Thought I'd finish it off for you. (nice buildings)

The glorious, the magnificent, the cool, the World in one city and the one and only LONDON!

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/Palace_of_Westminster_London_-_Feb_2007.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/Tower_bridge_London_Twilight_-_November_2006.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/City_of_London_skyline_from_London_City_Hall_-_Oct_2008.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/Piccadilly_Circus_Panorama_-_April_2007.jpg

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y68/El_Greco/Eurostar_at_St_Pancras_Jan_2008.jpg

http://www.money.co.uk/images/misc/the_olympic_fun_and_games.gif

Thought I'd finish it off for you. (nice buildings)

Im glad you saved me the trouble and finished yourself off with this pathetic, self-loathing piece, filled with lies and bullshit and which looks like its was knocked off in a couple of hours by some jealous northerner (was it you?)!

The Olympics will be fantastic. Some of the best ever, infact. The construction is ahead of schedule. The designs of venues are top quality. The Games will regenerate crap part of town. The Olympic Committee cant stop praising London. The only people with nothing good to say are the likes of you.

This bird from Manchester?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_EmUidIgTDTo/Swa1fNbV25I/AAAAAAAAAVo/Xv2m_mXQxzY/s1600/chip-on-shoulder.jpg

The glorious, the magnificent, the cool, the World in one city and the one and only LONDON!

Indeed. How did that happen?

Did you ever visit docklands about 30 years ago?

Im glad you saved me the trouble and finished yourself off with this pathetic, self-loathing piece, filled with lies and bullshit and which looks like its was knocked off in a couple of hours by some jealous northerner (was it you?)!

The Olympics will be fantastic. Some of the best ever, infact. The construction is ahead of schedule. The designs of venues are top quality. The Olympic Committee cant stop praising London. The only people with nothing good to say are the likes of you.

Come now El Greco. Your 'dummy' just landed over there. Don't forget to pick it up. And make sure you wipe it first, before sticking it back into your mouth.

The above may be true.(venues, etc) So are the true spiralling costs.(going to argue that?) Do I have to be happy about that for London's sake and your sake? Of course I don't. No need to go into the politics of where that money could have been spent, and where it was diverted from.

TBH I wasn't against the games when the original figure was quoted(£3.4bill), by our happy clappy PM, and his hangers on. Value for money I initially thought. Unfortunately it was..................BULLSHIT!(as we really knew back then) Which has been, and will be confirmed at a later date. BTW, do you think the Government will ever tell the Great British public the true figure? Of course they won't. More lies will follow. And so it will continue until the games are a faded memory, and every f***er across the length and breath of this land continues to pick up the tab for years to come. On top of the current Government cutbacks.

One more thing. I know you want to be a great Olympian, just like those that will grace London 2012, but leave Monkey to fight his own battles. Sorry wars. If he's big enough to instigate them, and continue them for an indefinite period, he (surely) doesn't need your help. Or does he?

He's a big London boy now. (didn't you know that?)

Bickering aside ... London is a wonderful city .... but is that Draculas Castle in that image of the City of London?!?

This bird from Manchester?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_EmUidIgTDTo/Swa1fNbV25I/AAAAAAAAAVo/Xv2m_mXQxzY/s1600/chip-on-shoulder.jpg

The cavalry has arrived. :horse: (Peterloo?) Or should that be the London rats? One mention of the costs of the Olympiss(take) and they all come scurrying on to this thread. What must Monkey think? For years he's been fighting a one man war of attrition against Manchester, etc, and regulary ends up battered, black and blue, with his ego in pieces. Yet not one of these cowards, who have just appeared, have come to his rescue.

There you have it Monkey. They will fight to the death to protect the integrity of the London 2012 Olympic Games, but they couldn't give a shit about you. I actually feel sorry for you for once. Then again, Londoners do have a reputation for being cold and unfriendly, even to their own.

Night.:colgate:

PS. Is that an Olympic sized chip?

monkey's joking. well, i hope so at least!

... Does anyone else think that these suits are actually really cool? :cheers:

Nope, that's a look that says "awight there young matey, look at me, aren't I bewend?"

http://www.thefusionalists.com/pearly%201.JPG?0.5658868151712605

is that the urban morris?

Come now El Greco. Your 'dummy' just landed over there. Don't forget to pick it up. And make sure you wipe it first, before sticking it back into your mouth.

The above may be true.(venues, etc) So are the true spiralling costs.(going to argue that?) Do I have to be happy about that for London's sake and your sake? Of course I don't. No need to go into the politics of where that money could have been spent, and where it was diverted from.

TBH I wasn't against the games when the original figure was quoted(£3.4bill), by our happy clappy PM, and his hangers on. Value for money I initially thought. Unfortunately it was..................BULLSHIT!(as we really knew back then) Which has been, and will be confirmed at a later date. BTW, do you think the Government will ever tell the Great British public the true figure? Of course they won't. More lies will follow. And so it will continue until the games are a faded memory, and every f***er across the length and breath of this land continues to pick up the tab for years to come. On top of the current Government cutbacks.

One more thing. I know you want to be a great Olympian, just like those that will grace London 2012, but leave Monkey to fight his own battles. Sorry wars. If he's big enough to instigate them, and continue them for an indefinite period, he (surely) doesn't need your help. Or does he?

He's a big London boy now. (didn't you know that?)

Its also true that youre a sad, miserable and self-loathing man, but dont worry, you can stay at home and grumble at the TV while the World is partying in London in 2012!

Does not make your opinion on anything more valid.Nor does it make me a "LOSER" which one of your cohorts has a habit of calling me and to which I was replying. You too are quite liberal with your name calling, "Prat" being your latest insult. Seems to be a penchant exclusive to Mancs on this web site.

As to being a sailor. If you wish, I will send you pictures of my boat, a Choey Lee Offshore. I not only sail, I also navigate, without GPS.

i wasn't calling you a loser cos you're rich, i was calling you a loser because of your embarrassingly pathetic behavior on this forum. i don't give a shit how much you earn, i think you are scum.

i wasn't calling you a loser cos you're rich, i was calling you a loser because of your embarrassingly pathetic behavior on this forum. i don't give a shit how much you earn, i think you are scum.I don't care what you think, but, aren't you the guy who "THINKS" that the foreign city that most resembles Manchester is New York City?:rofl:

ouch.

not that it's one or the other but i would defiantly prefer the world cup to the olympics. i will be gutted if we don't get it.

Id prefer both.

I'd prefer full employment in 'provincial' cities.

, I also navigate, without GPS.

God you are on form.

You are like Sergie Bubka with the pole vault, inching the record bar higher each trip out.

You're buffoonery knows no bounds.

The only insults on here are directed at your fantasy postings.

Take a hint sailor boy, raise the anchor and main sail and scuttle off.

I thought you were talking about Stratford in East London? Wait a minute, you are. :lol: Thankfully due to the Olympiss(take), and a £10bill(probably £12-15bill by now) handout from the previous and current Governments, Stratford and the surrounding area of East London will be dragged up by it's arse end.

It's a pity the other deprived areas and sink estates of London won't benefit. Still, we can all kid ourselves that the streets of the handout capital of Europe, or even the world, are still paved with gold. :colgate:

I'm not sure where the whole 'handout capital of Europe' title comes from. Ultimately, London generates far more wealth in taxes than it receives, due to the range of institutions locating there.

Still, it does receive more of a proportion of funding that it should if we're talking about 'fairness' (is Crossrail reeeally needed more than urgent improvements to the north's crumbling rail infrastructure?), but I suppose there's a business case arguing it'll draw in even more wealth generation from elsewhere...

I'm not sure where the whole 'handout capital of Europe' title comes from. Ultimately, London generates far more wealth in taxes than it receives, due to the range of institutions locating there.

Still, it does receive more of a proportion of funding that it should if we're talking about 'fairness' (is Crossrail reeeally needed more than urgent improvements to the north's crumbling rail infrastructure?), but I suppose there's a business case arguing it'll draw in even more wealth generation from elsewhere...

London and the South East have been the primary driver for the house market bubble and inflation of salaries needed for the `London allowance' bonus seen in salaries.

This has created a UK wide imbalance which is now being seen for total folly.

50-100-150 years ago the regions were powerhouses of wealth. Successive governments have overseen the dismantling of the manufacturing base, leaving this country reliant on the service sector. The banking component of which has now left us poorer than 1945.

We will now be a broken country for the foreseeable future, with no wealth generating assets to help us. With the rise of the Asian and Brazilian economies the service sector will migrate away as a role diminishes.

We are structurally bankrupt, owing £1.2trillion and rising at £100bn+ per annum for at least the next 5 years. We have no source of revenue anywhere in sight, a huge welfare system and the pension shortfall does not start to kick in until the end of this decade.

A truly horrific scenario is brewing, the pawning of the banking sector in 2008 doing nothing but shifting this burden to the state.

Already, Greece and Ireland have suffered catastrophic collapses and Portugal, Spain and Italy will be a hammer blow to Europe. Civil unrest and a realisation of the impending struggle, with no computing, aerospace, motor or heavy engineering saviour in sight.

Sorry to have a downer but the quicker we re-balance the London effect the better we will be for this coming firestorm of pain.

We are essentially fucked, it merely being how quickly we can ramp up the production of manufacturing.

Witness the Chancellor's latest musings on zero corporation tax on new products manufactured in the UK by overseas investors/in-situ companies. That is the scale of the fear they know is coming.

State debt will be £2 trillion with interest payments of £100bn chewing up 25% of the entire states spending power just on the interest.

Get learning Portuguese or a Chinese dialect quickly!

Apart from that, we get to shuffle recycling bins outside our houses! :)

Its also true that youre a sad, miserable and self-loathing man, but dont worry, you can stay at home and grumble at the TV while the World is partying in London in 2012!

Wow! All of those and more. You must really like me?

Obviously you didn't read my post properly. I stated I was initially behind the bid and welcomed London's victory. However, as the cost of hosting the games escalated, to what is now an obscene figure, I decided in my wisdom that the cost of hosting the games, outweighed the benefits of it to the rest of the country. (nothing wrong with that)

There have been numerous complaints form business leaders across the country that no trickle down affect has been felt. As in, most of the orders and work has stayed in London and the South East. This wasn't supposed to happen(ask Seb Coe), but in all honesty it was predictable, as was the eventual huge increase in funding the games.

Don't get me wrong, if the games would have come in on budget, or just over, I wouldn't have a problem. However, as that initial figure has now tripled, it leaves a sour taste, not only in my mouth, but in the mouths of many other people up and down this country.

And yes, for two weeks the worlds eyes will be on 'London', but what will the rest of this country gain from this £10 billion London jamboree? Jack shit TBH.

BTW. I'm supporting the World Cup bid. Why? Because it will involve the whole country, with numerous cities, local businesses and local people reaping the rewards, instead of just one area of London.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2oPgA5LSVv0/R03QotBII-I/AAAAAAAACwk/D4nJaBECrkU/S240/victor_meldrew220.jpg

Wow! All of those and more. You must really like me?

Obviously you didn't read my post properly. I stated I was initially behind the bid and welcomed London's victory. However, as the cost of hosting the games escalated, to what is now an obscene figure, I decided in my wisdom that the cost of hosting the games, outweighed the benefits of it to the rest of the country. (nothing wrong with that)

There have been numerous complaints form business leaders across the country that no trickle down affect has been felt. As in, most of the orders and work has stayed in London and the South East. This wasn't supposed to happen(ask Seb Coe), but in all honesty it was predictable, as was the eventual huge increase in funding the games.

Don't get me wrong, if the games would have come in on budget, or just over, I wouldn't have a problem. However, as that initial figure has now tripled, it leaves a sour taste, not only in my mouth, but in the mouths of many other people up and down this country.

And yes, for two weeks the worlds eyes will be on 'London', but what will the rest of this country gain from this £10 billion London jamboree? Jack shit TBH.

BTW. I'm supporting the World Cup bid. Why? Because it will involve the whole country, with numerous cities, local businesses and local people reaping the rewards, instead of just one area of London.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2oPgA5LSVv0/R03QotBII-I/AAAAAAAACwk/D4nJaBECrkU/S240/victor_meldrew220.jpg

There was little or no "trickle down" effect from the 2002 Commonwealth games, so it's not unusual for exaggerated claims to be made when bidding for such events.

Presumably the same would apply if Manchester had been successful in it's Olympic bids for 1996 and 2000. The 2002 event also ran into budget problems and had to be bailed out at the eleventh hour by the poor old taxpayer, but at least you got a footy pitch out of it.

There was little or no "trickle down" effect from the 2002 Commonwealth games, so it's not unusual for exaggerated claims to be made when bidding for such events.

Presumably the same would apply if Manchester had been successful in it's Olympic bids for 1996 and 2000. The 2002 event also ran into budget problems and had to be bailed out at the eleventh hour by the poor old taxpayer, but at least you got a footy pitch out of it.

It is what was promised and how much they cost.

London does not need the Olympics...Atlanta, Barcelona, Seoul...did.

£10bn+ is a disgrace...it was 5 years ago..now it is obscene and appalling for 2 weeks of events no one gives a shit about.

Should have kept back £50m for bungs for the World Cup..an event that matters to the UK!

London does not need the Olympics...Atlanta...did.Explain please. Atlanta, one, if not the, most succesful city in the Southeastern US. Metropolitan Atlanta has a population approaching six million and is home to the nations fourth largest concentration of "Fortune 500" companies. Atlanta is also the headquarters of companies which include Coca~Cola, AT&T, Turner (CNN) Broadcasting, Delta Airlines, UPS, Home Depot etc., and boasts one of the worlds busiest airports. Atlanta needed the Olympics? Yeah, like Timbucto needs sand.:ohno:

instead of just one area of London.

Oh so there we have it, its just good old jealousy!

There was little or no "trickle down" effect from the 2002 Commonwealth games, so it's not unusual for exaggerated claims to be made when bidding for such events.

Presumably the same would apply if Manchester had been successful in it's Olympic bids for 1996 and 2000. The 2002 event also ran into budget problems and had to be bailed out at the eleventh hour by the poor old taxpayer, but at least you got a footy pitch out of it.

East.

Please engage brain before answering. Why do you do it everytime?

Once again. As I've already explained to you. Arrgh! Arrrgh!! Arrrrgh!!! Arrrrrrrrrrrrgh!!!!!!! (smash my head, smash my head, smash my head on the computer table)

The initial ost of the 2002 Commonwealth Games was £120mill. The Government said there would be no more money available.(the proposed tram link from Piccadilly Train staion to the games site was scrapped as well, even though it had been promised) Then the Government had no choice but to step in as that £120mill wasn't enough. They gave an extra £30mill. Total final figure in the region of £150mill. (note: £150mill) I stand corrected.

Once again. As I've already explained to you.(pass me some rope) Sport England, MCC and MCFC have a rental agreement on COMS, where by City pay a precentage of the match day takings on crowds over 35K(average home attendances are 46k) for the next 250 years. Meaning the final figure, when we're all dead, including you, long before the rest of us, if you keep this silliness up, will be more than the original £150mill spent on hosting the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester.

BTW. The current deal is being renegotiated by Sport England, MCC and ADUG/City due to a probable increase in the stadium capacity, and/or, due to the impending investment in the area around the stadium and beyond by City's owners. (ADUG)

Only in the mind of East was this not a good deal for the tax payer. BTW, I thought the Liverpool COC was a great way to use tax payers money. And there lies difference between me and you. Thankfully.

Oh so there we have it, its good old jealousy!

Again read what I wrote. Spending £10-15bill in one area of (East) London Is a disgrace, regardless of the reasons. Just think how that money could have been used throughout the country.

You either don't get it(I think you do really) or it's the little Londoner syndrome. It's not about London getting the games, it's the final costs of the games, and how some of that money could have been better used and spent elsewhere.

If the initial costs would have been maintained, then fair enough. Enjoy! But the costs have tripled to £12 f***ing billion, spent on one two week spectacle, that in all honesty will only benefit London.(as pointed out)

Thanfully we weren't aware of what was about to hit us. Otherwise you could have kissed goodbye to the Olympics.

I did read it, its pure jealousy and nothing else. London this, London that, damn London, London is stealing money, London, London, London etc etc.

As i have said earlier, this country needs to start being more like a "federal" country like Germany, where not everything is centred on the capital city. All of Germanys cities are successfull, Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg and of course Berlin. Imagine having that in Britain????????????

France is similar to us in that everything is Paris, Paris, Paris. Lyon and Toulouse dont get a look in.

As i have said earlier, this country needs to start being more like a "federal" country like Germany, where not everything is centred on the capital city. All of Germanys cities are successfull, Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg and of course Berlin. Imagine having that in Britain????????????

France is similar to us in that everything is Paris, Paris, Paris. Lyon and Toulouse dont get a look in.

I completely agree with you, but like you say other British cities need a chance to grow as well, the wealth of this country isn't spread out fairly unlike places like germany, which spread the countries wealth about. i also think if we did share the countries wealth around the UK we probably would do better as a country imo, but i very much doubt we will see these changes happen unfortunately. :ohno:

I've often wondered if it would be a good idea to move government functions out of London. They often like to brag about how they would be better off without the rest of the country so I say let em' try! Any of the core cities could support it, with the correct level of investment of course.

Well, they want to move a lot of it to Mayfield Manchester. A lot of the Naval command stuff is in Portsmouth and various other departments are already spread out across the UK.

I did read it, its pure jealousy and nothing else. London this, London that, damn London, London is stealing money, London, London, London etc etc.

Believe me, it's not jealousy. I'll repeat it once again. When London originally won the bid, I was pleased for London. I was pleased that Liverpool won CoC. I have never, as far as I can remember, slagged Liverpool off for winning CoC. I'm happy for any city to share the spoils.

What I'm not happy about is the amount of money thrown at projects in London. There doesn't seem to be limit. (Olympics, Dome, Wembley, etc) It doesn't matter what the final cost is, it has to be built. Yet when a project is funded in one of the provincial cities, there is always a limit to how much can be spent. One example being the Commonwealth Games. The initial cost was £120mill, eventually upped to £150mill, but at the expense of the proposed Metrolink extension which was promised in time for the games. The stadium even had a temporary stand at one end. Can you imagine that happening at Stratford. Not a chance in hell.

All I ask for is a level playing field between London and the provincial cities, where funding and project spend is concerned. And more importantly, accountability and honesty from the people running and funding these projects.

Like any other city, London deserves projects, but not at the expense of diverting funds from other worthwhile projects in other uk cities. I'm not the only person that believes projects were cancelled in other Uk cities to pay for the London Olympics. That's wrong and unfair. Even you must admit that.

Well, they want to move a lot of it to Mayfield Manchester. A lot of the Naval command stuff is in Portsmouth and various other departments are already spread out across the UK.

I'm not just talking about the odd department here and there. I'm talking about the lot, seat of government and all. The Manchester moves are a good start (although I very much doubt Mayfield will go ahead given the current financial situation) but it needs to go a lot further and be divided more equally throughout the regions.

Believe me, it's not jealousy. I'll repeat it once again. When London originally won the bid, I was pleased for London. I was pleased that Liverpool won CoC. I have never, as far as I can remember, slagged Liverpool off for winning CoC. I'm happy for any city to share the spoils.


There were no spoils; the Capital of Culture year was paid for out of the usual budgets of the local bodies involved AFAIK. Liverpool City Council had to endure a year or two of being branded the worst council in Britain, even though it wasn't, based on the Capital of Culture sized hole in it's accounts.

Anyway, a year long arts event that cost buttons, relatively speaking, is not comparable to spending hundreds of millions on stadia and infrastructure for a few weeks of sports.

There were no spoils; the Capital of Culture year was paid for out of the usual budgets of the local bodies involved AFAIK. Liverpool City Council had to endure a year or two of being branded the worst council in Britain, even though it wasn't, based on the Capital of Culture sized hole in it's accounts.

Anyway, a year long arts event that cost buttons, relatively speaking, is not comparable to spending hundreds of millions on stadia and infrastructure for a few weeks of sports.

Why take a positive and make a negative out of it? Didn't the Government award the CoC to Liverpool. Perhaps there was no Government spend. I'll have to take you word for that. But the overall impact of CoC on Liverpool cannot be underestimated. It was more than money can buy. Liverpool is now a different place because of it. And that includes without a stadia and infastructure.

Why take a positive and make a negative out of it? Didn't the Government award the CoC to Liverpool. Perhaps there was no Government spend. I'll have to take you word for that. But the overall impact of CoC on Liverpool cannot be underestimated. It was more than money can buy. Liverpool is now a different place because of it. And that includes without a stadia and infastructure.

I'm not making a negative of it bud, just pointing out that the award is honourary one. Most of the urban regeneration in Liverpool is on the back of a rich local, Gerald Grosvenor, injecting £1billion of his own wealth into the city centre in the form of the Paradise Street Project. They don't like that story in the media though.

I did read it, its pure jealousy and nothing else. London this, London that, damn London, London is stealing money, London, London, London etc etc.

So true!

Jrb seems to be wearing his green with envy trousers permanently these days, he probably sleeps in them as well.

Explain please. Atlanta, one, if not the, most succesful city in the Southeastern US. Metropolitan Atlanta has a population approaching six million and is home to the nations fourth largest concentration of "Fortune 500" companies. Atlanta is also the headquarters of companies which include Coca~Cola, AT&T, Turner (CNN) Broadcasting, Delta Airlines, UPS, Home Depot etc., and boasts one of the worlds busiest airports. Atlanta needed the Olympics? Yeah, like Timbucto needs sand.:ohno:

Atlanta in World terms is a back water and was put on the global map by the Olympics...it is a 2nd tier city,like Barcelona.

Barcelona was off the tourist radar until 1992. With regret Atlanta, internationally is still not of interest for the overseas tourist trade...even with the mighty airport!

Sydney, London, LA, New York, Paris, Moscow need the Olympics like a hole in the head. They have fame, tourism, prestige, facilities coming out of their ears.

Chicago? Nah. Denver, yes?

Simple premise to understand but obviously not for you.

Atlanta in World terms is a back water and was put on the global map by the Olympics...it is a 2nd tier city,like Barcelona.

Barcelona was off the tourist radar until 1992. With regret Atlanta, internationally is still not of interest for the overseas tourist trade...even with the mighty airport!

Sydney, London, LA, New York, Paris, Moscow need the Olympics like a hole in the head. They have fame, tourism, prestige, facilities coming out of their ears.

Chicago? Nah. Denver, yes?

Simple premise to understand but obviously not for you.

Have you ever been to Chicago? You need to go sometime, it is a fantastic city .... and not because of it's skyscrapers :)

Have you ever been to Chicago? You need to go sometime, it is a fantastic city .... and not because of it's skyscrapers :)

I have, twice, it is.

My point was Chicago would not need the Olympics, Denver would.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1387702_carlisle_ground_to_star_as_old_trafford_in_munich_disaster_film
Carlisle ground to star as Old Trafford in Munich disaster film


A tiny Cumbrian football ground will be transformed into 1950s Old Trafford for a new film about the Munich Air Disaster.

Brunton Park, home of League One Carlisle United, will double as the Theatre of Dreams in the BBC drama which is set to be broadcast next year.

Scottish actor Dougray Scott will play Sir Matt Busby while modern day Newcastle will be used as the set for Manchester five decades ago.

Desperate Housewives star Scott, beaten to the role of 007 by Daniel Craig, has been cast as the legendary Reds manager who narrowly escaped with his life from the 1958 tragedy.

The film is called United – the Busby Babes and the Munich Air Crash.

A BBC spokeswoman said that 18,000-capacity Brunton Park, which still features terracing, will become one of the most famous stadiums in the world.

She said: “You have to find the right location to suit the period and in modern day Manchester it is very hard to find that sort of thing.”

North east screen agency, Northern Film and Media, are also part-funding the production.

Father-of-two Scott, despite dividing his time between the UK and America, is no stranger to Mancunian-influenced roles.

Earlier this year he was seen in a Manchester criminal in the ITV drama Father & Son.

The Fife-born actor has a football background and is a passionate supporter of Hibernian.

His Glaswegian father started following the Scottish Premier League outfit because his uncle had been a scout for the club.

Former Doctor Who David Tennant will play Jimmy Murphy, Busby’s assistant who took charge after the crash.

The harrowing events of 52 years ago will be seen through the eyes of Sir Bobby Charlton.

The Old Trafford legend will be played by Skins actor Jack O’Connell whose other credits include: Eden Lake and Harry Brown. Rotherham United fan and Ashes to Ashes actor Dean Andrews will play Reds’ trainer, Bert Whalley.

The film explores the tragedy of the crash but also how Busby and Murphy re-built the club.

Is this the right thread? I would like to think so!

I do like Newcastle mind, pet.

Atlanta in World terms is a back water.Well by using your own criteria, that would make Manchester a fetid swamp.:lol:

Atlanta backwater v Manchester swamp:

Metroplitan Atlanta has a larger population than the combined populations of Metro Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds; Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson airport has a greater passenger throughput and more aircraft movements than Manchester Ringway, Liverpool John Lennon and Leeds Yeadon airports combined; Atlanta is headquarters to more "Fortune 500" companies than Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds combined; Atlantas municipal government owns and operates a transit system which includes a region wide subway system, which is the eight busiest (in passenger numbers) in North America and a very extensive surface route system bigger and with more ridership than Manchester and is in the late stages of planning a streetcar system for the city; Atlanta is a major US transportation hub and is the biggest transportation hub in the southeastern US, a region which includes the major cities of Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa, New Orleans, Birmingham, Baltimore, Charlotte etc. Backwater you say?:rofl:

My point was Chicago would not need the Olympics, Denver would.Atlanta didn't but, you probably didn't know this, Colorado is the only state, ever, to refuse to host the Olympic games. That was the 1976 Olympics. Compare that to Manchesters bid which didn't even make it past the preliminary stage.:lol:

Well by using your own criteria, that would make Manchester a fetid swamp.:lol:

Atlanta backwater v Manchester swamp:

Metroplitan Atlanta has a larger population than the combined populations of Metro Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds; Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson airport has a greater passenger throughput and more aircraft movements than Manchester Ringway, Liverpool John Lennon and Leeds Yeadon airports combined; Atlanta is headquarters to more "Fortune 500" companies than Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds combined; Atlantas municipal government owns and operates a transit sytem which includes a region wide subway system, which is the eight busiest (in passenger numbers) in North America and a very extensive surface route sytem bigger and with more ridership than Manchester and is in the late stages of planning a streetcar system for the city. Atlanta is a major US transportation hub and is the biggest transportation hub in the southeastern US, a region which includes major cities Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa, New Orleans, Birmingham, Baltimore, Charlotte etc. Backwater you say.:rofl:
Sorry you are fecking turd.

Who said anything about Manchester you arse****.

Clear off.

But, you probably didn't know this, Colorado is the only state, ever, to refuse to host the Olympic games. That was the 1976 Olympics. Compare that to Manchesters bid which didn't even make it past the preliminary stage.:lol:

But we ended up with the worlds best attended arena, until the O2 opened...so only no 2 in the world!

Sorry you are fecking turd.And you are a delusional fantasiser of epic proportions. Backwater indeed. :lol:But we ended up with the worlds best attended arena, until the O2 opened...so only no 2 in the world!I always understood that anything after FIRST place was a LOSER.:rofl:

And you are a delusional fantasiser of epic proportions. Backwater indeed. :lol:I always understood that anything after FIRST place was a LOSER.:rofl:

You are a very ill and bitter man.

Take a hint. We have all repeatedly advised you to take your medication and go away.

You are a proven liar, further documented evidence above...where did I bring Manchester into a dicussion of the merits of a city needing/wanting to host the Olympics?

..you deranged nutter.

How long before Sloyne gets banned again?

You are a very ill and bitter man...you deranged nutter.Sticks and stones? and my needing medication notwithstanding. Surely to God you can see the stupidity in your statement that "Atlanta is a backwater". I don't care what or whose criteria you use, Atlanta is not a backwater. I would also agree that you didn't mention Manchester but nor did I mention Denver. Touche methinks.

How long before Sloyne gets banned again?Would you support the banning of someone who disagrees with your own statements and does it with facts and reasoned argument and lack of unprovoked obscenities, swearing or personal insults and references to ones private life and medical condition?

Sticks and stones? and my needing medication notwithstanding. Surely to God you can see the stupidity in your statement that "Atlanta is a backwater". I don't care what or whose criteria you use, Atlanta is not a backwater. I would also agree that you didn't mention Manchester but nor did I mention Denver. Touche methinks.

Er.....
Atlanta didn't but, you probably didn't know this, Colorado is the only state, ever, to refuse to host the Olympic games. That was the 1976 Olympics. Compare that to Manchesters bid which didn't even make it past the preliminary stage.

Hey, you still at it are you not?

Atlanta is a backwater compared with New York, London, Paris, Moscow.... HELLO..the cities I mentioned....you really are a weirdo aren't you.

You cannot help but spout lies and shit!

Atlanta is a backwater compared with New York, London, Paris, Moscow.... HELLO..the cities I mentioned....you really are a weirdo aren't you.So, it is according to your OWN criteria that YOU consider Atlanta a backwater. I guess it was by the same criteria that you claimed Manchester had two ICONIC buildings. And i'm a wierdo.:ohno:

PS:Is this not the city bashing thread?

So, it is according to your OWN criteria that YOU consider Atlanta a backwater. I guess it was by the same criteria that you claimed Manchester had two ICONIC buildings. And i'm a wierdo.:ohno:

PS:Is this not the city bashing thread?

Oh GOD! Help me.

YES, YES, er YES again....
compared with London, New York, LA, Moscow...Atlanta is a backwater....cities of the highest calibre have no reason to bid for the Olympics, it is pointless for them....for Atlanta, it should have been everything..however....due to it being as boring as you...it failed.

Tatty bye. nut job.

I guess it was by the same criteria that you claimed Manchester had two ICONIC buildings.
And gain you lie.

I said ICONIC in UK TERMS..quite clearly to everyone bar you.

Only you would think I was talking in relation to the Taj Mahal, Pyramids or the Liver Building.

Atlanta is a backwater compared with New York, London, Paris, Moscow.... HELLO..the cities I mentioned.But, in your original post you also mentioned Sydney. Well, in my opinon and, I am open to attack on this, I believe that Sydney, Australia is a backwater in a country that can be described as an out-backwater. I do readilly admit that Sydney is a city in a beautiful setting with two readilly recognisable icons, the Harbor Bridge and the Opera House. Apart from that Sydney is not a patch on Atlanta. Also, having visited Sydney a number of times, I believe it would finish behind it's Commonwealth cousins of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, in any poll.I said ICONIC in UK TERMS..quite clearly to everyone bar you.

Only you would think I was talking in relation to the Taj Mahal, Pyramids or the Liver Building.But yet again, what do you consider as "UK ICONIC"? I would think that in London, Tower Bridge, The Tower of London, Houses of Parliament, in Liverpool it would be the waterfront and Metropolitan Cathedral, Edinbrough it's Castle. I don't know of any other UK city that could present a building ('s) that would be distinctive as to say "This is" whatever city you care to mention. That is what "iconic" does. Statue of Liberty, Golden Gate Bridge, Trans-America Building, Sears Tower, Hollywood sign, CN Tower, Sydney Opera House, Eiffel Tower, Coloseum, Bradenburgh Gate, Acropolis, etc. I have visited Manchester a number of times and would be hard put to remember any building that would shout out, like an icon, and say "Oh yeah, this is Manchester".

Do you have to turn everything into tedious drivel, just make your own thread for slagging of Manchester, you're boring.

Do you have to turn everything into tedious drivel, just make your own thread for slagging of Manchester, you're boring.Solution? Put me on ignore.:nuts:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


http://countingbeans.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/yawning.jpg?w=300

.... the last 30 pages, btw :)

:lol:

So true!

Jrb seems to be wearing his green with envy trousers permanently these days, he probably sleeps in them as well.

I'm glad you went out of your way to reply to my post. :ohno: Obviously you're saving your reply for another day. Not. :nuts:

Typical East. Put the facts and figures in front of him, and instead of saying fair enough, he does his usual 360 and goes off piggybacking on another persons post.

Give it up East. Your crap at this game.

i like how sloyne, having miraculously managed to alienate everyone in the troll thread with his immense twatishness, has brought a sort of unity between people who would've previously been at each others' throats. i mean that is some twatishness right there. :lol:

It's just immensely dull, at least Langur adds a modicum of humour to his posts, instead of banging about how somewhere is perceived and how many landmark buildings Manchester has.

But, in your original post you also mentioned Sydney. Well, in my opinon and, I am open to attack on this, I believe that Sydney, Australia is a backwater in a country that can be described as an out-backwater. I do readilly admit that Sydney is a city in a beautiful setting with two readilly recognisable icons, the Harbor Bridge and the Opera House. Apart from that Sydney is not a patch on Atlanta. Also, having visited Sydney a number of times, I believe it would finish behind it's Commonwealth cousins of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, in any poll.But yet again, what do you consider as "UK ICONIC"? I would think that in London, Tower Bridge, The Tower of London, Houses of Parliament, in Liverpool it would be the waterfront and Metropolitan Cathedral, Edinbrough it's Castle. I don't know of any other UK city that could present a building ('s) that would be distinctive as to say "This is" whatever city you care to mention. That is what "iconic" does. Statue of Liberty, Golden Gate Bridge, Trans-America Building, Sears Tower, Hollywood sign, CN Tower, Sydney Opera House, Eiffel Tower, Coloseum, Bradenburgh Gate, Acropolis, etc. I have visited Manchester a number of times and would be hard put to remember any building that would shout out, like an icon, and say "Oh yeah, this is Manchester".



Birmingham has Selfridges, a really recognisable icon. :)

But, in your original post you also mentioned Sydney. Well, in my opinon and, I am open to attack on this, I believe that Sydney, Australia is a backwater in a country that can be described as an out-backwater. I do readilly admit that Sydney is a city in a beautiful setting with two readilly recognisable icons, the Harbor Bridge and the Opera House. Apart from that Sydney is not a patch on Atlanta. Also, having visited Sydney a number of times, I believe it would finish behind it's Commonwealth cousins of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, in any poll.But yet again, what do you consider as "UK ICONIC"? I would think that in London, Tower Bridge, The Tower of London, Houses of Parliament, in Liverpool it would be the waterfront and Metropolitan Cathedral, Edinbrough it's Castle. I don't know of any other UK city that could present a building ('s) that would be distinctive as to say "This is" whatever city you care to mention. That is what "iconic" does. Statue of Liberty, Golden Gate Bridge, Trans-America Building, Sears Tower, Hollywood sign, CN Tower, Sydney Opera House, Eiffel Tower, Coloseum, Bradenburgh Gate, Acropolis, etc. I have visited Manchester a number of times and would be hard put to remember any building that would shout out, like an icon, and say "Oh yeah, this is Manchester".

Spinnaker Tower (for Pompey not Manc duh!)? It's even the logo for BBC South Today.

Spinnaker Tower (for Pompey not Manc duh!)? It's even the logo for BBC South Today.I've not seen it so I can't (won't) comment on the structure, but if is seen and the connection is, "That's Pompey" then yes, I would say it was iconic.

Spinnaker Tower (for Pompey not Manc duh!)? It's even the logo for BBC South Today.

People on this website would recognise Portsmouth by the tower but I would put my bottom dollar on the fact, that 90% of the population would not have a clue where the tower was!

It certainly isn't as recognisable and iconic as the Eiffel Tower.

Do like the Tower though, would be great to have a observation tower like that in Sheff...

People on this website would recognise Portsmouth by the tower but I would put my bottom dollar on the fact, that 90% of the population would not have a clue where the tower was!

I'm not so sure. I've been quite surprised by how many non-SSCers recognise buildings like Spinnaker! One of my friends has her facebook profile picture set as her sat on the glass floor.

I'm not so sure. I've been quite surprised by how many non-SSCers recognise buildings like Spinnaker! One of my friends has her facebook profile picture set as her sat on the glass floor.

Would that therefore be because she has been there?

Only Blackpool Tower, London landmarks, Edinburgh Castle would be UK wide symbols known by 90% of the people as of that place?

Sporting venues could be easily added..rugby, cricket, football.


Liverpool next tier down with the Liver building...perhaps Manchester after that with Beetham? Difficult to say?

Everbody in the world knows where this megastore is located. That's megastore, not building, tower, etc.

If you think I'm taking the piss and being ironic, I'm not. 'Manchester' United megastore. One of the most famous and iconic buildings in the world.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/Old_Trafford_entrace.jpg

PS. I would love to see the visitor figures. Wow!

Birmingham has Selfridges, a really recognisable icon. :)

.... this will be too ....

http://www.archello.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/media_enlarge_switch/story/media/5_163.jpg

http://www.archello.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/media_enlarge_switch/story/media/1_222.jpg

:)

.... this will be too ....

http://www.archello.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/media_enlarge_switch/story/media/5_163.jpg

http://www.archello.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/media_enlarge_switch/story/media/1_222.jpg

:)

I'll except Selfridges without a seconds hesitiation, but that ^^ No! :nono:

IMHO one of the most messy and confused buildings ever built.

I'd agree with jrb that Old Trafford is 'Manchester's only recognisable icon and will probably remain so for a while to come- Beetham Manchester is great from our perspecitve but largely forgettable otherwise, I can't imagine showing a picture of that to someone in London, let alone Los Angeles, and seeing them recognise the building and the city it is in.

I'd agree with jrb that Old Trafford is 'Manchester's only recognisable icon and will probably remain so for a while to come- Beetham Manchester is great from our perspecitve but largely forgettable otherwise, I can't imagine showing a picture of that to someone in London, let alone Los Angeles, and seeing them recognise the building and the city it is in.

Not sure this was intended for me, but I can't imagine that anyone in Los Angeles has ever even heard of Birmingham, let alone a couple of buildings in it's centre! :)

People on this website would recognise Portsmouth by the tower but I would put my bottom dollar on the fact, that 90% of the population would not have a clue where the tower was!

It certainly isn't as recognisable and iconic as the Eiffel Tower.

Do like the Tower though, would be great to have a observation tower like that in Sheff...

I think it's all down to media attention myself, only London gets the attention in the UK, other places around the UK are lucky to get media attention, but im sure if they did give other cities up and down the country more media attention i think you would find that people would recognize the cities more than they do now.

Not sure this was intended for me, but I can't imagine that anyone in Los Angeles has ever even heard of Birmingham, let alone a couple of buildings in it's centre! :)
Nah I meant our Beetham Tower :p

Would that therefore be because she has been there?

Only Blackpool Tower, London landmarks, Edinburgh Castle would be UK wide symbols known by 90% of the people as of that place?

Sporting venues could be easily added..rugby, cricket, football.


Liverpool next tier down with the Liver building...perhaps Manchester after that with Beetham? Difficult to say?

I don't think Beetham would be recognized, even most in the UK wouldn't recognize it. If you haven't been to Manchester you are likely to not know about it. Same applies to anything in Manchester, only football is what Manchester is recognized with.

Edit: I'm not having a dig a Manchester, the same applies to Leeds & Birmingham. I can't really pin point anything for Brum, Leeds is know in Japan for Leeds United, I know this as BBC Look North went to Japan to see how many people were aware of Leeds. :p

Edit: I can't really pin point anything for Brum..

That's because you are from Leeds .... live there, work there, watch TV there .... Birmingham is known in the USA (and around the World for that matter) for Cadbury .... been on our telly too :)

You also wear these ....

http://www.freewebs.com/sindy-our-pedigree-girl-of-the-60s/Dapple%20Grey%20head%20in%20gig%20harness.jpg

..... they're blinkers, btw.

I've heard of Hersheys chocolate in the US, doesn't mean I know what city it comes from...

I've heard of Hersheys chocolate in the US, doesn't mean I know what city it comes from...

But they do .... they know Bournville is in Birmingham in 'Liddle Olde England' :)

I've heard of Hersheys chocolate in the US, doesn't mean I know what city it comes from...You do now. Hershey, are located in Hershey, Pensylvania.

Everbody in the world knows where this megastore is located.
The most recognizable logo of any sports team belongs to the New York Yankees baseball franchise. Also, the Yankees sell and licence more branded sports attire than any other team of any other sport.

Not sure this was intended for me, but I can't imagine that anyone in Los Angeles has ever even heard of Birmingham, let alone a couple of buildings in it's centre! :)

You'd be surprised there. Angelinos are pretty clued up on British issues and do recognise the names of our big cities.

Atlanta in World terms is a back water .Passenger throughput figures for the year 2009 show that Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport handled more than 88 million passengers. That places Atlantas airport as the worlds busiest. Some airport, some backwater.:lol:

Who Cares! Because i sure don't...

Passenger throughput figures for the year 2009 show that Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport handled more than 88 million passengers. That places Atlantas airport as the worlds busiest. Some airport, some backwater.:lol:

Seriously "Sloyne", you are a little sad, it has to be said ...

:lol: sloyne gettin bullied.

Passenger throughput figures for the year 2009 show that Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport handled more than 88 million passengers. That places Atlantas airport as the worlds busiest. Some airport, some backwater.:lol:

Yeah busy because it's a huge hub, not because everyone is dying to taste the sweet treats on offer in Atlanta.

So lets see if I have this correct; It is acceptable for a Brit to make any outlandish claims about any subject, i.e. "Barcelona is a shithole", "Atlanta is a backwater" (but Sydney isn't,) "Manchester is superior to Milan" and other nonsense, but as soon as someone, usually an American, corrects these fantasies, he is castigated with personal attacks which include foul language, derogatory references to his family and exposure of, what the poster considers, personal health issues with the poster doing the correcting. I think the forum would be better served by other members objecting to, very personal and, foul language attacks on people they disagree with, not with the person correcting in a civil and gentlemanly manner.

Perhaps this is now the norm with the present generation of English people (mostly Mancunians,) at least it would seem so on this forum. You tell me.

Barcelona isn’t a shithole.

Barcelona isn’t a shithole.Except when I say the same thing as above, I am accused of everything from senility to total biasedness against Manchester. Then everyone else jumps aboard the bandwagen with insults, some of which are extreemly offensive.

EUXTEX

Why do you say you're American? for one aren't you a British person that migrated to the US from Lancashire? if this is the case get a grip mate, honestly you're British for crying out loud! stop with all this big headed American talk, it's so obnoxious especially coming from a Brit wannabe American. :bash:

I'll except Selfridges without a seconds hesitiation, but that ^^ No! :nono:

IMHO one of the most messy and confused buildings ever built.

http://www.nadfaseastsurreyarea.co.uk/liverpool-images/Imperial-War-Museum-North.jpghttp://manchester.diarystar.co.uk/images/imperial-war-museum-north1.jpg

http://www.traveladventures.org/continents/europe/images/salford-quays12.jpghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Z70KqCd4Lqo/TL4YBDfdjzI/AAAAAAAABig/Z5YLtrlreFw/s1600/Els%27+pics+in+England+223.jpg

Hmmmm .... can think of another couple of "messy" & "confused" buildings ^^ ... both trying to emulate the 'Guggenheim' effect .....

http://thebesttraveldestinations.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Guggenheim_Museum_Bilbao_Spain_01.jpg
http://www.studio-online.com/so/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/guggen_bolbao.jpghttp://blog.trilogybuilds.com/files/2010/06/Frank-Gehrys-Guggenheim-Bilbao.jpg

..... and failing spectacularly :)

These are some quality buildings. Exactly what modern architecture should look like - confident, sexy and showcasing what our technology is capable of.

EUXTEX

Why do you say you're American? for one aren't you a British person that migrated to the US from Lancashire? if this is the case get a grip mate, honestly your British for crying out loud! stop with all this big headed American talk, it's so obnoxious especially coming from a Brit wannabe American. :bash:You sir, know nothing whatsoever about me, my health, birth place, business, home or family. You are reading things that are posted by others on the forum who think they know me and who claim to have knowledge of me but who, thank God, know not the slightest thing about me. I shudder to think what they would publish if they new anything personal about me.

These are some quality buildings. Exactly what modern architecture should look like - confident, sexy and showcasing what our technology is capable of.

http://blog.trilogybuilds.com/files/2010/06/Frank-Gehrys-Guggenheim-Bilbao.jpg

I agree with you with this one ^^ :)

Ah well Sandblast, neither of those buildings you posted are in Manchester anyway, eh?

You sir, know nothing whatsoever about me, my health, birth place, business, home or family. You are reading things that are posted by others on the forum who think they know me and who claim to have knowledge of me but who, thank God, know not the slightest thing about me. I shudder to think what they would publish if they new anything personal about me.

you're a scouser stop pretending to be American you weirdo. :lol:

are you a pathological liar or something. lying about being american, lying about what mancunians have said. you know you can get help, it's not too late.

I have to say, I am not a fan of Libeskends work in the UK. Silver panals may look nice in the sun but the UK generally has overcast days where it just looks grey. Reasonably concerned about New New Street.

Awesome! I bet Manchester has nothing to match this!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c7/Cornish_Works_1860s.jpg/1000px-Cornish_Works_1860s.jpg

http://www.nadfaseastsurreyarea.co.uk/liverpool-images/Imperial-War-Museum-North.jpghttp://manchester.diarystar.co.uk/images/imperial-war-museum-north1.jpg

http://www.traveladventures.org/continents/europe/images/salford-quays12.jpghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Z70KqCd4Lqo/TL4YBDfdjzI/AAAAAAAABig/Z5YLtrlreFw/s1600/Els%27+pics+in+England+223.jpg

Hmmmm .... can think of another couple of "messy" & "confused" buildings ^^ ... both trying to emulate the 'Guggenheim' effect .....

http://thebesttraveldestinations.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Guggenheim_Museum_Bilbao_Spain_01.jpg
http://www.studio-online.com/so/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/guggen_bolbao.jpghttp://blog.trilogybuilds.com/files/2010/06/Frank-Gehrys-Guggenheim-Bilbao.jpg

..... and failing spectacularly :)

Your just being petty Sandblast, just because I gave a personal and honest opinion. You on the other hand are just trying to score brownie points.

The funny thing is, the Lowry was built long before the Guggenheim was a thought, so how could it be emulating the 'Guggenheim' effect'. :nuts: What came first, the chicken or the egg?

As for the IWMN, try reading the (architects) brief first.

In other words, stop being silly.

Awesome! I bet Manchester has nothing to match this!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c7/Cornish_Works_1860s.jpg/1000px-Cornish_Works_1860s.jpgCome on Mancs, take up the challenge. Show us your mills and your chimneys!!

I reckon Manchester should "regenerate" itself by building a really big ugly-arse red brick cotton mill with more and taller chimneys than ever before!!

I shudder to think what they would publish if they new anything personal about me.

:naughty: ;)

The funny thing is, the Lowry was built long before the Guggenheim was a thought.

Eh?

Sorry, double post.

The funny thing is, the Lowry was built long before the Guggenheim was a thought, so how could it be emulating the 'Guggenheim' effect'. :nuts: What came first, the chicken or the egg? The Guggenheim in Bilbao, Spain was completed in 1997. The model and artist impression of Frank Gehry's masterpiece were on display at the Guggenheim Museum in New York City for a number of years prior to it's completion.

The Lowrey Arts Centre in Manchester, England was completed in 1999.:nuts: In other words, stop being silly.
Great piece of advice by the way.:lol:

yeh it's fucking unbelieveable when people lie through their teeth like that isn't it sloyne?

I stand corrected. For once I didn't do my homework before posting. My emotions got the better of me. Yes, the Guggenheim was built before the Lowry Centre. (write out 100 times. I will do my.........)

Interestingly, the concept of the Lowry was first drawn up in 1989. It was originally known as the Salford Centre.

Stirling and Wilford were appointed in 1991 to come up with the design for the Lowry Centre.

The Staatsgalerie in Stuttgart was the inspiration behind the Lowry Centre.

Janet Roberts admitted that the Staatsgalerie in Stuttgart was a defining factor in the decision. "It was so intriguing, such a lovely building, and Stuttgart has some similarities to Manchester in that it is primarily seen as a commercial centre and not a cultural centre. We looked at studies of the project and the Staatsgalerie did succeed in creating economic improvements and raising the profile of the city, in the way we want The Lowry to do for Salford."

Yes, the Guggenheim does get a mention, but only in comparison. As did many other such proposals. And not in the way Sandbalst meant. 'The design and the cladding of the building'.(I stand corrected Sandblast)

both trying to emulate the 'Guggenheim' effect

Then there are the signature modern buildings to which Wilford's Lowry project relates: Frank Gehry's reflective Guggenheim Museum on the water in Bilbao; Kisho Kurakawa's Ehime Museum of Science in Japan, a seemingly random collage of geometric shapes at the foot of the mountains on Shikoku Island; Sir Richard Rogers' European Court of Human Rights, expressing the idea of transparency and openness in its form. But such comparisons only take you so far. In the end, The Lowry's architectural design is very much of itself; the building stands very much on its own terms against the tough, history-scarred landscape from which it clearly draws such inspiration.

For those interested. http://www.thelowry.com/about-the-lowry/the-lowry-building/architecture-and-construction/

I still stand by my original statements. I would have Selfridges any day in Manchester. In my opinion it is a great design and a great building. The Cube is neither. If you don't agree Sandblast, that's your opinion.

Moving on to Sloyne. Where does one start?

Unlike you Sloyne, I'm big enough to admit when I'm wrong.(see above) You on the other hand seem unable to do so.(this thread is testament to that, amongst other threads) 99.9% of the time I come into any debate armed with facts and figures(ask East, Monkey, etc), which I use to prove a valid point. You on the otherhand just make things up as you go along. In essence, your full of bullshit! TBH your nothing but a walter Mitty Character.

an ordinary, timid person who is given to adventurous and self-aggrandizing daydreams or secret plans as a way of glamorizing a humdrum life

As for being silly..

As a person portraying to be a (plastic)Scouser, English, Canadian and American all rolled into one, does it get any sillier? :weird: (you best check your family tree just in case you've got any Mancunian in you) GOD FORBID!

BTW. And no, I don't think either the Lowry or the IWMN tried to emulate the 'Guggenheim' effect in any way. There is no evidence or quote from either architect which suggests that.

PS. Pictures of the on-going work on the Super Casino site will be uploaded later on tonight.

I am sorry but this whole "Lowry copied the Guggenheim" malarky is bullshit, I will reiterate that I am not a fan of the style (I feel it looks cold) but this is in the same vane as those who claim Portsmouth ripped off Dubai with the Spinnaker Tower.... which was designed before the burj al arab.

I am sorry but this whole "Lowry copied the Guggenheim" malarky is bullshit, I will reiterate that I am not a fan of the style (I feel it looks cold) but this is in the same vane as those who claim Portsmouth ripped off Dubai with the Spinnaker Tower.... which was designed before the burj al arab.

Exactly.

Imagine either or both architects.

"Fuck it, let's just make a killing and copy the Guggenheim."

I'm no architect, but I'm 100% sure it doesn't work like that.

Exactly, it's a style. People will be saying such and such cities victorian houses ripped off some other cites victorian houses next. The Guggenheim and Lowry are both decontructivist/structural expressionist buildings.

Also, 6,000th post.

i think the metal is just cheap also.

The original design for the IWMN was a lot more elaborate, which a further fragmented shard, and detailed design on the cladding.

Sadly those were dropped and the design was altered due to funding issues.

I like the IWMN... elegant, sleek, sexy.

I don't like The Lowry though, there are better looking waterfront chemical plants in Runcorn and Ellesmere Port.

well it was designed by James Stirling and Michael Wilford (finished off by Willford after Stirling died as the design was being presented) so there's definitely a context for the building. ^^ funnily enough on the lowry site it says how

"Salford's chief executive Roger Rees looked at the massing of the proposed building and exclaimed: "It looks like Heysham Power Station." To which James Stirling replied dryly: "Well, you've got the scale then.""

I think i'd prefer it if it was made of stone. would certainly make it less factory like.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Stuttgart_HochschuleFuerMusikUndDarstellendeKunst.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Stuttgart_Staatsgalerie2.jpg

http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1566/X1304/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1566-056327.jpg

building in stuttgart they did

it's a bit of a mind-fuck sort of architecture isn't it. stylistically it's like an architects fantasy world come something out of myst come invisible cities come giergio de chirico painting with a dirty great factory looming over.

http://www.abcroomsinrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/de_chirico_01.jpg

http://www.italica.rai.it/principali/argomenti/arte/meta_fisica/gr2.jpg

i mean it's hard to place the style in context. but i suppose with the industrial look there's gotta be a reason in there somewhere. maybe something like - so much bad shit happened in the 20th century that toward the end of it everything became meaningless and autistic. it's not very stoic is it. it makes me very sad.

"post-modern" i guess.

I am sorry but this whole "Lowry copied the Guggenheim" malarky is bullshit, I will reiterate that I am not a fan of the style (I feel it looks cold) but this is in the same vane as those who claim Portsmouth ripped off Dubai with the Spinnaker Tower.... which was designed before the burj al arab.

Prime example of how dubai likes to copy

http://www.high-rise.architectureandplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/38-HHHR-Tower-Dubai-UAE-317m-72F-2009.jpg


http://www.paninishack.com/images/BridgewaterPlace.jpg

Those that are interested. This was the original proposal/design. PDF link below

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/screen_2010-12-05212720.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/screen_2010-12-05212825.jpg

http://www.iserce.net/portfolio/uni/fusion/download/daniel.pdf

Ah well Sandblast, neither of those buildings you posted are in Manchester anyway, eh?

I know they are not .....

"IMHO one of the most messy and confused buildings ever built." by jrb

I was responding to jrb's reference ^^ to the Cube in Birmingham :)

Your just being petty Sandblast, just because I gave a personal and honest opinion. You on the other hand are just trying to score brownie points.

The funny thing is, the Lowry was built long before the Guggenheim was a thought, so how could it be emulating the 'Guggenheim' effect'. :nuts: What came first, the chicken or the egg?
As for the IWMN, try reading the (architects) brief first.

In other words, stop being silly.

:lol: jrb .... you're normally a sensible chap .... the Guggenheim was completed in 1997 (it's design was around for years before that) and the Lowry in Salford was completed in 1999.

It is also a personal opinion that it (Lowry) is a poor relation to the Guggenheim in Bilbao .... I am entitled to that opinion, I think :cheers:

Interesting to see you did all your 'homework' on these two buildings after handing in your essay .... not a good move!

Does that B'ham New Street station redevelopment plan have the hint of a Guggenheim rip off about it?

building in stuttgart they did

rJWZ22_ZZgA

http://www.paninishack.com/images/BridgewaterPlace.jpg

Such a shame BWP never got its spire... :ohno:

Such a shame BWP never got its spire... :ohno:

I agree, they couldn't put the spire on due to the tower was under the flight path!! total joke, it would of been 140m tall with the spire on top.

Does that B'ham New Street station redevelopment plan have the hint of a Guggenheim rip off about it?

It would be fantastic if it did .... but I doubt it will in real life ...

http://los-angeles-world-class-city.com/images/Disney_Concert_Hall_Los_Angeles-1.jpg

... plenty of clones around the World already ^^ Disney Concert Hall - Los Angeles :)

:lol: jrb .... you're normally a sensible chap .... the Guggenheim was completed in 1997 (it's design was around for years before that) and the Lowry in Salford was completed in 1999.

It is also a personal opinion that it (Lowry) is a poor relation to the Guggenheim in Bilbao .... I am entitled to that opinion, I think :cheers:

Interesting to see you did all your 'homework' on these two buildings after handing in your essay .... not a good move!

Sandblast.

If you read my post properly, you'll have noticed that I acknowledged that the Guggenheim was built before the Lowry, after Sloyne corrected me.(shock, horror, admits mistake)

Moving on swiftly. In my reply to you I wasn't referring to the fact that you thought the Lowry was a poor relation to the Guggenheim.(your opinion) I was referring to the fact that you thought both the IWMN and the Lowry were, in your words, 'trying to emulate the 'Guggenheim'. Which is wrong.

Hmmmm .... can think of another couple of "messy" & "confused" buildings ... both trying to emulate the 'Guggenheim' effect .....

As I've stated. There is no evidence, verbal or written, that either architect behind the Lowry or IWMN tried to emulate the 'Guggenheim', in anyway whatsoever.

As for doing my Homework. Once again read my post.

BTW. Glad you enjoyed my homework. You've probably learnt something new, like some other forum members. Shame some of it hasn't sunk in yet. :)

PS. Time to move on Sandblast. Let's not get bogged down Sandblast/Leeds style. Let's both be sensible ah.

Posted in the Leeds thread.

Article from "The business Desk"

Network Rail pressed to invest in Leeds Station
6th December 2010

By James Reed - Assistant Editor

BUSINESS leaders from Leeds have met Network Rail to press the case for improvements to the city's railway station.

Leeds, York and North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce presented Network Rail's head of northern estates with results of its survey that showed 63% of businesses do not believe the station acts as a good gateway into Leeds.

Ian Williams, director of policy at the Chamber, was joined at the meeting by Nigel McLea from Pinsent Masons, Gerald Jennings from Land Securities and Cath Follin from Leeds City Council.

Mr Williams said: "Leeds is the UK second largest financial services hub outside of London and a leading business destination, with huge investment taking place in the Arena, Trinity and Eastgate Quarter. However, the train station doesn’t reflect these developments and its appearance and facilities are dated in comparison to the rest of the city centre.

“First impressions matter and train stations are often the first thing that many visitors and potential investors come into contact with when visiting a particular city. If Leeds is to retain its position as a leading business destination, it is clear that the city centre train station needs to represent the standard of businesses that it serves.

“With confirmed investment taking place building a new Southern Entrance into the station, it is important that the rest of the station is also improved to ensure a standard consistency and impression throughout and the Chamber will work with and support Network Rail to ensure that our city has the train station that it deserves."

Other findings from the survey include more than two thirds of respondents describing the appearance of the station as either average, poor or very poor.

.................

Couldn't help but highlight the key point ;)

Posted in the Leeds thread.

Article from "The business Desk"

Network Rail pressed to invest in Leeds Station
6th December 2010

By James Reed - Assistant Editor

BUSINESS leaders from Leeds have met Network Rail to press the case for improvements to the city's railway station.

Leeds, York and North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce presented Network Rail's head of northern estates with results of its survey that showed 63% of businesses do not believe the station acts as a good gateway into Leeds.

Ian Williams, director of policy at the Chamber, was joined at the meeting by Nigel McLea from Pinsent Masons, Gerald Jennings from Land Securities and Cath Follin from Leeds City Council.

Mr Williams said: "Leeds is the UK second largest financial services hub outside of London and a leading business destination, with huge investment taking place in the Arena, Trinity and Eastgate Quarter. However, the train station doesn’t reflect these developments and its appearance and facilities are dated in comparison to the rest of the city centre.

“First impressions matter and train stations are often the first thing that many visitors and potential investors come into contact with when visiting a particular city. If Leeds is to retain its position as a leading business destination, it is clear that the city centre train station needs to represent the standard of businesses that it serves.

“With confirmed investment taking place building a new Southern Entrance into the station, it is important that the rest of the station is also improved to ensure a standard consistency and impression throughout and the Chamber will work with and support Network Rail to ensure that our city has the train station that it deserves."

Other findings from the survey include more than two thirds of respondents describing the appearance of the station as either average, poor or very poor.

.................

Couldn't help but highlight the key point ;)

And so it begins again.

yCYoo3WaO8g

Oh dear.

Sandblast.

If you read my post properly, you'll have noticed that I acknowledged that the Guggenheim was built before the Lowry, after Sloyne corrected me.(shock, horror, admits mistake)

Moving on swiftly. In my reply to you I wasn't referring to the fact that you thought the Lowry was a poor relation to the Guggenheim.(your opinion) I was referring to the fact that you thought both the IWMN and the Lowry were, in your words, 'trying to emulate the 'Guggenheim'. Which is wrong.



As I've stated. There is no evidence, verbal or written, that either architect behind the Lowry or IWMN tried to emulate the 'Guggenheim', in anyway whatsoever.

As for doing my Homework. Once again read my post.

BTW. Glad you enjoyed my homework. You've probably learnt something new, like some other forum members. Shame some of it hasn't sunk in yet. :)

PS. Time to move on Sandblast. Let's not get bogged down Sandblast/Leeds style. Let's both be sensible ah.

jrb ... I'm on your side mate, trust me :)

"Leeds is the UK second largest financial services hub outside of London......"

........said Mr Williams of Leeds Chamber of Commerce :lol:

jrb ... I'm on your side mate, trust me :)

:hug:

Again one of those misleading quotes - 2nd outside of London. That means that excluding London, Leeds is behind another city - Brum!!

Where is Sloyne? Has Anyone seen Sloyne? Sloyne mate, where are you?

I've got something to show you. Promise me one thing though. Ask your mate, sorry your family, to hide all the knives you have lying around. Ask them to get rid of any razor blades and lengths of rope as well. Once you've done that, let me know and I'll show it you.

Looks like Barcelona....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/McConnel_%26_Company_mills%2C_about_1820.jpg/1000px-McConnel_%26_Company_mills%2C_about_1820.jpg

Looks like Venice....

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/19273540.jpg

Looks like Venice....

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/19273540.jpgEspecially here....

KGg4uhGfgB0

Again one of those misleading quotes - 2nd outside of London. That means that excluding London, Leeds is behind another city - Brum!!

Naah sorry. I've done some research and it turns out that the big players are Manchester (gasp) and Leeds.

Although it is Manchester that currently has the highest number of private practice firms after London (according to Law Society statistics), it is Leeds which has the highest number of large corporate firms – ten in all.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/features/leeds-legal-powerhouse

So Manchester attracts the small time firms, while Leeds attracts the Global players. :)

Looks like Venice....

http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/19273540.jpg
Nice pic that actually!

That Gladys Althorpe never buys her own!

well done on finding a pic of the same location monkeh, that probably took you a while!

interesting adverts all round. the rover one is pretty disturbing. two agents of the matrix test-driving the rover programme around a dystopian stuttgart. the boddington's one is a bit sad because it is no longer the cream of manchester.

Nothing wrong with Cornish Place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_Place) as far as I can see Langur, nor old industrial buildings in general. Though perhaps no Manchester cotton mill can match it ;).

Is Boddingtons a Manchester beer?

well done on finding a pic of the same location monkeh, that probably took you a while!Not long at all. Google is an amazing thing!Nothing wrong with Cornish Place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornish_Place) as far as I can see Langur, nor old industrial buildings in general. Though perhaps no Manchester cotton mill can match it ;).Exactly! Who needs Gehry, Gaudi, or Venetian palazzi when you've got cotton mills? ;)
http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/history/victorian/mills.html

Looks like Barcelona....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/McConnel_%26_Company_mills%2C_about_1820.jpg/1000px-McConnel_%26_Company_mills%2C_about_1820.jpgThe same mills 100 years later:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/McConnel_%26_Company_mills_about_1913.jpg/1000px-McConnel_%26_Company_mills_about_1913.jpg

And another 100 years later, and still an industrial slum:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5050/5240196891_7afef734fb_o.jpg

Chorlton Mills, f*** yeah!!
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5044/5240836732_ff317f8c95_o.jpg

And another 100 years later, and still an industrial slum:


Thanks for the pictures, what a building! Love the central `pond' ..will make a quality office/apartment complex right in the heart of the city!

Amazing potential.

You have an uncanny ability to highlight quality & potential. Are you are property developers mule?

I've been to manchester loads of times but never seen those mills. i find them weirdly fascinating .

Is it just me or are Langur's anti-manchester jibes getting really boring? Love the mill btw. A real feature could be made out of them with that canalside setting.

Is it just me or are Langur's anti-manchester jibes getting really boring? Love the mill btw. A real feature could be made out of them with that canalside setting.

Royal Mills has been refurbished. :)

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ukrestoration.co.uk/images/largeimages/pic4.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ukrestoration.co.uk/case-studies/royal-mills/&usg=__FPsNtAYwPpm6skXzXK23xX6gjYI=&h=648&w=800&sz=205&hl=en&start=4&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=y8zT6fi6Xcq8VM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Droyal%2Bmills%2Bancoats%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1

Just for Monkey, seeing as he's so interested in Manchester's splendid red brick Victorian Mills. http://www.ancoatsbpt.co.uk/projects_mills.htm

Palladio and Gaudi are much better though.

I think monkeh is trying to say mancs go on about mill architecture. Manchester doesn't have many mills in the city centre really to go on about (i suspect he found that out during his research ;) ) and with that reference to Venice I suspect he's thinking about Manchester's very beautiful italianate architecture and I think he should spend some time googling that.

Those mills are pretty historically significant though as they're early industrial, georgian mills.

I've always thought one of those mills would be a great place for a game of hide and seek.

Is it just me or are Langur's anti-manchester jibes getting really boring? Love the mill btw. A real feature could be made out of them with that canalside setting.If you find my contributions boring, then why are you responding to them positively? ;)

Just for Monkey, seeing as he's so interested in Manchester's splendid red brick Victorian Mills. http://www.ancoatsbpt.co.uk/projects_mills.htmThis is what you Mancs should be doing. You should be talking about your cotton mills and chimneys and how proud you are of them and how they're the heart and soul of your city. Of course I'll take the piss, but you're not afraid of me, are you? You're not ashamed of your historic identity, are you? After all what is Manchester if not the centre of a great cluster of milltowns? (albeit these days unemployed)

This is what you Mancs should be doing. You should be talking about your cotton mills and chimneys and how pround you are of them and how they're the heart and soul of your city. Of course I'll take the piss, but you're not afraid of me, are you? You're not ashamed of your historic identity, are you? After all what is Manchester if not the centre of a great cluster of milltowns? (albeit these days unemployed)

Well despite the well known phrase "Sticks & Stones may break my bones....." being sung, we all know it is bollocks.

You are a grade one $&$&. A freakin nut job of the highest order and I think your freakin continual mono-theme needs canning.

You are Colin Hunt. Master of self delusion.

-rj1SFtxRTg

[thread hijack]
Colin's been watching the new series of Little Britain by the looks of it:-
-J0nOUeNQbM
[/thread hijack]

Well despite the well known phrase "Sticks & Stones may break my bones....." being sung, we all know it is bollocks.

You are a grade one $&$&. A freakin nut job of the highest order and I think your freakin continual mono-theme needs canning.:laugh:

:pet:

These will cheer you up. There's nothing like the sight of a belching industrial chimney to warm the cockles of a Mancunian heart in winter. :)

http://members.madasafish.com/~cj_whitehound/Fanfic/artwork/Lowry-industrial_river_scene.jpg

http://www.virginmedia.com/images/cotton_town430x300.jpg

The Great Smog of '52 or Big Smoke[1] was a severe air pollution event that affected London, England, in December 1952. A period of cold weather, combined with an anticyclone and windless conditions, collected airborne pollutants mostly from the use of coal to form a thick layer of smog over the city. It lasted from Friday 5 to Tuesday, 9 December, 1952, and then quickly dispersed after a change in the weather.
Although it caused major disruption due to the effect on visibility, and even penetrated indoor areas, it was not thought to be a significant event at the time, with London having experienced many smog events in the past, so called "pea soupers". In the following weeks however, medical reports estimated that 4,000 had died prematurely and 100,000 more were made ill because of the smog's effects on the human respiratory tract. More recent research suggests that the number of fatalities was considerably higher at around 12,000.[2]
It is considered the worst air pollution event in the history of the United Kingdom,[3] and the most significant in terms of its impact on environmental research, government regulation, and public awareness of the relationship between air quality and health.[2] It led to several changes in practices and regulations, including the Clean Air Act 1956.
Arsewipe.

I am currently looking into Denial of Service Attacks on Monkey..can anyone assist please?

World class city:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_d1IheHuWgpc/SShryJwj9NI/AAAAAAAAB0c/XYtvWERgycE/s400/smog+h.jpg
What a shit heap.

If it were not our capital we would be ashamed of the weird place. About as British and representative as Calcutta.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_d1IheHuWgpc/SShrypUJ2nI/AAAAAAAAB0s/F_KEwCk85RY/s400/smog+policeman+with+mask.jpg

Hmmm, quality of death.

There's nothing like the sight of a belching industrial chimney to warm the cockles of a Mancunian heart in winter. :)Except perhaps this week's dole cheque.... ;)

Mechanical Monster Attacks Mancunian Cotton Mill

Awesome video of the destruction of a cotton mill in Shaw (Greater Manchester) to the sound of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture (that's classical music for any of you Northern oiks out there). The old mill is attacked by the mighty jaws of a gigantic killer machine!!

0RVBkRhdaQo

Interesting comments, too:


Preserve the mills:
We should be at least keeping one of these old great Cotton Mills, they are part of our Northern English Heritage. The people who worked in these mills where the salt of the earth,( proud working class people ) who work so damned hard though. We keep enough building etc in this country that belonged to the Upper classes, what about the Working Classes?


Destroy the mills:
How on earth can anyone be so sentimental about keeping such a relic from the slave trade of Lancashire people who toiled long hours in these places of torment just to make the owners and other buisnessmen rich - I worked in a mill such as this and believe me it was every bit as grim as it was made out in films - destroy the lot - have done with them they have had there day long ago - move on !!!!


Whose side are you on, Mancs? :)

Fred Dibnah, destroying his 90th (and final) mill chimney, waxes lyrical about 1000+ mill chimneys in Manchester, Oldham, Bolton, and Rochdale alone, and how from the top of a slagheap in Bolton, he could count 200 chimneys in a single view:

945T56ZxFkE&NR

(that's classical music for any of you Northern oiks out there).
I'm going to a performance by the Halle Orchestra at the Bridgewater Hall on Saturday night dear Monkey to see a variety of music by Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Khatchaturian and Sibelius. The last few times I've been the whole venue is pretty much sold out. We do have a tiny bit of culture up north y'know. I will have to take some pictures of the area for you, the Bridgewater is right on one of the oldest canals in the country and is still lined with a couple of those warehouses you're so fond of.

JV08Msbh1vU

I'm going to a performance by the Halle Orchestra at the Bridgewater Hall on Saturday night dear Monkey to see a variety of music by Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Khatchaturian and Sibelius. The last few times I've been the whole venue is pretty much sold out. We do have a tiny bit of culture up north y'know. I will have to take some pictures of the area for you, the Bridgewater is right on one of the oldest canals in the country and is still lined with a couple of those warehouses you're so fond of.Fascinating. But where do you stand on the great cotton mill debate, which is the talk of every dole queue in town?

I guess I am on the preserve side, to some extent. There are some grand old buildings amidst them, and I do love chimneys.

Arsewipe.

I am currently looking into Denial of Service Attacks on Monkey..can anyone assist please?


are you going to shoot his butler?

are you going to shoot his butler?

lol.

We can start with more subtle annoyances like removing the starch from his collars.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery :colgate:

http://www.canoma.com/battersea/ukBatterseaPowerStation.jpg

Just to reiterate. Monkey used to bash Manchester on a continual basis for (apparently) being the handout capital of Britian.

Unfortunately for Monkey, he got so excitied by this thought, that he deicided to post the following.

Originally Posted by Langur
However I'm talking about the gravy train ending. I mean no more handouts for Manchester by central government. Pleading, begging, and bleating for subsidy from London has been the basis of the Manc economy for the last 13 years.

Being a bit sharper than Monkey, I jumped on it like a flash and added the following.

(Monkey conveniently forgets to mention the '£10 billion' handout to London for the 2012 Olympic Games from the very same Central Government, and the rest of the country)
I then added them both together, and as they say, the rest is history.

Originally Posted by Langur
However I'm talking about the gravy train ending. I mean no more handouts for Manchester by central government. Pleading, begging, and bleating for subsidy from London has been the basis of the Manc economy for the last 13 years.(Monkey conveniently forgets to mention the '£10 billion' handout to London for the 2012 Olympic Games from the very same Central Government, and the rest of the country)

Two things.

Firstly. That quote by Monkey will stay on SSC indefinitely. (what a wonderful sight to behold, everytime I sign on to SSC :))

Secondly. Has anyone else noticed that Monkey never mentions 'handouts' anymore? TBH why would he, living in the 'handout' capital of Britain. :wink2: He'd surely want to keep that quiet. Wouldn't he?

You are especially proud of your riposte. I for one think my original statement is what people will remember, so I'm delighted to see it repeated every time you post something. :)

On the point in question, Manchester remains the handout capital. London is the goose that lays the golden egg for Britain. Government spending accounts for a lower percentage of London's GDP than any other region. In other words, we generate the new wealth for Britain, that wealth is then taxed, and used to subsidise you. The taxes paid by hard working Londoners winds up as your dole cheques, housing benefit, etc, so in ranting against London, you are biting the hand that feeds. Manchester has been especially lucky to get a greater than average share of the crumbs from London's table. That's why Manchester is rightly labelled the "handout capital" of the UK (though the Tory cuts will help put a stop to this gravy train). :)

London got the Olympics after other British cities, notably Manchester, tried and failed to land it, and the IOC told us our only chance to host the Olympics was London. London did win, beating New York, Paris, Madrid, and Moscow. (Can you imagine a tougher field?) The Olympics will cost a fraction of Beijing's, and are being called "the austerity Olympics" not for their extravagance, but for their, err.... austerity! If anything we should spend more on them rather than less.

In any case the £10bn cost of the Olympics (so you claim....) is a trivial sum compared to the massive subsidy Manchester receives courtesy of London taxpayers. Say thank you.

As it's the City bashing thread, it's only fair to post the good, the badly, and the downright ugly.

Via How Do.

Boston Globe columnist takes on Hillsborough and "grotty" Wednesday, 08 December 2010


As any editor of The Sun or Tory MP/London mayor knows, it’s unwise to get your facts wrong when reporting about Liverpool.

It’s what Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam discovered yesterday, when he wrote in his column about the Hillsborough “riot.”


Following more than a hundred comments, this was corrected:

“Their excitable Internet fan sites are still agonizing over a 21-year-old soccer stadium disaster that killed 96 people. (The original version of this story mischaracterized the event as a riot.),” he wrote.
The feature appeared because it’s 2 months since Boston Red Sox owner, John Henry and his partners Sports Ventures took control of Liverpool, but Beam doesn’t seem to think that highly of the city or indeed Henry’s chances of staying at the club.
“For now, the Red Sox PR machine is pumping out happynews about Henry’s visits to grotty Liverpool."

“Even by the deranged standards of European soccer, Red fans are totally bonkers.”

“It’s impossible to imagine a high-gloss player-franchise, a la David Beckham and his appalling wife, moving to doggy Liverpool.”

Fans from the UK and America have posted 5-pages worth of comments on the site, with only one that How-Do could find supporting the article.http://www.how-do.co.uk/north-west-media-news/north-west-publishing/boston-globe-columnist-takes-on-hillsborough-and-%22grotty%22-liverpool-201012089777/

Hardball in Liverpool New American owners might find these soccer fans a pretty tough crowd By Alex Beam Globe Columnist

Correction: Because of a reporting error, Alex Beam's column on Tuesday in the "g" section mischaracterized the 1989 Hillsborough stadium disaster involving Liverpool soccer fans as a "riot." The official investigation into the disaster, which cost 96 lives, placed the blame primarily on poor crowd control and inadequate stadium design.

Two months ago, Red Sox owner John Henry and his partners in New England Sports Ventures purchased Liverpool FC, historically one of Europe’s greatest soccer teams. Obviously, Henry, who admits he knows nothing about English soccer, is hoping to turn a few quid in the globalized sports marketplace.
So far, Henry’s brief stewardship has been uneventful. The team is having a bad year under a mediocre coach, but its problems redound to the previous, despised American owners. Tom Hicks and George Gillett generated huge debts, public relations debacles, and no Premier League championships. For now, the Red Sox PR machine is pumping out happynews about Henry’s visits to grotty Liverpool — Worcester without the glitz — and about his wife’s inane Twitter messages to the fans, e.g. “Wow! Anfield [the team’s stadium] really is a special place!’’
The few sane people I have talked to about Liverpool understand that these are early days for New England Sports Ventures and that meaningful changes probably won’t come until Liverpool’s season ends in May. None of those sane people are in Liverpool, however. Even by the deranged standards of European soccer, Red fans are totally bonkers. Their excitable Internet fan sites are still agonizing over a 21-year-old soccer stadium disaster that killed 96 people. (The original version of this story mischaracterized the event as a riot.) One website, Thisisanfield.com, is publishing yet another exhaustive history of the incident, and still actively promotes a boycott of Rupert Murdoch’s tabloid The Sun, two decades after the paper accused Liverpool fans of pickpocketing the corpses, and other outrages.
In a lengthy interview with one of the fan sites, Redandwhitekop.com (kop refers to a part of Anfield stadium), Henry confined himself to boilerplate Belispeak: “This club needs everyone on the same page every day. Every day. We need everyone focused on what needs to be done in the next match facing us and during that match,’’ blah blah blah. He comes across as bloodless and dispassionate, talking about soccer in the same breath as his auto racing interests and baseball — one management template for all. That kind of talk won’t sit well by the Mersey, believe me.
Thisisanfield.com is also publishing a generally positive, three-part history of the Red Sox under Henry & Co., written by an anonymous Bostonian who is a rabid Liverpool fan. He praises Henry’s work with the Sox and with Fenway, but warns of “some startling, and potentially worrying, differences’’ between the Sox and Liverpool: “Liverpool is in a precarious situation with regards to finances. And we’re a bit, shall we say, passionate about winning, and have never been losers. Ever. . . . Can NESV navigate the minefields of English football? Too early to say.’’
There are other worrisome facts: It’s impossible to imagine a high-gloss player-franchise, a la David Beckham and his appalling wife, moving to doggy Liverpool. Likewise Premier League financing rules will change next year, not necessarily to Liverpool’s benefit. I suspect my friend Steve Stark may have it correct, writing on the Atlantic magazine website: “Just like their precursors, these Americans will eventually be run out of town too, wondering what the hell they were thinking when they bought Liverpool FC.’’ http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2010/12/07/alex_beam_hardball_in_liverpool/


Disclaimer. I have nothing against Liverpool or Liverpudlians.(honest)

You are especially proud of your riposte. I for one think my original statement is what people will remember, so I'm delighted to see it repeated every time you post something. :)

On the point in question, Manchester remains a handout capital. London is the goose that lays the golden egg for Britain. Government spending accounts for a lower percentage of London's GDP than any other region. In other words, we subsidise you. The taxes paid by hard working Londoners winds up as your dole cheques, housing benefit, etc, so in ranting against London, you are biting the hand that feeds. Manchester has been especially lucky to get a greater than average share of the crumbs from London's table. That's why Manchester is rightly labelled the "handout capital" of the UK (though the Tory cuts will help put a stop to this gravy train). :)

London got the Olympics after other British cities, notably Manchester, tried and failed to land it, and the IOC told us our only chance to host the Olympics was London. London did win, beating New York, Paris, Madrid, and Moscow. (Can you imagine a tougher field?) The Olympics will cost a fraction of Beijing's, and are being called "the austerity Olympics" not for their extravagance, but for their, err.... austerity! If anything we should spend more on them rather than less.

In any case the £10bn cost of the Olympics (so you claim....) is a trivial sum compared to the massive subsidy Manchester receives courtesy of London taxpayers. Say thank you.

It's a big one. :wink2:

http://www.toursaver.com/images/toursaver.com/Image/alaska-fishing.jpg

and the death of manufacturing in the north was down to who again....?

the wealth of britain in the modern age comes from the north.

London got the Olympics after other British cities, notably Manchester, tried and failed to land it
I'm sure Manchester's incredibly successful staging of the 2002 Commonwealth Games had nothing to do with swaying the 2005 decision in London's favour, indeed.

and the death of manufacturing in the north was down to who again....?

the wealth of britain in the modern age comes from the north.

more specifically the wealth and stature of britain in the modern age came from the labour and the hardwork and hardship of northerners and midlanders.

Ray Conniff(A.K.A Monkey) Smoke Gets In Your Eyes (speakers on) Watch Monkey go.

ztZCSFVeDII&feature=fvst

Why are you posting about Hillsborough JRB you fucking little prick you should be banned for that.

Why are you posting about Hillsborough JRB you fucking little prick you should be banned for that.

Typical. :ohno:

Why focus on that? Would you like me to edit it from the article? Why don't you contact How Do as well. Why don't you contact all the websites running that article. Didn't I also post a link to the fans replying about the incorrect article. The 'whole' article is about Livrpool FC, and mentions Hillsborough. Did I make any comment or remarks about Hillsborough? No I didn't. But you just did. Go on then, tell me why I should be banned. Knee jerk reaction. (I'm surprised it hasn't been picked up yet by the Liverpool forum. Liverpool in the Media.)

Typical. :ohno:

Why focus on that? Would you like me to edit it from the article? Why don't you contact How Do as well. Why don't you contact all the websites running that article. Didn't I also post a link to the fans replying about the incorrect article. The 'whole' article is about Livrpool FC, and mentions Hillsborough. Did I make any comment or remarks about Hillsborough? No I didn't. But you just did. Go on then, tell me why I should be banned. Knee jerk reaction. (I'm surprised it hasn't been picked up yet by the Liverpool forum. Liverpool in the Media.)

If you mentioned that in the street you would get slapped its not diffrent on here.Its wrong slandering the lives of innocent people who died that day you arsehole.

lovely london ,http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpXER1bfBjI&feature=related

As it's the City bashing thread, it's only fair to post the good, the badly, and the downright ugly.

Via How Do.

Disclaimer. I have nothing against Liverpool or Liverpudlians.(honest)


I can understand why you posted that, but the "grotty" comment is Mersey water off a UNESCO World Herritage duck's back.

The only thing that is going to grab folks attention in that article is the comments about Hillsborough. Given that Liverpool have over 100 million fans worldwide, that is probably not a wise move!

If you mentioned that in the street you would get slapped its not diffrent on here.Its wrong slandering the lives of innocent people who died that day you arsehole.

What, so if i mentioned that whole article in the street, I would get a slap. Please.

Where did I slander those people? As stated. I never mentioned or made a comment about those people or Hillisborough in my post.

If you meant, the good, the bad and the ugly? That refers to the general content of this thread, and not to the content of the article.

What, so if i mentioned that whole article in the street, I would get a slap. Please.

Where did I slander those people? As stated. I never mentioned or made a comment about those people or Hillisborough in my post.

If you meant, the good, the bad and the ugly,? That refers to the general content of this thread, and not to the content of the article.

Yes you would get a slap you would get dropped trust me on that.

I can understand why you posted that, but the "grotty" comment is Mersey water off a UNESCO World Herritage duck's back.

The only thing that is going to grab folks attention in that article is the comments about Hillsborough. Given that Liverpool have over 100 million fans worldwide, that is probably not a wise move!

So if that article was posted in the Liverpool Media thread, that would be OK then?

The article mentions Hillsborough. I didn't. I posted the whole article. Do you and Tommy want me to edit it? Is that the road we're going down? I also posted a link to the Liverpool fans putting the person who wrote that article right. I also posted the How Do article, where it was taken from.

Given that Liverpool have over 100 million fans worldwide, that is probably not a wise move!

True i remember when some idiot called redarmy was posting about hillsborough.And my brother traced his address to Birchwoood Warrington just around the corner from me he shit himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksRLQY04J6E&feature=related

typical night out for cockneys:lol:

Yes you would get a slap you would get dropped trust me on that.

So that article and it's contents can't be discussed in Liverpool then? Why?
If it's incorrect, it would be discussed. No?

I get the sense that I should be walking on egg shells. But my mind says, why should I be?

So if that article was posted in the Liverpool Media thread, that would be OK then?

The article mentions Hillsborough. I didn't. I posted the whole article. Do you and Tommy want me to edit it? Is that the road we're going down? I also posted a link to the Liverpool fans putting the person who wrote that article right. I also posted the How Do article, where it was taken from.


The only reason the article came to the fore was another journalist misreporting the Hillsborough disaster. As this is the city bashing thread, the question has to be asked: what is being bashed?

What the fuck is TommyGun on. Clear off you idiot, threatening someone.

He clearly posted the Boston Globe rebuttal for that dick head reporter.

The attack was based on Liverpool being a `dump' hence it's posting on here.

Who is slagging Hillsborough on here?

What is your beef with JRB?

The only reason the article came to the fore was another journalist misreporting the Hillsborough disaster. As this is the city bashing thread, the question has to be asked: what is being bashed?

The question will be answered.

Liverpool.

the Red Sox PR machine is pumping out happynews about Henry’s visits to grotty Liverpool

a la David Beckham and his appalling wife, moving to doggy Liverpool.”

Like I said, would you like me to edit posts in the future? Imagine if I'd just posted those two Quotes. The next question would have been, where are those quotes from? Then I would have either posted the 'full' article or posted a link. Meaning you and Tommygun would have seen and read the full article anyway.

On a serious note. It seems one or two on the Liverpool forum would like some form of 'Liverpool' censorship across the forums, where only good news can be posted or reported about the City. Why stop at Liverpool. Let's go the mile and ban any bad articles and posts about any UK city.

Yes it was tongue in cheek, and that article was posted in this thread becuase it bashed Liverpool. It was also posted in good faith, and wasn't aimed in anyway whatsoever at the Hillsborough victims or their families.(Tommy Gunn)

But as I have already stated, I will not start editing articles and posts for anyone, or for any reason.

As for the threat. Was there one? And if there was, it's there for everyone to see. Enough said.

The question will be answered.

Liverpool.

Quote:
the Red Sox PR machine is pumping out happynews about Henry’s visits to grotty Liverpool

Quote:

a la David Beckham and his appalling wife, moving to doggy Liverpool.”



Like I said, would you like me to edit posts in the future? Imagine if I'd just posted those two Quotes. The next question would have been. Where are those quotes from? Then I would have either posted the 'full' article or posted a link. Meaning you and Tommygun would have seen and read the full article anyway.


Well, I refer you to a previous response...

I can understand why you posted that, but the "grotty" comment is Mersey water off a UNESCO World Herritage duck's back.

The only thing that is going to grab folks attention in that article is the comments about Hillsborough. Given that Liverpool have over 100 million fans worldwide, that is probably not a wise move!





On a serious note. It seems one or two on the Liverpool forum would like some form of 'Liverpool' censorship across the forums, where only good news can be posted or reported about the City. Why stop at Liverpool. Let's go the mile and ban any bad articles and posts about any UK city.



Why not? Everyone else gets used to seeing Kurt/Metrolink/WirlieG doing this selfless task on behalf of Manchester. :lol:



Yes it was tongue in cheek, and that article was posted in this thread becuase it bashed Liverpool. It was also posted in good faith, and wasn't aimed in anyway whatsoever at the Hillsborough victims or their families.(Tommy Gunn)

But as I have already stated, I will not start editing articles and posts for anyone, or for any reason.

As for the threat. Was there one? And if there was, it's there for everyone to see. Enough said.


Fair dos, but given the sensitive nature of that article, misreporting Hillsborough as a riot as such, maybe the odd exception could be exercised! As the saying goes, pride comes before a fall. :cheers:

JRB in 'classless cunt' shocker.

Manchester's getting a kicking from langur so he pulls out some article which calls liverpool 'grotty' and 'doggy' and the rest of the article is completely irrelavant. Nobody's saying you can't bash Liverpool but if we produced every single article which called one of the big cities a nasty name this would a million pages long.

JRB in 'classless cunt' shocker.

Manchester's getting a kicking from langur so he pulls out some article which calls liverpool 'grotty' and 'doggy' and the rest of the article is completely irrelavant. Nobody's saying you can't bash Liverpool but if we produced every single article which called one of the big cities a nasty name this would a million pages long.

YAWN.

Albion, I need to get involved again, because I'm a 'piggybacking' c*** shocker.

Need I say anymore? No! (I could to be honest, but your not worth it)

Well, I refer you to a previous response...









Why not? Everyone else gets used to seeing Kurt/Metrolink/WirlieG doing this selfless task on behalf of Manchester. :lol:




Fair dos, but given the sensitive nature of that article, misreporting Hillsborough as a riot as such, maybe the odd exception could be exercised! As the saying goes, pride comes before a fall. :cheers:

As I've said Yoshef, I'm not going to start editing articles just to appease certain forum members. If we're going down that road, we might as well call it a day.

I fully appreciate the sensitivity of a section of that article, hence posting a link to the Liverpool fans and How Do. But numerous wrong and misleading articles about Hillsborough have been posted and openly discussed on the Liverpool forum and elsewhere on the forums during my 8 years on SSC. So why should I edit or not post the full article, just to appease certain forum members? We've already got to the point where I'm explaining my actions or non-actions, if the truth be told. The full article was posted. A certain forum member picked upon one point, for no other reason than to...........(it doesn't take a genius to work out what) We've now got another forum member jumping on the same bandwaggon. (not you)

TBH Yoshef I'm not going to beat myself up about what I've just done. If certain posters want to take it the wrong way and make mileage out of it, so be it. If it's such a problem for them there's one simple solution. Put me on ignore. Naming no names. TBH they probably don't want to do that, even though the option is there for them. I wonder why?

PS. I can't speak for other Manc forum members. I'm only responsible for my actions and my posts.

and the death of manufacturing in the north was down to who again....?The unions. You destroyed yourselves.the wealth of britain in the modern age comes from the north.No, some of it was. What about the contributions from places like London, Bristol, Midlands, Scotland, etc? For the last 50 years, during which time living standards have improved hugely, the North has been a net drain on the British economy.

Yeah Liverpool is grotty and dodgy I must have dreamt that it was a UNESCO World Heritage city, has more grade 1 and 11 listed buildings than any other uk city outside of London, is always in the top 10 for national and international visits, and has a lower crime rate than most major cities such as MANCHESTER!

The unions. You destroyed yourselves.


So what you're saying is that workers looking out for themselves and making sure they work in humane conditions and for fair pay forced companies to go elsewhere where they COULD exploit people. Well, well done London on consistently making money off the back of others' pain and poverty. Hazaar!!!!!

No, some of it was. What about the contributions from places like London, Bristol, Midlands, Scotland, etc? For the last 50 years, during which time living standards have improved hugely, the North has been a net drain on the British economy.


I said the midlands and meant Scotland. The industry of Britain gave it its wealth in the modern age. i.e. not London. i.e. everywhere else. Everywhere else made London.

Fair play Monkey, I've got to give you some credit for sticking at it for as long as you have. You're either dedicated to the cause or just mad?

TBH posting pictures of Mills and chimneys doesn't irk me.(can't be arsed explaining why)

Perhaps if you delved a little deeper and found Manchester's true weak points, that couldn't be argued, that might, just might, irk me.

As it is, your currently flogging a dead horse.(probably used in one of the mills)

The industry of Britain gave it its wealth in the modern age. i.e. not London. i.e. everywhere else. Everywhere else made London.What about the massive manufacturing industry and trade of London? What was the world's busiest trading port during the Industrial Age? In which city were based the state and trading companies that won Britain the Empire, which in turn provided captive markets for British goods? (including Mancs/Lancs cottons) Who financed Northern industry? Where were Britain's stock exchanges pioneered?? London's economy has thrived through millennia, not merely at a single moment in history.

Cities are generally wealth generators in modern economies. That's why Singapore and Hong Kong, which lack rural or provincial hinterlands to drag them back, are now so much richer than contemporary Asian Tiger economies that did have them (eg South Korean and Taiwan). London would be massively richer as an independent country. The provinces don't feed London's wealth. They drain it. Northern resentment means that London's workers don't come from the provinces any more. We get them from abroad instead. Our hinterland has become Europe or even the world. Native Britons are losing out on the new opportunities because of their own prejudices.

Northern towns and cities are one-trick ponies. They were nothing before the Industrial Revolution. They had one moment of economic growth and opportunity, usually based around a single industry, but as soon as those industries were no longer competitive, they promptly declined again, and have lived off welfare handouts and government spending ever since.

Resentful Northerners ususally blame their economic decline on Thatcher. Actually it was already dead. Thatcher merely cleared the dead wood which was a necessary thing. It was unionism that destroyed British industry. Of course that wasn't the only problem. In the case of mining there was simple depletion of cheaply accessible reserves. (North Sea oil now faces the same decline.) There was also the wrong management culture. There was also a lack of investment, in part due to the fact that the pound was high compared to foreign competitiors (the Wilson government wanted to keep the pound high in order to reduce the cost of Britain's overseas commitments, eg British army in Germany). However there's no doubt that the Winter of Discontent, Britain as the "Sick Man of Europe", etc, was all brought on by militant, reckless, irresponsible, and poltically motivated unionism that had long outgrown its original purpose of improving workers' basic conditions and safety. To that extent, the North brought about its own decline.

stupid unions, not taking this shit -

http://www.impacttlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/child-labour.png

http://du-lich.chudu24.com/f/d/091109/child-labor-still-a-tough-nut-to-crack-3.jpg

:horse:

^^ This lot pays for our wealth now

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eXBsc100dy0/R8v0rwjbkHI/AAAAAAAAEYM/bKZjzqoGslE/s320/uk-child-labour.jpg

http://wizard.webquests.ch/pics/upload/98/child_labour_400.jpg

^^ This lot paid for London's wealth in the past. Basically, London is a leech.

Those pictures above, though grim, show the wealth being created. In particular they show the North's wealth being created. These days the worst excesses are controlled by regulation. That's why China is industrialising without exploiting child labour. They have the advanatge of coming afterwards of course.

These pictures below show that wealth (and the prosperity of the North) being destroyed:

http://www.aworldtowin.net/images/images570/Miners%20Ollerton1.jpg

http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/images/2009/03/12/Miner-Strike-pic-2.jpg

London isn't a leech. You're the leeches. We subsidise you. The North's benefits are paid by London's hard-working taxpayers. In most of the North, government spending accounts for the majority of GDP. In London, by contrast, government spending accounts for a lower share share of GDP than anywhere else. That's because London has wealth generating industries. The North deosn't. If London was an independent country, it'd be much richer, in the same way that city states like Hong Kong and Singapore are much richer than Taipei and Seoul (or the Taiwan and South Korean averages).

London has been a leech on the earth for hundreds of years, The North for maybe 30-40 years. London is more a leech than the North.

No real wealth is made in London or has ever been made in London, it has always been a fat leech exploiting workers and their work the world over.

London has been a leech on the earth for hundreds of years, The North for maybe 30-40 years. London is more a leech than the North.

No real wealth is made in London or has ever been made in London, it has always been a fat leech exploiting workers and their work the world over.I copy and paste....

London isn't a leech. You're the leeches. We subsidise you. The North's benefits are paid by London's hard-working taxpayers. In most of the North, government spending accounts for the majority of GDP. In London, by contrast, government spending accounts for a lower share share of GDP than anywhere else. That's because London has wealth generating industries. The North deosn't. If London was an independent country, it'd be much richer, in the same way that city states like Hong Kong and Singapore are much richer than Taipei and Seoul (or the Taiwan and South Korean averages).

and....

What about the massive manufacturing industry and trade of London? What was the world's busiest trading port during the Industrial Age? In which city were based the state and trading companies that won Britain the Empire, which in turn provided captive markets for British goods? (including Mancs/Lancs cottons) Who financed Northern industry? Where were Britain's stock exchanges pioneered?? London's economy has thrived through millennia, not merely at a single moment in history.

Cities are generally wealth generators in modern economies. That's why Singapore and Hong Kong, which lack rural or provincial hinterlands to drag them back, are now so much richer than contemporary Asian Tiger economies that did have them (eg South Korean and Taiwan). London would be massively richer as an independent country. The provinces don't feed London's wealth. They drain it. Northern resentment means that London's workers don't come from the provinces any more. We get them from abroad instead. Our hinterland has become Europe or even the world. Native Britons are losing out on the new opportunities because of their own prejudices.

Northern towns and cities are one-trick ponies. They were nothing before the Industrial Revolution. They had one moment of economic growth and opportunity, usually based around a single industry, but as soon as those industries were no longer competitive, they promptly declined again, and have lived off welfare handouts and government spending ever since.

Resentful Northerners ususally blame their economic decline on Thatcher. Actually it was already dead. Thatcher merely cleared the dead wood which was a necessary thing. It was unionism that destroyed British industry. Of course that wasn't the only problem. In the case of mining there was simple depletion of cheaply accessible reserves. (North Sea oil now faces the same decline.) There was also the wrong management culture. There was also a lack of investment, in part due to the fact that the pound was high compared to foreign competitiors (the Wilson government wanted to keep the pound high in order to reduce the cost of Britain's overseas commitments, eg British army in Germany). However there's no doubt that the Winter of Discontent, Britain as the "Sick Man of Europe", etc, was all brought on by militant, reckless, irresponsible, and poltically motivated unionism that had long outgrown its original purpose of improving workers' basic conditions and safety. To that extent, the North brought about its own decline.

http://www.elombah.com/shell-oil-spill.jpg

http://www.jaguda.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Shell-in-the-Niger-Delta-005.jpg

http://img2.photographersdirect.com/img/23898/wm/pd1679448.jpg

:horse:

Hard work. :)

I copy and paste....

London isn't a leech. You're the leeches. We subsidise you. The North's benefits are paid by London's hard-working taxpayers. In most of the North, government spending accounts for the majority of GDP. In London, by contrast, government spending accounts for a lower share share of GDP than anywhere else. That's because London has wealth generating industries. The North deosn't. If London was an independent country, it'd be much richer, in the same way that city states like Hong Kong and Singapore are much richer than Taipei and Seoul (or the Taiwan and South Korean averages).

and....

What about the massive manufacturing industry and trade of London? What was the world's busiest trading port during the Industrial Age? In which city were based the state and trading companies that won Britain the Empire, which in turn provided captive markets for British goods? (including Mancs/Lancs cottons) Who financed Northern industry? Where were Britain's stock exchanges pioneered?? London's economy has thrived through millennia, not merely at a single moment in history.

Cities are generally wealth generators in modern economies. That's why Singapore and Hong Kong, which lack rural or provincial hinterlands to drag them back, are now so much richer than contemporary Asian Tiger economies that did have them (eg South Korean and Taiwan). London would be massively richer as an independent country. The provinces don't feed London's wealth. They drain it. Northern resentment means that London's workers don't come from the provinces any more. We get them from abroad instead. Our hinterland has become Europe or even the world. Native Britons are losing out on the new opportunities because of their own prejudices.

Northern towns and cities are one-trick ponies. They were nothing before the Industrial Revolution. They had one moment of economic growth and opportunity, usually based around a single industry, but as soon as those industries were no longer competitive, they promptly declined again, and have lived off welfare handouts and government spending ever since.

Resentful Northerners ususally blame their economic decline on Thatcher. Actually it was already dead. Thatcher merely cleared the dead wood which was a necessary thing. It was unionism that destroyed British industry. Of course that wasn't the only problem. In the case of mining there was simple depletion of cheaply accessible reserves. (North Sea oil now faces the same decline.) There was also the wrong management culture. There was also a lack of investment, in part due to the fact that the pound was high compared to foreign competitiors (the Wilson government wanted to keep the pound high in order to reduce the cost of Britain's overseas commitments, eg British army in Germany). However there's no doubt that the Winter of Discontent, Britain as the "Sick Man of Europe", etc, was all brought on by militant, reckless, irresponsible, and poltically motivated unionism that had long outgrown its original purpose of improving workers' basic conditions and safety. To that extent, the North brought about its own decline.

EucJIl0uonE

I seem to recall Monkey once suggesting to build a North-South pipeline to pump water to London... as it is seemingly losing the capability to sustain itself. That city just keeps on leeching! ;)

I will destroy the North.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IoU3bEFUwWc/SHovZNm8x8I/AAAAAAAACaI/utIhvvLYnxE/s400/Margaret+Hilda+Thatcher+2.jpg

And from the wreckage I will sporn the next generation of Southern Monkeys, with more generations to follow.

1WhhSBgd3KI

Over my dead body!

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4060/4453402357_b0d5931740.jpg

http://www.elombah.com/shell-oil-spill.jpg

http://www.jaguda.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Shell-in-the-Niger-Delta-005.jpg

http://img2.photographersdirect.com/img/23898/wm/pd1679448.jpg

:horse:

Hard work. :)The picture of London (bottom) shows Shell's Global Headquarters, a company that massively contributes to UK's wealth generation, and the London Eye, a profit making venture built by British Airways, another wealth generating enterprise.

Your other pictures show poverty and environmental degradation elsewhere. Who picked the cotton that fed the mills in Mancs/Lancs? Was it negro slaves? Yes. Planting cotton and other cash crops in the Caribbean and the Americas wasn't good for biodiversity you know. And wasn't the North itself an example of massive environmental degradation? The whole place was covered with soot!!

I seem to recall Monkey once suggesting to build a North-South pipeline to pump water to London... as it is seemingly losing the capability to sustain itself. That city just keeps on leeching! ;)I don't recall that. I've never heard of such a scheme. But would it be so wrong? Why not pump water from where there's an excess to where there's a deficit? Why not exploit natural resources? Isn't that how the North got its economic start, from exploiting local resources such as coal and iron ore, and others imported from further afield, such as raw cotton?

The north got its "economic start" because enclosure at the hands of london forced (i mean actually forced, like, if i don't do this i die forced) them into finding alternative ways to live and be entrepreneurial. London just leeched off that.

Nothing started in London. London has never created anything, it just leeches off others' hard work and pain. And now it has dragged the whole country into its leechyness.

The north got its "economic start" because enclosure at the hands of london forced (i mean actually forced, like, if i don't do this i die forced) them into finding alternative ways to live and be entrepreneurial. London just leeched off that.So you should thank us. Otherwise you'd have never gotten anywhere.Nothing started in London. London has never created anything, it just leeches off others' hard work and pain. And now it has dragged the whole country into its leechyness.The British Empire started in London. Joint stock capitalist finance started in London shortly after it was first conceived in Holland. The Empire provided the Mancs/Lancs mills with their raw cotton, as well as the captive market for Northern manufactured exports. Mill-owning entrepreneurs were financed from London. The Big Bang of 1986, that has created Britain's most successful modern industry (a massive taxpayer, which therefore funds your welfare handouts), was pioneered in London.

What has Manchester ever had aside from textiles? A single industry once in your entire history? What was Manchester before? Nothing. What has it been since? A city that lives off welfare handouts and government spending. London has been a wealth generating economic hub for millennia. That's why London exists!! It has lost industries before, such the port which has relocated downstream, but has generated others to replace it.

What was that Monkey?

The new Conservative(Lib Dem) Government was going to hammer Manchester.

Perhaps you might still be right, but the initial signs say otherwise.

Speculation is growing that the three major centres of the newly announced Creative England will be Bristol in the South, Manchester in the North and Birmingham in the Midlands.

A period of industry consultation is expected to follow today’s announcement, with feedback being taken forward to shape the final Creative England business plan and the full details being revealed in early 2011. However the talk amongst the industry is that the three film hubs will be Bristol, Manchester and Birmingham, all of which are based in the Western half of the UK.

By your thinking that shouldn't happen. Perhaps it still won't. We shall see.

Northern towns and cities are one-trick ponies. They were nothing before the Industrial Revolution. They had one moment of economic growth and opportunity, usually based around a single industry, but as soon as those industries were no longer competitive, they promptly declined again, and have lived off welfare handouts and government spending ever since.


I don't understand why you are grouping all northern cities together?

There are many Northern cities that have not lived of 'welfare handouts and government spending'.

Chiefly Leeds.

It's funny that Manchester 'Biggs itself' up to a un-proportionate level. Surely the city that has the highest handouts from the government must be the 'most' prosperous? And of course be at the forefront of all sectors. After-all you are the self proclaimed capital of the north.

WRONG!

Leeds which has the highest number of large corporate firms. Outside of London.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/features/leeds-legal-powerhouse

You would think the City with the highest amount of government spending would be the most attractive to world class firms of solicitors, after-all what is more professional and profitable that solicitors?

So London was leeching from others work on two fronts in our industrial age - Exploited workers in Manchester + Slave Labour in the carribean = super duper london leechyness. Hazaar!!!!

What freedom. :)

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/ralimage/22slaves.jpg

^^ took a northerner to stop this shit.


http://www.cowboybooks.com.au/pictures/WilliamWilberforce.jpg

what a dick head ey monkey!

I don't understand why you are grouping all northern cities together?

There are many Northern cities that have not lived of 'welfare handouts and government spending'.

Chiefly Leeds.

It's funny that Manchester 'Biggs itself' up to a un-proportionate level. Surely the city that has the highest handouts from the government must be the 'most' prosperous? And of course be at the forefront of all sectors. After-all you are the self proclaimed capital of the north.

WRONG!

Leeds which has the highest number of large corporate firms. Outside of London.

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/features/leeds-legal-powerhouse

You would think the City with the highest amount of government spending would be the most attractive to world class firms of solicitors, after-all what is more professional and profitable that solicitors?

Another deluded fool. The funny thing is, it's been explained to him on numerous occasiosn. Obviously some forum members aren't capable of understanding it.

Here's a thought. Perhaps if the people running Leeds weren't so.....(fill in as appropriate), you'd have the beginnings of a tram network by now. At least you have the consolation of knowing your money was diverted to the London Olympics. Ouch!

It seems one or two on the Liverpool forum would like some form of 'Liverpool' censorship across the forums, where only good news can be posted or reported about the City.But even worse. You Kids and TheFly are asking that I be banned because I have the audacity to correct your erronious postings about Manchester and, may I add, not in nice, polite and gentlemanly words but in vicious, foul-mouthed and personal terms with derogatory references to family and health. :ohno:

oi, cock head, i'm on the southern front at the moment, you can't just open another front like that, this isn't fair!

Another deluded fool. The funny thing is, it's been explained to him on numerous occasiosn. Obviously some forum members aren't capable of understanding it.

Here's a thought. Perhaps if the people running Leeds weren't so.....(fill in as appropriate), you'd have the beginnings of a tram network by now. At least you have the consolation of knowing your money was diverted to the London Olympics. Ouch!

I must admit I am devastated the tram network wasn't granted by the government, the people of Leeds are mourning the loss of our planned tram :nuts:.

Believe it or not, most people don't care about a tram system. You don't miss what you haven't got.

Same applies to Manchester.

You don't miss the world-wide corporate firm of solicitors. The high paid solicitors bring money into Leeds economy. Hence why Manchester needs government funding, Manchester doesn't specialize in anything to stimulate the economy. In two years time Leeds will be ahead of Manchester in retail.

What does Manchester specialize in?

PS- Specializing in sponging of the government is not something to be proud of.

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/ralimage/22slaves.jpg

^^ took a northerner to stop this shit.


http://www.cowboybooks.com.au/pictures/WilliamWilberforce.jpg

what a dick head ey monkey!Wilberforce moved to London as a child and spent his career in London. His main backers were the Clapham Set.

The slaves, and later free negro labour, picked the cotton that supplied the Manc/Lancs mills, and made the your prosperity (a one-off, not matched before or since).

But even worse. You Kids and TheFly are asking that I be banned because I have the audacity to correct your erronious postings about Manchester and, may I add, not in nice, polite and gentlemanly words but in vicious, foul-mouthed and personal terms with derogatory references to family and health. :ohno:


Where is Sloyne? Has Anyone seen Sloyne? Sloyne mate, where are you?

I've got something to show you. Promise me one thing though. Ask your mate, sorry your family, to hide all the knives you have lying around. Ask them to get rid of any razor blades and lengths of rope as well. Once you've done that, let me know and I'll show it you.

That's right Sloyne, I really laid into your family didn't I? :nuts: I pressume you're referring to this post? ^^ I've said nothing bad about your family members at all, so stop being a drama Queen. What is it with you lot?

BTW. As far as I can remember I've never said you should be banned either. Feel free. I've said you were or have been banned.

Seeing as you've brought that post up.

I came across some interesting facts and figures the other day. Admitedly they are from 2009, and were originally posted at the beginning of 2010, which is still pretty much current, as I'm assuming they are yearly figures?

Anyway Sloyne. Remember your regular boast that you used to try, and in some cases successfully reroute air passengers away from Manchester Airport.

Sorry to break the bad news to you, but you weren't very successful at it.

Travel Trends & Analysis 2010: Top 50 Destinations for US and Canadian Travelers

Travel search site Skyscanner (http://www.Skyscanner.com) reveals the Top 50 most searched for destinations from Canadian and the US airports.

Jet-setters from both North American neighbors are still enamored with the big hitters of Europe and the US, with London, New York City, Paris and Dublin all falling in the top seven spots for each, and London unanimously at number one.

With two monumental world events in the same year - the 2010 Winter Olympics in February and the World Cup in June - Vancouver and Johannesburg (South Africa) have turned up on both lists, with Canada's also including Cape Town.

Travelers from both countries are also interested in Poland, though Canadians prefer the current capital, Warsaw, while Americans want to see the former capital, Krakow.

Canadians seem to be especially keen on checking out the Far East this year, with numerous destinations in that region of the world sprinkling their results. Manila, Ho Chi Minh City, Seoul, Bangkok and Tokyo, as well as several Australian locations, were popular.

Americans continue to be intent on getting some Caribbean sun, with even Havana sneaking into the 49th place on the US chart. It seems that American tourists are eagerly waiting for the border to open up again, and the sooner the better, especially with many growing tired of the extreme winter temps by now. Canadians are clearly enjoying the island already, with the Cuban cultural center showing up in the 27th position for them.

Top 10 Most Searched for destinations for 2010, from Canadian airports
1. London, UK
2. Paris
3. New York City
4. Bangkok, Thailand
5. Vancouver, BC
6. Sydney, Australia
7. Dublin, Ireland
8. Manchester, UK
9. Frankfurt, Germany
10. Amsterdam, Netherlands

We reveal the Top 50 most searched for destinations from Canadian and the US airports.

Top 50 Most Searched for destinations for 2010, from US airports

1. London, UK
2. New York City
3. Las Vegas, NV
4. Paris, France
5. Dublin, Ireland
6. Los Angeles, CA
7. Orlando, FL
8. Rome, Italy
9. Madrid, Spain
10. Miami, FL

11. Cancun, Mexico
12. Frankfurt, Germany
13. Honolulu, HI
14. San Francisco, CA
15. Amsterdam, Netherlands
16. San Jose, CA
17. Barcelona, Spain
18. Manchester, UK
19. Sydney, Australia
20. Johannesburg, South Africa

21. Bangkok, Thailand
22. Fort Lauderdale, FL
23. Lima, Peru
24. Buenos Aires, Argentina
25. Chicago, IL
26. Tel Aviv, Israel
27. Athens, Greece
28. Munich, Germany
29. Milan, Italy
30. Nassau, Bahamas

31. Vancouver, BC
32. Berlin, Germany
33. San Juan, PR
34. Tokyo, Japan
35. Seattle, WA
36. Washington DC
37. Auckland, New Zealand
38. Punta Cana, Dominican Republic
39. Toronto, ON
40. Edinburgh, UK

41. Krakow, Poland
42. Montego Bay, Jamaica
43. Denver, CO
44. Mexico City
45. Melbourne, Australia
46. Copenhagen, Denmark
47. Fort Myers, FL
48. Glasgow, UK
49. Havana, Cuba
50. Venice, Italy

Data is based on searches from US airports for travel in 2010, using search data collected in Q4 of 2009.


Top 50 Most Searched for destinations for 2010, from Canadian airports

1. London, UK
2. Paris
3. New York City
4. Bangkok, Thailand
5. Vancouver, BC
6. Sydney, Australia
7. Dublin, Ireland
8. Manchester, UK
9. Frankfurt, Germany
10. Amsterdam, Netherlands

11. Toronto, ON
12. Orlando, FL
13. Rome, Italy
14. Cancun, Mexico
15. Glasgow, UK
16. Los Angeles, CA
17. Cairo, Egypt
18. Fort Lauderdale, FL
19. Melbourne, Australia
20. Manila, Philippines

21. Las Vegas, NV
22. Tel Aviv, Israel
23. Tokyo, Japan
24. Berlin, Germany
25. Calgary, AB
26. Hong Kong
27. Havana, Cuba
28. Athens, Greece
29. Johannesburg, South Africa
30. Barcelona, Spain

31. San Jose, CA
32. Auckland, New Zealand
33. Madrid, Spain
34. Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
35. Seoul, South Korea
36. Miami, FL
37. Brisbane, Australia
38. Honolulu, HI
39. Montreal, QC
40. Delhi, India

41. San Francisco, CA
42. Lima, Peru
43. Warsaw, Poland
44. Copenhagen, Denmark
45. Mexico City
46. Istanbul, Turkey
47. Geneva, Switzerland
48. Cape Town, South Africa
49. Edinburgh, UK
50. Buenos Aires, Argentina

Data is based on searches from Canadian airports for travel in 2010, using search data collected in Q4 of 2009.

PS. Quarterly figures. I apologise for my oversight.

What was that Monkey?

The new Conservative(Lib Dem) Government was going to hammer Manchester.

Perhaps you might still be right, but the initial signs say otherwise.

By your thinking that shouldn't happen. Perhaps it still won't. We shall see.I will be right. The Tories are cutting welfare payouts and government spending, and you guys live off welfare payouts and government spending. They account for a whopping percentage of your GDP. Your gravy train is ending, and rightly so.

And what's this "Creative Britain" thing? A government scheme? How about generating some of your own ideas and wealth for a change? Ever heard of entrepreneurialism? Or have you been trained over the last few decades, like Pavlov's dog, only to react to government handouts and subsidies??

On 31 December 1862, a meeting of cotton workers at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester, despite their increasing hardship, resolved to support the Union in its fight against slavery. An extract from the letter they wrote in the name of the Working People of Manchester to His Excellency Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America says:

... the vast progress which you have made in the short space of twenty months fills us with hope that every stain on your freedom will shortly be removed, and that the erasure of that foul blot on civilisation and Christianity – chattel slavery – during your presidency, will cause the name of Abraham Lincoln to be honoured and revered by posterity. We are certain that such a glorious consummation will cement Great Britain and the United States in close and enduring regards.

—Public Meeting, Free Trade Hall, Manchester, 31 December 1862.

On 19 January 1863, Abraham Lincoln sent an address thanking the cotton workers of Lancashire for their support. He wrote:

... I know and deeply deplore the sufferings which the working people of Manchester and in all Europe are called to endure in this crisis. It has been often and studiously represented that the attempt to overthrow this Government which was built on the foundation of human rights, and to substitute for it one which should rest exclusively on the basis of slavery, was unlikely to obtain the favour of Europe. (London)

Through the action of disloyal citizens, the working people of Europe have been subjected to a severe trial for the purpose of forcing their sanction to that attempt. Under the circumstances I cannot but regard your decisive utterances on the question as an instance of sublime Christian heroism which has not been surpassed in any age or in any country. It is indeed an energetic and re-inspiring assurance of the inherent truth and of the ultimate and universal triumph of justice, humanity and freedom.

I hail this interchange of sentiments, therefore, as an augury that, whatever else may happen, whatever misfortune may befall your country or my own, the peace and friendship which now exists between the two nations will be, as it shall be my desire to make them, perpetual.

—Abraham Lincoln, 19 January 1863

hard work. :)

I must admit I am devastated the tram network wasn't granted by the government, the people of Leeds are mourning the loss of our planned tram :nuts:.

Believe it or not, most people don't care about a tram system. You don't miss what you haven't got.

Same applies to Manchester.

You don't miss the world-wide corporate firm of solicitors. The high paid solicitors bring money into Leeds economy. Hence why Manchester needs government funding, Manchester doesn't specialize in anything to stimulate the economy. In two years time Leeds will be ahead of Manchester in retail.

What does Manchester specialize in?

PS- Specializing in sponging of the government is not something to be proud of.

I would go into detail as you're totally missing the point, but I read this.....

Manchester doesn't specialize in anything to stimulate the economy. In two years time Leeds will be ahead of Manchester in retail.

Then I thought what is the point? Then I came to the instant conclusion that there was no point whatsoever. (others will understand why)

I will be right. The Tories are cutting welfare payouts and government spending, and you guys live off welfare payouts and government spending. They account for a whopping percentage of your GDP. Your gravy train is ending, and rightly so.

And what's this "Creative Britain" thing? A government scheme? How about generating some of your own ideas and wealth for a change? Ever heard of entrepreneurialism? Or have you been trained over the last few decades, like Pavlov's dog, only to react to government handouts and subsidies??

Did you see that PDF I posted Monkey? If you didn't you might be surprised. I'll try and dig it out for you.

BTW. With the addition of Cheshire, etc, into the Manchester City Region, you will be even more surprised.

Ever heard of entrepreneurialism? Or have you been trained over the last few decades, like Pavlov's dog, only to react to government handouts and subsidies??

I sense a little frustration there, disguised as advice. Considering you claim to know so much about Manchester, you know nothing at all. That much is obvious. :)

Night Monkey and all. No doubt this debate will still be going on tomorrow late afternoon, when I'll sign in again. Have fun in the meantime.

hazaar! let's send ghandi to Lancashire to see all those people his boycott is affecting! quick we're loosing shit loads. o.. oh -

http://www.youlay.net/user%5Ckrishna%5Cphotos%5Ccelebrity%5CGandhi%20Photo%20gallery%5CGandhiwithBritishwomenworkersinLancashire.jpg

Gandhi was received with sympathy and affection by the Lancashire cotton workers, even though they were the ones hit hardest by the boycott. It was a sympathy and affection that he returned.

Anyway Sloyne. Remember your regular boast that you used to try, and in some cases successfully reroute air passengers away from Manchester Airport.You have me seriously confused with someone else.Seeing as you've brought that post up.No, I didn't bring that post up, in fact I haven't even seen it. My post did, however, give you an excuse for posting those figures.

hazaar! let's send ghandi to Lancashire to see all those people his boycott is affecting! quick we're loosing shit loads. o.. oh -Who was losing shit loads? The mill owners? If you are identifying the capitalist mill owners with Londoners, then are you admitting that all Manchester provided was a location and labour pool? That not even the entrepreneurialism was local? So it was Londoners that created your wealth all along? You can't have it both ways. You can't boast of Mancs/Lancs having been the nation's wealth creaters, and then offload the entrepreneurs (whom you apparently despise) onto London without admitting that it was London bsuinessmen that created the wealth all along. Make your mind up.

What about the massive manufacturing industry and trade of London?

What, you mean with a massive amount of 'belching industrial chimneys' and factories and stuff?

Who was losing shit loads? The mill owners? If you are identifying the capitalist mill owners with Londoners, then are you admitting that all Manchester provided was a location and labour pool? That not even the entrepreneurialism was local? So it was Londoners that created your wealth all along? You can't have it both ways. You can't boast of Mancs/Lancs having been the nation's wealth creaters, and then offload the entrepreneurs (whom you apparently despise) onto London without admitting that it was London bsuinessmen that created the wealth all along. Make your mind up.


I'm not boasting about anything, I'm not proud of where the wealth came from. It's just a fact that London more than any other place was and is a leech on outside labour and that its wealth is and always was created elsewhere and directed into it corruptly. Go around London - do you actually see anything real being made? How can you say a businessman can create wealth? You said it yourself the wealth comes from China and our (and others') accepting of and encouraging of the corruption of the Chinese people.

The entrepreneurialism I was talking about is about finding yourself starving in rural eighteenth century Lancashire and Yorkshire and creating a cottage industry weaving to survive. I don't relate this to leeching because it's out of neccesity. Similarly I don't have a general opinion of mill-owners and industrialists in industrial England because some of them were philanthropic and worked toward better conditions, some were outsiders (Engels' family for example owned a mill in Salford). A lot were leeches but yeh, I identify them more with the London system of corruption of wealth, because it's enclosure that set this capitalist system off! Certainly when you get down to it your average worker bee Mancunian for example never saw the wealth they generated, until today - and i'm talking government handouts but principally welfare.

London definitely benefited from the industrial revolution more (and you only have to compare the residential architecture in London and Manchester from the time to see that.) The point is that we're all leeches now, but London has been one for quite some time.

:horse:

llll

Also, Langur is clearly a troll. Nobody could be as much of a tory cunt as he is.

YAWN.

Albion, I need to get involved again, because I'm a 'piggybacking' c*** shocker.

Need I say anymore? No! (I could to be honest, but your not worth it)

I just think posting an article which is majorly about a very emotional issue for a lot of people(obviously you couldn't give a fuck) is classless. Whatever you think about stuff, can't you find other articles calling Liverpool a shithole? Why just post that one? It really begs questions of your character, and to me it makes you look a very snide person who rejoices in the controversy around issues which are very close to the heart of many people in Liverpool.

You criticise many people for being oversensitive, but I've never ever seen you been humble about Manchester. Just look at the city praising thread, you're an arrogant cunt with no sense of what goes on in real people's lives, you're middle class, middle aged and irrelevant.

Also, Langur is clearly a troll. Nobody could be as much of a tory cunt as he is.Which must be why I've always voted (New) Labour haha!

However I will be voting Tory at the next election, and I would have votd for Thatcher had I been old enough to vote. I think she was the greatest British PM since Chruchill. :)

I'm not boasting about anything, I'm not proud of where the wealth came from. It's just a fact that London more than any other place was and is a leech on outside labour and that its wealth is and always was created elsewhere and directed into it corruptly. Go around London - do you actually see anything real being made? How can you say a businessman can create wealth? You said it yourself the wealth comes from China and our (and others') accepting of and encouraging of the corruption of the Chinese people.

The entrepreneurialism I was talking about is about finding yourself starving in rural eighteenth century Lancashire and Yorkshire and creating a cottage industry weaving to survive. I don't relate this to leeching because it's out of neccesity. Similarly I don't have a general opinion of mill-owners and industrialists in industrial England because some of them were philanthropic and worked toward better conditions, some were outsiders (Engels' family for example owned a mill in Salford). A lot were leeches but yeh, I identify them more with the London system of corruption of wealth, because it's enclosure that set this capitalist system off! Certainly when you get down to it your average worker bee Mancunian for example never saw the wealth they generated, until today - and i'm talking government handouts but principally welfare.

London definitely benefited from the industrial revolution more (and you only have to compare the residential architecture in London and Manchester from the time to see that.) The point is that we're all leeches now, but London has been one for quite some time.Economically this is so confused that it's hard to know where to begin!!

Wealth is created wherever the value of outputs is greater than the value of inputs. Every profitable enterprise in London is therefore creating wealth (including my own). We are therefore surrounded by wealth generation. Wherever you see a business that generates profit (also capital for future expansion and investment), then you're looking at wealth being generated!

Businessmen create wealth because they're the ones with ideas, the organisers, who do the sums, raise the finance, and bring together the factors of production (ie land, labour, and capital) in order to generate profits, and hence wealth. They're absolutely essential to wealth creation, the bright sparks that animate the lesser talents towards the goal.

If the only kind of wealth creation you understand is the manufacturing of physical goods then you're just economically illiterate. The ISP that allows you to access the internet and this website, is a not a manufacturer, yet are you saying that it's a "leech" that isn't providing something useful to you? Imo ISPs and mobile phone operators (to name but two service providing sectors) are far more critical and useful for our social and economic livelihood than manufacturers of cigarettes (for instance). Individuals and companies demand services in exactly the same way as they demand goods. Imo economic illiterates like you should be banned from voting.

If workers are the only valuable wealth creaters, and capitalists are some kind of "leech", then communism, which did away with capitalists in the interests of the workers, would have been more economically successful. In reality it was unbelieveably inefficient and an economic disaster. No one has yet come up with a more efficient allocator of scarce resources than the profit motive.

Who on earth says that China produces all the wealth? They manufacture a great deal these days, yes. But very little of the technology originated in China. Much of the capital comes from abroad, too. Most of the things that sustain you in life were not produced in China. Think where you money goes on, and especially the essentials that sustain you in life, and work it out for yourself.

Which must be why I've always voted (New) Labour haha!

However I will be voting Tory at the next election, and I would have votd for Thatcher had I been old enough to vote. I think she was the greatest British PM since Chruchill. :)

Churchill the racist, drunkard who adovacted gassing human beings and supported Mussolini?

God I hate tories, no offence but you'd be first against the wall and will be.

I just think posting an article which is majorly about a very emotional issue for a lot of people(obviously you couldn't give a fuck) is classless. Whatever you think about stuff, can't you find other articles calling Liverpool a shithole? Why just post that one? It really begs questions of your character, and to me it makes you look a very snide person who rejoices in the controversy around issues which are very close to the heart of many people in Liverpool.

You criticise many people for being oversensitive, but I've never ever seen you been humble about Manchester. Just look at the city praising thread, you're an arrogant cunt with no sense of what goes on in real people's lives, you're middle class, middle aged and irrelevant.

FFS.
It was a current and relative article.

JRB took the time, with no need, to post the Hillsborough rebuttal element as well.

Get a fuckin life. We talk about wars, tsunami's, earthquakes and on the airport thread a scouser said he did not fly from Manchester (go and search for it) because it has a poor safety record on flights (statistical bull-shit).

You can post the Boston Globe as it was. JRB did not. Nutters from the Liverpool area see it as endorsing Hillsborough.

Perhaps they should concentrate on why a whole section of the population believe that version of events?

True i remember when some idiot called redarmy was posting about hillsborough.And my brother traced his address to Birchwoood Warrington just around the corner from me he shit himself.

Really! For over 20 years us United fans had to put up chants about the Munich
air disaster from Liverpool fans, not ONE idiot, but the WHOLE of the fuckin’ kop.

:bash:

Really! For over 20 years us United fans had to put up chants about the Munich
air disaster from Liverpool fans, not ONE idiot, but the WHOLE of the fuckin’ kop.

:bash:

Your own club couldn't care less, you let AIG sponsor a poster about it ffs.

FFS.
It was a current and relative article.

JRB took the time, with no need, to post the Hillsborough rebuttal element as well.

Get a fuckin life. We talk about wars, tsunami's, earthquakes and on the airport thread a scouser said he did not fly from Manchester (go and search for it) because it has a poor safety record on flights (statistical bull-shit).

You can post the Boston Globe as it was. JRB did not. Nutters from the Liverpool area see it as endorsing Hillsborough.

Perhaps they should concentrate on why a whole section of the population believe that version of events?

Whatever, I'm sure you can find many more articles that lay into Liverpool with far more intensity than one article with a paltry two sentences slagging off Liverpool, just stuck me as odd why he pulled out that article, at that time especially because he doesn't usually just pull out articles.

Perhaps they should concentrate on why a whole section of the population believe that version of events?


What?

What?

Yoshef, large sections of the population both in the UK and most worrying for UK plc think that.

I am not saying it. It is what people think.

Just like Elvis on the moon you cannot stop it and having knob jockeys on here quoting shite about searching out and attacking people is feckin hilarious if it were not for the fact that you shower of shite on here have condoned it by refusing to shout that poster down.

Shame on the lot of you.

Cowards.

Think what? Come out and say it big man, or don't go round calling people cowards.

Think what? Come out and say it big man, or don't go round calling people cowards.

Not sure what you are asking me?

I thought I was quite clear in criticizing, you, amongst others for allowing some ridiculous poster to threaten JRB for posting a current newspaper article.


Not sure which bit you do not understand?

Not sure what you are asking me?

I thought I was quite clear in criticizing, you, amongst others for allowing some ridiculous poster to threaten JRB for posting a current newspaper article.


Not sure which bit you do not understand?

You said people 'think that', what do they think?

Tommygun seems a like a bit of a fool but I question JRB's motives, there a plenty of articles which are published that slag off Liverpool in great detail, why pick one which has two lines devoted to it and the rest about an issue which means something to a lot of people? Look, I don't care I'm not from Liverpool but I think JRB is a snivelling little rat who always tries to make himself out to be the voice of measurement but he's not, he's the guy who'll kick you on the floor.

Let's make this clear, my problem is with JRB's motives not people bashing Liverpool or discussing hillsborough, why hasn't JRB been posting other, far more insightful and substantial, articles that slag off Liverpool?