As it turns out, a mans home is not his castle

  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Feb 03, 2010 6:30 PM GMT
    Clicky Pops
  • drypin

    Posts: 1798

    Feb 04, 2010 12:50 AM GMT
    I believe you meant his castle is not his home.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2010 1:00 AM GMT
    drypin saidI believe you meant his castle is not his home.

    That's what the article read, but the old saying is that a man's home is his castle, meaning it cannot be invaded illegally by the state (except in the US during the Bush Administration).

    The problem here is that he built this castle/home illegally in the first place, and kept it camouflaged from the authorities. He claims a technical legal point in British law that he's occupied it for over 4 years now, which may protect him from the consequences of his have violated building codes.

    A strange legal quagmire, and it makes you wonder why he took this deliberate course of action in the first place, knowing it was fundamentally illegal when he started.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 04, 2010 1:00 AM GMT
    [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/surrey/8495412.stm[/url

    He hid it behind a stack of hay....that's a lot of hay. It was hidden there for 4 years, to take advantage of a supposed loophole.

    Even if he didn't have the right permit, I think demolishing a house (especially one that good-looking: a lot of time and effort went into it) is a bit extreme.icon_neutral.gif

    I wonder why he never just got the permits.

    In any event, the man could certainly become a contractor and make some money.icon_rolleyes.gif