Because they can.....

[Gladys]

2 hours ago, Hoops said:

 

The judge in his court case seemed quite taken aback by this, especially as they had already started proceedings to evict him.

 

Is that true?  Must find the judgement. 

[Max Power]

23 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

That's the whole point though isn't it. The ones that cause problems are generally lawless anyway. They aren't going to wait for some obscure legal or enforcement precedent to be set, if they want to come and live here they will, and they won't give a tinker's cuss whether the law is on their side or not. If they wanted to live here they would be here by now.

The fact is they aren't and they won't be whatever the decision in this case. No more than any of the halfwits on this thread who say they're going to give up their homes, all their home comforts and most of their possessions and live in a shack up Tholt-y-Will with a composting toilet for company if this fella is allowed to stay. They won't either.   

No, they look for weakness and loopholes, we are providing that as long as anyone can just set up home on land they don't own without being challenged. 

[Max Power]

10 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

He did registry searches. They showed that at that time he pitched his shack nobody owned the land. 

I'm no expert but that usually means that it is owned by the crown or government. There is no such thing as free land.

[Max Power]

6 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

You’re right. You’re no expert.

You obviously are, enlighten me then?

[Max Power]

4 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

This is a bit like your “belter” thread where you 100% changed your perspective. 

No I didn't, you misunderstood.

But you haven't enlightened me on the finer points of land ownership? 

[Gladys]

33 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Is that true?  Must find the judgement. 

I have looked at both judgements and neither says the deemster was taken aback, but gave some reasoning to explain why the remarks, which he did say were perhaps unwise, at the awards had been made 2 1/2 weeks after DEFA had commenced proceedings.

There was also some argument about David Cretney being given a silver coin to 'seal a deal'.  DC thought it was a jokey gesture, and returned the coin later.  There was no 'deal' offered or made. 

The later case was about ownership of the land and whether it belonged to DEFA or a neighbour, either way, it was land owned by someone, not that it wasn't owned by anyone.  Dan had made searches of the Land Registry but the land is unregistered and the relevant conveyances are very old.  Therefore, what he proved is that the land is unregistered not unowned. 

I do have some sympathy for Dan, but on reading the judgements, it is clear that DEFA had no option but to enforce their rights.  Dan has made a lifestyle choice, unfortunately in the wrong place. 

[Banker]

Have we kicked this guy off the land in line with court orders  or not ?

[Max Power]

3 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

No you did 100%.

If you say so. 

What about the land ownership thing, got an answer yet?

[Max Power]

1 minute ago, offshoremanxman said:

I did say so. Are you going to completely change your mind on the whole thing like the other thread you started?

I really think you got the wrong end of the stick there, but never mind. 

I'll change my mind if I'm proven wrong though.

[Passing Time]

3 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

You seem to be often proven wrong. As your back track in other threads proves.

You really are boring

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

You seem to be often proven wrong. As your back track in other threads proves.

Re-read the thread, couldn't see a backtrack by Max.

[Passing Time]

Just now, offshoremanxman said:

You really seem to be another one to go on block. 

Can you do it quickly then

[Gladys]

14 minutes ago, Max Power said:

If you say so. 

What about the land ownership thing, got an answer yet?

Not an expert Max, but as I understand it registration of land transactions is a relatively new thing for the IOM, and it may not yet even be island-wide. So older land transactions aren't shown in the register  doesn't mean the land hadn't changed ownership, just not been registered.  Or at least that is what I was told once when buying a house. 

[Hoops]

32 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I have looked at both judgements and neither says the deemster was taken aback, but gave some reasoning to explain why the remarks, which he did say were perhaps unwise, at the awards had been made 2 1/2 weeks after DEFA had commenced proceedings.

There was also some argument about David Cretney being given a silver coin to 'seal a deal'.  DC thought it was a jokey gesture, and returned the coin later.  There was no 'deal' offered or made. 

The later case was about ownership of the land and whether it belonged to DEFA or a neighbour, either way, it was land owned by someone, not that it wasn't owned by anyone.  Dan had made searches of the Land Registry but the land is unregistered and the relevant conveyances are very old.  Therefore, what he proved is that the land is unregistered not unowned. 

I do have some sympathy for Dan, but on reading the judgements, it is clear that DEFA had no option but to enforce their rights.  Dan has made a lifestyle choice, unfortunately in the wrong place. 

Well, being there and seeing the deemster's reaction, hearing his tone of voice, gave me, and others, a different opinion.

Cretney, quite possibly well intentioned, acted atrociously, without a mandate and raising false hopes for Dan. In point of fact the returning of the coin became a bit of a saga and I'm not sure who  has it now, I must ask Dan. But again, the fact that they were so determined to return said coin suggested that they were actually worried about the original passing of it.

Of course Defa had options, the option not to prosecute in the first place. They could have talked to Dan, especially given the history of how he came to be there, and offered him a lease in return for (Continued) work in the woods. They could have used Dan as a model of how we can live greener lives, if we want to. He already has set an example to the kids who come up to see him. I'm impressed by those kids, by the way, they make me feel a bit more optimistic. What has been doesn't necessarily always have to be, does it?

At the moment, on the island, living a sustainable, low impact lifestyle on the land is an option only available to the rich. One of the things I really like Dan is that he's just a normal bloke who not only talks about things, but actually does them, and always with generosity and good humour. There should be room for the rest of us to try something different as well. But the people who think in boxes want to keep us in boxes.

[Max Power]

14 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said:

You seem to be often proven wrong. As your back track in other threads proves.

Every day's a school day. At least I don't mind being wrong, probably just as well eh? It'd be nice if you could back up what you're saying though.