GCN Hank is is a proper posh dude!

Who knew? Owns The Rivals TV house IRL! Is this common knowledge? Have to admit, I always quite liked him and the cross over videos he does with Blake Samson.

Oh, and it mentions he left GCN too. Shame.

Looks like a Chav’y cyclo-cross venue to me.

his M&D have obviously been on here lurking on the farmers IHT thread

This explains why I have always found him obnoxious.

his M&D have obviously been on here lurking on the farmers IHT thread

Ha, yeah. That struck me too. Hope his mum, (assuming that was her in the video) last 7 years. 😀

Who knew?

He has done a few GCN videos with his dad over the years and the house was in the background. He is young and they are passing it on before they die presumably so will avoid IHT (which is clearly what anyone who has planned it would do).

He is now left with a nn million pound asset which takes millions a year to run but has no money but seems to have a sense of preserving the family association to it. If that’s the job you want to do then great, if not then sell it (after 7 years) and never worry about money ever again. Nice position to be in.

And as part of the younger generation a large part of our plan for running this place at profit in the 21st century is monetising our socials, zzzzz. No thanks.

Decided it wasn’t a spin off I wanted to watch.

He could play on the “Rivals” connection and give people the chance to reenact the sexual shenanigans on location.

Very lucky, Indeed.

Meanwhile, looking at homeless bloke under a wet blanket on Baldwin Street (Bristol) in the rain…. Presumed dead.

🙁

But that’s the luck of the draw in this country.

Very lucky, Indeed.

Meanwhile, looking at homeless bloke under a wet blanket on Baldwin Street (Bristol) in the rain…. Presumed dead.

?

But that’s the luck of the draw in this country.

It is, but the good luck bit applies to any one of us with a home,  job, full fridge and reasonably stable domestic circumstances. Not just to a well off youtuber.

Real wealth right there. Worth multiple times more than most of us will earn in our entire lives, presumably inherited without a penny in tax being paid. Meanwhile the rest of us squabble over whether 43% or just 42% of our meagre earnings should be taxed.

That’s life in modern Britain, but a show built on such vile inequality is never going to be on my watch list. I hope he at least treats the staff with respect and acknowledges that they’re the ones who do the work while he prances around making jokes.

It’s also a good opportunity for the guy who claims “we can’t find 50p to rub together” to actually prove that they are cash poor, but somehow I suspect that’s not actually true at least not in the sense that most of us would consider “poor”.

So was he the over privileged prick who was interviewed on the News Agents?

Saying that the IHT would bankrupt him and when he was asked what his tax bill would be, he said he hadn’t worked it out yet.

I tell you what, split your house into apartments and sell them. Or just sell the whole thing to a footballer or whatever.

Why would 2 people need a house that size that they obviously are struggling to maintain?

Looks like a Chav’y cyclo-cross venue to me.

Pretty sure they’d held CX races on his land…

presumably inherited without a penny in tax being paid.

If that’s the job you want to do then great, if not then sell it (after 7 years) and never worry about money ever again. Nice position to be in.

It’s under trust iirc – so he won’t be able to sell up. The trust will also pay tax every 6? Years …

I live and work on a similar estate just north of Hank – very similar in approach and business. Estates like that have multiple workers and businesses on  the land all paying tax, benefiting the community etc. In fact my business (village shop) wouldn’t exist if the estate (and trust it’s managed under) didn’t.

Jeremy Clarksons farm is 100acres bigger, doesn’t have a massive grade one house of significant historical importance on it and still (according to Jeremy) doesn’t make money.

It’s under trust iirc – so he won’t be able to sell up.

So why did he claim he was going to go bankrupt?

He, like many other of these “farmers”, are lying and yet plenty on here still support them

There’s a reason that property is in trust and it’s purely to benefit him and his family.

A bunch of lying grifters.

I’m not going to be negative about him just because of his circumstances

Just remember, that range rover that gives you plenty of space when passing, it could be him

Meanwhile the rest of us squabble over whether 43% or just 42% of our meagre earnings should be taxed.

Are you sure the ‘rest of us’ are doing that?

why did he claim he was going to go bankrupt?

No idea, not seen the interview.

There’s a reason that property is in trust and it’s purely to benefit him and his family.

And also benefitting the wider community, like I said my business wouldn’t exist without an estate under trust. It also stops them (the hereditary owners) from bankrupting the estate in debt from gambling, pissing it up the wall and acting like a poss toff etc & from bad business decisions. Trusts pay tax, yes he’s wealthy with a big house, but in the scale of farming, he’s not in the top 20% of land owners in the country.

Why would 2 people need a house that size that they obviously are struggling to maintain?

Usually the owner will live in small a wing or flat, the rest goes to ruin or storage (much like shown in  the video). Only the super wealthy will have an entire house that’s in tip top condition. There’s 4 large country houses within two miles of me with land to each that just don’t bother farming it because they are soooo wealthy.

You’re right, we should all just keep tugging our forelocks.

What difference would it make to the wider community if they went bankrupt and someone else owned the land?

Why does a village shop need a feudal landlord? If there is sufficient trade then your shop can exist.

We have 2 shops that operate happily outside of an existing local trust that controls a lot of land and property, and is an absolute pain in the arse to deal with.

He seems to be acting like the posh toff already.

I like Hank and fair play to him for taking the house on, it could have been some ignorant entitled pr’k getting it who just wants to ride the system for as much as he can.  He seems to have a few morals and sense of decorum (fair play to his folks for instilling that in him) so hopefully he’ll do the right thing as far as possible.

Best of luck to him, will be interested to see what he can do.

Usually the owner will live in small a wing or flat, the rest goes to ruin or storage (much like shown in the video).

Disgusting waste of housing.

He seems to have a few morals and sense of decorum

So why did he lie about going bankrupt because of the IHT?

Is this common knowledge?

It’s certainly not been hidden, he’s mentioned it on a few of the GCN vids I’ve watched (and I’ve not watched that many of them).

Why does a village shop need a feudal landlord? If there is sufficient trade then your shop can exist.

Because they keep the rent affordable so that there is a shop & workers in the shop, this benefis the estate and the vastly wider community – the shop just wouldn’t be financially viable without low rent. The shop is attached to a house worth in excess 700k so its completely unviable as a freehold.

As I said theres significantly wealthier people and houses in the Cotswolds, Hank is a small player.

One local estate house was bought four years ago for 19million, the new owner has spent another 12 +million doing it up – still hasn’t moved in. It’s a UK holiday home for his family.

Another, shut down the entire road network locally, paying to have roads closed, so that his new infinity pool (which came in two halves) could be delivered.

There’s an estate, about 20miles away, that was bought, existing farmhouses were demolished and a brand new 20+million mansion was built, the existing 600achre farm became the new owners lawn and shoot. Again a holiday home.

Hank is rich, but not super your ranting about the wrong people.

So if you had a “normal” landlord they would charge a rent that wouldn’t make the shop viable?

That would mean their asset would make zero income.

Our local, feudal trust have left a school empty and boarded up for a few years now. It’s an eyesore, attracts kids who keep breaking in and could be put to alternative use.

They refuse to allow a change of use for the site.

So if you had a “normal” landlord they would charge a rent that wouldn’t make the shop viable?

No, the house alone would be £2500+ a month rent, the shop would be on top of that at a value significantly higher than now. More likely they would split the house from the shop, and rent the retail unit to some sort of studio, loosing the postoffice and village shop.

I live a couple of minutes away and often see Hank (sometimes filming) out and about and he’s a down to earth bloke like his old man.

The grade I listed house and estate is a gigantic money pit kept going with weddings, a nice cafe, filming and house tours. I think a lot of people have preconceptions on here that people with large assets have ready access to liquidity to pay IHT. That’s simply not true and why houses get sold and people lose the family home.

And to add to @monkeyboyjc some serious money in this neck of the woods so can start giving Hank a hard time when he starts parking the Gulfstream at Kemble (looking at you Mr Dyson). They do bring very significant employment opportunities as well to local people that wouldn’t exist otherwise.

Who knew?

You’d never have guessed from his braying posh accent and his stereotyped bumbling upper class dad.

You can explain the local economic importance of  the estate to the local economy till the cows come home, but it doesn’t come close to justifying the ridiculous, archaic system that leaves great swathes of the country under the ownership of random people because their distant ancestor once went hunting with William the Conqueror.

Nothing against Hank or his ilk as individuals, but it’s part of the same intrinsically-flawed system that gave us the Royal Family as God’s representatives on earth and a rights of way system that belongs in the Dark Ages.

Ask yourself, if you were constructing a social and economic system from scratch, would you really think it was a great idea to parcel off great parcels of land and hand them over to individuals to be passed down in perpetuity, while the vast bulk of the population slaved to make enough money to pay for the tiny, but ruinously expensive, parcels of land that individual houses are built on.

They’ve owned the house since 1891 don’t have any titles but don’t let that stop you from stereotyping. Go read up on the history and you’ll see the irony of you spouting the Royal angle.

They do bring very significant employment opportunities as well to local people that wouldn’t exist otherwise.

That’s simply not true.

That’s how people justify living in a feudal system.

Nearly every other developed nation has an annual tax on assets.

In the UK, loads are people are complaining about an IHT that means that multi-millionaires will have pay a tax at half the rate the rest of us have to.

Why should they be allowed to keep assets that they can’t afford?

Why is the system skewed to benefit the landed gentry?

I suggest you put your iht views on the other thread, where lots of us will agree with you.

Hank, and the owner of the estate I live on are not landed gentry – they are descendants of rich families from 150 years ago. They have to manage the commercial and social investments made 150years ago.

There’s 20 earls and dukes who own a huge disproportionate amount of land in the UK. Hanks estate is comparatively tiny. The earls and dukes will now have to pay into (a good thing imo).

I use to always like him on gcn,  but my mate use to race against him back in the day and told me he’s an absolute entitled prick that every other rider loathed..

Never came across that way on gcn tbf..

he’s an absolute entitled prick that every other rider loathed

What a surprise.

Son of landed gentry, who talks about his “family’s heritage” is an entitled prick.

They’ve owned the house since 1891 don’t have any titles but don’t let that stop you from stereotyping. Go read up on the history and you’ll see the irony of you spouting the Royal angle.

I looked up the history:

George Williams Lowsley-Hoole,  the grandfather of David Lowsley-Williams (the current owner) inherited a nearby estate, thanks to the lack of a direct heir.  He came down from York to inspect his inheritance and stayed with a friend,  Sir George Holford at nearby  Westonbirt.  Having told Holford that he was not overly fond of what he had inherited,  Holford told him that  Chavenage was for sale. So Williams Lowsley-Hoole rented, then bought it.

From – https://www.divento.com/en/content/368-chavenage-a-family-business

Seems like a pretty damn wealthy and privileged family history to me.

You’re right, we should all just keep tugging our forelocks.

What difference would it make to the wider community if they went bankrupt and someone else owned the land?

FFS, people can be richer or more successful or “posher” than me but I don’t have to tug my forelock. That speaks more about your own issues than wealth inequality.

And if someone else owned it, the only difference to the wider community would be that someone else owned it. I’ve worked alongside some big estates in a previous job, some were arseholes, most were not.

It’s like they are the usual mix of normal people, but get extra hate.

Good luck to them! I still get benefit from his GCN training sessions. He seems like a decent bloke, treating people well, generating jobs, working for a living and getting on with life. He’s hardly Bezos or Musk. 🙂

As Marcus Aurelius says “It is possible to live well, even in a castle”.

I think there is more to us than the circumstances of our birth.

I think there is more to us than the circumstances of our birth.

Indeed – I’ve known some lovely, sensible, responsible people born with a silver spoon in their mouths, and some right entitled pricks you’d think would be alright as they are “like me” but then manage to blow the illusion.

Better to judge the person for who they are, not how un/fortunate the accident of birth made them. Otherwise we’ll be blinkered by our bias.

The debate about changing the land owning/tax paying systems in this country should be about the systems, not the people.

Coming back to Hank, he hadn’t flaunted his background on GCN, but he hadn’t hidden it either – I seem to recall some of the other presenters having a pop at him once or twice about it. And while I can understand the pressures of keeping an estate going, I’m not interested enough to watch it on YT.

Don’t you just love the envious folk of STW , if he wasn’t rich he would be ok but now they know he’s wealthy he is a prick

Get a grip people and learn to make the best of your own lives rather than being envious of others

edit: just watched a bit of the vid and yes he’s taking it on, but doesn’t come across as loaded to me, straight away he says he will need to run it as a business to keep it.

Completely the right thing to have past the house on now before it becomes liable for IHT I doubt working for GCN made him a multi millionaire to pay that tax bill

It will employ loads of local people to keep it open, and lots of skilled trades people. I’d rather he keep it in the family rather it become some chain hotel , owned by someone in the US etc, and all the money disappears out of the UK.

How dare a posh person ride a bike though, and do a bloody good job at it too ?

edit: I didn’t realise Manon had gone too from GCN. Maybe her parents are scourge of the earth Welsh farmers and she’s taken over the farm now to become a billionaire and avoid inheritance tax

Are you sure the ‘rest of us’ are doing that?

I obviously can’t speak for literally every person but the main national political discussion point over the last few months has been the extent to which taxes on workers should rise, so yes I think that was a fair comment

I obviously can’t speak for literally every person but the main national political discussion point over the last few months has been the extent to which taxes on workers should rise, so yes I think that was a fair comment

I’m guessing the reference was to the fact that most people don’t pay 42% or 43% tax as they’re not higher rate tax payers. That being said, I would not be surprised if those members who are currently in work there was a majority who were 40% tax payers (/whatever the scottish percentage is). Perhaps STW know whether that is the case or not given it’d be of interest to advertisers.

I obviously can’t speak for literally every person but the main national political discussion point over the last few months has been the extent to which taxes on workers should rise, so yes I think that was a fair comment

I’m guessing the reference was to the fact that most people don’t pay 42% or 43% tax as they’re not higher rate tax payers. That being said, I would not be surprised if those members who are currently in work there was a majority who were 40% tax payers (/whatever the scottish percentage is). Perhaps STW know whether that is the case or not given it’d be of interest to advertisers.

@ewan true although quite a high proportion of full time workers are higher rate tax payers now i’d think.

But you don’t need to be a higher rate tax payer to be pre-occupied squabbling about workers taxes while the truly wealthy continue paying nothing.

I know a lot of people in this country will rush into bat for the rich in the desperate hope of being thrown an extra bowl of gruel, but elsewhere they manage to tax fairly and proportionately without any problems.

We must be almost unique, perhaps only 2nd to the US in terms of the deference we give to some fairly nasty people purely because of inherited wealth, often acquired on the back of their ancestors successfully stealing land from hard working farmers. Most other nations wouldn’t stand for it.