Hi Andy,
There is nothing inherently wrong with .doc but .odt tends to be the
native default in Open Office and Libre Office running with the Linux
distros on my machines. Being a Linux and open source fan I like to do
my bit to promote alternatives.
He who would be obeyed has plans to require PC manufacturers to
implement UEFI secure boot on certified Windows 8 machines. This could
if implemented result in buyers being prevented from installing or dual
booting other OS's. How would you like to be prevented from choosing
which brand of tyre you fit on your car? Or, perhaps, even which brand
of juice you put in your tank. Ultimately one might be unable to run
uncertified experimental software on a Microsoft proprietary OS. Sorry,
Andy but it's a 'freedom' thing that some of us oldies who wore duffel
coats in the 50's and 60's mumble into our real ales about.
Anyway, herewith, a fresh attachment in .doc
p.s The file was slightly smaller in .odt - my gut feeling says smaller
= more efficient !
On Sat, 2012-05-05 at 17:34 +0100, Andy Talbot wrote:
> Can you resend the attachment in a format we can actually read.
> .PDF would be ideal, but what's wrong with .doc
>
> Andy
> G4JNT
>
>
> On 5 May 2012 16:12, pat <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Mal, actually the CLUED is just a little more complicated than just 4
> > years as a qualifying period. A 10 year period can apply to some aspects
> > as you will read in the attachment. The attachment is from a journal
> > called Local Government Lawyer and is guidance to those professionally
> > engaged in such matters. The appropriate law books have this in more
> > detailed and technical form.
> >
> > Trust this will clarify the position.
> >
> > If any have problems with .odt I can provide .doc or .rtf
> > (in a world of open systems, who needs windows and gates or other
> > "Bloatware Inc" products)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 10:44 +0000, mal hamilton wrote:
> >> 4 years is the requirement NOT 10 years
> >>
> >> de G3KEV
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "pat" <[email protected]>
> >> To: <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 1:02 PM
> >> Subject: Re: LF: UK Ae mast planning info
> >>
> >>
> >> > Hi Peter,
> >> >
> >> > It's worth bearing in mind that it is possible to obtain a Certificate
> >> > of Lawful Development for Existing Use - CLUED. The general proviso
> >> > being that you must be able to substantiate that the "existing use" has
> >> > persisted for a period of 10 years. Always worth investigating as the
> >> > granting of such a certificate is "evidence-based" and not supposed to
> >> > be at the whim of an official.
> >> >
> >> > 73
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, 2012-04-26 at 20:38 +0100, Peter Dodd wrote:
> >> > > Hi Graham,
> >> > > How the mast is fixed into the ground is irrelevant. The planning
> >> > > permission is just for the mast. There is no distinction between
> >> > > permanent and temporary in the planning laws to my knowledge,
> >> > >
> >> > > In the past some have tried to circumvent the planning restriction by
> >> > > having a portable (mast on trailer) arrangement but I don't think that
> >> > > works.
> >> > >
> >> > > I live in rather a stuffy private estate and I got permission on
> >> > > appeal on the grounds that the mast was fold-over and I agreed to only
> >> > > have it raised at night. Over the years the people who made all the
> >> > > fuss about the antenna have since died and I put it up when I like.
> >> > > Whether this is due to indifference or fear that the curse of the
> >> > > radio mast will strike again is not known.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Peter, G3LDO
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 26/04/2012 18:53, Graham wrote:
> >> > > > Can anyone advise on the planning relevance / requirements to
> >> > > > these questions , with regards to Ae pole at the bottom of the
> >> > > > garden
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 1. Is the secure base moveable or is it concreted into the ground?
> >> > > > 2. Can the mast be readily removed from the secure base?
> >> > > > 3. If the mast is a permanent structure, has the refurbishment
> >> > > > resulted in the erection of an entirely new mast,
> >> > > >
> >> > > > what is the relevance of the base being concreted into the
> >> > > > ground ?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I assume the question of detaching the pole from the base is
> >> > > > one of permanent or temporary structure ?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > replacing like with like would not be classed as a new mast ?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Tnx -G
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________________
> >> > > >
> >> > > > No virus found in this message.
> >> > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> > > > Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2411/4959 - Release Date:
> >> > > > 04/25/12
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > 73 es gd dx de Pat G4GVW, Nr Felixstowe, East Coast, UK
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > 73 es gd dx de Pat G4GVW, Nr Felixstowe, East Coast, UK
>
--
73 es gd dx de Pat G4GVW, Nr Felixstowe, East Coast, UK
CLUED_Guidance_Notes.doc
Description: MS-Word document
|
