Jump to content

A fool and his money.....

Regulars
  • Posts

    461
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by A fool and his money.....

  1. You're missing the point completely. Houses were built that wouldn't have passed planning had their intended use been considered. The reasons for this are irrelevant. Like you say it's what happened. I completely agree with you the fate of the hundreds of families who owned them should be taken into account and possibly even the hotel etc. My point is that something happened that shouldn't have happened and if it's not appropriate to take other factors into account in Dan's case, why was it OK then? If it's dangerous to set a precedent in Dan's case why wasn't it dangerous to set a precedent then? I'm sure if Defa wanted they could have had an enquiry and somehow found that no law had been broken and nobody was to blame. They chose not to. I know the two cases are completely different, I'm not stupid. I think it's fair to say thouh that the two cases we're handled completely differently mainly due to financial considerations rather than purely righting a wrong.
  2. So you have to wonder why the planning was granted. Was it in deference to planning regulations or something else?
  3. You have a funny interpretation of my moods. Last night you accused me of being full of rage, today aggressive. I'm not sure which of my posts make you think either.
  4. But that's exactly my point. The fact is the houses would not have passed planning in their existing form. And yet they are still standing today. It was made to work, the law was somehow found not to have been broken. Do you really believe if you or I tried the same thing we'd get away with it?
  5. The planners were certainly misled. The law was abused. But no one was to blame. No one was evicted, no one was prosecuted. The law can be massaged when it suits.
  6. I agree. I'm not the one suggesting that allowing Dan to stay would set a precedent making it impossible to evict similar cases in future.
  7. Do you agree that is an abuse of planning laws?
  8. The planning was applied for based on it being tourist accomodation, that was never the intention. This is what I mean, the law is interpreted in different ways depending on how much money you've got. If the original planning application had been for residential housing it would never have been passed how it stands.
  9. A beautiful building though, one of Douglas' finest.
  10. He had planning for holiday accommodation, not residential houses.
  11. Does that excuse his flagrant abuse of planning laws?
  12. But Gubay broke the law. Is that OK if you've built a business? Is that OK if you give to charity? You, Max, Gladys and Ghost have spent the last 20 pages that the law is the very fabric that holds our society together and that the government had no choice but to evict Dan and demolish his home, regardless of his character or other actions. Now here you are defending the building of nearly 200 houses without planning permission because the builder built up a business and gave some money to charity. Make your mind up!
  13. I'm sure he was a very hard working and affable chap. What if the next person who decides to build 200 houses without planning permission is an arrogant asshole though? We can't be setting a precedent just because Gubay was a nice man can we?
  14. There was no reason why Gubay couldn't have asked for planning permission in the first place before he started building. It was his choice to go the wrong way and no one else's. The law was broken in both cases, yet you and the government seem to find one acceptable and the other not. Shouldn't the law apply to everyone equally?
  15. So building 200 odd houses without planning permission is OK then is it? So it's OK to break some laws but not others? How do we know which ones we're allowed to break and which ones we aren't? Or does that depend on how much money you've got?
  16. Oh so making someone homeless is a consideration in applying the law now is it? Surely the planning application was in the public domain, why didn't the people living in the houses do their research? They could have gone to a lawyer, according to Gladys you get half an hour free. Surely the only thing the government could have done was demolish the houses? Defa could have done it for them. And yet they're still standing.
  17. Why did they have to do something. The law is the law isn't it?
  18. That's just it though isn't it. For all the claims of regretfully having no choice, all the talk of precedents being set and the law is the law, society has rules and we all need to abide by them. When the right person with the right money comes along, all of a sudden the rigid rules that hold society together become more bendy and everything is sorted out.
  19. Fair enough then. When are the evictions at the Mount Murray estate starting? Planning was granted for them based on them being tourist accomodation, they were part funded by government tourism grants. Surely allowing almost 200 houses in a prominent position next to one of the island's busiest roads despite severe planning and funding irregularities sets a far greater and more dangerous precedent than allowing someone to live sustainably in a small hut in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps if Mr Richardson was as rich as Mr Gubay a solution would have been found.
  20. If you look shifty going through security you can combine both.
  21. That's just it isn't it. She did what she was told. Hardly a shining example of a conviction politician is it? Where there's a will there's a way. Evicting Dan was a choice. She could have held off until the planning process was over, she chose not to. She could have already started the process of allowing sustainable living, she's chosen not to. It's very easy to sympathise with Dan publicly so that's what she did. It's more difficult to do the right thing and help him, so she didn't. She chose to send the heavies in while the media were safely out of the way covering Tynwald. If she's so convinced she was right, why hide it from public scrutiny? Another politician who shows no leadership, does as she's told and tows the party line, regardless of the consequences for the people she supposedly represents.
  22. You've got to wonder about the timing of the eviction. MR reported eviction underway at 10:17 this morning. Tynwald sitting began at 10:00 this morning. Presumably many of the news outlets attend Tynwald sittings.
×
×
  • Create New...