The only things that Daily Mail "journalists" know how to write are twisted lies and half-truths that suit the paper's disgusting bigoted agenda.

When scientists thought they'd found a gene that causes homosexuality, the Daily Mail's headline was "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding".
When Stephen Gately died, one of their "journalists" wrote a disgusting story packed full of homophobic sh*t that essentially blamed his death on "the gay lifestyle" (what ever that is). The general rule for their "journalists" seems to be anti anything or anyone that isn't a straight, white, middle-class, middle-aged Christian.

It's a paper written by middle-aged, middle-class, arrogant bigots for middle-aged, middle-class, arrogant bigots. It's worse than The Scum and the NOTW.

100% true

The only things that Daily Mail "journalists" know how to write are twisted lies and half-truths that suit the paper's disgusting bigoted agenda.

When scientists thought they'd found a gene that causes homosexuality, the Daily Mail's headline was "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding".
When Stephen Gately died, one of their "journalists" wrote a disgusting story packed full of homophobic sh*t that essentially blamed his death on "the gay lifestyle" (what ever that is). The general rule for their "journalists" seems to be anti anything or anyone that isn't a straight, white, middle-class, middle-aged Christian.

It's a paper written by middle-aged, middle-class, arrogant bigots for middle-aged, middle-class, arrogant bigots. It's worse than The Scum and the NOTW.

Hmm, not sure about that one^^!

Gatley one was an opinion piece by a nutter.

The rest is just Daily Mail standard issue. Cannot be shocked by it.

No more shocking than the Mirror's Piers fake Iraqi mistreatment headlines...Sun's Liverpool Hillsborough stuff...

basically if it costs you 50p ignore and by the broadsheets.

Gutter press!

Hmm, not sure about that one^^!

Gatley one was an opinion piece by a nutter.

The rest is just Daily Mail standard issue. Cannot be shocked by it.

No more shocking than the Mirror's Piers fake Iraqi mistreatment headlines...Sun's Liverpool Hillsborough stuff...

basically if it costs you 50p ignore and by the broadsheets.

Gutter press!

I wish I was exaggerating but it's real...
The Daily Mail heralded the research with the famous headline: ''Abortion hope after 'gay genes' findings''.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-gay-gene-is-back-on-the-scene-1536770.html


I definitely agree that The Sun and The Mirror have printed their fair share of mis-information and offensive shite but I don't think it's in the same league as the xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, border-line racist hatemongering shit that the DM tries to pass off as "quality journalism". Calling people like Richard Littlejohn, Melanie Phillips and Jan Moir journalists is an insult to the real journalists that risk their lives to cover real hard-hitting stories from war zones.
The Daily Express is just as bad as the DM, just look at that vile piece they published about the survivors of the Dunblane massacre, but I think what really offends me about the DM is that it's a tabloid rag pretending to be a quality paper - the worst part is that people actually believe it. At least people kind of know the Express is not a quality paper.

Tbh I think all British papers are trash. I don't read any of them. If I ever hear of a story that's come from a tabloid (including the DM and Express), I'll check it with the BBC or The Guardian/Independent/Times before I believe it.

Britain's best university cities... 10-1

http://travel.uk.msn.com/inspiration/photos.aspx?cp-documentid=149582526&page=1

The only things that Daily Mail "journalists" know how to write are twisted lies and half-truths that suit the paper's disgusting bigoted agenda.

When scientists thought they'd found a gene that causes homosexuality, the Daily Mail's headline was "Abortion hope after 'gay genes' finding".
When Stephen Gately died, one of their "journalists" wrote a disgusting story packed full of homophobic sh*t that essentially blamed his death on "the gay lifestyle" (what ever that is). The general rule for their "journalists" seems to be anti anything or anyone that isn't a straight, white, middle-class, middle-aged Christian.

It's a paper written by middle-aged, middle-class, arrogant bigots for middle-aged, middle-class, arrogant bigots. It's worse than The Scum and the NOTW.I'm sorry but I don't know who Stephen Gately is or what his story is, I do, however, get the impression, just from your post, that he was homosexual. And it would seem that an awful lot of "straight, white, middle-aged, middle-class, middle-aged Christian, arrogant bigots" purchase and buy this publication and are as entitled to do so just as much as you are entitled to vilify them for it. Also, if Mr. Gately's death was not contributed to by his "life-style" then I would expect his heirs and successors would have grounds to sue said publication. Did they?

I'm sorry but I don't know who Stephen Gately is or what his story is, I do, however, get the impression, just from your post, that he was homosexual

Stephen Gately was a member of Boyzone, his death was caused from a pulmonary oedema, resulting from an undiagnosed heart condition. And yeah, he was gay.

More info here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Gately#Death).

I lose respect for anyone who reads the Daily Mail unless they read it to laugh at the backwardness of it.

I lose respect for anyone who reads the Daily Mail unless they read it to laugh at the backwardness of it.

^^ This.

PNW.



Far East markets grow for Manchester

8 Sep 2011, 16:34


Singapore and China have moved into the top ten leisure markets for tourists visiting Manchester following an increase in flights from the Far East to the city.

The number of leisure visitors from Singapore to Manchester has nearly tripled in the past 12 months from 1,500 in 2009 to 4,500 in 2010, which makes the country Manchester's ninth largest leisure market. China has also entered the top 10 with over 4,400 visitors in 2010. Switzerland and Canada fall out of the top ten.


Ireland, the USA and Australia are the top three country markets from which more visitors set off to come to Manchester.

The data, from the Office for National Statistics' latest International Passenger Survey, also confirmed that Manchester has retained its position as the third most popular destination in the UK for international visitors to Britain.

The top five destinations in the UK during 2010 were:
1.London: 14.7m visitors
2.Edinburgh: 1.3m visitors
3.Manchester: 811,000 visitors
4.Birmingham: 740,000 visitors
5.Glasgow: 551,000 visitors

Greater Manchester increased its number of international visitors by 5% to 1,016,000 and business visits increased by 16% in 2010 compared to the UK increase of 3%.

Paul Simpson, managing director of Visit Manchester, said: "Manchester has always been a popular destination for visitors from Ireland, the USA, Germany and Norway, but the Far East has really increased its prominence. The extra capacity on flights to the Middle East, particularly the Emirates and Etihad Airways services, will certainly have helped as that route is one of the fastest ways of getting to Manchester. 2012 looks set to be another positive year for tourism, with the opening of the National Football Museum and the Olympic Games taking place at Old Trafford among the year's highlights."




Top 10 countries of origin - leisure visits


Number of visits




1. Ireland (1 in 2009)



25,558




2. USA (2)



22,170




3. Australia (5)



14,182




4. Germany (4)



12,752




5. Norway (9)



9,173




6. Spain (3)



7,543




7. France (8)



7,690




8. Poland (-)



7,080




9. Singapore (-)



4,552




10. China (-)



4,410

PNW.

Manchester scores highly in two global leagues

6 Sep 2011, 09:57


Manchester is a better place to live than London and produces some of the most employable graduates in the world, according to two separate surveys.

Manchester University comes fourth in the world when ranked by employers, behind Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge, according to a report by education network Quacquarelli Symonds . Manchester is equal in its fourth spot with Warwick, London School of Economics, Melbourne, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale, Stanford and Berkeley.

Overall, Manchester is ranked 29th best university in the world according to the league table, which assesses academic reputation, graduate employability, research, and the number of staff for each student. In the top 200 are Liverpool University at 123 and Lancaster, 153.

Cambridge was named best university in the world for the second year running, ahead of Harvard, MIT, Yale and Oxford, respectively.In a separate study by the Economist Intelligence Unit, Manchester was placed 42nd most 'livable city' in the world, ahead of London in 53rd.

The regular EIU guide scores cities against numerous criteria including political and social stability, crime rates, healthcare, culture and infrastructure.

Vancouver was replaced after a decade at the top by Melbourne at number one and the Austrian capital Vienna in second place.

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings?utm_campaign=wur2011&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=Guardian

The rise in people traveling from the far east would be attributed to the fact that the Chinese/Japanese students have traveled to Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield etc for university.

I'm sure many have notice the sudden huge influx of Chinese students amongst there city.

And seen as there won't be any flights from China in any other Northern England airport, they have to travel to Manchester Airport to get to where they want to go.

The rise in people traveling from the far east would be attributed to the fact that the Chinese/Japanese students have traveled to Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield etc for university.

I'm sure many have notice the sudden huge influx of Chinese students amongst there city.

And seen as there won't be any flights from China in any other Northern England airport, they have to travel to Manchester Airport to get to where they want to go.

OK then. :ohno:

I think this should also be posted on this page too, for all to see.

(Including EuxTex, who'll no doubt scoff at it and start coming up with crap about how America is greatest.)

Manchester scores highly in two global leagues

6 Sep 2011, 09:57


Manchester is a better place to live than London and produces some of the most employable graduates in the world, according to two separate surveys.

Manchester University comes fourth in the world when ranked by employers, behind Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge, according to a report by education network Quacquarelli Symonds . Manchester is equal in its fourth spot with Warwick, London School of Economics, Melbourne, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale, Stanford and Berkeley.

Overall, Manchester is ranked 29th best university in the world according to the league table, which assesses academic reputation, graduate employability, research, and the number of staff for each student. In the top 200 are Liverpool University at 123 and Lancaster, 153.

Cambridge was named best university in the world for the second year running, ahead of Harvard, MIT, Yale and Oxford, respectively.In a separate study by the Economist Intelligence Unit, Manchester was placed 42nd most 'livable city' in the world, ahead of London in 53rd.

The regular EIU guide scores cities against numerous criteria including political and social stability, crime rates, healthcare, culture and infrastructure.

Vancouver was replaced after a decade at the top by Melbourne at number one and the Austrian capital Vienna in second place.

http://www.topuniversities.com/unive...ource=Guardian

It also proves to all this luvvies refusing to move "Ooop North" that they're moving to a better, more positive city (with a much better university I might add). I love how government pump all our money into one city, and yet Manchester still comes out better. What a waste of money London is. :ohno:

Barcelona praises Leeds-

“We have
been blown away by the great mix of
art, culture and heritage and the cool
initiatives happening in Leeds. The
city is, clearly, a thriving one culturally,
with many synergies to Barcelona. We
are delighted to have the opportunity
to work with Marketing Leeds to tell
a much larger audience about this
fantastic English city.”

:)

Barcelona praises Leeds-

“We have
been blown away by the great mix of
art, culture and heritage and the cool
initiatives happening in Leeds. The
city is, clearly, a thriving one culturally,
with many synergies to Barcelona. We
are delighted to have the opportunity
to work with Marketing Leeds to tell
a much larger audience about this
fantastic English city.”

Leeds in Barcelona:

25240344

I think this should also be posted on this page too, for all to see.

(Including EuxTex, who'll no doubt scoff at it and start coming up with crap about how America is greatest.)



It also proves to all this luvvies refusing to move "Ooop North" that they're moving to a better, more positive city (with a much better university I might add). I love how government pump all our money into one city, and yet Manchester still comes out better. What a waste of money London is. :ohno:

It's not even in the top 20 in Britain according to the Times though. These lists should be taken with a pinch of salt. University of Manchester is a top uni though.

Barcelona praises Leeds-

“We have
been blown away by the great mix of
art, culture and heritage and the cool
initiatives happening in Leeds. The
city is, clearly, a thriving one culturally,
with many synergies to Barcelona. We
are delighted to have the opportunity
to work with Marketing Leeds to tell
a much larger audience about this
fantastic English city.”

:)

As if 'Barcelona' is one whole thing.

The vast majority in Barcelona will never have heard of Leeds.

It's not even in the top 20 in Britain according to the Times though. These lists should be taken with a pinch of salt. University of Manchester is a top uni though.

British newspapers, although measuring different variables, are fairly similar in their concentration on student satisfaction ratings. Manchester is Britain's largest non collegiate university with 40,000 students, but smaller campus bases universities and former polys seem to do well in this category. Maybe its easier to distribute the questionnaires to them. Only Cambridge can match the number of subjects that have secured excellent teaching ratings. In fact the University of Manchester came 3rd in terms of research power in whole of UK after Cambridge and Oxford.

Also after swallowing up UMIST which lay around the 35-40 mark (always ranked lower in the league tables due to its science focus and size) it was bound to drop out of the top 20.

It also proves to all this luvvies refusing to move "Ooop North" that they're moving to a better, more positive city (with a much better university I might add). I love how government pump all our money into one city, and yet Manchester still comes out better. What a waste of money London is. :ohno:Erm.... but London has several universities ranked higher than Manchester on that ranking!!

The government doesn't pump money into London. It pumps money out of London and uses it to subsidise Northern cities like Manchester. Government spending accounts for a far higher percentage of GDP in northern cites than in London.

Erm.... but London has several universities ranked higher than Manchester on that ranking!!

The government doesn't pump money into London. It pumps money out of London and uses it to subsidise Northern cities like Manchester. Government spending accounts for a far higher percentage of GDP in northern cites than in London.


Apart from £10 billion it's pumped into the London 2012 Olympic Games. :stupid:

Agreed, have some nerve making a ridiculous statement like that Langur.

The government doesn't pump money into London.


I just choked on my cocoa:lol:

Erm.... but London has several universities ranked higher than Manchester on that ranking!!

The government doesn't pump money into London. It pumps money out of London and uses it to subsidise Northern cities like Manchester. Government spending accounts for a far higher percentage of GDP in northern cites than in London.

That's the most retarded thing I've ever read on the whole of ssc. Sign off.

Face reality, fools. Taxes on hard working London's productivity subsidises your lazy arse unemployed Northern welfare dependency. You bums live off us. There's a massive net flow of wealth out of London to pay for your laziness and incompetence...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/public_spending_432_alt2.gif

Face reality, fools. Taxes on hard working London's productivity subsidises your lazy arse unemployed Northern welfare dependency. You bums live off us. There's a massive net flow of wealth out of London to pay for your laziness and incompetence...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/public_spending_432_alt2.gif

Go back to the brothel hoe! :lovethem:

Anyway its all proportional as that map shows, despite Bradford receiving Billions from the government Yorkshire is lower than the slums west of the pennines. I can guarantee cities such as Harrogate receive pretty much zero funding, with even a bigger city such as Leeds receiving a rather low amount.

Face reality, fools. Taxes on hard working London's productivity subsidises your lazy arse unemployed Northern welfare dependency. You bums live off us. There's a massive net flow of wealth out of London to pay for your laziness and incompetence...
]

Funny that, those London riots happened to be so extreme in London. Whereas there was nothing of the sort in Yorkshire and North East England.

Perhaps looking after the poor in London may be a worthwhile investment?

^ "Nothing of the sort"? What about the copycat riots in Manchester?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14467588

And maybe looking after our poor is a worthwhile investment. Just imagine how much money London would have for that task if we didn't have to subsidise you guys?

Interesting to note those convicted came from a variety of backgrounds, some middle class Londoners in the mix.

Personally I don't care for London, it can break away and form its own Island.

As long as its £13 Leeds to London I'm happy.

:)

Just imagine how much money London would have for that task if we didn't have to subsidise you guys?

spending per head in england is actually highest in london btw.

a definition of what "public spending" means is...

"expenditure made by central government, local authorities and public enterprises. This includes in particular spending on social services and benefits, health provision, transport, education, defence, debt interest, housing"

this spending is higher in london than anywhere else in england.

Also, public sector jobs proportion is no more or less in london either. It's around 25% for London.(the highest in England being Newham at 34%) [ Leeds is 19% incidently as an example ]

That said, it could be argued that more is spent on london because it should because london creates the largest proportion of income. However figures for this are based on GVA and regional GDP figures. The problem with these are that the majority of companies' head offices are based in London, attributing the Value Added to london, even if the majority of employment and wealth creation actually occures somewhere else in the country - merely 'administered' at london based registered offices. So it is misleading.

Add to that, that government department offices themselves, and their employment, with the 600,000 very very highly paid civil servant jobs (all paid for by uk plc - of which 80% is *not* london), are hugely disproportionately located in london, and are not included in 'spending figures', yet create three-fold tertiary employment clusters surrounding such offices.

Then, even ignoring that, a massive sector of which accounts for London's high GVA is the financial sector - of which all of the UK is paying for it and bailing it out. Lets remember the majority of the UK is not london. So we are subsidising London's economy here.

London's key wealth creating sector (propped up by the rest of the UK) is finance. However its other wealth creating sectors are extremey poor compared to other regions, such as manufacturing. Leaving very little value added, other than Tourism in london - tourism in part created by all the state funded museums and cultural attractions in london, and the Queens residence etc. If all this was moved somewhere else you'd find a sizeable chunk of people visiting that place instead.

The fact remains that most of the North's economy is public sector. The majority... FFS!! :bash:

Many of Britain's major companies are not based in London at all, and companies that have operations all over the UK will not contribute only to London's GVA simply because they're headquartered there. A BP petrochemical plant in Scotland will show up on Scotland's GVA, a Glaxo Smithkline plant in NE England shows up on the NE England's GVA, etc...

Finance is not propped up by the taxpayer at all. Indeed the reverse is true. The exchequor is propped up by the financial industry. Finance pays 12% of the UK's entire tax take even in bad years (in good years it approaches 20%). The bailouts were tiny by comparison, and took place several years ago. I mean there were no bailout costs at all this year, or the year before, or the year before that. Meanwhile the financial sector has continued to pay in at least 12% of the UK's entire tax take year after year. The taxpayer will also likely make a profit from their bank holdings when they eventually sell the shares.

And you seem ignorant of the rest of London's economy. How can you ignore huge globally competitive sectors such as education, media, or the creative industries?

The fact remains that most of the North's economy is public sector. The majority... FFS!! :bash:

Your table showed this is not the case except for northern ireland. Whilst moreover I explained the number of reasons why GVA is less in the north (and resutantly why the public sector economy in the north makes up a greater share even though not the majority share).

Many of Britain's major companies are not based in London at all

the majority of HQs are based in london, even if the real value-added occurs at bottom level in the plants located else-where.

companies that have operations all over the UK will not contribute only to London's GVA simply because they're headquartered there. A BP petrochemical plant in Scotland will show up on Scotland's GVA, a Glaxo Smithkline plant in NE England shows up on the NE England's GVA, etc...

You're incorrect there. ONS in the UK caculates GVA rather crudely as individual wages, and company profits/surpless. A manufacturing plant based in the north producing and building products there but HQ'd in london will have GVA attributed to the northen plant in the form of localised labour wages, whilst the real net worth GVA gets attributed in the form of business profits surpless at head office location - not to mention the GVA attribution from HQ salaries which will be substantially higher compared to at plant level where value-added is really being created.

And you seem ignorant of the rest of London's economy. How can you ignore huge globally competitive sectors such as education, media, or the creative industries?

these do not contribute a sizeable chunk of GVA for london. One of the big chunks is from private rental income, accounted for by high london rental prices, and skewing what I would consider 'real' wealth creation / value-added.

Your table showed this is not the case except for northern ireland. Whilst moreover I explained the number of reasons why GVA is less in the north (and resutantly why the public sector economy in the north makes up a greater share even though not the majority share).Err, no. Look at the map again. Most of the North is above 50% public sector:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/public_spending_432_alt2.gif

And even this map doesn't take into account the secondary public sector (ie those parts of the private sector entirely dependent upon public sector contracts). If that's included, the picture becomes even more depressing.the majority of HQs are based in london, even if the real value-added occurs at bottom level in the plants located else-where.The majority of HQs for manufacturing companies (which is your repeatedly used example) are most certainly not based in London. London doesn't artificially steal provincial GVA.You're incorrect there. ONS in the UK caculates GVA rather crudely as individual wages, and company profits/surpless. A manufacturing plant based in the north producing and building products there but HQ'd in london will have GVA attributed to the northen plant in the form of localised labour wages, whilst the real net worth GVA gets attributed in the form of business profits surpless at head office location - not to mention the GVA attribution from HQ salaries which will be substantially higher compared to at plant level where value-added is really being created.If the high salary jobs are in London then the GVA should be counted there, so that's a non-issue. And you seem to think payroll is the only thing counted locally. So you think the costs of BP's massive plants and oil extracting and refining infrastructure up in Scotland is somehow all counted in London according to the ONS? What total bullshit!! :bash:these do not contribute a sizeable chunk of GVA for london.Don't be ridiculous. Those sectors alone would be larger than the entire economy of any provincial British city.

Erm but the amount of subsidy you are showing is by geography not numbers.

So, since Scotland has half the population of London, I would wager there is more subsidy within London than, the whole of Scotland.

But then, with Monkey, logic is not his strongest point.

Monkey: Have you travelled to the resurrected Stansted v Manchester airport thread since Manchester re-affirmed it's dominance? Perhaps we should buy Stansted to introduce some Mancunian logic.

Erm but the amount of subsidy you are showing is by geography not numbers.Of course it's by geography. We're making geographical comparisons aren't we?

It's also by numbers, unless you're so stupid as to consider percentages something other than a number?

The fact is the majority of the North's economy is public sector. The net flow of taxation is out of London and towards the provinces. In other words we subsidise you.So, since Scotland has half the population of London, I would wager there is more subsidy within London than, the whole of Scotland.London isn't subsidised by the rest at all, because there's a net flow of taxation out of London, not the reverse. We raise more money for the exchequor than is spent on us.

And a larger population surely means that more should be spent, right?Monkey: Have you travelled to the resurrected Stansted v Manchester airport thread since Manchester re-affirmed it's dominance? Perhaps we should buy Stansted to introduce some Mancunian logic.Manchester's still behind on the latest rolling 12-month total. Mancunian demand always spikes in the summer months because Manchester is the home of the package holiday airline.

A company with it's HQ in London but manufacturing/services in the provinces does not make it part of London's GDP now does it?

Are you saying Boeing is a wealth creator larger for Chicago than Seattle Metro?

I think you are!


Stansted is behind as of August 2011.
http://www.baa.com/assets/Internet/BAA%20Airports/Downloads/Static%20files/Traffic_summary-August_2011.pdf

Tatty bye.

A company with it's HQ in London but manufacturing/services in the provinces does not make it part of London's GDP now does it?Actually the headquarters do provide some of the GDP. However your point is flawed because the GDP contribution of a manufacturing plant will be counted overwhelmingly in its local regional statistics.

If BP and Shell (both headquartered in London) had all their global revenues counted in London, then London's economy would more than double in size overnight! :laugh:Are you saying Boeing is a wealth creator larger for Chicago than Seattle Metro? I think you are!If Boeing has bigger operations in Seattle, then it will contribute most to Seattle's GDP.Stansted is behind as of August 2011.
http://www.baa.com/assets/Internet/BAA%20Airports/Downloads/Static%20files/Traffic_summary-August_2011.pdf Tatty bye.There are no figures for Manchester there. On the latest figures that include both airports (for July 2011), Stansted is still ahead. Your celebration will have to wait. ;)

There are no figures for Manchester there. On the latest figures that include both airports (for July 2011), Stansted is still ahead. Your celebration will have to wait. ;)

Oh dear.

I would not call it a bear pit, more a venus Fly trap....into which plops the unfortunate monkey;

http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/alldocs/37324FB701883DEB802578FF003F5969/$File/August+11.pdf

MAN: 18.5 rising at 4.91% per annum
STANSTED:18.3 decling at 3.3% per annum

Tatty bye.

I'm never wrong. Comes across as arrogance and it's meant to. Oink.

TheFly embarrassing himself again, at least he's too ignorant to know it.

Monkey: Have you travelled to the resurrected Stansted v Manchester airport thread since Manchester re-affirmed it's dominance?Fly: Have you checked the latest figures for Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport lately. The "backwater" is handling about 90 million pax per annum.:lol:

TheFly embarrassing himself again, at least he's too ignorant to know it.

Man in the Mirror time. You've got more arrows in your back than Custer.

Fly: Have you checked the latest figures for Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport lately. The "backwater" is handling about 90 million pax per annum.:lol:

Oh Jesus.

The city, of all the Olympic cities:London, Sydney, Tokyo, LA is a back-water.

Bless.

The city, of all the Olympic cities:London, Sydney, Tokyo, LA is a back-water.A "backwater" with five (5) fortune 500 companies headquartered there, unlike an ugly northwest English mill town which revels when they get a branch of a London branch of a foreign company locating a small branch office in that city employing about fifteen people. :hahaha:

PS: Do you still want to relocate to Manatee County?

What is the point of comparing Stansted with Manchester airport? They're not exactly directly comparable, and Stansted is just one of a big handful of airports in London's orbit. Stansted is mainly for European flights whilst this function is served by places such as Heathrow for London. Manchester, having one airport, has to handle everything.

Why bother trying to compare?

What is the point of comparing Stansted with Manchester airport? They're not exactly directly comparable, and Stansted is just one of a big handful of airports in London's orbit. Stansted is mainly for European flights whilst this function is served by places such as Heathrow for London. Manchester, having one airport, has to handle everything.

Why bother trying to compare?

Search me, ask Monkey and his 10 year campaign.

The majority of HQs for manufacturing companies (which is your repeatedly used example) are most certainly not based in London.

the overwhelming majority of HQs in the UK are based in London, irrespective of wheather those said companies create wealth and value-added on a national level throughout the country


London doesn't artificially steal provincial GVA.If the high salary jobs are in London then the GVA should be counted there, so that's a non-issue. And you seem to think payroll is the only thing counted locally. So you think the costs of BP's massive plants and oil extracting and refining infrastructure up in Scotland is somehow all counted in London according to the ONS? What total bullshit!! :bash:Don't be ridiculous. Those sectors alone would be larger than the entire economy of any provincial British city.

You need to read up on how GVA is calculated in the UK by the ONS. As already stated, GVA is calculated via a combination of local-leval wages, AND company profits/surpless, of which most companies are HQd in London, irrespectve of whether the value-added wealth creation occurs at a national level all across the country in branches dotted all over the country for example.

The current UK GVA composition split is around 70% compensation of employees. And 30% gross trading profits and surplesses.

Now lets take an example. Say Arcadia Group (who own Top Man, Evans, Burtons, Dorothy Perkins etc with over 2,500 stores dotted round the country). They are HQd in London. And create tens of billions of pounds of GVA wealth. This wealth creation occurs at a national level all over the country, wholly dependent on the whole of the uk. However, 70% of that GVA they created will be dotted around the UK as localised wages, spread thinly all over the country, meaning no local authority or city will ever get more than 1% of that GVA accreddited to it. However, london HQ will have the huge 30% of GVA accreddited to it in profits. Now mutiply this effect with the overwhelming majority of companies in the UK.


Secondly, you really need to have a better understanding of how economics works and the funnelling effect of wealth. Value added occurs at a very very localised level, all over the country. As an example. Basic goods are created lets say in dewsbury, in a small factory. Little profits are made per item, and wages are minimum wage with minimal GVA accredition locally. These are collected locally by a larger company who sources the supplies from numerous local companies. Here, greater profits are made with economies of scale. Follow the transfer of money furth up the scale and you eventually reach large scale companies involved in trading where the bigest profits are made at the very top, and these companies will invariabley be HQd in london. Without the huge pryarmid structure of wealth creation from the bottom up from all over the UK, the very final big profits made at the top of the pyramid in office HQs would not be possible.

Or to put it another way. A man in a suit signing over a newspaper deal creating vast wealth is no more important or integral than the people at base level creating the goods, or selling newspapers at 25p each.

Don't be ridiculous. Those sectors alone would be larger than the entire economy of any provincial British city.

A quick look at latest GVA data shows the largest sectors by a huge margin are private business activities, finance, and real estate property. Pretty much everything else is very minimal in terms of proportion.

education creates 11 billon GVA in London region. The north west region total exonomy is 122billion. So your assertion is again wildly incorrect.

^^ exactly

London feeds off the 65m and is not the source of wealth, just the banker.

We need more dowgs like Manchester, not your Leeds' cats.

FfkR-z2VcGs

Plenty of dogs if you go out to the Printworks on a Saturday night!

Bump.

http://i55.tinypic.com/10r1zf9.jpg

Bump.



I love that building. It looks great, and really adds something to the Manchester skyline :cheers:

I am not sure why this pic as been put on the bashing thread, maybe to provoke a debate on this controversial building, which is likely to be the only scraper of international height outside London for many years yet ...sadly

I can understand why some ,even locals, hate it. Quirky shape,top heavy, which induces an uneasy vertigo feeling if you go anywhere near it, problems with wind around the base and noise from the top in stormy weather, apart from that I think its great.

A pointless bump, somebody must have been bored...

... another premature pointless 'bump' .....

REGAL TOWER

http://s244306752.websitehome.co.uk/images/tower_night_image.jpghttp://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/regalbitch.jpg
http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu273/rob_right/Untitled.jpg
http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu273/rob_right/Untitled2.jpg

.... possibly one of the first towers to break the 200 metre barrier will be built in Birmingham :)

Yeah but... it looks shit.

Case closed.

Yeah but... it looks shit.

Case closed.

http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/small/15663293.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3578/3385456015_2a735e2af4.jpg
http://www.picano.co.uk/newimages/bridgewater%20049.jpg

Yes ... residing where you do (Leeds) you'd be all too familiar and pretty conversant with "shit" buildings, wouldn't you ... your latest additions to the "Ugly Bug" family above for all to share :lol:

Sandblast why did you just post them pics of the Leeds towers, I had just got them out of my head

Its nearly bedtime, I don't want nightmares

http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/small/15663293.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3578/3385456015_2a735e2af4.jpg

Yes ... residing where you do (Leeds) you'd be all too familiar and pretty conversant with "shit" buildings, wouldn't you ... your latest additions to the "Ugly Bug" family above for all to share :lol:

Calm down you senile old man ;)

Anyway, what's wrong with BWP? Not exactly a plastic monstrosity like the other two.

http://www.picano.co.uk/newimages/bridgewater%20049.jpg

BWP is not to bad, the first one is absolupy hurendous and should return to the depths of Hell, and how is Regal shit, I agree every build will have its design floors but come off it, compared to countless pile of crap in Leeds, you cant really say much.

Yep, another pointless bump. This is the city bashing thread, not dick waving.

Two awful towers means all of Leeds has terrible new builds.. dear lord.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5408009242_8ed8f2f5c7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/marketingleeds/5408009242/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/marketingleeds/5408009242/) by marketingleeds (http://www.flickr.com/people/marketingleeds/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5014/5407390373_514d0b7c15_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/marketingleeds/5407390373/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/marketingleeds/5407390373/) by marketingleeds (http://www.flickr.com/people/marketingleeds/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5212/5407309185_dc27b99192_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/marketingleeds/5407309185/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/marketingleeds/5407309185/) by marketingleeds (http://www.flickr.com/people/marketingleeds/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5013/5407891162_66d4c2df52_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/marketingleeds/5407891162/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/marketingleeds/5407891162/) by marketingleeds (http://www.flickr.com/people/marketingleeds/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5020/5407891154_99d14d720f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/marketingleeds/5407891154/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/marketingleeds/5407891154/) by marketingleeds (http://www.flickr.com/people/marketingleeds/), on Flickr

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5214/5408009242_8ed8f2f5c7_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/marketingleeds/5408009242/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/marketingleeds/5408009242/) by marketingleeds (http://www.flickr.com/people/marketingleeds/), on Flickr

Nandos .... how posh!!!!!!! :lol:

Nandos .... how posh!!!!!!! :lol:

Meh...still looks better than any of Birmingham's shopping centers, and the one shown isn't even Leeds best.

Scousers blubbering and emotional at a memorial service, surprised? ;)
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/video/features/8689-rafa-back-at-anfield

Do you feel pleased with yourself after posting that very obviously spitefully-toned message?

Scousers blubbering and emotional at a memorial service, surprised? ;)
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/video/features/8689-rafa-back-at-anfield

Hilarious.

Scousers blubbering and emotional at a memorial service, surprised? ;)
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/video/features/8689-rafa-back-at-anfield

I pity people like you........ well done, enjoy your moment!

Lets just hope that Lady Di's zombie catches up with him. Fucking blubbing Londoner.

I have just heard the news that Manchesters Halle Orchestra has been ordered, by the UK's Advertising Standards Authority, to "cease and desist" from claiming they, the Halle, are the oldest orchestra in the UK. It would seem I was right all along, that the Liverpool Philharmonic Society predates them by eighteen years. Newton Heath-Manchester United any one?:smug:

I have just heard the news that Manchesters Halle Orchestra has been ordered, by the UK's Advertising Standards Authority, to "cease and desist" from claiming they, the Halle, are the oldest orchestra in the UK. It would seem I was right all along, that the Liverpool Philharmonic Society predates them by eighteen years. Newton Heath-Manchester United any one?:smug:

How dare you besmirch the Halle .... one of the finest orchestras in the World ... and one of the UKs' 5 Symphony Orchestras .... Liverpool does not have a Symphony Orchestra :)

How dare you besmirch the Halle .... one of the finest orchestras in the World ... and one of the UKs' 5 Symphony Orchestras .... Liverpool does not have a Symphony Orchestra :)


Deary me. There's no difference between a symphony orchestra and a philharmonic orchestra, apart from the name.

Orchestra's are boring.

Deary me. There's no difference between a symphony orchestra and a philharmonic orchestra, apart from the name.

It all stems from how they were founded in the 19th Century ... but yes, essentially today there is very little difference between the two ... except 'quality' ..... Liverpool has an impressive waterfront skyline, but Manchester has a great Syymphony Orchestra .... and, oh yes.... the BBC one ... which isn't quite as good! :lol:

Orchestra's are boring.

Just as well, because there isn't one of any importance in Leeds :)

There certainly isn't.. thankfully.

Liverpool has an impressive waterfront skyline, but Manchester has a great Syymphony Orchestra .... and, oh yes.... the BBC one ... which isn't quite as good! :lol:Maybe that is why the musical director of the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, Vasily Petrenko, is presently conducting, as a guest, the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. read this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/06/DDIT1LEBSG.DTL

Impressive waterfront, impressive orchestra with an equaly impressive conductor.:)

Maybe that is why the musical director of the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, Valeri Pachenko, is presently conducting, as a guest, the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra.

Impressive waterfront, impressive orchestra with an equaly impressive conductor.:)

Yep, you're not wrong :)

Orchestra's are boring.

Just as well, because there isn't one of any importance in Leeds :)

There certainly isn't.. thankfully.

You might consider orchestras as "boring" but they add another bit of different culture to a city. :yes:

You might consider orchestras as "boring" but they add another bit of different culture to a city. :yes:

We know that Butterfield, coming from the cultural capital of the Midlands ... but there is more culture in an empty pot of Muller Fruit Corner than there is in Leeds :lol:

All British cities are equally as shit as one another

Birmingham is the Capital of Canals. More miles than Venice, more miles than anywhere.

Birmingham is the capital of anything?Didn't the musical director of the worlds most prestigious orchestra, Simon Rattle, previously conduct the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra?

I don't know, I'm not interesting in such things. (I've never even heard of Simon Rattle, that's how uncultured Leeds is!)

So Birmingham is the capital of canals and orchestras.. right. :)

And of course Leeds is the capital of Muller Fruit corners. :?

Birmingham is the Capital of Canals. More miles than Venice, more miles than anywhere.

Ah but Venice is known for its canals because that's the only navigable way around the city.

Ah but Venice is known for its canals because that's the only navigable way around the city.

Though Birminghams are an example of how Canals can be used to transport freight around a modern Metropolis. Birmingham still uses it's canals for more than leisure and the figures are on the rise.

It all stems from how they were founded in the 19th Century ... but yes, essentially today there is very little difference between the two ... except 'quality' ..... Liverpool has an impressive waterfront skyline, but Manchester has a great Syymphony Orchestra .... and, oh yes.... the BBC one ... which isn't quite as good! :lol:


The RLPO has won Gramophone awards in 2 of the last 3 years:-

http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/gramophoneawards2009.php
http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/gramophoneawards2011.php

Also, The Halle Orchestra also doesn't have the word symphony in its title, so according to your logic, that is not a symphony orchestra either. Bit of a Chewbacca Defense that mate. :lol:

Another hand out look!



City gets £500m loan to develop Metrolink

Greater Manchester has been handed a £500m loan by the European Investment Bank to fund the expansion of Metrolink.

EIB, the European Union’s long-term lending institution, has agreed the 30 year funding, which will be used by Greater Manchester Combined Authority to fund construction of phase three of the tram system.

That will see the network grow to three times its current size, including new lines to Oldham and Rochdale town centres, Ashton-under-Lyne in Tameside, East Didsbury, and Manchester Airport, via Wythenshawe.

A second, additional line across Manchester city centre is also being developed.

There will be 99 stops served by a fleet of 94 trams, and the expansion is due to be completed in 2016.

Coun Andrew Fender, chair of the Transport for Greater Manchester Committee, which is overseeing the investment on behalf of the GMCA, said: “The Metrolink expansion is the single largest investment in public transport in the UK, outside of London.

“It will deliver a legacy for Greater Manchester that will regenerate and transform key district centres and provide new connections to the labour market for businesses.

“As such, it will play a vital role in keeping the region’s economy growing now and long into the future.”

The European cash will finance new trams and infrastructure, and represents over a third of the overall investment costs.

The EIB has agreed to fund the project as part of its of support for sustainable public transport in leading European cities and to reduce reliance on private car use.

Simon Brooks, EIB vice president responsible for the United Kingdom, said: “Extension of Greater Manchester’s Metrolink network will transform tram links across the conurbation.

“The European Investment Bank is committed to supporting sustainable transport and successful completion of the project will improve the lives of Greater Manchester’s residents for years to some

Another hand out look!



I wouldnt really call a 500million loan a "hand out" would you ???
As long as you pay them back, i dont see any harm in this kind of funding.
Whats the interest rate ??? Thats what i wanna know ???

Still it makes our £30m extension look poor.

Yes it does, however once we have completed our city centre extension then i dont see why Centro cannot make a similar request. If GMPT can do it then so can WMPT. :)

And dont forget we are getting 600million to improve New street station so we are also moving in the right direction.
I for one cant wait to see our spanking new Midland metro trams outside New street station, Yipppeeeeeeeeeeee.

God dammit Manchester, stop leeching of our government! ;)

I thought our extension was costing around the same price as that?

I do believe its about 120million for Birminghams Metro Extension through the city centre, its certainly not 500million.

^^ That figure also includes a fleet of new trams though the extension alone would probably be a lot less.

edit

List of green bank bidders

Angus

Bournemouth

Brighton

Bristol

Cardiff

Chester

Derby

Edinburgh

Leeds

Liverpool

London

Manchester

Newcastle

Nottingham

Paisley

Peterborough

Sheffield

Stoke-on-Trent

Wales

Warrington

Yorkshire



Read More http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2011/11/28/liverpool-bidding-to-host-world-s-first-green-bank-92534-29852888/2/#ixzz1f0AtfdM0

'Yorkshire', as well as Leeds and Sheffield?

I wondered about that too

^^

Same.

Maybe they mean York? :dunno:

Imagine the furore on here if Manchester got it. Truth is it has a good bid, home of the Cooperative bank and the Association of British Credit Unions (which will explode in the coming years) As well as a massive RBS presence, BoNY etc.

I think itl be out of the big cities if Im honest. Could be surprised though.

London will get it.

Probably sensibly if you think what the bank is mean to be doing.

Imagine the furore on here if Manchester got it. Truth is it has a good bid, home of the Cooperative bank and the Association of British Credit Unions (which will explode in the coming years) As well as a massive RBS presence, BoNY etc.

Hmmmm, some would say it could go to the financial centre in the North, Leeds, it also has a strong bid.

Hmmmm, some would say it could go to the financial centre in the North, Leeds, it also has a strong bid.

But only if you worked for a marketing Leeds agency ;)

BoNY etc.Is this the BNY Mellon bank? If yes then the BNY Mellon bank usually locate in, and partner with, established wealth management companies within a city/locale and, those companies are, for a great part, contractual partners partly or, wholly, owned by BNY Mellon. It is only when a reasonable "fit" can't be found that they will establish a branch in a given city.

Seriously though, it will be in London or Edinburgh.

The two places with significant skills base in investment banking and have a readily available workforce.

Anywhere else would be an odd decision given the lack of workforce in those areas as the new bank would have to almost entirely recruit from elsewhere in the country which will simply add to the costs of a public body.

To be fair, the majority of places listed must have a good bid to think they have a chance of getting it.

To be fair, the majority of places listed must have a good bid to think they have a chance of getting it.

We don't know that.

1) We have no idea what the criteria for the bidding cities are
2) We have no idea what 'sweeteners' are being offered (if any) by cities.

There was a report that Allied London are offering space in Spinningfields for £20/sq ft, i.e. heavily discounted, however, how important that is we do not know.

For example, if the bidding criteria was to show that there is an able, already existing workforce with experience of establishing such a bank within 30miles of the bid locations how many of them would you say are 'good' bids?

We simply don't know.

Having said all that. Two questions we may know the answer to...
1) When is the bank meant to start?
2) How many people will be employed?

If the answers are 2014 and 2,000 then how many cities have 200,000 sq ft of top grade office space available in those time scales?

As to the subject of my city vs your city, I'd just like to say my city is much much better than your city.

and the Association of British Credit Unions (which will explode in the coming years)

I thought that was an interesting topic. I got completely blanked though :lol:

I'd see it been out of Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh... maybe Bristol or Cardiff.

Manchester has excellent transport links, its building that NOMA master-plan which would be ideally suited. Leeds has the major law firms. M,L,E,B,C all have strong financial sectors too.

Could be a very tasty bonus for someone if they're considering a new-build headquarters.

If the answers are 2014 and 2,000 then how many cities have 200,000 sq ft of top grade office space available in those time scales?

Most. Many cities have office developments waiting to be constructed, but not until a pre-let has been agreed.

Wellington Place Leeds- 2.5M sq ft office masterplan...

http://www.skyscrapernews.net/images/pics/58887WellingtonPlace_pic1.jpg

Noma Manchester- 4M sq ft, mixed used (mostly office I think)...

http://m.gmgrd.co.uk/res/351.$plit/C_71_article_1458440_image_list_image_list_item_0_image.jpg?09%2F09%2F2011%2019%3A34%3A06%3A319

NOMA/Wellington is phased, but I can guarantee it won't be if the HQ is located there.

I'd see it been out of Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh... maybe Bristol or Cardiff.

Manchester has excellent transport links, its building that NOMA master-plan which would be ideally suited. Leeds has the major law firms. M,L,E,B,C all have strong financial sectors too.

You're forgetting one... you know, Britain's fourth biggest city that has a £10bn Chinese-backed Canary Wharf style docklands development in planning and the biggest wealth management sector outside of London.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/95e3cfcc-3a83-11df-b6d5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1f2BVDswa

You're forgetting one... you know, Britain's fourth biggest city that has a £10bn Chinese-backed Canary Wharf style docklands development in planning and the biggest wealth management sector outside of London.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/95e3cfcc-3a83-11df-b6d5-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1f2BVDswa

I know but I just can't see it been London. Otherwise why have the other cities as competition.

Could be a very tasty bonus for someone if they're considering a new-build headquarters.

Meh. Maybe not. Read there could only actually be 40 people employed at the headquarters. One rag said as many as 100 though.

Meh. Maybe not. Read there could only actually be 40 people employed at the headquarters. One rag said as many as 100 though.

In which case this be be an excellent vanity project that in true SSC form will be blown out of all proportion of importance on here.

The financial organisation I work for has already laid off a total of 27k people, mostly in the places mentioned and plans to get rid of a further 15k in the same places.

Never ever mentioned on here.

Yet 40-100 people will generate page after page of all sorts of claims from city being on the up, ahead of other cities and being the leading city in x,y & z.

Just watch.

Yet 40-100 people will generate page after page of all sorts of claims from city being on the up, ahead of other cities and being the leading city in x,y & z.

Just watch.
__________________


Nobody from Glasgow will join "the my city's better" shabam. I can garuantee you that.

Nobody from Glasgow will join "the my city's better" shabam. I can garuantee you that.

Because you are better than that ;)

I think that was the implication.

"What we know is that Manchester has the largest financial and professional community outside of London, which employs 250,000 people and is set to grow by 30 per cent over the next decade," Mr Ashcroft explained.

http://www.journalism.co.uk/press-releases/manchester-aims-to-enhance-finance-recruitment-with-gib/s66/a546931/

You just know Leeds will be saying the same thing!

'Professional' community?

Manchester has a good marketing machine, but Leeds is better established as a financial centre than Manchester at the moment so I don't think we should be too concerned with those statements.

Who actually has the biggest financial sector is anyone's game, but Leeds pushed its status strongly during the noughties and it seemed to work.

I know but I just can't see it been London. Otherwise why have the other cities as competition.

He meant Liverpool.

'Professional' community?

Manchester has a good marketing machine, but Leeds is better established as a financial centre than Manchester at the moment so I don't think we should be too concerned with those statements.

Who actually has the biggest financial sector is anyone's game, but Leeds pushed its status strongly during the noughties and it seemed to work.

If we're saying that this decision could be made on the basis of the 'status' of a place as opposed to which place deserves it in terms of having the correct talent pool and experienced workforce then I'm happy for Manchester to get it on the basis of a political decision. I.E. reinforcing the idea of a capital of the north as an economic driver. :cheers: :banana:

Because you are better than that ;)

Surely it's because we are worse than that?

http://bdaily.co.uk/news/finance/28-11-2011/manchester-campaigns-to-host-green-investment-bank/

Just to show that not only can the Loiners make up bull shit claims about being the biggest this and that outside of London, some bloke from pro.manchester is making exactly the same claims :lol:


He said: "What we know is that Manchester has the largest financial and professional community outside of London, which employs 250,000 people and is set to grow by 30% over the next decade.

The amusing thing is people on here will believe one or the other purely based on where they happen to live. double arf. :lol:

http://bdaily.co.uk/news/finance/28-11-2011/manchester-campaigns-to-host-green-investment-bank/

Just to show that not only can the Loiners make up bull shit claims about being the biggest this and that outside of London, some bloke from pro.manchester is making exactly the same claims :lol:




The amusing thing is people on here will believe one or the other purely based on where they happen to live. double arf. :lol:

I;ll go with the city with by far the largest office market outside of London. Larger than the next two non-London cities combined and the one with `most favoured status' by the UK Government, as shown with the £bn's spent on metrolink.

Still, others claim differently based on gossip.

Yet I am yet to see anything other "one of", "amongst" , "rated" in association with a certain other cities claim to financial leadership outside of London. These words are for 2nd place and below in my eyes.

Still, keeps the keyboards hot on these cold winter nights.

The law society has already come up with the facts and figures. Manchester has the highest number of law firms, while Leeds has the highest number of important/large law firms. It's up to you which is more important.

The law society has already come up with the facts and figures. Manchester has the highest number of law firms, while Leeds has the highest number of important/large law firms. It's up to you which is more important.

Oh go on then, since this is the bashing sector>

I go with the diversity of local business keeping wealth in the region, rather than the McDonalds franchise of having the national players in town?

You keep your RBS/Natwest and we keep the Co-Op.

We get the shiny HQ, you get another branch office?

Suppose bit of both would be better.

We certainly have much better court buildings for out little legal luvvies to ply their trade ;)

Im not talking about the banks. Im talking about law firms, eversheds, dla cobbets etc.

Il be annoyed if it goes to Manchester or Leeds. I think this bank is a great opportunity for a city like Liverpool, Newcastle or Sheffield.

Il be annoyed if it goes to Manchester or Leeds. I think this bank is a great opportunity for a city like Liverpool, Newcastle or Sheffield.

Surely somewhere like Stoke is more deserving if you are going to take that approach?

Surely Coventry.. or Rochdale. Apparently Rochdale is so bad McDonald's have left.

Tomo, out of interest what difference do you honestly think having about 50 such staff in a city will have?

As per my post yesterday I think you are massively over egging the relevance of this.

Surely Coventry.. or Rochdale. Apparently Rochdale is so bad McDonald's have left.

Aye, Rochdale (along with the other towns around north Greater Manchester) really are not doing very well economically. Hopefully things like Metrolink will help but I suspect it will take many many years to see any significant improvements.

It should be a city that has a strong financial sector. So while arguably Leeds,Manchester,Bristol,Edinburgh all posses this it might be wiser for somewhere like Liverpool or Sheffield who perhaps dont have that the strongest financial sector (ive probably underestimated Liverpool). After all 50-100 high paid/qualified jobs isn't some thing to be sniffed at.

Apparently Rochdale is so bad McDonald's have left.

:lol:

People taking pleasure in the misfortune on this site is very odd.

People taking pleasure in the misfortune on this site is very odd.

It made me chuckle, that is all. You have to have a giggle dont you.. Taking pleasure from other's misfortune... I wouldnt really go as far as that.

I may also add, the reason for my slight chuckle had nothing to do with it being near Manchester. Which I recon you may suspect.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/infrastucture_regional_map.htm

Made me laugh.

Click on the regions and see what pictures have been added for each region.

Good to see that the new government are just as able to tick all the regional boxes like the old one :lol:

Tomo, out of interest what difference do you honestly think having about 50 such staff in a city will have?

As per my post yesterday I think you are massively over egging the relevance of this.

Right Il explain what I meant had to rush off to work earlier,

I think this bank may be a catalyst for similar industries setting up in the city it is based in. Manchester and Leeds dont have trouble with this. Edinburgh might not be part of the UK soon so that would be silly. Im just going off Hesteline's report maybe that over exaggerated the whole thing. Who knows.

Right Il explain what I meant had to rush off to work earlier,

I think this bank may be a catalyst for similar industries setting up in the city it is based in. Manchester and Leeds dont have trouble with this. Edinburgh might not be part of the UK soon so that would be silly. Im just going off Hesteline's report maybe that over exaggerated the whole thing. Who knows.

Looking at what the government have said:

Government Property Unit, will consider a number of criteria before taking a decision on the GIB’s location, including:

• Ability to fulfil the GIB’s mission: The GIB will be based in a location that best enables it to fulfil its mission through other players in the wider green and financial markets. In particular it will need to be in close proximity to the following groups:
– Private sector financiers: Including bank project finance teams, infrastructure funds, private equity houses, commercial lending banks and institutional investors. Close proximity will enable the GIB to encourage mobilisation of additional private sector capital.
– Project sponsors: Including the head offices of utilities, waste companies, large industrial companies and ‘green’ project developers.
– Specialist advisors: Including specialist legal advisors for project finance, commercial and technical advisors and asset service providers.
– Green thought leadership: To solicit third party advice on green priorities – e.g., NGOs, trade associations, government agencies.
– Government: To engage appropriately with Government on the impact of policy changes and future funding.

• Ease of access to the talent pool: It is imperative that the GIB’s location provides easy access to deep pools of talent with the necessary skills in financial services and ‘green’ expertise.

• Commercial costs: The major cost drivers are likely to include:
– Costs of recruiting financial services and other expert talent including professional advisors
– Building rental and infrastructure costs to host and support a small sized banking function (currently envisaged as a 50–100 employee operation).
– Costs of back office support, administration and maintenance.
– Travel costs (e.g., for staff travel involved in marketing, origination and due diligence).

Looks like outer London to me.

I'd say London, Manchester, Leeds or Edinburgh.

They'll pick the least economically developed large metro area. Which is probably Liverpool, given that Glasgow might not be in the UK soon.

That would be an ignorant reason not to choose Glasgow to be honest.

If they pick a city with a tempremental economy then it would be Liverpool, Sheffield or Newcastle. Otherwise itl be Manchester or Leeds considering Glasgow and Edinburgh may not be part of the UK soon.

Why not Stoke or Coventry?

and why do you keep ignoring London? Surely that is the incredibly obvious best option?

That would be an ignorant reason not to choose Glasgow to be honest.

A reason to choose Glasgow would be a show by the govrnment that they have confidence in the union.

and why do you keep ignoring London? Surely that is the incredibly obvious best option?

If it was a private business then obviously it would go to London. But the government has a responsibility to help the least economically developed regions of the UK and this is a way of doing that.

If it was a private business then obviously it would go to London. But the government has a responsibility to help the least economically developed regions of the UK and this is a way of doing that.
So why ignore all the smaller poor areas like Stoke as tomo keeps doing.

If you go for the 'business option' you choose London.

If you chose the 'political / economic stimulation' option you choose Stoke.

Correct me if I'm mistaken but doesn't the SNP have a majority over Scottish Parliament?

Because Im sizeist.

Correct me if I'm mistaken but doesn't the SNP have a majority over Scottish Parliament?

Doesn't mean they'll win the independence refendum. My bet would be that the "third option" of more devolution would get the most votes.

The reason they won a majority is because they're the only real alternative, given that labour failed and the Lib Dems have gone into alliance with the hated tories. I can only hope that my fellow Scots (that sounds incredibly cheesy I know) realise that independence would be a disaster. If we had been independent in 2008, what would have happened with RBS?

Doesn't mean they'll win the independence refendum. My bet would be that the "third option" of more devolution would get the most votes.

The reason they won a majority is because they're the only real alternative, given that labour failed and the Lib Dems have gone into alliance with the hated tories. I can only hope that my fellow Scots (that sounds incredibly cheesy I know) realise that independence would be a disaster. If we had been independent in 2008, what would have happened with RBS?

RBS would still have had huge assets and liabilities in England, along with a massive office presence in London (mostly through the London headquartered NatWest). The English-Welsh-NI government would still have paid out to prevent RBS's collapse, for the same reasons the British and Dutch governments paid out for people with savings in collapsed Icelandic banks in 2008.

RBS would still have had huge assets and liabilities in England, along with a massive office presence in London (mostly through the London headquartered NatWest). The English-Welsh-NI government would still have paid out to prevent RBS's collapse, for the same reasons the British and Dutch governments paid out for people with savings in collapsed Icelandic banks in 2008.

Still, would have made the SNP look like a right laughing stock. After all their talk about "Scotland being able to stand on it's own two feet" and "Westminster politicians failing Scotland's economy".

So why ignore all the smaller poor areas like Stoke as tomo keeps doing.

If you go for the 'business option' you choose London.

If you chose the 'political / economic stimulation' option you choose Stoke.

Governments sometimes tend to go for the balance option, but I would not expect this to be one of those times.

There are basically four drivers of the decision:

Access to capital
Access to expertise (financial and technical)
Access to stakeholders (government, industry and NGOs)
Cost

1 is clearly London
2 is probably London, although you could arguably get away with another major centre
3 again is London, although again it depends where the industries are located, which isn't something I'm sure of. Probably the South East though.
4 is certainly not central London but unless subsidised is probably not a major city centre either. Maybe a larger southern town with good rail links to London.

The government would have to really want to locate it away from London if it was to do so. It's not impossible, but it seems unlikely. The only reason not to would be if there was evidence that it will be a catalyst for private jobs in a deprived region. Which I don't think exists.

Doesn't mean they'll win the independence refendum. My bet would be that the "third option" of more devolution would get the most votes.

The reason they won a majority is because they're the only real alternative, given that labour failed and the Lib Dems have gone into alliance with the hated tories. I can only hope that my fellow Scots (that sounds incredibly cheesy I know) realise that independence would be a disaster. If we had been independent in 2008, what would have happened with RBS?
The majority of Scots certainly want full fiscal autonomy like the states of America or the provinces or Canada.

I think the real reason SNP won the majority is because Scots know the three main parties are all as incompetent as one another.

Correct me if I'm mistaken but doesn't the SNP have a majority over Scottish Parliament?As did the "Republican" anti-monarchy party in Australia but still lost the referendum. Likewise the "sovereigntist" party in Quebec, Canada when their referendum to separate from Canada was lost. However, didn't the Czechs and Slovakia break asunder?

The majority of Scots certainly want full fiscal autonomy like the states of America or the provinces or Canada.

I think the real reason SNP won the majority is because Scots know the three main parties are all as incompetent as one another.

Exactly. In Scotland, you've basically got a choice between Labour and the SNP.
And Scottish Labour are utterly useless and complacent.

Aye. I voted SNP as a massive fuck you to Labour. What you gonna do? You can't vote Tory. The Lib Dems? Lolz. Seems to be a view in England we're all voting SNP as we fucking loathe the UK and can't wait to get away. We're just voting SNP as they are viewed as the people to get Scotland the best deal. Who wouldn't want to vote for that? The assembly election results will never be replicated at Westminster. I can't be arsed with these endless independence threads so that's my first and only comment on the subject :lol:

I wouldn't be so sure, we in England are getting pretty sick of the three main parties.. we've had all three of them in government over the past 20 years and they have all proven to be completely shit at what they do..

Anyway, yeah, I can't be arsed with independence shit either.

If I was Scottish I'd be voting for SNP. Any movement towards less reliance on biased-Westminster is surely a good thing. Look at what Scotland has already got out of devolution.

If I was Scottish I'd be voting for SNP. Any movement towards less reliance on biased-Westminster is surely a good thing. Look at what Scotland has already got out of devolution.




Edinburgh Tram fiasco anyone, LOL

If I was Scottish I'd be voting for SNP. Any movement towards less reliance on biased-Westminster is surely a good thing. Look at what Scotland has already got out of devolution.


Libyan Terrorist let free, LOL

Cringe.

Whether it's been a fiasco or not, at least Edinburgh will be getting a tram. More than what Leeds, Portsmouth and Liverpool can say.

Libyan Terrorist let free, LOL

It was Syria who did Lockerbie.

Check your history notes. Until the 1st Gulf War, when we needed overflying rights over Sytria from Turkish/Cyprus airbases to bomb...it was Syria.

Libya was chosen after that, hence why towards the end everyone pitched up in Gaddaffi's tent honouring him.

Syria bombed Pan AM flight. Check out Private Eye, check the headlines from 1988-1990.

We are all fools.

Whether it's been a fiasco or not, at least Edinburgh will be getting a tram. More than what Leeds, Portsmouth and Liverpool can say.

That is not the point. Edinburgh Tram so far has been a total failure, well above the original cost and well behind the completion date. I'd rather not waste money on a tram that is going to take years more then planned to finish for much, much more money, and I'm not alone in thinking this, just ask Edinburgh residents yourself.

Looks like Leeds is getting its long awaited trolley bus scheme. See transport thread for further details.

The SNP have opposed Edinburgh Trams from the start, though I cannot find a reason why. From what I can gather they haven't exactly helped the progress of the system, and have used every hiccup for political capital which may well have worked in stoking up opposition. Combine that with poor project management and there you have it, but no doubt people are now thinking that all these shenanigans are an essential part of tram construction and will oppose any attempt to complete the system for some time.

Once the trams are rolling folk'll start appreciating them... I'll bet money on that. :)

Looks like the Manchester City Region is following Leeds City Region's lead on this!

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/over_20_cities_in_race_for_green_investment_bank_1_4054509

Over 20 cities in race for Green Investment Bank
Published on Monday 12 December 2011 20:23


LEEDS will face competition from Sheffield and as many as 20 other cities in the battle to host the Government’s new £3bn Green Investment Bank.


Ministers say a decision will be made by the end of March on where to base the bank, which is designed to lever in private investment for green projects.

Although much of the attention so far has focused on Leeds’s bid, which has support from MPs across Yorkshire who have already met Ministers and held a Westminster debate to push their case, officials in Sheffield yesterday confirmed they also plan to bid.

Business Secretary Vince Cable yesterday fired the starting gun on the race to win the bank, which will see the cities up against the likes of Manchester, Bristol, Liverpool, Cardiff, Edinburgh, London, Nottingham and Newcastle. Although the bank will only bring a small number of jobs, locating it in the North would be seen as a symbol of the Government’s desire to rebalance the economy.

Mr Cable said the winning bid must be able to recruit and retain specialist staff, offer good value for money and allow the bank to work closely with other parties on deals. He is also setting up a team – UK Green Investments (UKGI) – within Government to invest in green infrastructure while the bank comes into being. It will have £200m to invest in smaller waste infrastructure and non-domestic energy efficiency, also co-investing in offshore wind projects.

Mr Cable said: “I want to set up the Bank as soon as possible, so it can start accelerating investments in these key sectors and help British companies take advantage of these opportunities. Setting out the priorities for the Bank and establishing UK Green Investments for April 2012 are a major step forward.”

The Green Investment Bank’s first priorities will include investing in offshore wind power generation, a decision which could strengthen the case for a Yorkshire base as there are ambitious plans to manufacture turbines around the Humber and wind farms off the East Yorkshire coast.

The Yorkshire Post’s Give us a Fair Deal campaign has urged Ministers to choose the region to base the bank, which will also prioritise commercial and industrial waste processing and recycling, generation of energy from waste and non-domestic energy efficiency.

Campaigners in Leeds claim its financial sector, green expertise and low costs make it the ideal host. Sheffield Council has refused to reveal more details of its bid.

But last night Manchester’s bid team faced embarrassment when its website – not yet officially launched – was spotted online by the Financial Times featuring sections which appeared to have been lifted directly off the Leeds City Region site.

The site, which is believed to be still being built, included one section saying “Leeds City Region – the perfect location for the Green Investment Bank”, but last night it was offline again.

Skipton and Ripon MP Julian Smith, who is backing the Leeds bid, said: “Imitation is the best form of flattery and Manchester’s clearly feeling on the defensive.

“We’ve got a very compelling case and we’re towards the front of the pack, but we’ve got to work hard to make sure we articulate why with the second largest financial centre in Britain and more green related projects than anywhere else in the country we’re the best place to locate the bank.”Paul Hamer, of Leeds City Region Local Enterprise Partnership, said: “Leeds City Region is the natural location for the Green Investment Bank, with a compelling business case that fits exactly with the criteria announced by the government.”

Mark Goldstone, head of business representation at Leeds, York & North Yorkshire Chamber of Commerce, said: “The Leeds City Region has the largest financial, services sector outside London and local firms are already advising on major renewable projects across the world, from Selby to South Korea. We have the expertise in place to ensure that the bank is a commercial success and effective in delivering a greener UK economy.

Seems the Leeds media is as obsessed with all things Manc just like many on here :lol:

It's in the FT

It's in the FT

It is indeed, but I had to print the YP article as I'm too much of a pikey to pay for the FT site...

Yes, and picked up by the Yorkshire Post.

Still, if the fact that a development web site went live early makes news in Yorkshire so be it.

I predict that if the GIB goes to London or Manc it will be seen as evidence as government bias by the usual suspects on here.

If it goes to Leeds, Brum or Liverpool it will be seen by the locals as evidence that their town is on the up and everywhere else is falling behind their town.

If it goes to Cov, Stoke etc then people will moan that the government have gone made.

Bookmark this post and bring it back in March when the decision is announced.

You can all complain about it being in London.

Yes, and picked up by the Yorkshire Post.

Still, if the fact that a development web site went live early makes news in Yorkshire so be it.


Do you believe that was the reason it was deemed newsworthy in Yorkshire?



A website promoting Manchester’s bid was copied word for word from the site of Leeds City Region, a collection of 11 local authorities. Embarrassingly for greenbankmcr.co.uk, sloppy editing left Leeds as “a perfect location for the Green Investment Bank”.

Yes, and picked up by the Yorkshire Post.

Still, if the fact that a development web site went live early makes news in Yorkshire so be it.



I'd say that the powers-that-be in Manchester resorting to copying somebody else's template is newsworthy, whether it be Leeds, London, Bristol or Timbuktu.

Yes, and picked up by the Yorkshire Post.

Still, if the fact that a development web site went live early makes news in Yorkshire so be it.

I predict that if the GIB goes to London or Manc it will be seen as evidence as government bias by the usual suspects on here.

If it goes to Leeds, Brum or Liverpool it will be seen by the locals as evidence that their town is on the up and everywhere else is falling behind their town.

If it goes to Cov, Stoke etc then people will moan that the government have gone made.

Bookmark this post and bring it back in March when the decision is announced.

You can all complain about it being in London.


For your inforamtion, Birmingham has not put itself forward so we wont be doing anything. We are gonna let all of you scrap this out for a change, LOL

Brum has done a David cameron and has left the usual group.

We can survive on our own thanks, LOL


Birmingham Bulldog spirit.

Brum has done a David cameron and has left the usual group.

We can survive on our own thanks, LOL


Birmingham Bulldog spirit.

Aye, smaller arena, towers, office blocks, airport, metro system, media ...good idea leave to the Mancs...it's worked so far after all! ;)

Speaking of which, this GIB vanity project has been excellent at showing how people believe things on here.

Both the Leeds and Manchester bids claim to be the largest financial centres outside London in England.

Interestingly in the commons debate about the EU veto Cameron singled out Birmingham as bring the location where most people work in financial services in England outside London, but less than Edinburgh.

Can guarantee the Loiners on the whole believe their PR people, the Mancs likewise and the Brumies the bloke trying to stay sweet in the only large city they have a representation in outside the capital.

Personally I am more tempted to believe Cameron, but that must be done with great caution.

I predict that if the GIB goes to London or Manc it will be seen as evidence as government bias by the usual suspects on here.

If it goes to Leeds, Brum or Liverpool it will be seen by the locals as evidence that their town is on the up and everywhere else is falling behind their town.

If it goes to Cov, Stoke etc then people will moan that the government have gone made.

Bookmark this post and bring it back in March when the decision is announced.

You can all complain about it being in London.

HA! This is so true.

Aye, smaller arena, towers, office blocks, airport, metro system, media ...good idea leave to the Mancs...it's worked so far after all! ;)

BIRMINGHAM ....

2 purpose built arenas (on any night, 28,000 people can simultaneously enjoy concerts in both arenas), largest exhibition centre in UK, better concert hall, bigger & better convention centre, better & busier city centre shopping mall, largest public library in europe, largest mixed use building in the UK, largest deparment store outside of London, more theatres than any city outside of London's West End, a city that has both a World class orchestra AND a World class ROYAL ballet company, more Michelin star restaurants than Manchester (Birmingham 3, Manchester 1)... more trees than Paris and more miles of canal than Venice!.....Depends what emphasis you put on things really :)

..... btw, this written with tongue firmly in cheek :cheers:

(.... oh yes .... 1 half decent cricket team and 3 crap football teams!)

Mixing subjective best with objective largest does your point no favours.

Your best whatever can and will be different from my best whatever.

The largest, the smallest and all the other objective measures are clear definitive points that can be tested and an answer can be agreed on by all sides when diffident evidence is gathered.

Oh, I did not think there were any Michelin start restaurants in Manc?

Oh, I did not think there were any Michelin start restaurants in Manc?

Who really thinks that this is important lmao?

Oh, I did not think there were any Michelin start restaurants in Manc?

Juniper in Altrincham .... does that count as Manchester?

Who really thinks that this is important lmao?

If you enjoy KFC or a Big Mac then you wouldn't ..... not saying you do, mind you!!!! :runaway:

Both the Leeds and Manchester bids claim to be the largest financial centres outside London in England.

Not surprising if Manchester copies and pastes Leeds'.

Who really thinks that this is important lmao?

Dunno. He said there was, I always thought there were none.

Just wondering if I had missed something mildly interesting.

Still, a you say, not the most interesting. San Carlos behind Kendals is good enough for me.

Mixing subjective best with objective largest does your point no favours.

Your best whatever can and will be different from my best whatever.

The largest, the smallest and all the other objective measures are clear definitive points that can be tested and an answer can be agreed on by all sides when diffident evidence is gathered.

Agreed ......... ahem, excuse my ignorance..... but what is "diffident" ..... is this new 'University Speak'?! :wink2:

Who really thinks that this is important lmao?



Well you cannot be taken seriously as an important city or second city without such things now can you ????

You can have all the other fancy things like a tram but without first class places to eat, thats also what people want. Ask the french ????? LOL

Not surprising if Manchester copies and pastes Leeds'.

It was the bloke from pro.Manchester in a newspaper interview.

Still, you are firmly in the not questioning the local PR bods as is totally predictable.

Well you cannot be taken seriously as an important city or second city without such things now can you ????

You can have all the other fancy things like a tram but without first class places to eat, thats also what people want. Ask the french ????? LOL

How many Michelin start restaurants are in Barcelona? I have no clue and it makes no difference to my view of the place.

http://niabirmingham.posterous.com/

How many Michelin start restaurants are in Barcelona? I have no clue and it makes no difference to my view of the place.



You maybe not, but to many people, eating out is a very serious thing to do.

How many Michelin start restaurants are in Barcelona? I have no clue and it makes no difference to my view of the place.

I have no clue either .... but I bet you a tenner there will definately be more than there is in Manchester .... it's what cosmopolitan cities aspire to have .... the icing on a very nice cake, if you like :)

Barcelona .... being a 'saddo' sometimes, I've just had a look. There are 18 there. The best chefs in the World are drawn to the best cities ... for some reason :cheers:

Really?

I thought struggling cities like Manchester and Brum had councils more interested in lower the huge amount of people living in poverty in the cities and the high levels of unemployment than aspiring have posh nosh.

Still if a Michelin star is more important than the high unemployment then fair enough, we have different priorities for where we live.

P.M. I am eating there are no Michelin star restaurants in Manc.

http://bdaily.co.uk/news/finance/28-11-2011/manchester-campaigns-to-host-green-investment-bank/

An example of PR bullshit, just like ask the other stuff about largest financial sector outside London given each PR bod measures it in a different way to make there point.

Really?

I thought struggling cities like Manchester and Brum had councils more interested in lower the huge amount of people living in poverty in the cities and the high levels of unemployment than aspiring have posh nosh.

Still if a Michelin star is more important than the high unemployment then fair enough, we have different priorities for where we live.

P.M. I am eating there are no Michelin star restaurants in Manc.


Not sure it was Birmingham City Council that lured 3 of the Worlds best chefs to Birmingham .... the chefs would've run a mile if they'd met a council memeber from this city! :)

Really?


P.M. I am eating there are no Michelin star restaurants in Manc.


Sorry ... Altrincham must be in Cheshire then .... my mistake :)

Really?

I thought struggling cities like Manchester and Brum had councils more interested in lower the huge amount of people living in poverty in the cities and the high levels of unemployment than aspiring have posh nosh.

Still if a Michelin star is more important than the high unemployment then fair enough, we have different priorities for where we live.

P.M. I am eating there are no Michelin star restaurants in Manc.

Indeed, you are quite right, however there are still believe it or not, many people out there with alot of dosh who like eating in posh restaurants. Simple fact.

Barcelona .... being a 'saddo' sometimes, I've just had a look. There are 18 there. The best chefs in the World are drawn to the best cities ... for some reason :cheers:

Really? I thought it was more to do with the number of customers being around to support such a business.

Unfortunately the city centre Manc economy in the evening is piss poor at attracting the right type of people into the city to support top end restaurants.

Indeed, you are quite right, however there are still believe it or not, many people out there with alot of dosh who like eating in posh restaurants. Simple fact.

Yes .... I am one of them :cheers:

Sorry ... Altrincham must be in Cheshire then .... my mistake :)

In my world that part of Cheshire is in Manc, but I thought the restaurant in question is long closed?

Really? I thought it was more to do with the number of customers being around to support such a business.

Unfortunately the city centre Manc economy in the evening is piss poor at attracting the right type of people into the city to support top end restaurants.

I had a great night out (and meal) in Manchester 6 months ago .... I saw plenty of people who looked like they were 'worth a bob or two'!!

The point I was making before is parts of Brum have 11% + unemployment.

This never gets mentioned by the Brummies.

Yet the idea that three posh nosh restaurants exist in the city is somehow seen as more important and more a reflection of the city.

It is an odd world and a particularly odd forum.

Yes .... I am one of them :cheers:



You snob, LOL

In my world that part of Cheshire is in Manc, but I thought the restaurant in question is long closed?



"Last month Greater Manchester lost its only Michelin star. Juniper in Altrincham had held the accolade but was stripped of the star following the departure of chef Paul Kitching"

Yes it is!!! What a shame! I ate here a couple of years ago when we visited friends in Sale .... it closed in 2009 aparently.

Ok .... it's 3 - 0 then :)

I had a great night out (and meal) in Manchester 6 months ago .... I saw plenty of people who looked like they were 'worth a bob or two'!!

Probably but top chefs have complained about the wrong people frequenting the city centre at night and the council refusing to give tax breaks to start up restaurants making it hard for posh nosh places in Manc.

"Last month Greater Manchester lost its only Michelin star. Juniper in Altrincham had held the accolade but was stripped of the star following the departure of chef Paul Kitching"

Yes it is!!! What a shame! I ate here a couple of years ago when we visited friends in Sale .... it closed in 2009 aparently.

Ok .... it's 3 - 0 then :)

Indeed hence me asking.

The point I was making before is parts of Brum have 11% + unemployment.

This never gets mentioned by the Brumbies.

Yet the idea that three posh nosh restaurants exist in the city is somehow seen as more important and more a reflection of the city.

It is an odd world and a particularly odd forum.

blah .... blah .... blah......... THERE WILL ALWAYS BE RICH AND POOR PEOPLE!!! Get over it!

Why shouldn't the rich folk have fun and a good feed just because there are a load of poor people around .... you killjoy you!!! :ohno:

The point I was making before is parts of Brum have 11% + unemployment.

This never gets mentioned by the Brumbies.

Yet the idea that three posh nosh restaurants exist in the city is somehow seen as more important and more a reflection of the city.

It is an odd world and a particularly odd forum.

Oh yes it does on the Brum pages, we are just having a banter, after all it was a manc who said manc has bigger offices, better airport, taller buildings.

Us Brumbies are just telling you what Brum does better, thats all.

I think it was THEFLY who made the above point.

Probably but top chefs have complained about the wrong people frequenting the city centre at night and the council refusing to give tax breaks to start up restaurants making it hard for posh nosh places in Manc.

Coventry & Wolverhampton suffer from this problem too.

blah .... blah .... blah......... THERE WILL ALWAYS BE RICH AND POOR PEOPLE!!! Get over it!

Why shouldn't the rich folk have fun and a good feed just because there are a load of poor people around .... you killjoy you!!! :ohno:

Not saying that the rich should not have fun.

Rather you are very blinkered to what real Brum is like for a huge proportion of the population.

Like many on here you imagine Brum not from the position of a huge number who are very poor and cannot afford the stuff you talk about but the well off.

I am afraid in my book any city with the levels of unemployment and poverty that Manc and Brum have can never be classed as being a success.

Not saying that the rich should not have fun.

Rather you are very blinkered to what real Brum is like for a huge proportion of the population.

Like many on here you imagine Brum not from the position of a huge number who are very poor and cannot afford the stuff you talk about but the well off.

I am afraid in my book any city with the levels of unemployment and poverty that Manc and Brum have can never be classed as being a success.


(I'm pulling your leg, btw)

Oh yes it does on the Brum pages, we are just having a banter, after all it was a manc who said manc has bigger offices, better airport, taller buildings.

Us Brumbies are just telling you what Brum does better, thats all.

I think it was THEFLY who made the above point.

Fly is on ignore. I suggest out as a way of improving the forum.

Coventry & Wolverhampton suffer from this problem too.

I am sure they do, along with some much more desirable parts of the country as well.

Fly is on ignore. I suggest out as a way of improving the forum.

I've never put anyone on ignore before .... are you able to see his text when I quote it in my reply ..... if not you are probably wondering why I metioned the ICC, NEC, etc, etc !!!!!

I am afraid in my book any city with the levels of unemployment and poverty that Manc and Brum have can never be classed as being a success.



You're the biggest philistine on here, nobody cares about your book. :yes:

I've never put anyone on ignore before .... are you able to see his text when I quote it in my reply ..... if not you are probably wondering why I metioned the ICC, NEC, etc, etc !!!!!

I read your reply and commented on the mixing of subjective and objective, that is all.

People who eat in Michelin restaurants are, on the whole, cunts. Who pays that for a fucking meal?

People who eat in Michelin restaurants are, on the whole, cunts. Who pays that for a fucking meal?



We do, you PRICK

You're the biggest philistine on here, nobody cares about your book. :yes:

And you are the most blinkered to what the normal, average people live like in most places discussed on here - as you once described the median of Merseyside "the arsehole of the area".

We do, you PRICK

The majority of people of Birmingham do? I hardly think so, good on them I'd hope the majority of people with money realise the absurdity of paying such money for food.

It's for snobs only, burn them all to the ground.

The majority of people of Birmingham do? I hardly think so, good on them I'd hope the majority of people with money realise the absurdity of paying such money for food.

It's for snobs only, burn them all to the ground.


Yeah whatever.

Which restaurants do you patronise then, out of interest?

Which restaurants do you patronise then, out of interest?



At this moment in time mate, ive got more important things to do.

My bed is calling me

Nite nite

Ha! Not the bullshit 'Michelin star restaurant' argument again. :lol: My City is better than your city becuase it has 1, 2, or more Michelin star restaurants. Please.

Question. How many of you Brummies have been in any of Birmingham's Michelin star restaurants? Exactly. If that's how you measure and compare Birmingham to other cities, you really haven't got a clue. Fish and chips anyone?

Tell you what. I'll swap you Mediacity for all your Michelin star restaurants. Any takers? Join the queue.

And you are the most blinkered to what the normal, average people live like in most places discussed on here - as you once described the median of Merseyside "the arsehole of the area".


You could quote the original post, if that's what you believed I said?

However, by the by, you work in a bank and you call people from Liverpool "dippers". Then you spend half your time on here preaching your holier-than-though big pile of horseshit about unemployment and poverty.

People who eat in Michelin restaurants are, on the whole, cunts. Who pays that for a fucking meal?

http://heritage.michelin.co.uk/images/bib_bowler_shad.gif

He does.

Haven't seen him for yonks. Looks like Eric Pickles going to fancy dress party as a Mummy.

I'd love to burn that cunt.

Every major city has excellent restaurants. Just because they don't have a poxy star on their menu, doesn't make them s***.

There are some brilliant restaurants in Manchester. That probably goes for every other major UK city. Get a life and save yourself a few bob.

I'd love to burn that cunt.

He's made of tyres, they'll never put him out.

People who eat in Michelin restaurants are, on the whole, cunts. Who pays that for a fucking meal?Well I'm a fucking cunt, because I've dined in starred restaurants lots of times. It need not be expensive...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/foodandwineholidays/7145607/Tim-Ho-Wan-restaurant-Hong-Kong-the-hottest-meal-ticket-in-town.html

Every major city has excellent restaurants. Just because they don't have a poxy star on their menu, doesn't make them s***.

There are some brilliant restaurants in Manchester. That probably goes for every other major UK city. Get a life and save yourself a few bob.

Tevez told me this isn't the case.

San Carlos behind Kendals is good enough for me.

You enjoy the company of footballers and WAGs? classy...

[QUOTE=Langur;86620146]I'm a fucking cunt[QUOTE]

http://www.christianbanners.com/product_images/uploaded_images/Hallelujah-Horizontal_lg.jpg

Yeah whatever.

What level are you on exactly?

Key stage two?

The Irony is people like JRB would cream themselves silly if it was the other way round.

But when it's on the other foot ... have a tanturm. meh meh meh as per fucking usual. Thursday - Channel 5.

Boring.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_162jLa8kOgs/TRlG3mt2lSI/AAAAAAAABiE/Cz5xnHXGMhA/s1600/645px-love_heart_svgsvg.png