La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Although some solution will be found that involves the law and the law is used as the guideline for whether he should keep people off this footpath. But I think it is more important to know who actually makes use of this land where the footpath is. Is it anything other than a footpath? I think not. If it is simply about Jeremy Clarkson saying "I own this own, it is my property" so you cannot walk on it then I personally think he should be told to piss off. Am I right in thinking this cottage and adjoining land is rather big in terms of area? I can understand the requirement for privacy when someone has a small garden or yard, people make use of their garden or yard regularly, it is part of their home. But if his property covers a large area I don't think he is in the right for telling people to get off it if it not serving some useful purpose. Just because he has a lot of money does not mean that when he in the right to claim larger areas of land as his own. 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. But from my way of looking at things, these footpath workers are not causing Jeremy Clarkson any real problems. He is simply asserting a wrongful (because I do not believe in property) ownership of land, and on land that was often used by members of the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 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. Maybe he is. But if this is really the issue (and he didn't stop access until a year or so after he moved in), then it would be better to deal with that. It may turn out that it is only one or two who have it in for him and out to make his life a misery. That's why the mediation approach should be the starting point in such a dispute. Get the full story and try to get to the bottom of the real issues. (maybe he doesn't want to name names or make it out that he's a victim of malicious harassment, which is possibly what might be going on). If he is over-egging, and perhaps is really using this as a pretext and just doesn't want anyone, then it will soon come out. Given a workable sensible compromise that works for all concerned, I'd expect he opt for that, and If he didn't take that, he'd look very unreasonable, and it would become evident this is all crocodile tears and bogus cynical PR manipulation. If this isn't the real issue and he's over-egging, the egg would end up on his face. I think he's savvy enough and mindful enough of his image that he wouldn't let that happen. Just for that reason, it would probably now be wiser for him to accept the kind of solution that might be found through a mediation type approach. From the article I get the feeling he'd be very happy for such an 'out of court settlement' which resolves the issues and deals with the real concerns he gave. Having gone out with what he's said, I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt, and the issues he raises about harassment ought to be able to be resolved without either driving him out or loss of the public's enjoyment of this part of the countryside. It shouldn't be a zero-sum game ending in acrimony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 This is my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong: Clarkson buys a property completely unaware that people walk on a path past said property i.e. his legal advisor didn't pick up on it and on his viewings he completely failed to spot any members of the public with his own eyes and the actual physical route of the path. He then lowers a wall to improve the view outwards completely unaware that this action would also improve the view inwards. He then spends a lot of his time collecting up litter that no-one else sees being dropped. He also suffers from dogs worrying sheep on the land although this only takes place at Langness and at a time when no-one else sees it happening. He then blocks off the footpath that has been used for years and years which is how footpaths become adopted as such. He then claims it's not his fault, it's everyone else's. He then threatens to leave the IOM if he doesn't get his own way, presumably with a great deal of gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, stamping of feet and thcreams and thcreams until he's thick. There must be grounds in there somewhere for me to claim a rebate on my tv licence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 I think he was aware (after all he had to drive past the car park!) - there were I think 2 purchases - the cottages did not include the surrounding land, that was a seperate purchase if I understood correctly - my guess was that he just decided to be bloody minded presumeably egged on by the petrol heads running tourism etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 There must be grounds in there somewhere for me to claim a rebate on my tv licence... No, but I think there's material there for a storyline in a Manx daytime soap opera - which could also feature the Champ saga and Dallas-style wheeler dealings by people in power - and you could ask for your licence fee to be spent on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 On the sheep incident! I was actually working on a site down south ,when Jamie Riggall (the man who was looking after Clarksons land at the time) borrowed a Pick-up van from the main contractor to move the carcasses of seven dead sheep that had been driven over the cliff by dogs! Or maybe they committed suicide and threw themselves over the cliff , driven mad by the knowledge that they could never again walk the 100yds or so of re-routed pathway alongside Clarksons window ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 On the sheep incident! I was actually working on a site down south ,when Jamie Riggall (the man who was looking after Clarksons land at the time) borrowed a Pick-up van from the main contractor to move the carcasses of seven dead sheep that had been driven over the cliff by dogs! Or maybe they committed suicide and threw themselves over the cliff , driven mad by the knowledge that they could never again walk the 100yds or so of re-routed pathway alongside Clarksons window ? Maybe they just listened to an extreme bout of self importance bellowed by Mr Clarkson and decided that the Irish Sea was a much better alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 driven over the cliff by dogs! How do you know it was dogs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Sheep! watching "Top Gear"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 On the sheep incident! I was actually working on a site down south ,when Jamie Riggall (the man who was looking after Clarksons land at the time) borrowed a Pick-up van from the main contractor to move the carcasses of seven dead sheep that had been driven over the cliff by dogs! Or maybe they committed suicide and threw themselves over the cliff , driven mad by the knowledge that they could never again walk the 100yds or so of re-routed pathway alongside Clarksons window ? Maybe they just listened to an extreme bout of self importance bellowed by Mr Clarkson and decided that the Irish Sea was a much better alternative. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 Sheep! watching "Top Gear"? They might as well. I've got confused as to what Top Gears target audience is. A bunch of middle class twats hacking around in cars nobody but investment bankers can afford and then telling us how great they are: like we give a toss as we can't afford to buy any of them and probably can't afford to put petrol in most of them. Or the challenges: Next week James May sticks 37 billiard balls up his arse and races to the top of Mount Etna in an Aston Martin Vanquish, to see if he can beat a team of gypsies in a helicopter to be the first to plant a sprig of lucky heather on the summit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homarus Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 It's not funny!, I was eating mutton for a month! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 It's not funny!, I was eating mutton for a month! Ha! Who else might have done well out of these lemming-like sheep throwing themselves over the cliff - and, more to the point, do they have a dog! Maybe Jeremy is being fleeced with the old sheep-wrecking ruse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 This is my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong: Clarkson buys a property completely unaware that people walk on a path past said property i.e. his legal advisor didn't pick up on it and on his viewings he completely failed to spot any members of the public with his own eyes and the actual physical route of the path. He then lowers a wall to improve the view outwards completely unaware that this action would also improve the view inwards. He then spends a lot of his time collecting up litter that no-one else sees being dropped. He also suffers from dogs worrying sheep on the land although this only takes place at Langness and at a time when no-one else sees it happening. He then blocks off the footpath that has been used for years and years which is how footpaths become adopted as such. He then claims it's not his fault, it's everyone else's. He then threatens to leave the IOM if he doesn't get his own way, presumably with a great deal of gnashing of teeth, rending of garments, stamping of feet and thcreams and thcreams until he's thick. There must be grounds in there somewhere for me to claim a rebate on my tv licence... I think you hit the nail pretty much on the head, Fotherington-Thomas. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Ten Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 I am just wondering if anyone who bought the Daily Telegraph could drop me a quick PM, basically I supplied one of the images that the Daily Telegraph used for this article and as I forgot to buy the paper on the day, I want to see if they abided by my T&Cs? Thanks Last Ten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.