Another Defeat For The Clarksons

[ballaughbiker]

It has nothing to do with wealth or origin

John, whilst the recent legal decisions have (quite rightly) gone against him, and no doubt 'who he was' didn't influence those decisions, I don't believe your statement applied at the beginning. It was a witch hunt right from the start and I believe his fame, perceived fortune and origins played their part were pivotal.

 

However I do agree that this has gone far enough and he should back down and give PROWL the victory they crave. It will be a pyrrhic victory though with the reputation of the island damaged.

 

 

A perfect summary

+1

[Fossils]

A perfect summary:

Access has been denied to several rights of way in recent times.

Unfortunately, the landowners were merely rich - not famous.

This meant that the tosspots who formed PROWL wouldn't have had the limelight they craved.

Therefore they did nothing.

Once a TV celebrity was involved they suddenly found their voices to challenge what, at most, is a miniscule inconvenience.

I would recommend cutting their balls off - if I honestly believed they had any.

[Alex]

My understanding is that the landowners were told there were permissive paths over the land before they bought, they must have known there would be a fight if they tried to shut them. Look at PROWL's website for the map showing the diversion, it makes a big difference.

 

There was a similar fight years ago over the path to the beach at Garwick (Baldrine). Not because the landowner was rich or famous, but because people want to be able to walk paths they have walked on for many years & they believe should be made public. Unfortunately, the public lost that fight, a crying shame. Now that path is closed and only available to the landowners, before that it was walked by Manx and tourists alike.

 

Ps No, I don't have any balls. What a ridiculous insult. Grow up.

[ballaboy]

Declan, there wasn't a finding that a right of way already existed, was there? That would simply be a matter for the courts - not the legislature or a public enquiry.

 

If I was Clarkson I'd be fighting every inch of the way too, as this has all the hallmarks of a comeover witchhunt

The inquiry did find that a right of way existed by establishing its unchallenged use for 21 years or more, the minister accepted the Inspector's finding on this. The Clarksons are trying by ever more complex ways to overturn this.

[Fossils]

Declan, there wasn't a finding that a right of way already existed, was there? That would simply be a matter for the courts - not the legislature or a public enquiry.

 

If I was Clarkson I'd be fighting every inch of the way too, as this has all the hallmarks of a comeover witchhunt

The inquiry did find that a right of way existed by establishing its unchallenged use for 21 years or more, the minister accepted the Inspector's finding on this. The Clarksons are trying by ever more complex ways to overturn this.

 

Wasn't its use challenged in Foot and Mouth Year?

[ballaughbiker]

Alex, the row wasn't shut but diverted. Of course, 'shut' sounds a lot more unreasonable and therefore more worthy of action.

 

Oh, and I hardly think Lonan's suggestion of cutting PROWL's balls off was entirely serious and perhaps it should be read and reacted to with that in mind.

[pauld]

Warra fuckin drama queen you are tugger "come-over witchunt" ffs.

 

Could just aswell be viewed as some rich stubborn, self important smug bastard come-over, believing his own hype, you buy a property and abide by the laws of the land, his choice to buy the place, could of chosen from many problem free properties, fuukim.

 

 

 

But the law of the land is that only PRoW on the definitive map exist. These were not on that map when they bought. They bought free of RoW, the government is now saying it will amend the map. They are entitled to object. Freedom, democracy, etc.

 

I thought they knew about the path before buying, but your right let them object and get a "fair" hearing, then fuukim.

[Tugger]

They knew about a permissive path. I.e. one that the landowner's permission was required to use.

 

The instruction of a planning inspector was enturely driven by comeover bashing. Either there is a right of way, or there isn't, and that is a matter for the interested parties to bring before the courts, not for bellend politicians to deal with in a comeover-bashing frenzy.

 

I hope PROWL break their NECKS on his land.

[Alex]

You wish death on them tugger? What a royal prick you are.

 

The laws of the IOM allow PROWs after rights of way have been established over time, which is the case here. Simples.

[Tugger]

Yep, death.

 

For starters

[Alex]

 

Well that just shows who the reactionary idiots are – and it ain’t PROWL or their supporters. Only reason you give 2 shites about the whole issue is because you’re one of those immature boys who snigger at the idiotic things that Clarkson says & does

 

That’s the problem with this whole thing – most of the people wailing and thrashing about how it’s so unfair like tugger are only those people who are big fans of Clarkson, they actually have no interest in any Rights of Way apart from the ones over Clarkson’s land!

[P.K.]

A perfect summary:

Access has been denied to several rights of way in recent times.

Unfortunately, the landowners were merely rich - not famous.

This meant that the tosspots who formed PROWL wouldn't have had the limelight they craved.

Therefore they did nothing.

Once a TV celebrity was involved they suddenly found their voices to challenge what, at most, is a miniscule inconvenience.

I would recommend cutting their balls off - if I honestly believed they had any.

 

The reason so many footpaths get closed is because organisations like PROWL are not omnipotent.

 

I sincerely hope that PROWL continues to challenge footpath closures no matter who the landowner is. Because you can be absolutely certain that landowners with permissive paths have watched this issue with more than a passing interest. I suspect they will head down and then quietly close their paths once the background noise has died down. So I would be very disappointed if after the Langness farrago PROWL just dissipated. Because it would appear that on the IOM these kinds of battles can't be fought by individuals. For some reason it seems it can only be done by an organisation, which in the UK is the Ramblers. But I do wonder what these folks have been up to? Because organisations like the Ramblers protect and try to preserve the right for every UK citizen to use their footpaths - WHETHER THEY USE THEM OR NOT. Because it simply does not matter if you use the paths or not, that's an irrelevance, it's your RIGHT to do so should you so wish to that they are preserving.

 

Of one thing I am absolutely certain - the taxpayers in PROWL are VERY happy for their taxes to be spent on this issue rather than being pissed away on some grandiose but unnecessary capital scheme.

[ballaughbiker]

are only those people who are big fans of Clarkson, they actually have no interest in any Rights of Way

Well if you think I'm one of those you describe as thrashing and wailing, you couldn't be more wrong. I dislike Clarkson's on screen attitude and very rarely watch TG now it's got all silly. I am also a walker ('bout 1200-1500 miles/year) and would fight closure of established rows. Sorry if all that doesn't neatly fit your selective pidgeon hole but I hardly match your apparent perception of a PROWL objector as I have a significant vested interest in maintaining rows.

 

That said, I hardly think that all the PROWL venom was anything like justified as this was not a closure. It was a diversion and not an unreasonable one. Sure, better if it hadn't happened but it wasn't unreasonable. Ramblers associations both here and across have demonstrated their complete inflexibility to compromise on such matters with a huge dose of celeb etc bating thrown in on this one. The historic lack of compromise of the RA (+ PROWLs obvious vendetta) have, and always will cause me to ensure I distance myself from such organisations.

[P.K.]

That said, I hardly think that all the PROWL venom was anything like justified as this was not a closure. It was a diversion and not an unreasonable one.

 

Not unreasonable??? Says who???

 

That's where your argument falls on it's arse. It's based on something purely subjective.

[ballaughbiker]

Yeah PK, just like the opposing view. Unreasonable? says who? and argument falling on its ass? Says who?

 

Personally I wouldn't find a detour of a hundred or so yards unreasonable but there again, I'm a reasonable person. Others appear not to be as reasonable and/or are maybe looking for an axe (any axe with certain situations) to grind.

 

The majority of views on this entertaining forum are pure subjective but what isn't is the historical general attitude of rambling organisations refusal to accept anything other than what they want. Live and let live appears to be a totally alien concept to them.