Mecky Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I think Clarkson is very clever in acting the big kid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 A few landmines should solve his problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Yes im fully aware he bought a property that has a footpath near it and he knew it existed but to me if someone isnt happy about something they have a god given right to challenge it. They can certainly challenge things, but when it's something like this it's pretty clear that he's in the wrong. Buy a house with a footpath near it and you should expect any challenge to the location of that footpath to be summarily dismissed. My grounds for complaint are simple use the path thats what its there for i am fully aware what kind of response i will get here but at the end of the day i want a certain level of privacy and if i could stop people walking past it so close i would without a doubt do it. Should have bought a more private flat then shouldn't you. Your right he doesnt have the right to close it but he does have the right to challenge it which he has done and i dont see that as a bad thing. He should have known from the start that he'd loose and he shouldn't bother whining about it. The people using the path have more right to do so than he does to move it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Location114 Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Wether he is in the wrong or not is not a factor thats relevant I said he has a right to challenge it. no you shouldnt expect it to be dismissed you should expect a fair trial which is all he was most likely seeking. my flat is about as private as it can be its hid behind another block of flats with no roads behind me the footpath is a good 50yards away from my window but people insist on ignoring that and walking over the grass ii may not have the right to stop it but I still dont like it and thats the point I wish to raise. Your frame of mind is unbelievable if u think you will lose just bend over and wait for it I mean wheres your spirit im sorry but if your not happy with it you should always try and change it. They can certainly challenge things, but when it's something like this it's pretty clear that he's in the wrong. Buy a house with a footpath near it and you should expect any challenge to the location of that footpath to be summarily dismissed. Should have bought a more private flat then shouldn't you. He should have known from the start that he'd loose and he shouldn't bother whining about it. The people using the path have more right to do so than he does to move it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanes teeth Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 He just wants to be controversial to keep himself in the headlines, he comes from Rotherham, what do you expect. As a local lad,the outcome of the case probably now qualifies him to get his picture in the Star looking glum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Wether he is in the wrong or not is not a factor thats relevant I said he has a right to challenge it. And I don't believe I ever disagreed with that. no you shouldnt expect it to be dismissed you should expect a fair trial which is all he was most likely seeking. It's not a criminal case, there is no trial, and it's pretty obvious with just a cursory inspection of the facts that he has no grounds for closing the footpath. my flat is about as private as it can be its hid behind another block of flats with no roads behind me the footpath is a good 50yards away from my window but people insist on ignoring that and walking over the grass ii may not have the right to stop it but I still dont like it and thats the point I wish to raise. Not private then as your flat backs directly onto public land. Your frame of mind is unbelievable if u think you will lose just bend over and wait for it I mean wheres your spirit im sorry but if your not happy with it you should always try and change it. My frame of mind is coming from the position of the users of the footpath that he wishes to block. They have more right to use the footpath than he has to move it. If he didn't like the footpath he shouldn't have bought the property! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Location114 Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I didnt say you did disagree with it. He does have grounds for wanting to close the path as its something he isnt happy with as i previously said if there is a situation your not happy with you should always try and change it. I didnt say it was private i said i like my privacy and im sorry but if i could stop people walking there i would i dont like it and thats that. Well he should have bought the property as it is his money and if he wants to spend it on something he wishes to challenge he can do so. Im sorry here but i think he is right to challenge it and its a positive thing to see someone who fights there battle instead of just backing down. And I don't believe I ever disagreed with that. It's not a criminal case, there is no trial, and it's pretty obvious with just a cursory inspection of the facts that he has no grounds for closing the footpath. Not private then as your flat backs directly onto public land. My frame of mind is coming from the position of the users of the footpath that he wishes to block. They have more right to use the footpath than he has to move it. If he didn't like the footpath he shouldn't have bought the property! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 You'd stop people walking on public land and Clarkson would stop people walking on a public footpath. In both cases it's an entirely selfish attitude, and whilst you both have the right to attempt to get the situation changed to your liking, I'm glad that you would both fail. I see the positive thing that comes out of this being that he looses and that the precedent about public footpaths is reinforced. Land owners have no right to close them no matter how much they'd like to. I didnt say it was private Did I misunderstand? my flat is about as private as it can be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 The Highways Act 1980 allow for paths to be moved and as long I can still walk in the country and enjoy the views I don’t see what the problem would be in diverting a path. A right of way may be diverted where it can be shown that it is in the interest of the relevant landowner and/or the public to do so, but only where: i) the diverted route would not be substantially less convenient to the public; and ii) the diversion would not alter any point of termination of the path, other than to another point on the same highway, or a connected highway. The effect the diversion would have on public enjoyment of the path as a whole must also be taken into account before a decision is made (section 119). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanes teeth Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 The Highways Act 1980 allow for paths to be moved and as long I can still walk in the country and enjoy the views I don’t see what the problem would be in diverting a path. But is this highways act relevant in the Isle of Man or do they have a different act? The TT races started in the Isle of Man because the Tynwald had the power to close public roads for racing where the mainland government did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.