3 ms·
I was not wrong, and I believe I understand the law well enough in this case to have an opinion at least as well as you. I did ask a question for a point of cla
by torstenvl 6y ago
I was not wrong, and I believe I understand the law well enough in this case to have an opinion at least as well as you. I did ask a question for a point of clarification, but the spittle brigade downvoted it into oblivion.
In any case, making things personal is against HN guidelines. If you don't have anything useful to say, don't say anything.
If you have some evidence that I'm "factually wrong" about something, please, by all means, share it. I would be happy to learn.
- EliRivers 6y agoI would be happy to learn. The evidence suggests otherwise. Nonetheless, amongst other violations, the 1984 Building Act was violated. The law was broken.
- torstenvl 6y ago> > I would be happy to learn. > The evidence suggests otherwise Ah, more personal attacks. Excellent. > Nonetheless... The law was broken. I'm starting to suspect that you don't actually understand the issues under discussion. Literally nobody disputes that they committed an infraction. The issues under discussion are: - Is that infraction serious enough to constitute a crime under UK law? Not all violations of the law are crimes. - Does protection of buildings start the moment a nomination for Grade II (or higher) listing is made, before actual designation as a historic building? - (philosophical) Is it appropriate for a government to impose involuntary labor, or to affirmatively construct something on their own property, as a punishment for a regulatory infraction? The answer to this question may turn on the answer to the first, i.e., whether their conduct was a crime. If you don't want to discuss those topics, that's totally fine, but it's not quite clear to me why you're so hostile and emotional over all this.