Display:
It's a matter of not setting a precedent. And unlike most cases where this is used as a justification for being "tough on crime," experience shows that this it is actually important when it comes to building codes.

Though I suppose that one could argue that the building should be left standing, but the land and building confiscated by the Crown. That would work too.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 09:23:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I understand the precedent argument. But it's deliberately stretching an established and existing four year rule.

Building regs are really quite insane in the UK. I live in a listed area, and I'm supposed to get heritage officer consent if I consider changing the windows from single to double glazing.

This makes sense if someone puts UPVC into an old cottage, but it still applies even if the window is visually similar to the original - and some of the originals date from the 1970s and not the 1770s.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 09:57:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
On the other hand, the fact that he deliberately kept it hidden demonstrates that he acted in full knowledge that he was operating on the wrong side of the law.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 3rd, 2010 at 03:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series