[BBC News] Inquiry over Clarkson's footpath

[P.K.]

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

It's not an argument it's fact. In this case the PROWL folks know exactly where their particular tax payments are going. Which I guess makes it all the sweeter for them.

 

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.It's Clarkson's property - end of.

Who gives a stuff about nationality when Johnny Foreigner can own manx land? The other points you make are wrong and wrong. If you can prove that the public has walked across a certain route for so many years (it doesn't actually matter if it was "permissive" or tresspass or whatever) then you can have it adopted as a PROW. If a housing estate is built on land with PROW's they have two choices. They can either request permission to move the PROWs, to which people can object to, or they have to build around them leaving them in place. So "It's Clarkson's property - end of" is actually "Bollocks - end of" which is why there is going to be an inquiry.

 

Just for info the only one of these I have ever been involved in ended earlier this year with the PROW being totally established and the "landowners" selling up and moving out. I have no idea if the law concerning this issue is similar in the IOM to the UK but if it is then it may be Clarkson who is wasting your money but no-one seems to have realised it. Funny that.....

[The Voice of Reason]

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

It's not an argument it's fact. In this case the PROWL folks know exactly where their particular tax payments are going. Which I guess makes it all the sweeter for them.

 

Were you born stupid?

 

It may be a fact that members of PROWL are taxpayers. It's certainly not a fact that they can choose that their taxes are used to pursue this vendetta.

 

Repeat it's not up to them. I think you should know that

[P.K.]

It always makes me smile when the personal insults start appearing.

 

This is obviously going to come as a surprise to you I know but I think you'll find that not only are the PROWL folks taxpayers but they also knew that if this storm in a teacup led to it's logical conclusion, an inquiry, then it would be they, the taxpayers, who would be footing the bill.

 

Guess what? They're very happy about the money they have paid in tax being spent on it. Like I posted earlier, it undoubtedly makes it all the sweeter for them. Now they could have baulked at the cost and stood down and let their taxes be extravagantly frittered away on such things as jollies for ministers to do their xmas shopping in the states. But no, they very sensibly decided to spend their taxes on their own worthy cause i.e. it is up to them. Good on 'em! I just wish there were more ways where Joe Public could spend his taxes on things he actually wants. Unfortunately the opportunities don't come that often.

 

By the way, vendetta is a very ugly word....

[Chinahand]

What really pisses me off about Prowl is that they are totally ignoring the efforts made to accomodate them.

 

About 100 metres of path has been rerouted while JC allows free access over a couple of kilometres of paths - it is small minded pettiness of the worst kind.

 

For the DOT/Tynwald to humour this with official inquiries just shows up the Parish Pump mentality of the Island. Clearly no one wants to make a decision and so we end up with this farce - they'd clearly rather waste hours of time and resource wittering on.

 

I live in Castletown and I've walked on Langness since I was a small lad, I've very happy memories of walking out to the fog horn etc, but I will in no way support Prowl in its campaign - it is unreasonable, shrill and demanding - all for 100 yards of path.

 

There are more important things for our polititians to be doing than wasting their time on this - if efforts were made to formalize the current arrangements without threats etc it might be worthwhile, but that can be done without public inquiries etc. If I was JC after having to deal with such shrill uncompromise from Prowl I'd fight for my rights and if I won close the entire area to the public.

 

By pushing it into such a dicotomy Prowl will only have itself to blame if that is the result - stupid.

 

And when I take my family up to Langness now I regularly have to deal with dog muck left all over the place - disgusting - if the people who used this resource used it responsibly I might be more sympathetic, but no the impression given is of people demanding unjustified rights and using them irresponsibly - dog muck, sheep worrying and deliberate infringement of a person's privacy. I honestly hope they loose.

[P.K.]

In a way I agree Mr Chinahand but in a way I don't. Whether PROWL or Clarkson are being reasonable/unreasonable is just a little bit subjective. And if you don't eventually make a stand you just never know where it may end. If PROWL fail it's not so much that they have a slightly re-routed path (not much of a big deal) it's more the message it will send out to others. That's the bit that worries me.

[ai_Droid]

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.

 

But, if I understand it correctly, there isn't a public right of way to remove in this case? So what's your point?

[Chinahand]

It always makes me smile when the personal insults start appearing.

 

This is obviously going to come as a surprise to you I know but I think you'll find that not only are the PROWL folks taxpayers but they also knew that if this storm in a teacup led to it's logical conclusion, an inquiry, then it would be they, the taxpayers, who would be footing the bill.

 

Guess what? They're very happy about the money they have paid in tax being spent on it. Like I posted earlier, it undoubtedly makes it all the sweeter for them. Now they could have baulked at the cost and stood down and let their taxes be extravagantly frittered away on such things as jollies for ministers to do their xmas shopping in the states. But no, they very sensibly decided to spend their taxes on their own worthy cause i.e. it is up to them. Good on 'em! I just wish there were more ways where Joe Public could spend his taxes on things he actually wants. Unfortunately the opportunities don't come that often.

 

By the way, vendetta is a very ugly word....

 

Probably less than 60 people with an agenda (ie the core of Prowl with what 200-300 letter writing supporters who wouldn't have got involved without the core to attach on to [if people think I'm so out in my figure I'd love to see other estimates of the support this organization has]) are demanding massively disproportionate resources are put into an issue concerning 100 yards of path - ignoring the other 95% of footpath maintained by JC on Langness. It is in these 60 people's interests to demand tax payers resources are wasted on this issue. It quite definitely isn't in the interests of the rest of the taxpayers to allow this farce to continue.

[P.K.]

Yep, totally agree the numbers, on the face of it at least, don't add up. However you can be absolutely sure that there are lots of folks who agree with Prowl, support their objectives, want the same things and yet still remain in their armchairs. Because they already have 60-odd zealots fighting their corner for them so they're not needed.

 

Then it's just down to the old, old, old adage "What price justice?" Well, we'll see.

 

PS - as a MEA apologist don't you sense just a little irony complaining about the cost of an inquiry?

[Keith brief]

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

It's not an argument it's fact. In this case the PROWL folks know exactly where their particular tax payments are going. Which I guess makes it all the sweeter for them.

 

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.It's Clarkson's property - end of.

Who gives a stuff about nationality when Johnny Foreigner can own manx land? The other points you make are wrong and wrong. If you can prove that the public has walked across a certain route for so many years (it doesn't actually matter if it was "permissive" or tresspass or whatever) then you can have it adopted as a PROW. If a housing estate is built on land with PROW's they have two choices. They can either request permission to move the PROWs, to which people can object to, or they have to build around them leaving them in place. So "It's Clarkson's property - end of" is actually "Bollocks - end of" which is why there is going to be an inquiry.

 

Just for info the only one of these I have ever been involved in ended earlier this year with the PROW being totally established and the "landowners" selling up and moving out. I have no idea if the law concerning this issue is similar in the IOM to the UK but if it is then it may be Clarkson who is wasting your money but no-one seems to have realised it. Funny that.....

[Spartacus]

Although, I am a "Pro - Clarkson" poster, I've always questioned the sanity of his purchase. He could have bought a Baronial pile with several acres of totally private land and had change from £1.25 million.

 

So the views are great. Yes, I know, I quite often battle my way through umpteen sets of traffic lights from Douglas to enjoy the views and exercise my hounds (with carrier bags, if necessary..). And I live in a 5hitbox rented flat! It's not like he was mis-sold, surely he knew folk would wander past at all times of day? A fool and his money..

 

However, I can't understand why the extras from The Wicker Man are so up in arms about such a small stretch of path. You can still enjoy large parts of Langness no problem. Did no-one object when they built the golf course and hotel?

That occupies a huge part of the peninsula, and the funny-trousered brigade do not like it if you wander near their precious greens one bit Where was the "generations, blah, blah" argument then?

 

And where are these "fight for the rights" chaps when other footpaths are closed? The top of Dhoon Glen has been closed for 5 years - yes, it'll be a difficult repair - but not one ounce of complaint, despite the fact that you can no longer go straight from the tram stop down to the glen. There was a footpath that ran from Snugborough Avenue to the old railway line in Union Mills - that dissappeared under some luxury flats. Again, no complaint. I'm sure there's more out there.

 

A TV personality, albeit a famously outspoken one, closes a section of path a couple hundred yards long and all hell lets loose. I've used this acronym before but..

 

People of

Little

Or

No

Knowledge

Exercising

Real

Stupidity

 

Let's get this straight. If JC wins, it will not set a precedent for Landowners to close off the countryside!

 

Instead of campaigning to see your name in the paper, try doing something more constructive and campaigning for a comprehensive overhaul of the rest of our footpath network which is in many parts in dire need of TLC

[Chinahand]

PS - as a MEA apologist don't you sense just a little irony complaining about the cost of an inquiry?

Off topic I realize, but, as P.K. no doubt knows, I'll rise to his bait - shouldn't feed the troll I know!

 

The PKF report if I remember rightly cost £100K - alot of money, but it was investigating - what - £300 m of expenditure.

 

They concluded no money had been misdirected, the issue was a [serious] miscommunication. They investigated the contracts, talked to Treasury, DTI and MEA and concluded the MEA had built an infrastructure project and put in fibre optics which had multiple business applications - which are only now being allowed to continue 5 years late due to pure bureacracy.

 

I'd say that was money well spent and should have ended the backward looking blame-game seeking our Island is famous for.

 

But no, Tynwald then, in a blood lust to quote Brenda Cannel, voted to spend another £1million on a second investigation by KPMG. This took up huge amounts of Treasury, DTI, MEA etc time all spending probably equal amounts responding to KPMG's efforts - this investigation came to nothing with Tynwald ratifying the loans - something that had been recommended by the MEA even prior to PKF reporting.

 

This should definitely have ended the issue, but oh no - Tynwald now wants a public enquiry - probably costing multiple millions yet again.

 

So no P.K. I see no irony in me saying Prowl is wasting public resources over langness and Tynwald is wasting public resources over the MEA. Did the MEA waste public resources bringing gas and more digital fibres to the Island and building the GT? I don't think so, with oil at $100 a barrel I'm very glad we aren't dependent heavy oil as our only fuel source - and from what I hear the cable is going to be very profitably used - and could have been years ago if it wasn't for bureaucratic foot dragging!

 

No I see little irony in my position.

[Miss Take]

Guess what? They're very happy about the money they have paid in tax being spent on it. Like I posted earlier, it undoubtedly makes it all the sweeter for them.

 

But it's only part of their taxes along with part of everyone else's taxes - those who wouldn't wish to have their money spent in this way just because a vociferous minority will not accept anything that sniffs of compromise.

 

if you don't eventually make a stand you just never know where it may end.

 

you should get together with Albert Tatlock, another user of the 'I've run out of actual points to make so i'll stick in some doom mongering instead'.

[P.K.]

It's not running out of points at all.

 

Clarkson is exercising his rights. Joe Public in the shape of PROWL are exercising theirs. It's going to cost the taxpayer which it always does when folk's rights are concerned. Now, that's not too difficult to grasp is it?

 

This should definitely have ended the issue, but oh no - Tynwald now wants a public enquiry - probably costing multiple millions yet again.

 

So no P.K. I see no irony in me saying Prowl is wasting public resources over langness and Tynwald is wasting public resources over the MEA. Did the MEA waste public resources bringing gas and more digital fibres to the Island and building the GT? I don't think so, with oil at $100 a barrel I'm very glad we aren't dependent heavy oil as our only fuel source - and from what I hear the cable is going to be very profitably used - and could have been years ago if it wasn't for bureaucratic foot dragging!

 

No I see little irony in my position.

Had MEA gone through Tynwald some of the loans would have cost less. By not going through Tynwald how much extra did MEA cost the taxpayer?

 

Just one small example. Oh, and don't bother trying to play the "time was of the essence" card. It just won't wash, ok.

[Grianane]

Fully agree and support the JC position although it would be totally different if he was trying to stop all access to the area. There are too many whinging do-gooders with much too much time to meddle in other peoples lives.

[hboy]

Any sensible person would realise that this is a legal matter that can only be sorted out in the courts. Irrespective of manxiness, fawning to celebs. or whatever.

 

Its more than a legal matter. We have an economy that is increasingly tilted towards needing wealthy new residents to fill our coffers, and yet a hard core of miserable old gimmers hellbent of making a twat out of anyone who has the temerity to move a fence. These two things are completely incompatibale.

 

Clarkson has been a good public ambasador for the IOM and given it some great free publicity, but you can imagine what he tells all his wealthy friends who might consider coming here to take advantage of the tax cap and other things - "Don't f**king bother as everything you do is just a pain in the ass"

 

There was a time when a reasonable solution to this was possible, now its just got stupid and its the IOM that will suffer for it.