PROWL - Public Rights of Way Langness

The sun rises on a new dawn at Langness

New maps, new signs, new rights of way

In the latest High Court decision, the Department of Infrastructure was granted permission to amend the Definitive Map to include all the public rights of way that were found to exist at the Langness Peninsula Inquiry of 2009. Deemster Doyle also recommended that the DoI should press ahead with appropriate signage.

This brings to an end a saga which began in 2005, when one landowning family closed a section of traditionally-used footpath, claimed the right to exclude the public from the rest of their land on Langness, and saw neighbouring landowners threaten to follow suit. Not only was the public excluded from 400 metres of coastal path, but public access to the whole peninsula (except by road to the car park) was under threat.

The Inquiry found in favour of thirty-nine new rights of way, a network total of about seven miles that includes a three mile extension of the Raad ny Foillan coastal footpath. The latest High Court ruling has ensured that public rights of access to the paths of Langness have been preserved for posterity.

A summary of the judgment (CHP10/0107) may be found at http://www.judgments.im/content/J1236.htm, and the full judgments may be found by following the links, but here is flavour of it:

Human Rights and kitchen windows

There were seven defendants opposing the DoI’s wish to amend the Definitive Map, but five of these dropped out at a fairly early stage. The remaining two defendants, Mr & Mrs Clarkson, applied for protection under the Human Rights Act in order to ‘have the ultimate ability to prevent access’ to their land, to be granted compensation for a loss of privacy or amenity and, most particularly, to see a re-routing of a path that passes close to their holiday cottage’s window.

As part of his judgment, para 108, Deemster Doyle quoted a statement by Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice: ‘the main, if not indeed the sole, object of (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights) was that of what I will call the ‘domicillary protection’ of the individual. He and his family were no longer to be subjected to the four o’clock in the morning rat-a-tat on the door; to domestic intrusions, searches and questionings; to examinations, delaying and confiscation of correspondence; […]; to measures of coercion such as cutting off the electricity or water supply; to such abominations as children being required to report on the activities of their parents, […], - in short the whole gamut of fascist and communist inquisitorial practices […] it was for the avoidance of these horrors, tyrannies and vexations that ‘private family life [...] home and [...] correspondence’ was to be respected.

Deemster Doyle took the view (para 111) ‘It is doubtful that the Ministers of the eleven countries who signed the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [...] had in their minds that Article 8 could successfully be used to prevent people lawfully and reasonably exercising a public right of way by walking past a kitchen window.’

(para 123) ‘There needs to be a balancing exercise in respect of the rights of landowners and the rights of members of the public. The striking of a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community is inherent in the whole of the Convention. In balancing the Convention rights and freedoms of the First and Second Defendants and the rights and freedoms of the public to use lawfully established public rights of way the balance, in my judgment, comes down firmly in favour of the rights and freedoms of the public.’

The Deemster found against the defendants.

Health & Safety, and other issues

The Committee of Castletown Golf Club (who had declined the opportunity to bring any evidence to the Inquiry) argued that ‘to grant the public such rights where the likelihood of serious injury is so high would surely be unreasonable, in the same was (sic.) as it would be unreasonable to grant the public rights of access over shooting range or motorway.’

Another defendant claimed that Langness is a beautiful peninsula and ‘we need to keep it that way. Opening up even more of it to we, the public, is clearly going to have disastrous consequences.' A third suggested that the proposed rights of way would have a detrimental effect on tourism.

The Deemster considered the points but was not persuaded that the court should withhold leave for the DoI to amend the RoW map.

He commented (para 147) that ‘Any risks to public safety, wildlife conservation and ecology will have to be duly managed by those responsible for the management of such risks.’

A co-operative future

Towards the end of his judgment, (para 151) Deemster Doyle observed ‘now that the rights of way have been clearly established and the process [...] has been finally completed, it is to be hoped that the situation will settle down and that there will be lawful and reasonable use of the established rights of way.’

(para 152) ‘I leave this to those concerned with such matters but it may assist the relevant landowners, occupiers, and other relevant parties and those members of the public wishing to use the rights of way if information were made available as to the existence of the rights of way. Appropriate signage could be placed highlighting the routes of the rights of way and in the case of rights of way where dangers may be present, for example in the vicinity of the golf course, the dangers in using such rights of way and the need to take extra care could be emphasised where appropriate. Information in respect of any wildlife and any other relevant concerns could be made available. Any necessary action to manage any risks could also be taken. Co-operation rather than confrontation should now prevail amongst all interested parties.' (Emphasis added.)

In our very positive conversations with the new owners of the golf course, we agreed that the way forward should be built on mutual respect between golfers and walkers, with both parties being prepared to accommodate the needs of the other.

While the historic record shows that people were using the coastal footpath around Langness long before there was either golf course or lighthouse, we recognise that Langness is a shared resource, and look forward to a future of mutual respect and co-operation between all concerned.

Read more about the history of this saga, and see the newly defined public rights of way highlighted on a satellite image below.

Langness lighthouse, viewed from Scarlett (Pictures by Ian Costain)

A very public campaign

The Public Rights of Way Langness (PRoWL) campaign began with a walk of protest around the peninsular in 2005 after the new owner of the lighthouse closed the path around the southernmost tip. Around 200 people attended, including politicians, such as the then MHK, Quintin Gill.

Over the next few months public outcry over the closure became greater and an under-current of injustice flowed through conversations in the south of the Island, from Castletown to Port Erin. This was 'Castletown's backyard', and part of it had been taken away. What would happen next - would we lose it all?

The PRoWL campaign group was established, consisting of around ten local people from a range of backgrounds, who channelled the public outcry into constructive campaigning.

Within a year nearly a thousand people had formally registered their concern with PRoWL, and many more felt similarly aggrieved.

Government at first refused to act. The press was against the campaign - perhaps because the lighthouse landowner was 'one of their own'. Despite this establishment opposition local people persevered - respectfully, methodically, to demand that the law, which was clear and unequivocal, be applied without fear or favour.

Thank you

Thanks to the thousands of people who supported PROWL.

Thanks to the hundreds of local people who made time to visit a Commissioner for Oaths and to sign affidavits to the effect that they had walked the paths at Langness for more than 21 years, with permission being neither granted nor denied.

Thanks to those who made financial contributions, which helped pay for the PRoWL website, for leaflets, posters, and for necessary legal advice.

Thanks to the politicians who helped press this case in Tynwald: particularly Quintin Gill, Phil Gawne, Juan Watterson, Peter Karran, Eddie Lowey and Tony Brown.

A special debt of thanks is owed particularly to Ian Costain, who despite personal threats and institutional arrogance persisted calmly, politely, and expertly until the law was finally applied. Mr Costain has no professional legal training, but presented the case on behalf of this and future generations of Manx residents, with greater courtesy, precision and professionalism than the landowners' legal teams achieved at any point over the seven years it has taken to resolve this straight-forward issue.

The paths - protected in perpetuity

All the confirmed
Rights of Way on Langness

Other archive information:

News: 17th March 2011

High Court rejects efforts to re-open Langness Inquiry

The Inquiry of July, August and October 2009 considered a six-mile network of footpaths around and across Langness, and found that more than 98% of them had become rights of way. (N.B. It was found that 100% of the paths claimed by PRoWL become rights of way.) The Department of Infrastructure has applied to the High Court to amend the Definitive Maps and Statement in relation to these paths, at what is known as a ‘section 92(7) hearing’.

Barristers acting for landowners and other parties sought to argue that the inspector was biased, the report was a matter of opinion rather than fact, and that much – if not all – of the evidence presented to the Inquiry should be heard again in the High Court. Deemster Doyle has considered these claims and rejected them.

As his judgment makes clear, ‘The section 92(7) hearing is not a de novo (starting again) hearing. It is not appropriate ….. for the court to hear any further evidence …. as to whether or not a statutory deemed dedication has occurred …. in relation to the relevant footpaths at Langness.

‘The findings of fact contained in the Report should be treated as evidence at the section 92(7) hearing and such findings should be treated as conclusive at such hearing.’
(In other words, the Inquiry found in favour of our claims: the ‘alleged’ rights of way have now been ratified and recognised.)

‘We must now set a date for the section 92(7) hearing and make progress towards the finalisation of this protracted matter.’

After more than six years defending the rights of the public to enjoy the footpaths of Langness, we can’t disagree!

More information at: http://www.judgments.im/content/J1120.htm

News: 14th May 2010

100% of the paths claimed by PRoWL have been approved as Rights of Way by the inspector.

Although one former landowner said people needed permission, and the other landowner said all path users were trespassing, the inspector found that all the routes had indeed been used as of right for enough years for them to have become highways, and needing to be added to the Rights of Way map.

To read the minister's statement to Tynwald and see the map of Rights of Way that will be created on and around Langness - Click here

To read the full 150 page inquiry report - Click here

It happened that May 1 saw the opening of the footpath around the airport runway extension, and May 11 has seen a further addition to the coastal path being accepted by the Department of Infrastructure.

Instead of reaching Derbyhaven from Santon Gorge and having to follow the road to Castletown, we will be able to walk along to the Golf Links Hotel and follow the eastern coast of Langness to the lighthouse, the foghorn, Port Bravag, Langness Point and then back along the west coast and Sandwick. Just like people used to do.

May 2010 has been a good month for footpath users around Castletown.

And the coastal path is not the only thing – there are the four paths to the Herring Tower (including the one that DAFF put a fence across!), the grassland paths radiating from the car park and the paths from the Haunted House. Although some parts of the media seemed wilfully blinkered on the matter, and never saw past the celebrity angle, and the 250 yards behind the barricades, we got on with the job of seeing a grand total of six miles of paths being recognised as highways

The barriers won’t be coming down by the weekend, but the DoI is working to see the report’s recommendations put into effect a.s.a.p. There have to be changes to the ‘definitive map’, these changes have to be approved by the High Court, the landowners have to be given a chance to challenge the changes (though they’ve had their chance already, really, so it’s hard to see that being a problem) etc etc. That’ll all waste the summer, which is a pity, but after five years of waiting, the end is in sight.

So, thanks, everyone.

Thanks to the hundreds of you - the people who phoned the DoT to protest when the obstructions first appeared, the people who signed an affidavit, the people who wrote letters and particularly the people who turned up in person at the Inquiry. It wasn’t a pleasant experience for everyone, being cross-questioned and confused by the finest barrister money could buy, but the honesty, quiet dignity and determination to see justice prevail shone through.

Thanks to the people who provided us with stationery, or stamps, or designed the leaflets, or paid for leaflets to be printed, or distributed them all over the south of the Island, or covered the cost of giving a free lunch to all Tynwald members who attended our briefing session. Thanks to the people who looked after the web site, or gave us legal advice (it wasn’t easy being threatened with court action on both sides of the Irish sea, and thoughts on case law and legal precedents were very helpful), or spoke up for us in Tynwald.

Thanks to the wider thousands – not just those of you who signed up as PRoWL supporters but also the people who stopped us in the street to say you were right behind us, and all your workmates were, too. It was all very heartening, and helped the campaign to keep going.

And finally, thanks to the ‘inner circle’ of the PRoWL steering group. You might wonder who they all were but if you realised that one advocate would send threatening letters to anyone he identified with PRoWL, you’d understand!

We did it.

The network of paths around and across one of the Island’s finest, most scenic, most wildlife-rich, most historic landscape has been preserved for ourselves and future generations to enjoy.

There are still final hurdles to overcome before the path is physically re-opened - but the hard battle is over. Thank you.

More info: Ian Costain, Public Rights of Way Langness
Tel: 837059
E-mail: prowl@manx.net

A few of the messages we've received from supporters since the announcement:

* A wonderful piece of news. Thank you, thank you!

* Hurrah! Well done!

* Just saw the victory via the BBC News website. (sorry I’m very late to the table...) Well done everybody. A victory for those who want to enjoy the great outdoors. For too long the minority have restricted access to the majority.

* Thank you for all your efforts that have been justly rewarded by the contents of the Langness Report - regardless of the results of any appeal. The question is why were your efforts necessary and why have we had to wait 5 years when it seems to me that, on the evidence of the Report, there was never a case to answer.

* Fan mail for PROWL. Thank you.

* Well done!! You have done a really excellent job, words cannot express the significance of what you have achieved, be proud of yourselves, be very proud.

* Well done!!!!!

* Please accept my grateful thanks for all that you have achieved. This is a quite marvellous result, and all of the PRoWL team deserve our gratitude for a tough campaign brilliantly fought.

* The Prowl group can be rightly satisfied for a job well done for the benefit of all the Isle of Man residents and visitors. Shame that some might not understand what they might have lost and have now gained!

* All residents on the Island are in your debt. Thank you for making our government uphold the law.

* Thank goodness! You did a wonderful job!

* Congratulations you prowlers. We are very proud of you up here in Ramsey. As birders we love Langness. As supporters of the campaign to revive Queen’s Pier we are very well aware how difficult it is to deal with the intransigent authorities in our island’s government.

* Hi, what great news, fantastic.

a a a a a For more info - or to support us, please get in touch: prowl@manx.net PROWL, 1 Castle Street, Castletown, IM9 1LF Or call Ian on: 01624 837 059 Support us now? Click here	t Working to win access around and across Langness for everyone
	The sun rises on a new dawn at Langness New maps, new signs, new rights of way In the latest High Court decision, the Department of Infrastructure was granted permission to amend the Definitive Map to include all the public rights of way that were found to exist at the Langness Peninsula Inquiry of 2009. Deemster Doyle also recommended that the DoI should press ahead with appropriate signage. This brings to an end a saga which began in 2005, when one landowning family closed a section of traditionally-used footpath, claimed the right to exclude the public from the rest of their land on Langness, and saw neighbouring landowners threaten to follow suit. Not only was the public excluded from 400 metres of coastal path, but public access to the whole peninsula (except by road to the car park) was under threat. The Inquiry found in favour of thirty-nine new rights of way, a network total of about seven miles that includes a three mile extension of the Raad ny Foillan coastal footpath. The latest High Court ruling has ensured that public rights of access to the paths of Langness have been preserved for posterity. A summary of the judgment (CHP10/0107) may be found at http://www.judgments.im/content/J1236.htm, and the full judgments may be found by following the links, but here is flavour of it: Human Rights and kitchen windows There were seven defendants opposing the DoI’s wish to amend the Definitive Map, but five of these dropped out at a fairly early stage. The remaining two defendants, Mr & Mrs Clarkson, applied for protection under the Human Rights Act in order to ‘have the ultimate ability to prevent access’ to their land, to be granted compensation for a loss of privacy or amenity and, most particularly, to see a re-routing of a path that passes close to their holiday cottage’s window. As part of his judgment, para 108, Deemster Doyle quoted a statement by Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice: ‘the main, if not indeed the sole, object of (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights) was that of what I will call the ‘domicillary protection’ of the individual. He and his family were no longer to be subjected to the four o’clock in the morning rat-a-tat on the door; to domestic intrusions, searches and questionings; to examinations, delaying and confiscation of correspondence; […]; to measures of coercion such as cutting off the electricity or water supply; to such abominations as children being required to report on the activities of their parents, […], - in short the whole gamut of fascist and communist inquisitorial practices […] it was for the avoidance of these horrors, tyrannies and vexations that ‘private family life [...] home and [...] correspondence’ was to be respected. Deemster Doyle took the view (para 111) ‘It is doubtful that the Ministers of the eleven countries who signed the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [...] had in their minds that Article 8 could successfully be used to prevent people lawfully and reasonably exercising a public right of way by walking past a kitchen window.’ (para 123) ‘There needs to be a balancing exercise in respect of the rights of landowners and the rights of members of the public. The striking of a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community is inherent in the whole of the Convention. In balancing the Convention rights and freedoms of the First and Second Defendants and the rights and freedoms of the public to use lawfully established public rights of way the balance, in my judgment, comes down firmly in favour of the rights and freedoms of the public.’ The Deemster found against the defendants. Health & Safety, and other issues The Committee of Castletown Golf Club (who had declined the opportunity to bring any evidence to the Inquiry) argued that ‘to grant the public such rights where the likelihood of serious injury is so high would surely be unreasonable, in the same was (sic.) as it would be unreasonable to grant the public rights of access over shooting range or motorway.’ Another defendant claimed that Langness is a beautiful peninsula and ‘we need to keep it that way. Opening up even more of it to we, the public, is clearly going to have disastrous consequences.' A third suggested that the proposed rights of way would have a detrimental effect on tourism. The Deemster considered the points but was not persuaded that the court should withhold leave for the DoI to amend the RoW map. He commented (para 147) that ‘Any risks to public safety, wildlife conservation and ecology will have to be duly managed by those responsible for the management of such risks.’ A co-operative future Towards the end of his judgment, (para 151) Deemster Doyle observed ‘now that the rights of way have been clearly established and the process [...] has been finally completed, it is to be hoped that the situation will settle down and that there will be lawful and reasonable use of the established rights of way.’ (para 152) ‘I leave this to those concerned with such matters but it may assist the relevant landowners, occupiers, and other relevant parties and those members of the public wishing to use the rights of way if information were made available as to the existence of the rights of way. Appropriate signage could be placed highlighting the routes of the rights of way and in the case of rights of way where dangers may be present, for example in the vicinity of the golf course, the dangers in using such rights of way and the need to take extra care could be emphasised where appropriate. Information in respect of any wildlife and any other relevant concerns could be made available. Any necessary action to manage any risks could also be taken. Co-operation rather than confrontation should now prevail amongst all interested parties.' (Emphasis added.) In our very positive conversations with the new owners of the golf course, we agreed that the way forward should be built on mutual respect between golfers and walkers, with both parties being prepared to accommodate the needs of the other. While the historic record shows that people were using the coastal footpath around Langness long before there was either golf course or lighthouse, we recognise that Langness is a shared resource, and look forward to a future of mutual respect and co-operation between all concerned. Read more about the history of this saga, and see the newly defined public rights of way highlighted on a satellite image below. Langness lighthouse, viewed from Scarlett (Pictures by Ian Costain) A very public campaign The Public Rights of Way Langness (PRoWL) campaign began with a walk of protest around the peninsular in 2005 after the new owner of the lighthouse closed the path around the southernmost tip. Around 200 people attended, including politicians, such as the then MHK, Quintin Gill. Over the next few months public outcry over the closure became greater and an under-current of injustice flowed through conversations in the south of the Island, from Castletown to Port Erin. This was 'Castletown's backyard', and part of it had been taken away. What would happen next - would we lose it all? The PRoWL campaign group was established, consisting of around ten local people from a range of backgrounds, who channelled the public outcry into constructive campaigning. Within a year nearly a thousand people had formally registered their concern with PRoWL, and many more felt similarly aggrieved. Government at first refused to act. The press was against the campaign - perhaps because the lighthouse landowner was 'one of their own'. Despite this establishment opposition local people persevered - respectfully, methodically, to demand that the law, which was clear and unequivocal, be applied without fear or favour. Thank you Thanks to the thousands of people who supported PROWL. Thanks to the hundreds of local people who made time to visit a Commissioner for Oaths and to sign affidavits to the effect that they had walked the paths at Langness for more than 21 years, with permission being neither granted nor denied. Thanks to those who made financial contributions, which helped pay for the PRoWL website, for leaflets, posters, and for necessary legal advice. Thanks to the politicians who helped press this case in Tynwald: particularly Quintin Gill, Phil Gawne, Juan Watterson, Peter Karran, Eddie Lowey and Tony Brown. A special debt of thanks is owed particularly to Ian Costain, who despite personal threats and institutional arrogance persisted calmly, politely, and expertly until the law was finally applied. Mr Costain has no professional legal training, but presented the case on behalf of this and future generations of Manx residents, with greater courtesy, precision and professionalism than the landowners' legal teams achieved at any point over the seven years it has taken to resolve this straight-forward issue. The paths - protected in perpetuity Other archive information: News: 17th March 2011 High Court rejects efforts to re-open Langness Inquiry The Inquiry of July, August and October 2009 considered a six-mile network of footpaths around and across Langness, and found that more than 98% of them had become rights of way. (N.B. It was found that 100% of the paths claimed by PRoWL become rights of way.) The Department of Infrastructure has applied to the High Court to amend the Definitive Maps and Statement in relation to these paths, at what is known as a ‘section 92(7) hearing’. Barristers acting for landowners and other parties sought to argue that the inspector was biased, the report was a matter of opinion rather than fact, and that much – if not all – of the evidence presented to the Inquiry should be heard again in the High Court. Deemster Doyle has considered these claims and rejected them. As his judgment makes clear, ‘The section 92(7) hearing is not a de novo (starting again) hearing. It is not appropriate ….. for the court to hear any further evidence …. as to whether or not a statutory deemed dedication has occurred …. in relation to the relevant footpaths at Langness. ‘The findings of fact contained in the Report should be treated as evidence at the section 92(7) hearing and such findings should be treated as conclusive at such hearing.’ (In other words, the Inquiry found in favour of our claims: the ‘alleged’ rights of way have now been ratified and recognised.) ‘We must now set a date for the section 92(7) hearing and make progress towards the finalisation of this protracted matter.’ After more than six years defending the rights of the public to enjoy the footpaths of Langness, we can’t disagree! More information at: http://www.judgments.im/content/J1120.htm News: 14th May 2010 100% of the paths claimed by PRoWL have been approved as Rights of Way by the inspector. Although one former landowner said people needed permission, and the other landowner said all path users were trespassing, the inspector found that all the routes had indeed been used as of right for enough years for them to have become highways, and needing to be added to the Rights of Way map. To read the minister's statement to Tynwald and see the map of Rights of Way that will be created on and around Langness - Click here To read the full 150 page inquiry report - Click here It happened that May 1 saw the opening of the footpath around the airport runway extension, and May 11 has seen a further addition to the coastal path being accepted by the Department of Infrastructure. Instead of reaching Derbyhaven from Santon Gorge and having to follow the road to Castletown, we will be able to walk along to the Golf Links Hotel and follow the eastern coast of Langness to the lighthouse, the foghorn, Port Bravag, Langness Point and then back along the west coast and Sandwick. Just like people used to do. May 2010 has been a good month for footpath users around Castletown. And the coastal path is not the only thing – there are the four paths to the Herring Tower (including the one that DAFF put a fence across!), the grassland paths radiating from the car park and the paths from the Haunted House. Although some parts of the media seemed wilfully blinkered on the matter, and never saw past the celebrity angle, and the 250 yards behind the barricades, we got on with the job of seeing a grand total of six miles of paths being recognised as highways The barriers won’t be coming down by the weekend, but the DoI is working to see the report’s recommendations put into effect a.s.a.p. There have to be changes to the ‘definitive map’, these changes have to be approved by the High Court, the landowners have to be given a chance to challenge the changes (though they’ve had their chance already, really, so it’s hard to see that being a problem) etc etc. That’ll all waste the summer, which is a pity, but after five years of waiting, the end is in sight. So, thanks, everyone. Thanks to the hundreds of you - the people who phoned the DoT to protest when the obstructions first appeared, the people who signed an affidavit, the people who wrote letters and particularly the people who turned up in person at the Inquiry. It wasn’t a pleasant experience for everyone, being cross-questioned and confused by the finest barrister money could buy, but the honesty, quiet dignity and determination to see justice prevail shone through. Thanks to the people who provided us with stationery, or stamps, or designed the leaflets, or paid for leaflets to be printed, or distributed them all over the south of the Island, or covered the cost of giving a free lunch to all Tynwald members who attended our briefing session. Thanks to the people who looked after the web site, or gave us legal advice (it wasn’t easy being threatened with court action on both sides of the Irish sea, and thoughts on case law and legal precedents were very helpful), or spoke up for us in Tynwald. Thanks to the wider thousands – not just those of you who signed up as PRoWL supporters but also the people who stopped us in the street to say you were right behind us, and all your workmates were, too. It was all very heartening, and helped the campaign to keep going. And finally, thanks to the ‘inner circle’ of the PRoWL steering group. You might wonder who they all were but if you realised that one advocate would send threatening letters to anyone he identified with PRoWL, you’d understand! We did it. The network of paths around and across one of the Island’s finest, most scenic, most wildlife-rich, most historic landscape has been preserved for ourselves and future generations to enjoy. There are still final hurdles to overcome before the path is physically re-opened - but the hard battle is over. Thank you. More info: Ian Costain, Public Rights of Way Langness Tel: 837059 E-mail: prowl@manx.net A few of the messages we've received from supporters since the announcement: * A wonderful piece of news. Thank you, thank you! * Hurrah! Well done! * Just saw the victory via the BBC News website. (sorry I’m very late to the table...) Well done everybody. A victory for those who want to enjoy the great outdoors. For too long the minority have restricted access to the majority. * Thank you for all your efforts that have been justly rewarded by the contents of the Langness Report - regardless of the results of any appeal. The question is why were your efforts necessary and why have we had to wait 5 years when it seems to me that, on the evidence of the Report, there was never a case to answer. * Fan mail for PROWL. Thank you. * Well done!! You have done a really excellent job, words cannot express the significance of what you have achieved, be proud of yourselves, be very proud. * Well done!!!!! * Please accept my grateful thanks for all that you have achieved. This is a quite marvellous result, and all of the PRoWL team deserve our gratitude for a tough campaign brilliantly fought. * The Prowl group can be rightly satisfied for a job well done for the benefit of all the Isle of Man residents and visitors. Shame that some might not understand what they might have lost and have now gained! * All residents on the Island are in your debt. Thank you for making our government uphold the law. * Thank goodness! You did a wonderful job! * Congratulations you prowlers. We are very proud of you up here in Ramsey. As birders we love Langness. As supporters of the campaign to revive Queen’s Pier we are very well aware how difficult it is to deal with the intransigent authorities in our island’s government. * Hi, what great news, fantastic.
	"When the stranger first comes upon the beauties of this spot he will be delighted." Jenkinson's Practical Guide to the Isle of Man