: After 3 months of protests by local people, countless objections not only to the demolition of this house but that fact that it would be replaced with a McDonaldsCynic: Oh yes. They "object." What a forceful approach. All it ever takes is to object and mountains are moved, I suppose.
: and one man actually attaching himself to the rafters of the house (with a u-bolt around his neck. If he had slipped...)
Cynic: Then good riddance to an idiot.
: the MD said "McDonalds will not be dictated to by a vocal minority". How about "The public will not be dictated to by a fast food chain?" Lets face it, McDonalds are after global domination.
Cynic: Yes, business is oriented towards being the best. And what right, perchance, did the public have to dictate to McDonalds?
: Also, since the house was not listed as a heritage building, or a National Trust building, McDonalds claimed when they bought the land that the house was "historically unimportant".
Cynic: And legally, it wasn't. Perhaps if it were that important to the community someone should have stepped forth and petitioned a historical society to have it protected.
: Uh huh, except all the locals consider it to be very historically important and obviously worth saving. Ooops, listening to that vocal minority again.
Cynic: If the locals enjoyed the house all that much, they could have collaborated and PURCHASED it to preserve it for future generations to see. What their whiny protest and asinine, underthought behavior helps me to understand is that they didn't value the house all that much anyway if it wasn't worth a little sacrfice to them.
The passive initiative demonstrated by the residents allows for only one possibility. They sold their own heritage out by complaining uselessly instead of opening their wallets.
