Support NeoGAF

[thetrin]

Going back to this, this just demonstrates that what's against the law is subjective. In many places in Nevada for instance, brothels and casinos are not against the law (as long as you follow regulations), but they still probably won't let you put a brothel or a casino if you buy some land that's in a residential neighborhood right next to a park or school, you can't put a brothel on the Las Vegas Strip, etc. And in most places in the world, you probably can't build a helipad, gas station or strip club in residential neighborhoods.

What about if I wanted to build Trin's Strippers and Gas, with Helicopter access?

 

[Jeff Albertson]

This is perfectly fair, he deserves to have it demolished.

He was on something like Homes from hell a year or two ago, the guy knew the rules and regulations and blatantly tried to flaunt them.

Why should I have to get planning permission for a small extention yet this tool thinks he's above it?

A good call has been made here, if we all flaunt laws and stuff no matter how seemingly small society goes even further into the shit.

 

[Vespasian]

As awesome as that castle house is, he really shouldn't have just gone and built it without planning permission. It's a god damn castle house, is the investment really worth the gamble that the authorities weren't going to find out about it?

 

[RedShift]

See the bit where he hid the development of his house with haybales and such? The only reason he'd have to go to such extremes is because his ugly building offended the people who would have to live around it and there was no other way he'd get planning permission. Don't see why this guy should be exempt from the law.

 

[EvilMario]

Dude built a castle. County wouldn't even let my parents turn the garage into a bedroom.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

What would John Locke do?

 

[Crazymoogle]

This is perfectly fair, he deserves to have it demolished.

But why go to the expense, effort, and resources needed to demolish it?

Seems better to just seize it, get it inspected, and sell it?

 

[gentlemanfinn]

The fact that the value of anyone's house can be altered because of someone else's house is ridiculous in the first place.

Where I'm from, houses with a view to water have a higher value then houses that don't.
Question:Say you own a house with a view to some water, and then one of your neighbors builds an extra floor and blocks this view. Wouldn't this alter the value of your house?

Answer:

Spoiler

yes, the value of your house would decrease

 

[Puddles]

If doing something like this legally requires a person to jump through so many ridiculous hoops that he would be sufficiently motivated to do it illegally, then clearly it's time to take a look at streamlining the process of legally modifying your home.

 

[Vennt]

But why go to the expense, effort, and resources needed to demolish it?

Seems better to just seize it, get it inspected, and sell it?

Because you're missing the reason for requiring Planning Permission in the first place.

Part of the planning process allows neighbours to object to a building/development, if there is significant enough objections that the planning commitees feel valid then planning is rejected, a judgement of your local peers if you like. By allowing the building to remain the locals have no recourse to object to it's presense, or share their views on it's effect on the neighbourhood.

That "wrong" isn't righted by punishing the person involved, that wrong is righted by undoing the damage.

 

[thebestjess]

wtf

 

[GDGF]

Shame about his castle. Kinda wish he'd go medieval on their asses and defend it to the death, though.

What's the point of having a castle if you're not willing to defend it to the death?

 

[satriales]

If you build something without planning permission then you know that there is a risk the council will tell you to undo it. He built a castle without permission and now he has been told to undo what he built. Pretty standard and fair verdict.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Wasn't there a previous case from the UK where the courts decided to apply the plain text-meaning of the law? I think it was referencing the guy that turned the gun into a police station, but was still arrested for having a gun?

Funny now that they don't want to apply the plain-text of the law when it doesn't exactly suit their interests. Nowhere in that statute cited in the article by the man's lawyer does it take into account "deception." Or anything else. There may be more to the statute, but as of now, him deciding to cover the structure does not seem to be addressed at all.

 

[NotWii]

Man should fart in the authorities general direction and catapult livestock at them

 

[sc0la]

Look, I'm of the belief that if I own the property, I can build what ever the fuck I want as long as I'm not building places that are against the law. (brothels, casinos, ect...)

If this man owned his land, then I say let him have whatever he builds on it.

Yeah. Fuck building codes and planning law! I own the land I can build what I want!**





...
Ask the Haitians how that shit worked out for them.


**

Spoiler

But I reserve the right to bitch about what my neighbor or uber-corp LLC down the road when they build what they want to on their property.

 

[iapetus]

Funny now that they don't want to apply the plain-text of the law when it doesn't exactly suit their interests. Nowhere in that statute cited in the article by the man's lawyer does it take into account "deception."

And they don't claim that it does. The legal case is that in this case, removing the bales surrounding the 'castle' counts as a final part of the construction process, and as such he isn't outside the period during which he can be done for breaching planning rules.

 

[SmokyDave]

How on earth did 'Big Brother' manage to get crowbarred in here?

Should've built it behind a dentist's office.

Shameful Count, I expect better from you

 

[Metroid Killer]

Shameful Count, I expect better from you

What's the joke? I don't get it.

 

[SmokyDave]

What's the joke? I don't get it.

It isn't a (very good*) joke, it's the old "Everyone in England has fucked teeth".

It comes up all the time and the double standard doesn't really bother me, it's just that I didn't expect it from CD.

*edited for Waikis benefit.

 

[Waikis]

It isn't a joke, it's the old "Everyone in England has fucked teeth".

It comes up all the time and the double standard doesn't really bother me, it's just that I didn't expect it from CD.

Sure it's a joke. It's a hyperbolic statement which highlights the aversion of the british public to attending a dentist,such that even if you build a castle next to it, nobody would even notice it.

 

[Smash88]

Strawman
Junior Member
(Today, 01:37 PM)
Reply | Quote

...

...

...

:lol

Jayge

Join Date: 04-20-2009

Strawman

Join Date: 01-25-2008

:lol

Don't be a dick head.

Oh and the castle is bitchin'.

 

[Chuckie]

Man should fart in the authorities general direction and catapult livestock at them

Or even better yet.... plague-ridden human corpses.

 

[Strawman]

ever heard of apartment buildings? it happens.

Not really. Apartment buildings get built of course but not so close together that they block out sunlight 24/7 from surrounding houses. In the Uk at least the planning laws stop you from building high fences or growing shrubbery that would block the view or sunlight from reaching your neighbours. Its all quite sensible really. Although I have no objections to the look of this "castle" the fact is we have limited green areas in the UK and these laws are there to protect the greenbelt areas we have left - which are slowly being eroded anyway due to increasing housing demands.

 

[Count Dookkake]

It isn't a (very good*) joke, it's the old "Everyone in England has fucked teeth".

It comes up all the time and the double standard doesn't really bother me, it's just that I didn't expect it from CD.

1) An old joke can still be a good one. Depends on the execution.

2) There is no double standard. I make jokes about all sorts of things.

3) I am English and my teeth are in decent shape.

4) It was just a silly joke.

Spoiler

Brush it off.

 

[SmokyDave]

1) An old joke can still be a good one. Depends on the execution.

2) There is no double standard. I make jokes about all sorts of things.

3) I am English and my teeth are in decent shape.

4) It was just a silly joke.

Spoiler

Brush it off.

1, True, but that particular joke is old, played out and way beneath your usual standard.
2, I meant the GAF double standard pertaining to 'protected' groups.
3, I know, your rapier-like wit gave it away.
4, That's much more like it

 

[LizardKing]

And they don't claim that it does. The legal case is that in this case, removing the bales surrounding the 'castle' counts as a final part of the construction process, and as such he isn't outside the period during which he can be done for breaching planning rules.

yeah but use your head. we all know that's bullshit. it's akin to saying any altering of the grounds on which the structure is built, equates to altering your structure itself. They are not taking the statute at its specific wording. They "interpreted" it in a way to get the result they wanted. The fact is this guy exploited a loop hole. To all you people saying the law is the law and needs to be followed, you should be for letting his home stand. That is the law. Not the bullshit "interpretation" by the court.

edit: It also says "substantially" completed a property for more than four years.... Pretty sure there's no way you can reasonably say the removing of hay bales is a substantial part of a property construction. maybe he should leave them up and say his property isn't completed.

 

[Nerevar]

yeah but use your head. we all know that's bullshit. it's akin to saying any altering of the grounds on which the structure is built, equates to altering your structure itself. They are not taking the statute at its specific wording. They "interpreted" it in a way to get the result they wanted. The fact is this guy exploited a loop hole. To all you people saying the law is the law and needs to be followed, you should be for letting his home stand. That is the law. Not the bullshit "interpretation" by the court.

edit: It also says "substantially" completed a property for more than four years.... Pretty sure there's no way you can reasonably say the removing of hay bales is a substantial part of a property construction. maybe he should leave them up and say his property isn't completed.

:lol

Apparently you don't understand the role of the judiciary in American or British legal systems. Nice try though.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

:lol

Apparently you don't understand the role of the judiciary in American or British legal systems. Nice try though.

Condescending douchebag responses are really annoying on GAF. At least pretend to address/refute the argument in a meaningful way. That does absolutely nothing to add to the discussion.

No shit the job of the judiciary is to "interpret" the law; I think everyone in this thread knows that already, however, I was just pointing out that in one area they want to apply the plain-text interpretation and, in another, they want to apply a different standard in order to get what they want, come off as tough, etc. No it isn't exclusive to the UK, but seeing as this is a British story...

 

[Nerevar]

Condescending douchebag responses are really annoying on GAF. At least pretend to address/refute the argument in a meaningful way.

No shit the job of the judiciary is to "interpret" the law, however, I was just pointing out that in one area they want to apply the plain-text interpretation and, in another, they want to apply a different standard in order to get what they want, come off as tough, etc. No it isn't exclusive to the UK, but seeing as this is a British story...

Except the post was a comparison of an arrest (by a police officer, who is bound by the law and obliged to follow it to the letter) and the result of a court case (where the role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law). It's a stupid example and demonstrates either a lack of knowledge regarding how the law is created and applied or someone trying to reach to prove a point. As for condescending responses, welcome to the internet.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Jayge

Join Date: 04-20-2009

Strawman

Join Date: 01-25-2008

:lol

Don't be a dick head.

Oh and the castle is bitchin'.

Y'know he wasn't quoting it for the junior status but the "strawman" name right?

Shouldn't have to explain someone's joke but uhh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So yeah.

 

[LizardKing]

:lol

Apparently you don't understand the role of the judiciary in American or British legal systems. Nice try though.

uhhh, when the fuck did i say the job of the judiciary system isn't to interpret the law? i was just making the point that the interpretation was bullshit. yes of course it's my opinion.

edit: hmm, ok in rereading my post i can see where you could have misunderstood what i was getting at. my quotations on "interpret" were meant to mock the interpretation because i feel it was interpreted that way for the wrong reasons. ie, the guy figured out the loophole, and exploited it, and now they are adding things that aren't there to make him pay. not because i think the courts aren't supposed to interpret law (where ambiguous, which afaik, this does not seem to be)

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Except the post was a comparison of an arrest (by a police officer, who is bound by the law and obliged to follow it to the letter) and the result of a court case (where the role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law). It's a stupid example and demonstrates either a lack of knowledge regarding how the law is created and applied or someone trying to reach to prove a point. As for condescending responses, welcome to the internet.

I was never calling into question the actions of the police officers at all; I was talking about post-arrest and the court phase. All I was saying is that in the court's interpretation of that case, they applied the plain-text of the law. Man had gun, guns are illegal, you are guilty and therefore face punishment. Disregarding the fact that he took maybe not the best step, but a responsible/reasonable one by alerting the police and bringing the gun in.

In this case, I have a hard time finding any plain-text violations of the law. However, the courts in this case decided to add some of their "interpretation" in order to find the man guilty and order the house be demolished.

 

[MisterHero]

I feel compelled to write a movie screenplay that will bend the public's opinion sharply in favor of the castle builder

 

[Freshmaker]

I feel compelled to write a movie screenplay that will bend the public's opinion sharply in favor of the castle builder

The Castleronaut Farmer?

"STOP building this castle, and focus on the FAMILY!"

 

[Panipal2009]

Except the post was a comparison of an arrest (by a police officer, who is bound by the law and obliged to follow it to the letter) and the result of a court case (where the role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply the law). It's a stupid example and demonstrates either a lack of knowledge regarding how the law is created and applied or someone trying to reach to prove a point. As for condescending responses, welcome to the internet.

They both seem like examples of the petty-mindedness and vindictiveness of the British authorities. Especially when you consider that guy who was arrested for bringing a gun into a police station...had gotten into an argument with a traffic warden a couple of months before. Amazingly a loaded shotgun finds its way into his garden, setting up his eventual arrest quite nicely.

Also, what LizardKing said about hay bales being a substantial part of construction. Come on, really? That sounds like a sensible interpretation of the law to you?

 

[SmokyDave]

They both seem like examples of the petty-mindedness and vindictiveness of the British authorities. Especially when you consider that guy who was arrested for bringing a gun into a police station...had gotten into an argument with a traffic warden a couple of months before. Amazingly a loaded shotgun finds its way into his garden, setting up his eventual arrest quite nicely.

Also, what LizardKing said about hay bales being a substantial part of construction. Come on, really? That sounds like a sensible interpretation of the law to you?

I'm not saying this is the reasoning behind it but the bales were an essential part of the construction in that they obscured the portions of the building that were being erected without permission. If he'd done this without the hay bales and without planning permission he'd probably have been nabbed before construction was completed and before he was able to get the photo in the OP into the press.

 

[teddyboi]

He's just trying to get on a reality show or something. Bulldoze that shit!

 

[charsace]

He owns the property so why can't he keep it? Just make sure it is up to stuff and fine him. Case closed.

 

[Smash88]

Y'know he wasn't quoting it for the junior status but the "strawman" name right?

Shouldn't have to explain someone's joke but uhh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So yeah.

If so then my bad. :lol

Although, if he really wanted to get his point across, he would've just quoted his name....

 

[numble]

Apparently, this is in the middle of farmland.

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...-must-tear-down-castle-he-hid-behind-straw-/1

Robert Fidler initially wanted to convert a cow shed into a home but was told it could be used only for industrial purposes. He then began secretly building his luxury mock-Tudor castle in 2002 and kept it under wraps behind giant hay bales and a tarpaulin until it was finished in 2006. After he and his family had lived in it for a few years he sought retroactive permission from the local planning body.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123333892&ps=cprs

He says he had applied in 1996 to build a house on his farmland, but the authorities wouldn't grant him permission.
...
Fidler and his wife went to such extreme lengths to keep the home hidden that they kept their son from going to preschool the day he was supposed to draw his home.

"We thought it was unwise to let him go to school that day in case he drew a stack of hay," Fidler says.

The home was hidden well. While the building was under construction, the local government sent someone to look for the building and couldn't find it, Fidler says.

It was "certainly not high enough where you couldn't have bent a ladder against and climbed over it and looked over the top," he says.

The court ruled that the four-year limit on ordering a demolition did not apply in this case in that Fidler could not benefit from his deception.

Fidler, who has vowed to appeal the decision, is confident he won't have to tear down his home.

"We believe that God is involved in our case," he says. "The [authorities] were unable to find it because it was protected. And that's why we believe that this house or this castle — or whatever you want to call it — will stand here forever."

 

[iapetus]

yeah but use your head. we all know that's bullshit. it's akin to saying any altering of the grounds on which the structure is built, equates to altering your structure itself.

No, it really isn't. It's like saying that you haven't finished building works until the scaffolding comes down.

It's certainly no more bullshit than what he was trying to pull.

 

[Jasoco]

Wait. This is an old old old story. Did someone copy what another family did like two years ago? Where they built a wall of hay bales and built a castle home behind it.

Doesn't anyone else remember that story?

Edit: Yeah. Isn't this that same castle? I swear we had the thread about it in 2006 or 2007.

 

[Strawman]

Y'know he wasn't quoting it for the junior status but the "strawman" name right?

Shouldn't have to explain someone's joke but uhh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

So yeah.

Aha yeh, thing is that wasnt in my mind when I chose this username! Still the guy said that a landowner should be able to do whatever they want on land they own so Im not sure I came up with a strawman argument anyway!

 

[Jeff Albertson]

Wait. This is an old old old story. Did someone copy what another family did like two years ago? Where they built a wall of hay bales and built a castle home behind it.

Doesn't anyone else remember that story?

Edit: Yeah. Isn't this that same castle? I swear we had the thread about it in 2006 or 2007.

Same guy, same castle he was on homes from hell as well a year or two ago

 

[numble]

Also, what LizardKing said about hay bales being a substantial part of construction. Come on, really? That sounds like a sensible interpretation of the law to you?

It's not just hay bales, he covered up the place with tarpaulin as well. The planning people said he could do stuff to his cow barn as long as its for industrial use, anybody driving by would think that it is a cow barn that was still under construction or renovation.