Jeremy Clarkson And Tynwald

[Grumble]

You called Mission..??

 

Can't believe it's taken this long for Cannan to tell the honourable members of PROWL that reciprocal rambling agreements would have to be given through THEIR gardens...which were also probably once rights of way. I'm sure the Clarksons would enjoy watching these fearless freedom fighters tuck into their muesli every morning.

[Skeddan]

See how the legal challenge returns, but it seems a bit much to expect to be able to walk over private land such a close proximity to his house.

His lookout for buying property where there is a footpath with right of way running through it. If he doesn't like it, he shouldn't have bought it. If he didn't know about it, well, that's his problem for not properly checking what he was buying.

 

I read that his big gripe was they had several sheep killed by dogs, which is why he put up a barbed wire fence. Fair enough to put up a gate and a notice that dogs must be kept on a lead, but not to block a public right of way. He should be dealing with such dogs under The Dogs Act 1990, not interfering with the rights of others.

 

If he gets his way - and I see not possible reason why other than his having big shot lawyers - then I think it will be damaging to IoM as a place to live and visit. It will also be at odds with customary rights, and I hope would be appealed to the Privy Council. (the 1879 decision of the Privy Council in Attorney General of the Isle of Man v Mylchreest I think would be relevant to such customary rights). Once something like this is lost, it's almost impossible to put back to how it should have been, and it starts to erode all sorts of other customary rights.

 

(I also thought the old Norse principle of allemannsrett / freedom to roam was part of common law of IoM, and that coastal path was reserved to the Crown anyway, and access rights were from implied consent of the Crown.)

 

Meanwhile lots of people live in houses in close proximity to public highways. I don't feel any great sympathy for him on that score. He could try net curtains.

[Mission]

You called Mission..??

 

You've missed the joke dude.

[%age]

I think Glumble got the joke!

 

You called Mission..??

 

Can't believe it's taken this long for Cannan to tell the honourable members of PROWL that reciprocal rambling agreements would have to be given through THEIR gardens...which were also probably once rights of way. I'm sure the Clarksons would enjoy watching these fearless freedom fighters tuck into their muesli every morning.

Seriously though, if that is the best argument you can come up with I think Jeremy is in on a loser.

 

 

See how the legal challenge returns, but it seems a bit much to expect to be able to walk over private land such a close proximity to his house.

His lookout for buying property where there is a footpath with right of way running through it. If he doesn't like it, he shouldn't have bought it. If he didn't know about it, well, that's his problem for not properly checking what he was buying.

But isn't that the job of the advocates when any property is transacted, to provide warnings?

 

Every man (and his dog) could have told him that there was a public used footpath around the lighthouse. He MUST have been made aware of this, surely even with the sometimes dubious reputation of Manx Advocates when it comes to land matters. He must have chosen to big it up and go for the fight. After all we are only thicko Manx peasants and Jeremy is not and he is very rich and he is well known for his jocular arrogance and rubbing folk up with woolly jumpers the wrong way.

[Skeddan]

But isn't that the job of the advocates when any property is transacted, to provide warnings?

 

Every man (and his dog) could have told him that there was a public used footpath around the lighthouse. He MUST have been made aware of this, surely even with the sometimes dubious reputation of Manx Advocates when it comes to land matters. He must have chosen to big it up and go for the fight. After all we are only thicko Manx peasants and Jeremy is not and he is very rich and he is well known for his jocular arrogance and rubbing folk up with woolly jumpers the wrong way.

Yes exactly - I mean it's not the public's problem, it's his problem - if he wasn't properly advised about this, then he should take it up with his advocate or whoever was negligent. The public shouldn't be expected to lose out so his problem can be set right by giving him what he isn't entitled to.

 

I agree - to me it seems he has chosen to 'big it up' - and trying to get more than he's entitled to and acting like some feudal lordy type who thinks they are king of the castle who needn't have any respect for others.

 

BTW he's not that rich - he can't afford his own island like Branson - but this is what he seems to want to have and is trying to do, and seems to think he's entitled to that - even though he doesn't have the exclusive rights to the land he might think he is important enough to have.

[x-in-man]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[P.K.]

You can almost hear their Torygraph "brains" working:

 

"IOM in the news - what's the scoop?"

"Any human interest angle?"

"Anyone famous live there?

"Clarkson! Anything we can print?"

"Controversy - that's perfect!"

"Get the 'made up news' lot on the case NOW!"

 

Non-story.

 

Interesting that Jeremy has had 3 different legal teams involved, I wonder who they were/are?

If true then there's two lots of advocates who think he's on a loser...

 

Yes exactly - I mean it's not the public's problem, it's his problem - if he wasn't properly advised about this, then he should take it up with his advocate or whoever was negligent. The public shouldn't be expected to lose out so his problem can be set right by giving him what he isn't entitled to.

 

I agree - to me it seems he has chosen to 'big it up' - and trying to get more than he's entitled to and acting like some feudal lordy type who thinks they are king of the castle who needn't have any respect for others.

Unfortunately he's exactly the type of individual the great and good want living there... Not that I would suggest any delay would be down to that of course.

[ans]

His lookout for buying property where there is a footpath with right of way running through it.

 

Isn't that the whole point? There isn't a right of way?

[Skeddan]

His lookout for buying property where there is a footpath with right of way running through it.

Isn't that the whole point? There isn't a right of way?

I'd think that there has been uncontested public access along that part of the promontory pretty much since time immemorial. The Island's Norse heritage would indicate that allemannsrett / freedom to roam was part of the common law.

 

Part of the issue seems to be that in 1976, the Attorney General announced to the public the grant of permission to enjoy access to Langness Point upon the terms set out in the notice he issued. Arguably this might be taken as showing that from that date access was 'at will' and by permission, and that this permission could be withdrawn. If so, this would perhaps seem to show that any former customary right of access was no longer applicable, and access would be by permission 'at will' only. Mr Clarkson might then argue that as he now owns the land, he might also withdraw this permission.

 

That's why the 1879 decision of the Privy Council in Attorney General of the Isle of Man v Mylchreest is relevant. This established that the Crown cannot derogate from customary rights. The 1976 notice could not therefore make a customary right of access into one by permission only, as this would be a derogation of that customary right.

 

I think P.K. is probably right - that they will try to find way to work in Mr Clarkson's favour, because they want to attract people like him. So I imagine they will try to use the 1976 'access by permission' as the way to find in favour of Mr Clarkson. The A.G's letter of 21st Feb 2006 rather suggests this:

 

"As Attorney General I believe that it is my duty to protect rights of way for the public if there truly is evidence of such rights. The starting point must, however, be the state of affairs which existed on the 8th June 1976 when the then Attorney General announced to the public the grant of permission to enjoy access to Langness Point upon the terms set out in the notice."

I don't think one can take the state of affairs which existed on 8th June 1976 as 'the starting point'. One has to look at state of affairs before this, and see the A.G's notice of 1976 in the context of the Mylchreest decision. The IoM AG lost in the Mylchreest case. I'd think if the IoM AG thinks that the AG could have derogated customary rights in 1976, then this would also be overturned by the Privy Council, just as it was in 1879.

 

Given this, I'd think if the AG thinks that one can take 1976 as 'the starting point', the AG may be opening himself up to challenge on the grounds of a public authority not making a fair and impartial determination of civil rights (see IoM Human Rights Act). The AG ought to know better than to take a myopic view that takes 1976 as 'the starting point' and to be fully aware of Mylchreest. I hope that since the AG's letter of Feb 2006, he might have considered more fully.

[Fred]

I wonder if generations ago there was access to Langness Point.

In a letter to Northern Lighthouse Board from David Stevenson (Engineer to the Board) in Februay 1878 it implies that there was no footpath?

 

Extract from letter.

 

"Langness Point belongs to one proprietor and the distance from the site of the Lighthouse to the public road at the village of Derbyhaven is about 1½ miles and from thence to Castletown 1½ mile further. At present, there is no road from Derbyhaven to Langness and the purchase of land, including the forming, fencing and upholding of a cart road 1½ miles in length to the Lighthouse would prove costly. We have therefore concluded that the intercourse with the lighthouse may be best obtained by forming a landing place at the Point in preference to making a road to Derbyhaven and resorting to Castletown distant 3 miles as the place for the delivery of stores. It would, however, be desirable to form a footpath with a right of way from the Lighthouse to Derbyhaven."

[Skeddan]

Fred, it's a fair point you raise. The letter you quote seems to show that the footpath with its right of way dates to this time (1880 ish). If this footpath and route was used since that time by members of the public without express permission and without interruption, then by 1976 this would have become established as a right of way.

 

The starting point IMO is not whether the public have used this as right of way in the last 21 years - i.e. since 1987, but whether this was used as such prior to 1976. If so, then the issue of this only being 'permissive' would come up against the Mylchreest decision, and the right of way would still stand despite the AG's notice. Looking at the status prior to 1976 as you have done is what should happen - not taking 1976 as the 'starting point' as the AG seems to think is appropriate.

 

Does anyone remember using this path before 1976? Was it closed to the public and is there perhaps evidence of people being prosecuted for trespassing? Did 1976 open up a new route for the public, or did the AG simply give a notice that sought to turn the existing public access into a permissive one?

[Tugger]

It is purely a legal matter. There either IS, or there IS NOT, a right of way.

 

It's a matter for the courts to decide. I have no idea why the politicians are involved.

[Frances]

I personally walked it in mid 80's but it was a well known path - no one disputes this - there was even a government provided car park to enable easy access - I understand that the affidavit starting the official dispute was signed by many who had used it long before this (again to re-open an old debate his mother in law led the mass trespass to protest at an earlier attempt to limit access to Langness) - he lowered the wall but his cottage is still some distance from the path - much much further than my front window is from the public pavement(and is he actually technically resident on Island as I understand some of the accomodation is classed as holiday home and thus occupied for less than 6weeks a year?)

[Gladys]

It is purely a legal matter. There either IS, or there IS NOT, a right of way.

 

It's a matter for the courts to decide. I have no idea why the politicians are involved.

Correct, but because PROWL are unwilling, or unable, to put their money where their mouth is, it has been referred to this strange, quasi-judicial hearing.

[Scribe]

1. Whether or not it was a footpath everyone used it before he came

2. The only reason it threatens his privacy is that he took the wall down - before that you couldn't see in. With storms like those forecast for today, he'll soon realise what the wall was there for