'illegal' mock-Tudor castle he tried to hide behind 40ft hay bales

Dinah93

As I say, if its going to the high court the clock is stopped, and his year will only start when they make their judgement (assuming theirs is also to pull it down). Equally, if he just decided to ignore the decision and the clock ran out a month ago, and nothing is going to the high court, then the council need a little time to serve notice on him that they are going to tear it down.

crazygaijin

can he really be on benefits? does anyone know?

crazygaijin

I just found out, he is getting legal aid, and has been all this time.

He is on benefits so nothing to lose by keep on apealing, its not costing him anything.

Welshwoofs

Having seen photos of the place, I firmly believe it should be bulldozed even if it'd been built with full planning permission. 'Mock Tudor Castle' - jesus, that's a phrase to strike fear into the heart of any architect. What a bleeding monstrosity!

RabbitMad

Welshwoofs wrote: »

Having seen photos of the place, I firmly believe it should be bulldozed even if it'd been built with full planning permission. 'Mock Tudor Castle' - jesus, that's a phrase to strike fear into the heart of any architect. What a bleeding monstrosity!

I agree that 'Mock Tudor Castle' is a phase that would worry me but I disagree in this case. I think the building is quite well built and reasonably tasteful. I certainly prefer this "Mock Tudor" style to two pies mock tudor beams that we paid for but were essential to him being able to perform his duty as an MP.

Gorgeous_George

It was built without planning consent. It should be demolished and legal aid should not be abused in this way.

Using loopholes in legal aid rules will lead to the abolition of legal aid and should be wholeheartedly condemned by every taxpayer in the UK.

GG

roses

Hasn't this been knocked down yet? This has been going on for years now.

MrsE_2

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

It was built without planning consent. It should be demolished and legal aid should not be abused in this way.

Using loopholes in legal aid rules will lead to the abolition of legal aid and should be wholeheartedly condemned by every taxpayer in the UK.

GG

I agree legal aid should not be used by lawbreakers.

But should criminals found gulity who've had legal aid have to pay it back:think:

Gorgeous_George

MrsE wrote: »

I agree legal aid should not be used by lawbreakers.

But should criminals found gulity who've had legal aid have to pay it back:think:

If found guilty, the sentence should come with a premium to recognise the cost to the taxpayer (the premium could be a heftier fune, longer sentence or less desirable prison).

All prisoners shpould be given prisoner loans (like student loans but with punitive rates of interest) to be repaid on their release.



GG

mess0804

I think if it has been built it shouldn't be demolished.
It should be taken away from him because he done it against the law.
and should be used for something good: like putting foster families or putting mothers with children that had to run from an abusive father or other good purpose.
Not just tear it down, because it's not architectural to anyone’s taste, but use it for something good, as to build something of this size to be used by an organization it would cost the government money. to tear it down it would cost the government money. Just take it from him and use it for something it’s the most common sense. (but when will common sense be used in this country???)