House rewiring

[Uncle Peter]

In case you nick the juice.

There are 15 billion bloody regulations.

[Uncle Peter]

If it falls down in my own land, who else would give a f*ck?

Well they probably design very grand things.... I'm referring to normal house extensions in my street. Half the houses have added 50% to the size of their house. The permission always went straight through.

My land, should be my choice and only my choice.

[RJH]

It's during exchanges like this that I'm quite grateful for our nationalised system of development control.

[Uncle Peter]

What right do you have to stop your neighbour doing things? You do not own his land.

[Tim Streater]

That is not necessarily a reason for refusing planning permission.

Prolly because most people look into it before applying, to make sure what they are intending to do is not against the local plan and doesn't break some national planning guideline (e.g. building on the property line).

In our old village, someone had an application for a new house refused because the local plan said "infill within the village envelope only", and their proposed plot was outside it.

[Windmill]

Is that still the case? I recently noticed that after a meter had been replaced, the isolating switch had been fitted with a security seal on both sides, input from the meter and output to the CU. (That certainly wasn't the case elsewhere and in the past; normally there was no seal on the output from the switch.)

[jgh]

So they put the wrong application in. If an application goes against the adopted plan, the application has to set out how it benefits the adopted plan by being outside it. For instance, a standard Green Belt condition is that any development has to improve the character of the Green Belt. You then have arguments about different subjective "improvements".

jgh

[jgh]

I own a knife. Nobody should be allowed to prevent me doing whatever the hell I chose to do with it?

jgh

[Uncle Peter]

Only on your own property.

[Uncle Peter]

If you look at your title deeds, there are all sorts of stupid things limiting what you can do with your house. Almost every one has been broken by half my street.

[Tim Watts]

Yes, it is still the case.

[Bill]

In message , Rod Speed writes

Why would he want to stab someone he liked?

[Uncle Peter]

You can stab a burglar in America. And you should be allowed to here too.

[Bill]

I seem to recall, from the news reports, that in TM's case the guy who was shot was running away, therefore TM was no longer in danger. There is a subtle difference here, which makes a big difference, in the actions that you are allowed to take.

[meow2222]

or so someone claimed. That's the problem, anyone can claim anything and probably will. When prosecutors dont know the facts they can be very keen on make-it-up.

NT

[Bill]

As you say, anyone can claim anything, but it is hard to imagine someone attacking you by coming at you backwards. Certainly Fred Barras was reported as having been shot in his back.

But all said and done, that is what the jury is there to decide.

[dennis]

Shooting anyone with an illegal firearm will get you prosecuted. Shooting someone with a legal one may get you prosecuted but if your explanation is good enough the jury will not find you guilty.

You can use as much force as necessary to protect you and your family but you can expect to justify it.

[meow2222]

Stuff happens so fast. You pull a weapon & use it, they turn at the same ti me. Or they're standing at 90 degrees to you and you get them in the back. The prosecutor doesnt know what's fact and believes their own vivid imagina tion, paints a story based on all sorts of wrong assumptions, embellishes i t with all sorts of cobblers, the jury thinks it sounds plausible and you d o 20 years. If that's the defintion of 'can defend yourself' youre using, g ood luck with that.

I'm much more in favour of the American version. There you genuinely do hav e the right to defend youself with deadly force.

NT

[meow2222]

Sorry, but I think that's very naive.

NT

[Uncle Peter]

But if you are in danger can be subjective. I might be attacking you, you fend me off, then I'm walking away from you. How do you know I'm not about to grab a rock and chuck it at you? To be safe, you should disable me completely.