Albert Dryden
 

lets try a little controversy and see if anyone is paying attention.
Albert Dryden built a cottage. In his view legally, in the local council's view illegally.
When they came to knock it down in 1991, with bulldozers and a film crew, Dryden defended his home by shooting the the chief planning officer, a reporter and a policeman and apparently at some cars and a bulldozer.
How would you react to your home being knocked down with a filmcrew to record and complete the humiliation? Dryden comes across as a bit of a nasty weirdo, but would we have acted much differently, up against "the system", worn down by argument and little left to lose?
I think it's a case of the little guy up against the system with no way out.
Here's a newsclip for those who never saw it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mnNHBeqtAY&mode=related&search=
_________________

Follow the money trail. . .

The policeman was shot in the buttock, when he returned to service he had to be moved to another area as schoolchildren used to follow him around taunting him with his new nickname: "Two arseholes".
A couple of years ago a policeman wrote a book about the mistakes made.
Dryden is still serving his sentence but at a low security prison. He is now eligible for parole but shows no remorse.

I don't think the news clip gives nearly enough info to make an informed decision and even if it did, I'm sure eminent domain is very different in the UK than here in the US. Surely, Dryden didn't first learn of the problem when the demolition crew showed up. What kind of legal process preceded all this drama? Yeah, I wouldn't feel too guilty about shooting someone coming to demolish my house. But just about everywhere in the industrialized world has a permit and zoning process to navigate before you build a house.

. . . Arthur Dent awoke that morning, looked out his window and saw a bulldozer. . .

Here as you say, in the mud.

Arthur lay in the mud and squelched at him. :)

We'll see who rusts first

There is obviouly a great deal more to this story than what we see in the news clip. I do feel very sorry for Mr Dryden but it does appear that he was in the wrong from the start.
I believe the council has every right to demolish a structure that has been built without permission. He did not have permission when he started, and from what I can find, he was actually denied permission on several occasions. While it seems that it's very unusual for the process to get this far there was probably good reason for the permission being declined and the order to demolish the structure being issued. While I can see that the situation became one of desperation for Mr Dryden I do think that he was completely in the wrong doing what he did. Sure, he had put all of his money into the building but that was entirely his own fault. If he had followed procedure I am sure the planners would have advised him properly, either not to proceed or suggested ways to proceed in a manner that the planning application would be granted.
On the other hand, it was a little inconsiderate to have the press and TV crew there to watch the council demolish some poor guys house. I am sure the situation could have been handled better and the whole 'circus' atmosphere probably elevated the situation by antagonising Mr Dryden.
Consequently I wouldn't agree with any of the options in the poll. The council weren't completely honorable by doing what they did, even if they were in the right. Mr Dryden wasn't right nor was he a whacko, simply a man who made a big mistake and couldn't find a reasonable solution.

He asked fior it, he was responsible for the confrontation, he provoked it, he got what he deserved.
When will the wackos learn that just because you don't like or agree with a law does it not give you ther right to ignore it? When will they learn that you can fight city hall but you do it with lawyers and the courts, not with barricades and guns? That's why they are wackos. They will never learn.

Obviously he was in the wrong. You don't punish an over-zealous planner with death. And you don't build without a permit.

But I won't be surprised if (and when?) a property owner storms into a planning department and sprays the place with machine gun fire. Around here they have bankrupted families for no good reason, by denying a permit for a house.

One example of the lunacy: I have a client who has been trying to build on a 110-acre parcel for 10 years now. No matter what he proposes, he's shot down, and for no good reason. He just wants to replace an old POS house with a new one. It's a long story, but his building sites are rejected because it's too close to a pond, or too close to agricultural soil, or too close to a slope with sensitive grass, or too close to a willow tree, or the house would be seen by a neighbor. The last possible building site was shot down because one eucalyptus tree would have to come down, and it might, yes, might, become a butterfly habitat someday.

My client has the patience of Job, but I bet there are some out there who would have cracked by now. Most jobs I work on have similar stories, but not quite as bad. I'd hate to see a rampage happen, but I'm expecting one somewhere, someday.

If you're gonna die, die with your boots on if you're gonna die!


Makes you wonder when "you" will become one of those "Wacko's" and for what reason...
I guess everyone has a certain point they decide to stand and fight whether in the wrong or
not..... I feel that some resolution could of been reached that did not require the use of
bulldozers to knock down the structure....

There's nothing wrong with fighting for something, that doesn't make you a wacko. Fighting by barricading or ignoring court orders or warrants or shooting at government officials makes you a wacko and gets you killed or thrown in jail.
If I had to fight city hall I'd try conventional means and then I would call in a favor from a former congressman I know pretty well, or I'd call my state senator or my current congressman. If that didn't work I'd hire a lawyer. Lots of progress can be made if you work within the system instead of fighting from outside the system.

Here's another slant on the case:
http://www.bushywood.com/albert_dryden_shooting_incident.htm

Charlie, your client may not need a permit to put a manufactured home on his property, then he can put it wherever he likes, and they can be very nice.

Eminent domain can be a beeyotch