The push for a Natzional Trust....

[icowden]

Most of the big houses were vanity projects, too, just on a larger scale.

True, but at least they often have some architectural and historic significance rather than just being "fan" art.

 

[the snail]

I'm not confused at all thanks, I'll ask you the same question as I did the other one.

If a stately home built with slave trade money doesn't show any reference is it fair game to bulldoze it?

Straw man alert.

 

[mudsticks]

Straw man alert.

It's OK we can stick it on a local bonfire 👍🏼

 

[Deleted member 28]

nOpE.

c'MoN bE hOnEsT now bEeBs .

iTs eXaCkeRtLy THE SaMe THING.!!!

And yOu nOeS iT !!!!!

You had a stroke?

 

[icowden]

If a stately home built with slave trade money doesn't show any reference is it fair game to bulldoze it?

Ultimately yes, once you have taken into account whether it is listed for its architectural significant, protected for its historic significance etc. All stately homes seem to have significance however due - presumably - to the amount of money poured into them, the significant to history etc.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Person with a diferent opinion alert.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Ultimately yes, once you have taken into account whether it is listed for its architectural significant, protected for its historic significance etc. All stately homes seem to have significance however due - presumably - to the amount of money poured into them, the significant to history etc.

And you wonder why people laugh at the cr*p you lot come out with.

 

[Ian H]

Statues commemorate an individual. Stately homes were the foundation of complete hierarchical societies in their day. Here's a good Wiki history of their decline - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_country_houses_in_20th-century_Britain

 

[icowden]

And you wonder why people laugh at the cr*p you lot come out with.

Usually because they aren't great at logical reasoning?

 

[Deleted member 28]

Usually because they aren't great at logical reasoning?

Unlike you that believes it 'reasonable' to knock down a stately home because of its heritage?

Yes, I can see the logic in that.

 

[Cirrus]

Unlike you that believes it 'reasonable' to knock down a stately home because of its heritage?

Yes, I can see the logic in that.

Scorched earth policy innit

 

[icowden]

Unlike you that believes it 'reasonable' to knock down a stately home because of its heritage?
Yes, I can see the logic in that.

Well there you go you see. Thank you for demonstrating the problem so perfectly.
You have managed to read my post but come to the opposite conclusion to what it stated.

I will concede that perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I stated that it's fine to bulldoze a stately home - provided that it doesn't have any historical or architectural significance and is not listed or listable. I don't think that there are any that fall into that category.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Well there you go you see. Thank you for demonstrating the problem so perfectly.
You have managed to read my post but come to the opposite conclusion to what it stated.

I will concede that perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I stated that it's fine to bulldoze a stately home - provided that it doesn't have any historical or architectural significance and is not listed or listable. I don't think that there are any that fall into that category.

So you're talking nonsense then?

 

[Ian H]

Well there you go you see. Thank you for demonstrating the problem so perfectly.
You have managed to read my post but come to the opposite conclusion to what it stated.

I will concede that perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I stated that it's fine to bulldoze a stately home - provided that it doesn't have any historical or architectural significance and is not listed or listable. I don't think that there are any that fall into that category.

The big houses that have gone were destroyed by their owners.

 

[mudsticks]

Well there you go you see. Thank you for demonstrating the problem so perfectly.
You have managed to read my post but come to the opposite conclusion to what it stated.

I will concede that perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I stated that it's fine to bulldoze a stately home - provided that it doesn't have any historical or architectural significance and is not listed or listable. I don't think that there are any that fall into that category.

Theres definitely a 'comprehension gap' going on here.

Whether real or affected is anyone's guess .

But I suspect the latter.


There have been quite a few stately piles bulldozed over the years for redevelopment, prior to listings and suchlike.

Of course no one here was ever suggesting bulldozing NT properties anyway, until Shep decided to bring it up as some kind of feeble false equivalence..

There's still a clause under planning regs that means you can get permission for a house in the country where they wouldn't normally be allowed, if its considered to be of 'outstanding architectural merit'.

Which is double speak for 'if you've got shedloads of wonga, and a vast acreage you're far more likely to be allowed to build what you like, where you like'..