Totally agree Mike. If one of those wardens tried to confiscate my bike my leg might 'accidently' fall off and I'd be screaming blue murder at the feckersMike54 wrote:
Neither pcso nor park authority can confiscate bikes.
SARN HELEN again
-
boboneleg
- Posts: 5208
- Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2011 5:52 pm
- Has thanked: 2363 times
- Been thanked: 1407 times
Re: SARN HELEN again
one-legged adventurer
-
garyboy
- Posts: 4443
- Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:14 pm
- Has thanked: 2280 times
- Been thanked: 992 times
Re: SARN HELEN again
I don't know any details, so I have left a note for HP on `south wales trf` site
http://www.swtrf.org.uk/index.php?topic=7434.0
((all I got really is this brief sentence ....
[vehicles impounded]
``I know of 4 riders so far.Please stay off the Sarn and surrounding areas.
They have been charged with being a public nuisance ``
http://www.swtrf.org.uk/index.php?topic=7434.0
((all I got really is this brief sentence ....
[vehicles impounded]
``I know of 4 riders so far.Please stay off the Sarn and surrounding areas.
They have been charged with being a public nuisance ``
Re: SARN HELEN again
The official TRF line as of August last year was :
There never has been a blanket assurance that TRF will provide legal support to members using roads that are recorded as Restricted Byway.
Each case is considered on its own merits by the Board.
The situation next week may differ from this week. For that reason alone the TRF cannot give a blanket assurance of legal support.
If the situation is substantially the same as for the previous prosecutions that TRF were engaged in, then I envisage that TRF would provide legal support.
In other words, you are fooked if riding illegally but other than the seasonal TRO on Lower Sarn from Aberdulais to Banwen (Closed from September 22nd to Jun 1st ) no TRO is in force for the rest and the BNP know it. By using the local 'wasters' sorry Police force to try and 'bully' people into submission won't wash with me or my mates and if legally challenged they don't stand a cat in hells chance of any confiscation. The case Garyboy is referring to sounds very different, a Public Nuisance offence if committed would carry a confiscation, my guess is (and I am not certain) the 4 culprits were riding illegally and got caught red-handed, it is very easy to do in the Walters area toward Banwen ??
There never has been a blanket assurance that TRF will provide legal support to members using roads that are recorded as Restricted Byway.
Each case is considered on its own merits by the Board.
The situation next week may differ from this week. For that reason alone the TRF cannot give a blanket assurance of legal support.
If the situation is substantially the same as for the previous prosecutions that TRF were engaged in, then I envisage that TRF would provide legal support.
In other words, you are fooked if riding illegally but other than the seasonal TRO on Lower Sarn from Aberdulais to Banwen (Closed from September 22nd to Jun 1st ) no TRO is in force for the rest and the BNP know it. By using the local 'wasters' sorry Police force to try and 'bully' people into submission won't wash with me or my mates and if legally challenged they don't stand a cat in hells chance of any confiscation. The case Garyboy is referring to sounds very different, a Public Nuisance offence if committed would carry a confiscation, my guess is (and I am not certain) the 4 culprits were riding illegally and got caught red-handed, it is very easy to do in the Walters area toward Banwen ??
-
PaulinBont
- Posts: 2358
- Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 9:10 am
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 246 times
Re: SARN HELEN again
I think this latest situation is another nail in the coffin of the TRF; when I asked Robin about Sarn's status his response was that it has never been tested in court and that the TRF would defend any member riding Sarn in a legal and responsible manner.
His advice was to ride Sarn in a low-key manner not to attract unwanted attention and furthermore he wasn't in favour of my idea of a 'mass action' where the press, BBNPA Members and the Police be invited; my rationale being let's sort this out once and for all as I'm not comfortable with the TRF's stance that they think that Sarn is a BOAT but won't disclose why and ask people to ride it with utmost discretion.
This response doesn't solve anything in respect of Sarn.
His advice was to ride Sarn in a low-key manner not to attract unwanted attention and furthermore he wasn't in favour of my idea of a 'mass action' where the press, BBNPA Members and the Police be invited; my rationale being let's sort this out once and for all as I'm not comfortable with the TRF's stance that they think that Sarn is a BOAT but won't disclose why and ask people to ride it with utmost discretion.
This response doesn't solve anything in respect of Sarn.
Re: SARN HELEN again
bob i saw it all for 10% esp they way he pushed you to the ground, crakin eyesight me lolboboneleg wrote:Totally agree Mike. If one of those wardens tried to confiscate my bike my leg might 'accidently' fall off and I'd be screaming blue murder at the feckersMike54 wrote:
Neither pcso nor park authority can confiscate bikes.
steve
Re: SARN HELEN again
The lower part of Sarn Helen is a BOAT with date restrictions you can ride (last time I rode it a couple of years back). The upper parts mentioned are showing as a RUPP on OS maps. Obviously it is all the same old road. I think the police dropped a case against a few trail riders (possibly TRF members) a few years ago after threatening action for some time (may have been the Gap Road which is similar status) which kind of set a precedent that is OK to carry on riding (fair point) them. A Byway claim should have been entered back around the NERC act in 2006 (needs someone to do it?) but there may have been vested interests at play as to why nothing happened. The riders mentioned is hearsay at the moment so lets not blow it out of proportion....Confiscated? Where exactly were they? Were they on legal bikes? What were they riding like? Lets get the facts straight first. Its a great rumour. A few years ago we met a warden at the spot mentioned. A reasonable discussion took place and I think we carried on and rode it. Most of us ride fairly low key these days. Various TRF groups have kept lanes open all over the country and I know there are other user groups doing some great work so lets not fight amongst ourselves? I am inclined to agree the issue should be forced but dont hold your breath on the outcome and not sure I want to be the one up front?? Is it too late to put in a Byway claim post NERC?
-
garyboy
- Posts: 4443
- Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:14 pm
- Has thanked: 2280 times
- Been thanked: 992 times
Re: SARN HELEN again
I have not had a reply from HP but I don't think he would fib on this?
it annoys me that we are asked to ride the Sarn in a, what s the phrase ..//in a low-key manner not to attract unwanted attention // ... WHY ffs? ... if its legal its legal.!!!!
anyway .. as you know, the Sarn used to be a roman road 2000 years ago ... and to my simple mind, that is proof that it has always carried vehicular traffic as the romans has wooden cars pulled by oxen or Welshmen :laugh:
trouble is that the routes have changes slightly of the years .. and the use and directions have changed a bit too .. so that one part has evidence from the 1700s of a steam traction engine or something like that .. another for farm access .. another for private access and so on and so on ... Robin said that the sarn is crossed by other routes .. this makes each section (that is cut off by these cross routes) and independent road.
each of these needs separate and independent proof and evidence of use after 1930 or wotever it is.
so my personal thought is that Robin will not have the total proofs required .. and defence in court may depend on which part you are `caught` on. ... which would explain trf reluctance to force the issue.
it annoys me that we are asked to ride the Sarn in a, what s the phrase ..//in a low-key manner not to attract unwanted attention // ... WHY ffs? ... if its legal its legal.!!!!
anyway .. as you know, the Sarn used to be a roman road 2000 years ago ... and to my simple mind, that is proof that it has always carried vehicular traffic as the romans has wooden cars pulled by oxen or Welshmen :laugh:
trouble is that the routes have changes slightly of the years .. and the use and directions have changed a bit too .. so that one part has evidence from the 1700s of a steam traction engine or something like that .. another for farm access .. another for private access and so on and so on ... Robin said that the sarn is crossed by other routes .. this makes each section (that is cut off by these cross routes) and independent road.
each of these needs separate and independent proof and evidence of use after 1930 or wotever it is.
so my personal thought is that Robin will not have the total proofs required .. and defence in court may depend on which part you are `caught` on. ... which would explain trf reluctance to force the issue.
Re: SARN HELEN again
The TRF are in possession of very strong evidence which shows the northern section of Sarn Helen (restricted byway) does have vehicular rights
Remember, restricted byway status does not and never has extinguished existing vehicular rights (read the NERC bill and it's amendments)
The TRF have held this information back and kept the precise nature of the evidence fairly secret, I do know what it is though, they have laid in wait for the anti's to attempt to push a case all the way to the high court at which point the evidence would be presented and a precedent set.
This is why with TRF backing past cases have been dropped by the anti's as they simply do not want that evidence going into a high court, once it does there's no going back for them
At one point the TRF were actually hoping for a fresh prosecution attempt so they could have their day in court
If the TRF are now saying they won't promise to back a member who's being prosecuted for riding Sarn Helen then it does question their value as an organisation and the purpose of membership fees
Remember, restricted byway status does not and never has extinguished existing vehicular rights (read the NERC bill and it's amendments)
The TRF have held this information back and kept the precise nature of the evidence fairly secret, I do know what it is though, they have laid in wait for the anti's to attempt to push a case all the way to the high court at which point the evidence would be presented and a precedent set.
This is why with TRF backing past cases have been dropped by the anti's as they simply do not want that evidence going into a high court, once it does there's no going back for them
At one point the TRF were actually hoping for a fresh prosecution attempt so they could have their day in court
If the TRF are now saying they won't promise to back a member who's being prosecuted for riding Sarn Helen then it does question their value as an organisation and the purpose of membership fees
-
steve the grease
- Posts: 298
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 1:56 pm
- Location: Ger Abergwaun
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 101 times
Re: SARN HELEN again
They'll soon get bored when the temperature drops and the clocks go forward. I'm surprised to be honest that either organisation can afford to have staff sat round in the middle of no where, doing nothing most of the time when there are lots of actual real jobs that need doing.
