Clarkson in trouble again

[HeliCraig]

Although not legally a public footpath, historically the landowner had granted "permissive rights" to walkers.

Seems cased closed to me. Not a legal footpath - Jezza is entitled to do as he pleases.

If they were letting their pesky four legged friend carp everywhere and not respecting the privilege afforded to them by the land owner then it serves them right.

Whinging tree huggers.

Now, if the Govt wants to make it a legal footpath then they will they not have to "compulsory purchase" the land first; and thus compensate Mr. Clarkson?

[BrilloPad]

Seems cased closed to me. Not a legal footpath - Jezza is entitled to do as he pleases.

If they were letting their pesky four legged friend carp everywhere and not respecting the privilege afforded to them by the land owner then it serves them right.

Whinging tree huggers.

Now, if the Govt wants to make it a legal footpath then they will they not have to "compulsory purchase" the land first; and thus compensate Mr. Clarkson?

I am a huge JC fan - I think he should be PM. But in this case he is wrong - very very wrong.

"Although not legally a public footpath, historically the landowner had granted "permissive rights" to walkers."

The walkers were thee before him - he should have investigated before he purchased. caveat emprum(sp?).

I am a right wing capitalist - but I like to walk (when my ailments permit). Am I a "Whinging tree hugger"? Actually dont answer that!

[HeliCraig]

I am a huge JC fan - I think he should be PM. But in this case he is wrong - very very wrong.

"Although not legally a public footpath, historically the landowner had granted "permissive rights" to walkers."

The walkers were thee before him - he should have investigated before he purchased. caveat emprum(sp?).

I am a right wing capitalist - but I like to walk (when my ailments permit). Am I a "Whinging tree hugger"? Actually dont answer that!

I don't think he is being unfair. He let them carry on for a bit after he bought it and they were taking the Michael and letting four legged friends tulipe everywhere. He then told them to "get off my land."

Seems reasonable to me. You have a privilege and you abuse it then you will loose it.

Nothing wrong with walking. I just get sick and tired of these people moaning because they can't walk on somebody else's land... FFS - ITS NOT YOURS! How would they like it if I came and walked across the bottom end of their garden and let my dog carp everywhere???

[BrilloPad]

I don't think he is being unfair. He let them carry on for a bit after he bought it and they were taking the Michael and letting four legged friends tulipe everywhere. He then told them to "get off my land."

Seems reasonable to me. You have a privilege and you abuse it then you will loose it.

Nothing wrong with walking. I just get sick and tired of these people moaning because they can't walk on somebody else's land... FFS - ITS NOT YOURS! How would they like it if I came and walked across the bottom end of their garden and let my dog carp everywhere???

Is thee any proof that dogs carped on his land? Where is the evidence? If its only a few - why should everyone be denied access?

Before I bought my property I checked for rights of way. Clarkson should have done the same.

I am a huge JC fan - but I dont like people who think they are above the law.

Presumably he was advised by Hoogstrassen(sp?)?

[Spacecadet]

Now, if the Govt wants to make it a legal footpath then they will they not have to "compulsory purchase" the land first; and thus compensate Mr. Clarkson?

IIRC No purchase necessary, they just make the footpath a legal right of way. The landowner will then need to insure against anybody "injuring" themselves whilst walking on their land.

[The Lone Gunman]

I am not a great lover of JC but I am on his side on this one.
"PRoWL argued that the path had become a public highway under Manx law, because it had been used "as of right" without permission for more than 21 years."
I would suggest the key here is the word "granted" in this bit "Although not legally a public footpath, historically the landowner had granted "permissive rights" to walkers."
Being granted permission surely negates the first statement?

[BrilloPad]

IIRC No purchase necessary, they just make the footpath a legal right of way. The landowner will then need to insure against anybody "injuring" themselves whilst walking on their land.

Didn't JC write about how he used explosives to blow up a dead seal on the beach? I hope he insured against that too!

[Bagpuss]

This is dressed up as a landowner blocking a right of way, which is wrong!
However this isn't a right of way.

[HeliCraig]

Is thee any proof that dogs carped on his land? Where is the evidence? If its only a few - why should everyone be denied access?

Before I bought my property I checked for rights of way. Clarkson should have done the same.

I am a huge JC fan - but I dont like people who think they are above the law.

Presumably he was advised by Hoogstrassen(sp?)?

Think you're missing the point here - there is no right of way. The previous owner had allowed people to walk on it; not granted a right of way.

Everybody can denied access because it is his land and he can do what he pleases (within the law) on it.

To turn the argument around: What rights have the walkers got to be there? What do they think entitles them to walk on something he has legally bought? If I let you drive my car for 21 years and then sold it to another bloke, should he let you drive it also??

IIRC No purchase necessary, they just make the footpath a legal right of way. The landowner will then need to insure against anybody "injuring" themselves whilst walking on their land.

Now that does sound a little unjust, but I can believe it.

[Moscow Mule]

However this isn't a right of way.

Well, that's the question Tynwald has yet to answer isn't it?

Unless you're a member of said institution, I doubt you're qualified to make that assertion.