I'm struggling to believe the Laird couldn't scrape together £100k given the urgent nature of the situation.
If your house fell down and caused damage to 3rd parties or polluted and blocked a water course you'd be liable for it and hoping very much your insurance would cover it.
Or in the case of the landed gentry, you call a few mates and get £100k made available to save you all that nasty trouble.
Theres a lot of spite on this thread, I trust you know that flood affected properties in Cumbria can get a 500 grant to make a start on repairs?
[url= http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/flooding-help-and-advice/grants/500-household-grant/ ]http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/flooding-help-and-advice/grants/500-household-grant/
[/url]
Appreciate that's a blanket and its not huge, but its not a million miles different.
It is a tricky one though - given imminent collapse there isn't the time to mess about deciding who's going to pay - the owner appears to have successfully played brinksmanship, if I was in his position I'd have expected somebody to stump up money to save it, so why dip in your own pocket? The question is whether the "public" would be happy just to see it collapse rather than do what needs to be done now. Would there be knock on public costs from allowing the collapse?
Of course once enough has been done - and I'd suggest it should be just the minimal amount necessary - to prevent it collapsing tomorrow or later this week, then the situation is different. At that point it's up to him - or if he wants more public funding then he has to allow public access.
That old chestnut portraying anyone who objects to being swindled by the elite as having a 'chip on their shoulder' is hackneyed and lazy.
When that same ruling class object to being swindled by benefit cheats or whatever they don't get that.
[quote=lesgrandepotato ]Theres a lot of spite on this thread, I trust you know that flood affected properties in Cumbria can get a 500 grant to make a start on repairs?
http://www.southlakeland.gov.uk/flooding-help-and-advice/grants/500-household-grant/
Appreciate that's a blanket and its not huge, but its not a million miles different.
I don't think it's spite at all - it's a question of what is a good use of public money. That is still 200 times different, which is kind of the whole point. I doubt anybody would begrudge him getting a £500 grant. Of course those £500 grants are also going to many people for whom that is a significant sum, who don't have huge estates of land some of which they could sell off to pay for repairs.
It's not like I'm one of the standard lefties on here either.
£100,000 is quite different to £500 if you ask me
Because he's worth it?
[img] 
[/img]
Nice neighbours
There's the other side to this which is that the people and resources needed to do this could (and probably) should be working on fixing essential infrastructure like the A93. I would not be in the least bit surprised if the same "influence" that secured £100k so easily via a slightly obscure charitable route has also helped secure the resources needed to the detriment of others. It's how Britain works.
As I doubt the £100k will be spent on him personally wading into the river to fix it, then surely this money will end up in the local economy and be recycled into the shops etc.
I don't head off looking for funding when the roof leaks or boiler blows...
You claim on your insurance surely? This is a bit worse than that though, this is the whole place collapsing and a listed building at that.
I kind of imagine (rightly or wrongly) that as he had some 60 odd ft of land at the end of the garden before the river then he probably wasn't banking on a major land re-inforcement project this year.
I'd also be surprised if he had 100k just lying about, there's a difference between wealth and available liquid cash.
When that same ruling class object to being swindled by benefit cheats or whatever they don't get that.
That old chestnut is hackneyed and lazy.
Could have given Wonga a shout. That's what the plebs have to do when hit with unexpected problems. Or maybe speak to a bank and secure a small loan against the thousands of acres that you own.
Or get a wee loan from the neighbours - maybe an advance on what you charge them for hunting on your land?
Your chip on the shoulder one has been used within the past two weeks on this very site.
Of course there is always the possibility that he would quite like to be shot of the castle so he can build something a bit more comfortable and modern, but he can't knock it down, alter it or build near it because it is a protected building.
If that was the case, should he be forced to maintain and protect it out of his own funds even if he doesn't want it?
Does anyone have a source for the £100k other than the throwaway "£100,00" line in the BBC article? Since there's clearly a mistake in there it could be "£100.00"*, "£10,000" or "£100,000". It could also be an emergency loan to allow him to liquidate some assets and pay for the work or until his insurance fronts up.
There may well be some horrible cronyism going on but it's a bit of a leap from what I can see.
*insert smiley to suggest not entirely serious.
I'd also be surprised if he had 100k just lying about, there's a difference between wealth and available liquid cash.
That's what banks are for, borrowing against assets. I'm torn between thinking it's a piece of heritage worth saving and it belonging to someone who doesn't deserve it and happily seeing it fall in the river rather than a penny of public money being given to him.
Your chip on the shoulder one has been used within the past two weeks on this very site.
Explain?
Looks like a 19th century Walter Scott inspired piece of self agrandisement without any real connection to the highlands, put up as a keep up with germans over the road exercise. That said it's not public money it's a charities and they have discretion over where there money goes even if that is, in this instance, your mates back pocket.
Page three of the watch thread, I'm not wanting to have a personal go at you but its been rolled out so many times to portray the masses as surly louts for resenting being exploited that its become tiring.
He doesn't have a choice about that, as the owner of a listed building it is his legal responsibility to maintain it. blah blah blah etc.
What I meant was he could have sold it but chose not to and so coughs up the maintenance costs.
Hope the building falls into the river before a penny of the donation is spent on it.
I definitely don't want it falling in the river.
As I said on page 1, controlled demolition is what is required.
Looks like a 19th century Walter Scott inspired piece of self agrandisement without any real connection to the highlands
It is 16th century, and figured in the first and second Jacobite uprisings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abergeldie_Castle
New flood map released;
http://news.bfnn.co.uk/government-release-post-flood-map-of-uk/
SNP representative Jock McDougal told BFNN: “These floods are brilliant for us, we aren’t even connected to England anymore. It’s what we’ve always wanted. It’s a wee Christmas Miracle.”[img]
[/img]
So abundant is the rejoicing in Scotland that a new town on the southern coast will known as “Salmond-upon-sea”.
Page three of the watch thread
I think you're confusing me with someone else.
I didn't say [i]you[/i] had used it this week, just that it had been used.
Righto, that wasn't very clear. Apologies!
Those Hebden looters need to get in there sharpish, while there's still time.
No worries, and like I say i'm not here to offend anyone, sorry if it came across personal.
Piemonster that map is an absolute hoax, no way would any tory leave Liverpool above sea level 😀
Refugee camp for Newcastle innit
[quote=dragon ]As I doubt the £100k will be spent on him personally wading into the river to fix it, then surely this money will end up in the local economy and be recycled into the shops etc.
Ah, good old trickle down economics. I presume if that money was spent on something more directly for the public benefit instead it wouldn't trickle down in the same way?
Refugee camp for Newcastle innit
I think any self respecting Geordie would rather move to Scotchland TBH!
Big old f'ugly house that belongs to a real life aristocratic version of Mr Twit; get in the [s]sea[/s] Dee!
(Just felt the need to exercise my chip 😉 )
dragon » As I doubt the £100k will be spent on him personally wading into the river to fix it, then surely this money will end up in the local economy and be recycled into the shops etc.
Ah, good old trickle down economics. I presume if that money was spent on something more directly for the public benefit instead it wouldn't trickle down in the same way?
Odd, I could have sworn people were making much the same comments about Hebden Bridge, waxing lyrical about how they will be spending their holidays and cash there to "do their bit" and yet not one snarky comment was put their way. Wonder why?
Is it still standing this morning ?
squirrelking - MemberOdd, I could have sworn people were making much the same comments about Hebden Bridge, waxing lyrical about how they will be spending their holidays and cash there to "do their bit" and yet not one snarky comment was put their way. Wonder why?
Because the 2 things are really very different?
squirrelking - MemberOdd, I could have sworn people were making much the same comments about Hebden Bridge, waxing lyrical about how they will be spending their holidays and cash there to "do their bit" and yet not one snarky comment was put their way. Wonder why?
People in Hebden Bridge etc. are suffering real hardship. Some of them will have no insurance due to previous floods. Some of them have been given £500 to help. The guy in the "castle" has been granted £100,000 from a "charity" to help preserve one of his homes. Do you really see [i]any[/i] similarity?
Odd use of "quotes" ?
Unless the £100k is a short term bridging loan, it does seem utterly unacceptable. I've emailed SBC to ask if they'd confirm the BBC article. Perhaps if others do the same they might rethink how they hand out large lumps of cash to the already extremely wealthy.
GrahamS - MemberOdd use of "quotes" ?
It's hardly a castle is it?
[i]castle
?k??s(?)l/
noun
noun: castle; plural noun: castles
1.
a large building, typically of the medieval period, fortified against attack with thick walls, battlements, towers, and often a moat.
"Edinburgh Castle"[/i]
I put charity in quotes as my understanding of charity is a body that helps out people who need it. This guy is minted, he doesn't need charity.
#edit: Although his moat is pretty damn impressive.
It's hardly a castle is it?
if you hit the expand button on google dfine you'll get a couple more definitions:
castle
?k??s(?)l/Submit
noun
noun: castle; plural noun: castles
1.
a large building, typically of the medieval period, fortified against attack with thick walls, battlements, towers, and often a moat.
"Edinburgh Castle"
synonyms: fortress, fort, stronghold, fortification, keep, citadel, fastness, tower, peel, palace, chateau, donjon; alcazar
a magnificent and imposing old mansion.
"Castle Howard"
CHESSinformal
old-fashioned term for rook2.
It's hardly a castle is it?
It seems to tick off most of the requirements in your definition.
[i]"A large building"?[/i]
[url= http://s13.postimg.org/9wv0yc23r/abergeldie_castle_1948.jp g" target="_blank">
Check.
[i]"typically of the medieval period"[/i]
[url= https://canmore.org.uk/site/31138/abergeldie-castle ]Built circa 1550[/url].
[i]"fortified against attack with thick walls"[/i]
The walls are four foot thick.
[i]"battlements, towers"[/i]
Not much in the way of battlements remaining, but the whole thing is a four-storey tower and it was sufficient enough to be fought over and sieged during the Jacobite uprisings.
[i]"often a moat"[/i]
Ruddy great river.
https://canmore.org.uk/site/31138/abergeldie-castle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abergeldie_Castle
https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/aberdeenshire/796446/long-noble-sometimes-terrifying-history-abergeldie-castle/
Unless the £100k is a short term bridging loan, it does seem utterly unacceptable. I've emailed SBC to ask if they'd confirm the BBC article. Perhaps if others do the same they might rethink how they hand out large lumps of cash to the already extremely wealthy.
I also wonder if (as their current charitable aims and programmes suggest) be supporting the many small businesses and communities across Deeside and Scotland that are suffering total loss already, with such quickly available help?
