Man's 'secret castle' ordered destroyed by British authorities;

reply to post by SyphonX


I think it's a very nice home/castle and he should be allowed to keep it. At worse he should just pay the back taxes or whatever and still keep the place. I bet this would be a good draw to the public to see this.

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
Next time he should build his home underground,and leave the pile of hay on top...But I imagine hes worked that out by now...

Maybe he has already done that and this little shed is just a ruse to put the icing on his cake so to speak and keep people occupied only with what can (now) be seen.

Law schmaw... People have a right to shelter. This gentleman built a house on his land by his own labour and you guys want to knock it down because he didn't ask permission? What's the matter with some of you? It's about time people become sovereigns in their own steads. This neo-fuedalism is a poor substitute for actual freedom. No one has any more right to knock this guys house down than he did to build it in the first place...why do we continue to let rules get in the way of living? Why do we wish to destroy what this man has created? For his safety? For our safety? For the children? Oh, wait the environment...yes that's the buzzword at the moment...

Attitudes like these are the reason why people starve while food rots in warehouses and why people die of curable diseases while overpriced medicines sit on the shelf. We need to wake up! This "castle" needs to be defended! It's a symbol of freedom, self determination, and the desire for something better... Oh! now I see why it must be destroyed...

Originally posted by above
This is another example of pure insanity on behalf of the government. If he owns the land there should be no-one who tells him how or why to build anything he wishes. He owns the land god-damnit!

But no, we have all kinds of restrictions and regulations on every possible scenario anyone could come up with. Where is the freedom of the people? I tell you, nowhere!

I'm with you brother, lets let big companies concrete our ugly looking countryside with mock period housing, as for the thousand of spieces that inhabit it sod em. It would be amazing if we could bulldozed the lot and replaced with a 1000 milton keynes.

reply to post by windowlicker80


Yeah! Let's go even further and let these people die of exposure so as not not displace the thousands of species that inhabit the land! Those dirty human beings can "sod off"...unless they pay us and do as they're told of course.

reply to post by Orwells Ghost


Off topic much.

How did you get sheltering the homeless from some guy living in a purpose built castle, on land which already contains a large family home for his family. Something he did because the land in question (land he technically rents not owns) is the kind which as a rule of thumb you CANNOT build on.

Just to put the 'on his land' arguement to rest

en.wikipedia.org...

Its not the same as the concept of land ownership in america.

[edit on 4-2-2010 by gYvMessanger]

reply to post by gYvMessanger


Who said anything about sheltering the homeless? And I really couldn't care less about who owns what or legal definitions and national distinctions. I am talking about inalienable human rights; those which are universal and cannot be abrogated. Such as the right to shelter. But I suppose the Queen of bloody England owns all the land in the UK and this gentleman should feel privileged that he is even allowed to tread upon it...

What are you talking about ?

You seriously think that anyone should be able to throw up a building anywhere they want ?

If thats what your saying fine you think that.

Me ill be happy that my government doesnt allow our country to be turned into an urban wasteland thanks.

If you need housing badly you can get shelter from various sources. Yea ok we have homeless in the UK and that probably needs to be looked at more but thats hardly the point of this thread.

Just to be clear the person who the thread is about already had a huge house on the property, he didnt build himself a castle cos he was desperate for a roof over his head he built a castle illegally because he thought it would be cool to live in a castle and then he tried to hide it so he would get away with it. Theres no justification for it.

reply to post by gYvMessanger


So knocking it down is the solution? Looks like a fine dwelling to me...perhaps putting up some of the homeless folks you mentioned would be a happier solution. But I suppose you would have a problem with that as is might ruin your countryside and drive down property values...not that that should matter to folks in the UK since according to "common law" they are only tenants and the Crown owns everything anyhow.

You didnt bother reading the whole thread did you ?

Personally I think its a lovely building, I also think that with a good lawyer (assuming the building is safe) hell be able to get the destruction order rescinded.

That doesnt mean it was ok to do it or that people should be offended when a quite reasonable law gets applied to the situation.

Also try to understand that in England the idea of "The Crown" is more or less a joke. The State would be a more realistic interpretation, which means its common land, as in owned by the crown, managed by the government on the behalf of the people.

There was real threat not all that many years ago of england becoming an industrial waste ground. Laws where put in place to protect certain areas of the countryside. So yea good for the Crown not letting ANYONE do just whatever they want. Law has to be applied equally to everyone. If a corporation cant turn greenland into a new factory or worker village then neither can some random farmer build a CASTLE.


[edit on 4-2-2010 by gYvMessanger]

Oh, I bothered. I just don't agree with the sentiment. I am of the opinion that no one can truly own any land, a concept that seems to have been exterminated almost as completely as the natives of North America. And I don't speak of communism, but of the right to freely walk this earth as being the entitlement of all mankind. And from that perspective I can find no fault in what this man has done, and great waste and pettiness in the destruction of his works. You may be grateful that "your" countryside remains unsullied by peoples homes, but I am sad that the spirit of humanity has become as grey and lifeless as the concrete you so fear.

I also agree with the idea that no one should truly own land.

Which is why I agree with the stance held in Britain. If you dont own the land then you certainly should not be able to throw up a permanent structure on it without common consent. The crown holds the land in trust of the people of britain, it divies it up (maybe not fairly but in a way which works to some extent) and it collects taxes based on land usage to be funneled back into the larger community (or wasted you know what governments are like but the theory is solid)

Common consent is generally gained through appropriate local authorities. After all thats pretty much why they exsist.

Now if he was getting harassed for living in a tent I would be pretty angry about it personally.

But again he built a huge whopping castle. On land designated lawfully by the chosen representatives of the people (many decades ago and not being contended against by the populace) as not being land for building on. Its a bit different in my opinion to the facist state your trying to portray.

reply to post by gYvMessanger


Well at least we can agree in principle if not in practice.
The idea of taxation or holding in trust of land that nobody own's is still foreign to me, but that's for another thread. The line between individual rights and the collective good has always been a contentious one, so I sincerely hope these concepts are weighed when a decision is reached in this matter. I really hate seeing the letter of a law enforced rather than the spirit in which it is intended. And for the record, It is not my intention to disparage the UK, as the queen is on Canadian coinage as well; England is no more Fascist than Canada or the USA, though that doesn't quite seem to mean as much as it used to.

Don't get me wrong we have plenty facist over here to go around

A lot of things which led to the current general problems with all our governments started with good intentions. Sadly as the old saying goes "power corrupts".

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
Oh, I bothered. I just don't agree with the sentiment. I am of the opinion that no one can truly own any land, a concept that seems to have been exterminated almost as completely as the natives of North America. And I don't speak of communism, but of the right to freely walk this earth as being the entitlement of all mankind. And from that perspective I can find no fault in what this man has done, and great waste and pettiness in the destruction of his works. You may be grateful that "your" countryside remains unsullied by peoples homes, but I am sad that the spirit of humanity has become as grey and lifeless as the concrete you so fear.

This has nothing to do with spirit of humanity. If i built something without planning permission, it would have to be to torn down. I like to see the law applied consistently and fairly for all. This is not 'making an example of him'. This is the exact response that happens to every illegal building in Britain, whether a garden shed or, in this case, an imitation castle.

In fact, if this doesn't get knocked down, i'd feel quite aggrieved that this man has been deemed special in the eyes of the law, just because he's decided to build a large and detailed castle.

It may seem harsh to you, but its a law designed to stop people throwing up whatever structures they want, wherever they want. It generally works.

This man is not a freedom fighter. He's a very naughty boy.

Sorry, but thats not the 'law'

If they passed a law that stated you had to stab yourself in the chest, would that be a valid law?

Of course not, and the same guidelines of common sense which stems from natural law and common law, apply here

The principle of property rights is one of the most ancient in British common law, and stems from scripture, molmutine law and ancient natural law

Many high court decisions have also been passed through many Commonwealth countries, stating " Even the King may not enter a man's house without his consent "

Trespass and private property right are the most sacred and upheld in the tradition of common law and justice. Many so-called 'councils' are illegal corporate entities that are puppets for the IMF and NWO

Check out TPUC for more information and proof that councils virtually everywhere are utterly illegal

This man should look into establishing a claim of right, filing a lien against this house, and holding all characters liable personally if they attempt to demolish this beautiful house

reply to post by CRB86


It's only naughty because he didn't follow the rules; imperfect rules made by imperfect men. I still fail to see how building a nicer home for your family is something to be decried. Oh no, he didn't get permission! Surely he will burn in hell for his sins...I think the real problem here is that since he didn't bother with bureaucrats and fees, he was able to build home easily and affordably. We can't have that precedent set, now can we?

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
So, Farmer built a castle south of London without anybody's permission.
So, why could he not just pay the fees he would have owed otherwise?
Is it about maintaining control over building codes? or making an example or something?

TPTB in England want everyone to know you can't just go around throwing up castles!

but i realy want a castle lol well if he built it under the ground its under 6 foot so they couldent touch him because if its over 6 foot high he needs planing permision i no stupid lol

ow and btw if he clailmed he was a free man of the nation they coudent get him and british ppl this looks a good idea to become a freeman lol
en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 5-2-2010 by birdyat101]

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
reply to post by CRB86

 

It's only naughty because he didn't follow the rules; imperfect rules made by imperfect men. I still fail to see how building a nicer home for your family is something to be decried. Oh no, he didn't get permission! Surely he will burn in hell for his sins...I think the real problem here is that since he didn't bother with bureaucrats and fees, he was able to build home easily and affordably. We can't have that precedent set, now can we?

I happen to think that this is a pretty good rule to be honest. It stops the countryside i love being vandalised in the name of selfishness.

Everyone is going on and on about rights, but what about responsibilities? Do we not have the responsibility to preserve the ancient and beautiful British countryside for future generations of British children to fall in love with.

Will the next William Wordsworth be writing:

"I wandered lonely as a clould
that floats on high o'er vales and hills
when all at once i saw a 5 bedroom house
with a jacuzzi in the back garden and an imitation portcullis"

And yes, maybe this one building isn't imposing on the countryside to any extent, but as Neformore said, British law is based around precedents. If this man can build on green-belt and get away with it, then that sets a precedent and soon there will be no legal duty to protect green-belt land.

Why can't people see this?

In the article it says that the planning laws are in place to "protect the environment". How does tearing it down, wasting most of the resources used, and presumably using up more resources to rebuild help the environment?

I've said it too many times now but the world is ass backwards.