Clarkson vs Ramblers
Discussion
elster said:
I bloody hate people who move to an area, then try and change it.
Footpaths, Bridleways, Airfields and racetracks all get changed around for the newcomers!
Trouble is that often these rights have not been exercised in a hundred year and technically have lapsed.Footpaths, Bridleways, Airfields and racetracks all get changed around for the newcomers!
As such it takes a legal case to sort out. There are loads of them and they are all defended the same way and some are wins other losses. We obviously only hear about the ones which involve a celebrity.
The real problem facing someone with a high public profile is the simple fact that activist groups will try to re-open tracks for their own agenda, but if successful it will permit the modern paperazzi and wierdo filth to intrude at will on your privacy.
It is extremely logical for someone to fight against this although I often suspect they wish they didn't have to.
Simple solution is to make it legal to execute paps and stalkers.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Tuesday 11th May 18:33
swerni said:
A good win for common sense against an arrogant t
t.
A result all round.
How can you say it is a good win when you do not know the full case! (you may have studied the case, if so I apologise) I know Clarkson can be a bit of a plonker but I know of similar cases where the ramblers are well out of order.t.A result all round.
elster said:
I bloody hate people who move to an area, then try and change it.
Footpaths, Bridleways, Airfields and racetracks all get changed around for the newcomers!
Fylde Council have just passed the plans for a new housing development (250+ houses, flats, apartments) on the old Pontins holiday camp site. This just so happens to be at the end of the main runway at Blackpool Airport. I hope they like the sound of 737's and other planes.Footpaths, Bridleways, Airfields and racetracks all get changed around for the newcomers!
dpbird90 said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
Keeping a thoroughbred Bull on the property tends to make people re-appraise what "rights" they have on other peoples land.
That is something I could see JC doing.al1991 said:
If anyone had a public path running through their path they would want to divert it. Just because he's famous people are up in arms about it!
AgreedI'm a keen walker myself but I would have no problem with a landowner moving a path to protect their privacy, as long as the new path is a similar distance and is close by.
I can't really understand why the Ramblers get so fanatical about the issue.
JagLover said:
al1991 said:
If anyone had a public path running through their path they would want to divert it. Just because he's famous people are up in arms about it!
AgreedI'm a keen walker myself but I would have no problem with a landowner moving a path to protect their privacy, as long as the new path is a similar distance and is close by.
I can't really understand why the Ramblers get so fanatical about the issue.
Don't know about the Clarkson case..but locally a long distance path (Wayfarer's Walk) goes through a Copse and I've not managed to actually walk it yet. There is a route around which the Copse owners would clearly like everyone to use but the Copse section is one of the very few woodland paths in the area. The footpaths people have been round putting in waymarkers but the owners just put a flippin' bull in the way.
Interestingly a bull is considered a dangerous animal (in law) and it is illegal to have one in a field through which a public right of way exists...but it doesn't stop them.
Frustrating.
I have sympathy with JC, in that, whats been inferred, in another post, about people not respecting privacy, is what a lot of it may well be about.
In my past, I was priviliged to own a superb bungalow , with gardens running down to the river, in a particularly beautiful rural area. The property sat on a bend in the river, so had riparian views 2 ways from the garden.
The river was quite deep, fast flowing and very clear, willows, etc, ...Perhaps you get the picture?
The problem was the far bank....although quite deep away from the river edge (50/60 yds deep), it was (against a far hedge) a public right of way. By God the public used it.
Some of them, used to stop and stare, (my place "was" quite impressive) some stood and stared for quite a while, whether you were in your garden, or not. Some would come right down to the waters edge, and stare, a few, even used binoculars.
I had a couple of altercations with people...asked them where they lived.."Can I come and stare at you? " that kind of thing...chucked a couple of beer bottles about the place as well.
I knew about the right away over the river, before I bought the place. I never expected what I got though.
It was one of the main reasons the place was later sold. Never again.
In my past, I was priviliged to own a superb bungalow , with gardens running down to the river, in a particularly beautiful rural area. The property sat on a bend in the river, so had riparian views 2 ways from the garden.
The river was quite deep, fast flowing and very clear, willows, etc, ...Perhaps you get the picture?
The problem was the far bank....although quite deep away from the river edge (50/60 yds deep), it was (against a far hedge) a public right of way. By God the public used it.
Some of them, used to stop and stare, (my place "was" quite impressive) some stood and stared for quite a while, whether you were in your garden, or not. Some would come right down to the waters edge, and stare, a few, even used binoculars.
I had a couple of altercations with people...asked them where they lived.."Can I come and stare at you? " that kind of thing...chucked a couple of beer bottles about the place as well.
I knew about the right away over the river, before I bought the place. I never expected what I got though.
It was one of the main reasons the place was later sold. Never again.
Cheese Mechanic said:
I have sympathy with JC, in that, whats been inferred, in another post, about people not respecting privacy, is what a lot of it may well be about.
In my past, I was priviliged to own a superb bungalow , with gardens running down to the river, in a particularly beautiful rural area. The property sat on a bend in the river, so had riparian views 2 ways from the garden.
The river was quite deep, fast flowing and very clear, willows, etc, ...Perhaps you get the picture?
The problem was the far bank....although quite deep away from the river edge (50/60 yds deep), it was (against a far hedge) a public right of way. By God the public used it.
Some of them, used to stop and stare, (my place "was" quite impressive) some stood and stared for quite a while, whether you were in your garden, or not. Some would come right down to the waters edge, and stare, a few, even used binoculars.
I had a couple of altercations with people...asked them where they lived.."Can I come and stare at you? " that kind of thing...chucked a couple of beer bottles about the place as well.
I knew about the right away over the river, before I bought the place. I never expected what I got though.
It was one of the main reasons the place was later sold. Never again.
Is this post a joke?In my past, I was priviliged to own a superb bungalow , with gardens running down to the river, in a particularly beautiful rural area. The property sat on a bend in the river, so had riparian views 2 ways from the garden.
The river was quite deep, fast flowing and very clear, willows, etc, ...Perhaps you get the picture?
The problem was the far bank....although quite deep away from the river edge (50/60 yds deep), it was (against a far hedge) a public right of way. By God the public used it.
Some of them, used to stop and stare, (my place "was" quite impressive) some stood and stared for quite a while, whether you were in your garden, or not. Some would come right down to the waters edge, and stare, a few, even used binoculars.
I had a couple of altercations with people...asked them where they lived.."Can I come and stare at you? " that kind of thing...chucked a couple of beer bottles about the place as well.
I knew about the right away over the river, before I bought the place. I never expected what I got though.
It was one of the main reasons the place was later sold. Never again.
swerni said:
MonkeyMatt said:
swerni said:
A good win for common sense against an arrogant tt.
A result all round.
How can you say it is a good win when you do not know the full case! (you may have studied the case, if so I apologise) I know Clarkson can be a bit of a plonker but I know of similar cases where the ramblers are well out of order.t.A result all round.
It's a public path, he closed it.
If you buy property with public right of way you accept it, not take the law in to your own hands.
He was in the wrong hence he was made to re open.
If it wasn't in existence and they were walking across his land without permission or they wanted a right of way opened then I would suggest shooting them
I think the problem is it isnt just one path! its lots of paths splitting from the main path and running all over the place! Im not saying a right of way should be closed but knowing of similar headlands in Cornwall I can imagine it will be quite frustrating to have paths all over the place. They have asked him to re open the main path but have allowed him to keep some private!Or do you know something we don't?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff