[BBC News] No inquiry on Clarkson footpath

[localyokel]

He might have driven a pick up truck to the North Pole, but its the Isle of Man that finally got him for trying to put up a fence in front of his kitchen window. Clarksons only failed challenge against the odds. Who the hell would want to come and live here.

[WTF]

Prowl claim a permissive route, slightly different from a right of Way

 

Indeed a permissive route is (slightly?!) different from a right of way.

 

 

 

'permissive' implies permission? which clarkson as the new landowner has revoked and ammended to a 'new' permissive route that the whiners aren't happy with, for some reason? perhaps they can't see him having breakfast anymore??

[Frances]

Right of Way implies that it is on the official list and appears on the map.

A Permissive path is one that has been used unopposed for many years (as this was), not necessarily one that has been explicitly permitted - remember the lighthouse + cottages were owned by Northern Commissioners of Lights whereas the surrounding ground on which the footpath was was owned by a farmer who never objected to the path (and in fact allowed the Gov to construct a carpark for better use of it) - it was the signed affadavits of those who walked this path that were presented to the Attorney General and will be examined by the arbitration process.

[wideload]

From Ramblers.org.uk

 

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/britain/access.html

 

"Permissive paths, where the owner has given permission to the public to use the path. Although permission is usually granted on a long-term basis, it can be withdrawn at any time, and some permissive paths are closed for one day a year on a token basis."

[nipper]

People who should know better in this thread have picked up some information about Permissive Paths and they somehow believe that is what PRoWL want. Nothing can be further from the truth.

 

From PRoWL website:

 

‘permissive’ paths are not an acceptable solution in this case – only Rights of Way will do

 

Link to PRoWL here

 

It all starts to get a bit like The Mannin Line and those people who keep phoning up with their opinions on anything and everything, you know, like "the man down the pub".

[triskelion]

Thing is, the permissive route is still there, just that the landowner has decided to re-route a small section in order to preserve his privacy.

[Jesdo]

If PROWL are claiming a permissive route, what can be their grounds for objecting to Clarkson's actions? I assume that the landowner has the right to amend a permissive route at any time?

 

My guess is that PROWL are claiming that the permissive route has been established for a long period and therefore it has now become a de facto right of way - hence that Clarkson no longer has the right to amend/revoke it. If this is their case, then surely they should be pursuing their claim, at their cost, through the courts as has been suggested earlier. I can't understand why it should involve taxpayers money for a public inquiry nor for any time from Tynwald or the AG.

[nipper]

Thing is, the permissive route is still there, just that the landowner has decided to re-route a small section in order to preserve his privacy.

 

 

Yes, yes, yes. That may well be the case. In your own head and Jesser's too . . . . . and John boy's.

 

The whole point being - and it is quite an easy point to grasp - is it a 'permissive route' or a 'right of way'?

 

Say the above red bit a few times to yourself and you should find that a little bulb lights up in your head "Ahhhh, so that is what it is all about".

 

If only these things could be resolved by simply referring to an internet forum and seeing what some bloke on there says. You know, a bit like using tarot cards or something.

 

 

I can imagine one of the Holy Deemsters finally coming to a judgment in this matter. The lights go dim in the courtroom. There is an expectant hush as a laptop is brought in and hooked up to the court video system. A spindly hand comes from beneath the black gown and a single but rather nicely manicured digit presses the button to link to the famous www.manxforums.com.

 

"The manxforums.com member says thus - the path is a . . . . . . . " *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*cue thunder and lighting followed by darkness blah blah

 

 

Edited to add: - fair enough point from Jesdo

[cheeky boy]

I went down the permissive route years ago

 

Now I'm rudderless and living in a moral vacuum

[Lost Login]

The whole point being - and it is quite an easy point to grasp - is it a 'permissive route' or a 'right of way'?

 

Say the above red bit a few times to yourself and you should find that a little bulb lights up in your head "Ahhhh, so that is what it is all about".

 

If only these things could be resolved by simply referring to an internet forum and seeing what some bloke on there says. You know, a bit like using tarot cards or something.

 

 

I can imagine one of the Holy Deemsters finally coming to a judgment in this matter. The lights go dim in the courtroom. There is an expectant hush as a laptop is brought in and hooked up to the court video system. A spindly hand comes from beneath the black gown and a single but rather nicely manicured digit presses the button to link to the famous www.manxforums.com.

 

"The manxforums.com member says thus - the path is a . . . . . . . " *

 

 

The whole point being - and it is quite an easy point to grasp - is that wether it a 'permissive route' or a 'right of way' is a matter for the courts to decide.. If PROWL believe it is take the matter to court at Prowl and Clarksons expense if he wishes to contest the issue

 

Say the above red bit a few times to yourself and you should find that a little bulb lights up in your head "Ahhhh, so that is what it is all about".

 

If only these things could be resolved by simply referring to agreeing with what a pressure group says.

 

I can imagine one of the Holy Deemsters finally coming to a judgment in this matter. The lights go dim in the courtroom. There is an expectant hush as a laptop is brought in and hooked up to the court video system. A spindly hand comes from beneath the black gown and a single but rather nicely manicured digit presses the button to link to the famous PROWL website

 

"The PROWL members says thus - the path is a . . . . . . . " *

[Jesdo]

If PROWL believe it is take the matter to court at Prowl and Clarksons expense if he wishes to contest the issue

 

If it was my back garden that PROWL were claiming a right of way through, I'd grudgingly spend money on defending the case. But if I won I would certainly be seeking to be awarded costs. I'd probably also withdraw all "permissive routes" through my property. All credit to Clarkson that he hasn't taken away his bat and ball - yet.

[triskelion]

Yes, yes, yes. That may well be the case. In your own head and Jesser's too . . . . . and John boy's.

 

The whole point being - and it is quite an easy point to grasp - is it a 'permissive route' or a 'right of way'?

 

Say the above red bit a few times to yourself and you should find that a little bulb lights up in your head "Ahhhh, so that is what it is all about".

 

If only these things could be resolved by simply referring to an internet forum and seeing what some bloke on there says. You know, a bit like using tarot cards or something.

 

I can imagine one of the Holy Deemsters finally coming to a judgment in this matter. The lights go dim in the courtroom. There is an expectant hush as a laptop is brought in and hooked up to the court video system. A spindly hand comes from beneath the black gown and a single but rather nicely manicured digit presses the button to link to the famous www.manxforums.com.

 

"The manxforums.com member says thus - the path is a . . . . . . . " *

 

*cue thunder and lighting followed by darkness blah blah

Are you a complete spacker? I quite clearly named my source for this as the BBC article which is linked to in the very first post of this thread.

 

Even on PROWL's own website it states: "Manx law allows the circular path to be made official." The clear implication of this is that it is not a right of way.

 

PROWL are working on the principle that there should be a formal right of way, not that a current one has been obstructed.

[nipper]

I'm not quite sure if I am a "complete spacker". Perhaps I is.

 

One thing for sure though, I definitely don't take as gospel what folk on internet forums declare (even though some are Holy Advocates!!).

 

Likewise, and especially when the reporters are connected to the beautiful Isle of Man, do I take as gospel what a BBC websiite says:

The pressure group Prowl (Public Rights of Way Langness) wants access to a footpath on his land. It is not a right of way, but a "permissive route".

 

So that's it then, it is not a right of way, it is a "permissive route".

 

The BBC say so.

 

Incidentarily, does Jeremy ever work for the BBC?

[wideload]

from the prowl website:

 

http://www.prowl-iom.org/June-07-update.html

 

"According to Section 88, if a traditional route has been walked without permission being granted or denied for 21 years then that route becomes a highway. Section 88 provides the mechanism through which the Isle of Man Government can achieve justice: to turn this highway into a Public Right of Way."

 

wasn't everything closed off a couple of years ago re foot'n'mouth?

[feelslikeitshould]

Oh my god he is a spacker! He is, he is!!

 

It is a permissive route, like Jesdo said the arguement is over whether it should legally be recognised as a right of way in it's original position, that is, before JC rerouted it.

 

There should be no need for a public enquiry, it should be taken to court and settled that way. How this involves politics is anyones guess but the only reason PROWL haven't been told to fuck off and sort it themselves is because it involves Clarkson and Tynwald are a bunch of self important idiots.