keyboarder Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Jeremy Clarkson chooses to bring topgear to film here pretty much every year and that gives the island good publicity It gives the island bad publicity in my opinion, attracting, as it seems to do, all manner of motor-borne riff-raff to come and experience the absence of a national speed limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vix Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Jeremy Clarkson chooses to bring topgear to film here pretty much every year and that gives the island good publicity It gives the island bad publicity in my opinion, attracting, as it seems to do, all manner of motor-borne riff-raff to come and experience the absence of a national speed limit. I can see your point of view but I think that with the viewing figures top gear has it still brings the Island into a huge public forum. There are always going to be idiots that abuse the no speed limit, but to be fair thats another topic of discussion entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Baker Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 I'm sure we can all agree that the most suitable compromise would be for him to move to Chicken Rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hugh janus Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Whats round there to see anyway? Oh - right. The output from the sewage treatment plant in the front garden, some mud, a rusty old fog horn and a broken garden gate. The 'path' at the south western end is worn and washing away - so he could just say its closed for 'elf and safety reasons'. After all, if someone slipped on this worn bit, and fell into the sea, as the landowner he could be held liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scribe Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 The 'path' at the south western end is worn and washing away - so he could just say its closed for 'elf and safety reasons'. After all, if someone slipped on this worn bit, and fell into the sea, as the landowner he could be held liable. I'd imagine even macho Mr C will have insurance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scribe Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Trying again.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scribe Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 What are you on about? this just shows how narrow minded you actually are , there are other ways to see the wildlife around Dreswick point other than walking. For your information not only have I walked around most of the Islands coastline including Langness I have also kayaked and sailed round the Island for years and intend to do so for many more, So what makes me narrow minded? Have you considered a round Britain kayak? Or possibly global circumnavigation? That'll give me time to broaden my mind while you're away.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 It is not simply a case of Clarkson -v- PROWL. It is Clarkson -v- (potentially) Everybody on the Isle of Man. ... the new owner of the land has asserted the basic human right to enjoy the fruits of his labour in peace. I don't think anyone would object to someone enjoying the fruits of their labour. But if that involves purchasing land and claiming it is as private property I have big objections. Nobody has the right to do that. Doesn't the Langness property comprise of 33 acres? And he is entitled to that? I think not. If you have a house and don't have curtains then sometimes people do look in, if a lot of people look in because they are nosy, busy-bodies who have nothing better to do then it shows what saddos they are but I don't think it overcomes any objection I have to the right to own property. But my opinion would differ if this path was very close to his house and people were really staring in to get a good skeet. He should be allowed his privacy in his own home. I decided to walk further up the road and cut across the field at the nearest gate, just as I was about to leave the field and continue on the headland path a land rover came bumbling across the field with his horn beeping, so I stopped and waited for them to catch up to me, the occupant was the estate manager and he told me that the path was now closed to the public , And all you were doing was just walking round a headland path? If some car came bumbling across a field beeping its horn simply because I was taking a stroll I would be inclined to tell the tosser to "p*ss off". I firstly find it objectionable that people can OWN land and claim it as private property, but really, if someone owns a large amount of land and you are simply going across it, causing no harm whatsoever to any fauna or flora or the owner's privacy then so what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I don't think anyone would object to someone enjoying the fruits of their labour. But if that involves purchasing land and claiming it is as private property I have big objections. Nobody has the right to do that. Doesn't the Langness property comprise of 33 acres? And he is entitled to that? I think not. LDV you sound to be a disciple of Proudhon and are raising a more profound philosophical point. Where do you draw the line on property? Is it OK for a farmer to own land or should all property be state owned? Are material possessions 'theft' - the TV, the refrigerator, the cooker? If JC had 1 acre would that be acceptable? In your view which 'fruits of labour' can people own and which not? How do you personally draw the line? It is a nice point but not the one this issue is going to be decided on. Just interested in your thoughts though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeddan Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I don't think anyone would object to someone enjoying the fruits of their labour. But if that involves purchasing land and claiming it is as private property I have big objections. Nobody has the right to do that. Doesn't the Langness property comprise of 33 acres? And he is entitled to that? I think not. LDV you sound to be a disciple of Proudhon and are raising a more profound philosophical point. Where do you draw the line on property? Is it OK for a farmer to own land or should all property be state owned? Are material possessions 'theft' - the TV, the refrigerator, the cooker? If JC had 1 acre would that be acceptable? In your view which 'fruits of labour' can people own and which not? How do you personally draw the line? It is a nice point but not the one this issue is going to be decided on. Just interested in your thoughts though. LDV might argue from philosophical point, but I think the principle is one which perhaps should be addressed if it comes to it. I've mentioned the Nordic / Norse principle of allemannsrett. There is also in England a 'freedom to roam' on uncultivated land. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_publ..._the_wilderness Some might snigger at the idea of right to roam on uncultivated land - but if that right exists it shouldn't be sniggered at any more than their right to own their property. It doesn't sound like people are trampling on Clarkson's crops or flowerbed or wandering through an orchard or meadow. As I understand it, they are roaming on rough uncultivated land. If there is a right to roam on uncultivated land of this kind, then it is objectionable to claim it as private property which he can exclude others from and deny them this right. That may be exactly what the issue should be decided on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Skeddan, I agree that LDV's view about property ownership is not relevant legally to how this may be settled. However I am genuinely interested in the alternative views expressed and wonder where LDV sees the limits of property ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Some might snigger at the idea of right to roam on uncultivated land - I imagine that any land Mr Clarkson owns is distinctly uncultivated. He's probably planted pork pie trees and lager grass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digga Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 He's probably planted pork pie trees and lager grass. Clarkson for Chief Minister woo hoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.