2 ms·

I 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.