[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990320 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Charlietrf@aol.com
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 06:15:48 EST
Subject: Acronyms, on Rural Whitepaper List.
Thought the list might find this set of extracts amusing too:
Detrimental to National Public Access.>>
[was sent in final reply to the thread:]
<<Could contributors please cut down on the TLA & FLA's please.
There are 9 in this message, and it does nothing aid communication.
Chris Pike (I'm just a simple country lad)
TLA = Three Letter Acronym
FLA = Four Letter Acronym>>
[which got an original reply of]
<< What's wrong with an ARD? (Acronym Rich Document?)
Gnome 11>>
[and a return of]
<<There's nothing wrong with ARD's - I just don't understand what people are
talking about sometimes (thank you whoever explained SUSTRANS - and how
many people know what the YDNPA is?).>>
The general sentiment of the original mailing could well apply to this list
sometimes too.
Regards
Charlie.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990320 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Mike Thomas <miket@sqf.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 11:42:41 +0000
Subject: Re: HA80 s56
TimLARA@aol.com wrote:
> Although the only definition of founderous I have quoted is about horses, it
> is clearly possible for a footpath to be foundrous. In any case, the term
> foundrous is not in the law, it merely needs to be 'out of repair'. I suggest
> that substantially inonvenient for any of the range of ordinary users entitled
> to use it. Mud that will pull your wellies off cannot possibly be 'in repair -
> how about grannies & toddlers f''revans sake.
As a wheelchair user, I can vouch for the fact that it doesn't take much
mud before I get terminal wheelspin )-:
I try to stick to non-muddy paths when out by myself as it could get
quite serious otherwise.
Mike
ps. I object to the standard retort of 'you shouldn't travel alone' as I
prefer to assess and take risks myself rather than be mollycoddled in a
sterile world! (could that be *why* I'm in a wheelchair now?! ):
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990320 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 07:05:50 -0500
Subject: Re: Oareborough Hill
I had a call today from Rhoda Barnet, Babtie, Consultants who advise WB
Council. THEY have advised that a Temp TRO is put on to enable repairs,
because of the danger due to deep mud. It will be up to WB DC to decide if
the TRO is to be permanent.
The only point where the mud is the problem is where the two RUPPs meet. A
group of 4wd got stuck and they used a tractor to get them out. They are
working with the L/O who uses a little bit of the track joining it at one
point and leaving it a little bit further along to get from one field to
another.
It is not a question of putting a bit of stones down, they have to remove a
lot of clay, then put a membrane down then a sub layer, the a top layer…….
I asked there are tracks going into adjacent fields? Yes the 4wd have
driven off the tracks to get round where the track is impassable. There
has been a lot of trespass.
Is this unique or typical? This is fairly typical of many roads in
Berkshire damaged by 4x4 on the clay soil.
WB contact is Bruce Lousley 01 635 42400. (swbd)
The details above are at total variance with my opinion when walking it in
Feb. I think the crops from a field were taken off via this lane, the L/O
uses conventional 4x4 to access his fields, and medium sized 4x4 tractors
as well. The tractor marks are not consistent with being used to pull some
vehicles out once, but repeated access. The track through the wood has no
public rights but go off some distance - is this claimed trespass? (If so,
why no fence or notices?) The leisure 4x4 are not capable of causing this
level of damage.
There has undoubtedly been some irresponsible leisure use made. A seasonal
ban might seem practical if an effective repair can not be effected. I
fail to see the repairs outlined are in keeping, traditional necessary or
effective. The impression I got was they will make totally unsuitable
repairs, based on erroneous information, and pre-conceived ideas, at far
greater cost than is necessary. The closeness of gloom to this, and the
possible financial beneficial implications to gloom members, in possibly
several respects, the autocratic and apparent bias of the consultants who
advise and carry out the work is very disturbing.
What a wonderful example of quixotic philanthropy; Babtie get paid to
maintain the roads AND RoW, but by advising WB to apply T/TRO at no expense
to them, they remove not only the need to spend money maintaining roads,
but get rid of the traffic as well, or am I misjudging the situation
Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? (Who Will Guard Themselves the Guardians?)
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990320 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Scott <scotbot@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 08:54:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Bewdley, Worcs routes being closed?
I saw the post below in dejanews:
>Spotted this in the paper:
"A clampdown is ought on 4x4 driving on two country tracks around
Bewdley."
"Town councillors have agreed to recommend to Worcestershire County
Council that only private access and emergency vehicles should be
allowed on routes from Chestnut Wood to Worcester Way and across
Burlish Top."
"The county council asked for comments after discovering vehicles had
a right of way along the bridleway and footpath."
I don't know the routes concerned, but thought this news ought to be
brought to a wider audience. I'll find the address to send those
'comments' to, if anyone's interested in keeping these routes open.
I hope that by the time I get another Landy, I'll still have
somewhere to drive it :)Regards,
Jon Manton, (who misses his '68 swb IIA 'Elsie')Kidderminster, England.
I though someone might be interested.
scott.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990320 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 20:58:06 -0000
Subject: Re: Oareborough Hill
Babtie will understand that they are constructing a surface suitable for
heavy tractors, at public expense and then, following TRO solely for
landowners use.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990320 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: howard.neal@which.net
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 22:42:15 +0000
Subject: Re: Oareborough Hill
> I had a call today from Rhoda Barnet, Babtie, Consultants who advise WB
> Council. THEY have advised that a Temp TRO is put on to enable repairs,
> because of the danger due to deep mud. It will be up to WB DC to decide if
> the TRO is to be permanent.
They will try their best.
> The only point where the mud is the problem is where the two RUPPs meet. A
> group of 4wd got stuck and they used a tractor to get them out. They are
> working with the L/O who uses a little bit of the track joining it at one
> point and leaving it a little bit further along to get from one field to
> another.
Very convenient but this doesn't explain why the tractor tyremarks show
that a
tractor has made several abortive forays up the steep banks at the sides
of the
lower track and turned the whole lower area into a quagmire.
> It is not a question of putting a bit of stones down, they have to remove a
> lot of clay, then put a membrane down then a sub layer, the a top layer…….
They always try to make it sound hard (and expensive) and totally beyond
volunteer labour.
> I asked there are tracks going into adjacent fields? Yes the 4wd have
> driven off the tracks to get round where the track is impassable. There
> has been a lot of trespass.
B*ll*cks, the only tyre tracks in adjacent farmland belong to the 4x4
used by
the gamekeeper to carry feed for his birds (and I've photographed a
nearby
footpath he has chewed up as well). You have seen the area Chris. How
could
you bypass the muddy bit, the land on both sides is thick with trees and
there
are no wheel tracks to support this at all (apart from the game keepers
vehicle). There is no point in straying off the track anywhere else
because
the lane is in still good condition even after a very wet winter.
Babtie must
think we were born yesterday.
> Is this unique or typical? This is fairly typical of many roads in
> Berkshire damaged by 4x4 on the clay soil.
Where are they?
> The details above are at total variance with my opinion when walking it in
> Feb. I think the crops from a field were taken off via this lane, the L/O
> uses conventional 4x4 to access his fields, and medium sized 4x4 tractors
> as well. The tractor marks are not consistent with being used to pull some
> vehicles out once, but repeated access. The track through the wood has no
> public rights but go off some distance - is this claimed trespass? (If so,
> why no fence or notices?) The leisure 4x4 are not capable of causing this
> level of damage.
Here, here!
> There has undoubtedly been some irresponsible leisure use made. A seasonal
> ban might seem practical if an effective repair can not be effected.
Agreed
> I fail to see the repairs outlined are in keeping, traditional necessary or
> effective. The impression I got was they will make totally unsuitable
> repairs, based on erroneous information, and pre-conceived ideas, at far
> greater cost than is necessary. The closeness of gloom to this, and the
> possible financial beneficial implications to gloom members, in possibly
> several respects, the autocratic and apparent bias of the consultants who
> advise and carry out the work is very disturbing.
[ truncated by list-digester (was 12 lines)]
> to them, they remove not only the need to spend money maintaining roads,
> but get rid of the traffic as well, or am I misjudging the situation
I think you have summed it up perfectly.
Regards,
Howard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990320 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 00:00:40 -0000
Subject: Name and shame
Hi
If you care go to the page indicated below, which is not available directly
from the site, yet, you will find some anti GLEAM propaganda. Is it worth
me pursuing this 'attack'?
Comments. I don't want to upset anyone.
Dave Tilbury
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk/nands.htm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990320 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk (David Goode)
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999 13:20:26 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Re: Ownership
Hi, Sue
> They say they cannot divulge details they may or may not have because of the
Data Protection
> Act. Is this correct?
We never give out details of landowners nor of complainants as a
matter of policy; there are occasions where such information would
lead to intimidation or violence and it is safer to have a blanket
refusal to divulge such information. The main problem we have is
getting the information ourselves, we normally ask locals, look in
the electoral register, phone book, etc. and sometimes ask land
registry (not very often much help in agricultural parts).
cheers
David Goode davidg@hwcces.demon.co.uk
Environmental Services Dept
Hereford and Worcester County Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990320 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 8 lines 406 [forwarded 52 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 357 [content 246 forwarded 48 (cut 4) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990320 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]