).
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Tom Murkin" <tom@riverside-repairs.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 01:56:52 -0000
Subject: Re: Somerset
>Anyone on the list live in Somerset or with the N. Somerset UA?
Yes - County town of Somerset, but know very little about N.Somerset
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 2:25 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
> In a broad sense I agree with you. Hampshire have a reasonably good
> record
> of defending our rights in the past but 'things' are a little delicate
Well, anything less than 100% record of defending our rights is
dereliction of duty.
> in
> Hampshire at the moment. Whilst I think it valid that local users/user
> reps make their feelings know MD's invite to the nation to bombard the
> authority with objections is not currently helpful. If the county
So, would you advocate not going to the doctor when sick, to save NHS
resources? All MD suggested (and I think I originated the idea in
conversation with him, as it happens) was to do our duty like good
citizens, and report any road damage we come across. Who could object to
that?
> There is a need for a 4x4 representative to speak up for 4x4 users. I
> have
> been doing so although it is known that I am a TRF member. Virtually
> all
> Hants TROs ban 3 or more wheels. Speaks for itself dunit.
There should be no need for any representative. It's not like we're
asking for new roads, or new rights, all we want is to be allowed to drive
roads that have been established for hundreds of years as such. Hell, we
don't really even want the councils to maintain the roads, we can do that
ourselves if need be.
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: geoff@cix.co.uk (Geoff Campbell)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 1999 6:02 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
Subject: Re: Hants - Muddy Lane Hordle
> And hants know that for every one lost I will claim one - and I will
> make
> that claim where it hurts.
Good man! Keep up the good work.
Regards,
Geoff
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:07:30 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: OS - missing white roads
Tim asks
> Is there anyone else out there with an interest in this?
I certainly check whenever I get a n OS map with the new ORPAs shown
against any that I know of although it is regrettable that the fp
symbol takes precedence over OPRA when it is quite feasible to show
both.
cheers
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 31 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 99 07:56 GMT
Subject: Re: RUPP 35 Finchampstead 'Warren Lane'
<<<How will
they fare if the road is classified as a bridleway?>>>
No worries still legal 'for access only'
73s and 88s
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 32 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 31 lines 1247 [forwarded 83 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 917 [content 723 forwarded 83 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990309 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]