[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990327 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 08:31:40 -0000
Subject: Re: Alleged Public Carriage Road/Public Footpath M168 : Heronfield to
Chadwick Lane,
I feel the numbered paragraphs is a bit aggressive. Otherwise, we need to
know.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990327 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Dave Tilbury" <Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 08:35:40 -0000
Subject: Re: Week in week out BBC1
<<and the branches in te lane are 'just how they fell' >>
It is still an offence to allow a continued obstruction even though that
person may not have been the cause of the obstruction.
"It is clear that the offence of obstruction is a continuing one, i.e. the
obstructer commits the offence by failing to remove the obstruction just as
much as by putting it up in the first place." (Abel V Stone (1969) - a
Dorset case, Verwood.
Dave Tilbury
Dave@hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
http://www.hants-lanes.demon.co.uk
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990327 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 99 11:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Best Free Entertainment today.....
Sent as soon as I could read my notes this morning :-)))))))
'You submit do you? D'yer want more?', as some fount of knowledge was
heard to say recently ;-)
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990327 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 99 13:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Week in week out BBC1
I just viewed the tape (thanks to mandgtennat@cix) and
<<<<Actually that very very nice Mr Fish>>>>
Yes he came over as very reasonable ;-) - glad B forB didnt have anyone
around of his calibre, the score would perhaps have been a little less
one-sided
<<<<<<He has A UCR running through hs Fm, Hoddle Farm. >>>
NGR please Chris?
<<<<He said he had no knowledge of it once or twice when we went there. He
gets his Mrs to stand out making it obvious that she is writing your number
down,>>>
So maybe he wouldnt appear quite so reasonable if someone were to film
Mrs.S whilst she were doing this, and the subsequent conversation 'Hello,
Mrs. S., may I ask why you are taking my number?' 'Its illlegal to drive
down there' 'Really, please _do_ tell me all.....
Since his 15 minutes of fame on TV were captioned 'CLA' maybe they would
take a greater interest in jerking his leash in the face of a complaint.
<<<<< I do have sympathy with the view, how do you exclude people from
non F2Rareas, and I made that point in a response.>>>
Agreed re R2R.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990327 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Seymour, Gareth" <gareth.seymour@sihe.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 13:50:43 -0000
Subject: something fishy on "Week in week out"
I think its time for a letter to the BBC pointing out that he can cause
problems. His views are not neccesarily those of the CLA and could be
more biased than they appear.
Next time I watch the tape I may take some notes.
TTFN
Gareth
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990327 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999 15:32:43 -0500
Subject: Re: Week in week out BBC1
> Yes he came over as very reasonable ;-) - glad B forB didnt have anyone
> around of his calibre, the score would perhaps have been a little less
> one-sided
They are the more dangerous ones.
Remebering at all time this is an OPEN debating channel, unlike the anti
access brigade (Evening all)
> <<<<<<He has A UCR running through hs Fm, Hoddle Farm. >>>
> NGR please Chris?
SO 253 646 to 254 643
No his son farms the other end of Ackwood lane 237 656 to 235 649. (That we
cleared). It is a Pb CR under recorded as BW, ackwood lane is very
overgrown.
> <<<<He said he had no knowledge of it once or twice when we went there.
> NGR please Chris?
He
> gets his Mrs to stand out making it obvious that she is writing your
number
> down,>>>
> Since his 15 minutes of fame on TV were captioned 'CLA' maybe they would
> take a greater interest in jerking his leash in the face of a complaint.
He is shown as the Regional secretary for the CLA 01 547 560 484, (Fax 493)
in the business section of phone book, listed under CLA! (hence the PDQ
removal of his illegal obstruction, after I spoke with Dr Alan Woods)
He must just be a bad loser. What disturbs me is the biased comments
coming from someone on the Powys RoW forum.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990327 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 99 23:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Week in week out BBC1
CJM says
They are the more dangerous ones.
Remebering at all time this is an OPEN debating channel, unlike the anti
access brigade (Evening all)
Dinna worry laddie I'll stop short of slander but there's no harm in
letting 'people' know *some* of what they can expect......who knows, it
*might *make them stop and think, but I'm no going doon the bookies on
that one......
> <<<<<< Hoddle Farm. >>>
> NGR please Chris?
SO 253 646 to 254 643>>>>>>
> <<<<<< Hoddle Farm. >>>
TVM
> <<<<<< Hoddle Farm. >>>
(hence the PDQ removal of his illegal obstruction, after I spoke with Dr
Alan Woods)
(hence the PDQ removal of his illegal obstruction, after I spoke with Dr
What - you mean the system works......????
(hence the PDQ removal of his illegal obstruction, after I spoke with Dr
He must just be a bad loser. What disturbs me is the biased comments
coming from someone on the Powys RoW forum.
(hence the PDQ removal of his illegal obstruction, after I spoke with Dr
So at some point we will have enough EVIDENCE to take it to TPTB and cry
foul....
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990327 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 99 23:14 GMT
Subject: HCC and EMail; BBC Countryfile programme
I received this today from HCC, would anyone care to comment <cue:CJM>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
Dear Mr Dyer,
I received yesterday your E-mail message concerning the CountryFile
programme, which was passed to me for reply.
I can inform you that very recent research has led the Director of
Environment of Herefordshire Council to the conclusion that these routes in
Upper Lye (for there are three distinct parts) are probably public
highways.The evidence which has led to this belief is based on the
Inclosure Awardsfor the parishes of Aymestry and Kingsland and Wigmore,
the Tithe maps forthese parishes and the 1910 Finance Act maps together
with other supportingevidence. The Herefordshire Council will shortly be
considering whether toinclude these routes in the county's list of streets.
Herefordshire Council did admit in response to a notice served on the
Council under section 56 of the Highways Act (1980) that the route that was
the subject of the CountryFile programme was a highway. However,
Herefordshire Council did not make this statement as a consequence of any
independent research. It was made, at the time, in the knowledge that the
former Hereford and Worcester County Council had already admitted that the
route was a highway. Hereford and Worcester County Council had previously
determined an application for a modification order to record the route in
the definitive map and statement as a byway open to all traffic.
There is no intention at present to prosecute anyone in relation to the
obstruction of this route, the Director of Environment having only very
recently come to the conclusion that it is probably a public highway. The
Director will however be seeking the removal of the obstructions in due
course, if the members of the Council are in agreement that the route is a
public highway.
The determination of the application for a modification order by Hereford
and Worcester County Council was made before the 'Nettlecombe' case was
decided by the High Court. Once reports of this decision were available it
became clear to officers of Hereford and Worcester County Council and
subsequently to officers of the newly formed Herefordshire Council that, if
the order were made, it would almost certainly fail. The Council would
thenbe liable for substantial costs incurred by the objectors as a result
of thedecision to make the order. The order has not yet been made and
subject toa decision to add these routes to the list of streets it will
not need to bemade, the recording of the routes on the list of streets
bypassing thedifficulties created by 'Nettlecombe'. However, this will be
a matter formembers of the Council to decide.
The Director of the Environment will be advising Mr Brown that he considers
that the available evidence shows that this route is, in all probability, a
public highway.
I understand that the former Hereford and Worcester County Council supplied
and erected a gate on the line of the route that was the subject of the
CountryFile programme. This was done in ignorance of the application for a
modification order and the evidence that existed in support of that
application. To the best of my knowledge this gate was not supplied with a
padlock and there was no intention that the gate should be locked.
When the gate was erected as part of the furniture for the Lingen loop of
the Mortimer Trail, the former Hereford and Worcester County Council had
notdetermined the application for a modification order. Nothing was
recordedin the definitive map and statement and there was no conclusive
evidencethat public rights existed along the line of the route at that
time.
I understand that the Herefordshire Council has taken on a long-standing
arrangement between the landowner and the former Hereford and Worcester
County Council and that the Council pay him a token annual fee of £5.
Officers of Hereford and Worcester County Council made this arrangement
withthe landowner in ignorance of the application for a modification order.
Again, it is worth remarking that at the date of the agreement, the
application for a modification order had not been determined, there were no
public rights recorded in the definitive map and statement and there was no
conclusive evidence that public rights existed along the line of the route.
The published response time for written inquiries to this authority is 15
working days, facsimile messages and E-mails are recorded as being received
on the first working day after the date of the communication.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990327 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 8 lines 456 [forwarded 80 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 363 [content 268 forwarded 80 (cut 0) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990327 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]