This is baffling. It's a good hook to listen to the podcast, but I'm not going to.
My second thought was about insurance. The house is gone, it's up to their investigator to determine the cause. In the worst case, they say, too bad. thanks for the premiums.
My first thought was to build a big ass fence at the property line. Generally be an ass, using my property in the least helpful way possible.
given the dearth of information about the story I'm still a bit befuddled. given the timeframe 1994, it's understandable there isn't much available on the internet. I doubt an island of 120 had a local paper, I doubt even more that the archives would be online. Apparently no records were found for the court case.
There's a temptation to victim blame, there's a temptation to think Presho and Digger cooked up a scheme to get a little attention for the island and Presho's career. I think there's more information, but it seems unattainable.
He won the court case, but got a pittance. There are no answers from the trial.
In the end, I suspect this is a story that will end up much like "where is the other sock" it will vaguely nag at me for a few days, then fall out of mind.
Interesting situation, possibly worth a listen, but clearly no satisfactory resolution is possible (for me anyway). Another fabulously unimportant unanswerable question to irritate my psyche for a few days.
Outsider buys property on tiny island community, then disappears for 8 years. Islander gets annoyed about the vacant property blocking their view so decides to remove it. Other islanders refuse to rat them out due to being a tight community
On insurance, most insurers just won’t cover a house that’s left vacant and unmaintained for eight years, certainly not as a normal product. The insurer, if there was one, probably just walked away when they learned of the circumstances.
Here is the high court case, it's a sad story in the end, maybe, his mania probably sent him on this life adventure, it then made it complicated. It's a bigger adventure than most people ever live, who's to say I guess.
I only read the article and not the entire story but what baffles me the most is that Neville claims that the house he left unattended for 8 years disappearing made him so mad he had to go in and out mental health ward several times and collapsed his marriage.
Why would he become so startled(and obsessed) by a house he never visited for 8 years? To the point that a marriage had to collapse, nevertheless.
My guess is that Neville probably had schizophrenia, and thats unique thing about this story;
I've heard a lot of stories of closed rural communities treating newcomer as pests.
As a example from my life, as a teenager I went to help a family-friend that had newly switched to agricultural lifestyle in Japan, over the summer holiday. I remember arriving at the rice field for the first time, noticing that the field was dried up and there was cracks in the soil. I asked the friend if this is how it is supposed to be, and he replied "no, probably some of the old farmers clogged the water channel". I asked why they would do that, and he said that the old farmers here didn't like newcomers, and would in the night go out and sabotage his farm.
I took a look around the farmland, and noticed a rotting hut, rusting tools, and how most of the rice field was now filled with bushes and weed and in no condition of agriculture. I again asked why, and he told me that because the old people can't take care of the land, and because they bully away any newcomer, most of the farmland have been taken back by the nature, pointing to a forest telling me that it used to be farmland. It baffled me how these old people would rather see their entire village, way of life die out than letting any new person in.
Someone that just bought a house and left it unattended 8 years in such community, is to me not surprising at all that someone there took an ire. Maybe Neville just didn't catch that in his documentary about the island, and couldn't process the deeds done to him
The High Court of Ireland's ruling [1], which this article seems to have mined for most of the facts (some of it nearly verbatim) is worth reading, rather than speculating wildly.
In short, the court found that Presho's bipolar disorder likely preceded the disappearance of the house, but that it was a factor in Presho's inability to protect his legal rights at the time.
As far as I interpret the ruling, the sequence of events was roughly:
* Persho left for New Zealand for 8 years, leaving the house boarded up and in the care of a local. During that time, a hotel was constructed next door, and its builder used the house illegally for lodging.
* Around that time, the house fell into disrepair (if you read between the lines, they may also have stripped it for scraps) and suffered serious fire damage (highly likely arson).
* At some unknown point in time, the house was demolished, probably by the owner of the hotel with the help of a local contractor (who was in possession of the only digger on the island) in order to clear the view.
* The local garda did not find any evidence suggesting (or refuting) any criminal acts. However, the court appears to recognize the existence of a conspiracy among the locals.
* When Persho returned in 1994, he responded to erratically to the loss of his house, and due to his bipolar disorder was not able to follow through with legal proceedings until the 2000s.
Yes, I was wondering about that too. Of course without knowing the details, or having listened to the podcast it's easy to come up with quick judgments.
I was thinking that perhaps original film material or personal belongings were lost. Or additionally perhaps the island symbolized something important to him and that the island, or it's inhabitants rejected him in this way hurt more than we can imagine. Or perhaps it was just a lot of money and he and his wife were financially ruined.
I am also reminded of people whose friend or family member goes missing for years and people don't know if the person dead or alive so they can't give it rest, perhaps it's similar. I never lost my house and my belongings, so I wouldn't know. I suppose I would make the best of it and accept the situation and try to move on.
Once I was scammed by a bank for a lot of money, I spent half the amount of money on a lawyer to get justice. I am normally quite stoic, but was quite upset. After a few years the government arranged a (poor) deal I took, this meant closure to me and a lot of people.
> My guess is that Neville probably had schizophrenia, and thats unique thing about this story; I've heard a lot of stories of closed rural communities treating newcomer as pests.
I don't know about schizophrenia, but my guess is that the mental illness had nothing to do with the house, it's just a convenient narrative. Being gaslit about the previous existence of your house certainly wouldn't help though.
> Why would he become so startled(and obsessed) by a house he never visited for 8 years? To the point that a marriage had to collapse, nevertheless.
I'm not sure, but I think I can understand it. A few years ago my girlfriend had her bike stolen and for at least a few weeks I would look at almost every bike I saw to see if it was hers. More recently I had my bike stolen and even months later, on holiday hundreds of miles from home, I still look at bikes wondering if I'll see my bike.
These things can hurt you. Do you have any experiences that compare?
I can imagine how the others on the island decided on that course of action. If there's a house decaying for 8 years without anyone visiting, it's not too difficult to assume that nobody will ever return before that house naturally decays. So they just sped up what would happen anyway.
But what I find remarkable is how strong the "don't snitch" spirit was in that community. I mean the deed was obviously done and surely people knew who did what. It almost appears as if most people in that community did not like Neville Presho that much ...
The population on the island was just 120, I can feel it's like the community in Hot Fuzz (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425112/) but less dramatic, it's still a closed community though.
What baffles me is, if you leave a house FOR YEARS, why don't you hire a neighbour for upkeep? I mean every now and then a roof tile must come off in a storm that needs to be refitted, a house that you don't heat in winter starts to rot, etc. pp.
I can actually see that in a moderately short time span of 8 years a lot of decay can happen naturally after which 'hands-on' neighbours might have just not felt too bad to tear down the remains.
To my reading the house was destroyed in “mysterious” fire, and then demolished for use as a car park by the adjacent hotel. The court ruled that the hotel owner must pay replacement cost for the house.
I was wondering... why does a hotel, on an island, need a carpark?
I checked it on Google and it looks like the house was near the pier so it makes sense that residents might park their cars there to head to the mainland.
Reading the story carefully it seems that the photograph was taken before a digger totally removed the ruins of the house, which had been burnt down in the arson attack that preceded its total demolition and removal.
Maybe the real reason why nobody spoke out was the fact that the guy flattening the house was Tory’s biggest employer. The hotel Óstan Thóraigh has been at the centre of island life since the late 1800s. The hotel and general store was supplying everything from salted fish to marine chandlery to the island.
“It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside.”
Non-story: individuals in a community will tolerate unjust behaviour of their community as a whole provided they are not affected. Communities pretend to recognise rights of others out of principle, but in reality 'rights' are only actually recognised to the extent that 1) you can defend them; or 2) there is an impartial body who (mostly) enforces them; or 3) there is no advantage to be gained from overriding them. This is a simple story of bullying that is played out in a million different ways every day - it is a difficult thing for victims to cope with. In this instance, the owner of the house has had not only his asset destroyed, but also his dreams of idyllic retirement in a friendly remote village: a hard thing to accept after years of slog to secure it.
I have spent a couple of great weekends on Tory. One special night with the late King of Tory, Patsy Dan, and the local Priest in the hotel bar will live long in the memory. Patsy had his squeeze box and there was plenty of 'craic agus ceol'.
But people on those small islands are a different type altogether.
There's a narrative that I hear often about Corvo island:
Corvo is a small island in the Azores archipelago, which is home to less than 500 habitants.
Every time a police officer, joins the island, it usually has a bit of a tough time, as it tries to write fines and issue warnings to the small population. The small population, not only disregard its orders, but they actually shut them out.
Since there's very few establishments, the police officer, eventually, has to comply with the population.
To be honest, I don't know how much truth there is, in this story, but I don't find it hard to believe.
It’s almost impossible to imagine this in light of the “all or nothing” approach American law enforcement has toward its job. Would it really be as simple as ignoring the police that would undermine their authority?
If he bought a house and then left it empty for 8 years when he moved to New Zealand then he has nobody to blame but himself - holiday homes left vacant for 11 months of the year can be a huge blight on a small community, but to leave it empty and unmaintained for 8 years when you move to the other side of the world and then be shocked and upset that it is no longer there is hard to believe.
You can do anything with your own house as long as it is legal and you pay your taxes each year. Even not visit your beach house for a while if you don't feel in the mood to do that or are working in a different place, or are being treated in an hospital.
If he has paid the taxes, and was paying insurance, and water and electricity bills each year, the house is not marooned.
The idea of my neighbors being allowed to burn my house, destroy my souvenirs, art and stuff, and use my property as a private parking and say that they can because I'm not here to stop they is returning to law-of-the-jungle. Is horrible and unaceptable.
If the building would be in danger of collapse or refuse to pay taxes the government should fine him first, ask for repairs and/or notify officially its demolition if necessary.
Seriously, WTF? Its his private property. There is legal system last time I checked, and citizens should abide by it. Some mob rules about 'blight on a small community' perfectly ignore that the same fucked up community a) let the house be destroyed by some arrogant a-hole neighbor; b) knew perfectly well who it was; c) lied him & police straight to face, including priest.
These were his childhood friends and 'friendly neighbors'. Because of sea view? That's one fucked up small community.
Defending such behavior takes some serious moral twisting or plain absence to make it look OK.
Assholes leaving house without maintenance for 8 years and letting it become eyesore are the reason to have HOA. With HOA owner would have got escalating fines for not keeping up house up to community standards and house would have been foreclosed in a year or so. No need to burn it down.
It could be that the islanders were supportive of the house being destroyed, or it could be that the islanders were scared to snitch on the bully that demolished it?
It doesn't need to be fear, necessarily. They live on an island of 120 people with whoever did it. Like the guy or hate him, they're gonna be seeing him every week from here til the end. Why turn on him for some bloke who doesn't even have a house here anymore?
> Neville Presho is scanning the horizon for the house that he hasn’t seen in eight years. /.../ But there’s a problem. The house isn’t there. It has completely vanished.
Interesting story, but doesn't look like it evaporated into thin air if you look at the photo.
Either I'm missing something, or the intro is very badly (and sensationally - silly season!) written, possibly by someone who didn't listen to the actual program.
> Neville and his solicitor commenced civil legal proceedings, alleging that an islander had decided that Neville’s house was blocking his view of the sea... and had decided to get rid of it.
Clearly since the people on the island are human beings they too would hate with a passion anyone who did this.
So, there's a huge part of the story missing.
No one wants to lose property rights either. If you leave the island, people might destroy your stuff would scare anyone.
Property rights do not exist in nature, they are just stories people tell each other. A house is just a pile of bricks. There is no objective concept of ownership.
Ownership only appears when people tell each other consistent stories, and it becomes a social norm in some society that if you follow some rituals then you can do things like having a say on how a particular pile of bricks is used that others may respect.
On occasion, different people will tell different stories about things and there will be disagreement. Here it seems the islanders do not consider such an outsider can "buy" and "own" a house according to the law and rituals of the mainland. The mainland is like a colonial power they resist. They just have they own laws in effect, that they can enforce (to a degree, someone still got a fine) through the community united in not collaborating with mainland agents. It's neat.
Social norms vary, and elevating your norms above everyone else's is very ugly indeed. The islanders are as human as you, they just have a moral code that's not the same as yours.
The law is just an agreement with a large group of people that says "don't do anything bad and we'll watch out for you". These people have just replaced that with their own informal arrangement.
They probably prefer their got-your-back arrangement because they trust their neighbours more than they trust people outside the community. In addition it tips the scales in their favour because their law doesn't need to protect everyone equally. In this case outsiders are not afforded the same benefits as islanders.
They just need a reasonable belief that they won't be steamrolled by the actual law, which comes from having a tight knit community where people don't run to the police.
You see the same pattern amongst cops, the mob, remote communities, etc.
> Clearly since the people on the island are human beings they too would hate with a passion anyone who did this.
Other way round: since they're human beings they have loyalty among each other, and a relationship structure they're unwilling to compromise. Destroying the house of a resident obviously wouldn't stand, but who's going to be a snitch for the benefit of the outsider?
This happens a lot in abuse situations. You will find out afterwards that a lot of people knew to some extent what was happening, but were unwilling to have the confrontation that would result from speaking out about it, or to put up with the long term social consequences of being the person who spoke up.
[+] [-] jfoutz|4 years ago|reply
My second thought was about insurance. The house is gone, it's up to their investigator to determine the cause. In the worst case, they say, too bad. thanks for the premiums.
My first thought was to build a big ass fence at the property line. Generally be an ass, using my property in the least helpful way possible.
given the dearth of information about the story I'm still a bit befuddled. given the timeframe 1994, it's understandable there isn't much available on the internet. I doubt an island of 120 had a local paper, I doubt even more that the archives would be online. Apparently no records were found for the court case.
There's a temptation to victim blame, there's a temptation to think Presho and Digger cooked up a scheme to get a little attention for the island and Presho's career. I think there's more information, but it seems unattainable.
He won the court case, but got a pittance. There are no answers from the trial.
In the end, I suspect this is a story that will end up much like "where is the other sock" it will vaguely nag at me for a few days, then fall out of mind.
Interesting situation, possibly worth a listen, but clearly no satisfactory resolution is possible (for me anyway). Another fabulously unimportant unanswerable question to irritate my psyche for a few days.
[+] [-] shawabawa3|4 years ago|reply
Outsider buys property on tiny island community, then disappears for 8 years. Islander gets annoyed about the vacant property blocking their view so decides to remove it. Other islanders refuse to rat them out due to being a tight community
End of mystery
[+] [-] rsynnott|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monkeynotes|4 years ago|reply
Digger isn't the name of the neighbour, he owned a "digger" AKA brit-speak for excavator.
[+] [-] aaron695|4 years ago|reply
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5da053ed4653d07dedfd58...
It was a big case locally in the region, there's also a book and online articles.
[+] [-] NalNezumi|4 years ago|reply
Why would he become so startled(and obsessed) by a house he never visited for 8 years? To the point that a marriage had to collapse, nevertheless.
My guess is that Neville probably had schizophrenia, and thats unique thing about this story; I've heard a lot of stories of closed rural communities treating newcomer as pests.
As a example from my life, as a teenager I went to help a family-friend that had newly switched to agricultural lifestyle in Japan, over the summer holiday. I remember arriving at the rice field for the first time, noticing that the field was dried up and there was cracks in the soil. I asked the friend if this is how it is supposed to be, and he replied "no, probably some of the old farmers clogged the water channel". I asked why they would do that, and he said that the old farmers here didn't like newcomers, and would in the night go out and sabotage his farm.
I took a look around the farmland, and noticed a rotting hut, rusting tools, and how most of the rice field was now filled with bushes and weed and in no condition of agriculture. I again asked why, and he told me that because the old people can't take care of the land, and because they bully away any newcomer, most of the farmland have been taken back by the nature, pointing to a forest telling me that it used to be farmland. It baffled me how these old people would rather see their entire village, way of life die out than letting any new person in.
Someone that just bought a house and left it unattended 8 years in such community, is to me not surprising at all that someone there took an ire. Maybe Neville just didn't catch that in his documentary about the island, and couldn't process the deeds done to him
[+] [-] atombender|4 years ago|reply
In short, the court found that Presho's bipolar disorder likely preceded the disappearance of the house, but that it was a factor in Presho's inability to protect his legal rights at the time.
As far as I interpret the ruling, the sequence of events was roughly:
* Persho left for New Zealand for 8 years, leaving the house boarded up and in the care of a local. During that time, a hotel was constructed next door, and its builder used the house illegally for lodging.
* Around that time, the house fell into disrepair (if you read between the lines, they may also have stripped it for scraps) and suffered serious fire damage (highly likely arson).
* At some unknown point in time, the house was demolished, probably by the owner of the hotel with the help of a local contractor (who was in possession of the only digger on the island) in order to clear the view.
* The local garda did not find any evidence suggesting (or refuting) any criminal acts. However, the court appears to recognize the existence of a conspiracy among the locals.
* When Persho returned in 1994, he responded to erratically to the loss of his house, and due to his bipolar disorder was not able to follow through with legal proceedings until the 2000s.
[1] https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5da053ed4653d07dedfd58...
[+] [-] fsiefken|4 years ago|reply
I was thinking that perhaps original film material or personal belongings were lost. Or additionally perhaps the island symbolized something important to him and that the island, or it's inhabitants rejected him in this way hurt more than we can imagine. Or perhaps it was just a lot of money and he and his wife were financially ruined.
I am also reminded of people whose friend or family member goes missing for years and people don't know if the person dead or alive so they can't give it rest, perhaps it's similar. I never lost my house and my belongings, so I wouldn't know. I suppose I would make the best of it and accept the situation and try to move on.
Once I was scammed by a bank for a lot of money, I spent half the amount of money on a lawyer to get justice. I am normally quite stoic, but was quite upset. After a few years the government arranged a (poor) deal I took, this meant closure to me and a lot of people.
[+] [-] pessimizer|4 years ago|reply
I don't know about schizophrenia, but my guess is that the mental illness had nothing to do with the house, it's just a convenient narrative. Being gaslit about the previous existence of your house certainly wouldn't help though.
[+] [-] globular-toast|4 years ago|reply
I'm not sure, but I think I can understand it. A few years ago my girlfriend had her bike stolen and for at least a few weeks I would look at almost every bike I saw to see if it was hers. More recently I had my bike stolen and even months later, on holiday hundreds of miles from home, I still look at bikes wondering if I'll see my bike.
These things can hurt you. Do you have any experiences that compare?
[+] [-] BasDirks|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fxtentacle|4 years ago|reply
But what I find remarkable is how strong the "don't snitch" spirit was in that community. I mean the deed was obviously done and surely people knew who did what. It almost appears as if most people in that community did not like Neville Presho that much ...
[+] [-] a012|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wirrbel|4 years ago|reply
I can actually see that in a moderately short time span of 8 years a lot of decay can happen naturally after which 'hands-on' neighbours might have just not felt too bad to tear down the remains.
[+] [-] Aeolun|4 years ago|reply
Just say it burned down, and you tore down the remains.
[+] [-] jonathanhd|4 years ago|reply
To my reading the house was destroyed in “mysterious” fire, and then demolished for use as a car park by the adjacent hotel. The court ruled that the hotel owner must pay replacement cost for the house.
[+] [-] illwrks|4 years ago|reply
I checked it on Google and it looks like the house was near the pier so it makes sense that residents might park their cars there to head to the mainland.
Google Earth link: https://earth.google.com/web/search/Tory+Island,+County+Done...
[+] [-] account42|4 years ago|reply
> The ruins of the house https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/1008xn/p09n3zd7.jpg
So which one is it?
[+] [-] null_object|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tobltobs|4 years ago|reply
The hotel is actually for sale currently, for €400,000. It didn't survive Covid. See https://www.irishpost.com/news/irelands-stunning-tory-island...
[+] [-] mattowen_uk|4 years ago|reply
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:aTLr7-...
[+] [-] tudorw|4 years ago|reply
I've lived in both, I'm happier in a city...
[+] [-] Andy_G11|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kolp|4 years ago|reply
Just for context, Tory Islanders have a certain reputation dating back many centuries. The word Tory comes from the old Irish word for bandit.
[+] [-] FerretFred|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DrMonkFish|4 years ago|reply
But people on those small islands are a different type altogether.
[+] [-] BasDirks|4 years ago|reply
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5da053ed4653d07dedfd58...
[+] [-] ORioN63|4 years ago|reply
Corvo is a small island in the Azores archipelago, which is home to less than 500 habitants.
Every time a police officer, joins the island, it usually has a bit of a tough time, as it tries to write fines and issue warnings to the small population. The small population, not only disregard its orders, but they actually shut them out.
Since there's very few establishments, the police officer, eventually, has to comply with the population.
To be honest, I don't know how much truth there is, in this story, but I don't find it hard to believe.
[+] [-] float4|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dclowd9901|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] helsinkiandrew|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pvaldes|4 years ago|reply
You can do anything with your own house as long as it is legal and you pay your taxes each year. Even not visit your beach house for a while if you don't feel in the mood to do that or are working in a different place, or are being treated in an hospital.
If he has paid the taxes, and was paying insurance, and water and electricity bills each year, the house is not marooned.
The idea of my neighbors being allowed to burn my house, destroy my souvenirs, art and stuff, and use my property as a private parking and say that they can because I'm not here to stop they is returning to law-of-the-jungle. Is horrible and unaceptable.
If the building would be in danger of collapse or refuse to pay taxes the government should fine him first, ask for repairs and/or notify officially its demolition if necessary.
[+] [-] saiya-jin|4 years ago|reply
These were his childhood friends and 'friendly neighbors'. Because of sea view? That's one fucked up small community.
Defending such behavior takes some serious moral twisting or plain absence to make it look OK.
[+] [-] hycaria|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dfadsadsf|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] willvarfar|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Talanes|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woutersf|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aliswe|4 years ago|reply
Interesting story, but doesn't look like it evaporated into thin air if you look at the photo.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/1008xn/p09n3zd7.jpg
Either I'm missing something, or the intro is very badly (and sensationally - silly season!) written, possibly by someone who didn't listen to the actual program.
[+] [-] helsinkiandrew|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] aaron695|4 years ago|reply
Clearly since the people on the island are human beings they too would hate with a passion anyone who did this.
So, there's a huge part of the story missing.
No one wants to lose property rights either. If you leave the island, people might destroy your stuff would scare anyone.
[+] [-] meltedcapacitor|4 years ago|reply
Ownership only appears when people tell each other consistent stories, and it becomes a social norm in some society that if you follow some rituals then you can do things like having a say on how a particular pile of bricks is used that others may respect.
On occasion, different people will tell different stories about things and there will be disagreement. Here it seems the islanders do not consider such an outsider can "buy" and "own" a house according to the law and rituals of the mainland. The mainland is like a colonial power they resist. They just have they own laws in effect, that they can enforce (to a degree, someone still got a fine) through the community united in not collaborating with mainland agents. It's neat.
Social norms vary, and elevating your norms above everyone else's is very ugly indeed. The islanders are as human as you, they just have a moral code that's not the same as yours.
[+] [-] underwater|4 years ago|reply
They probably prefer their got-your-back arrangement because they trust their neighbours more than they trust people outside the community. In addition it tips the scales in their favour because their law doesn't need to protect everyone equally. In this case outsiders are not afforded the same benefits as islanders.
They just need a reasonable belief that they won't be steamrolled by the actual law, which comes from having a tight knit community where people don't run to the police.
You see the same pattern amongst cops, the mob, remote communities, etc.
[+] [-] pjc50|4 years ago|reply
Other way round: since they're human beings they have loyalty among each other, and a relationship structure they're unwilling to compromise. Destroying the house of a resident obviously wouldn't stand, but who's going to be a snitch for the benefit of the outsider?
This happens a lot in abuse situations. You will find out afterwards that a lot of people knew to some extent what was happening, but were unwilling to have the confrontation that would result from speaking out about it, or to put up with the long term social consequences of being the person who spoke up.