• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "An Englishman's home is his castle Part 2: Who said British Justice is a shambles ?"

Collapse

  • PAH
    replied
    Originally posted by shaunbhoy View Post
    Perhaps he did not appropriately remunerate the charlatans working in the local Planning Department? That is what seems to grease the wheels round these parts (allegedly).

    Yep, got it in one.

    I think he was trying to make a statement, pretty bloody costly one though.

    My idea for making such a similar 'FU' statement is to buy some land that happens to be a flood plain, buy a boat and 'store' it in the middle, and wait for the inevitable.

    Would probably get away with it too. Boats are for the rich, caravans for the poor, hence why you can't easily do the same with a caravan on your own land.

    Could this be one of my ideas that may actually be worth taking seriously for once?


    Off to see if that decomissioned aircraft carrier is still on eBay...
    Last edited by PAH; 4 February 2010, 10:03.

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by PAH View Post
    You always find a way of staying 'on message'.

    I suspect if I could be arsed to look at your posting history I'd find it's mostly a variation of that same one liner.
    Yep

    Unlike SasGoru, I like to deploy a wide range of insults


    Leave a comment:


  • shaunbhoy
    replied
    Originally posted by PAH View Post

    I suspect if I could be arsed to look at your posting history I'd find it's mostly a variation of that same one liner.
    Don't bother. The Health nazis insist upon trying that with insomniacs that don't respond to hard drugs!

    Leave a comment:


  • cojak
    replied
    Originally posted by NickFitz View Post
    He's a worthless tuliphead who thinks that he's oh so ******* clever that he can do whatever he damn well pleases, and **** everybody else because he reckons he can get away with it.

    If he lived in an inner city and pulled a stunt that displayed such arrogant contempt for the law you'd all be calling him a worthless chav.

    **** him. I hope it bankrupts him.
    WHS

    Leave a comment:


  • PAH
    replied
    Originally posted by sasguru View Post
    WHS. The man is spectacularly cretinous and/or arrogant (even by CUK standards )

    You always find a way of staying 'on message'.

    I suspect if I could be arsed to look at your posting history I'd find it's mostly a variation of that same one liner.

    Leave a comment:


  • shaunbhoy
    replied
    Originally posted by eliquant View Post
    I mean ffs its his land, its his castle !! why does the local council want to demolish it ?
    Perhaps he did not appropriately remunerate the charlatans working in the local Planning Department? That is what seems to grease the wheels round these parts (allegedly).

    Leave a comment:


  • sasguru
    replied
    Originally posted by NickFitz View Post
    He's a worthless tuliphead who thinks that he's oh so ******* clever that he can do whatever he damn well pleases, and **** everybody else because he reckons he can get away with it.

    If he lived in an inner city and pulled a stunt that displayed such arrogant contempt for the law you'd all be calling him a worthless chav.

    **** him. I hope it bankrupts him.

    WHS. The man is spectacularly cretinous and/or arrogant (even by CUK standards )

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    A stoopid and off the wall idea - but -


    why dont they hire it out to a film company who are making a film about Robin Hood attacking a castle or something, and make a profit out of the demolition




    Leave a comment:


  • PAH
    replied
    Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
    back hurting Nick ?
    My eyes are after seeing that abomination of a house-castle.

    Doesn't look too bad from the front or back, but side on...

    Leave a comment:


  • EternalOptimist
    replied
    Originally posted by NickFitz View Post
    He's a worthless tuliphead who thinks that he's oh so ******* clever that he can do whatever he damn well pleases, and **** everybody else because he reckons he can get away with it.

    If he lived in an inner city and pulled a stunt that displayed such arrogant contempt for the law you'd all be calling him a worthless chav.

    **** him. I hope it bankrupts him.

    back hurting Nick ?


    Leave a comment:


  • monkeyboy
    replied
    I remeber seeing a program about this . Think it might have been that Kevin Mccloud program. Thats It grand designs. The guy basically decided to flought the law. To be honest I hope its demolished. There are ways to get things like this done on the green belt but luckily money isn't the main decider, its how long you have lived on the land. etc etc. So you have to do the hardship to get your house legally. That being said knowing or being counceller helped someone I know to get a new build on there farm.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lockhouse
    replied
    Originally posted by k2p2 View Post
    he deliberately set out to 'get round' the planning laws - wasn't a case of ignorance or misunderstanding.
    Indeed. He knew what he was doing and now should face the consequences.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoredBloke
    replied
    Part of me thinks good on him for doing it - living within a load of straw bales for 4 years can't have been fun and it sounds like he's pissed off the local jobsworth planning bods which is nice. But, you can't have people putting whatever building they want up. He knew there was a risk he'd be forced to pull it down and that risk has realised itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • RichardCranium
    replied
    When I first heard this on the radio (reported in a biased way in his favour) I thought "Ha, ha, good on him".
    Originally posted by NickFitz View Post
    If he lived in an inner city and pulled a stunt that displayed such arrogant contempt for the law you'd all be calling him a worthless chav.
    Some years ago I lived next to a chav family where the head of the household was a violent nasty piece of work who scared the tulip out of the neigbourhood.

    In his back garden was a supposed 'shed' with a huge blue heavy-duty pastlic sheet over the roof. I asked him to remove it because it make so much noise in windy weather that nobody could sleep in the back bedroom.

    He never did remove it, because he didn't have planning permission to build this brick construction that came up to bedroom window height and was the size of 3 garages.

    NF, you've convinced me. Why should it be OK for a farmer who can afford to build his 'castle' to ignore the law, but not the worthless chav scumbag I lived next to?

    Maybe it is our inherent respect for the upper classes and our ingrained training teaches us this bloke is 'landed gentry' and therefore better than us? Or is it because we've become a nation of chavs?

    Leave a comment:


  • eliquant
    replied
    To me the 'castle' looks quite nice so its not an eye sore and its his land.

    The inspectors failed to detect it (ok it was camoflauged) for 4 years after which there should have been no grounds to demolish it but the council decided to ignore this rule.

    Instead of tearing it down why don't they just do a proper asessment of the property for health and safety etc and then if it passes let the 60 year old bloke live the rest of his life in it, this is a special case.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X