Disgusting disregard of our heritage.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Oh, right. That’s an interesting point that I hadn’t considered.

Remind me to take no notice of anyone on here who advises me on buying a property!

Interesting that you can’t see the danger presented by this. People I know have been advised to evacuate their subsidised property and it looked a lot safer than that relic!

Speculative nonsense as always.

Has any competent authority determines this? What you would buy is irrelevant.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s stood for decades, nay, hundreds, of years.

Sounds like red tape, ‘elf and safety gone mad, etc. to say it’s unsafe now. Especially with no qualifications

It's the sort of structure the local council would visit regularly as they wouldn't want to be left holding the bucket of you-know-what if something did happen. It's the kind of thing I'd expect an armchair structural engineer to know, especially one with local authority experience.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s stood for decades, nay, hundreds, of years.

Sounds like red tape, ‘elf and safety gone mad, etc. to say it’s unsafe now. Especially with no qualifications

Yes, and no doubt it would have stood forever! You are so hilarious! I’d stop now while you’re losing this argument!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, and no doubt it would have stood forever! You are so hilarious! I’d stop now while you’re losing this argument!

OB if losing an argument was a worthy cause for not contributing we’d see much less of you.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

It's the sort of structure the local council would visit regularly as they wouldn't want to be left holding the bucket of you-know-what if something did happen. It's the kind of thing I'd expect an armchair structural engineer to know, especially one with local authority experience.

Then let the local council pay for it.

My local council paid for a telephone box that is now plastered with masking tape and with seven panes knocked out! The paintwork has all peeled off. By the way, the phone no longer works!

You couldn’t make it up and you people all seem to think it’s OK!

Common sense has gone out of the window.

---------- Post added at 21:07 ---------- Previous post was at 21:04 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

OB if losing an argument was a worthy cause for not contributing we’d see much less of you.

I’ve not lost any argument. Nobody seems to be arguing the points I’ve made.

I did notice that, and it’s a common theme on Cable Forum, unfortunately.

Why exactly do you think this dangerous structure should have been preserved?Clearly, not many people visited it!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Then let the local council pay for it.

My local council paid for a telephone box that is now plastered with masking tape and with seven panes knocked out! The paintwork has all peeled off. By the way, the phone no longer works!

You couldn’t make it up and you people all seem to think it’s OK!

Common sense has gone out of the window.

“Common” sense - and dare I say adhering to the law - would have told the purchaser who wanted empty land to go elsewhere rather than break planning rules to remove an existing structure they didn’t want when they purchased it.

More anecdotal evidence of nothing at all.

---------- Post added at 21:10 ---------- Previous post was at 21:07 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I’ve no lost any argument. Nobody seems to be arguing the points I’ve made.

When your points are entirely fabricated to justify a property developer breaking planning rules - as decided by the Conservative Government, implemented by local authorities - it’s unsurprising that the vast majority, using their “common” sense, decide to ignore you.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

“Common” sense - and dare I say adhering to the law - would have told the purchaser who wanted empty land to go elsewhere rather than break planning rules to remove an existing structure they didn’t want when they purchased it.

More anecdotal evidence of nothing at all.

---------- Post added at 21:10 ---------- Previous post was at 21:07 ----------



When your points are entirely fabricated to justify a property developer breaking planning rules - as decided by the Conservative Government, implemented by local authorities - it’s unsurprising that the vast majority, using their “common” sense, decide to ignore you.

And still, you haven’t got the ammunition to address my argument. What are you playing at?

I think I know the answer. It’s called deflection.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

And still, you haven’t got the ammunition to address my argument. What are you playing at?

I think I know the answer. It’s called deflection.

OB it’s not my fault if you are incapable of, or wilfully are not, understanding the inherent flaw in your own argument of condoning potentially criminal activity.

What the planning rules could/should say are irrelevant.

You’ve made it clear the interests of property developers should go above local communities. You want them to be able to ride roughshot over the hard won restrictions that are in the planning system to control land use in this country. Considering you are condoning slavery as the answer to Britain’s lack of competitiveness in global markets in the other thread I would call it a night.

If you are going to hang about then riddle me this, OB. As a Conservative of all things. Why should a landowner of nearby land, with appropriate planning permission for whatever someone wants to build, have their land (and asset) devalued by criminal activity, knowing that anyone can buy any other land without planning permission, illegally demolish whatever happens to be on it, subsequently get planning permission that wouldn’t have been approved without the illegal demolition in the middle?

[Dude111]

Very sad this happend to it

I see OB has got the latest talking points from CCHQ.

Everything (in this and other threads yesterday) is either "deflection", "hot air", "you’re not arguing the points I made", or "I’ve answered that already, it’s up to you to find it"…

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

“Common” sense - and dare I say adhering to the law - would have told the purchaser who wanted empty land to go elsewhere rather than break planning rules to remove an existing structure they didn’t want when they purchased it.

More anecdotal evidence of nothing at all.

---------- Post added at 21:10 ---------- Previous post was at 21:07 ----------



When your points are entirely fabricated to justify a property developer breaking planning rules - as decided by the Conservative Government, implemented by local authorities - it’s unsurprising that the vast majority, using their “common” sense, decide to ignore you.

Well, these are not the points I’m arguing. Yes, clearly the law has been broken and that should carry consequences.

My point is that this obsession we have to list buildings has gone too far and the law needs to change. There will be those buildings we wish to preserve, of course, but if nobody wants to buy it and preserve it, it should be bought by the government.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Then let the local council pay for it.

My local council paid for a telephone box that is now plastered with masking tape and with seven panes knocked out! The paintwork has all peeled off. By the way, the phone no longer works!

You couldn’t make it up and you people all seem to think it’s OK!

Common sense has gone out of the window.

---------- Post added at 21:07 ---------- Previous post was at 21:04 ----------



I’ve not lost any argument. Nobody seems to be arguing the points I’ve made.

I did notice that, and it’s a common theme on Cable Forum, unfortunately.

Why exactly do you think this dangerous structure should have been preserved?Clearly, not many people visited it!

Back in the day local councils have purchased properties etc to protect them for future generations, but unfortunately your team have cut the funding so deeply that councils no longer have the money.

Also, I wonder if your contemptuous view of the planning laws would change if your next door neighbours decided to install a dioxin factory in their back garden, or open a 24 hour a day heavy engineering works?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Back in the day local councils have purchased properties etc to protect them for future generations, but unfortunately your team have cut the funding so deeply that councils no longer have the money.

Also, I wonder if your contemptuous view of the planning laws would change if your next door neighbours decided to install a dioxin factory in their back garden, or open a 24 hour a day heavy engineering works?

I have already made clear that I am not justifying anyone breaking the law.

[spiderplant]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, clearly the law has been broken and that should carry consequences.

Which law do you believe has been broken?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

it should be bought by the government.

You're advocating nationalisation? Get back to your left-leaning snake pit.

[nodrogd]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

You're the only person I'm aware of saying the building was unsafe.

And no doubt the same comment could be made of leaning tower of Pisa. Both buildings have undergone some "stabilization". The pub had huge internal steel beams, some of which were clearly visible after the fire. I visited the place back in 2010 & was very impressed with how they were maintaining it.