Devon TRF Group Forum

aah, poor lamb.

Does everyone from the city and with money think they can stop us country people enjoying it?

Note..I'm NOT having a go..just making an observation

Interesting comments on this thread.. reminds me of those who don't like trail bikes, not because they understand the issues or even facts about individual lanes, but because they have their own pre determined view... mainly "gleamed" through media reporting or bias..

Some might like to read up on Clarksons problems with the walkers on his land.. there is a strong argument to show that the "paths" used by the public in the area of his property are, especially the ones that go right past the windows of his property, have been previously considered (and previously recorded) as permissive paths... The RoW law and Court process on the IOM is different from mainland UK..

Also that there was a call to remove the Judge who adjudicated over this issue following his personal comments and apparent dislike and bias against Clarkson after the first ruling.

But the local IOM law makes it the decision of the Judge himself as to whether or not he removes himself from any future hearings.. Despite being correctly quoted and not denying what he said about Clarkson the Judge decided to sit on the appeal as well Probably because he is also a walker

The case follows several years of issues with walkers, mainly those who peer through his windows looking for the "celebrity" and those with dogs who dont clear up dog **** and that Clarkson has had several sheep killed by dog walkers... all confirmed by the local police and often recorded as undisputed evidence by the way

For whatever reason Clarkson has bad press, people take the reporting as fact, even when most if it has later been officially apologised for as being incorrect.

Suffice to say he only wanted the "permissive" path closed that went right past the outside of his lighthouse property and a fence along the side of the main coastal route to keep the dogs away from the sheep he is, by a quirk of IOM law, required to keep on his land..

He has been threatened by walkers, his wife and children have been verbally abused and his property vandalised...

I wonder what any of us would do in a similar situation when faced with Kinder Scout type action by walkers on our own property and the abuse of our partners and children?

Many people have reacted in exactly the same way in most of the posts on this thread to the press reports as Ramblers et all react to trail riders seeking to retain access rights to the lanes...

Interestingly had this been on mainland Britain he would have won several years ago when the problems first started.

Again, I'm only making an observation, not having a go...

follow link to OS map of the lighthouse and sat image..nearest OS recorded RoW is the BOAT that runs to the car park just past the golf course

http://wtp2.appspot.com/wheresthepath.htm?lat=54.055982836341826&lon=-4.625646528039777&gz=17&oz=8&gt=1

here is the local IOM version of GLEAM and their take and a link to the "judgement"

http://prowl-iom.org/

-- Edited by ANDY T on Sunday 29th of April 2012 06:45:32 PM

ANDY T wrote:

---

Note..I'm NOT having a go..just making an observation

 

Interesting comments on this thread.. reminds me of those who don't like trail bikes, not because they understand the issues or even facts about individual lanes, but because they have their own pre determined view... mainly "gleamed" through media reporting or bias..

 

Some might like to read up on Clarksons problems with the walkers on his land.. there is a strong argument to show that the "paths" used by the public in the area of his property are, especially the ones that go right past the windows of his property, have been previously considered (and previously recorded) as permissive paths... The RoW law and Court process on the IOM is different from mainland UK..

 

Also that there was a call to remove the Judge who adjudicated over this issue following his personal comments and apparent dislike and bias against Clarkson after the first ruling.

 

But the local IOM law makes it the decision of the Judge himself as to whether or not he removes himself from any future hearings.. Despite being correctly quoted and not denying what he said about Clarkson the Judge decided to sit on the appeal as well Probably because he is also a walker

 

The case follows several years of issues with walkers, mainly those who peer through his windows looking for the "celebrity" and those with dogs who dont clear up dog **** and that Clarkson has had several sheep killed by dog walkers... all confirmed by the local police and often recorded as undisputed evidence by the way

 

For whatever reason Clarkson has bad press, people take the reporting as fact, even when most if it has later been officially apologised for as being incorrect.

 

Suffice to say he only wanted the "permissive" path closed that went right past the outside of his lighthouse property and a fence along the side of the main coastal route to keep the dogs away from the sheep he is, by a quirk of IOM law, required to keep on his land..

 

He has been threatened by walkers, his wife and children have been verbally abused and his property vandalised...

 

I wonder what any of us would do in a similar situation when faced with Kinder Scout type action by walkers on our own property and the abuse of our partners and children?

 

Many people have reacted in exactly the same way in most of the posts on this thread to the press reports as Ramblers et all react to trail riders seeking to retain access rights to the lanes...

 

Interestingly had this been on mainland Britain he would have won several years ago when the problems first started.

 

Again, I'm only making an observation, not having a go...

---

 Good points, well made Andy. I think we can all be guilty of taking what the media say/write as gospel when it suits us. When really we all know they spout sh*te just to raise sales or viewing figures..