[BBC News] Clarkson access decision expected

[nipper]

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.

 

 

It cannot be denied that it is his land. Fucking or otherwise. Unfortunately there is an obvious possibility that there is a public footpath through it. In terms of property purchase that is tantamount to:- impending coastal erosion, mines subsidence or discovering you are on the flight path for a new airport

 

Maybe someone, you know, like an advocate or something, should have advised him that there was a public footpath prior to the purchase. Perhaps they did (I HOPE they did) and perhaps JC considered his celebrity meant such matters could be easily ignored. Perhaps an enquiry will tell us?

 

One of the fundamental and basic matters in EVERY land transaction is regarding the very point of easements and rights of access etc. Go look at your own Abstract of Title for details. Even if you own a flat on the tenth floor of a multi-storey it is likely that there will be a bog standard question on such matters.

[feelslikeitshould]

It cannot be denied that it is his land. Fucking or otherwise. Unfortunately there is an obvious possibility that there is a public footpath through it. In terms of property purchase that is tantamount to:- impending coastal erosion, mines subsidence or discovering you are on the flight path for a new airport

 

Maybe someone, you know, like an advocate or something, should have advised him that there was a public footpath prior to the purchase. Perhaps they did (I HOPE they did) and perhaps JC considered his celebrity meant such matters could be easily ignored. Perhaps an enquiry will tell us?

 

One of the fundamental and basic matters in EVERY land transaction is regarding the very point of easements and rights of access etc. Go look at your own Abstract of Title for details. Even if you own a flat on the tenth floor of a multi-storey it is likely that there will be a bog standard question on such matters.

 

I think you're missing the point entirely. There is no public footpath, it's a permissive route, meaning people can pass with permission of the land owner. I would think that such routes wouldn't be in the title deeds, depending on when it was introduced and by which previous owner. If it ws a public footpath he wouldn't legally be able to stop people using it and it would've been resolved ages go. The problem PROWL seem to have is that he's not giving them permission to use the particular stretch of 'path' past his kitchen window.

 

If your neighbour owned a bit of land and let you park on it as he didn't use it, would you demand any new owners do the same?

[ans]

If your neighbour owned a bit of land and let you park on it as he didn't use it, would you demand any new owners do the same?

 

A better anology would be this:

 

If your neighbour owned a bit of land and let you park on it as he didn't use it, and then when a new owner came in, he decided to let you use a different piece of his land instead because the old place meant he had less privacy than he expected, would you demand to have the old one back or be grateful that you still had somewhere to park

[nipper]

But surely you have made the assumption, erroneous or otherwise, that this is a Permission Path . . . .

 

 

To Feelslikeitshould

Yes, I see what you mean. But who said it was a "permissive route/path", that is really the question. For it to be so there would need to be a sign declaring it as such, you know, to prevent the path from becoming . . . . . a Public Right of Way.

 

Before they invented light-houses people used Langness coast for walks. Probably for many thousands of years. It would have become a public footpath at some time. When the Northern Lighthouse Board (or whoever) bought the land they bought it with a footpath through it, aye, a Public Right of Way, a PROW, which is a common acronymn in such matters. Also: Byway open to all traffic (BOAT), Road used as a public path (RUPP) etc. These may have less relevance in Manx Law, although Manx Law in land matters is not all that different.

 

The only difference in the Isle of Man is that the Deemsters seem to have absolute carte blance to ignore any existing rules and laws if they so wish, perhaps because of someone's standing in the community or title or whatever, and they can just make a decision as they please, believing themselves to be Solomon or some such figure. *

 

 

 

 

 

*wild allegation? Nope.

[P.K.]

A better anology would be this:

 

If your neighbour owned a bit of land and let you park on it as he didn't use it, and then when a new owner came in, he decided to let you use a different piece of his land instead because the old place meant he had less privacy than he expected, would you demand to have the old one back or be grateful that you still had somewhere to park

Well ans, this issue is not about certain individuals parking in an area that they have absolutely no right to. This is all about creating a new Public Right Of Way. If you look closely the clue is in the name. See the word "Public"? Well done ans. You do understand that the "public" have certain rights in a matter such as this and that they can exercise those rights whether the landowner agrees with it or not don't you? Frankly your analogy is as worthless as the way you spell it.

 

I think you're missing the point entirely. There is no public footpath, it's a permissive route, meaning people can pass with permission of the land owner. I would think that such routes wouldn't be in the title deeds, depending on when it was introduced and by which previous owner. If it ws a public footpath he wouldn't legally be able to stop people using it and it would've been resolved ages go. The problem PROWL seem to have is that he's not giving them permission to use the particular stretch of 'path' past his kitchen window.

I think you're missing the point entirely. There is a public footpath. There is a path that the public have been using for years and years. That's how Public Rights Of Way become just that. A certain path gets used, with or without landowners permission as in the end it doesn't matter, and after so many years it can be adopted as an official Public Right Of Way. That's how it works. Otherwise how many Public Rights Of Way do you think there would be if it was left up to the landowners? Did you say NONE? Well done.

 

As I am uncertain as to the motivation for PROWL I would probably prefer the cheapest option - a good old-fashioned compromise. However the PROWL folks have rights that just can't be swept under the carpet - except in the IOM of course!

[feelslikeitshould]

I think you're missing the point entirely. There is a public footpath. There is a path that the public have been using for years and years. That's how Public Rights Of Way become just that. A certain path gets used, with or without landowners permission as in the end it doesn't matter, and after so many years it can be adopted as an official Public Right Of Way. That's how it works. Otherwise how many Public Rights Of Way do you think there would be if it was left up to the landowners? Did you say NONE? Well done.

 

Are you their campaign manager?

 

Yes, it can be, not will be. This is not a PROW, it becomes so when it is offically adopted, which can happen after a certain number of years uninterrupted use as a public footpath. Unfortunatly for PROWL, this path was not adopted before Clarkson decided to divert it, so now it's use as a public path as been interrupted. This is about creating a retrospective PROW. Which shouldn't be allowed to happen, they knew it was private land and there is a sign that says so and asks for respect of that fact, someone should've applied for it to become a PROW years ago, that way, this whole thing would've been done properly.

[P.K.]

No I am not their campaign manager - frankly your accusation is a little harsh .

 

I posted "it can be adopted" because it's not a foregone conclusion that it will be, simple as. The fact that Clarkson has diverted it prior to "adoption" makes no difference whatsoever. In the issue I was involved in previously the judgement went in favour of Joe Public (well, they are voters after all) and the path was officially adopted where it previously existed. If you think about it there's little point in doing anything else. So no, it's not retrospective in that sense. Also why do you think applications for adoption should have been made earlier? It would seem that now is just fine.

[wideload]

ant all these public right of way rules/laws english and not manx?

[nipper]

In general, yes they are. Manx Law as any fule kno will generally follow English Law precedent unless there is strong Manx Case Law otherwise. In fact Manx Law is so "enriched" it can draw on any case law virtually anywhere in the world......

 

The generall rule seems to be though, that The Deemster will decide what the hell he likes, and don't worry, the advocates will cow-tow to him.

 

On multiple hundreds of pounds per hour wouldn't you?

 

If anyone dare appeal, the "Independent" Appeal Deemster (sitting with another Deemster) will cover things up nicely. Don't worry about that. *

 

Isle of Man justice. Don't you just love it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*wild allegation? Nope.