Jeremy Clarkson And Tynwald

[Shit3hawk]

I cant believe people are still bleating on about a hundred yards or so of path that doesn't make any difference to the walk around langness, I'm sure your hounds dont really give a toss which way round the building they have to walk, I would like to point out that in the period that the path has been closed to dogs and walkers I personally have seen that more seals and their pups now resting on the rocks on Dreswick Point which I think is a good thing.

 

Also I have yet to see a similar public outcry at the fact that the coastal walk from Port Soderick to the Firing range at Bainahowe has been closed to the public, as a result access has been lost to a couple of select fishing and climbing spots as well as the coastal walk itself,

 

 

[Scribe]

I guess you never walked it! cos of course it makes a huge difference in that you can't walk round the coast like you could before. And to be able to count the seals on Dreswick you've probably had to trespass on Mr C's fiefdom, unless of course you are Mr C which would explain your take on the whole thing

[keyboarder]

But it's always a joy to see a pompous oaf brought down a peg or two. Who cares about the legal position?

[Scribe]

Also I have yet to see a similar public outcry at the fact that the coastal walk from Port Soderick to the Firing range at Bainahowe has been closed to the public, as a result access has been lost to a couple of select fishing and climbing spots as well as the coastal walk itself,

 

 

Agree with you about the coastal path from Pt Soderick, that's been gone for years, hasn't it? Here's another for you, Douglas RC entrance nr Braddan Bridge to Tromode Road, used to be a signposted public footpath, I checked with Highways yesterday and they say it's not on the definitive map, so when and how did it stop being public?

[fartypants]

Just to add, I have been walking down there for getting on for 40 years and have to say that I personally see no problem with what he has done. On a different slant though, I would very much like to see some bylaws introduced/enforced to stop the shitting machines leaving their landmines everywhere and the owners landed with some hefty fines for doing so.

Back to Mr. Clarkson, my fear is that up to now he has done more for the tourist trade on this Island than the tourist board have done, by casting the Island in a very positive light every time he can. However, if a bunch of pitchfork waving yokels manage to annoy him enough to make him sell up, I wouldn't expect him to continue the positive line. Like him or loathe him he has a very big fan base, and he makes a lot of money for the BBC so don't expect to see less of him on TV.

Finally, if he does sell, and the next owner buys the place for 1.5 to 2 million quid, they won't expect people walking past their kitchen either. (JMHOUU)

[Albert Tatlock]

Finally, if he does sell, and the next owner buys the place for 1.5 to 2 million quid, they won't expect people walking past their kitchen either. (JMHOUU)

Though if he sold the place to Richard 'Hammy' Hammond it wouldn't be a problem - as he can't see out of the kitchen window without standing on a kitchen stool.

[Silentbob]

Once upon a time....

 

There is a guy in a land far far away who has a cottage which only has pedestrian access from the road. Many many years ago, he agreed vehicular access from the adjacent farm's lane (25+years ago). He then got planning permission to build a garage on the side of the cottage based on that permission. Years later the farmer dies and the farm is sold, and the new owner wants the cottage as well. Since the cottage owner does not want to sell, the access is fenced off. Even though there is records showing he had access for x years he is told to lump it as the new owner is from the social 'elite'.

 

So this cottage owner is left with a garage that he cannot access through no fault of his own. And seemingly no legal ground to stand on.

 

[This is a story, any similarities to real life situations are merely coincidental]

 

The bottom line is that people get away with all sorts of things over here based on their ability to throw lawyers at us by the bucketload. It happens every day, the only difference here is that Clarkeson is a media star. If he were just one of the social 'elite' this would have been swept under the carpet months ago, and Prowl would have been told to basically cock off.

 

My personal view of the Langness situation is that if the land belongs by law to him, then it is up to him and only him who goes on it. By removing the access, he is not making anyone suffer unduly, and nobodies life is being severly impacted by it. If there is no official right of way across his land then Prowl do not have a leg to prowl on.

[Sebrof]

But it's always a joy to see a pompous oaf brought down a peg or two. Who cares about the legal position?

 

Well, I care. The legal position, if found to be in the pompous oaf's favour, will serve merely to exacerbate the pomposity of the said oaf.

 

However, the numerous changes to the PO's legal team suggest that he may be batting on a rather sticky wicket. Not to mention redistributing some of his excessive earnings, albeit perhaps not to the deserving poor.

 

S

[steven !]

This is getting a bit off topic but:

Once upon a time....

 

There is a guy in a land far far away who has a cottage which only has pedestrian access from the road. Many many years ago, he agreed vehicular access from the adjacent farm's lane (25+years ago). He then got planning permission to build a garage on the side of the cottage based on that permission. Years later the farmer dies and the farm is sold, and the new owner wants the cottage as well. Since the cottage owner does not want to sell, the access is fenced off. Even though there is records showing he had access for x years he is told to lump it as the new owner is from the social 'elite'.

 

So this cottage owner is left with a garage that he cannot access through no fault of his own. And seemingly no legal ground to stand on.

 

[This is a story, any similarities to real life situations are merely coincidental]

 

It would be better if there was no agreement so that the access would have become a prescriptive right. There is an agreement though and it all boils down to the wording of that agreement.

 

In the scenario above, how long ago it was made is not relevant, the planning permission is not relevant.

 

Is this story based on a road very near to a junction just outside Douglas?

[Lonan3]

Well, I care. The legal position, if found to be in the pompous oaf's favour, will serve merely to exacerbate the pomposity of the said oaf.

That's no way to talk about the founder of PROWL (even if he does have his own agenda re Clarkson!).

I prefer to think of him in Shakespearean terms: "What cracker is this same that deafs our ears with this abundance of superfluous breath." [King John]

[jimbms]

It may be of intrest to note that according to the definitave 1860 maps that set out all adopted footpaths, that there is no adopted footpath there, thus if it is to be classed as a right of way it could only be by virtue of common useage and as such the land owner would have the right to alter the course of the said path so long as the route between the start and finish did not exceed a certain variation according to it's length.

[Silentbob]

This is getting a bit off topic but:

Once upon a time....

 

There is a guy in a land far far away who has a cottage which only has pedestrian access from the road. Many many years ago, he agreed vehicular access from the adjacent farm's lane (25+years ago). He then got planning permission to build a garage on the side of the cottage based on that permission. Years later the farmer dies and the farm is sold, and the new owner wants the cottage as well. Since the cottage owner does not want to sell, the access is fenced off. Even though there is records showing he had access for x years he is told to lump it as the new owner is from the social 'elite'.

 

So this cottage owner is left with a garage that he cannot access through no fault of his own. And seemingly no legal ground to stand on.

 

[This is a story, any similarities to real life situations are merely coincidental]

 

It would be better if there was no agreement so that the access would have become a prescriptive right. There is an agreement though and it all boils down to the wording of that agreement.

 

In the scenario above, how long ago it was made is not relevant, the planning permission is not relevant.

 

Is this story based on a road very near to a junction just outside Douglas?

 

I could not possibly say, this is batlawyer country

[%age]

From today's Daily Telegraph

 

[Skeddan]

Maybe this shows that the problem might be better sorted out by mediation rather than a legal dispute. Going by what he is saying he doesn't have a problem with responsible ramblers, but with people not respecting basics by keeping their dogs on a leash. Instead it seems some are letting their dogs worry the sheep, and invading his privacy by gawping and peering into his home. If so, that would be abusing the access Mr Clarkson otherwise seems happy with, and is the real underlying problem in all this.

 

If that were somehow sorted so these kinds of harassment didn't happen, I wonder if he would then be content with allowing access? If so, it would be very wrong to paint him as the villain. Even if there was a right of way established, I'd think it entirely reasonable to expect people not to behave in this way. I'd also think most people would be very understanding and sympathetic and respect such very reasonable expectations, and would probably take a dim view of the few who abuse the enjoyment of the countryside in this way.

 

Maybe it might be better to find a sensible workable solution and to adjourn the legal determination indefinitely. Perhaps some effort needs to be put into promoting a 'country code' and public awareness that dropping litter, letting dogs loose among livestock and harassment and invasion of privacy are unacceptable (Doh!). It would also seem reasonable to grant a restraining order so people not complying with these basic responsibilities could be fined and excluded from such footpaths. People like that are really just countryside vandals. Maybe a way to deal with them is to get photos of such offenders so they can be identified, named, shamed, fined and excluded. Then everyone else might be able to go on with the happy and peaceful enjoyment as they should be able to.

 

I think it's good Mr Clarkson has put his views across in this way - what I think this shows is that the real issue isn't about Mr Clarkson or the Langness footpath - it's about countryside vandals who are the real villains in all of this.

[Sebrof]

Maybe this shows that the problem might be better sorted out by mediation rather than a legal dispute. Going by what he is saying he doesn't have a problem with responsible ramblers, but with people not respecting basics by keeping their dogs on a leash. Instead it seems some are letting their dogs worry the sheep, and invading his privacy by gawping and peering into his home. If so, that would be abusing the access Mr Clarkson otherwise seems happy with, and is the real underlying problem in all this.

 

If that were somehow sorted so these kinds of harassment didn't happen, I wonder if he would then be content with allowing access? If so, it would be very wrong to paint him as the villain. Even if there was a right of way established, I'd think it entirely reasonable to expect people not to behave in this way. I'd also think most people would be very understanding and sympathetic and respect such very reasonable expectations, and would probably take a dim view of the few who abuse the enjoyment of the countryside in this way.

 

Maybe it might be better to find a sensible workable solution and to adjourn the legal determination indefinitely. Perhaps some effort needs to be put into promoting a 'country code' and public awareness that dropping litter, letting dogs loose among livestock and harassment and invasion of privacy are unacceptable (Doh!). It would also seem reasonable to grant a restraining order so people not complying with these basic responsibilities could be fined and excluded from such footpaths. People like that are really just countryside vandals. Maybe a way to deal with them is to get photos of such offenders so they can be identified, named, shamed, fined and excluded. Then everyone else might be able to go on with the happy and peaceful enjoyment as they should be able to.

 

I think it's good Mr Clarkson has put his views across in this way - what I think this shows is that the real issue isn't about Mr Clarkson or the Langness footpath - it's about countryside vandals who are the real villains in all of this.

 

I wonder if Mr C isn't over-egging this a bit. His experience of dogs worrying sheep, people leaving litter everywhere, and rudeness and aggression, don't accord with my experience. All the dog-walkers I've met on my rambles, going back over thirty years, have been pleasant, friendly, and tidy. There is VERY little litter to be found on popular walks in the IOM.

 

S