Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Sancho Panza

The Mindset Of This Property Obsessed Country. .

Recommended Posts

Telegraph 12/2/14

'For years, families in a smart Brighton street were forced to avert their eyes while their neighbours took showers and changed in a bathroom with a large, clear window overlooking their homes. The final straw came when one family had to stop their young children using a climbing frame in their garden after they came running into the house saying they had seen a naked man getting dressed.

On Tuesday, however, those exasperated families were toasting victory after banding together and teaching themselves planning law to prove that the property was in breach of planning permission granted by Brighton and Hove council. A judge at the High Court in London described the planners’ decision-making as “perverse” and ordered the council to take action over the £500,000 property, which was built in 2008.

Stella Cardus, 55, said the families were “delighted” at the ruling but added that the case should never have gone to court. “Our lives were made a misery by this ordeal. We were forced to take on council planners and their expert lawyers to get justice and won,” she said.

“My neighbour’s three children were unable to play in the garden because they could see people showering in this property that was built far larger than it was supposed to be. And because it was rented out, the tenants didn’t care about who could see them taking a shower.'''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And because it was rented out, the tenants didn’t care about who could see them taking a shower.'''[/size]

Ew, tenants! Call the police, Elspeth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And because it was rented out, the tenants didn't care about who could see them taking a shower.

Surely that should be:

And because it was rented out, the owner didn't care about who could see the tenants taking a shower.

That aside, the most bizarre thing about this is that you have to use planning law to stop publicly-visible nakedness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stella Cardus, 55, said the families were “delighted” at the ruling but added that the case should never have gone to court. “Our lives were made a misery by this ordeal. We were forced to take on council planners and their expert lawyers to get justice and won,” she said.

“My neighbour’s three children were unable to play in the garden because they could see people showering in this property that was built far larger than it was supposed to be. And because it was rented out, the tenants didn’t care about who could see them taking a shower.'''

WTF has them being tenants got to do with the price of fish? It's thick as shit "property owning" ***** like this, who view themselves as superior to renters that make me wish for a correction that can put people like this in their place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mindset of this nudity-obsessed country, surely?

Oh, no! The possibility of seeing a willy/boobie/bottom was ruining our lives, say residents.

The thought did occur, but I suppose people have a vague right in the matter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mindset of this nudity-obsessed country, surely?

Oh, no! The possibility of seeing a willy/boobie/bottom was ruining our lives, say residents.

I entirely agree. For a country that's let its hair down in so many other ways over the last fifty years it's amazing how prudish we are about a naked body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prancing about in your birthday suit when you are obviously visible to neighbours, including children, is reckless and perverse.

Both sides of this debate have a right to privacy, however; this is more than just 'innocent' naturalism or a mistake since it is persistent.

What kind of creeps are these people? Keep it in your naturalist resorts already and visit Primark or wherever for some bloody curtains!

Surprised they haven't been called in front of the sheriff by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prancing about in your birthday suit when you are obviously visible to neighbours, including children, is reckless and perverse.

Call me reckless and perverse, but I'm more engaged by rationalism than authoritative assertion, and I have to ask: why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call me reckless and perverse, but I'm more engaged by rationalism than authoritative assertion, and I have to ask: why?

Quite, the naked body is only a curiosity because it is normally covered up. More nudity less intrigue less trouble.

Ankles were once risque

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Telegraph 12/2/14

'For years, families in a smart Brighton street were forced to avert their eyes while their neighbours took showers and changed in a bathroom with a large, clear window overlooking their homes. The final straw came when one family had to stop their young children using a climbing frame in their garden after they came running into the house saying they had seen a naked man getting dressed.

On Tuesday, however, those exasperated families were toasting victory after banding together and teaching themselves planning law to prove that the property was in breach of planning permission granted by Brighton and Hove council. A judge at the High Court in London described the planners’ decision-making as “perverse” and ordered the council to take action over the £500,000 property, which was built in 2008.

Stella Cardus, 55, said the families were “delighted” at the ruling but added that the case should never have gone to court. “Our lives were made a misery by this ordeal. We were forced to take on council planners and their expert lawyers to get justice and won,” she said.

“My neighbour’s three children were unable to play in the garden because they could see people showering in this property that was built far larger than it was supposed to be. And because it was rented out, the tenants didn’t care about who could see them taking a shower.'''

so are we as a nation property obsessed, or does/did the constant barrage of property porn have something to do with inciting said "obsession"

if you answer affirmative to the latter, then the "obsession" was brought about by coercion, and that implies external duress/force.

..so not our fault at all.

blame the dealers,not the users.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so are we as a nation property obsessed, or does/did the constant barrage of property porn have something to do with inciting said "obsession"

if you answer affirmative to the latter, then the "obsession" was brought about by coercion, and that implies external duress/force.

..so not our fault at all.

blame the dealers,not the users.

I think the culture in Britain, at least what I grew up to see as the standard life, was to own your own home.

I think that the advent of double income households enabled HPI, which then spiraled out of control helped by EAs and easy bank credit, which caused some to lie about their income in order to afford a home, so adding fuel to the fire as the banks turned a blind eye. Everyone was a winner in the short term, except of course for the buyer who was giving ever more of their salary to service a debt on a home.

Then, it became seen as a route to easy profits and property porn was born.

I don't think the home owning public intended any of this, initially.

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen naked women and men all my life from a very early age, never did me any harm...

So what is exactly is the problem?

Maybe she might have been ok with neighbour nudity if they'd been owner occupiers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't help thinking that if this had taken place on a council estate, the complainants would have taken somewhat more 'robust' actions against the nudists, possibly involving lamposts, rope and petrol/matches...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   220 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.