[toyg]

Did you even read the article you're so vehemently fighting on ideological grounds...?

> After being denied planning permission to convert it into 10 flats, and two days before English Heritage was due to recommend the pub be granted Grade-II listed status [...]

> "We had a suspicion before the demolition that they would do something, so we asked English Heritage to think about listing it. They took a plaster cast of every tile, they took pictures and documented everything."

The building was in the process of being designated as historic, a process whose outcomes are typically unofficially known weeks or months in advances. A date was set for the announcement. Demolishing it two days in advance of that was a complete dick move, if you excuse the technical term.

> would be unconstitutional at least two different ways in the U.S.

Good thing we are not in the US then!

[torstenvl]

I read every word. Did you? You keep claiming it was already a historic structure, and then linking to information saying it wasn't yet.

[toyg]

But it was clearly in the process of becoming so. Hence, they were not free to demolish it. Which is why they were forced to rebuild it. QED.

[torstenvl]

There is nothing in the article, nor in anything you've provided, that supports the idea that the English Heritage restrictions go into effect once a site has been nominated. Please withdraw that claim, or link to the relevant source.

Even assuming that's correct, however, it still would not make it acceptable to insinuate that something was already listed as a historic structure when it, in fact, had not been so listed.

[toyg]

Ah yes, so the Council made an order, the legitimacy of which was confirmed by a specific review, just because... they hate private property? They are drunk on power? :eyeroll:

Councils in England ultimately have this kind of power to maintain the character of an area, and they use it. There is nothing scandalous or new about it.

[torstenvl]

Sarcasm and changing the subject may convince casual readers, but it's actually not particularly effective argument, and I won't be distracted by it.

What is your citation for the claim that "they were not free to demolish it" once it was "in the process of becoming" listed?

[toyg]

The fact that they were ordered to put it back, and that the decision was upheld after review. I'm sure you can find more details yourself on the council website, or if you ask them. That is, if you're actually interested in the topic and not just arguing about it on ideological grounds from somewhere far away from the UK.