Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Newsbot

[BBC News] No inquiry on Clarkson footpath

Recommended Posts

who ever it was was probably correct in saying there is NO official right of way, move the fence if you get trouble with nosey cunts.

 

Then they would be correct to take the nosey cunts to court. Probably.

 

As I said, man in pub could have predicted this hoo-haa. Why didn't Jeremy's advisers?

 

Unless of course they did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to quote prowl;

"The act states that, "Where a way over any land… has actually been enjoyed by the public as a right and without interruption for… 21 years, the way is to be deemed to have been dedicated as a highway unless there is sufficient evidence that there was no intention during that period to dedicate it…”"

 

how is being allowed by a landowner to walk across his land a right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
to quote prowl;

"The act states that, "Where a way over any land… has actually been enjoyed by the public as a right and without interruption for… 21 years, the way is to be deemed to have been dedicated as a highway unless there is sufficient evidence that there was no intention during that period to dedicate it…”"

 

how is being allowed by a landowner to walk across his land a right?

 

It means 'enjoyed by the public as a right'. The landowner doesn't have to have given permission. The public must have made use of the footpath as they would as though they had the right to use it. Over time if this use is undisturbed and without interruption, this becomes a right. The landowner is then treated as having dedicated that as a right of way unless there is evidence to prove otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, the Manx Courts and Legal System, with the aide of a deemster can (and in fact do) if the notion takes them, simply ignore the laws and any precedents.

 

Good ol' Breast Law eh!

 

Where a celebrity is involved or such as a 'titled' person it is not unknown for a deemster to go all twinkly and starry-eyed - as in "fuck what the law says".

 

Unfortunately for Jez and his legal eagles, in this case, there is far too much publicity for a deemster to shaft and shit on the little people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed that the BBC report said it is expected to be sorted out before Christmas - but forgot to mention the year!

 

How about opening the footpath and allowing the property owner to keep retired fighting bulls in the field? Save face all round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
to quote prowl;

"The act states that, "Where a way over any land… has actually been enjoyed by the public as a right and without interruption for… 21 years, the way is to be deemed to have been dedicated as a highway unless there is sufficient evidence that there was no intention during that period to dedicate it…”"

 

how is being allowed by a landowner to walk across his land a right?

 

It means 'enjoyed by the public as a right'. The landowner doesn't have to have given permission. The public must have made use of the footpath as they would as though they had the right to use it. Over time if this use is undisturbed and without interruption, this becomes a right. The landowner is then treated as having dedicated that as a right of way unless there is evidence to prove otherwise.

 

it was 'interupted' during the foot and mouth the year TT was cancelled cos it was closed by DAFF if it wasn't in use for 21 years uninterupted before that then it hasn't been used uninterupted for 21 years..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it was 'interupted' during the foot and mouth the year TT was cancelled cos it was closed by DAFF

Wouldn't DAFF have closed it even if it had been a dedicated public footpath? Were DAFF the landowner?

 

Maybe the court would be all literalistic about it as you are. I'd think the meaning of it is the standard one of 'unchallenged' - in the sense of the public using it as a footpath and the landowner doesn't challenge their right to use it as such.

 

If say an unexploded bomb were found near the path and it were closed until the bomb was disposed of, that might be an 'interruption' as you see it. However it wouldn't be challenging the public's right to use the path as a public footpath - just closing the path for safety reasons - and would have closed it irrespective of whether or not it was a dedicated public footpath.

 

Anyhow you could be right - maybe they'd take anything into consideration to give Mr Clarkson the benefit. DAFF or even deep snow fall that might block the path - perhaps even heavy downpour of rain or high winds might be counted as interrupting the public's enjoyment of the path as of right. (it interferes with the enjoyment, even if not interfering with the right).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
to quote prowl;

"The act states that, "Where a way over any land… has actually been enjoyed by the public as a right and without interruption for… 21 years, the way is to be deemed to have been dedicated as a highway unless there is sufficient evidence that there was no intention during that period to dedicate it…""

 

how is being allowed by a landowner to walk across his land a right?

 

It means 'enjoyed by the public as a right'. The landowner doesn't have to have given permission. The public must have made use of the footpath as they would as though they had the right to use it. Over time if this use is undisturbed and without interruption, this becomes a right. The landowner is then treated as having dedicated that as a right of way unless there is evidence to prove otherwise.

 

it was 'interupted' during the foot and mouth the year TT was cancelled cos it was closed by DAFF if it wasn't in use for 21 years uninterupted before that then it hasn't been used uninterupted for 21 years..

 

 

An excellent and very relevant point, therefore Clarksons to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For yeras when the ligt house was fully opeerational and the cottages occupied by the keepers there was a sign by the gate post at the carpark confirming the land was private and no vehicles and pedestrians allowed only by consent with no rights accruing

 

Most of the land was owned by the Golf Links Hotel, the road to the lighthouse is a private right of way over that land. so you could n't get to what is now Jeremy's land at all unless you were a person on official light house business using a private right or had crossed the private land belonging to the Golf Links with their consent

 

Not sure that boundaries were ever marked as to what was light house and what was Golf Links and what was MNT land

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For yeras when the ligt house was fully opeerational and the cottages occupied by the keepers there was a sign by the gate post at the carpark confirming the land was private and no vehicles and pedestrians allowed only by consent with no rights accruing

 

Most of the land was owned by the Golf Links Hotel, the road to the lighthouse is a private right of way over that land. so you could n't get to what is now Jeremy's land at all unless you were a person on official light house business using a private right or had crossed the private land belonging to the Golf Links with their consent

 

Not sure that boundaries were ever marked as to what was light house and what was Golf Links and what was MNT land

 

 

John, what would the penalties for trespassing on someone's property? Would there need to be proof of trespass for a charge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For yeras when the ligt house was fully opeerational and the cottages occupied by the keepers there was a sign by the gate post at the carpark confirming the land was private and no vehicles and pedestrians allowed only by consent with no rights accruing

 

Most of the land was owned by the Golf Links Hotel, the road to the lighthouse is a private right of way over that land. so you could n't get to what is now Jeremy's land at all unless you were a person on official light house business using a private right or had crossed the private land belonging to the Golf Links with their consent

 

Not sure that boundaries were ever marked as to what was light house and what was Golf Links and what was MNT land

 

A close relative used to visit the family of a light house keeper as part of her work, for a number of years. She concurs very much with what John has said.

 

We have quite a few family arguments over this in our house, over Sunday dinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is trespass in the IoM the same as the UK?

 

In the UK, you see all these "Trespassers will be prosecuted" signs. They make me smile. As I understand it, if you leave when asked and cause no damage, there is no offence committed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trespass is not the point here

 

If the access was subject to consent it is not of right and no right of way can be established

 

However IOM law is different and there is a crimnal tresopass law in certain circumstances

 

Yes in England it should be Trespassers will be sued on the other hand walking by side motorways, railway lines etc is an offence so is entering onto docks, airports and military bases, so in fact yiu will be prosecuted in England, for what is really just trespass, but dressed up as something else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John, what would the penalties for trespassing on someone's property? Would there need to be proof of trespass for a charge?

 

You cannot be charged with trespass it is not covered in litigation.

 

Trespass is in common law, the land owner can evict you from his land, every piece of land is owned by somebody, there is no right to roam. You can be sued for trespass.

 

Ignorance of trespassing is no defence.

 

I am sure John will correct any inacuracies.

 

Think of a tower crane that oversails your property, is it comiting trespass if you have not given your permission ?

The answer is YES.

I worked on a development in Manchester where the developer paid a five figure sum each to two neighbours for their permission for the tower crane they were using to oversail their properties. (look out dandara and hartford)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...