Expecting a lot int yer...Yarkshire folks cant write

we caan but yer jist dunt unnerstan us.

Sirus said:

Expecting a lot int yer...Yarkshire folks cant write

Click to expand...

FFS Sirus !
It dunt just affect folks in Yarkshire!!

Yer'd be a bit ****ed off after spendin yer munny on toys fer yer disco if there wer no where left yer cud use it !!

SO WRITE THE FOOKIN LETTER!!!

Or D'yer want someone t do that for yer anorll ?

thort we dint do petitions?

The Mad Hat Man said:

thort we dint do petitions?

Click to expand...

tweedle dum an tweedle dee at there best eh ??

mondo said:

FFS Sirus !
It dunt just affect folks in Yarkshire!!

Yer'd be a bit ****ed off after spendin yer munny on toys fer yer disco if there wer no where left yer cud use it !!

SO WRITE THE FOOKIN LETTER!!!

Or D'yer want someone t do that for yer anorll ?

Click to expand...

Aye, when Hb does yurs get her to do me one too...

An I aint dum .....I must be Dee

The Mad Hat Man said:

thort we dint do petitions?

Click to expand...

It int a petition yer fick suffern twot. Ish a letter of objection. Stating why they shouldn't tro the lanes. The problem with these TRO's is their not been applied because of damage to the lanes. But because "The use of motorvehicles is damaging to the natural beauty of the area that the lane runs through" which means that if they go ahead It'll give a green light to every other NP or AONB to do the same.

oooo - fish are biting well this morning, Si

ere folks - I just read the order - I reckon "The Order would be for the purposes of preserving the amenity and conserving the natural beauty of the area through which the route passes (the amenity is dependent to a considerable extent on the natural beauty)." and "the feeling of wildness, remoteness, and associated tranquillity would be preserved by the Order as the presence of recreational motor vehicles, or anticipation of their presence, and/or evidence of their passing detract significantly from these qualities." is most likely correct.....

but by the same token "the feeling of wildness, remoteness, and associated tranquillity" could be better achieved, shirley, by stopping all activity - ie stopping walkers and cyclists, closing all roads across the moors and generally making Yarksheer out of bounds to all human activity?

The Mad Hat Man said:

but by the same token "the feeling of wildness, remoteness, and associated tranquillity" could be better achieved, shirley, by stopping all activity - ie stopping walkers and cyclists, closing all roads across the moors and generally making Yarksheer out of bounds to all human activity?

Click to expand...

good plan Daft !

sooner the better fer me

now write yer letter

why dontcha just write a para graph or two - then we can all fill in one of these , using your words?

daer mister national (front) Parks manager hitler ****
My naMe is DaFt and my fReinds is SirUs !
We dont give a flyin **** what you do with the green lanes cos we only drive gurly lanes cos my tires fall off when i go over bumps !

Ere I aint got tourrettes yur know...****

i dont think that wud work - 2/10 fur effort - must try harder!

but just to show willing - i have sent it with your name an email address

There is definitely and issue here that needs to be addressed. The problem, though, is that the people who are tring to close all lanes to us are an unbelievably powerful group. The Ramblers Association alone boasts such a membership that ****ing them off too badly is political suicide for any local MP who wants to stand in the next election, and the odds are the town council is likely to boast a number of member as well.

It is insufficient to simply protest that there is supposed to be an assumption of open access to the countryside. I believe our most powerful argument relies on legislation that makes it illegal to knowingly discriminate against the disabled in our communities. For some of these people, green lanes and the access to the countryside they offer is their only method of visiting and enjoying the same views and natural beauty that the ramblers take for granted.

The ramblers argument would effectively ban all people who are not capable of walking long distances from visiting areas of natural beauty. This is not legal. Operating in a manner, specified as illegal according to European law is the only thing which will worry our MPs more than upsetting the Woolly Hat Lobby.

Everyone here knows that there are as many different types of laners as there are walkers. Some do it simply for the sport, some, like myself, enjoy gthe journey into the countryside as much as being there, and revel in watching some of the wildlife with their children.

Just for the record... I fully support the Ramblers Association and related groups when they are trying to limit the illegal use of lanes or bridleways. The problem is that their arrogance is leading them to believe that they are the sole custodians of our countryside, and to my knowledge they are unwilling to enter into a full and frank discussion regarding this issue becausethey know they will be shown up as the bigots they have become.

OK folks... thats my rant for the evening all critisizms welcome.

all of the lanes they have got TROs put on in norfolk are now no longer passable on foot/bike or horse due to them being overgrown with brambles and the like, so they just shoot themselves in the foot as its the 4x4 clubs that kept the lanes clear (i have been on a couple of clearing days with a club up there and found it was the 'ramblers' who cause most of the problems i.e. litter, dog crap etc.)