Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 7th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Right to roam challenge dismissed



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 April 2008
SCOTLAND'S ramblers were celebrating yesterday after a millionaire landowner lost his court bid to ban them from his 70-acre estate.
Euan Snowie, 39, the wealthy owner of a waste management company and laird of the Boquhan estate near Kippen, Stirlingshire, took the Ramblers' Association and Stirling Council to court in a challenge to Scotland's right to roam legislation.

He ca
lled for restrictions on access to land surrounding his home, Boquhan House, because he feared for his family's safety.

But in a landmark judgment yesterday, Sheriff Andrew Cubie ruled that the evidence suggesting a security threat at the estate was "wholly unreliable" and that the section of land Mr Snowie wanted covered by the proposed ban was excessive.

Mr Snowie and his wife, Claire, had been seeking to exclude walkers, cyclists and horse riders from 40 acres of the estate.

But Sheriff Cubie ruled that a 15-acre area surrounding the house was sufficient to protect the family, and that access rights should be maintained on the driveways and wooded parts of the estate. A locked gate which prevented access along a route into the estate will also have to be opened up.

His judgment is in stark contrast to the decision in June last year by Sheriff Michael Fletcher granting Stagecoach founder Ann Gloag the right to prevent people entering parts of the land around her home at Kinfauns Castle in Perthshire.

The tycoon, worth around £395 million, was the first private landowner to seek exemption from right to roam laws.

Dennis Canavan, president of Ramblers Scotland, last night welcomed the ruling, claiming it sent a clear message to all owners of large estates that the public was allowed access in accordance with legislation.

He said: "We are delighted with Sheriff Cubie's decision, which reflects the intentions of the Scottish Parliament when the Land Reform Act was passed. This result sends a message to all landowners of big estates that people are entitled to walk on land provided they act responsibly in accordance with the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.

"The decision also sends a message to local authorities that access rights apply along driveways and past gatehouses. There are cases where signs have been erected and gates locked and we hope the authorities will now take action knowing the courts will back them up."

Mr Canavan continued: "We do not think Mr Snowie should be concerned about this decision. We are confident that access can be made to work on his estate. Prior to the court case, the ramblers had useful discussions with Mr Snowie and we look forward to further meetings about how access can be managed."

Brian Devlin, the director of environment services at Stirling Council, also welcomed the judgment. He said: "We are pleased that the council's position has been vindicated in their efforts to ensure access legislation works as it was intended."

At a court hearing last year Mr Snowie told how his estate became "extremely spooky" at night when youths would come to drink in an old graveyard. He also spoke of "certain threats" against him and of "suspicious people" in the grounds.

In his judgment Sheriff Cubie stated: "Mr Snowie's evidence was characterised by a reluctance to accept that any access-taker could be genuine."

Gloag's privacy victory

IN JUNE last year the Ramblers' Association warned that Scotland's right-to-roam legislation had been dealt a significant blow after Anne Gloag, one of Scotland's richest women, won a landmark court case to ban public access to land around her Perthshire home. Mrs Gloag, the founder of Stagecoach and reputed to be worth an estimated £395 million, was the first private landowner in Scotland to secure such exemption for her home at Kinfauns House under the new access laws.

In his judgment, Sheriff Michael Fletcher said that the "nature of the building and its prominence" meant a larger section of surrounding land was required by Mrs Gloag to ensure her family's privacy and enjoyment of her home.





The full article contains 668 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 23 April 2008 9:23 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Angus Ogg,

23/04/2008 22:23:05
Well in fairness, Euan Snowie's £5,000 donation to the Labour Party has not bought influence in high places.

Just a pity he now has to have the sandal wearers and unwashed hoards invading his privacy.
2

,

24/04/2008 00:01:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

,

24/04/2008 00:08:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

Colin R,

Bearsden 24/04/2008 00:19:05
What a poor judgement, one of many by Cubie, based on personalities, ignoring precedent elsewhere and trying to suppress one party's right to introduce evidence helpful to his case rather Cubie was found siding for the other party's solicitor( his colleague in the Law Society- another dark day for Scots Law
5

,

24/04/2008 00:54:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
6

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 24/04/2008 01:46:43
Does Wendy Alexander suffer from this?
7

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/04/2008 06:14:34
1 - people go hiking in sandals ?
8

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/04/2008 06:20:05
4 - nonsense, Mr Snowie seems to exhibit an unusual degree of paranoia.
It puts the eccentric Kilfauns ruling in perspective. Well Stirling Cooncil, in support of the ramblers and hikers. Why the silence from the Scottish Government ? They should be backing the Right to Roam law to the hilt.
9

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 24/04/2008 06:20:38
"He who goes to sleep with Pruritus Ani wakes with stinky digits."

Socrates
10

Balliol II,

Dunbar 24/04/2008 06:53:51
#8 - Why is this judgement in contrast to the Kinfauns case? In both the owner has been allowed to restrict access to quite a large area of curtilege.
11

Ron Thomson,

calonge 24/04/2008 07:27:41
To, No9 Socrates, is stinky digits something to do with poking sh#t.

Confused, Confucius Brother
12

S MacLeod,

24/04/2008 07:51:23
"He called for restrictions on access to land surrounding his home, Boquhan House, because he feared for his family's safety."

Here Snowie,

HOW ABOUT TELLING US ALL WHERE WE CAN FIND THE INFO ABOUT THE EXACT HEAT TREATMENT OF YOUR "SLURRY" AND HOW YOU COMPLETELY IRRADICATE ALL PATHOGENS AND HEAVY METALS BEFORE GIVING IT TO A FARMER - SOME OF WHICH ARE FEEDING STOCK ALONGSIDE THE HEAPS OR NOT WAITING ANY TIME TO ALLOW ONSITE HEAT TREATMENT OF PATHOGENS.

OR AM I MISTAKEN?
13

Sparky,

Hamilton 24/04/2008 09:04:07
Laird Snowie,
When these people get a new erse they forget their auld yin.
14

JayDeeTee,

24/04/2008 09:21:12
#12. Maybe we can ask Tin Tin and the other Snowie to investigate.
15

MoragtheToerag,

24/04/2008 09:25:56
He bought the place whilst the rambling laws were already in place. Then cried foul.

Tough tatties, Mr Snowie.

Don't like it? Sell it and get out.
16

A.A.,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 09:28:00
If I was forced to have every Tom, Dick and Harry walking through my land I'd ask the council to buy that part of land.
17

Horrible Cankers at the Cyber Shebeen,

24/04/2008 09:38:26
Good result...pros and cons to being an affluent landowner eh?
18

Proud2Be,

Perth 24/04/2008 09:39:33
This is typical of the mentality of people on this bleeding island!!
People think they have the right to get whatever they want handed to them for free!!
There is plenty of places where these moaning aged hippies can wander around falling over, injuring themselves and therefore wasting NHS money on new hips!!

Why do they need to infringe on other peoples property!!

The legislature of this country should be encouraging people to work hard, earn their own money and buy the things they want themselves!! Not sue hardworking succesful people for permission to use their possesions!!

How many of us would be happy to have a band of ageing relics wandering through the garden of our semi just because they wanted to!!

Why then should it be any different for someone who happens to have the money to buy, what amounts to, a larger house and "garden"!!!

If I am ever as successful as Mr Snowie it will be "ramblers" beware!! If the courts won't defend a persons right to their own land then I am sure a shotgun will do the job!!

What a complete waste of our courts time and an awful piece of legislation upheld by a Sherrif with a track record of terrible decisions!!
19

MoragtheToerag,

24/04/2008 09:43:48
do you honestly believe these 'tycoons' earn money through hard work, Proud?

LOL!

next you'll be criticising people for costing the NHS money for being obese and their weight-related health problems.

last i heard, Proud, murdering people usually leads to a long stretch in BarL.

i'm sure they'll all understand your self-righteousness there.

20

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 24/04/2008 09:53:22
Excellent.

Time to rid Anne Gloags pompus ruling, and her sh it inflexible coaches.
21

Filosofo,

Kirkcaldy 24/04/2008 09:56:48
#16 - very good point.
The Council could turn it into a park and then it would be an official drinking den for neds.
Am a Socialist myself, but nevertheless have never understood why rich people have to allow the public to wander about their gardens, however large said gardens might be.
Or why public want to wander about rich people's property, for that matter.
I've only got about 20 square yards of garden, but I'm afraid it's mine and nobody else is allowed in!
22

Filosofo,

Kirkcaldy 24/04/2008 09:56:55
#16 - very good point.
The Council could turn it into a park and then it would be an official drinking den for neds.
Am a Socialist myself, but nevertheless have never understood why rich people have to allow the public to wander about their gardens, however large said gardens might be.
Or why public want to wander about rich people's property, for that matter.
I've only got about 20 square yards of garden, but I'm afraid it's mine and nobody else is allowed in!
23

Evan Owen,

Snowdonia 24/04/2008 10:20:31
The law is an ass and landowners have fewer rights than terrorists, rapists and muderers.

Is it time to challenge these bits of legislation?
24

Mikey,

24/04/2008 11:16:04
In Scotland, there is a right to roam on land. If you didn't know this before you bought, you're an ignorant feckwit who has more money than sense.

To all those who support this paranoid android, perhaps moving to England with their rules of absolute posession would ease your feelings of inadequacy?
25

MoragtheToerag,

Argyll 24/04/2008 11:44:03
Filosofo if you are a true socialist then surely you understand that one family does not need so much space to live.

They're not running a farm.
26

sam the god,

24/04/2008 11:52:44
The right to roam works both ways the land owners should start to wander about the gardens of the officials of the ramblers association and when they complain get them to go to court against themselves seem fair to me.
On a regular basis I get ramblers coming up to me when I am shooting on a friends farm and complaining that I am shooting rabbits and pigeons when I point out to them I have permission to do this they still complain. If they wish to come into the countryside they must accept that these practices go an and not interfere but the majority of them do not understand the workings of the countryside (gates left open, broken fences, rubbish left all over the place, etc)
27

sam the god,

24/04/2008 11:55:46
filosofo
if you are a true socialist you should be opening up your door to anyone but it sounds that in some aspects you are a true capatalist (I've only got about 20 square yards of garden, but I'm afraid it's mine and nobody else is allowed in!)
28

Geomac 1,

Scotland 24/04/2008 12:11:09
This is socialism at its worst!
Why, with all the millions of acres available to ramblers are they fighting over an area of 20 acres? Can anyone tell me where Canavan's garden is - I'm planning to have a walk through it!!
29

Tom, Tom the Piper's Son,

The United States of America 24/04/2008 12:35:26
This is a completely daft law that dates to antiquity. These "ramblers" are - in fact - nothing less than TRESPASSERS! Property ownership must include the right to EXCLUDE whomever the landowner chooses - indiscriminately or otherwise. It's not simply about "sufficient land to live upon" as one twit judge opined; it's about who OWNS the land!

Socialism be damned! If this is the face of 21st century Scottish law, then I'm ashamed to be descended from bonny Alba and God help us all!

I stand on guard with my Glock 17. "Ramblers" beware for ye shall ramble no more on MY land!
30

David Harrington,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 12:37:43
This is an excellent decision. Unfortunately some people still seem to purposefully misunderstand the legislation. If anyone can tell me what useful route one could take through someone's back garden (without having to go over a fence) then I'd be really interested to hear about it. This is all about enshrining into law the rights that people in Scotland have enjoyed on an ad-hoc basis. These estates are huge and the vast majority of people cause no problem whatsoever.
31

Deamhain,

Aberdeenshire 24/04/2008 12:38:09
I had always understood that the legislation covering access differentiated, although perhaps implicitly rather than explicitly, between what might be termed 'reasonable' and 'absolute' access. In any case, there must surely be an application of the spirit of the legislation as opposed to the letter. If this chap has people wandering in relative closeness to his home then he has, in my mind, a reasonably fair point. If however it's about a blanket ban on access to his so called estate then he has to be on a hiding to nothing. In any case, I have some distressing news for Mr Snowie. 70-odd acres isn't an estate - it's barely a farm. Maybe he should work harder in order to afford something more suited to the description?
32

Deamhain,

Aberdeenshire 24/04/2008 12:42:45
#30 - Tom,

You clearly misunderstand. These people believe that a bunch of deeds on paper mean that they own the land. The people of Scotland, on the other hand, know that they are merely renting it. We remain the owners and, with due consideration to their temporary privacy and without damaging the land they have leased, will cross it at our leisure. Judge or no judge.
33

Calum Crubag,

24/04/2008 12:47:04
#29/30 - where's the Scots' Pol Pot when you need him?

I have hunners of folk walking past my door. Why shouldn't Scots enjoy their land, responsibly? It was taken from our ancestors in the first place. Land ownership is unheard of in most native cultures.
34

S MacLeod,

24/04/2008 12:58:30
Download the Full Scottish Outdoor Access Code from this site:

http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com
35

Anthony,

Glasgow 24/04/2008 12:58:46
Good judgement. 15 acres of land with no right to roam is more than enough for anyone. Sheriff Cubie has upheld the integrity of the legislation, whilst also being sensitive to the needs of a particular individual. Sound pragmatic law.
36

Papa? Nicole! Papa?,

Embra 24/04/2008 13:16:22
Having stayed along the road from Boquhan, I can tell you there are excellent walks along the south side of the estate. Of course, people need to behave themselves while walking on other people's properties - since a number of times I found random people raking around the farmyard or the gardens for the farm, and other local houses.

Common sense needs to prevail, it's just unfortunate some people can't tell the difference, and don't know how to behave in the country, particularly when there are shoots on the go.
37

Observer of Leith,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 13:35:48
I'm no expert in this, but I thought one of the main objectives of the Land Reform Act was to start to break up the large estates of say 10,000 acres and above which, in many cases, are under absentee ownership. To break them up, the legislation needs to positively encourage ownership of smaller packets of land of say 100 acres and below. The current right to roam is working against this and not resulting in the break ups envisaged. Instead, I guess the values of the estates will fall but otherwise they will remain intact.

The sherrifs seem to be moving towards recognising that the "big house" needs some degree of privacy and my own view is that a principle of ring fencing up to 100 acres is going to work in the long term best interests of land reform. We need to encourage ownership of these smaller holdings rather than simply hammer them in to the ground along with their larger cousins.

The legislation needs to be reviewed to (i) make some concessions to privacy in the longer term interests of devolved land ownership and (ii) hold back the ramblers in their enthusiasm for unfettered access over smaller land holdings of up to (say) 100 acres.
38

maintenancejason,

pennsylvania 24/04/2008 13:41:57
I've always heard, "He who goes to bed with itchy butt,wakes up with stinky fingers."
39

PurpleFairy,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 13:46:34
Can someone please explain to me why Queen Street Gardens in Edinburgh seem to be excluded from Right to Roam legislation?
40

Royalty,

24/04/2008 14:33:05
Sad news for us land owners.

The thought of these crusty "ramblers" poking there noses around our property.

To make matters worse, the air gun ban has also been forced upon us.

Whats this country coming to?
41

John N,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 14:38:51
I'm with #10 on this one. This is not a contrast to the Gloag case, at least, not in the way that the report and the ramblers seem to suggest:

Anne Gloag's property is, in total, about 28 acres. She got a declaration from the court that the public was not permitted within 10/11 acres of it (reports vary). Snowie has 70 acres, and has got himself a declaration that the public are not allowed in 15 acres of it i.e. bigger than at Gloag's place. The Snowie case gave rise to an increased "exclusion zone". Victory for the ramblers? Debatable.

As for the suggestion that the point of the Right to Roam was to break up large estates owned by absentee landlords (#38) afraid I've never heard that suggested before. I've not read all the material available but I have been following it fairly closely. Perhaps you're thinking of the community right to buy and crofter's right to buy, which are also in the Land Reform Act?
42

Jambo-ree,

24/04/2008 14:47:17
#30- You've been the US too long and become a red neck I fear. There no law of trespass under Scots Law in the same way as there is in England and lord know what you've got in the US. Land ownership is seen differently here - that is why our monarchs were styled as King or Queen of Scots (i.e. the people) rather than Scotland (i.e. the land). The land will still be here when those holding title to it have passed on and therefore they are merely guardians of it for the meantime.

Real civilised place the US with all these people itching to pull triggers, eh?
43

maintenancejason,

Pennsylvania 24/04/2008 14:52:56
He who pulls a trigger with stinky fingers, goes to bed with stinky gun.
44

Guthrie,

Edinburgh 24/04/2008 14:56:10
15 acres around teh house seems sensible enough. Compromise is usually the way forwards.
45

the fat knackered Aussie chef who only body surfs,

dicky beach 24/04/2008 15:21:32
70 acres isn't really very much land - stretching the imagination to call it an estate. As for rambling a quick five minute jog should take you straight across it.

for those without a calculator 70 acres is 0.1 of a square mile.

And calling him a Laird because he owns such a small piece of Gaia is very very strange. I know Scotts law allows you to call yourself a Laird if you own a couple of inches of land, but as we say in Australia - fair dinkum, the bloke wants to come down here to see what a proper piece of land is.
46

beentheredonethat,

usa 24/04/2008 15:22:17
so in scotland private land owners cannot say who comes on their land. that's not okay. so does that mean that all the stuff that belongs to the queen is free range and anyone can walk around. same thing, just different social standings. there is nothing wrong with a landowner, regardless of whether he works his tail off or if he inherited the land, restricting others from prancing around. i've been to scotland and wouldn't want that myself. people throw their trash everywhere, they would destroy land. i'm for the landowner!! let him have his right to protect his turf!
47

BETTYB005,

S YORKS 24/04/2008 15:44:47
I think it's disgusting that you can't protect your own private land, methinks if this was a 'popstar' like McCartney then I bet this case would have been kicked out.

My advice would be to turn the estate into another Longleat, then see how many ramblers would want to set foot on the land when faced with quite a few lions!
48

Jwil,

24/04/2008 16:10:13
Having lived in England for a few years I was shocked at seeing barbed wire on field gates, encouraged by their 'no trespassing' laws. We don't want that sort of restriction in Scotland. We never have had and we never should. I do not know why the poster #49 should want that sort of restriction. Perhaps its because S. Yorks has been conditioned to it or perhaps S. Yorks is an absentee landord.

When living in Scotland in a small village we had access to most places for walks and picnics and there was no harm done to landowner or countryside.

People are entitled to their privacy but the interpretation of what passes as privacy should be limited in its scale and should not deprive people from access to great swathes of countryside.

In Sweden they have more relaxed access laws whilst preserving the privacy of householders.

49

mgibson,

edinburgh 24/04/2008 16:15:03
...and just where did Anne Gloag get her money - the very people who go for walks, using her buses.
50

Bert Kwok,

Manchester 24/04/2008 16:55:17
My family used to own a house and 720 acres of land near the Sutherland coastline. A path ran across the back of the main house by about 300 yards.
The path was used regularly by locals and visitors walking their dogs.
Not once did our father complain because thats the way it was when his father bought the place in 1880.
You buy into an area then do not expect to change the status quo to suit yourself.
To make enemies of the lower orders from the local village is very unwise.
This has nought to do with socialism or capitalism, it has everything to do with allowing local people the right to get somewhere or walk their hound.
51

Venachar,

24/04/2008 16:57:23
#30 Tom Tom

As #50 says as far as I am aware the Law of Tresspass is not what an American with his 50 calibre might understand, English prefer a "Do not tresspass" sign and perhaps a large dog. Could some of our legal people enlighten those not familiar with the Scottish way of life.

As far as I am personally aware the "privacy" aspect of the last few years has only occurred with mainly foreign owners who wish their plot to be a little fiefdom.

52

Venachar,

24/04/2008 17:00:45
PS BettyBoo

Sir Paul has land in Scotland and has done for quite a few years, I cannot remember any problems from that honourable gentlemen. Now if it was his second wife that would be another matter.
53

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/04/2008 17:33:42
10 - IMHO the sheriff for the Kilfauns case was unsympathetic to the LRA.
54

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/04/2008 17:35:45
16 - why ? Anyway, if you don't like the laws of this land you can always campaign to change them, or emigrate.
55

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/04/2008 17:35:46
16 - why ? Anyway, if you don't like the laws of this land you can always campaign to change them, or emigrate.
56

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/04/2008 17:37:55
18 - Tory & forelock tugger. Ditto the advice to poster 16
57

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/04/2008 17:40:45
22 - you're a socialist ? Pull the other one !
58

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/04/2008 17:42:35
23 you're not a resident of Scotland so wtf has it got tae do with you ?
59

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/04/2008 17:45:52
27 - if the members of the RA have large estates, then the puir auld landowners have the right to walk through them. What's the beef ? As long as they behave responsibly and obey the country code.
60

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/04/2008 17:46:46
29 - another tory whining for the days of yore.
61

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/04/2008 17:48:00
30 - see post 60.
62

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/04/2008 17:49:53
38 - the legislation is fine. it's the nouveau riche landowners who are the problem.
63

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/04/2008 17:50:49
41 - yer breakin my hert !
64

Pilrig.,

24/04/2008 17:52:45
48 - see post 60
65

Pilrig.,

Livingston 24/04/2008 17:53:16
49 (again) see post 60.
66

Major General Puffin-Stuff,

24/04/2008 18:30:23
What exactly gives our American colonist friends, who habitually blast each other into kingdom come in defence of their "inalienable right" to bear arms, the right to pontificate about Scottish land laws that they know f*** all about anyway?
67

Major General Puffin-Stuff,

24/04/2008 18:48:25
Well done Sheriff Cubie - one of the more enlightened members of the Scottish legal establishment!
68

Calum Crubag,

Dùn Eideann 24/04/2008 18:56:29
These toffs should be lucky there's not an angry army of tairsgeir-wielding crofters mincing their skulls for sheep fodder to the angry Gaelic sounds of Runrig circa '78 or a latter day Oi Polloi.

In the absence of such a beautiful scenario, i can live with this ruling.
http://www.cli.org.uk/
69

Calum Crubag,

24/04/2008 18:58:34
#61 Pilrig - good point. Can i state here that the Toffs are welcome to walk, or sit a while, in my shared back yard. Just as long as they don't start shooting the sparrows or hunting mice with packs of hounds. Or boogering their servants.
70

doublescotch,

U.S.A. 24/04/2008 19:29:01
#30 Tom You are talking nonsense You must have forgotten what happened in New London, Connecticut. When the city, over protests of the homeowners, issued the right of emminent domain. Look it up. By the way it was waterfront property. Your gun would have been useless.
71

doublescotch,

U.S.A 24/04/2008 19:31:50
#68 A touch of spleen. old boy?
72

hertscot,

24/04/2008 19:58:33
Take the land off of him, if ain't being farmed then its nothing more than a big garden, let's try and solve the worlds food shotages, EAT THE RICH!
73

Major General Puffin-Stuff,

24/04/2008 20:51:21
#73

Not at all, old bean. I'm sure you're a spiffing example of a more enlightened type of American. It's just that I get p*ssed off at the crass ignorance of some of your compatriots.
74

Major General Puffin-Stuff,

24/04/2008 21:02:06
#74

Couldn't agree with that last sentiment more. What is it about the rich that gives them the right to OWN land of which they are the temporary custodian, however different things may be in other countries?
75

doublescotch,

U.S.A 24/04/2008 21:13:13
#75. You sir are a Podex:) I was born and raised in Scotland
76

Rodger the Leith lodger,

edinburgh 24/04/2008 21:17:28
#72 yes, for goodness sake how could you forget!!!
"#30 Tom You are talking nonsense You must have forgotten"
Mmmmm, well imagine my embarrassment when I too forgot about this - the outcry in the Scottish press and the hourly features on the BBC about this amazing story! I mean, this place is called new london for gawd's sake, why don't we remember????

Maybe its a bigger world out there #2scotch - incidentally, how many americans own a passport?
77

doublescotch,

U.S.A. 24/04/2008 21:26:47
#76 I'm really rich and I love it:)
78

doublescotch,

U.S.A. 24/04/2008 21:42:43
#78 Passports "mmm" More than you realize:)
79

Rodger the Leith lodger,

edinburgh 24/04/2008 22:06:45
Mmm, more than what is often listed to be only 30% in generous stats?
80

doublescotch,

U.S.A. 24/04/2008 22:08:02
#81 when I was little, my pals and I used to go into the neighbours gardens and take the strawberries! We were always being chased. With expletives thrown at us:)
81

doublescotch,

u.S.A. 24/04/2008 22:11:17
#82 oh sweetheart it isn't all "My Name is Earl"for gawd's sake. That is like saying everyone in Britain is "Little Britain":)
82

doublescotch,

U.S.A 24/04/2008 22:15:52
#82 On second thoughts everyone in Britain could be "Little Britain" gulp! :)
83

Rodger the Leith lodger,

edinburgh 24/04/2008 22:22:24
#84 well "sweetheart" (don't you just love these little dhalin's?) pesonal observation over many years is that a lot of American peeps should get out more, and maybe see a bit beyond the range of their handguns. Perhaps that is why negative comments come form this site about comment from across the pond about land/property law and rights.
84

doublescotch,

U.S.A 24/04/2008 22:26:14
#82 I take 85 back Everyone in Britain is "Little Britain" Yikes
85

Rodger the Leith lodger,

edinburgh 24/04/2008 22:33:03
Well podex, good riddance
86

Major General Puffin-Stuff,

24/04/2008 22:34:23
doublescotch

Well, whoopeedoo for you, sweetheart - like any of us really care what you think, or whether you're stinking rich or not?

Rednecks rule in your adopted country, if that's what you have really chosen, and it's interesting you can't refute Rodger the Leith lodger's observations.

Have a nice day!
87

Major General Puffin-Stuff,

24/04/2008 22:40:57
doublescotch

Interesting to see that, bereft of any intellectual argument, you resort to adolescent namecalling. Sticks and stones, sir, old fruit!
88

doublescotch,

U.S.A 24/04/2008 22:43:20
#89 Donut Head or should I say Little Britain? take a look at yourself pal. I love being rich.
89

doublescotch,

U.S.A 24/04/2008 22:44:46
#88 It isn't nice to call the "Major" Podex even if he is:)
90

doublescotch,

U.S.A 24/04/2008 22:45:54
#90 Your no Major jimmie. But I am a Lady.
91

Major General Puffin-Stuff,

24/04/2008 23:02:45
"Lady", doublescotch? LOL! You really DO sound like the character from Little Britain........Yikes (in your quaint vernacular)! You must have lived in the land of the Donut Heads so long that you are incapable of grown-up argument, or even the ability to refute Rodger the Leith lodger's observation, reliant as you are on adolescent abuse.

So long, sucker.
92

Rodger the Leith lodger,

edinburgh 24/04/2008 23:04:47
#91 the podex comment was referring to you; to conclude, we like to have the right to roam.
93

Major General Puffin-Stuff,

24/04/2008 23:21:52
Thanks to the sensible rulings of such as Sheriff Andrew Cubie.
94

doublescotch,

U.S.A. 25/04/2008 00:00:53
#94 and 95 both and the same? I love you:)You made my day:) it proved one thing you are still pulling your forelocks:) Even India got its independence! Yikes! and Ireland an all the two bit caribbean islands.Bye Bye Little britain
95

doublescotch,

U.S.A. 25/04/2008 01:13:24
#95 You can call me rich bitch if you like but podex is reserved for the likes of you:)

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In