Did Montgomery have a drink with Rommel?

Peter Turtill

unread,

Dec 28, 2009, 7:54:26 AM12/28/09

to

I very much doubt Monty would even have considered having a drink with
Rommel. This picture is absolutely mindboggling;
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2763/4222201072_4666d85cfc_o.jpg

pete

Tim W

unread,

Jan 3, 2010, 12:44:01 PM1/3/10

to

"Peter Turtill" <tur...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8eahj55cu5pfm39kq...@4ax.com...

>I very much doubt Monty would even have considered having a drink with
> Rommel. This picture is absolutely mindboggling;
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2763/4222201072_4666d85cfc_o.jpg
>

Is there a war on?

Tim W

Peter Clements

unread,

Jan 3, 2010, 3:31:50 PM1/3/10

to

Oh yes. Very much so between me and landowners who block RoW.

Tim Lamb

unread,

Jan 3, 2010, 4:26:29 PM1/3/10

to

In message <mjv1k5l9qaoatad65...@4ax.com>, Peter Clements
<soo...@gmail.com> writes

That sounds unusual in the present political climate:-)

Do tell us more.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

Peter Turtill

unread,

Jan 3, 2010, 8:42:01 PM1/3/10

to

I live in Ipswich where the routes around the dock have been
unlawfully gated. After 4 years fighting this issue goes to PI later
this year. I also have issues with the LA blocking routes it owns.

Tim Lamb

unread,

Jan 4, 2010, 6:31:55 AM1/4/10

to

In message <qnh2k5dlcjhgncq0u...@4ax.com>, Peter Turtill
<tur...@gmail.com> writes

>>>Oh yes. Very much so between me and landowners who block RoW.
>>
>>That sounds unusual in the present political climate:-)
>>
>>Do tell us more.
>
>I live in Ipswich where the routes around the dock have been
>unlawfully gated. After 4 years fighting this issue goes to PI later
>this year. I also have issues with the LA blocking routes it owns.

Right. I'm sorry I didn't recognise your header.

I wonder how Ipswich will respond to the Govts. planned coastal access.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

Peter Turtill

unread,

Jan 4, 2010, 2:12:51 PM1/4/10

to

They wont. They just do not understand it.

pete

Ian Rawlings

unread,

Jan 4, 2010, 2:43:43 PM1/4/10

to

If the tories get in, which they probably will, would the planned coastal
access go ahead? Landowners tend to get the ear of the posh party a bit
more than they do with the snooping party.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/

Tim Lamb

unread,

Jan 4, 2010, 4:01:25 PM1/4/10

to

In message <f0t917-...@firewall.tarcus.org.uk>, Ian Rawlings
<new...@tarcus.org.uk> writes

>On 2010-01-04, Peter Turtill <tur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:31:55 +0000, Tim Lamb
>><t...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I wonder how Ipswich will respond to the Govts. planned coastal access.
>>
>> They wont. They just do not understand it.
>
>If the tories get in, which they probably will, would the planned coastal
>access go ahead? Landowners tend to get the ear of the posh party a bit
>more than they do with the snooping party.

Who knows?

The CLA have been pushing the *right of appeal* angle rather than simply
being obstructive.

Where I holiday, the old cliff top footpath is about 100m seaward of the
current high tide mark. Access would now be through domestic premises as
they get ready to tumble.

regards
>

--
Tim Lamb

Peter Turtill

unread,

Jan 5, 2010, 2:10:34 PM1/5/10

to

On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 19:43:43 +0000, Ian Rawlings <new...@tarcus.org.uk>
wrote:

>On 2010-01-04, Peter Turtill <tur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:31:55 +0000, Tim Lamb
>><t...@marfordfarm.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>I wonder how Ipswich will respond to the Govts. planned coastal access.
>>
>> They wont. They just do not understand it.
>
>If the tories get in, which they probably will, would the planned coastal
>access go ahead? Landowners tend to get the ear of the posh party a bit
>more than they do with the snooping party.

Unfortunately the snooping party has done a pretty good job of
neutralizing RA and OSS so it may make little difference who get in:-(

pete