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

the.ciscokid

mynameisdave wrote: »

The guy owns his farmhouse acres and acres of land and has enough cash to construct a 5(?) bedroom house.

He is not ordinary in any sense. And YOU are paying for him to do it yet seem thrilled.

Yes I am obviously delighted. I cannot afford a house, and have no land, as I was not born into wealth and power.

My opinion is that I think people are missing the bigger picture, and just buying into whatever the main stream media are telling us.

In this a country the planning rules keep land prices artificially high by setting arbitrary regulation to suit the powers that be. If you are of suitable influence you get what you want, if however you are not of suitable influence, someone from the council can come round and tell you to knock down your house at your own expense, which happens to be on your land. Forget the aspect regarding his ownership of tracts of land in this case, that is a red herring... it's all about the legislation in a "democracy" that prevents freedom.

"It's the rulez, init". Who made those rules, and why? My opinion is that people need to think about the bigger picture.

The planning rules protect no one, except the elites, and yet you seem to be thrilled by that.

mynameisdave

So we allow the landed elite to build over the countryside.

Retain all the houses and not put them on the open market.

The still own the land. House prices don't come down as there are no extra houses for sale. You still don't own a house and now you cant even escape to the country because we live in a tarmac paradise.

There is thousands of acres of brownfield sites that can be used for housing development. There are tens of thousands of empty homes.

Why not allow councils to build houses all over the remaining playing fields and parks in some of our cities. They own the land after all. Council houses with 100ft gardens? Sod em, build another house on it.

Gwhiz

the.ciscokid wrote: »

No, not yet.

Does a view that is contrary to yours automatically indicate a troll? It's a fairly weak rebuttle in all honesty.

Go and do some joined-up thinking and then come back to me!

the.ciscokid

Gwhiz wrote: »

Go and do some joined-up thinking and then come back to me!

With this sort of nonsense in your lexicon, I assume you must be a statist. That would certainly explain the vacuous replies in any case.

Gwhiz

the.ciscokid wrote: »

With this sort of nonsense in your lexicon, I assume you must be a statist. That would certainly explain the vacuous replies in any case.

:rotfl:You really do have issues, don't you! I'll not be replying any more.. but feel free to have another go.

the.ciscokid

mynameisdave wrote: »

So we allow the landed elite to build over the countryside.

Yes that is exactly what would happen, the landed elite would build lots of houses, everywhere just for the hell of it.

mynameisdave wrote: »

Retain all the houses and not put them on the open market.

Which houses, the ones they built?

mynameisdave wrote: »

The still own the land. House prices don't come down as there are no extra houses for sale. You still don't own a house and now you cant even escape to the country because we live in a tarmac paradise.

So you are saying the elites would creat a tarmac paradise that only they can "enjoy". Why would they do that? I don't think you have that much faith in people.

mynameisdave wrote: »

There is thousands of acres of brownfield sites that can be used for housing development. There are tens of thousands of empty homes.

I wholeheartedly agree. I think this is now missing the point though, as I assume the chap in the Daily Hate story didn't own any of that though. As an aside, has utterly destroyed the surrounding countryside, and turned it into a tarmac paradise?

The point I am getting at here, is not about this particular person (I really don't care about the individual), it's about freedom. If I were to own a home, that I want to make some improvements to, why should I, under threat of violence be forced to ask someone else for permission? What has it got to do with them, or you for that matter?

mynameisdave wrote: »

Why not allow councils to build houses all over the remaining playing fields and parks in some of our cities. They own the land after all. Council houses with 100ft gardens? Sod em, build another house on it.

Would they do that, given the option? Would you want to live somewher with no green areas, or where everything was a tarmac paradise? I wouldn't, so it wouldn't be built if enough people felt the same, would it?

kaya

Gwhiz wrote: »

:rotfl:You really do have issues, don't you! I'll not be replying any more.. but feel free to have another go.

The term "arrogance" keeps spinning around in my head for some reason.

fc123

RDB wrote: »

Thats exactly what Mr Fidler has done. The most amazing part of it all is he seems to have got away with it and he is allowed to keep the castle.

Hi, I follow this thread just to know the outcome.

Are you saying he can keep it afterall?

mynameisdave

The point I am getting at here, is not about this particular person (I really don't care about the individual), it's about freedom. If I were to own a home, that I want to make some improvements to, why should I, under threat of violence be forced to ask someone else for permission? What has it got to do with them, or you for that matter?

The same freedoms gives your next door neighbour the right to turn his house into a pub and his garden into a carpark. Still, that could be a good thing. I suppose its better than him turning it into a nightclub.

Would they do that, given the option? Would you want to live somewher with no green areas, or where everything was a tarmac paradise? I wouldn't, so it wouldn't be built if enough people felt the same, would it?

If enough people felt what way? You dont get a say if you dont own the land. If you cant afford to buy, you rent. If you cant rent privately you get on the council list. If you want a council property you live where you are told to.

Oh, and of course not. Thats why there are laws to stop people building all over the countryside.

the.ciscokid

mynameisdave wrote: »

The same freedoms gives your next door neighbour the right to turn his house into a pub and his garden into a carpark. Still, that could be a good thing. I suppose its better than him turning it into a nightclub.

So now you are saying a man cannot try to earn a living without your say so. It's a slippery slope.

mynameisdave wrote: »

If enough people felt what way? You dont get a say if you dont own the land.

But why should I be able allowed to force people to do what I want, and not what they want?

I don't agree with the ownership of most of the land in the uk being with a select few people who have inherited this land from their forefathers who gained it with the use of violence by the way, quite the opposite. These laws though prevent me doing things because someone else arbitrarily doesn't like it, is just a continuation of serfdom, where we are the serfs, and big states (and powerful lobbies/ influencial people) are the masters who rule by threat if violence.

I genuinely cannot work out why people are happy to see the state make a man pull down a house that he built with his own resources for his family. It can only be envy, surely?

mynameisdave wrote: »

If you cant afford to buy, you rent. If you cant rent privately you get on the council list. If you want a council property you live where you are told to.

Don't know what this has to do with it, but I agree.

mynameisdave wrote: »

Oh, and of course not. Thats why there are laws to stop people building all over the countryside.

Why do you need to threaten people with violence though? Can't you just trust them?