Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As I pointed out to Tommy Tainant a one-sided story about something going on in his country is not acceptableEnough of the owner's side is apparent, to anyone that knows anything about construction.
Basically, it was an unsound building to begin with, further damaged by a fire. Even before the fire, bringing it up to modern safety standards would probably have bene cost-prohibitive. After the fire, demolishing it completely seems to me like the only realistic option. It probably was going to need demolishing anyway, sooner or later.
linkThey are suspected of being the arsonists who set the whole thing off. It's also a historic building and protected.
They owned the property for a week before setting it on fire and then demolishing it. Fuck the owners,The owners were not allowed to demolish a building that had been gutted by fire started by arsonists? That seems like a very odd law.
Even in the United States though there are strict rules re what you can and cannot do with a property that is on the Historical Register. You must maintain the historical character of the property so any additions, renovations, etc. require a permit, even such things as replacing the roof or a window.
But if the property is essentially destroyed by fire that you didn't deliberately set, I can't find any rules that say you can't tear it down or that you have to rebuild it.
Cant read it, goober.It's in the OP
DErP
Whenever our smug little Tammy gets behind one jack-booted authoritarian action or another, he always imagines himself as the one wearing the jackboots.
He doesn't have the intelligence necessary to imagine himself as the target, instead.
So please show me where that bar was "protected"
You'll have to provide evidence that the owners set it on fire. I can't find any U.K. media who say that.They owned the property for a week before setting it on fire and then demolishing it. Fuck the owners,
We have protection for these places. Now they will make amends.
Did they own it or not? If it belongs to "all of you", then you pay to rebuild it, asshole.They were arrogant and now will pay the price. Society cannot function as if it was some American rust belt shit hole. Property has value and the environment belongs to all of us.
You'll have to provide evidence that the owners set it on fire. I can't find any U.K. media who say that.
And this was the building that was demolished after the fire:
View attachment 909324
I have mixed emotions re those who own properties on the Historical Register. I can appreciate preserving history and having some rules and regulations involving that--we could use more such laws to protect historical statues, art, markers in this country--but when it comes to buildings it is a double edged sword. Those who WANT their property listed on the Register do so because there are tax advantages and perhaps some other benefits. But those who resist being listed on the Register do so because they don't want the rigid rules and regulations governing such properties. (I don't know how U.S. laws differ from those in England.)Yeah, that sure looks like something worth rebuilding, doesn't it?
I have mixed emotions re those who own properties on the Historical Register. I can appreciate preserving history and having some rules and regulations involving that--we could use more such laws to protect historical statues, art, markers in this country--but when it comes to buildings it is a double edged sword. Those who WANT their property listed on the Register do so because there are tax advantages and perhaps some other benefits. But those who resist being listed on the Register do so because they don't want the rigid rules and regulations governing such properties. (I don't know how U.S. laws differ from those in England.)
But for sure, if a property has burned or is otherwise damaged and is unusable through no fault of the owners, and it will cost more to rebuild it than demolish it, the owners should be able to tear it down and should not be required to rebuild it. There are no U.S. insurance companies that require that.
They ordered the demolition crew before the fire.Now they will pay for it.You'll have to provide evidence that the owners set it on fire. I can't find any U.K. media who say that.
And this was the building that was demolished after the fire:
View attachment 909324
It was a protected building that they owned for a week. Now they will suffer. Arson is illegal and dangerous.Did they own it or not? If it belongs to "all of you", then you pay to rebuild it, asshole.
They ordered the demolition crew before the fire.Now they will pay for it.
Again do you have ANY credible source that confirms that? I would be a dollar to a donut that you do not.They ordered the demolition crew before the fire.Now they will pay for it.
What proof is there of that?It wa a fire that they started and they should be in jail.
They were arrogant and now will pay the price. Society cannot function as if it was some American rust belt shit hole.
www.walesonline.co.uk
