T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Mr Fidler said demolition would be like Rembrandt ripping up a masterpiece.
I see he's still coming across as much of a cunt as he did eight years ago.
Mr Fidler said demolition would be like Rembrandt ripping up a masterpiece.
maybe you should though, there's three potential inmates calling out to be caged
Fuckin hobbitsez lord of the rings freaks
Get planning permission like the rest of us have to
I've got an allotment. It doesn't mean I can build the dungeon of my dreams on it though
If the green belt weren't protected the whole of the south east would slowly become one big urban/suburban area. The same thing has happened in China and the US. A metropolis ends up as a megalopolis - the gaps between London and Brighton and Reading and Luton would all get filled in. It would be interesting if we just let it happen. The economy would become even more concentrated in the South East than it is now. There'd be a housing boom. The housing shortage would end. Values in the sticks would crash. You'd be able to go and live pretty well on benefits in remote countryside oop North or in Wales or somewhere. You could buy a field for fifty quid, built an earthship for nothing, live off-grid and relax. Like they do in the desert in the US. But with a welfare state.
I'll ask...Anyone know what the Anarchist position on this would be??
Fucking hell, he's a land owning petit bourgeois. Of course I think he's a twat. What was I on in 2010?
Anyone know what the Anarchist position on this would be??
I hate this modern thread bumping habit.
Preserve the building but give it to people. What you have here is a capitalist cunt who thought he was above the law & a council who cares only what the scenery looks like. The result is the demolition of a perfectly good building. Anarchists would place the capitalist against the nearest wall & kill him in the face, tear down the whole rotten edifice of the (presumably Tory controlled?)council & give the building to its rightful owners, the people.Anyone know what the Anarchist position on this would be??
I am not an Anarchist but this sounds about right to me and I am pretty sure that someone could be persuaded to take it on e.g if the alternative was 60s high-rise accommodation.Normally I'd say preserve the building but evict the cunt who built it and turn it into social housing, but this particular building is just too fugly to live.
Built in 2002, he's had a good 13 years of use so far.
I wonder if he applied for planning permission in the first place if he would've got it. It doesn't look like a complete eyesore to me.
I wonder if he applied for planning permission in the first place if he would've got it.
I'm sure it would depend upon how well hebribedlunched the planning committee.
Anyone know what the Anarchist position on this would be??
Built in 2002, he's had a good 13 years of use so far.
I wonder if he applied for planning permission in the first place if he would've got it. It doesn't look like a complete eyesore to me.
From what I recall, he started the construction duplicitously (building behind a massive hayrick he did have permission for), and always intended to present the "castle" to planning authorities as a fait accompli
I think you might get retroactive permission for putting up an outside shitter, or an extension. Something small. But a bloody castle? the council will not be mocked
From what I recall, he started the construction duplicitously (building behind a massive hayrick he did have permission for), and always intended to present the "castle" to planning authorities as a fait accompli
Preserve the building but give it to people. What you have here is a capitalist cunt who thought he was above the law & a council who cares only what the scenery looks like. The result is the demolition of a perfectly good building. Anarchists would place the capitalist against the nearest wall & kill him in the face, tear down the whole rotten edifice of the (presumably Tory controlled?)council & give the building to its rightful owners, the people.
I'm sure it would depend upon how well hebribedlunched the planning committee.
Newport Crown Court heard how Kim Davies, 60, had made extensive changes after buying the house in 2007, wrecking its Regency features and replacing them with modern and mock-Tudor ones. One bedroom had been converted into a bathroom fitted with a mosaic-carved Jacuzzi.
At an earlier hearing in Abergavenny Magistrates Court which could not be reported until now for legal reasons, Carl Harrison, for Brecon Beacons National Park Authority (BBNPA), said Davies had destroyed the character of the Grade II listed building – one of the top 9% of listed buildings in Wales.