THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: 0bsessions on 25 Jan 2008, 07:55
-
The single best "Haha, gotcha!" moment in the history of everything. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080125/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_britain_castle)
Bluntly speaking, there's not an insane amount of discussion that can be made of this, but this is something I feel everyone should see. It is the ultimate mix of awesome mixed with incompetance on a government's part.
I'd tell you what it's about, but really, it's better taken as a surprise.
-
Ah, yes, I saw that this morning when I logged on. I think they should let him keep it just because they were stupid enough to let it go this long.
-
That person is my hero.
That is all.
Well, the kid might have been too, if he actually drew the picture. But no. He didn't. That would have been an even better story.
-
"I understand there is also a cannon."
Nice.
-
Ah, yes, I saw that this morning when I logged on. I think they should let him keep it just because they were stupid enough to let it go this long.
No shit, huh? Seriously, how incompetant do you have to be to let something like that evade your notice for four years?
The way the official responds sounds like a little kid crying about someone cheating at kickball. Seriously, the dude beat the system, get over it and let him enjoy it.
-
4 years behind a screen of hay bales. This guy and his castle are awesome.
-
Supercool, that family is just win, forever. They wouldn't have been allowed to build there at all, and he goes off and builds a fucking castle. How can bales of hay sit in the same place in a giant wall for four years and nobody thought to check it out? Damn, that is some lazy government workers.
-
England- What the hell?
-
Personally, I think this man is amazing, and the Surrey council can go fuck themselves. This man should be allowed to keep his castle, he's already been living in it for four years. He is my hero for the day.
-
Seriously, the English government and this dude's neighbors can go fucking cry. How do you miss something like that? For four years, the dude had an absolutely hideous eyesore of a forty foot high stack of hay and tarps and nobody complains? He outright lived in there. They would come in and out of a pile of hay and nobody found it suspicious? Fuck 'em, any idiot should've been able to pick up on it over such a large span of time. This is all just sour grapes on the part of those wanting it torn down. Suffice to say, it's a really nice looking house and I'd much rather look at that on a day to day basis than a huge stack of hay.
-
A BLOO BLA BLOO BLOOO I WANT A CASTLE
-
An Englishman's home is his castle, as the saying goes.
In my case, it's almost true. My house is over a hundred years old and has four foot thick granite walls. It could probably withstand the zombie apocolypse.
-
I find it hilarious that on the same page as "BLINK! And then there's a house!" is a story basically saying "BLINK! And then there's NO house!"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080125/ap_on_fe_st/odd_missing_home;_ylt=AiNesvUa052BTLPx1FbH78uek3QF
Alternate title: "Dude! Where's my house?"
-
An Englishman's home is his castle, as the saying goes.
In my case, it's almost true. My house is over a hundred years old and has four foot thick granite walls. It could probably withstand the zombie apocolypse.
Man. How the fuck am I supposed to get to Scotland on such short notice?
-
I think it'd be more funny if they tore it down. Might be better for the family, too. I imagine they'll try and throw as many weird taxes at them as they can.
-
So, this wasn't 30 miles south of London Iowa? Stupid American Press.
Its kinda like Squaters Rights in Texas, if you're there long enough, they can't remove you.
-
That's a very Texan way to approach things. "We've been here for a long time. Try and move us and we'll get our shotguns."
-
What i don't get is that he's trying to get around zoning laws that wouldn't have let him build it in the first place if he tried to do it legally from the start, yet there are neighbours complaining.... How did they manage it?
And never mind the hay bales standing there for four years. Why didn't anybody notice, four years ago, that there was suddenly a massive wall of haybales with construction stuff vanishing behind it?
Let him keep it and have a good laugh at yourself for being an idiot. (This is aimed at the idiots wanting to tear it down, not the idiots who think I'm an idiot who thinks the guy that started this thread has something to do with the idiots who want to tear the house down)
Ooo and and and.. If he owns the land (which i guess he'd have to do to build a house there), why can't he have a house on it?
-
He wouldn't be allowed because it's green belt land, the UK is massively overbuilt so there's been a lot of regulations but in place to stop any of the little non-urban land there is disappearing and to instead redevelop disused areas in the cities and towns. And I'm guessing that his neighbours didn't notice because it must be pretty far back from the roads on private land for him to get away with this.
Still, it's an excellent bit of cheekery so I hope he gets away with it.
-
The only way this would be any more awesome is if it were Terry Pratchett who did it.
-
Well, I have two cannons.
-
To be honest, big piles of hay are quite a common occurrence on farms, I believe. I've often seen trailers with twenty or so foot high piles of hay that extend about five feet to either side of the trailer carrering down small back roads at twnety miles an hour, so a forty foot high pile probably wouldn't be that uncommon.
Nonetheless, I am all in favour of him getting away with. Yes, it's illegal and we all shouldn't be doing and blah blah fucking blah, but I admire his cheekosity.
-
I agree with rewarding people for being clever enough to get around a system, but I don't see how the British government can let him keep it without setting a dangerous precedent. I mean, environmental laws are hard enough to enforce without people being able to point at examples like this and say, "But he got away with it."
That said, wow. Hiding a castle is pretty damn badass.
-
He should keep it, it isn't like they don't have any way to notice it. If they couldn't pull their heads far enough out of their hindsides to notice it, too damn bad. The law specifically states that if there is no objection for four years, it stays. Do they really want to make a precedent of not obeying their own laws?
-
I mean, environmental laws are hard enough to enforce without people being able to point at examples like this and say, "But he got away with it."
They can always go back and fix the law to state that it must be in plain sight after this case.
I think they should let him keep it. He outsmarted them and built a lovely castle. He also has a cannon, which should make the others reconsider.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
They can always go back and fix the law to state that it must be in plain sight after this case.
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.
-
If they try to demolish it, I hope he lies down in the mud in front of the bulldozer.
-
Lizzybeth, I think Linds meant that they would change the law to stipulate that the four years rule only counts if you aren't being a sneaky sneaky house hider.
-
This whole thing brings to mind The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy...only the homeowner is the one who was 'clearly' displaying something and the government doesn't want it to happen.
-
So instead of the homeowner lying down in front of a bulldozer, it should be the council going and lying down in the homeowner's bed?
-
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.
Man, if this guy has his house bulldozed, I'm going to sue Nintendo for that 100 rupees or so I lost to that prick whose bush I burned down back in like 1989.
-
Lizzybeth, I think Linds meant that they would change the law to stipulate that the four years rule only counts if you aren't being a sneaky sneaky house hider.
Ah. Well, er. That would make sense. Sorry if I stepped on your toes, Linds.
(but how would they enforce that?)
-
True... if the government had record of it being out in the open, it would be noticed, and objected to. Possibly there would need to be testimony from neighbors or something?
-
I think alot of people might be looking past the fact that this dude BUILT A FUCKING CASTLE WITH HIS BARE HANDS. He could not have gotten help, had a job to do while building it, raised a kid, how the hell? Someone please tell me he took time off work or employed some people from a certain country who have come here for work. (Lots of them looking for work across here and not many could speak english (I know this, I sold them laptops) so they could not report it to the authorities)
-
I think alot of people might be looking past the fact that this dude BUILT A FUCKING CASTLE WITH HIS BARE HANDS
Not quite as weird/impressive as the legendary Coral Castle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_Castle).
-
Congrats to anyone who beats the english planning permission bullshit. It's a pain up everyones ass.
They won't even let us have a fucking gas tank! Aarrrrgghhh!
-
Lizzybeth, I think Linds meant that they would change the law to stipulate that the four years rule only counts if you aren't being a sneaky sneaky house hider.
Ah. Well, er. That would make sense. Sorry if I stepped on your toes, Linds.
(but how would they enforce that?)
Yeah, Slick got it right. And it's ok. Basically, they didn't word the law right, so the guy found a loophole (that may or may not work out well for him). I'm guessing they'd enforce it in the way they meant it to - if they don't think your house fits with the law and someone contests to it, you have to tear it down. Which would have happened long before this guy's house was finished if it hadn't been hidden behind the massive wall of hay. By changing the law to force the house in question to be in plain sight, no one else can get away with doing the same thing and making the excuse that soandso did it.
Did this guy have a house on the land in the first place? If so, why not tear down his old house and convert it back to greenspace? I have no idea how this whole land thing works out as I don't live there.
-
I believe the reason for not tearing down pre-existing dwellings (if they existed) is the same for not tearing down a dwelling that hasn't had objection from the council for four years: it's a pretty stone-cold thing to say 'hey, you, tear down your home and get moving!', while saying 'don't you go developing this land' is a somewhat reasonable thing for a planning authority to say.
I don't have the time, or really the interest to look into their zoning laws, but I would figure that the intent here is to prevent the land from becoming another suburb. Neighbours said they 'though he was building a barn', which implies that construction of farming buildings probably isn't a problem, and could explain why people didn't think anything of any signs of construction until they actual saw the structure.