I'm glad I don't live in England

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I'm glad I don't live in England

Posted: 1/26/2006 1:18:44 AM EDT

It is against the law to stop people from trespassing, and they make you tear down private buildings on your property that "harms the intrinsic landscape quality and character"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060125/ap_en_mu/people_mccartney

Posted: 1/26/2006 3:52:18 AM EDT

[#1]

It's a nice place to visit, but...

Posted: 1/26/2006 3:54:14 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
It's a nice place to visit, but...

Two weeks is too long.

Posted: 1/26/2006 7:20:17 PM EDT

[#3]

And, since they're the size of Iowa with over 50 million people, housing costs are astronomical.

Posted: 1/26/2006 7:25:29 PM EDT

[#4]

Gun ownership is pretty good, though

Posted: 1/26/2006 7:28:39 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Gun ownership is pretty good, though

Is it? From what I've heard you're barely able to own hunting guns, ie, non semi-auto shotguns, and you absolutely would be better off getting beaten nearly to death than using one to defend against a home invasion.

Am I wrong on this?

Posted: 1/26/2006 7:29:28 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
And, since they're the size of Iowa with over 50 million people, housing costs are astronomical.

And probably three or four of the largest cities in the world combined beat out their population.

Posted: 1/26/2006 7:31:53 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Gun ownership is pretty good, though

Is it? From what I've heard you're barely able to own hunting guns, ie, non semi-auto shotguns, and you absolutely would be better off getting beaten nearly to death than using one to defend against a home invasion.

Am I wrong on this?

You are in some respects.

Certain shotguns are banned and certain ones are not. Not sure on all the details.

And semi-auto .22 Long Rifle rifles are okey-dokey.

Posted: 1/26/2006 7:38:21 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Is it? From what I've heard you're barely able to own hunting guns, ie, non semi-auto shotguns, and you absolutely would be better off getting beaten nearly to death than using one to defend against a home invasion.

Am I wrong on this?

Go ask them

Posted: 1/26/2006 7:49:29 PM EDT

[#9]

http://www.collegehumor.com/movies/1654821/

This is a vid of an arrest in england, tame compared to the show cops but gives you an idea of the place. The cops aren't wearing bullet proof vest they are more like flak jackets.

Posted: 1/26/2006 7:57:33 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it? From what I've heard you're barely able to own hunting guns, ie, non semi-auto shotguns, and you absolutely would be better off getting beaten nearly to death than using one to defend against a home invasion.

Am I wrong on this?

Go ask them

crap, you'd think I'd have known that was there.

Posted: 1/26/2006 8:38:02 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
www.collegehumor.com/movies/1654821/

This is a vid of an arrest in england, tame compared to the show cops but gives you an idea of the place. The cops aren't wearing bullet proof vest they are more like flak jackets.

Posted: 1/27/2006 12:22:13 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
www.collegehumor.com/movies/1654821/

This is a vid of an arrest in england, tame compared to the show cops but gives you an idea of the place. The cops aren't wearing bullet proof vest they are more like flak jackets.

I'd say the cops did a good job with the punk. I like how he was begging his friend for help

Posted: 1/27/2006 12:46:21 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Gun ownership is pretty good, though

Is it? From what I've heard you're barely able to own hunting guns, ie, non semi-auto shotguns, and you absolutely would be better off getting beaten nearly to death than using one to defend against a home invasion.

Am I wrong on this?

He was talking about Iowa.

Posted: 1/27/2006 12:52:12 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
www.collegehumor.com/movies/1654821/

This is a vid of an arrest in england, tame compared to the show cops but gives you an idea of the place. The cops aren't wearing bullet proof vest they are more like flak jackets.

I'd say the cops did a good job with the punk. I like how he was begging his friend for help

To bad the one officer got both his buddy and the perp with the pepper spray. Seemed to work out ok in the end though.

I believe they are often referred to as stab vests. Good against things like knives and such, whereas kevlar isn't as effective against pointy stuff, but not good against bullets.

Posted: 1/27/2006 12:55:54 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Gun ownership is pretty good, though

Is it? From what I've heard you're barely able to own hunting guns, ie, non semi-auto shotguns, and you absolutely would be better off getting beaten nearly to death than using one to defend against a home invasion.

Am I wrong on this?

Yes, wrong on both counts. The rules on using a firearm in 'self defence' in your home are pretty much the same as in many US States IIRC. Retreat if you can, you must believe the assailant to be armed, you cannot shoot a 'fleeing felon'....

Guns, lot of guns....

ANdy

Posted: 1/27/2006 12:58:06 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
It is against the law to stop people from trespassing, and they make you tear down private buildings on your property that "harms the intrinsic landscape quality and character"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060125/ap_en_mu/people_mccartney

He built a buliding without planning permission in a zoned area ('Area of outstanding natural beauty' think US National Park) then asked if he could AFTER the fact. I'll bet you would get exactly the same decison made by a US planning department if he had put up a cabin is say Yellowstone National Park..

ANdy

McCartney must pull down cabin in planning row
By David Sapsted
(Filed: 26/01/2006)

Sir Paul McCartney has been told to tear down a wooden lodge on his country estate in a planning row with councillors.

The two-bedroom cabin was erected without planning permission in an attempt to provide the former Beatle with "privacy, seclusion and security" according to documents belatedly submitted to the local council.

Set among woodland and on the edge of a conservation pond created by Sir Paul and his late wife Linda, the lodge was erected last year for the "quiet and private enjoyment" of the family.

The cabin actually appears to have been built by Sir Paul's son James, 28, who is the main resident these days of Woodlands Farm on the estate near Peasmarsh, East Sussex - the family home of Sir Paul, his late wife and their children for more than 25 years.

Since his marriage to Heather Mills, the singer-songwriter has been an increasingly infrequent visitor to the six-bedroom farmhouse on the estate and its recording studio in a converted windmill.

The couple seem to prefer life in a seafront, art deco home in Hove which they bought for £1 million.

In an attempt to gain retrospective planning permission for the lodge after the parish council objected to its erection in a designated area of outstanding natural beauty, Gavin Sargent, the McCartneys' planning agent told Rother district council that the building was needed because "the owner has a requirement for privacy, seclusion and security that the buildings at Woodlands Farm cannot provide".

"This is due to the proximity of the public footpath that passes by the farmhouse and through the farmyard, and also the activities connected with the working farm and machinery movements creating noise disturbance and safety issues."

However, the council rejected the application, saying the building "harms the intrinsic landscape quality and character" of the High Weald.

Sir Paul now has until June to appeal against the decision or pull down the lodge.

Grey Metcalf, of Peasmarsh parish council, said: "I feel strongly that laws should be upheld. After all, planning laws are there for a reason."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/26/nmacca26.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/26/ixhome.html

Posted: 1/27/2006 1:58:54 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It is against the law to stop people from trespassing, and they make you tear down private buildings on your property that "harms the intrinsic landscape quality and character"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060125/ap_en_mu/people_mccartney

He built a buliding without planning permission in a zoned area ('Area of outstanding natural beauty' think US National Park) then asked if he could AFTER the fact. I'll bet you would get exactly the same decison made by a US planning department if he had put up a cabin is say Yellowstone National Park..

ANdy

McCartney must pull down cabin in planning row
By David Sapsted
(Filed: 26/01/2006)

Sir Paul McCartney has been told to tear down a wooden lodge on his country estate in a planning row with councillors.

The two-bedroom cabin was erected without planning permission in an attempt to provide the former Beatle with "privacy, seclusion and security" according to documents belatedly submitted to the local council.

Set among woodland and on the edge of a conservation pond created by Sir Paul and his late wife Linda, the lodge was erected last year for the "quiet and private enjoyment" of the family.

The cabin actually appears to have been built by Sir Paul's son James, 28, who is the main resident these days of Woodlands Farm on the estate near Peasmarsh, East Sussex - the family home of Sir Paul, his late wife and their children for more than 25 years.

Since his marriage to Heather Mills, the singer-songwriter has been an increasingly infrequent visitor to the six-bedroom farmhouse on the estate and its recording studio in a converted windmill.

The couple seem to prefer life in a seafront, art deco home in Hove which they bought for £1 million.

In an attempt to gain retrospective planning permission for the lodge after the parish council objected to its erection in a designated area of outstanding natural beauty, Gavin Sargent, the McCartneys' planning agent told Rother district council that the building was needed because "the owner has a requirement for privacy, seclusion and security that the buildings at Woodlands Farm cannot provide".

"This is due to the proximity of the public footpath that passes by the farmhouse and through the farmyard, and also the activities connected with the working farm and machinery movements creating noise disturbance and safety issues."

However, the council rejected the application, saying the building "harms the intrinsic landscape quality and character" of the High Weald.

Sir Paul now has until June to appeal against the decision or pull down the lodge.

Grey Metcalf, of Peasmarsh parish council, said: "I feel strongly that laws should be upheld. After all, planning laws are there for a reason."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/26/nmacca26.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/26/ixhome.html

Whatever it's zoned for, it's still his land.

Not that we're any better here, but that doesn't change the fact that it's bullshit.

Posted: 1/27/2006 2:16:28 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Whatever it's zoned for, it's still his land.

Not that we're any better here, but that doesn't change the fact that it's bullshit.

BS or not, you can't expect to buy a place in a 'National Park' and just throw up buildings without a planning permit.

ANdy

Posted: 1/27/2006 2:21:04 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Whatever it's zoned for, it's still his land.

Not that we're any better here, but that doesn't change the fact that it's bullshit.

BS or not, you can't expect to buy a place in a 'National Park' and just throw up buildings without a planning permit.

ANdy

Did he buy into the area, or did they do what is the rage here now and declare his land a "sanctuary" or "place of natural beauty?"

Posted: 1/27/2006 2:45:15 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Whatever it's zoned for, it's still his land.

Not that we're any better here, but that doesn't change the fact that it's bullshit.

BS or not, you can't expect to buy a place in a 'National Park' and just throw up buildings without a planning permit.

ANdy

Did he buy into the area, or did they do what is the rage here now and declare his land a "sanctuary" or "place of natural beauty?"

It was designated in October 1983...

www.highweald.org/text.asp?PageId=18

He's lived there for 25 years and moved there because it is away in the country and he would have known it was in line for designating, (It usually takes at least 5 years with lots of consultation with the landowners to get an AONB approved). Only now, 25 years later, he has just 'discovered' there is an 'issue' with privacy.... sounds like he is trying to get round the planning laws and build another home on his plot to me.

Andy

Posted: 1/27/2006 2:50:45 AM EDT

[#21]

I'm glad I don't live in England too

I hear you are only allowed airsoft over there.

Taffy

Andy
Do you remeber the guy who shot the Planing Dept guy is the arse with an old Webley of some sort when they came to pull down his bungalow, this was a few years ago I think

Posted: 1/27/2006 2:54:48 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
I'm glad I don't live in England too
I hear you are only allowed airsoft over there.

Taffy

Andy
Do you remeber the guy who shot the Planing Dept guy is the arse with an old Webley of some sort when they came to pull down his bungalow, this was a few years ago I think

Yes I do!

"By the powers vested in me, I've come to sieze your property"

"No you ain't you bugger!"

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I'm glad I don't live in England

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us