No trains to call at Altnabreac for the foreseeable future

[Parallel]

Indeed , it's all happening there for such a sleepy place, but for the on topic stuff it was once suggested on here this guy was the original reason for all the dispute over land.

The betting tycoon who preyed on women and hurt them for pleasure

Kevin Booth's former partner Tammy Conner says she fears someone could die if he is not stopped.

www.bbc.co.uk

There was a chapter on Altnabreac and Lochdhu Lodge in Dixe Wills’ book ‘Tiny Stations’. To be honest, I thought it was fiction. Turns out not all of it was. Makes you wonder if Altnabreac is best not served…

 

[yorkie]

This is what I got off the internet (yes I know)....

Sorry to nitpick, but there is no such source as "the internet", which is just a medium. We ask that an actual source is provided (with a web link if possible), along with a quote (in quote tags). It is best to use a primary source that is authoritative in nature.

 

[Elwyn]

Sorry to nitpick, but there is no such source as "the internet", which is just a medium. We ask that an actual source is provided (with a web link if possible), along with a quote. It is best to use a primary source that is authoritative in nature.

I’d go for this source that lists circumstances that may be contempt of court including “anticipating the course of a trial or predicting the outcome”. I think that covers speculation about what the accused may have done and the likely outcome.

The sub judice rule and contempt of court

www.pinsentmasons.com

 

[yorkie]

If anyone sees anything on the forum that causes concern, including a potential contempt of court, then this should be reported by using the reporting system, and no mention of any such concerns posted anywhere else, please.

 

[Buzby]

That appears to suggest that a Sheriff can be swayed by and lose impartiality due to external comments.

I always thought it was to protect the jury pool from being unduly influenced - which cannot happen in this case.

 

[Grinner]

That appears to suggest that a Sheriff can be swayed by and lose impartiality due to external comments.

I always thought it was to protect the jury pool from being unduly influenced - which cannot happen in this case.

I suppose the law would aslo consider that external comments could influence witnesses and affect their statements in court, so it makes sense that the same law would apply regardless of whether the case is being decided by a sheriff or a jury.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

In England a defendant can request a trial by jury even for minor offences that would usually be heard by a magistrate. Is there not an equivalent mechanism in Scotland?
If so, there would still be the potential for people who could end up sitting on a jury, to have heard details about the case when it was assumed to be heard by a sheriff, if restrictions weren't in place.

 

[Egg Centric]

In England a defendant can request a trial by jury even for minor offences that would usually be heard by a magistrate. Is there not an equivalent mechanism in Scotland?

They can only do it in England for each way offences, not all summary offences.

There is an equivalent to each way offence in Scotland but the choice of venue is up to the prosecutor and indeed that is what seems to have happened here.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They can only do it in England for each way offences, not all summary offences.

There is an equivalent to each way offence in Scotland but the choice of venue is up to the prosecutor and indeed that is what seems to have happened here.

Thanks for the correction, it's a long time since I sat A-level Law!

 

[tspaul26]

In England a defendant can request a trial by jury even for minor offences that would usually be heard by a magistrate. Is there not an equivalent mechanism in Scotland?

No, the accused has no right of election in Scotland.

There is an equivalent to each way offence in Scotland but the choice of venue is up to the prosecutor and indeed that is what seems to have happened here.

Indeed. In this particular case, proceedings were initially brought on indictment, but have now changed to complaint.

The practical effect of this is largely procedural, including the change from solemn procedure (with sheriff and jury) to summary (with sheriff alone).

There is no reason in principle why it could not be switched back, although that would be unusual.

 

[ian1944]

Without impinging on contempt of court requirements, I can't be alone in considering the couple under discussion here as a creepy pair of chancers.

 

[Rab Smith]

Without impinging on contempt of court requirements, I can't be alone in considering the couple under discussion here as a creepy pair of chancers.

Or a couple with legitimate concerns?
I think we are some times too quick in thinking that the corporate machine is always correct?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Or a couple with legitimate concerns?
I think we are some times too quick in thinking that the corporate machine is always correct?

I think this forum is very adept at criticism of corporate machine, especially Network Rail, and has no history of just automatically siding with the organisation.

 

[chrisjo]

Or a couple with legitimate concerns?

Ask yourself - would you want them as neighbours? I rest my case.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Or a couple with legitimate concerns?
I think we are some times too quick in thinking that the corporate machine is always correct?

I suggest you read this entire thread if you truly believe they may be in the right.

 

[yorksrob]

Or a couple with legitimate concerns?
I think we are some times too quick in thinking that the corporate machine is always correct?

"Legitimate concerns" doesn't include stopping the railway from running, which the couple are alleged to have attempted, which is where any sympathy evaporates.

 

[Rab Smith]

"Legitimate concerns" meaning that they could actually have a case, or at the very least, a coherent argument in law.
How they are going about it though is not going to help their case which is giving exposure to their barmy behaviour which in turn is highlighting their whole situation as car crash TV.
My point being, this forum is pure speculation until their case is proven or thrown out.
Too many on here have already tried and convicted them.

 

[yorksrob]

"Legitimate concerns" meaning that they could actually have a case, or at the very least, a coherent argument in law.
How they are going about it though is not going to help their case which is giving exposure to their barmy behaviour which in turn is highlighting their whole situation as car crash TV.
My point being, this forum is pure speculation until their case is proven or thrown out.
Too many on here have already tried and convicted them.

Well, they'll have their day in court so we'll see.

They might potentially have a case in the land dispute, but obstructing the operation of the railway might (and frankly, ought to be) a different matter.

 

[HenHarrier]

I've rather lost my nerve about running out there by myself of late (see stories of women being tortured in dungeons) otherwise I'd totally head out for a trip to Altnabreac on the train in order to report back! But... unless I can get my hands on a tazer for dealing with horrible men I can't really. Love feeling like I need a male chaperone to go places, gives a real sense of nostalgia for the good old days.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I've rather lost my nerve about running out there by myself of late (see stories of women being tortured in dungeons) otherwise I'd totally head out for a trip to Altnabreac on the train in order to report back! But... unless I can get my hands on a tazer for dealing with horrible men I can't really. Love feeling like I need a male chaperone to go places, gives a real sense of nostalgia for the good old days.

Honestly I've had the same thought. It's a great bit of wilderness but knowledge of things like that really kills the vibe.

 

[Banana]

Is the station open with trains stopping at it?

 

[hexagon789]

Is the station open with trains stopping at it?

Yes, since Sunday the 6th April.

 

[Jan Mayen]

Is the station open with trains stopping at it?

I believe it is open, with trains stopping on request. Haven't read any reports of anyone actually having done so. I live in Sussex, so a bit far for a day trip.

 

[Gloster]

One thing that we should be careful of is being sure that any comments are about the correct person(s). Not only is there a couple in the station, there is also the ‘gentlemen’ at Lochdu Lodge: there were, I think reports of a third party, but this may have been the ’gentleman’.

 

[Banana]

I believe it is open, with trains stopping on request. Haven't read any reports of anyone actually having done so. I live in Sussex, so a bit far for a day trip.

Yes that is what I was trying to establish. You would have thought the couple in question would have made a shopping trip to Wick by now...

 

[John Bishop]

Yes that is what I was trying to establish. You would have thought the couple in question would have made a shopping trip to Wick by now...

They can’t, they are banned from getting on the trains amongst numerous other bail conditions Restricting their behaviour.

 

[D365]

They can’t, they are banned from getting on the trains amongst numerous other bail conditions Restricting their behaviour.

But they have indicated on their YouTube channel that they are happy to serve tea and biscuits to any passing travellers

 

[Blindtraveler]

Would be almost worth a four member or two going all the way up there to test this. Sadly, with a start point of Kent, I don't think it'll be me

 

[reb0118]

Would be almost worth a four member or two going all the way up there to test this. Sadly, with a start point of Kent, I don't think it'll be me

Only two changes: London & Inverness. You could leave Kent after 19:00 and be at Altnabreac before 14:00 the following day. Bring your own lunch.

 

[Rab Smith]

The next instalment of the couple's barmy behaviour has just hit YouTube. Scotrail on the receiving end this time.

0:10
okay okay just to go over the hearing
0:13
then again that happened last week on
0:15
the 3rd of
0:17
April one of the matters discussed in
0:19
that
0:20
hearing was how members of the public
0:23
would get to and from what is used as
0:25
the station platform here at Out the
0:27
Breck
0:30
the sheriff in the hearing remembered
0:32
Ian saying in a previous hearing that
0:35
we've never prevented members of the
0:37
public from exercising their right to
0:39
use the pedestrian public right of way
0:41
here
0:44
we went on to explain to the sheriff
0:46
that the established route for members
0:49
of the public to access and egress the
0:52
platform is for foot pedestrians
0:54
only and is via our side gate which you
0:59
can see here now and traveling
1:01
northwards over our driveway to the land
1:04
that is being used as the platform
1:08
sheriff Wilson stated that if that is
1:11
the established route that has always
1:14
been
1:15
used for members of the public to access
1:18
and egress the station platform then
1:22
that will be the route used and that was
1:25
the sheriff's decision that the
1:27
established right of way here at Out the
1:29
Breck would not change
1:34
at this point Network Rail
1:38
solicitor for Broaddies tried to get the
1:41
sheriff to include in his decision for
1:45
Network Rail and Scot Rail workers to
1:48
use the pedestrian gate and the public
1:52
right of way to access the station
1:57
but the sheriff refused her request and
2:00
he told her that that is a matter that
2:03
can be reserved for another time so the
2:06
final decision of the
2:07
sheriff was that the established public
2:10
right of way would be used and that
2:14
would be used by only members of the
2:17
public and that's what we agreed to that
2:20
was what the end result of that hearing
2:22
was
2:29
the next day we receive what's called an
2:32
interluca which is a document that
2:35
records um the decision of the sheriff
2:38
in a
2:40
hearing and upon reading that document
2:43
we were concerned immediately because
2:45
the wording of that interluca did not
2:48
accurately reflect the precise
2:51
terms that were agreed by us and
2:54
accepted by the sheriff in that hearing
2:56
last
2:58
week the Interluca used these words
3:02
instead of our words and the sheriff's
3:04
words the Interluca
3:07
reads "Pursuers gave an undertaking to
3:10
the court that they will not prevent
3:13
pedestrians using the established right
3:15
of way to and from the railway
3:17
platform."
3:19
As soon as we saw that alarm bells
3:22
rang because the word
3:25
pedestrians obviously is extremely wide
3:28
and ambiguous and we were very concerned
3:31
that that could be exploited by Network
3:34
Rail and Scott Rail to apply to their
3:37
workers and the term member of the
3:41
public was not even included in the
3:47
Interluca then on the 7th of
3:50
April the following Monday we get a
3:54
letter from the head of legal for Scott
3:57
Rail which we would only described as a
4:01
we would describe as a threatening
4:02
letter to us which again is another
4:05
example of how
4:07
unreasonable Network Rail and Scott Rail
4:10
are being in this
4:12
dispute i'm going to quote some of that
4:14
letter to you um what was sent to us by
4:18
the head of legal for Scott Rail and I
4:22
quote from this
4:23
letter i understand that an undertaking
4:26
has been given to the court that there
4:29
will be no prevention of
4:31
pedestrians using the established right
4:33
of way for access to and egress from the
4:37
station
4:39
for the avoidance of doubt this will
4:42
include Scot Rail employees contractors
4:45
and
4:46
agents we will report any attempts to
4:49
prevent access to the station to the
4:51
appropriate
4:52
authorities and to Network Rail to bring
4:55
to the attention of the
4:58
court i end quotes there so as you can
5:02
see
5:04
everyone no sooner as that interluca had
5:07
been sent to us Scott Rail jumped on the
5:11
wording and have exploited it just like
5:15
we predicted they would and we we
5:18
received a threatening which we would we
5:20
regard as a threatening letter by the
5:23
head of legal Scott
5:25
Rail threatening us that if we attempted
5:28
to prevent access or refuse access to
5:31
Scot Rail workers their contractors or
5:33
agents they would refer us to the
5:36
appropriate authorities now we know what
5:38
they mean when they use that term they
5:40
mean the British transport police Scott
5:43
Rail are threatening us with the police
5:47
again for a civil matter this is
5:50
unreasonable and unnecessarily
5:53
contentious behavior by Scott Rail which
5:57
is unacceptable
5:59
like Ian said we're doing our best to
6:02
resolve this dispute in a reasonable
6:05
manner by
6:07
utilizing the civil court process which
6:10
is the right way to deal with a dispute
6:12
of this nature but Scott Rail and
6:14
Network Rail
6:17
continue to behave in a
6:19
manner in a way that the court system
6:22
doesn't even exist and it's not required
6:24
and doesn't apply to them
6:29
so it's just to give you another example
6:30
of what Ian mentioned before about the
6:32
court order that was issued to do with
6:34
network rail surveyors coming onto our
6:36
land when that court order is imprecise
6:40
and
6:41
ambiguous it leaves open a situation
6:45
that we now find ourselves in and Scott
6:48
Rail and Network Rail are quite readily
6:51
quick to exploit exploit the imprecise
6:54
wording of this
6:55
interluca by what they've done today
7:11
is are you
7:13
can I have a quick word please
7:18
well I'm the owner i live here my name
7:20
is Ian Applebee uhhuh i just want to
7:22
have a quick word for you in regard in
7:23
regards to the the last hearing in Wick
7:26
Sheriff Court pleased to meet you yeah
7:28
nice to meet you um so the last hearing
7:31
we had with Neil Wilson Sheriff Neil
7:35
Wilson in the court he
7:38
decided that the public pedestrian
7:41
footpath was not to be used for
7:44
commercial
7:45
um use and it was not to be used by
7:48
Scott Rail or Network Rail until this
7:51
dispute is sorted out are you aware of
7:53
that no okay i've been instructed that
7:56
we have right of access to the station
7:58
either at the side of your driveway or
8:01
the the new pathway well that's that's
8:03
what's requested that's the solicitor
8:06
acting on behalf of network okay so she
8:09
requested that in the hearing the sher
8:12
the sheriff rejected that so just just
8:16
to let you know you know okay i'm not
8:20
going to come out and be contentious
8:21
with you i've just come out to let you
8:22
know fair enough okay because we're
8:24
trying to deal with this um through the
8:26
courts and we're trying to we're trying
8:28
to deal with it reasonably
8:30
so um like I'm not any of that that's
8:34
that's not within my remit okay i've
8:36
just been instructed that we've got
8:37
right of access onto the platform either
8:40
there or there we're just coming on to
8:42
do some maintenance on the on the
8:44
station the specific wording that the
8:46
the sheriff agreed to was that the foot
8:49
path for the for for public to use the
8:52
the public footpath pedestrian access
8:55
was through the the side gate up along
8:58
our driveway here right okay okay it's
9:01
not permitted to be used that new path
9:03
that's been installed at all that was
9:06
another thing that was requested by uh
9:09
the defenders network rail and their
9:11
solicitor but that was rejected by the
9:13
sheriff um just as it was rejected by
9:17
the sheriff for for it to be used
9:19
commercially to access our land at the
9:21
moment while the dispute's ongoing
9:23
that's either by any network rail Scott
9:26
rail or any contractors the only thing
9:28
that was was allowed by the sheriff was
9:30
for the public pedestrian footpath to be
9:33
used by the public right Well that's not
9:36
what that's not what's been conveyed to
9:37
me reflected to me so like I say any
9:40
more than that I don't know anything
9:41
about this at all okay i know there's a
9:43
standoff there's a situation but that's
9:45
all I know it's it's above my pay grade
9:47
as I say right yeah you are you from
9:50
Okay you're based down in Inesse in
9:52
Vaness oh you're in Vaness are you okay
9:55
so this is my guys that do the
9:57
maintenance oh no one yeah yeah so um
10:00
I'm up to come here today and I'm going
10:01
to wick and I'm going to other ones as
10:03
well i was going to work on that but
10:05
I've had a puncture on the way in so
10:07
that's me you're recording us today
10:09
sorry yes you were recording us okay
10:11
where where do I Who's the data
10:13
controller that I don't know i would
10:15
have to get that to you i don't know
10:16
okay um because of what's going on I do
10:20
need to request my data um Well if you
10:23
submit your request through the normal
10:24
channels through Scott Rail yeah but
10:26
you're meant to tell me who that is
10:27
through GDPR you say I'll need to get
10:29
back to you on that one i'm not sure
10:30
exactly right you don't know honestly I
10:32
just I just don't know okay um you
10:34
recording as well i am but I'm not
10:36
regulated by GDPR i'm just member of the
10:38
public yeah just Yeah just do you know
10:40
how GDPR works yeah yeah yeah yeah
10:42
that's it um so I'm just just recording
10:45
for um basically you know for for our
10:49
own protection of our defenses and just
10:51
uh gather evidence basically what's
10:53
going on on the land here you know it's
10:54
totally up to you so yeah yeah um what's
10:58
what are you intending on doing here
11:00
today well just going to explain we're
11:01
going to be hopefully uh putting a lick
11:03
of paint on the shelter just looking at
11:05
the other assets as well but we're also
11:07
tasked today with uh taking obstacles
11:10
away from that path oh right yes oh
11:12
you're doing that as well aren't you
11:13
yeah that's what we Okay to make sure in
11:16
health and safety uh regards it's safe
11:17
for anyone to use the station right so
11:19
that seems like there's a lot going
11:21
against what was decided in the court
11:23
then when we were last there so so it
11:25
seems like Scot Rail sort of overriding
11:27
what the sheriff's decided to me well
11:29
that that would be your opinion well
11:31
it's it's is what was said in the in the
11:33
hearing again I'm not party to any of
11:35
that so yeah so just letting you know
11:37
that now so yeah that's fine yeah yeah
11:39
so that's what happened and I'm being
11:40
upfront with you as well that's what
11:41
we've been tasked to do today so that's
11:42
what we'll be doing so that's what
11:43
you'll be doing you'll be removing you
11:45
you'll be using the the the pathway
11:47
whatever i haven't had I just had a
11:49
glance to when I came in yeah so we're
11:51
going back and I saw the the the sort of
11:54
fence structure just just have a quick
11:56
look at it yeah yeah just whatever's
11:57
there just to put to the side
12:00
so just so you know that's our property
12:03
that fence is our property well we'll be
12:05
safe and take it apart sorry we'll be
12:07
safe when we take it apart yeah but we
12:10
don't want it taken apart well do you
12:11
want to take it apart yourself first
12:13
we're happy with it where it is at the
12:14
moment to be honest well we have to take
12:15
it apart okay so you're doing it anyway
12:17
right so people can gain that safe
12:19
access to the to the Yeah so
12:23
um that is um not a it's it's actually
12:27
not a permitted route of access you know
12:30
we're not going to obstruct you uh we're
12:32
not going to argue with you you've come
12:34
here you know you're fairly adamant
12:35
about about what you're going to do
12:36
anyway this is what we've been told to
12:37
do it's what you've been told to do so
12:40
you know I've come out and let you know
12:41
what the court said what the sheriff
12:43
said you know so I'm going just going to
12:45
retract now and withdraw and just let
12:47
you get on with it okay and then we'll
12:50
we'll let the court know what's happened
12:51
here today appreciate that okay okay
12:53
take care then all right cheers cheers
13:12
it's my wife this is
13:16
Yeah um just we just need to convey some
13:20
legal information as I explained I've
13:23
got nothing to do with that at all i I
13:25
understand that you've been sent here to
13:26
do work but it's it's obviously our duty
13:29
to impart information to you because you
13:32
are on private land at the moment this
13:35
area of land that you're going to do
13:37
work on at the moment isn't owned by
13:40
Network Rail it's our It's just so you
13:43
know so you can't be you can't here to
13:45
do work guys that's all it Just so you
13:47
know so you can't be you can't say that
13:49
we haven't told you so you are now just
13:51
letting you know Scott Rail employees
13:53
are now going to do work on
13:57
land that Scott Rail do not have a right
14:01
to work on because Network Rail do not
14:04
own this land we own the land so you
14:07
will be trespassing and if you do work
14:10
on our land without our permission you
14:11
will be committing damage also do you
14:14
understand that i'll take on board what
14:15
you've said yeah okay we just we we do
14:18
actually have court documentation from
14:20
network rail solicitors
14:23
um confirming what we just said about
14:25
that land just so you know so we do we
14:27
are appreciate you know the position
14:29
you're taking but I'm under the
14:31
instructor we are instructing the
14:32
country today normal maintenance we we
14:34
just want to make it clear we understand
14:36
you you've been sent by who anybody
14:39
senior is anybody senior who said who's
14:41
who's senior at Scott Rail that's
14:43
overseeing this overseeing this no it's
14:45
just me yes this is part of that's part
14:47
of our normal roster for this who are
14:49
you leazing with at Network Rail have
14:52
you got a contact person
14:54
for sorry who are you liazing with with
14:57
Network Rail to do with the work on this
15:00
land do you have a contact name for
15:02
Network Rail net Rail no okay so nobody
15:04
senior above you is involved in what's
15:07
happening here out the bre
15:10
not specifically as in Is there somebody
15:13
senior what about the legal team then
15:15
have the legal team been in touch with
15:16
you that door um over weeks and months
15:21
is somebody senior at Scott Rail aware
15:23
of what's happening out on the Bre and
15:25
if there are who is that person please i
15:27
I can't speak to other people to know
15:29
that they know about what's going on
15:31
here are you speaking to people more
15:33
senior to you about what's happening out
15:35
the bre just my manager to see and who's
15:37
your manager what's he called or she
15:39
called okay cuz we did actually write to
15:41
Scott Rail legal team didn't we um a few
15:44
days ago we written to the head of legal
15:47
um about the access this is we yeah we
15:51
what we're going to do we're going to
15:53
withdraw now but I just thought it was
15:55
very important for you to know because
15:57
you're responsible as an individual
15:59
yourself that I know you've been sent
16:01
out to do work but you will be you've
16:04
accessed private land without the right
16:06
to do so scott Rail do not have a right
16:08
to access our land and you're now on our
16:11
land undertaking work without a right to
16:14
do so because Network Rail do not own
16:16
the land it's on disputed land which is
16:18
running in due course in a court that
16:19
hasn't been decided by a sheriff yet the
16:21
last thing the sheriff decided was that
16:23
as I just said to you um um Mr was that
16:26
um the sheriff had decided that network
16:29
rail and Scott rail were not allowed to
16:31
access our land using the pedestrian
16:34
gate and the public uh footpath is what
16:37
was decided so we were a bit shocked to
16:41
be honest that that that Scott going
16:43
against the decision of the court and
16:44
the sheriff am I correct in saying that
16:46
Ian informed me that Scott Rail have
16:49
have have removed our fence and gate
16:51
that's what they're intending to do Liz
16:54
they're intending to remove bars at the
16:56
start of the new path that goes in round
16:57
to the other end our gate our fence our
17:00
fence which any of our property if you
17:02
remove our property without our
17:04
permission would constitute trespass and
17:06
damage you do know that Mr that's your
17:08
position that's Yeah but you're still
17:09
going to remove it yeah we have to we
17:11
have to leave this in a safe Okay just
17:13
so you know that that's what will be
17:14
happening and obviously we'll deal with
17:16
that in the proper way for just you you
17:18
explained to me earlier that you're
17:20
painting the shelter is it yes and what
17:22
else are you doing sorry um just looking
17:24
at the bends other sort of assets on on
17:27
the the platform doesn't need any de
17:30
vegetation yet i don't think so we're
17:32
taking photos with assets and that type
17:34
of stuff that's that's just general
17:35
general station maintenance okay is it
17:39
is it just yourself who's recording on
17:41
your No that my colleagues have got
17:42
their So three cameras recording all
17:44
together one per person okay so we'll be
17:47
requesting that
17:48
data we've got a date we've got the
17:50
contact information for the data
17:51
protection oh you have that right okay
17:53
okay yeah thanks thanks okay right thank
17:55
you
17:57
gone against the court we put this fence
18:00
up because that is on disputed land
18:03
there we go is used that's been used as
18:06
well uh there's uh Scott Rail using a
18:09
new path that was uh
18:13
rejected by the sheriff when Network
18:17
Rail solicitors requested that they use
18:19
it that was rejected by the sheriff but
18:22
there you go they're coming in doing
18:23
whatever they like and they're also
18:25
threatening to take down our property
18:27
which is this
18:29
fence so they're a law unto themselves
18:57
our fence has every right to be here you
19:01
know they're coming here building on
19:04
disputed
19:08
land land that we own
19:12
we put a fence up to prevent an access
19:15
route that's been put coming onto our
19:17
registered
19:19
title you can't just go around putting
19:22
new rights away onto someone's
19:24
registered title wherever you
19:27
like it's just not the way it's
19:35
done that is not a public right of way
19:38
right there that is not the established
19:40
public right of way and that should not
19:42
be used this path was put on this land
19:49
unlawfully taking photos of everything
19:52
trying to get prescriptive claims on the
19:54
land they've done this before
20:07
ill um about what they were going to do
20:09
here they they uh did threaten to pull
20:12
down the fence that we put up there but
20:14
we told them it's our property and they
20:15
had no right to do so they were adamant
20:18
that they were going to do it but
20:19
they've just left and they haven't done
20:20
that um but still they've entered the
20:24
property um unlawfully it's not a
20:27
commercial right of way um they've come
20:30
and they've they've they've worked on
20:32
the
20:34
station done some work on the
20:36
station and uh they've they've basically
20:39
just
20:40
left
20:44
so I mean what's the point of the whole
20:46
court process if you know everyone says
20:49
we're unreasonable
20:51
i've tried to be as reasonable as
20:52
possible today just to save all these
20:54
fake false accusations accusing us of
20:57
all sorts of things i'd like to see how
20:59
anyone else would behave if if this was
21:02
your house and if you were being treated
21:04
like this um we're standing up for what
21:08
is right we're standing up for our
21:10
property rights we're trying to do
21:12
things in a court of law but it's
21:16
starting to feel like going to the court
21:17
of law has actually undermined our
21:19
rights because the only judgments that
21:21
seem to be made are against us the only
21:23
orders that seem to be made made are
21:25
against us we tried to get a a a a court
21:30
order or an injunction to prevent this
21:33
from happening because all that's
21:34
happening from from this last um
21:38
decision in court is it's just leading
21:40
to more intimidation upon us now what's
21:43
happened is pretty much the same as what
21:45
happened when the court order was
21:48
made for the surveyor to come here the
21:51
writing on the interluca did not reflect
21:54
the decision by the court or the
21:57
solicitor's letter which was to come and
21:59
survey our registered boundaries the
22:02
interluca just said for the surveyor to
22:05
survey the property which is just wide
22:07
open now they've done exactly the same
22:08
thing with um the decision that was made
22:12
on the third which the decision being
22:14
that only members of the public were
22:17
able to access the
22:20
platform via this side gate not the uh
22:24
not the cattle grid and they were to use
22:26
the established right of
22:28
way that went from this gate along the
22:33
side of our driveway up towards what is
22:37
used as the
22:39
platform that was discussed in length
22:41
and that was that is what was decided
22:44
but unfortunately once more we seem to
22:45
be led into a bit of
22:48
a a bit of a a trap really
22:52
so the interluca should have
22:55
said for members of the public to
23:00
use the
23:02
pedestrian public right of way that's
23:04
what it should have said cuz that's what
23:06
was agreed but but what was what was
23:09
written on the
23:10
interuca once again was
23:14
um pedestrians it just said pedestrians
23:17
so that's allowed it now to be exploited
23:20
by Scott Rail and Network Rail which I'm
23:24
leaning towards maybe that was the plan
23:26
so not very happy about
23:29
that okay and as because we weren't very
23:32
happy about that uh Elizabeth has lodged
23:36
a motion with Wick Sheriff
23:39
Court that motion is going to the
23:41
hearing is going to
23:43
be on Wednesday the 16th of April
23:47
we do invite everyone to come and watch
23:50
and um see what's going on we will put
23:53
links into the
23:55
description for Wick Sheriff
23:58
Court and the case number all you need
24:01
to do is email Wick Sheriff Court and
24:05
request a WebEx link for that case
24:09
number so thank you everyone please like
24:12
and subscribe we appreciate your support
24:14
thank you very much take care thanks
24:16
bye-bye