logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Neil A Shaw  
#21 Posted : 21 February 2011 18:27:30(UTC)
Neil A Shaw
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 16/10/2009(UTC)
Posts: 122
Location: Hazel Grove

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)

Can't tell a lie.

Prefer it when people disagree with what I've said.

Flannel  
#22 Posted : 21 February 2011 20:02:56(UTC)
Flannel
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 15/01/2011(UTC)
Posts: 61
Location: whaley bridge

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Back to the bridge and the £1,000,000 ransom demanded by United Utilities for their land. Mr Stephenson Smyth started off hinting that the value of the bridge was more than it appeared, but the thread is wandering off as usual.

Does anybody know why United Utilities demanded so much, were they trying to make Tescos share their profit, was it because of the very large and brittle cast iron pipes or is there other plans for the land that would push its value up? I heard from a man down the pub that they originally asked for a much smaller amount, when the bridge plan was first suggested.



Green_Gentleman  
#23 Posted : 21 February 2011 21:58:26(UTC)
Green_Gentleman
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 19/01/2011(UTC)
Posts: 135
Location: Whaley Bridge

Incase people's memories are short.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyFeuJ9unUg

Flannel  
#24 Posted : 22 February 2011 07:16:07(UTC)
Flannel
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 15/01/2011(UTC)
Posts: 61
Location: whaley bridge

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Perhaps Mr Cameron should give every community the right to run their own supermarket?
R. Stephenson-Smythe  
#25 Posted : 22 February 2011 15:22:04(UTC)
R. Stephenson-Smythe
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 19/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,494

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)

Flannel wrote:
Back to the bridge and the £1,000,000 ransom demanded by United Utilities for their land. Mr Stephenson Smyth started off hinting that the value of the bridge was more than it appeared, but the thread is wandering off as usual.

Does anybody know why United Utilities demanded so much, were they trying to make Tescos share their profit, was it because of the very large and brittle cast iron pipes or is there other plans for the land that would push its value up? I heard from a man down the pub that they originally asked for a much smaller amount, when the bridge plan was first suggested.



 

Good afternoon to you Mr Flannel,
 
I apologise that I have not come back to you earlier on this subject.
 
The Green Gentleman came up with the absurd statement that bridges do not make profits; I attempted to steer him in the direction of the Stokes v Cambridge law ruling of 1961.
He is either incapable or unwilling to research that notable case which is now used on every occasion where the situation arises.
 
Basically it is what identified that which is now commonly known as a ransom strip.
 
If you apply this to the construction of a bridge which quite obviously goes from point A to point B then the land between those two points, if it is owned by someone or some body other than the person who wants access then that third party is in possession of a ransom strip.
 
Beneath the bridge may be a road, river, canal or anything similar but it will almost certainly belong to someone.
The owner theoretically owns the strip to the core of the earth and to the outer reaches of the atmosphere.
So you can neither go under it nor go over it without the owner’s permission.
Obviously some people do go over the ransom strip without asking the ransom strip owner; such things as telephone wires, and the ransom strip owner either doesn’t know or can’t be bothered with such minor infringements.
 
As an example, and I do not want to go into specific details here because it would be unfair on the people involved, the Stokes v Cambridge law was applied some years ago when an individual needed to make access across a piece of land approximately 3 feet across in Whaley Bridge.
This then became a ransom strip and the individual needed the access and had to construct a very simple concrete bridge to the liking and approval of the ransom strip owner.
The owner of the ransom strip then demanded many thousands of pounds for his trouble and he was paid before anyone could cross the bridge.
 
I know this to be the case because I was consulted and became part of the negotiations. I will not say for which side.
 
But the owner of the ransom strip did absolutely nothing but demanded and got a huge amount of money.
 
So when the Green Gentleman says “bridges don’t make profits” he simply does not know what he is talking about.
 
I do not know of the history of the second bridge or even where it is planned to be built but I’ll tell you what I wouldn’t mind owning the land beneath it and I’m sure after reading this the Green Gentleman would take the same view as me.
 
R. S-S
Green_Gentleman  
#26 Posted : 22 February 2011 20:17:35(UTC)
Green_Gentleman
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 19/01/2011(UTC)
Posts: 135
Location: Whaley Bridge

Oh jesus christ. Did you actually read anything I had to say about the Skye Bridge and followed up on any research on it yourself, or just debunk it entirely because someone else replied who knows little of how profitability gain is more enciting in a capitalistic market than giving the community something for nothing.

Go back and read the thread again, I may have errously said that at the beginning but justified myself further on. I don't need reminding 7 times now by "yes men" from Tesco, which your stance is increasingly becoming 

lord cornflake  
#27 Posted : 22 February 2011 20:30:37(UTC)
lord cornflake
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 24/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 229
Location: whaley bridge

Green Gentleman I find your use of The Lords name quite upsetting.As a Lord myself I would ask you to maybe dab your forehead with a wet cloth before you post your detritus on here.If you have a problem with Mr R.S.S. may I suggest a wrestling bout in The Mechanics.

R. Stephenson-Smythe  
#28 Posted : 23 February 2011 09:19:03(UTC)
R. Stephenson-Smythe
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Member
Joined: 19/03/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,494

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)

 

Good morning My Lord,
 
I hope you are keeping well.
 
I find your idea of a wrestling match with the Green Gentleman quite appealing. He obviously has quite a temper and so I envisage him as a Mick McManus type of character where I would be seen as the good guy attempting to defeat the evil blasphemer.
 
I take it that you will be in my corner, My Lord?
 
One thing I need you to watch out for is that Mick McManus doesn’t resort to his usual dirty tricks that he was so famed for.
 
You know the sort of thing: coming into the ring with a pet ferret down his wrestling trunks and then when I have him pinned down he releases the fearsome creature to deliver a nasty bite to my person.
 
Actually I think I would rather like Devious in my corner as well just in case Mick McManus still doesn’t know the difference between a polecat and a ferret; although he thinks he does even though he did not witness the marauder in Devious’ hen hut.
 
As Lord of the Manor, Lord Cornflake, perhaps we could also hatch a cunning plan here and build a simple wooden bridge to traverse the steps into the Mechanics Institute. Obviously we would not be in possession of a ransom strip as defined by the Stokes v Cambridge ruling but I am sure you can introduce a Toll, that seems so popular on here, and we could then whack the proceeds between us.
And what a pot we shall have as the masses descend on the Mechanics to witness the defeat of Mick McManus the evil blasphemer by an aged historian.
 
I shall need a couple of days training as I am a bit ring rusty; my forearm smash is still fine but I really need to perfect my flying dropkick that, I admit, I have not used for some time.
 
If Mick has no objection I should like to nominate the fair minded Horwich Ender as the referee but obviously we can not guarantee his safety.
 
R. S-S
 
 
 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.