[ First Message | Table of Contents | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ Message 1 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 11:46:59 +0100
Subject: Re: STAFFORDSHIRE - SECTION 53 WILDLIFE & COUNTRYSIDE ACT ADDITION TO
D.M.
You've lost me. Is it the CAPITALS you don't like?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 2 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Andy Bailey" <andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 11:47:22 +0100
Subject: Re: STAFFORDSHIRE - SECTION 53 WILDLIFE & COUNTRYSIDE ACT ADDITION TO
D.M.
What do you mean?
From: Bod <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: 07 April 1999 21:47
Subject: Re: STAFFORDSHIRE - SECTION 53 WILDLIFE & COUNTRYSIDE ACT ADDITION
TO D.M.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 3 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 08:16:03 -0400
Subject: Re: GLD Herefordshire.
> Chris..in the light of your new-found co-operation with HCC (and you may
> read into that what you will ;-) would it be viable to get them involved
> re: heavy plant? A Kubota could re-instate a *lot* of ditches over a
> weekend......
Not follow. We do not have many ditches on G/L that need re-instating?
Most is L/O obstructions or neglect or silt. There is no way the anti
councilors would accept that, so officers would say no.
But I will be asking at next weeks meeting what they do intend to do. The
lane I suggested clearing as a major project is in Gwent, the (mainly)
drivable part is in Herefordshire.
I have it on video, Mr GLD co-ordinator, so you can see it, (along with the
vans that took the scramblers to the Ridgeway)
How are we fixed for doing major clearance after end March, considering
there is next to no cutting back of ordinary hedge growth, it is all long
and far to stragley for nesting birds. When can we start again?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 4 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:39:18 +0100
Subject: Re: Sollihul 116 - we are getting there
Spoke to George Kenneth myself, today, and then on to their solicitor
dealing with the matter (Bob Ewens). Said that I required an answer to my
sect.56 notice, NOW!
He undertook to get a reply to me in the very near future, and I said that
should be by close of play tomorrow evening "or the Crown Court gets it" -
application under sect57. I phoned Warwick Crown Court to find out the
cost - I seem to remember Bod saying £23 was demanded from him the other
month - and was told there is no charge for laying the complaint. It was
also confirmed as being the right court for the area.
We wait and see what happens. He did mention that M. Orlik is doing some
investigative work on this for them!
Whereas G Kenneth is able to send copy in advance via e-mail, this person
seems to have great difficulty with the concept. Presumably he still sees no
reason to get rid of his perfectly adequate quill pen.
Richard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 5 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:02:50 -0400
Subject: Bolton continue to play for time on s56
> to sign s56 replies on behalf of the council and asking for him to
provide a
> copy of the committee minutes where this was agreed.
You may have to pay for the copy of the minutes etc. If you are taking it
to MC, it could be one less hurdle to cross if you have it confirmed they
are an authorised signatory. Even if they aren't, and they say they are,
that should be adequate. I have had 4 signatories, so I can be pretty
certain 3 are NOT authorised!
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 6 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:02:48 -0400
Subject: Rochdale Priorities
> I wonder whether a Duty before Power letter is needed?
Just find the Power they are doing like a 116 or an unecessary TRO and you
have your just cause.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 7 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:02:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Sollihul 116 - we are getting there
> OK so how do you do it Chris?
You didn't bother to read the long letter to him? I posted it to the list.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 8 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 12:02:43 -0400
Subject: Re: Ross Lave Lane
> I currently have for vehicular rights is the inclusion on the LoS (even
if
> unadopted) and that the route is shown on a c1930 OS map as 'other
roads'.
> unadopted) and that the route is shown on a c1930 OS map as 'other
Other than what? how can it be un-adopted if on LoS, isn't that adopting
it as Pub Mtce?
What did THEY say about the LoS?
> The whole reason for wanting them to admit that it is publicly
maintainable
> is to get them to accept that it is a carriageway.
Two s56s, one for a highway, another for a C/W? especially with different
originators?
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 9 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 18:56:48 +0100
Subject: RE: STAFFORDSHIRE - SECTION 53 WILDLIFE & COUNTRYSIDE ACT ADDITION TO
D.M.
It is part of email etiquette not to use for the body of text. The abuse of
capitals is called SHOUTING, and in some circles results in one receiving a
huge amount of retribution - being 'flamed'. Just now RoW is fairly polite,
indeed one might say you have received a mild roasting. If you wish to
continue without being flames, then nice lower case for the bulk, and only
SHOUT when you have to.
TIA
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 10 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 18:56:43 +0100
Subject: RE: RUPPS IN STAFFORDSHIRE
I had a word with Andy about this a few days ago. Our first problem is
finding out how many RUPPs there were, and what they are now. From memory,
the CC finished all its RUPP reclassifications under the '68 Act, but the OS
didn't catch up for several years, thus there may be a few on fairly recent
maps - say 10 years old.
I'm in the process of listing all the RUPPs I can find in this fair county,
but if anyone can help don't be shy...
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
> From: TimLARA@aol.com [mailto:TimLARA@aol.com]
> Sent: 07 April 1999 21:37
> To: row@playground.sun.com
> Subject: Re: RUPPS IN STAFFORDSHIRE
> In a message dated 7.4.99 14:03:45 GMT Daylight Time,
> andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk writes:
[ truncated by list-digester (was 13 lines)]
> << All of the RUPPs in
> Staffordshire were reclassified under the Countryside Act 1968.
This did not remove the vehicular rights, and you may well find that the
evidence now (or then) available supports those rights.
Since 1981, the sutability test has not applied, so now would be a good time
to look again at the RUPPs that became bridleways in that process.
> Cheers, tim
> Sent: 07 April 1999 21:37
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 11 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Rob Smith" <rob@archenland.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 18:56:52 +0100
Subject: RE: STAFFORDSHIRE UCRs
I'll make the journey across, just avoid Thursdays until further notice....
Rob Smith
Mine's the blue 110
> From: TimLARA@aol.com [mailto:TimLARA@aol.com]
> Sent: 07 April 1999 21:37
> To: row@playground.sun.com
> Subject: Re: STAFFORDSHIRE UCRs
> In a message dated 7.4.99 12:52:58 GMT Daylight Time,
> andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk writes:
[ truncated by list-digester (was 12 lines)]
> andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk writes:
> If it helps, I have a big room with a big table, and only a mile from
Staffs.
> And in return for not having to travel, I will supply coffe and biscuits.
Any day or evening by arrangement. (Not 14, 17, 22, 24 April)
> And in return for not having to travel, I will supply coffe and biscuits.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 12 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:20:14 EDT
Subject: Re: GLD Herefordshire.
In a message dated 8.4.99 13:19:04 GMT Daylight Time, Byway@compuserve.com
writes:
<< How are we fixed for doing major clearance after end March, considering
there is next to no cutting back of ordinary hedge growth, it is all long
and far to stragley for nesting birds. When can we start again?
>>
I do not think there is a real problem doing the odd bit of clearance at any
time of year. As GLD is (in theory) pretty well spread about, and publicised,
it is useful to act on enviro-advice. What do farmers do? Consult with the
worms before ploughing? Or the seagulls?
In particular, where there is less likelihood of nesting, I see no problem at
any time, if the ground will stand it. And there is always the possibility
that a bird disturbed from a lane-side nest will build again out of harm's
way, rather than being left alone only to be disturbed too often by
recreational or farming traffic later.
Was there any identification which might help to pin down the Ridgeway
Scramblers?
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 13 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:20:12 EDT
Subject: Capital Ideas
In a message dated 8.4.99 13:15:47 GMT Daylight Time,
andy@snowlab.demon.co.uk writes:
<< You've lost me. Is it the CAPITALS you don't like? >>
You've got it. It is not just seen as shouting, but all-caps is significantly
harder to read. The bits of letters that stick up and down, (etc) are very
useful clues to working out what a word says.
In case you are interested, this sort of lettering was introduced by
Charlemagne, and designed by Alcuin of York, about 1100 years ago.
Even the Romans did not use what we call Capitals, except for public
monuments, gravestones, and such like.
Cheers, Tim Stevens
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 14 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Bod" <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 02:46:39 +0100
Subject: Chief Executives
How often do Chief Executives change?
Is it a yearly thing or everytime there is a local election or is it a job
for life?
Cheers,
Bod
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 15 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 15:34:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Sollihul 116 - we are getting there
> We wait and see what happens. He did mention that M. Orlik is doing some
> investigative work on this for them!
By them, you mean CC, not applicant? Perhaps it was Mr Orlik that suggested
their legal dept had not been correct in the advice given. As it is all
down to cost centres, and buying -in services, perhaps they will buy their
advice from outside next time?
> Whereas G Kenneth is able to send copy in advance via e-mail, this person
> seems to have great difficulty with the concept. Presumably he still sees
no
> reason to get rid of his perfectly adequate quill pen.
> seems to have great difficulty with the concept. Presumably he still sees
Oh dear, you put me to shame. I can see I have just been far too
reasonable.
BTW where was your s56 for? mine was the muddy bit above the kissing gate?
GK sounded a bit fazed when he spoke to me at about 5.20 so he perhaps had
had a long hard day. And he may have had Tuesday off as most CC staff
seem to have had. What a lot to hit him on his return.
Bet they think twice before next 116. Lets hope others learn.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 16 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Matthew Reeve & Mel Mauger" <blatchwood@btinternet.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:08:58 +0100
Subject: Definition of a Road
Does anyone have a copy of the Road Traffic Act, or does anyone know the
definition of a Road *as used in the act*. i.e. does it use the term road as
we would use it as per rights of way, or does it restrict to HA/surfaced
etc.
Matthew
UK, nr Heathrow
1979 2-dr Range Rover 300Tdi
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 17 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 21:07:49 +0100
Subject: Re: Sollihul 116 - we are getting there
I just served the s.56 in respect of the whole route and the fact that the
gates are not comensurate with the width of a public carriage road, and are
therefore obstructions.
Don't know how correct this approach is, though!
Richard
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 18 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 21:10:12 +0100
Subject: Re: Definition of a Road
Is there such a thing as Road in terms of a definition in statute? - aren't
we only involved with Highway?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 19 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 21:25:46 +0100
Subject: Re: Chief Executives
Chief Executives in local government are the modern day top gun(nearly said
"bod", but wondered if you might be offended), and is merely an employee.
From: Bod <bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk>
Sent: 08 April 1999 02:46
Subject: Chief Executives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 20 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "hawker" <hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 21:19:46 +0100
Subject: Re: Bolton continue to play for time on s56
Is chris mentioning Magistrates' Court when he writes MC? I understand that
sect 56 goes to Crown Court under the terms of the Highways Act 1980. And
this is where I read of Bod and £23 fee isn't it?
Are you in the right court, Bod?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 21 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:56:25 EDT
Subject: Re: Bolton s56 queries
In a message dated 8.4.99 21:26:49 GMT Daylight Time,
hawker@poverty.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< Is chris mentioning Magistrates' Court when he writes MC? >>
Yes, MC = Magistrates Court (in this instance). And a s56 which is replied to
in time and with the info that the road is maintainable, etc, goes to MC.
Only if there is no reply or a denial does it go to Crown Court. I think the
reasoning is that a magistrate cannot be expected to work out what is or is
not a highway, maintainable, etc, although they can see if one is out of
repair. To decide what is a highway you have to wear some of a dead horse on
your head and a bit of curtain round your shoulders. Or an Inspector, of
course, with a fortnight's training, easy peasy.
And yes, we are concerned with ROADS. They are where you can be done for due
care, affluence of consternoon afterble, etc. This is so you cannot get off
by saying 'Aha, you haven't proved that I was on a highway' (except for the
jammy sod that claimed that bridleways don't count and got away with it. In a
sodding Range Rover too). And the offence that catches post 1930 motoring
evidence is driving other than on a road, or, on a fp or bw. So you can,
quite legitimately, still accumulate evidence from nothing, by trail riding
up a farm occupation road for 20 years*. Not a lot of Inspectors know that.
*but it would have to be quite a long road, of course, or you would get to
the end in that time. Even on a 185.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 22 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:56:16 EDT
Subject: Re: Chief Executives
In a message dated 8.4.99 20:02:17 GMT Daylight Time,
bod@bod1.freeserve.co.uk writes:
<< How often do Chief Executives change? >>
Do you mean ... of Companies, or ... of Councils, or ... of Colleges, etc?
Most organisations have a boss, and the current jargon is Chief Executive
(because he thinks he is a Chief and not an Indian, and lives in a Barratt 4
bed detatched 'home' with two loos).
A council CE is usually appointed on an indefinite contract, and can be
sacked for misbehaviour etc, just like anyone else. In theory. Many CEs
surround themselves with fire-proof insulation in the form of carefully
selected trusted colleagues. This is called corruption, or self preservation,
depending on whether you are one of the trusted colleagues.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 23 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: TimLARA@aol.com
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:56:23 EDT
Subject: Re: Definition of a Road
Road is defined in RTA 88 -
Any highway and any other road to which the public has access, including a
bridge over which the road passes.
Thus, it includes all tarmac roads including 'private' ones and occupation
roads not clearly fenced or gated off from you and me, and all RoW, claimed
or not, on the DM&S or not, maintainable or not.
For an 'official' example of a road which is not a highway, try a Motorway
Service Area.
Cheers, tim
PS there are several Road Traffic Acts still in force, do not assume because
there is an RTA 1988 that earlier ones have become obsolete.
Cheers, tim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 24 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: "Mark Smith" <MarkSmith@dataip.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 00:18:33 +0100
Subject: Fame at last
Not quite in the same league as the movie stars on the list (Chris
and Tim), but I have made it in to the "international media" - Its me
in this month's LRW. Unfortunately not doing anything for RoW,
just the caption contest - "what's this idiot doing standing where
the engine should be in the Series IIA". I do wish I had combed my
hair before the picture was taken.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 25 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 19:25:31 -0400
Subject: Re: GLD Herefordshire/ Ridgeway
> Was there any identification which might help to pin down the Ridgeway
> Scramblers?
> Cheers, tim
Not a lot, they had these bikes, quiet distinctive with a wheel at the back
and another right at the front.........
Oh and they had a van. Two in fact, a nice fetching blue, and white van
man. They did have numbers on the vans. You didnt want those did you?
Chris
ps
the numbers on the Transits on my video are G531 BRK & F183 NVK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 26 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 99 00:42 BST
Subject: Re: GLD Herefordshire.
<<<t. There is no way the anti
councilors would accept that, so officers would say no. >>>
Oh Poo :-(
<<<<But I will be asking at next weeks meeting what they do intend to do.
Thelane I suggested clearing as a major project is in Gwent, the (mainly)
drivable part is in Herefordshire.>>>>
OK :-).... OK for the the dates I suggested???
<<<<<I have it on video, Mr GLD co-ordinator, so you can see it, (along
with thevans that took the scramblers to the Ridgeway)>>>>>
Yes, after tonights TRF support for vigilante action (Loddon Vale TRF) Id
say lets go for it
<<<< When can we start again?>>>>
Anytime I guess...
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 27 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 99 00:42 BST
Subject: Re: Ridgeway Scramblers
Tim asks
<<<<Was there any identification which might help to pin down the Ridgeway
Scramblers?>>>>
Well we didnt see any number plates on their bikes, but they 'ad some
cracking good ones on their Transits, so we filmed those instead.....
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 28 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: doghouse@cix.compulink.co.uk (Michael Dyer)
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 99 00:43 BST
Subject: Re: Capital Ideas
<<<In case you are interested, this sort of lettering was introduced by
Charlemagne, and designed by Alcuin of York, about 1100 years ago>>>
Is their any field of human endevour the man knows *nothing* about?
:-) Mick Dyer (doghouse@cix)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 29 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 02:44:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Definition of a Road
> Is there such a thing as Road in terms of a definition in statute? -
aren't
> we only involved with Highway?
Yes there was. up until 88 I think it was generally a full highway unless
context indicated otherwise, ie a "BridleRoad"
88 gave it a very broad definition, but for that Act. Which I think was any
highway etc.
Chris
ps, yes MC is magistrates Court, under HA80
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 30 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
From: Chris Marsden <Byway@compuserve.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 02:44:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Sollihul 116 - we are getting there
> I just served the s.56 in respect of the whole route and the fact that
the
> gates are not comensurate with the width of a public carriage road, and
are
> therefore obstructions.
> Don't know how correct this approach is, though!
Not at all.
Westley and also Newman (who you have met at H&WCC forum) obstructions are
a definite no no for s56, although CA recommend they should be.
Best to go for the muddy underfoot sloping bit.
Chris
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[ <- Message 31 -> | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]
END OF * LIST DIGEST
Input: messages 30 lines 1306 [forwarded 99 whitespace 0]
Output: lines 741 [content 563 forwarded 90 (cut 9) whitespace 0]
[ First | Table of Contents | <- Digest 990409 -> | Search Archive Index | <-
Browser -> ]