Newsbot Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 A decision on whether Tynwald should launch a public inquiry into a footpath dispute is expected to be made on Tuesday. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7180426.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wideload Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 from what i understand, a short section has been diverted not closed and it is not a "permissive route" as it has always been at the land owners discretion. i think the reporter on this one might be a spy for PRWOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadcaster Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Nothing as sinister, just sloppy reporting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 i think the reporter on this one might be a spy for PRWOL Nice spelling mistake on PROWL I reckon we should adopt it as Prevention of Rambling Wankers On Langness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 "The dispute has run since 2005." I wonder just how much longer this can be spun out for! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 from what i understand, a short section has been diverted not closed and it is not a "permissive route" as it has always been at the land owners discretion. A path has been closed and diverted. That makes a section of path closed. Closed, closed, closed. Once the law allows people to close and divert footpaths for whatever reason, the precedent could have many serious implications. Maybe a "permissive route" is one that is at the owners discretion. Oh and the caption under JC's photo is "The footpath near Mr Clarkson's house is not a public right of way". The BBC says it so it must be right. I agree that Jeremy seem a nice bloke though and a jolly good television presenter but I don't think that is the issue here. Is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Once the law allows people to close and divert footpaths for whatever reason, the precedent could have many serious implications It's his fucking land! Roll on Tuesday when we will hopefully see the end of this pathetic saga and the back of those Prowl wankers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 What a larf it would have been if his recent direct debit had have been set up for PROWL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feelslikeitshould Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I agree that Jeremy seem a nice bloke though and a jolly good television presenter but I don't think that is the issue here. Is it? Do you think the PROWL numpties would've made such an issue of it had it not been JC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lectro Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I agree that Jeremy seem a nice bloke though and a jolly good television presenter but I don't think that is the issue here. Is it? Do you think the PROWL numpties would've made such an issue of it had it not been JC? No I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hannay Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Do you think the PROWL numpties would've made such an issue of it had it not been JC? the bloke behind prowl has had issues with clarkson in the past in the UK. Its a personal thing imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feelslikeitshould Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I agree that Jeremy seem a nice bloke though and a jolly good television presenter but I don't think that is the issue here. Is it? Do you think the PROWL numpties would've made such an issue of it had it not been JC? No I doubt it. Exactly. It should've been resolved ages ago, and not by public bloody inquiry. If Tynwald doesn't throw this out as a complete waste of time and public resources then I may just do round there and slap some sense in to them. Grrrrrr Like it's been said a hundred times, it's his land and his privacy. At least he's diverted the path and not just completely closed it off, which must've been very tempting during this whole period of dog attacks on sheep and protesters hanging around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 In their literature/interviews etc, they keep banging on about how a majority of people on the island support the views of PROWL. Anyone who doesn't live here must have a very strange impression of us. How can we manage to convey the truth, which is that the vast majority probably regard them as a bunch of narrow-minded, self-aggrandising, pathetic tossers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lectro Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 In their literature/interviews etc, they keep banging on about how a majority of people on the island support the views of PROWL. Anyone who doesn't live here must have a very strange impression of us. How can we manage to convey the truth, which is that the vast majority probably regard them as a bunch of narrow-minded, self-aggrandising, pathetic tossers? You could be the anti-PROWL spokesman... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 a bunch of narrow-minded, self-aggrandising, pathetic tossers? Strange that that is also a pretty good description of their victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.