He's a fraud.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3645660/Eccentric-David-Burgess-claimed-to-live-in-shack-for-26-years.html

>>1785

I'll wait until another paper gives some info on this. The Sun is unreadable.

The Dail Mail and Sun both reported this story on the 17th. So did the Independent, however in its report it is quite clear that:

>The nomad, who spends four months of the year at the shack
>Mr Burgess said he had no intention of moving out of what has become his summer home

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/after-25-years-beach-bum-told-to-wave-goodbye-to-seaside-home-2298703.html

So he didn't hide this information. It's just that the tabloids didn't pick up on it. Or they chose not to, because it didn't fit with their narrative. I'm guessing someone alerted them to these facts they neglected to print, making them look a bit silly. The Sun article is an appallingly crass attempt to shift the blame onto the guy himself. Their shite journalism is his fault, apparently.

NOW can we all understand once and for all why even the mention of certain tabloids riles folk up?

>>1787

I understand.

It's his holiday home. That means he can pay his council tax and entertainment license like everyone else.

As much as I like his plan for escaping the rat race, he is in no way an /eco/ladm8. If he wants to live like that then he can pay for the land instead of squatting on it. It isn't his hut and it isn't under his ownership so he has no leg to stand on.

>>1786 the sun is dire. I read I. its a lot better.

>>1790
Isn't it the i?

>>1789

Land can't be owned. The Earth was not made by anyone and was around before we were.

>>1794

typical eco behaviour

It doesn't seem right that there are no alternatives to the government system. People can no longer escape. There's no land to go to or freedom of choice. It is essentially a slave system in that sense. You are forced - with the ultimate threat of physical force/injury to back it up - to obey to whatever regulations the rulers make up. You can't choose not to take part any more.

>>1796 It's not right, but with over 6 billion people it's no longer possible to live by plucking wild fruit from the the trees in most places.

I reckon you could eke out a hermit's life in Canada or Monglia if you really wanted.

>"I've never accepted benefits or hand-outs, I don't agree with them."

A right-wing greeney? It's different I suppose.

>"I believe in looking after myself."

Except when he went running back to mummy.

That's if it's true of course.

>>1798
>I'm happy to judge before I'm certain of the facts

>>1803

>I'm happy to judge before I'm certain of the facts

Hello Dave. How's your mother?

>>1787

>NOW can we all understand once and for all why even the mention of certain tabloids riles folk up?

Yes. Quality work like this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2007863/How-did-fit-bag-Snacker-finds-SIX-INCH-Twiglet.html

>>1805
She could feast on my six-inch twiglet, IYKWIM.

>>1806

I wouldn't really want to refer to the old chap as a "twiglet" gives the wrong impression.

>>1807

Racist.

>>1805

Look at her biting her lip, that's obscene.

Whore.

>>1809

You just know she's considering shoving that multi-demensional treat up her fanny.

>>1809
She's definitely asking for it, that picture is basically
>You must be at least this tall to ride.
I bet that Gary Stone got his twiglet munched too.