The Crooked House has burnt down!

[Peter]

Has a crime actually been committed?  It seems on the face of it that the property may have belonged to the people who set fire to it and also demolished it.  Are you allowed to burn your own house down?  Probably there was no insurance, anyway.  And the house wasn't listed, only listing.  Yes, it all stinks to high Heaven but I'll be surprised if any serious prosecutions are brought.  Do you need planning permission to demolish a house?  Probably, yes, so there might be a retrospective case for the council but that might be about it.  I suspect this outfit knows very well what it is doing.  That's why they live in a gated establishment.  Be nice if they were in a different gated establishment, perhaps, with no matches.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I'm pretty sure arson is a crime even of your own property and even if no fraud is involved. And for good reason: fire spreads.

[Peter]

Yes, of course.  Hence the need to destroy the evidence quickly.  That was silly of me.  Still not sure about prosecutions (or at least successful ones), though.

[Jaded]

Arson is a pretty serious crime, not many crimes have longer sentences.

[Peter]

Yes, I was just being thick, J.  I've had a lot of practice!

[Woofage]

Yes, of course.  Hence the need to destroy the evidence quickly.  That was silly of me.  Still not sure about prosecutions (or at least successful ones), though.

The building containing a former colleague's office was torched by its owners as an insurance scam. The perps were convicted on mobile phone location evidence .

[Mr Larrington]

Note to self: leave phone at home before setting out to burn down the D**ly M**l's HQ.

Omnes: Is that why Bethany got away with it?
Bethany (13): 

[robgul]

Has a crime actually been committed?  It seems on the face of it that the property may have belonged to the people who set fire to it and also demolished it.  Are you allowed to burn your own house down?  Probably there was no insurance, anyway.  And the house wasn't listed, only listing.  Yes, it all stinks to high Heaven but I'll be surprised if any serious prosecutions are brought.  Do you need planning permission to demolish a house?  Probably, yes, so there might be a retrospective case for the council but that might be about it.  I suspect this outfit knows very well what it is doing.  That's why they live in a gated establishment.  Be nice if they were in a different gated establishment, perhaps, with no matches.

Have to say that's some of my thinking - if you own a building can you destroy it? (ignore the method for a moment) - provided it's done safely.    If it was subject to an insurance claim that's obviously fraud . . but if it isn't?     When I had a small farm back in the 1980s I demolished an old barn, nobody seemed bothered.

I guess the question is "do you need unplanning permission to demolish something you own"  and whether arson is a crime.   

As an aside Clarkson blew up his old house as a stunt on Top Gear, did he have permission?

[Peter]

Rob, I think I was probably being careless.  I imagine arson is a very serious crime partly because of the fact that you can't be certain whether there was anyone in the building when it went up, at least not in every case.  I'm doubly surprised at myself because some scrotes set fire to a mill in Rochdale and unintentionally burned a rough sleeper to death.  I even wrote a song about it because I was so upset (and I was still writing).  It's probably the capital angle that kept arson up with murder and treason as capital offences after the death penalty was abolished for other offences.  There was one more, was it piracy?

Either way, this is really shady.

[Paul H]

Have to say that's some of my thinking - if you own a building can you destroy it? (ignore the method for a moment) - provided it's done safely.    If it was subject to an insurance claim that's obviously fraud . . but if it isn't?     When I had a small farm back in the 1980s I demolished an old barn, nobody seemed bothered.

You need the local authority to grant a demolition notice. I don't know what that involves, other than receiving a copy before they knocked down a neighboring property (Nursing home) some years ago. 
Whatever the story here, I suspect it's easier to get planning permission for what's now just land, than to replace a building. 

[rogerzilla]

Torygraph is reporting that the owners hired the demolition equipment days before the fire.  Not that bright, then.

[Mr Larrington]

Rob, I think I was probably being careless.  I imagine arson is a very serious crime partly because of the fact that you can't be certain whether there was anyone in the building when it went up, at least not in every case.  I'm doubly surprised at myself because some scrotes set fire to a mill in Rochdale and unintentionally burned a rough sleeper to death.  I even wrote a song about it because I was so upset (and I was still writing).  It's probably the capital angle that kept arson up with murder and treason as capital offences after the death penalty was abolished for other offences.  There was one more, was it piracy?

IIRC it was high treason, piracy on the high seas and arson in a Royal Navy dockyard.  And in Scotland, apparently, unauthorised use of the Royal Standard.  Which meant that in theory the Edinburgh chap nicked a few decades back for selling Royal Standard bedspreads without Missis Kwin's permission could have been hanged by the neck utterly to DETH

[hellymedic]

Another One Bites The Dust!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-66458716

I'm no great Harvester fan but wonder what's in the air...

[citoyen]

It seems on the face of it that the property may have belonged to the people who set fire to it and also demolished it. 

First, are we assuming they do actually own it outright and don't have any mortgages or suchlike?

Second, I believe a bonfire of that size would need a licence regardless of what is being burned and who owns it.

Rob, I think I was probably being careless.  I imagine arson is a very serious crime partly because of the fact that you can't be certain whether there was anyone in the building when it went up, at least not in every case.

It's a fair question though - and like any question you ask on the internet, you are liable to receive multiple definitive and conflicting answers from self-proclaimed experts, so you have to be careful who you believe.

Either way, this is really shady.

Indeed!

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

At least the clock seems to have escaped..

[ian]

According to the legal definition of arson, it makes as much sense as any other legal definition where in the space of two paragraphs it contradicts from any property to property of another. Bonzer.

Anyway, you can't just have a big bonfire without getting permission from someone more authorative than your mum.

[rogerzilla]

I imagine the waste site owner and his trophy wife will find their business suffers.  Everyone in the West Midlands hates their guts now.  The plant hire firm, apparently innocent in all this, has had death threats.

[JellyLegs]

According to the legal definition of arson, it makes as much sense as any other legal definition where in the space of two paragraphs it contradicts from any property to property of another. Bonzer.

Anyway, you can't just have a big bonfire without getting permission from someone more authorative than your mum.

It’s the introductory paragraph to arson in general being in the simple arson section.

Simple arson - property of another.

Aggravated arson - any property.

This would almost certainly be charged as aggravated as it was reckless as to whether life would be endangered - it’s not beyond the wit of man to foresee an insecure building attracting squatters or that firefighters might have made entry to the building on fire to check and then be injured or worse.

[ian]

Yes, I wasn't clear where 'simple arson' came from, as it wasn't defined. But your interpretation makes sense.

Indeed, aggravated would seem the case, at a minimum, in starting such a fire you endanger the lives of the firefighters and emergency responders.

[Wowbagger]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/11/crooked-house-burnt-out-pub-historic-landmark

Marina Hyde's take on the whole squalid affair.

[hellymedic]

I think the Taylors have totally failed to read the room about The Crooked House.
Loads of pubs go up in smoke after sale, with scant publicity and my partner thinks the reactions have been OTT.
I pointed out I had been there and it's something of a local legend/treasure there's not much else in the Black Country.

Outsiders just don't get the affection the locals hold in their hearts for The Crooked House.

At all.

[ian]

Did people actually go there though? You can predict the future of most pubs by visiting at 9pm on a Tuesday evening. I know plenty of people who gripe about their village pub closing but admit they went in about once a year.

[rafletcher]

Did people actually go there though? You can predict the future of most pubs by visiting at 9pm on a Tuesday evening. I know plenty of people who gripe about their village pub closing but admit they went in about once a year.

Exactly. Marstons don’t sell profitable pubs.

[Bledlow]

At least the clock seems to have escaped..

They may have worried about their ability to protect that cherished symbol of the pub's old days after the pub became empty. That could also explain the blocking of the access road, presumable using the digger they'd hired. How silly of the operator to box it in! Nobody could have expected its continued presence to become fortuitous soon afterwards.

Post-fire pictures show outbuildings on the site which appear completely undamaged. Flattened now. Obviously, the Taylors found it too upsetting to be reminded of the sad fate of their pride & joy by seeing its associated buildings.

[pcolbeck]

Did people actually go there though? You can predict the future of most pubs by visiting at 9pm on a Tuesday evening. I know plenty of people who gripe about their village pub closing but admit they went in about once a year.

Exactly. When our village pub went bust about ten years ago the owners held a big last night do. It was rammed with people who I had never seen in the pub before. The owners had a right laugh charging them well over the odds for drinks whilst charging everyone who had supported the pub about 10p a pint. At 11:00pm they gave a speech about use it or lose it then kicked out those who never drank there, locked the doors and then all drinks were free for those who had been regulars.