Captain Tom

Jeez that's a monster
_130296679_mediaitem130296678.jpg.webp
 
Ok im intrigued about the mindset of people on this thread. 'Oh dear never mind' for example, is that translating to 'shame you're obviously minted anyway and give us more money from tax whilst you're at it..'

Anyway I find the order for a demolition absolutely shameful. Im telling you the councils make some very 'influenced' decisions believe me, some utterly immoral and not in favour of anyone but their own agenda. Who is it affecting? What detrimental effect is this really having apart from perhaps voiding a few field mice of their homes, could be a strong argument actually.

Honestly is this building really needing to be demolished? Can it be adapted or changed to suit i think so, what a waste of money and time. This is about flexing what little power they have on the wrong people also, if you wonder what im on about pop along to a planning chambers meet and checkout some of the characters there. Think of traffic warden mentality but planning instead, never successful in their own right and if they get the opporunity stop anyone else from succeeding either, without considering all the implications and circumstance.
 
Most problem too rich to bang in jail fir two years.

Justice ½ ✔️ done.
 
just pumps said:
Sounds as if the daughter has been milking her late fathers name in more ways than one.
Click to expand...
Who cares? Why not? Do you think she should be giving it all in tax and contributions to the state instead?
 
So you've been pretty skint all your life you know your old pops is gonna kark it and you have the potential to set yourself up for good and retire at 45 if you just play your cards right without actually stiffing anyone, harming anyone etc. What do you do? Say no ill just work till 65 and take my state earned pension and be treated like a piece o **** till they take my property off me also to pay for care or try plan A? One life, one opportunity.
 
The issue is that planning was applied for to create the building as a kindof Sir Tom museum and public facility. It was built and then a revised plan was submitted to convert it to private use.

I suspect the planners/councillors felt they'd been fibbed to.

It could be more innocent than reported.. It could be that the building was built for the foundation in his memory, but because the charity commission is pretty much winding up the foundation due to mismanagement, the building had no role and an application for private use followed.

I suspect that is a stretch.
 
Mottie said:
Laws are laws. Rules are rules. If I was to break the law and drive at 120mph in my car and it didn’t affect anyone, would that make it okay for others to do the same or should they be prosecuted?
Click to expand...
Agree but we all know planning rules are so vague they can be interpreted in many ways.

'Ill take you down a road near me where multiple homeowners have been granted perms to build new homes in their front gardens, some of those homes had changed hand recently also all around the time planning was approved. There were a huge swathe of objections around these applications due to the impact on other residents etc, yet they ploughed through all these objections, i wonder who owned these houses with granted permissions, hmm. Did they have a detrimental effect on the surrounding community, impact wildlife, trees , affect parking an access for local residents, you bet your ass they did, but nothing happened all were approved.

The morality of a planning application is a separate consideration and imho not fit for the mindset of a planning officer to make a valid and reliable decision. This is the crux of the issue with planning, they are far too easily influence by external motives to approve or deny an application based on factors outside of the planning framework, but due to the wooly wording of the planning framework can easily refer to a policy and use this to manipulate the outcome of a decision. No i don't particularly have an axe to grind but i do dislike seeing people being pulled down by the ivory tower police just because 'they seem to be doing better than us'.

I agree with your point above but we can see already from the comments here its more than just planning, this is about potentially being dishonest for their own personal gain, is that a crime in this instance?

At 120mph yes throw the book at them, that's a life threatning act all day every day.

But constructing a relatively small building in a very large plot of land, really??? I need to take a look at the case to see on what ground LPA objected to this because i can't see anything other than 'you betrayed our authority and we shall teach you a lesson for this'. I see no people creatures nature or anything else harmed or potentially harmed in the future of this building, im happy to stand to be corrected.
 
Last edited:
I donated to the Captain Tom appeal. If they paid for it out of that and it was to be used for the stated purpose, no problem. If they used my donation to enrich their already comfortable lifestyle by switching it to their personal use, it should be pulled down and they should pay every penny back into Captain Toms fund.
 
motorbiking said:
The issue is that planning was applied for to create the building as a kindof Sir Tom museum and public facility. It was built and then a revised plan was submitted to convert it to private use.

I suspect the planners/councillors felt they'd been fibbed to.

It could be more innocent than reported.. It could be that the building was built for the foundation in his memory, but because the charity commission is pretty much winding up the foundation due to mismanagement, the building had no role and an application for private use followed.

I suspect that is a stretch.
Click to expand...

So yes to teach them a lesson for lieing to us we will cut off their nose to spite their face. Yep makes sense of course...
 
Mottie said:
I donated to the Captain Tom appeal. If they paid for it out of that and it was to be used for the stated purpose, no problem. If they used my donation to enrich their already comfortable lifestyle by switching it to their personal use, it should be pulled down and they should pay every penny back into Captain Toms fund.
Click to expand...

Agree but that is my point, IF there is a morality and financial issue here, this isn't for planning to decide, this is for the the courts that specialize in this area, (and of course the parasitic legal advisors to maximise on also).

Pay the money back and or whatever is required.

On this point i am sure you're aware so many charities exist out there making billions from people 'donating to captain Tom' believe me. Not saying 2 wrongs n all that just saying, it goes on too often on a much bigger scale, those adds are all too familiar we know about tugging on our heart strings etc.
 
It would appear the donations were properly distributed to their intended causes. The issue which has caused the charity commission concern is the intellectual property from the brands that were created on the back of the publicity and the lack of transparency.

I think the charity commission concerns are valid, but nothing stops the Ingrams or anyone else creating the brands they created. It's only an issue if there is a passing off concern. There probably are.

The family probably saw the money that the Einstein estate had generated from protecting his brand, which is under the control of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top