[BBC News] Clarkson may grant walkers access

[Theodolite]

.....I really cannot see that any length of time has any effect on a landowners rights to stop people setting foot on his/her land.

 

Said with the voice of common sense and decent morals. But that ain't the law.

 

For example, put simply, if you sneak in some neighbour's land and make out that it is yours without being challenged, then after 21 years years it is yours. Lawyers on the Isle of Man know the tricks of course and it is not unknown for them to arrange for areas of land to be possessed in this manner and often using the sneakiest and underhand of methods to do so. To me and you what is a despicable act is to (some of) them - a game that gives them a kick.

 

But back on topic, it seems to me that perhaps Jeremy has been advised that irrespective of his status he might not win this one in court.

 

Regarding "who he is", it seems that his supporters are supporting him because of "who he is" and are claiming that his detractors are against him because of "who he is". And vice versa. Hmmm, there is a lot of "who he is" going on here.

[Tugger]

The 21 year rule relates to adverse possession, doesn't it (i.e. ownership passing, not the acquisition of a right of way). The "possession" has to be "adverse", i.e. the owner must not approve of it. If the last owner knowingly allowed people to walk on his land, that wouldn't count towards the time limit, and wakling across land doesn't amount to "possession".

 

I doubt Mr Clarkson would lose this case.

[Lonan3]

Regarding "who he is", it seems that his supporters are supporting him because of "who he is" and are claiming that his detractors are against him because of "who he is". And vice versa. Hmmm, there is a lot of "who he is" going on here.

Regardless of 'who he is,' I believe that everyone has a right to expect a reasonable degree of privacy in his/her own home - and also has the right to expect that anyone who is permitted to traverse his/her land behaves in a reasonable way by showing some respect for it i.e cleaning up after them and not damaging anything.

What is so unreasonable about that - even if he is "who he is"?

[Theodolite]

The 21 year rule relates to adverse possession, doesn't it (i.e. ownership passing, not the acquisition of a right of way). The "possession" has to be "adverse", i.e. the owner must not approve of it. If the last owner knowingly allowed people to walk on his land, that wouldn't count towards the time limit, and wakling across land doesn't amount to "possession".

 

Yeah Adverse Possession is something quite different (12 years in England). I was just trying to put forward the legal tricks that get used.

 

Anyway, if you openly walked across your neighbour's garden to get to your back door for 21 years without there being any sort of written agreement or without any protest whatsoever from your neighbour that could constitute an interruption of that continuous 21 years then a legal right of way may well be established.

 

I imagine that the establishment of a public right of way is something quite different and maybe this has to be tested in the courts.

 

At the moment there does not seem to be a clear legal case either way although I understand that some of the affidavits drawn up indicate that some people have been walking that route for a number of decades in the clear knowledge they were not doing anything wrong.

 

Personally I would not want to give an opinion on this one unless I had read all the title deeds which are available for the public to inspect although usually this task is left to advocate's clerks

 

 

 

Incidentally, I am aware of a case where an advocate has gone into the Deeds Registry and altered a neighbour's title deeds in an attempt to gain a bit of land!

 

This is, after all, the Isle of Man.

[Sparky]

Incidentally, I am aware of a case where an advocate has gone into the Deeds Registry and altered a neighbour's title deeds in an attempt to gain a bit of land!

 

This is, after all, the Isle of Man.

 

Knowing this I assume you have done something about it? As for JC he owns the land and therefore has the right to grant or refuse access to the land. None of the 'walkers' over the last 20 years have attempted to make the right of way public and have enjoyed a granted freedom to roam. It is only now that this freedom has been restricted are they complaining, why over the past 20 years have they not attempted to open dialogue and make it a public right of way if they cared for and enjoyed it so much?

 

This happened successfully in the village I was brought up in, there was a short cut over a field which had been used for many years and in order to protect access applied for it to be made a public right of way so that it could not be removed by a change of owner. This happened and for all but 10 days a year the public have right of access.

[Bananaman]

Didn't this all kick off with irresponsible pet owners letting their animals loose scaring/worrying livestock on the land he let out?

 

These pet owners are lucky to get away with just having the roaming rights revoked IMHO.

 

I remember a farm in the North of the Island where you just had to walk close to the farmers land and you would have had a 12-bore pointed at your dog.

 

My two bits.

 

[Theodolite]

Incidentally, I am aware of a case where an advocate has gone into the Deeds Registry and altered a neighbour's title deeds in an attempt to gain a bit of land!

 

This is, after all, the Isle of Man.

 

Knowing this I assume you have done something about it?

 

Like what?

 

 

 

This is, after all, the Isle of Man.

[spanna]

Theres a few issues here but to me the comprimise is obvious.

 

Clarkson only comes to Langness for the summer holidays and a few half terms. The sheep arent there all the time but they have to go at some point to graze the land to keep the grass short for the breeding choughs.

 

So when Clarkson comes for his holidays, bring the sheep in to graze then and close the path section down. This protects Clarksons privacy and protects the sheep at the same time.

When he is not there remove the sheep and open the path way.

Im sure a minority would still complain its shut down at all but its a good comprimise in my eyes.

 

ps. Is it illegal to let dogs off a lead in a public place? I thought it was but the amount of people with uncontrolled dogs off the lead when im out walking makes me think its not illegal.

[StuartT]

the daughter of the only Manx VC,

 

What about the other Manx VC's? Major Caine wasn't actually born on the IOM, however there are others born over here who have won the VC.

[Hugh Jampton]

Major Caine was born in Shanghi but it does not make him Chinese

[StuartT]

Major Caine was born in Shanghi but it does not make him Chinese

 

Fair enough, however there are other VC winners who have connections with the Isle of Man. One was born in the Princess/Allan street area - not very much information about him though. Caine is the one who recieves all the publicity making people erronously think he is the only Manx VC, but infact he isn't.

[puddy]

I think the right to roam is a huge issue at the moment. I've seen landowners block neighbouring public rights of way in an attempt to claim them as their land, only to have the local commissioners demand they clear the access. Unfortunately I have also seen places lost, both public rights of way (eg. a footpath in Andreas) and permissive paths (eg. an area in Sulby Glen where public access was granted by courtesy of the previous landowner).

 

Where it's a permissive path, part of the unwritten deal between the landowner and the public seems to be that the public respect the landowners kindness and won't fight for it to be a right of way. There has never really been a need and why would we if the landowner is so kind to us? We certainly wouldn't want to piss them off just because the next owner might not realise how much the public enjoy the land, or they might enjoy it so much themselves that they don't want to rest of us to see it (very diplomatic, aren't I?).

 

I was at Spooyt Vane recently and realised that the waterfall and the ancient keeil are on private land and access is given by kind permission of the landowner. I wrongly assumed this was a right of way, so there must be lots of other places I also thought were rights of way, which I probably won't be able to visit in the future.

 

I feel like I can't really get involved in this Clarkson discussion as I don't know Langness very well (being from the north) and he's such a "celebrity" that the subject is too much about him and I'm either seen to be a green-eyed monster or a celebrity brown noser, depending on which side of the fence I'm on.