Fossils Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 Despite the restrictions imposed by the Inquiry, PROWL members managed to continue their exercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggle Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Some "facts" from prowl-iom.org: 1. Access to Langness' circular footpath has never previously been restricted yes it has, access was restricted by the previous owners 2. Manx law allows the circular path to be made official No it doesn't, it runs across private land. 3. Local politicians need your support to save the footpath local politicians already know it's private land. 4. Local people have enjoyed the rugged beauty of Langness for generations Probably, but it was still private land. 5. Langness sees more birds and butterflies than any other part of the island I very much doubt it, the ayres and uplands have a large population of birds and butterflies. 6. Langness is the southern-most tip of the Island, and perfect for watching seals No it's not, the calf sound has a considerably larger population of seals and access is easier. 7. Preserving access is a matter of principle - not personality No, it's private land and only a small section has been fenced off. 8. Langness is a national Area of Special Scientific Interest ASSI) Doesn't mean you can wander across it and it's still the responsibility of the land owner: http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/daff/assileafletoct06update.pdf 9. Scattered ashes of family members make Langness a garden of remembrance This should have been considered before ashes were scattered. 10. If the circular footpath at Langness is closed for good - what will be next? PROWL will probably end up having the entire area closed off and not just the small section that is closed at the moment. Also, it will cost the tax payer money for an enquiry just so some dog walkers can let their dogs shit all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentbob Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Some "facts" from prowl-iom.org: 10. If the circular footpath at Langness is closed for good - what will be next? PROWL will probably end up having the entire area closed off and not just the small section that is closed at the moment. Also, it will cost the tax payer money for an enquiry just so some dog walkers can let their dogs shit all over the place, worry the livestock, and generally make a fucking nuisance of themselves. Fixed it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 I hope PROWL gets trashed in the inquiry and is asked to pay for the costs - wasting tax payers money on something like this defies belief... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silentbob Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 I must admit, I had a look at their website, and was VERY suprised to see someone I know quoted as supporting them. It has triggered just enough interest that a visit to the location has been put on my 'things to do today'. I thinks I will be taking my Camera with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 I must admit, I had a look at their website, and was VERY suprised to see someone I know quoted as supporting them. It has triggered just enough interest that a visit to the location has been put on my 'things to do today'. I thinks I will be taking my Camera with me. Already been there - two years ago... Maybe the Prowlers should keep this old article in mind as well: LANGNESS RESTRICTIONS COULD BE EXTENDED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 It seems to me that many of those that are supporting Mr Clarkson are so called petrol heads, and if you don't mind me saying, non-Manx. They are probably blissfully unaware of a historical problem on the Isle of Man of rich land owners attempts at removing public rights of way. In this particular case, I wonder how many people beating on this forum (ok - on both sides of the argument) know much about Land Law? Manx Land Law is not that different from English Land Law, although one difficulty is that land-grabbing seems to be actively encouraged by many in the legal profession and also some in the judiciary. This adds a further uncertainty into the often empirical nature of the Manx Legal system, especially where land is concerned. To establish a public right of way is far more difficult than removing one. Once a public right of way has been established it will take an Act of Parliament (Tynwald) to abolish it. That is on paper at least but we are on the Isle of Man. On the Isle of Man a Deemster can simply ignore the Law in favour of someone titled, famous or better known to him. They can apparently ignore The Law and make a decision based on personality reasons. (Don't worry JW, I have specific instances to support this assertion!). So on the Isle of Man I would say that Jeremy Clarkson has the upper hand from the outset. This matter needs resolving and it will have to be through the Courts. Fortunately, there is enough publicity to ensure that the decision makers do their job properly and morally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 It seems to me that many of those that are supporting Mr Clarkson are so called petrol heads, and if you don't mind me saying, non-Manx. It seems to me that you're making a crass generalisation with no real evidence to support your theory. I'm not a petrol head, I can't stand Clarkson as a TV presenter and I think I've watched three episodes of Top Gear in my life. Oh, and I'm 'real' Manx, as pathetic a term as that is. I just believe he has a right to privacy, on the land that he bought, and that this whole drama has been played out purely for the self promotion of members of PROWL so they can massage their tiny penises while seeing their name in the paper. If Mr Clarkson was not a famous TV presenter, this wouldn't be an issue. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 If Mr Clarkson was not a famous TV presenter, this wouldn't be an issue. End of story. It seems to me that you're making a crass generalisation with no real evidence to support your theory. I hope PROWL gets trashed in the inquiry and is asked to pay for the costs - wasting tax payers money on something like this defies belief... Errrr... I think you'll find members of PROWL are taxpayers. If they want to spend their contributions in this way then surely it's up to them? I just thought you'd like to know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 ....and if you don't mind me saying, non-Manx Ah that just makes my heart swell with nationalistic pride...."I am born and bred here and I will walk where I like yessir".... Petty Ramblers Organising Wasteful Litigation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith brief Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Nationality is not an valid arguement. Neither is the "we've walked on this piece of land for years" worn out cliche. If a housing estate is built upon land that was previously accessed by the public, this doesn't mean the public still has a right to walk on the new owner's land. The celebrity arguement does hold water. It's Clarkson's property - end of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 Errrr... I think you'll find members of PROWL are taxpayers. If they want to spend their contributions in this way then surely it's up to them? I just thought you'd like to know that. This is one of the most stupid arguments I've ever heard. You can't determine where your particular tax payments are spent. eg "I want my tax to be used to cover any losses the PBF may make", "I want mine to pay for a seagull sculpture" etc. No it's not up to them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 It's Clarkson's property - end of. Yes it may well be. What happens when someone's property has a public Right of Way running through it though? I am not stating that is definitely the case here but....what if it does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 I'm not a petrol head, I can't stand Clarkson as a TV presenter and I think I've watched three episodes of Top Gear in my life. Oh, and I'm 'real' Manx, as pathetic a term as that is. You are not included in the term 'many'and I used the phrase 'non-Manx'. The 'Manx' thing is relevant. There has been a history over hundreds of years of land-owners attempting to extinguish public rights of way on this Island. You 'townies', Manx or otherwise, don't seem to have an understanding of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted November 29, 2007 Share Posted November 29, 2007 It's Clarkson's property - end of. Yes it may well be. What happens when someone's property has a public Right of Way running through it though? I am not stating that is definitely the case here but....what if it does? If that were the case then the owner would not be allowed to obstruct it. If they did they would be obliged to remove the obstruction. However the route on Langness in question is a 'permissive route,' rather than a public right of way, which to me sounds like 'the land owner lets them walk there.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.