On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 13:52:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <bohvmk984kfq7uifp46da1i8p4708fnv3k@4ax.com>, at 18:43:03 on
Tue, 20 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

Many highways have their own Act of Parliament for many reasons. It >>>>doesn't mean that they are not highways.

"Many"? Out of tens of thousands, how many dozen? And yes they are a >>>Highway, but not a generic "Public Highway", like the roads under all
the top-ten most bashed railway bridges.

A "highway" is any way over which the general public has a right to
pass and repass by any one or more means at all times (excepting
during such as essential maintenance etc.). Relative to that right it
can only be "public", the actual ownership is not relevant to that
right. A "private highway" would be a nonsense relative to the right.

While the phrase "public highway" does appear in some legislation, it >>appears to be no more than verbosity or reference to physical
ownership rather than any kind of defined term.

"Highway" is generally treated as a Common Law matter with no fixed
wording rather than a narrow general meaning. The (e.g.) Highways Act
1980 does not define "highway" but does define more specific types of >>highway and physical parts of a highway.

Your analysis of such thing is usually completely wrong, so I won't try
to refute you sentence by sentence on this occasion.

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.
It is not "my analysis"; it is what applies in courts daily in England
and Wales.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

In message <s4o2nkh6ricn1j2q569vf5djlto0lercnm@4ax.com>, at 23:28:54 on
Wed, 21 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

[Highways]

Your analysis of such thing is usually completely wrong, so I won't try
to refute you sentence by sentence on this occasion.

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam
issue.

It is not "my analysis"; it is what applies in courts daily in England
and Wales.

There are daily, people turning up asking to construct a beam over a
Highway? That's nonsense.
--
Roland Perry

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <s4o2nkh6ricn1j2q569vf5djlto0lercnm@4ax.com>, at 23:28:54 on
Wed, 21 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

[Highways]

Your analysis of such thing is usually completely wrong, so I won't try
to refute you sentence by sentence on this occasion.

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam issue.

It is not "my analysis"; it is what applies in courts daily in England
and Wales.

There are daily, people turning up asking to construct a beam over a Highway? That's nonsense.

Let?s examine some actual facts. Roland?s position has been that it is
largely not possible to construct protection beams over what might be
loosely termed normal roads. The protection beams on the A5 Hinckley bridge
I referenced shows that it is entirely possible should there be a will.
Talk of loopholes is largely irrelevant, other than to defend an intrenched position. If the authorities desire it then it will happen.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

In message <10kspju$2se8a$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:11:26 on Thu, 22 Jan
2026, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <s4o2nkh6ricn1j2q569vf5djlto0lercnm@4ax.com>, at 23:28:54 on
Wed, 21 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

[Highways]

Your analysis of such thing is usually completely wrong, so I won't try >>>> to refute you sentence by sentence on this occasion.

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam
issue.

It is not "my analysis"; it is what applies in courts daily in England
and Wales.

There are daily, people turning up asking to construct a beam over a
Highway? That's nonsense.

Let?s examine some actual facts. Roland?s position has been that it is >largely not possible to construct protection beams over what might be
loosely termed normal roads. The protection beams on the A5 Hinckley bridge
I referenced shows that it is entirely possible should there be a will.

Only by using the grandfathering rights, and extending the abutments.
While that's often possible, physically, on a straight-ish level road,
there just isn't the footprint available at a lot of sites, especially
level crossing underpasses.

There's also the issue of "who owns the land required" and that won't necessarily be Network Rail. But I suppose they could buy it off whoever
does.

Talk of loopholes is largely irrelevant, other than to defend an intrenched >position. If the authorities desire it then it will happen.

There are laws and codes of practice which mean that to all intents and purposes the only way to do it is to use the grandfathering loophole illustrated by the A5.

Yes, you can get new laws passed, but this only happens at places like Blackwall Tunnel, and extremely busy strategic route, where something
like an overheight petrol tanker crashing into the tunnel lining would
have catastrophic consequences.
--
Roland Perry

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 08:41:01 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <s4o2nkh6ricn1j2q569vf5djlto0lercnm@4ax.com>, at 23:28:54 on
Wed, 21 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

[Highways]

Your analysis of such thing is usually completely wrong, so I won't try >>>to refute you sentence by sentence on this occasion.

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam >issue.

It is in black and white in legislation. If I am "wrong" then
Parliament is "wrong".

It is not "my analysis"; it is what applies in courts daily in England
and Wales.

There are daily, people turning up asking to construct a beam over a >Highway? That's nonsense.

I was dealing with what constitutes a highway in England and Wales not
what can be placed on, over or adjacent to it. That can be easily seen
in the bits that you have snipped out.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 09:11:26 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <s4o2nkh6ricn1j2q569vf5djlto0lercnm@4ax.com>, at 23:28:54 on
Wed, 21 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

[Highways]

Your analysis of such thing is usually completely wrong, so I won't try >>>> to refute you sentence by sentence on this occasion.

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam
issue.

It is not "my analysis"; it is what applies in courts daily in England
and Wales.

There are daily, people turning up asking to construct a beam over a
Highway? That's nonsense.

Let?s examine some actual facts. Roland?s position has been that it is >largely not possible to construct protection beams over what might be
loosely termed normal roads. The protection beams on the A5 Hinckley bridge
I referenced shows that it is entirely possible should there be a will.
Talk of loopholes is largely irrelevant, other than to defend an intrenched >position. If the authorities desire it then it will happen.

What Roland keeps doing is implying that there is a specific legal
restriction on placing a beam over a road despite legislation clearly permitting it. There are many things permitted by the letter of
legislation which would still run into legal trouble if attempted in
the wrong circumstances; the actual restriction is a practical one as
such a structure needs land remote from a bridge to be footed upon and
to be of a design which avoids collateral damage to other road users
and/or adjacent property. That was easily achievable at Cresswell on
the A616 but not so at places like e.g. Kentish Town West.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 09:11:26 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <s4o2nkh6ricn1j2q569vf5djlto0lercnm@4ax.com>, at 23:28:54 on >>> Wed, 21 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

[Highways]

Your analysis of such thing is usually completely wrong, so I won't try >>>>> to refute you sentence by sentence on this occasion.

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam
issue.

It is not "my analysis"; it is what applies in courts daily in England >>>> and Wales.

There are daily, people turning up asking to construct a beam over a
Highway? That's nonsense.

Let?s examine some actual facts. Roland?s position has been that it is
largely not possible to construct protection beams over what might be
loosely termed normal roads. The protection beams on the A5 Hinckley bridge >> I referenced shows that it is entirely possible should there be a will.
Talk of loopholes is largely irrelevant, other than to defend an intrenched >> position. If the authorities desire it then it will happen.

What Roland keeps doing is implying that there is a specific legal restriction on placing a beam over a road despite legislation clearly permitting it. There are many things permitted by the letter of
legislation which would still run into legal trouble if attempted in
the wrong circumstances; the actual restriction is a practical one as
such a structure needs land remote from a bridge to be footed upon and
to be of a design which avoids collateral damage to other road users
and/or adjacent property. That was easily achievable at Cresswell on
the A616 but not so at places like e.g. Kentish Town West.

Exactly. It?s practical in some circumstances, not in others. That is the determining factor.


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

In message <j924nkhnjntbb43h48350haarhor4fmv9i@4ax.com>, at 11:29:05 on
Thu, 22 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 08:41:01 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <s4o2nkh6ricn1j2q569vf5djlto0lercnm@4ax.com>, at 23:28:54 on >>Wed, 21 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

[Highways]

Your analysis of such thing is usually completely wrong, so I won't try >>>>to refute you sentence by sentence on this occasion.

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam >>issue.

It is in black and white in legislation. If I am "wrong" then
Parliament is "wrong".

Read the Codes of Practice which are an essential rider to the Act(s),
then come back and claim that again.
--
Roland Perry

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

In message <mi24nkh86ovnjh3a689gblapldc2n7otpg@4ax.com>, at 11:43:33 on
Thu, 22 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 09:11:26 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <s4o2nkh6ricn1j2q569vf5djlto0lercnm@4ax.com>, at 23:28:54 on
Wed, 21 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

[Highways]

Your analysis of such thing is usually completely wrong, so I won't try >>>>> to refute you sentence by sentence on this occasion.

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam
issue.

It is not "my analysis"; it is what applies in courts daily in England >>>> and Wales.

There are daily, people turning up asking to construct a beam over a
Highway? That's nonsense.

Let?s examine some actual facts. Roland?s position has been that it is >>largely not possible to construct protection beams over what might be >>loosely termed normal roads. The protection beams on the A5 Hinckley bridge >>I referenced shows that it is entirely possible should there be a will. >>Talk of loopholes is largely irrelevant, other than to defend an intrenched >>position. If the authorities desire it then it will happen.

What Roland keeps doing is implying that there is a specific legal >restriction on placing a beam over a road despite legislation clearly >permitting it.

You are misreading that legislation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
Roland Perry

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 13:45:24 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <mi24nkh86ovnjh3a689gblapldc2n7otpg@4ax.com>, at 11:43:33 on
Thu, 22 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 09:11:26 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <s4o2nkh6ricn1j2q569vf5djlto0lercnm@4ax.com>, at 23:28:54 on >>>> Wed, 21 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

[Highways]

Your analysis of such thing is usually completely wrong, so I won't try >>>>>> to refute you sentence by sentence on this occasion.

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam >>>> issue.

It is not "my analysis"; it is what applies in courts daily in England >>>>> and Wales.

There are daily, people turning up asking to construct a beam over a
Highway? That's nonsense.

Let?s examine some actual facts. Roland?s position has been that it is >>>largely not possible to construct protection beams over what might be >>>loosely termed normal roads. The protection beams on the A5 Hinckley bridge >>>I referenced shows that it is entirely possible should there be a will. >>>Talk of loopholes is largely irrelevant, other than to defend an intrenched >>>position. If the authorities desire it then it will happen.

What Roland keeps doing is implying that there is a specific legal >>restriction on placing a beam over a road despite legislation clearly >>permitting it.

You are misreading that legislation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which bit?

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 13:46:35 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <j924nkhnjntbb43h48350haarhor4fmv9i@4ax.com>, at 11:29:05 on
Thu, 22 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 08:41:01 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <s4o2nkh6ricn1j2q569vf5djlto0lercnm@4ax.com>, at 23:28:54 on >>>Wed, 21 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

[Highways]

Your analysis of such thing is usually completely wrong, so I won't try >>>>>to refute you sentence by sentence on this occasion.

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam >>>issue.

It is in black and white in legislation. If I am "wrong" then
Parliament is "wrong".

Read the Codes of Practice which are an essential rider to the Act(s),
then come back and claim that again.

Which CoP ? They are legion.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

In message <ukm7nkh5j2lki71shgffjfcbga2alv60co@4ax.com>, at 20:33:48 on
Fri, 23 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 13:46:35 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <j924nkhnjntbb43h48350haarhor4fmv9i@4ax.com>, at 11:29:05 on >>Thu, 22 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 08:41:01 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <s4o2nkh6ricn1j2q569vf5djlto0lercnm@4ax.com>, at 23:28:54 on >>>>Wed, 21 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> >>>>remarked:

[Highways]

Your analysis of such thing is usually completely wrong, so I won't try >>>>>>to refute you sentence by sentence on this occasion.

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam >>>>issue.

It is in black and white in legislation. If I am "wrong" then
Parliament is "wrong".

Read the Codes of Practice which are an essential rider to the Act(s),
then come back and claim that again.

Which CoP ? They are legion.

You can't claim to understand the subject, if you don't know. I
published links to them a few years ago, which have been largely
ignored by people here ever since. It's just not worth the candle
to debate this again.
--
Roland Perry

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

In message <qjm7nk9d7dejji43oeolvdc06qi7it5ksp@4ax.com>, at 20:31:05 on
Fri, 23 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 13:45:24 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <mi24nkh86ovnjh3a689gblapldc2n7otpg@4ax.com>, at 11:43:33 on >>Thu, 22 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 09:11:26 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

In message <s4o2nkh6ricn1j2q569vf5djlto0lercnm@4ax.com>, at 23:28:54 on >>>>> Wed, 21 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

[Highways]

Your analysis of such thing is usually completely wrong, so I won't try >>>>>>> to refute you sentence by sentence on this occasion.

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam >>>>> issue.

It is not "my analysis"; it is what applies in courts daily in England >>>>>> and Wales.

There are daily, people turning up asking to construct a beam over a >>>>> Highway? That's nonsense.

Let?s examine some actual facts. Roland?s position has been that it is >>>>largely not possible to construct protection beams over what might be >>>>loosely termed normal roads. The protection beams on the A5 Hinckley bridge >>>>I referenced shows that it is entirely possible should there be a will. >>>>Talk of loopholes is largely irrelevant, other than to defend an intrenched >>>>position. If the authorities desire it then it will happen.

What Roland keeps doing is implying that there is a specific legal >>>restriction on placing a beam over a road despite legislation clearly >>>permitting it.

You are misreading that legislation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which bit?

The bits you claim support your assertions.
--
Roland Perry

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On 24/01/2026 08:12, Roland Perry wrote:

In message <ukm7nkh5j2lki71shgffjfcbga2alv60co@4ax.com>, at 20:33:48 on
Fri, 23 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 13:46:35 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <j924nkhnjntbb43h48350haarhor4fmv9i@4ax.com>, at 11:29:05 on
Thu, 22 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 08:41:01 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <s4o2nkh6ricn1j2q569vf5djlto0lercnm@4ax.com>, at
23:28:54 on
Wed, 21 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

[Highways]

Your analysis of such thing is usually completely wrong, so I
won't try
to refute you sentence by sentence on this occasion.

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam >>>>> issue.

It is in black and white in legislation. If I am "wrong" then
Parliament is "wrong".

Read the Codes of Practice which are an essential rider to the Act(s),
then come back and claim that again.

Which CoP ? They are legion.

You can't claim to understand the subject, if you don't know. I
published links to them a few years ago, which have been largely
ignored by people here ever since. It's just not worth the candle
to debate this again.

Then why are you responding?

--
Colin


--- PyGate Linux v1.5.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

In message <10l394t$13ck5$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:13:16 on Sat, 24 Jan
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam >>>>>> issue.

It is in black and white in legislation. If I am "wrong" then
Parliament is "wrong".

Read the Codes of Practice which are an essential rider to the Act(s), >>>> then come back and claim that again.

Which CoP ? They are legion.

You can't claim to understand the subject, if you don't know. I >>published links to them a few years ago, which have been largely
ignored by people here ever since. It's just not worth the candle
to debate this again.

Then why are you responding?

I am owed a right of reply. And I've done the minimum possible to refute
the claim "Your admission of being wrong again is noted".

There was no admission, and the use of the word "again" is a false
narrative. Oh, and I wasn't wrong.
--
Roland Perry

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 08:12:37 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <ukm7nkh5j2lki71shgffjfcbga2alv60co@4ax.com>, at 20:33:48 on
Fri, 23 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 13:46:35 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <j924nkhnjntbb43h48350haarhor4fmv9i@4ax.com>, at 11:29:05 on >>>Thu, 22 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 08:41:01 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>wrote:

In message <s4o2nkh6ricn1j2q569vf5djlto0lercnm@4ax.com>, at 23:28:54 on >>>>>Wed, 21 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> >>>>>remarked:

[Highways]

Your analysis of such thing is usually completely wrong, so I won't try >>>>>>>to refute you sentence by sentence on this occasion.

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam >>>>>issue.

It is in black and white in legislation. If I am "wrong" then >>>>Parliament is "wrong".

Read the Codes of Practice which are an essential rider to the Act(s), >>>then come back and claim that again.

Which CoP ? They are legion.

You can't claim to understand the subject, if you don't know.

You don't seem to know as you don't specify any.

I >published links to them a few years ago,

So probably well out of date by now.

which have been largely >ignored by people here ever since. It's just not worth the candle
to debate this again.

or as usual you cannot or will not give relevant cites.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 23:55:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <10l394t$13ck5$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:13:16 on Sat, 24 Jan
2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam >>>>>>> issue.

It is in black and white in legislation. If I am "wrong" then
Parliament is "wrong".

Read the Codes of Practice which are an essential rider to the Act(s), >>>>> then come back and claim that again.

Which CoP ? They are legion.

You can't claim to understand the subject, if you don't know. I >>>published links to them a few years ago, which have been largely
ignored by people here ever since. It's just not worth the candle
to debate this again.

Then why are you responding?

I am owed a right of reply. And I've done the minimum possible to refute
the claim "Your admission of being wrong again is noted".

There was no admission, and the use of the word "again" is a false >narrative. Oh, and I wasn't wrong.

You haven't proved that.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.5
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

In message <siqanktb2mdlikue3k8o5d2ngur2gbogic@4ax.com>, at 00:57:21 on
Sun, 25 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2026 23:55:57 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <10l394t$13ck5$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:13:16 on Sat, 24 Jan >>2026, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:

Your admission of being wrong again is noted.

I thing you it read incorrectly. You are wrong about the overhead beam >>>>>>>> issue.

It is in black and white in legislation. If I am "wrong" then
Parliament is "wrong".

Read the Codes of Practice which are an essential rider to the Act(s), >>>>>> then come back and claim that again.

Which CoP ? They are legion.

You can't claim to understand the subject, if you don't know. I >>>>published links to them a few years ago, which have been largely
ignored by people here ever since. It's just not worth the candle
to debate this again.

Then why are you responding?

I am owed a right of reply. And I've done the minimum possible to refute >>the claim "Your admission of being wrong again is noted".

There was no admission, and the use of the word "again" is a false >>narrative. Oh, and I wasn't wrong.

You haven't proved that.

Experience shows you are unable, or unwilling, to accept *anything* as
proof. So guess what, I've stopped bothering.
--
Roland Perry

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.8
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

In message <edqank112a3h63b2fjnnooesh2hpdlgchu@4ax.com>, at 00:56:37 on
Sun, 25 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

I >published links to them a few years ago,

So probably well out of date by now.

Whereas your (irrelevant as it happens) links regarding definitions of "highway" are how old, precisely?
--
Roland Perry

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.8
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:28:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <edqank112a3h63b2fjnnooesh2hpdlgchu@4ax.com>, at 00:56:37 on
Sun, 25 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

I >published links to them a few years ago,

So probably well out of date by now.

Whereas your (irrelevant as it happens) links regarding definitions of >"highway" are how old, precisely?

The basic definition of a "highway" comes from Common Law, many years
old and still current.

"The word highway has no single meaning in the law but, in
non-technical language, it is a way over which the public have rights
of passage, whether on foot, on horseback or in (or on) vehicles."
[London Borough of Southwark and another (Respondents) v Transport for
London (Appellant) - 2018 UKSC 63

No doubt you will disagree with Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath,
Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Briggs and be telling them that they are
talking through the hole in their wigs.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.8
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

In message <5susnkdecjsblrpb65653rt8vc4nb5m2us@4ax.com>, at 22:18:49 on
Sat, 31 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 13:28:13 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

In message <edqank112a3h63b2fjnnooesh2hpdlgchu@4ax.com>, at 00:56:37 on >>Sun, 25 Jan 2026, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:

I >published links to them a few years ago,

So probably well out of date by now.

Whereas your (irrelevant as it happens) links regarding definitions of >>"highway" are how old, precisely?

The basic definition of a "highway" comes from Common Law, many years
old and still current.

All very interesting, but as I've said about three times now, irrelevant
to the discussion of protection beams, because there's never been any
dispute that the railway bridges which get bashed are almost all over highways. So the rules preventing erecting new ones over them are as
I've always stated.

"The word highway has no single meaning in the law but, in
non-technical language, it is a way over which the public have rights
of passage, whether on foot, on horseback or in (or on) vehicles."
[London Borough of Southwark and another (Respondents) v Transport for
London (Appellant) - 2018 UKSC 63

No doubt you will disagree with Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath,
Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lord Briggs and be telling them that they are
talking through the hole in their wigs.

--
Roland Perry

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.10
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)