The completion target for the £295m rail link between Edinburgh and
the Borders has been put back a year.

Finance Secretary John Swinney said on Monday that the process of
appointing a contractor for the project would be under way by the end
of the year.

However, the contract will not be awarded until autumn 2011, meaning
works will not be completed until 2014.

It had previously been hoped that the route between Edinburgh and
Tweedbank could be reopened to trains by 2013.

A spokeswoman for Transport Scotland said: "We expect to award the
contract in autumn 2011 and anticipate construction to take around two
and a half years.

"A key part of the competitive dialogue process will focus on
contractors' ability to improve on this completion date.

"This will be an important part of the tender evaluation process."

The procurement process had originally been scheduled to get under way
before the end of last year, but Transport Scotland said that
"unprecedented changes" in the economic climate had delayed this.

The spokeswoman added: "A revised programme to accommodate this has
been created."

Mr Swinney told a South of Scotland Forum meeting on Monday that the
Scottish government remained committed to the scheme.

He said it could be a "significant catalyst" for economic growth and
progress had already been made on the plans.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8340027.stm

I suppose it was only inevitable given the current situation.

McKevvy

On 3 Nov, 17:51, McKevvy  wrote:
> The completion target for the £295m rail link between Edinburgh and
> the Borders has been put back a year.
>
> Finance Secretary John Swinney said on Monday that the process of
> appointing a contractor for the project would be under way by the end
> of the year.

Posting this info has led me to look up a bit more about the Waverley
Line.
On the Waverley website there is progress timeline of the railway line
and I note;

"June 2006


On 14th June 2006 the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill was passed by
the Scottish Parliament by 114 votes to one with one abstention."

(http://www.waverleyrailwayproject.co.uk/background.php)

So with a resounding majority such as this, would it not be possible
to look at re-opening other lines? Surely with this political
endorsment behind this line, then it must be feasble to look at re-
laying some of the defunct lines that have closed?

Just a thought.

McK.

On Nov 3, 6:12 pm, McKevvy  wrote:

> On the Waverley website there is progress timeline of the railway line
> and I note;
>
> "June 2006
>
> On 14th June 2006 the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill was passed by
> the Scottish Parliament by 114 votes to one with one abstention."
>
> (http://www.waverleyrailwayproject.co.uk/background.php)
>
> So with a resounding majority such as this, would it not be possible
> to look at re-opening other lines? Surely with this political
> endorsment behind this line, then it must be feasble to look at re-
> laying some of the defunct lines that have closed?
>

That was before 3 May 2007, when the present SNP minority government
replaced the previous pro-rail Labour-LibDem coalition. Since coming
to power, they've cancelled the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link, tried to
cancel the Edinburgh Trams, cancelled the Glasgow Airport Rail Link
and deferred the Waverley Route reopening.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Railway Signs and Signals of Great Britain:
<http://www.railsigns.co.uk/>

In message 
          "Railsigns.co.uk"  wrote:

> On Nov 3, 6:12 pm, McKevvy  wrote:
> 
> > On the Waverley website there is progress timeline of the railway line
> > and I note;
> >
> > "June 2006
> >
> > On 14th June 2006 the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill was passed by
> > the Scottish Parliament by 114 votes to one with one abstention."
> >
> > (http://www.waverleyrailwayproject.co.uk/background.php)
> >
> > So with a resounding majority such as this, would it not be possible
> > to look at re-opening other lines? Surely with this political
> > endorsment behind this line, then it must be feasble to look at re-
> > laying some of the defunct lines that have closed?
> >
> 
> That was before 3 May 2007, when the present SNP minority government
> replaced the previous pro-rail Labour-LibDem coalition. Since coming
> to power, they've cancelled the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link, tried to
> cancel the Edinburgh Trams, cancelled the Glasgow Airport Rail Link
> and deferred the Waverley Route reopening.
> 

And are now trying to cancel the United Kingdom...

-- 
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

On Nov 3, 11:03 am, Graeme  wrote:
> In message 
>           "Railsigns.co.uk"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 6:12 pm, McKevvy  wrote:
>
> > > On the Waverley website there is progress timeline of the railway line
> > > and I note;
>
> > > "June 2006
>
> > > On 14th June 2006 the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill was passed by
> > > the Scottish Parliament by 114 votes to one with one abstention."
>
> > > (http://www.waverleyrailwayproject.co.uk/background.php)
>
> > > So with a resounding majority such as this, would it not be possible
> > > to look at re-opening other lines? Surely with this political
> > > endorsment behind this line, then it must be feasble to look at re-
> > > laying some of the defunct lines that have closed?
>
> > That was before 3 May 2007, when the present SNP minority government
> > replaced the previous pro-rail Labour-LibDem coalition. Since coming
> > to power, they've cancelled the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link, tried to
> > cancel the Edinburgh Trams, cancelled the Glasgow Airport Rail Link
> > and deferred the Waverley Route reopening.
>
> And are now trying to cancel the United Kingdom...
>
Can England & Wales not pre-empt them?  Just hold a referendum on
whether E&W should leave the United Kingdom.  :-)

On Nov 3, 8:18 pm, E27002  wrote:

> Can England & Wales not pre-empt them?  Just hold a referendum on
> whether E&W should leave the United Kingdom.  :-)
>

That would result in the "United Kingdom of Scotland and Northern
Ireland".

On Nov 3, 12:20 pm, "Railsigns.co.uk"  wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:18 pm, E27002  wrote:
>
> > Can England & Wales not pre-empt them?  Just hold a referendum on
> > whether E&W should leave the United Kingdom.  :-)
>
> That would result in the "United Kingdom of Scotland and Northern
> Ireland".

Indeed so.  Be gentlemen, and wish them every success as you leave.
The Czech Republic and Slovakia did it.

In message 
          "Railsigns.co.uk"  wrote:

> On Nov 3, 8:18 pm, E27002  wrote:
> 
> > Can England & Wales not pre-empt them?  Just hold a referendum on
> > whether E&W should leave the United Kingdom.  :-)
> >
> 
> That would result in the "United Kingdom of Scotland and Northern
> Ireland".

Well that would keep Our Man in Aylesbury happy.

-- 
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

On 3 Nov, 18:42, "Railsigns.co.uk"  wrote:
> On Nov 3, 6:12 pm, McKevvy  wrote:
>
> > On the Waverley website there is progress timeline of the railway line
> > and I note;
>
> > "June 2006
>
> > On 14th June 2006 the Waverley Railway (Scotland) Bill was passed by
> > the Scottish Parliament by 114 votes to one with one abstention."
>
> > (http://www.waverleyrailwayproject.co.uk/background.php)
>
> > So with a resounding majority such as this, would it not be possible
> > to look at re-opening other lines? Surely with this political
> > endorsment behind this line, then it must be feasble to look at re-
> > laying some of the defunct lines that have closed?
>
> That was before 3 May 2007, when the present SNP minority government
> replaced the previous pro-rail Labour-LibDem coalition. Since coming
> to power, they've cancelled the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link, tried to
> cancel the Edinburgh Trams, cancelled the Glasgow Airport Rail Link
> and deferred the Waverley Route reopening.
>

...without even mentioning my local disused line - the Leven line. I
really would like to see that up and running - especially as Diagio is
shifting all its work here.

McKevvy

E27002  wrote:

> On Nov 3, 12:20 pm, "Railsigns.co.uk"  wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 8:18 pm, E27002  wrote:
> >
> > > Can England & Wales not pre-empt them?  Just hold a referendum on
> > > whether E&W should leave the United Kingdom.  :-)
> >
> > That would result in the "United Kingdom of Scotland and Northern
> > Ireland".
> 
> Indeed so.  Be gentlemen, and wish them every success as you leave.
> The Czech Republic and Slovakia did it.

Could be fun when the Scots apply for membership of the eurozone.

On Nov 3, 9:20 pm, McKevvy  wrote:
> On 3 Nov, 18:42, "Railsigns.co.uk"  wrote:

> > That was before 3 May 2007, when the present SNP minority government
> > replaced the previous pro-rail Labour-LibDem coalition. Since coming
> > to power, they've cancelled the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link, tried to
> > cancel the Edinburgh Trams, cancelled the Glasgow Airport Rail Link
> > and deferred the Waverley Route reopening.
>
> ...without even mentioning my local disused line - the Leven line.
>

The difference is that the four projects I mentioned had all been
passed by the Scottish Parliament (prior to the election) and received
royal assent.

In message <1j8mn5j.12et0lk1k49x9fN%grinnikt.meestal@INVALIDxs4all.nl>
          grinnikt.meestal@INVALIDxs4all.nl (iMark) wrote:

> E27002  wrote:
> 
> > On Nov 3, 12:20 pm, "Railsigns.co.uk"  wrote:
> > > On Nov 3, 8:18 pm, E27002  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can England & Wales not pre-empt them?  Just hold a referendum on
> > > > whether E&W should leave the United Kingdom.  :-)
> > >
> > > That would result in the "United Kingdom of Scotland and Northern
> > > Ireland".
> > 
> > Indeed so.  Be gentlemen, and wish them every success as you leave.
> > The Czech Republic and Slovakia did it.
> 
> Could be fun when the Scots apply for membership of the eurozone.

Would leave the lttle englanders as the hole in the eurozone layer...

I'll get my Harris Tweed coat.

-- 
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

In message 
          Charles Ellson  wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:20:24 -0800 (PST), "Railsigns.co.uk"
>  wrote:
> 
> >On Nov 3, 8:18 pm, E27002  wrote:
> >
> >> Can England & Wales not pre-empt them?  Just hold a referendum on
> >> whether E&W should leave the United Kingdom.  :-)
> >>
> >
> >That would result in the "United Kingdom of Scotland and Northern
> >Ireland".
> >
> Applying the same logic that many Unionist MPs have been WRT Scotland
> leaving the Union it would leave us with all the UK money. You can
> keep Northern Ireland.

No No we insist...

-- 
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>

On 3 Nov, 22:00, "Railsigns.co.uk"  wrote:
> On Nov 3, 9:20 pm, McKevvy  wrote:
>
> > On 3 Nov, 18:42, "Railsigns.co.uk"  wrote:
> > > That was before 3 May 2007, when the present SNP minority government
> > > replaced the previous pro-rail Labour-LibDem coalition. Since coming
> > > to power, they've cancelled the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link, tried to
> > > cancel the Edinburgh Trams, cancelled the Glasgow Airport Rail Link
> > > and deferred the Waverley Route reopening.
>
> > ...without even mentioning my local disused line - the Leven line.
>
> The difference is that the four projects I mentioned had all been
> passed by the Scottish Parliament (prior to the election) and received
> royal assent.

I don't have much knowledge in legislature at all but from what you're
saying am I to understand that these projects can sit on the
backburner for any length of time?

McKevvy

On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:42:34 -0800 (PST) someone who may be
"Railsigns.co.uk"  wrote this:-

>That was before 3 May 2007, when the present SNP minority government
>replaced the previous pro-rail Labour-LibDem coalition. Since coming
>to power, they've cancelled the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link, tried to
>cancel the Edinburgh Trams, cancelled the Glasgow Airport Rail Link
>and deferred the Waverley Route reopening.

Though money appears to be no object for new road schemes. Spending
on roads has increased hugely since that bunch got into power.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:52:02 +0000, Charles Ellson
 wrote:
>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:20:24 -0800 (PST), "Railsigns.co.uk"
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 3, 8:18 pm, E27002  wrote:
>>
>>> Can England & Wales not pre-empt them?  Just hold a referendum on
>>> whether E&W should leave the United Kingdom.  :-)
>>>
>>
>>That would result in the "United Kingdom of Scotland and Northern
>>Ireland".
>>
>Applying the same logic that many Unionist MPs have been WRT Scotland
>leaving the Union it would leave us with all the UK money. You can
>keep Northern Ireland.


No way!  The population includes a high proportion that are of
Scottish descent, so they're all yours.  ;-)

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:13:39 +0000, Bruce 
wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:52:02 +0000, Charles Ellson
> wrote:
>>On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:20:24 -0800 (PST), "Railsigns.co.uk"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Nov 3, 8:18 pm, E27002  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can England & Wales not pre-empt them?  Just hold a referendum on
>>>> whether E&W should leave the United Kingdom.  :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>That would result in the "United Kingdom of Scotland and Northern
>>>Ireland".
>>>
>>Applying the same logic that many Unionist MPs have been WRT Scotland
>>leaving the Union it would leave us with all the UK money. You can
>>keep Northern Ireland.
>
>No way!  The population includes a high proportion that are of
>Scottish descent, so they're all yours.  ;-)
>
Then you'll also have to take back much of the population of Edinburgh
("the largest English town in Scotland"). You can send them to
Barbados if you don't want them and we can have the Redlegs back.

In article ,
 Charles Ellson  wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:13:39 +0000, Bruce 
> wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:52:02 +0000, Charles Ellson
> >
> >>Applying the same logic that many Unionist MPs have been WRT Scotland
> >>leaving the Union it would leave us with all the UK money. You can
> >>keep Northern Ireland.
> >
> >No way!  The population includes a high proportion that are of
> >Scottish descent, so they're all yours.  ;-)
> >
> Then you'll also have to take back much of the population of Edinburgh
> ("the largest English town in Scotland"). You can send them to
> Barbados if you don't want them and we can have the Redlegs back.

But I don't want to go!  I certainly don't want to go to Barbados!

Sam

On 4 Nov, 09:02, David Hansen  wrote:
> >That was before 3 May 2007, when the present SNP minority government
> >replaced the previous pro-rail Labour-LibDem coalition. Since coming
> >to power, they've cancelled the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link, tried to
> >cancel the Edinburgh Trams, cancelled the Glasgow Airport Rail Link
> >and deferred the Waverley Route reopening.
> Though money appears to be no object for new road schemes. Spending
> on roads has increased hugely since that bunch got into power.

Stagecoach don't run trains.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6462119.stm

Owain

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 03:11:34 -0800 (PST) someone who may be Owain
 wrote this:-

>Stagecoach don't run trains.

Really?

That's interesting because on Tuesday I was at an event on Peak Oil
and the speaker from Stagecoach mentioned their train operations
several times. AFAIK they still own 49% of Virgin Trains.

I once went on a press run for the then new Class 220 trains which
was (unusually) promoted as Stagecoach rather than Virgin. Indeed,
when I look up from my keyboard I see a cartoon of myself, a drawing
of the Forth Bridge and the words STAGECOACH VOYAGER 2001. Mr Souter
did not have two heads, as one would imagine from some of the
descriptions given of him by his detractors. I was not in favour of
the Keep the Clause campaign, but see no reason why he should not
have supported it, I regard the SNP as no better or worse than the
other two large parties (or the Tories for that matter) and see no
reason why he should not donate to them if he wants. Despite the
best efforts of Labour people still have a degree of freedom, long
may that remain.

<http://www.stagecoachgroup.com/scg/media/press/pr2007/2007-02-20/>
is from 2007 but gives an idea of their rail efforts.




-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Nov 5, 2:40 am, Sam Wilson  wrote:
> In article ,
>  Charles Ellson  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:13:39 퍍, Bruce 
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:52:02 퍍, Charles Ellson
>
> > >>Applying the same logic that many Unionist MPs have been WRT Scotland
> > >>leaving the Union it would leave us with all the UK money. You can
> > >>keep Northern Ireland.
>
> > >No way!  The population includes a high proportion that are of
> > >Scottish descent, so they're all yours.  ;-)
>
> > Then you'll also have to take back much of the population of Edinburgh
> > ("the largest English town in Scotland"). You can send them to
> > Barbados if you don't want them and we can have the Redlegs back.
>
> But I don't want to go!  I certainly don't want to go to Barbados!
>
> Sam

One is not sure which "English" people to whom the poster referred.
Does he mean the Anglo Saxons who moved north at the time of the
Norman Conquest?  IMHO, they are now as Scottish as their Scythian and
Pictish neighbors.

Or, does he refer to more recent "immigrants" from the south?  To
which I respond that there are almost certainly far more Scotts living
in England than vice versa.

No matter, moving populations about, based on a change in political
status, would be a mistake.  Think India and Pakistan in 1947.

The future of the United Kingdom, or otherwise, is for the peoples of
the United Kingdom to determine.  This Welsh Jew of English birth has
worked a number of contracts in Edinburgh and would gladly do so again
whether Scotland be in Union with England, or not.

My original point stands, England & Wales have as much right to leave
the Union as Scotland.  This is something The English and Welsh
peoples may want to explore.  That way they leave on their own terms,
and do not have deal with the aftermath of a Scottish exit.  Scotland
and Northern Ireland would have to determine the nature of the
remaining Union.

"E27002"  wrote

> My original point stands, England & Wales have as much right to leave
> the Union as Scotland.  This is something The English and Welsh
> peoples may want to explore.  That way they leave on their own terms,
> and do not have deal with the aftermath of a Scottish exit.  Scotland
> and Northern Ireland would have to determine the nature of the
> remaining Union.

Why would we (the English) want to take the Welsh with us?

It seems to me that the English taxpayer subsidises all the other entities 
of the UK.  Wouldn't we be better off alone, if only so we can be rid of the 
bloody plethora of Scottish Labour politicians who seem hell-bent on 
destroying the economy of the whole country.  ;-)

John.

On Nov 5, 8:35 am, "John Turner" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> "E27002"  wrote
>
> > My original point stands, England & Wales have as much right to leave
> > the Union as Scotland.  This is something The English and Welsh
> > peoples may want to explore.  That way they leave on their own terms,
> > and do not have deal with the aftermath of a Scottish exit.  Scotland
> > and Northern Ireland would have to determine the nature of the
> > remaining Union.
>
> Why would we (the English)

Speak for yourself.

> want to take the Welsh with us?

England & Wales is one political unit.  Welsh Law ceased to exist in
the 1540s.  Anglo Saxon settlers live in our (British) territory of
Loegr.  Separation would be difficult, counter intuitive, and
unnecessary.
>
> It seems to me that the English taxpayer subsidises all the other entities
> of the UK.  Wouldn't we be better off alone, if only so we can be rid of the
> bloody plethora of Scottish Labour politicians who seem hell-bent on
> destroying the economy of the whole country.  ;-)
>
England & Wales were alone, together, long before there was a Union
with Ireland or Scotland.   The North of England may be a bigger cost
to the Taxpayer of the Home Counties than the any part of Wales.

On Nov 5, 8:35 am, "John Turner" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> "E27002"  wrote
>
> > My original point stands, England & Wales have as much right to leave
> > the Union as Scotland.  This is something The English and Welsh
> > peoples may want to explore.  That way they leave on their own terms,
> > and do not have deal with the aftermath of a Scottish exit.  Scotland
> > and Northern Ireland would have to determine the nature of the
> > remaining Union.
>
> Why would we (the English)

Speak for yourself.

> want to take the Welsh with us?

England & Wales is one political unit.  Welsh Law ceased to exist in
the 1540s.  Anglo Saxon settlers live in our (British) territory of
Loegr.  Separation would be difficult, counter intuitive, and
unnecessary.

> It seems to me that the English taxpayer subsidises all the other entities
> of the UK.  Wouldn't we be better off alone, if only so we can be rid of the
> bloody plethora of Scottish Labour politicians who seem hell-bent on
> destroying the economy of the whole country.  ;-)


England & Wales were alone, together, long before there was a Union
with Ireland or Scotland.   The North of England may be a bigger cost
to the Taxpayesr of the Home Counties than any part of Wales.

On 5 Nov, 11:11, Owain  wrote:

> Stagecoach don't run trains.

From http://www.southwesttrains.co.uk/SWtrains/_Aboutus/Corporate+Information/

"Corporate information

Stagecoach South Western Trains Limited is registered in England and
Wales 5599788. Registered office: Friars Bridge Court, 41-45
Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NZ.

Stagecoach South Western is part of the Stagecoach Group. Registered
Office: 10 Dunkeld Road, Perth PH1 5TW, Scotland. Registered in
Scotland. Registered Number: 100764

Stagecoach South Western Trains is the registered company for South
West Trains running 1,675 trains every weekday, serving 218 stations
(186 of wich are resourced with South West Trains employees, including
Waterloo and Island Line) and employing around 5,200 staff.

"E27002"  wrote

> Welsh Law ceased to exist in the 1540s.

There was at least one idiosyncrasy where the law in Wales differed from the 
law in England until the 1990s. In England until then, if you bought 
something between dawn and dusk at a recognised market the concept of 
'market overt' applied, and you got good title to the item if it 
subsequently proved to have been stolen. This didn't apply in Wales, and was 
a source of trick questions for law students.

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:

> "E27002"  wrote
> 
>> Welsh Law ceased to exist in the 1540s.
> 
> There was at least one idiosyncrasy where the law in Wales differed from the 
> law in England until the 1990s. In England until then, if you bought 
> something between dawn and dusk at a recognised market the concept of 
> 'market overt' applied, and you got good title to the item if it 
> subsequently proved to have been stolen. This didn't apply in Wales, and was 
> a source of trick questions for law students.

I remember that from my law studies, which were in the 1980s. Does
"market overt" not apply any more, then?

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857150.html
(43 030 at Exeter St Davids, 1985)

"Chris  Tolley" <cj.tolley@bogus.co.uk (ukonline really)> wrote in message 
news:1xgfu5s40e9r9.haudx3d3uu28.dlg@40tude.net...
> Peter Masson wrote:
>
>> "E27002"  wrote
>>
>>> Welsh Law ceased to exist in the 1540s.
>>
>> There was at least one idiosyncrasy where the law in Wales differed from 
>> the
>> law in England until the 1990s. In England until then, if you bought
>> something between dawn and dusk at a recognised market the concept of
>> 'market overt' applied, and you got good title to the item if it
>> subsequently proved to have been stolen. This didn't apply in Wales, and 
>> was
>> a source of trick questions for law students.
>
> I remember that from my law studies, which were in the 1980s. Does
> "market overt" not apply any more, then?
>
Abolished for sales from 3 January 1995 by the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 
1994.
http://www.artlossreview.com/legal/legalarchive.php?id=1

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:

> "Chris  Tolley" <cj.tolley@bogus.co.uk (ukonline really)> wrote in message 
> news:1xgfu5s40e9r9.haudx3d3uu28.dlg@40tude.net...
>> Peter Masson wrote:
>>
>>> "E27002"  wrote
>>>
>>>> Welsh Law ceased to exist in the 1540s.
>>>
>>> There was at least one idiosyncrasy where the law in Wales differed from 
>>> the
>>> law in England until the 1990s. In England until then, if you bought
>>> something between dawn and dusk at a recognised market the concept of
>>> 'market overt' applied, and you got good title to the item if it
>>> subsequently proved to have been stolen. This didn't apply in Wales, and 
>>> was
>>> a source of trick questions for law students.
>>
>> I remember that from my law studies, which were in the 1980s. Does
>> "market overt" not apply any more, then?
>>
> Abolished for sales from 3 January 1995 by the Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act 
> 1994.
> http://www.artlossreview.com/legal/legalarchive.php?id=1

Thanks. That's my learning done for the day. ;-)

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683834.html
(158 810 at Stalybridge, 26 Feb 2001)