Quatloos!

SteveUK wrote:Just in case we didnt know already - things aren't looking good for Guy. There will soon be no castle to retake!

A shame as I'm sure the modern replacement will be a monstrosity. However reading the planning info it sounds like the existing manor was already pretty well goosed by previous conversions and butchery.

The manor had become a derelict shit hole, with heaps of scrap buried everywhere in the grounds, but neither he or his father knew anything different

mac wrote:The manor had become a derelict shit hole, with heaps of scrap buried everywhere in the grounds, but neither he or his father knew anything different

Once a scrap dealer, always a scrap dealer (or tinker, as we call them in my part of the world, or even worse, traveller). Or even worser (?) still - pikey !

Pikey - regarded as a derogatory term but has it roots as an Irish itinerant agricultural worker who travelled / worked at various farms but carried his own pikle (pikel) with him (a two pronged fork, great for moving hay bales and stacking straw etc.)

Pox wrote:

mac wrote:
Interestingly his father is buried at Bodenham Manor, what happens if Guy wants to put some flowers on his grave, because he is banned from the place

Are you allowed to bury a body (not ashes) in any old bit of land?

If he bows to the inevitable, I would imagine that the new owners would allow him to have his father's remains moved to a new resting place.

The problem with that is that he would have to recognize that the property truly is no longer his and never will be again.

SteveUK wrote:And its been approved, to be done within 3 years ( of May 2015), so the clock is ticking!

Er, little legal technicality, the work has to be started within 3 years.

Pox wrote:

mac wrote:
Interestingly his father is buried at Bodenham Manor, what happens if Guy wants to put some flowers on his grave, because he is banned from the place

Are you allowed to bury a body (not ashes) in any old bit of land?

Not in any old bit of land, you need to own the plot and need to follow a few guidelines (like depth of grave, proximity to water, and also need to register where the grave is).

PeanutGallery wrote:
Interestingly his father is buried at Bodenham Manor, what happens if Guy wants to put some flowers on his grave, because he is banned from the place

Are you allowed to bury a body (not ashes) in any old bit of land?[/quote]

Not in any old bit of land, you need to own the plot and need to follow a few guidelines (like depth of grave, proximity to water, and also need to register where the grave is).[/quote]

In old New England, more than a few families buried their loved ones on a corner of the family farm. In the former town of Dana, Massachusetts (disincorporated, along with three others, to make way for the Quabbin Reservoir in 1938), there is still a grave of a boy who died in 1854 at age 6. The farm (a short walk from Pottapaug Mountain) was on a remote side road and had been abandoned after 1898, and the gravesite was so obscure, that the grave was not moved elsewhere when the town's other graves were moved. When the grave (with stone) was discovered a few years back, the State decided to leave it where it is because there are no known next of kin and because there is no longer any issue of impacting water quality.

Mr Taylors new website

http://finance-expert.co.uk/Debt/?affID ... =FBnewblog

Rings a bell?

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/millions-doll ... 00737.html

Has Guy been unwell ?

Penny Wise wrote:Has Guy been unwell ?

Welcome, PW. If that pic is recent, our discussion of interment may be sadly apt.

The photo was probably taken on the same day as his recent video, in which Guy takes 27 minutes to explain that some cases are heard before juries, and juries can deliver perverse verdicts. Guy confuses this with the concept of "lawful excuse", whatever that is.

littleFred wrote:The photo was probably taken on the same day as his recent video, in which Guy takes 27 minutes to explain that some cases are heard before juries, and juries can deliver perverse verdicts. Guy confuses this with the concept of "lawful excuse", whatever that is.

Lawful excuse is a doodle...

"Yes your honour I was briefly in possession of a shotgun but only because I had taken it off a five year old child to prevent a tragedy"... Lawful excuse.

"Yes your honour I was doing 70mph in a 40 zone but I was driving an ambulance with a critically ill patient aboard"... Lawful excuse.

"Yes your honour I was in control of a moving vehicle without licence, insurance or MOT but I wasn't driving I was travelling as defined in an American legal dictionary from the 19th century"... NOT a lawful excuse.

I've noticed this is a common FMOTL guru fallacy. They love to talk about the existence of legal remedies, but they skip over the part where you have to prove they apply to you.

TheNewSaint wrote:I've noticed this is a common FMOTL guru fallacy. They love to talk about the existence of legal remedies, but they skip over the part where you have to prove they apply to you.

When they talk of "lawful excuse" they almost inevitably believe that because they think they have a lawful excuse it is going to work on the police rather than having to prove the lawfulness of the excuse in court because reasons.

I'm happy to be corrected on this, but it seems to me that there is no general lawful excuse defence in UK law. There are mitigating circumstances, such as "I'm guilty but prevented a greater harm", but that's a different concept, and not a defence.

UK legislation often carries exemptions, eg speed limits don't apply to an ambulance if they would hinder its use. (RTRA 1984 s87.)

Sometimes the phrase is used explicitly, eg:

... Criminal Damage Act 1971: "A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property...", and "lawful excuse" has its own description. The similar Irish law was famously used regarding breaking an aircraft with an axe.

... Armd Forces Act 2006 s1: a soldier mustn't "without lawful excuse" give an enemy useful information.

Searching for "lawful defence" in Bailii finds many results about criminal damage, but none in the past 100 years as a defence to other charges.

There's always the defence of 'necessity' which is much the same thing when it comes down to it.

Penny Wise wrote:Has Guy been unwell ?

He does look somewhat 'trimmer' I agree. Quite a change in appearance from previous.

He looks gaunt and you can see his shoulder bones poking through his jumper. I'd say he's not long for this world

Yes, there are common law defences of necessity and duress, usually to avoid death or serious injury. If a passenger points a gun at a driver, telling him to drive at 90 mph or be shot dead, the driver could use "duress" as a defence for speeding. See R v Martin. If the judge allowed this defence, the jury could believe the driver and decide the defence was complete, hence the driver was not guilty. And this wouldn't be a perverse verdict.