Fun Stuff > CHATTER
Englishman Beats System, England Cries About It
Jimmy the Squid:
I'm not so sure he should be allowed to keep it. I understand that the council is a bunch of idiots if they didn't bother to look behind the hay but still I'm not sure he'll be allowed to keep it as he deliberately made it a secret. He was aware of the illegality of what he was doing and just because you get away with something doesn't make it ok. On the other hand it's really funny that he outsmarted the government but I'm pretty sure you don't get let off for sheer cheek.
Nodaisho:
--- Quote from: JimmytheSquid on 25 Jan 2008, 19:30 ---I'm not so sure he should be allowed to keep it. I understand that the council is a bunch of idiots if they didn't bother to look behind the hay but still I'm not sure he'll be allowed to keep it as he deliberately made it a secret. He was aware of the illegality of what he was doing and just because you get away with something doesn't make it ok. On the other hand it's really funny that he outsmarted the government but I'm pretty sure you don't get let off for sheer cheek.
--- End quote ---
Actually, as far as I can tell from that law, getting away with it *does* make it okay. The government is just getting pissy because the law is working against them.
Slick:
The government is getting pissy because a guy totally abused the spirit of the law to build on a green belt. The point of the law is to prevent you from having to demolish your home if you've been there for a while without problem, but being purposefully deceitful to exploit a good-intention law is a dick move that makes the world a worse place.
To argue it in court, it'll take a look the exact wording of the law and the obligations of landowners to file construction plans.
This seems a little silly to me, because now, instead of talking about fixing the world, the government's got to spend a little while talking about how to word their squatter's laws better.
Elizzybeth:
--- Quote from: Linds on 25 Jan 2008, 19:22 ---They can always go back and fix the law to state that it must be in plain sight after this case.
--- End quote ---
So that, in a case like this, they could charge him with obscuring his residence instead of building in a green zone, you mean? It seems like a kind of ineffective way of closing the loophole--the 4-year rule would still apply. Plus, I can imagine a lot of people wanting their homes not to be visible from the road (though most people use gates and hedges and ivy rather than, er, hay bales).
Not that sillier property laws haven't been passed.
Jackie Blue:
If they try to demolish it, I hope he lies down in the mud in front of the bulldozer.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version