Ketoorskop

Imagine what the gate will look like after 50 or a 100 people have climbed over it.

There definitely seems to be a gap or a need for an organisation that can help in dealing with this things without them escalating into unpleasant situations and nasty legal battles.

No Johann, the old gate was locked before you got there and you are blatantly lying if you say otherwise. So you are the one taking the law into your own hands by trespassing, because until there is sufficient proof and the owners are compelled to open the gate, it will remain locked (the new gate) and you don't have the authority to decide that it shouldn't be. Best you stop selling false information to people who are paying good money to do the Freedom Trail tours and race.

Yes. Or at very least closed with a private signboard at the gate.

Time will tell. I'm not going to argue with you about a locked gate. Fact remains you don't have the authority to decide this matter. So the status quo will continue and the property will remain closed without the necessary arrangements.

Haha. One of your own colleagues put a picture of the original gate on this very forum (page 3). Cheers

I have a whole pile of things I'd like to say, but I have been advised to refrain as our lawyers/advocates are working on the appropriate response to all allegations/claims. Instead to close off I will return to my original point (and the reason I came onto the forum to inform the public that there is another side to the story), which is that there is a locked gate (has been for at least 30 years now). The fact that there is now a newer, bigger gate does not change anything and you or anybody else do not have the authority to decide if it does not belong there or to enter the property without the proper authorisation.

I'm sorry Johann, but I find your approach to be exactly the same and I am sure that nothing I say is going to make any difference at this point. If I can find the time I will put together a proper response to your statements/questions, but until then I fear that I will be wasting my time.

You are misrepresenting the facts again. Just saying something does not make it so. Likewise, you climbing the Ladder without permission merely means the owners were not aware of it, not that you had some sort of right. That's why since we became aware of the situation we have been objecting consistently. All I'm saying is you think we have acted illegally and we think you have acted illegally and that's that. An impasse I would say.

Sorry to hear you feel that way. If you have followed this thread properly you will have notice that I have been quite courteous in my exchanges and degrading to name-calling is a sign of the attitude of some of you who comment. It shows a total lack of common decency. Besides, I don't see this a marketing/PR exercise as I said before that I came into the forum only to let the other side of the story be told...

Never you mind that. Has/is being dealt with (not that it's any of your business). Was only a temporary deterrent anyway.

Seriously? You are clutching at straws now. Anyway, you have an opinion, I have an opinion and this could just carry on in circles forever. So I guess we'll just have to wait and see if there is resolution down the line.

For some reason you are still promoting the idea that the road across Boplaas and Kleinberg to the Ladder was used as some sort of "freeway" to the outside world! In fact, like any other farms in the world, this particular route was used by the inhabitants of the particular farm and maybe anyone happening to visit them (by invitation no doubt), but for the rest of the valley and the ouside world it was most certainly not the main route of travel in and out of the valley. And I quote: "They would negotiate the Gamkaskloof River, and move up the defile (for approx. 7 miles) bisecting the valley with their laden donkeys." AND: "As far as Gamkaskloof is concemed, the former inhabitants or living museum 'pieces' have now all left, and this is probably for the good. They were always very wary of outsiders and of being exhibits. They were a private people who mostly shied away from visitors who entered the valley, many out of curiosity. " - T. Goetze, "Re-creation, tourism and historical presentation: the cases of Georgetown, Colorado (USA), and Gamkaskloof, Western Cape (South Africa) considered" in New Contree 42, November 1997, pp. 181-193 SO, if there was any so-called servitude use of the road and even the Ladder, it would most definitely have been of a personal nature (between locals or authorised people), and personal servitudes expire. I don't know where you get this idea of a "public right of way" as it does not exist. You are right about one thing though: "respecting rights", so respect ours!

Let's just be clear again that this is a simple forum debate about what is happening on the ground now and the issue that surrounds it. Of course there is a need to steer clear of delving too deep into the legal aspects of it (on both sides) without the proper legal counsel (although it seems that some are deliberately trying to draw me into that realm). So my opinions are merely based on my own research and interpretation of the matter.So, as you point out, there is no registered (praedial) servitude and it comes down to whether there is a legitimate historical right the merits of which would have to be the subject of the more formal/professional legal dispute. And as another pointed out just now, there were at least 3 known routes in and out of the valley before the road came in. How this influences the matter I am not sure and this will probably also be on the thoughts of the legal minds involved. I hope this settles my opinion on the matter that we don't have to keep arguing in circles ad nauseum. Basic position still remains that the owners do not recognise the race organiser's claim that the road is open to all and sundry without permission. Also, to answer your question, court action should be a last resort and so far as I have it the owners have made numerous efforts to resolve this through dialogue with the organisers. P.S. The "Mountain Men" did not offer further resistance to riders out of lack of willpower, but mainly because of other commitments and partly because our quarrel is not with them personally, but with the organisers who have mislead them into thinking they have rights which they do not. Lekker dag verder!

THERE IS NO SERVITUDE. Not now, not before. I am not confusing the issue here.