Some industries are less delicate and subtle than others, I suppose…
A point I was very tempted to make about the Landfill and Recycling industry as a whole frankly. The term I've heard used in the past was Rednecks. So that may well be appropriate this case.
The same company apparently has made applications for ‘holiday park with lodges’ in another quarry it owned, so it’s possible they have something like this in mind eventually.
I mean, I'm a local and so am biased about how nice the area is, but even I can't imagine anyone wanting to stay there on holiday. The area is not great, part of the reason the pub was failing I suspect.
An extension of the land fill/recycling site next door is much more likely.
You’d think if someone were going to do an ‘insurance job’, they’d be a little more subtle about it.
I'd assumed they won't be making an insurance claim – they were just short-circuiting any approvals they might have needed to get by burning it out and then razing it to the ground. Can you be convicted of arson if you burn your own property down?
The same company apparently has made applications for ‘holiday park with lodges’ in another quarry it owned, so it’s possible they have something like this in mind eventually.
if you wanted to do that, surely having a character building in the middle (where you could put the shop, reception or whatever) would only make the park more attractive?
Can "holiday park" also mean caravan park (with pensioners ruthlessly exploited by the landlords)? Alfie Best is a colourful holiday park owner.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/celebs-tv/itv-undercover-big-boss-star-6628394
if you wanted to do that, surely having a character building in the middle (where you could put the shop, reception or whatever) would only make the park more attractive?
Kind of what I alluded to earlier, tidy the area up and make it attractive to visitors...probably required substantial investment from somewhere - now destined to become landfill.
I live in Brum, so this isn’t too far from me. Spent a few evenings in it when I was younger. Definitely a landmark and a popular place to visit. I think it will be missed.
I definitely smell something fishy. Happens too often with older properties - where it will be difficult to get approval to demolish them and use the site for something else. It’s happened to some older houses on the Hagley Road and The Baggot Arms only few miles from me. I’d prefer the new owners be forced to re-build the previous properties to their original plans.
I've just read that the new owners own a site next door to the pub and there had been some sort of dispute over a shared access.
Plus the council gave them permission to demolish the upper storey only, for structural safety, but the owners ignored that ruling and demolished the entire thing.
Its clear their intention always was to flatten the pub and simple things like rules or rulings werent going to stop their plans.
I hope the police manage to track down who exactly was responsible for the arson, and I'll bet my left nut thats a trail that leads right back to the new owners.
If thats the case which we all know it is, there should be prison for the arson, and an order to rebuild the pub back to its original condition.
I hope the police manage to track down who exactly was responsible for the arson
If thats the case which we all know it is, there should be prison for the arson,
Is it arson if you burn down your own building? Assuming they don't file a fraudulent insurance claim, have the owners actually broken any criminal law that is worth the police investigating, given that there weren't any witnesses?
Cant believe how annoyed i am about this; all that character & history that's now gone forever...wish the National Trust or similar preserved more buildings like this if these buildings aren't able to be run as a profitable business
Assuming they don’t file a fraudulent insurance claim, have the owners actually broken any criminal law that is worth the police investigating, given that there weren’t any witnesses?
Maybe not for arson, HSE WILL probably be quite interested in the amateur demolition works if the upper story mind...
It looks from here like a fairly open and shut case of a breach of the HSWA 1974
If they burnt down their own building then hopefully the fire bridge/emergency services will charge them full costs for the call out
The waste disposal industry: One of the developers who ran Hereford United as a zombie club* before going bust had previously bought another football club and buried their ground in waste.
On the day of the bankruptcy, the ground was occupied to prevent any unfortunate chemical reactions or metallic disappearances.
*kept on life support until the ground could be developed.
It looks from here like a fairly open and shut case of a breach of the HSWA 1974
Is that a criminal charge that carries a prison sentence if nobody was injured?
If they burnt down their own building then hopefully the fire bridge/emergency services will charge them full costs for the call out
I don't see the police being interested in that either, or a judge imposing a prison sentence.
The point is that it will be very hard to prove any criminal charge so the chance of a prison sentence is zero. The owners will have factored in that they may face some fines, but they will just see that as the cost of doing business.
The thing with historic buildings is that you are demanding that a private property owner subsidize a public good – they can’t use their land the way they want to because other people want it to remain unchanged. Some old buildings are truly historic so they should be preserved and paid for with public money. However, most old buildings are just old buildings and are better off being demolished and replaced with more useful modern buildings. When you have a situation like that and the owners know that there is very little chance of being punished beyond a relatively modest fine, it’s completely to be expected that there will be a lot of suspiciously timed fires. The simplest way to stop this happening would be to use public money to lease the building at the value that it would generate if it was developed. This way, the public good would not be subsidized by private owners and the private owners would have an incentive to preserve the buildings, not a disincentive.
Not sure I agree here, Those with the cash to splash on historic and/or listed buildings only to then demolish or burn them down in order to build shiny modern buildings, could just as easily afford to buy new buildings or develop brown field sites instead. If you don't want to own historic or listed buildings and cover the costs that go with them, don't bloody buy them! And certainly don't set fire to them.
As for raiding the public purse to buy listed buildings, isn't that what charitable status organisations like National Trust and English heritage are already for? I'd rather public money went on things that truly address the public good like Hospitals or the fire service, while pretty old buildings are a descressionary spend for the middle classes to feel warm and fuzzy about when they get a NT membership or pay EH to visit some old pile.
If they burnt down their own building then hopefully the fire bridge/emergency services will charge them full costs for the call out
Why do people always focus on the money? As if that's the worst possible thing, if you start fires you are endangering lives either if they spread and/or those of the fire service that have to respond. the costs are secondary to the disregard for other people's safety.
Is that a criminal charge that carries a prison sentence if nobody was injured?
Yes, 2 years.
I think arson (s1 Criminal Damage Act 1971, max life sentence) could be a goer too, by the way. The property owner is a company, then the firesetter sets fire to the property of another person. IF they know that it is unlawful to demolish the building, then they would not have a lawful excuse to set the fire. And the circumstances of the hypothetical fire (middle of the night etc) are strongly suggestive of surreptitious conduct.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/criminal-damage
I think arson (s1 Criminal Damage Act 1971, max life sentence) could be a goer too, by the way.
Can you prove they did it? Were there any witnesses? The site has been bulldozed, so can you even prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was a deliberate fire? Will the police want to spend any time on this given how unlikely it is to end in a prosecution?
Alfie Best is a colourful holiday park owner.
Private Eye might as well create a column for him given how often his dubious dealings get reported.
Is that a criminal charge that carries a prison sentence if nobody was injured?
Yes, 2 years
And, iirc, being statutory essentially there's presumptive guilt and you're required prove you're innocent not the other way around - eg we took all possible precautions and didn't endanger life when we asked John to go round and knock the top floor off with the digger, he knew exactly what he was doing had the relevant training and equipment etc etc etc
(carries a max unlimited fine these days, 6 months custodial [if imposed in a magistrate court, I assume greater if it escalates], disqualification and remedial orders. It's a toothy bit of legislation if it wants to be)
And if the digger driver had the relevant training and equipment, what then?
Do you seriously think the police are going to launch a criminal investigation on a case that will be nearly impossible to prosecute? Sure, the owners might get a fine, but that will be trivial to them.
The waste industry in the UK has been infiltrated by Organised crime. There is a lot of money to be made by illegally dumping hazardous/recyclable waste or mis-labelling. What these organisations need are places (near to urban areas) for dumping. This site is perfect for Biffa to expand into.
Getting rid of the pub means they can block the access road off completely and do what they like with nobody watching.
And if the digger driver had the relevant training and equipment, what then?
Then how did taking the top floor off result in the whole building falling down?
Given he (appears) to simply drive up, what precautions were in place to prevent injury to the public etc. Where is his supervisor in case of an accident whilst undertaking what is clearly (because the whole place fell down) dangerous and unpredictable work.
I'd suspect love working in this inspires enough to land them in significant bother.
All of this of course they may be able to provide, but that's the point, the onus is on them to prove they did everything, not the other way around.
Do you seriously think the police are going to launch a criminal investigation
Not under HSWA no, that would be the HSE...
Nothing to do with "we liked that pub", entirely because cowboy crap like knocking down unsafe buildings with a digger in your lunch hour is precisely the sort of thing the HSE exists to prevent, investigate and prosecute.
Can you prove they did it? Were there any witnesses? The site has been bulldozed, so can you even prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was a deliberate fire? Will the police want to spend any time on this given how unlikely it is to end in a prosecution?
Given the seriousness of the crime(s) and that nobody investigating/prosecuting in and of itself would send a message? Yes I do think the Police will want to spend their time investigating, even if it doesn't result in prosecutions there's a likelihood that they'll identify people likely to be involved and as such candidates for similar future Arson/fraud attempts.
Suspicious events warrant investigation, just because wealthy Criminals operate like they have impunity doesn't mean the rest of society has to just let them do what they like...
Do I think the police are resources enough to investigate and chase up any criminal wrongdoing? No don't be silly but people are putting forward what crimes may have been committed. If the public outcry is large enough then something may well be taken forward.
Maybe to council can oppose development but I'd guess that the owners, if Dodgy, will have taken that into account and have a way around it.
Getting rid of the pub means they can block the access road off completely and do what they like with nobody watching.
Fortunately not that easy as the road has a public footpath running along it and there's another footpath running north/south right on the pub itself. I'm guessing that's why we've been seeing lots of photos of the public visiting the site and they haven't already closed the road off
Given the seriousness of the crime(s)
Somebody burnt down and then demolished an old pub that they own without permission. Nobody died, they seem unlikely to be committing insurance fraud. You may be overestimating the seriousness of the offence by quite a bit. You're searching for procedural offences when the underlying offence isn't really a serious criminal offence. Good prosecutors don't go trawling for things to charge people with, they ask whether the underlying offence was worth prosecuting. They will quite likely get a fine. A lengthy jail sentence is just a fantasy.
Well, it's on the BBC and it's a Great British Pub. So if Farage takes up the cause someone could be looking at a 20 year stretch. That's how it works nowadays isn't it?
Just looked at that on Google maps, blinking heck that's about the most grim location for a pub as you could ask for.
Do I think the police are resources enough to investigate and chase up any criminal wrongdoing?
Fire investigation starts with tbe Fire Brigade iirc, not sure at what point forensics etc move to a Police investigation.
You’re searching for procedural offences when the underlying offence isn’t really a serious criminal offence.
A bit like, I dunno, an MP fiddling their expenses? Not a huge amount in the scale of things, far more important things to look at, who cares what message it sends out to others?
Alfie Best?
He appears to be untouchable - despite his multiple illegal actions.
He's also the owner of a landfill site - on humberside? - with a contiuously burning underground fire.
Neither the LA nor the local fire service have been able (or willing?) to take robust enforcement action against him or his agents.
A bit like, I dunno, an MP fiddling their expenses?
Fiddling expenses is fraud. It should be prosecuted as fraud.
Countries like the U.K. have centuries of laws, including common law and statutes. Many of them are archaic and are still law just because they haven't been reviewed and struck off (furious riding, for example is still an offence in many parts of the world.) No human being can possibly know every single law, so you are probably breaking a bunch of laws every time you set foot outside your house. It's not good prosecutorial practice to decide that someone deserves to go to jail and then set about finding some technical violation to charge them with. That's exactly why the U.S. has so many problems with their policing - the police do traffic stops as a pretext to harass people who haven't committed any serious offence.
It’s not good prosecutorial practice to decide that someone deserves to go to jail and then set about finding some technical violation to charge them with.
But it is good practice to ask eg "might this be arson?"
No-> No further action
Yes - > "can we prove it was arson?"
No - >No further action
Yes - > "is a prosecution in the public interest?"
No -> No further action
Yes - > "can we identify a suspect?"
Etc etc
Or in the case of the HSWA
"does it look likely there was a significant contravention?"
"does the very public nature of that pose a continued risk?"
"is pursuit in the public interest"
It doesn't have to be a fishing expedition or a witch hunt to think the police etc might be interested in this for a multitude of reasons, I don't suppose the owner will be in court on tax evasion anytime soon though.
Whether any of that actually ends up in a court is a long long way down the list of considerations.
Must have got Sherlock Holmes on the case to deduce that was arson.
well the owners live up to the name "Crooked" anyway!
Hard pass on clicking on anything Daily Mail here.
There’s enough brownfield sites in each council area to meet the housing targets
That’s demonstrably untrue in large parts of the country
I can't find the article I was originally remembering, but a quick google throws up this, and there's more recent reports from people like CPRE, who have a vested interest of course.
From the Daily Mail article.
He said officers had 'spoken to, and continue to engage, with the owners', adding that its joint investigation with Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service had so far been unable to determine the cause of the fire.
Given that it was a pub, stocked with bottles of alcohol, plus the site has been bulldozed by earthmoving equipment (which can leak diesel or hydraulic fluid), there's plausible deniability that the presence of accelerants proves arson, assuming their sniffer dog detects some.
Getting an inconvenient obstacle out of the way of the surrounding landfill.
If the legal penalty is a 'Fine', it just means it costs 'this much' to do it. If you can afford it.
Which they can.
And have.
assuming their sniffer dog detects some.
I'd be surprised if they spend that much time on it to be honest. Fairly obvious the fire is suspicious the chances of establishing more than that are at this point exceedingly slim.
Fairly obvious the fire is suspicious the chances of establishing more than that are at this point exceedingly slim.
Yup. Even if shown to be arson then they can still blame the local yoof.
There is a reason mysterious fires destroying inconvenient old buildings which were blocking the preferred redevelopment keep happening.
There is a reason mysterious fires destroying inconvenient old buildings which were blocking the preferred redevelopment keep happening.
Because it's ridiculously difficult to get rid of them legitimately?
Because it’s ridiculously difficult to get rid of them legitimately?
And sadly the reason its difficult is to stop genuinely interesting/rare buildings being destroyed.
A more pragmatic appproach for many wpuld reduce the risk for the few.
