I was very bored and so watched 'Superhomes' on the discovery channel, which showcased some homes of the super rich and famous.
One of which was a sprawling complex on a small island off the coast of Sardinia. I immediatly thought that it wouldn't take much for a boat full of armed people to rock up and take whoever owned it hostage until they paid a ransom. The same was true of a number of properties - all in secluded locations which access to all sides.
Now you may think that these people have security systems installed but I recalled something that happened to my cousins neighbour which negated most of it. My cousin lives in a fairly nice house set in a few acres outside of the m25, but it is nothing compared to the house next door. Next doors house has a lot of land, huge swimming pool and the house itself is very grand and impose on all around it. About 10 years ago when the husband was away on business a gang of armed men broke into the house and took the family hostage (shooting all of the dogs), they stayed there a week until the businessman came back and paid the ransom of several million pounds. All the expensive security did nothing to stop these people getting in and AFAIK they were never caught. Surely cases like this would serve to illustrate that perhaps it would be better to not buy the most ostentatious property possible, and instead try to blend in to the background.
Watching the same superhomes programme showed that Jackie Chan had had the same idea. His house was in some industrial building in Hong Kong and was pretty cool. Half the rooms were only accessible by secret doors using hidden switches which is the sort of thing I think would be cool to have in a house.
So OcUK if you were rich would you take the risk of making yourself a target to thieves and such by buying the biggest you could find, or would you stay off the radar and buy something inconspicuous or in a place no one would expect?
One of which was a sprawling complex on a small island off the coast of Sardinia. I immediatly thought that it wouldn't take much for a boat full of armed people to rock up and take whoever owned it hostage until they paid a ransom. The same was true of a number of properties - all in secluded locations which access to all sides.
Now you may think that these people have security systems installed but I recalled something that happened to my cousins neighbour which negated most of it. My cousin lives in a fairly nice house set in a few acres outside of the m25, but it is nothing compared to the house next door. Next doors house has a lot of land, huge swimming pool and the house itself is very grand and impose on all around it. About 10 years ago when the husband was away on business a gang of armed men broke into the house and took the family hostage (shooting all of the dogs), they stayed there a week until the businessman came back and paid the ransom of several million pounds. All the expensive security did nothing to stop these people getting in and AFAIK they were never caught. Surely cases like this would serve to illustrate that perhaps it would be better to not buy the most ostentatious property possible, and instead try to blend in to the background.
Watching the same superhomes programme showed that Jackie Chan had had the same idea. His house was in some industrial building in Hong Kong and was pretty cool. Half the rooms were only accessible by secret doors using hidden switches which is the sort of thing I think would be cool to have in a house.
So OcUK if you were rich would you take the risk of making yourself a target to thieves and such by buying the biggest you could find, or would you stay off the radar and buy something inconspicuous or in a place no one would expect?
