Wednesday 8 March 2017 9.35am
d cliff wrote:
john c i dont know how long you have lived here or been using these stairs,as i have for the past 11 years ,you seem to think that its ok for these people to put up signs and deny the public access,what utter rubbish about concern for safety ,take down the stupid signs and the filthy gates put things back as they were or take me and anyone else who obstucts these people from shutting these gates as i intend to do,to court ,i also i,d like to know what is your vested interest.southwark council have allowed these people to steal the original sign then ,i got it replaced only for it to be replaced again with one saying it is private land, it is not and they will not shut these gates, i will continue to access the river as and when i choose and you and the rest of the people who think we have to ask these people permission, can go and jump in the river ,in fact i think i will sleep there just to prove the point if its private land, let them arrest me and let a court decide if its private or not ,now thats a rant. as to nowtel and them providing internet services to anchor brewhouse managment ,that another load of rubbish,this whole issue is because they got burgled and dont want people walking through there without them having control.oh one other point pla are not reponsable for these stairs ,only up to the high water mark.if southwark council have seen the deeds, then let them publish them400 years of use makes this a right of way regardless.
Sorry - perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were claiming it was a public right of way, which is what has been discussed before. But then it seems you mean it has been a public highway, unlawfully built over by the Anchor Brewery back in the 19th century? Or claimed unlawfully by the present landowners?
Or did I misunderstand? Since you also say '400 years of use makes this a right of way'? If it's a public right of way, do go and sleep there - you can also try that on a public footpath in the countryside, but don't be surprised if you're woken up and kicked off by the farmer. A right of way is just that - a WAY for people to go along about their lawful business. It doesn't give them the right to lay out a sleeping bag or set up camp for the night. (Come to that, neither does a public highway.)
If I lived locally one of my concerns about removing the gates and giving public access at night would, given the location, be the local drunks popping in for a quick p**s. (Why do you think similar passageways in old towns used to have names like 'Pissing Alley'? or have notices saying euphemistically 'Commit no nuisance'?)
'these people... put up signs and deny the public access' - they aren't denying the public access, they are granting the public access.
'you and the rest of the people who think we have to ask these people permission, can go and jump in the river' - you don't have to ask their permission, just go along during daylight hours and walk through the gates. If the gates are being locked on unreasonable occasions then there is cause for complaint.
'as to nowtel and them providing internet services to anchor brewhouse managment ,that another load of rubbish' - presumably you know far more than I do about Nowtel. I saw a notice saying they provided wifi services, looked them up on the web and discovered they were a telecom company (which seems reasonable given the name) - but in liquidation. Are you saying they have branched out into property management?
'one other point pla are not reponsable for these stairs ,only up to the high water mark' - agreed - I was talking about the historic watermen's stairs, which stand on the foreshore below high water mark.
Oh, and in answer to your personal questions/comments:
'i dont know how long you have lived here or been using these stairs,as i have for the past 11 years' - I've lived 'here' (the Borough) for 30 years and regard myself as a newcomer. I haven't used the stairs very often, I rarely visit Shad Thames
- it's too trendy for me.
' ,i also i,d like to know what is your vested interest' - Why is it that so many people immediately assume that anyone who dares to say anything that can be construed as supporting 'the establishment' has a vested interest? And then use it as if it's an insult? I'm not sure what counts as a vested interest in this case. But I don't work for Southwark Council
or the owners or management of the Anchor Brewhouse development. I don't live there, or in any other luxury converted warehouse on Shad Thames
- or in a similar property anywhere else, with or without a river view. I'm not a lawyer with an interest in property law. I'm not a member of the Ramblers Association or the National Farmers Union. Give me a list of 'vested interests' and I'll see if I can tick any boxes.